Autoextremist to beancounter: Don't screw up the Camaro!!

GM. Fresh off the triumphant return of the Camaro at this year's Detroit Auto Show, rumblings coming from deep within GM's Design Staff suggest all is not well with getting the "right" car into production (it will be made by the way, despite Bob Lutz' vague statements to the contrary during its introduction). A major stumbling point? Right now, there is an intense debate going on about the need for a "B"-pillar. Right-minded designers are adamant that the "B"-pillar is not necessary structurally for safety and most critically, for aesthetic reasons and that it wouldn't be an authentic Camaro with a "B"-pillar, period. The bean counters, of course, are saying that to do the car without a "B"-pillar would be too costly. If there were ever a time when the bean counters should be told to step aside at GM, it's this one. The Camaro concept cannot be built with a "B"-pillar, it would literally destroy the whole freakin' car. Add in the fact that all the engineering to support a pillar-less design for the convertible version is already in place, and you have the no-brainer of this young year. If GM screws up this car, there is no hope - so it's really quite simple: Don't.

Can't they just yield in this case... just one isolated case? :confused:

so maybe something to do with whether they can get T-tops on there or not? i thought i heard that they wouldn't be able to do it w/o the "B" pillar

i have 2 3rd gen camaros and the one with the T-tops is a lot more fun to be cruising around town on a nice day :cool:

i think a lot of the average drivers that get a car, like a camaro, get it for the "fun" factor, this little option adds to that (i will probably be getting one w/o anyways but just think it is an important option to have for the car)

Can't they just yield in this case... just one isolated case? :confused:

No-- if these mindless accountants want their damned company to stay solvent and sell cars, they need to quit looking through the wrong side of the telescope ans realize that THEY are the reason their company sucks--

God, I'm sick of this.

Note to GM-- COMMON SENSE WORKS-- don't piss away the good thing you've got going. Again. For the exact same reasons you've screwed up your products for ages.


Jeeze...

:rolleyes: :confused:

Well I say if the accountants can't build the car without the "B-Pillar" then GM should give up on the CAMARO altogether!

I think having the whole side open like it is, partly negates a need for T-Tops.
I remember my '67 Bird, felt plenty "open", and I didn't even dream of cutting up the lines of that car with T-Tops.
Besides, with the whole side open and maybe a Moon/sun roof, or even "his & hers" roofs :shrug: who knows by then, no one will miss T-tops.
edit: Oh, and I hope the beancounters aren't allowed to "cheapen" our car this time, especially on it's return debut.

Mr. Wagoner, Mr. Lutz, start firing bean counters that think a B pillar is a good idea :mad: .

David

One of the reasons the first gen cars look so good is because they have quarter windows. Thats also why the concept looks so good. Take away the quarter windows or add a B pillar to them and its going to look like junk!

I agree. I'd love to have t-tops, but I'd rather have no B-piller.

About the bean-counters.

We rented a Monte for the unveil weekend. Discovered that the seatback did not return to the set position, instead it locked in the most upright position. Had to be adjusted EVERY TIME the seat back got flipped forward. I was sure simply hadn't found the right release button, so I asked the Impala/Monte guy (sorry, I don't remember his name or title) at the Heritage Center reception. Turns out that's the way it is ... his explanation ... bean counters ... if they wanted a proper seat they needed to trade something else.

THERE IS SOMETHING SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH A COMPANY THAT ALLOWS FEATURES THAT WILL CAUSE A PERSON TO SWEAR THEY WILL NEVER BUY FROM THAT COMPANY (AGAIN) TO GO INTO PRODUCTION.

Sorry, needed to get that off my chest.

Agreed on the B-pillar. That would destroy the look of the car.

When Nissan began their remarkable turnaround from near-death... the cost cutting was made on the items you didn't see (from the driver's seat)... things like omitting engine covers, cupholders, electric rear windows etc...

Not suggesting they look at omitting such items from the base Camaro... but you get my drift. ;)

Sorry, but I don't buy this...this car was a waste of $15 million dollars IF the dumbass accountants are just NOW trying to be engineers and designers....someone get me a gun..... :mad:

i will refrain from posting my honest opinion on this seeing as how it will be mostly vulgarities.


to put it simply:
NO! THAT'S A BAD BEAN-COUNTER! NO B-PILLAR! NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! LEAVE THE CAR THE WAY IT IS! GO TO YOUR ROOM AND THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU JUST SUGGESTED! NO!

thank you

things like omitting engine covers

This is one thing I would like to see gone, and if it helps cut cost, more for the better.

This is one thing I would like to see gone, and if it helps cut cost, more for the better.

Me too. I just hate engine covers. What ever happened to good looking engines, bare naked, for the world to see.

exactly how many people even care if their engine has a cover on it or not?
i say it needs to go. it really serves no functional purpose.

...you've got to be kidding.

If ever there was a company that has perfected the art of shooting itself in the foot, GM is it.

This news just makes me ill.

To GM:

DON'T **** UP MY CAR.

Many people are waiting in line to throw money at you for the car AS IS. You won't be doing anyone a favor by messing it up now and letting the bean counters have their way.

Thanks,
Ryan.

A B pillar would ruin part of the look.

But T-Tops or Targa would go in fine without a B Pillar forward of the 1/4 windows without changing a thing. It would probably give it an entirely new look with the 1/4 windows down and the sheetmetal over the back windows when down. I truely dont understand why people think that couldnt be done. I would very much perfer solid steel myself though. Possibly a sunroof if anything. Lemans Blue Z28 Open headlight with white stripes

I doubt this rumor is true.

a quicky photoshop with a b pillar

GM... seriously dont even think about it anymore. DONT DO IT

http://www.gerbonium.com/various/5thgen/ummno.jpg

Hey, why stop at engine covers, you could also drop the mirrors from the sunvisors as well as (front) driver/passenger overhead lights.

IMO cars are like girls, you don't want to have your girlfriend looking less sexy if that's what attracted you to her in the first instance. If you spend less on her she'll either resent it or dump you. Perhaps GM beancounters aren't that great with the chicks? :lol:

It's already been said here, ...but I as well sure hope they don't ruin a good thing...

...BTW, ...on those sunvisors. Strangely enough, ...it's cheaper to offer them with the mirrors, ...just happens to be a common PN with other vehicles. ...and they are already purchased in huge quantities. (would actually cost more per piece for those without mirrors)

One more note to beancounters ....

Spending an extra $50 on the product is much better business than throwing $500 on the hood to make it sell.

I can't believe what I just read...If true, I'm glad it got out.

Go to the Chevy website right now and tell them how you feel.

No Camaro has EVER had that feature, and while I'm not one to go against change, this is a style issue that shouldn't be under debate AT ALL! :mad:

GM:

Rule #1 of business: You have to spend money to make money.

Bean counters should know better than this. The product has to be good in a competitive market place. The days of it selling just because you make it are gone.

Plus by the looks of the photochop above, it just makes the car more Mustang-like, which is something we want to get away from.

Well. As I said in another thread that if there is no B-pillar there would likely be no T-tops. After thinking on this, I'm going to go with the "keep the B-pillar out this car" crowd even though I do like T-tops, I like true hardtop coupes like those that prowled the streets until the mid 70s, even more. As others have said, the true hardtop feel of this car really adds to the aesthetics of the car. I would never have thought that I would see a pillarless coupe built again... I say build it as is and shoot any beancounters that get in the way......

Just a quick thought to ponder for those who think that the inclusion of a pillar would mean that the rear windows would still open. When was the last time GM (or any other manufacturer, for that matter) put out a coupe with B-pillars with 3/4 windows that actually opened and without being pop-out vent windows?

I don't think it looks bad with a b-pillar, but then again, I didn't think it looked bad when I saw a photochop that completely removed the rear window. I'm a thirdgenner... and the big fat windowless b-piller reminded me of my cars. :)

Plus, I'd rather have t-tops than a back window anyway. Those back windows just mean 2 more power window motors that I'll have to replace every 3 or 4 years.

a quicky photoshop with a b pillar

GM... seriously dont even think about it anymore. DONT DO IT

http://www.gerbonium.com/various/5thgen/ummno.jpg

Why did you make the B-pillar body colored? It can very easily be black to hide it, plus you could put the door handle and lock there (like the Beretta) and give the doors a smooth, shaved look. Ooooh, the possiblities....

Plus, I'm partial to a B-pillar because I think it could help rear visability by reducing the mass of the C-pillars, and increasing visability; even in a sports car/coupe this is an area I don't support function over form.

Then again, I'm one o'dem foward tinkers who doesn't think the car has to look a crap load like a '69 to look like a Camaro.

Don't tell Chevy, but if the ONLY way I can get a new Camaro is to have B Pillars, then so be it. But since I really want a convertible, I don't think it will be a factor. And to the mindset that says you HAVE to have a B Pillar....Why make concept cars with NEW ideas? Why tempt the public with things you can't produce? Where's my flying car I was promised in the Jetsons?? Cars are art. (except the 90% or so cars that are sold every year. You know the 4 door sedans that populate fleet service and driveways all over the country) At least they used to be art. Don't put handcuffs on the artists. If structural stability can be achieved without a bean counter mandated B Pillar, then allow it. Period. What did the bean counters say when someone wanted to cut the whole roof off of a car the first time???? If you build it, they will buy. Give the people WHAT THEY WANT. NO B PILLARS. Don't show me a concept without one and then add it for production because it's just not feasable.

Why did you make the B-pillar body colored? It can very easily be black to hide it, plus you could put the door handle and lock there (like the Beretta) and give the doors a smooth, shaved look. Ooooh, the possiblities....

Plus, I'm partial to a B-pillar because I think it could help rear visability by reducing the mass of the C-pillars, and increasing visability; even in a sports car/coupe this is an area I don't support function over form.

Then again, I'm one o'dem foward tinkers who doesn't think the car has to look a crap load like a '69 to look like a Camaro.Here's another thought. If they choose to use the b-pillar design and don't go with t-tops, they can put a window frame on the door, which would sure be nice. The frameless windows on the current cars causes the windows to loosen up and also makes the cars very easy to break into. I'd still rather have t-tops though. :)

Just a quick thought to ponder for those who think that the inclusion of a pillar would mean that the rear windows would still open. When was the last time GM (or any other manufacturer, for that matter) put out a coupe with B-pillars with 3/4 windows that actually opened and without being pop-out vent windows?

Answers to the trivia question: BMW 6 series until 1989. All years of Acura Legend Coupe, produced until 1995.

Why did you make the B-pillar body colored? It can very easily be black to hide it, plus you could put the door handle and lock there (like the Beretta) and give the doors a smooth, shaved look. Ooooh, the possiblities....



You don't really want those door handles on the B-Pillar like a Cutlass Supreme/Regal/Grand Prix coupe or Beretta Coupe. Why? Because it makes the convertible version difficult. You either have to incorporate the B pillar into the design of the vert (remember those Basket Handle Cutlasses?) or produce a new door stamping just for the vert to put the door handle on the door. Either way it adds cost. FWIW, I had a 95 Cutlass Supreme Coupe with those door handles, and they were cool looking and pretty functional as well. But just thought I would point out the downside.

I think that the concept as is looks better with no B-Pillar. Just adding the B-pilar like the photoshop above makes the greenhouse of the car look like a Ford Maverick to my eye.

To me, the B pillar doesn't look right unless you also convert to a wraparound 3rd/4th gen style hatch and eliminate the rear 1/4 windows.

There are some people here (and within GM) that need to take a ride in a first gen coupe on a nice summer's with all the windows open.

Then you'll understand why t-tops are unnecessary and b-pillars suck. :D

The more I ponder this, the more I'm thinking that since there has been a clear intent all along to bring this car to production, that the design teams had some production-reality limits placed on their concepts...

I mean-- GM knew it was going to actually build a new Camaro-- the new Mustang alone proved that, and with Dodge in the fray, they practically had no choice not to. I suspect that we'll likely see in our garages what we see on the NADAS floor, save for the glitzy interior and 21"/22" wheels...

Why?

For a car that's destined for production, it just makes more sense to come up with a production-ready/near concept-- erasing the lead time needed to reconfigure/shoe-horn legal requirements/manufacturing realities into an unrealistically designed car.

I'm thinking that this pretty thing will be B-pillar-less when she's in my home.

in 2010, when the 'vert/T-top/targa version comes out... that's another story... but the hardtop-- I think it'll be as we see it now, for all practical reasons.

Or maybe I'm just wishfully thinking and giving GM too much credit....

Quarter windows do not make up for T-Tops.

Quarter windows do not make up for T-Tops.

I agree.

Quarter windows MAKE the cars looks and proportions. They are mandatory.

I personally would like to wish death upon the bean counters :death: :thumb:

Its the pressure from upper management that (most of the time in a large company) makes the "beancounters" cut corners to save money. They save money to prove their worthyness.

If upper management realizes that those beancounters are hurting sales, then they could use a more understanding level pressure to save money without making a junk car.

Its the compromise of getting a cost efficient vehicle without turning buyers, or repeat buyers away that gets tricky.

Its the fault of the "bean counters" superiors that this happens. Their just covering their asses to keep their job.

About the bean-counters.

We rented a Monte for the unveil weekend. Discovered that the seatback did not return to the set position, instead it locked in the most upright position. Had to be adjusted EVERY TIME the seat back got flipped forward. I was sure simply hadn't found the right release button, so I asked the Impala/Monte guy (sorry, I don't remember his name or title) at the Heritage Center reception. Turns out that's the way it is ... his explanation ... bean counters ... if they wanted a proper seat they needed to trade something else.

THERE IS SOMETHING SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH A COMPANY THAT ALLOWS FEATURES THAT WILL CAUSE A PERSON TO SWEAR THEY WILL NEVER BUY FROM THAT COMPANY (AGAIN) TO GO INTO PRODUCTION.

Sorry, needed to get that off my chest.

Agreed on the B-pillar. That would destroy the look of the car.

My Recaro Cobalt seats are like that , I ABSOLUTELY HATE IT , its such a pain in the ass . Not to mention the complaints from anyone that has ever had to get in the back seat of my car . My old 91 sunbird even had release buttons and would would return the seat to the set position .

On the Camaro , a B-pillar would RUIN this car . It HAS TO HAVE NO damn b-pillar and roll down back windows . It was "one" of the coolest things about this concept .

I agree with the afore mentioned. The Camaro looks amazing without the b-pillar, i just couldnt take my eyes off that part of the car. It looks too right. I think it would just be a major mistake to have one, being that it will most definately take away from the sexy body lines. IMO, it would be worth a reasonable price increase to keep our camaro without the b-pillar.

One more thing, I am a die hard t-top person. After seeing the roof on the camaro, i could never see that car with t-tops. It is flat out beautiful. The car is a work of art.

I just wanted to say that I don't care if it has B-Pillars or not.

Kindly carry on. :D

I just wanted to say that I don't care if it has B-Pillars or not.

Kindly carry on. :D
B-pillars addd weight...;)

My first impression is no B pillar, and I'd really like to keep it that way. I have to admit, the photoshop doesn't look too bad, if the B pillars can be made that narrow, butl ony if they are narrow.

I think the quarter windows on the mustang are strange. Too small, too much sheet metal around them.

They really need to fire those kind of bean counters, they're the ones that got GM into this mess.:mad:

B-pillars addd weight...;)
Burn them at the stake!

Originally posted by Z284ever:
Me too. I just hate engine covers. What ever happened to good looking engines, bare naked, for the world to see.:eek: :bow: Exactly, why would you hide such a georgeous engine...;)
Give it some color, some shine, and even some Camaro valve covers...but don't hide it....just means you have to take more off before you can play with it...:D

http://web.camaross.com/forums/showthread.php?t=424036

B-pillars addd weight...;)

Is that taking into account the c-pillar would probably be thinner with the addition of a b-pillar?

NO B PILLAR. if it came down to b pillar with ttops or no b pillar no ttops i would still go pillarless. and i love my ttops!

B-pillars addd weight...;)


They save weight.

Basically, the roof is unsupported from the A to C pillar positions. When you put in a B pillar you support the roof with a vertical column and reduce the unsupported length, therefore the rest of the roof structure designed to resist crushing can be lightened.


BTW - I vote for the pillarless design... but I still think T-tops are a critical part of the Camaro experience... which means that a larger C pillar would be required and the size of the quarter window would suffer.




***

Someone else (they know who they are) can chime in on this, or correct my direction on this.

Everyone, put yourself in GM's Camaro project's circle of engineers, marketers, etc... for just a moment:

*You have studies that show that 70% of 4th gen Camaros were ordered with expensive profit making t-tops.
* You visit websites (this one included) where some people rant that if they can't get T-tops, it isn't a Camaro.
* It's an open secret that Ford is putting T-tops on the Mustang in the near future.

Structurally, putting T-tops on a B pillar free design means that alot of additional reinforcements is going to have to go into the roof to pass current roof crush standards (automakers like to exceed safety standards). This means extra weight.

However, B pillars mean that not only can you offer profit generating T-tops that most all Camaro studies say customers and fans want, but will also pass the roof crush standards with no weight penalty, which Camaro fans say they don't want a excessively heavy car.


This situation harks back to the "I want IRS, light weight, big powerful engines, AND a bargain basement price" issue. Where do you make compromises?

Just like IRS means either more weight or more cost, having a T-top is going to mean either more weight or a B pillar.

Where the bean counters come in in all this is that they are looking at the profit T-tops will generate. Marketing says you want t-tops, otherwise, the bean counters would prefer leaving the design alone (it costs m-o-n-e-y to change an existing design once engineering's done). That last minute radical windshield on the 4th gen cost GM millions to do.


....So what is it going to be guys?

T-tops with additional weight (and engineering costs) and no B pillar?

No T tops, keeping everything as is?

Or T tops, and a B pillar keeping weight down (and engineering costs minimal)?


(Keep in mind, B pillars can be hidden by surface glass, essentially making the pillars look non existent)

Guy,

The solution is to go with a larger C pillar and no roll-down quarter window.

Styling-wise, the "guys" in the pink shirts with loud ties, color-coordinated shoes and effete voices will probably have a little hissy-fit about it, but the business case is pretty darned solid.

Here's my comment to Scott after seeing the car at the reception, word for word:

"I LOVE the car, absolutely outstanding!!!
Great job!!!
That quarter glass is going to be trouble."


My other comment to Scott at the roll-out the next day:

"I was at the Opera House for the Corvette, and this is bigger.
There's electricity in the air.
That quarter glass is going to be trouble."


Sorry I missed you, BTW. I would love to have had the chance to shoot the breeze with you.

Besides, my wife keeps me under control pretty well, and she was there... she's got a wicked left hook.

Can anybody shed some light on how this would affect the convertible? I'm picturing more side glass, less roof, and less roof to store assuming roll down rear windows on the pillarless design. With a B-pillar I'd assume that from the pillar location back would end up being part of the roof assembly, creating 4th gen like visual and stowing issues.

For the record my preferences in order are: Convertible, sunroof, hardtop. T-tops and travelling simply don't mix from the storage perspective.

I'd like to see someone make a case for a big sunroof.

Can anybody shed some light on how this would affect the convertible? I'm picturing more side glass, less roof, and less roof to store assuming roll down rear windows on the pillarless design. With a B-pillar I'd assume that from the pillar location back would end up being part of the roof assembly, creating 4th gen like visual and stowing issues.

Well, you can do sealing with the quarter glass and the convertible without the B pillar. With it, the car looks awful with the top down.

To get a good seal, you have to have "Smart" sideglass that rolls down a little to exit the seals before the top drops and when the doors open and close... which means some appreciable expenditure on a window regulator controller with position sensing that talks to the convertible roof controller over the vehicle bus.

So...

Do those "touch-type" door releases on the Corvette and XLR make sense yet?

Guess what is telling the window regulator controller to drop the side glass when you open the door... go ahead... guess...

I forget which convertible it was, but GM used to have one with these goofy looking vestigial B-pillars poking up into space.

Yeesh.

That was ugly.



T-tops and travelling simply don't mix from the storage perspective.


Errrr...
Why?

To get a good seal, you have to have "Smart" sideglass that rolls down a little to exit the seals before the top drops and when the doors open and close... which means some appreciable expenditure on a window regulator controller with position sensing that talks to the convertible roof controller over the vehicle bus.

Your speaking of the way BMW windows 'index'?

Styling-wise, the "guys" in the pink shirts with loud ties, color-coordinated shoes and effete voices........

Who?

I remember one of the big complaints about the 3rd & 4th gens was the claustraphobic feeling of sitting in the rear seats with the large B pillars....

I can see how a "hidden" B pillar wouldn't screw up the exterior visuals, but from the inside...holy blind spot Batman!

Your speaking of the way BMW windows 'index'?

Yup.

Who?

Design staff.

They save weight.
Three cheers for B-Pillars!

Errrr...
Why?

When we travel, we take stuff like clothes, computers, car wash supplies, lawn chairs, coolers, etc along. They all need to go somewhere. We use the trunk and the folded down backseat. On those rare occasions when bitter cold or extreme precipitation causes us to travel with the roof up, we find it a challenge to find a place to store the tonneua covers. IIRC, T-tops cars have fancy little holders at the bottom of the hatch well, pretty much using all of that space. So my question to you, "How do you travel, meaning vacation, with the T's out?

Errrr...
Why?



Because stowing the T-tops during a road trip takes away your luggage space.

Design staff.

Watch it there...we're not all black turtle necks, overly trendy black glasses and what ever else you mentioned....:p

Some of us are required to use both sides of our brain.

I remember one of the big complaints about the 3rd & 4th gens was the claustraphobic feeling of sitting in the rear seats with the large B pillars....

I can see how a "hidden" B pillar wouldn't screw up the exterior visuals, but from the inside...holy blind spot Batman!

From the looks of the C-pillars, the concept seems to have only moved the blind spot further rearward. No improvement from my initial impressions.

Because stowing the T-tops during a road trip takes away your luggage space.

The David Pearson answer. :D

Because stowing the T-tops during a road trip takes away your luggage space.

Dear Lord. You have GOT TO be kidding.

If it bothers you that much, leave 'em on the roof.

Guess what's going to go into the little trunk space an F5 convertible is going to have...

That's right, the top.

Watch it there...we're not all black turtle necks, overly trendy black glasses and what ever else you mentioned....:p

Some of us are required to use both sides of our brain.

Color coordinating your tie while dreaming about new floral arrangements only utilizes ONE side of your brain. :p

Dear Lord. You have GOT TO be kidding.

If it bothers you that much, leave 'em on the roof.

Guess what's going to go into the little trunk space an F5 convertible is going to have...

That's right, the top.


One step ahead of you. There's more than one reason I don't own a t-top car. That's why I prefer a hard top in a coupe. Or better yet, drive a convertible so messing with the t-tops aren't even an issue. :p

Dear Lord. You have GOT TO be kidding.

If it bothers you that much, leave 'em on the roof.

With logic like that I'm really glad you don't work for GM. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Guess what's going to go into the little trunk space an F5 convertible is going to have...

That's right, the top.

Then 5th gen sales are down by 1. :(

With logic like that I'm really glad you don't work for GM. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

What exactly is illogical about that???

When you remove the T-tops, they go in the trunk.

When you put the convertible top down, IT GOES IN THE TRUNK.

Either way, you're losing trunk space, so pray tell me how a set of T-tops in the trunk taking up some space is worse than a convertible top taking up a WHOLE BUNCH of space.

Furthermore, because of the way convertible tops are installed in the vehicle, the T-top car is going to have more trunk space when the tops are on the roof than the convertible will with the top up.

Where, precisely, do you expect the convertible to go??? And did you see that decklid? Putting a pack of cigarettes back there is going to require some creative origami skills ON THE HARDTOP. Just imagine what it's going to be like with the top down.




Then 5th gen sales are down by 1. :(

Go buy a Malibu or Impala then.

Bye!

What exactly is illogical about that???

When you remove the T-tops, they go in the trunk.

When you put the convertible top down, IT GOES IN THE TRUNK.


Odd. The roof on my 4th gen stacks up nicely right behind the backseat over the fuel tank. The whole trunk well remains open and accessible.

Even the Corvette retains some semblance of a trunk.



Go buy a Malibu or Impala then.


Last time I looked they were FWD 4 doors that didn't come in the convertible flavour. Corvette on the other hand. :think:


Bye!

Sorry to see you're leaving. ;)

You may comment on the Aztek the day you run a 9 in the mid-140's, bub.

BTW ...what did you do with the Aztec to get it to run 9's? :p

Guy,

The solution is to go with a larger C pillar and no roll-down quarter window.

To me, the big selling point was the roll down rear windows the concept has. If it's going to be fixed, then I'd rather have the B-pillar and T-tops. Without the B pillar, the T tops would look as right as they did on the pre-85 Fox Mustang coupes. :yuck:

My other comment to Scott at the roll-out the next day:

"I was at the Opera House for the Corvette, and this is bigger.
There's electricity in the air.
That quarter glass is going to be trouble."

YOU AREN'T KIDDING (about Camaro's unveiling)!!! The reaction was unbelieveable. :D


Sorry I missed you, BTW. I would love to have had the chance to shoot the breeze with you.

Besides, my wife keeps me under control pretty well, and she was there... she's got a wicked left hook.

....and there wasn't enough room to run. ;)

:( B pillar... noooooooo

Wasn't the reason for t-tops coming into existence the fact that GM, and many other companies, stopped making verts altogether for a number of years, making t-tops the 'convertables' of their initial days? Now that verts have been back for awhile, couldn't we scale back on the t-tops? The profitability of t-tops is hard to argue against, let alone their coolness, but incorporating it into the design that has already caused such a positive stir looks like it will be a pain...

I personally think that the idea of rolling down 1/4 glass has been out of the mainstream for so long (with the exception of the BMW 8 series, and probably a few others) that it might be well recieved in non-enthusiast circles, perhaps helping to sell a few v6 models so we can have more z-28s and SS's.

If t-tops don't make it into the 5th gen, they should definitely work them into the 6th gen, to give us something to talk about further down the road.

What exactly is illogical about that???

When you remove the T-tops, they go in the trunk.

When you put the convertible top down, IT GOES IN THE TRUNK.

Either way, you're losing trunk space, so pray tell me how a set of T-tops in the trunk taking up some space is worse than a convertible top taking up a WHOLE BUNCH of space.

Furthermore, because of the way convertible tops are installed in the vehicle, the T-top car is going to have more trunk space when the tops are on the roof than the convertible will with the top up.

Where, precisely, do you expect the convertible to go??? And did you see that decklid? Putting a pack of cigarettes back there is going to require some creative origami skills ON THE HARDTOP. Just imagine what it's going to be like with the top down.





Go buy a Malibu or Impala then.

Bye!

Obviously you dont own a T-Top 4th Gen (like my 98) as they take the entire trunk. I cant imaging the convertable 4th gen taking the entire trunk.

But thanks for clearing it up for us! :D

I remember one of the big complaints about the 3rd & 4th gens was the claustraphobic feeling of sitting in the rear seats with the large B pillars....

I can see how a "hidden" B pillar wouldn't screw up the exterior visuals, but from the inside...holy blind spot Batman!

actually it would hurt the exterior look. All you have to do is look at pictures of a 1st Gen with all four windows down. Their open front to back. It gives the car a really nice effect that a B pillar would take away. The only line I would want there would be a roll bar if it were a track car.

Obviously you dont own a T-Top 4th Gen (like my 98) as they take the entire trunk. I cant imaging the convertable 4th gen taking the entire trunk.
You have a 4th Gen F-body with a trunk? Better hold on to that one, it will be collectible one of these days.

Jim the Nomad is right. The T-top came along when there were no convertibles to fill the void. We have the verts back so this car doesn't need a t-top and it probably would be an engineering nightmare with those long windows and no b-pillar. There would be almost no roof structure to support the car and you talk about weight, with the structural reinforcements that would be needed to replace the missing roof panels, WOW. I love the T-top on my 3rd gen IROC but they wouldn't look right on this car. BUT GIVE ME THOSE LONG SIDE WINDOWS, NOOOOOOO B PILLAR, AND THAT SEXXXY CHOPPED ROOF BABY!

actually it would hurt the exterior look. All you have to do is look at pictures of a 1st Gen with all four windows down. Their open front to back. It gives the car a really nice effect that a B pillar would take away. The only line I would want there would be a roll bar if it were a track car.

All I need to do is walk out to my garage...I own a 1969 RS/SS Pro Touring.... ;)

http://www.hardenmotorsports.com/images/BBb.jpg

I simply meant that as in many vehicles, pillars are hidden due to the glass covering them from the outside....but I would gladly give up T-tops for a no B pillar design......

You have a 4th Gen F-body with a trunk? Better hold on to that one, it will be collectible one of these days.

My convertible has a trunk. I have never seen a hatchback convertible.


Jim the Nomad is right. The T-top came along when there were no convertibles to fill the void. We have the verts back so this car doesn't need a t-top


It doesn't need t-tops, but I think the t-tops sales on the 4th gen show that many people much prefer the t-tops to a full blown vert.

All I need to do is walk out to my garage...I own a 1969 RS/SS Pro Touring.... ;)

http://www.hardenmotorsports.com/images/BBb.jpg

I simply meant that as in many vehicles, pillars are hidden due to the glass covering them from the outside....but I would gladly give up T-tops for a no B pillar design......

NICE! I got a 69 350 2BBL but obviously its nowhere near as nice as that. Id give up no T-Top to ditch the B Pillar.

Beautiful car Mr. Harden, and the BEST color combo IMO, I have a 69 Lemans sport coupe myself.

Question for Mr. Harden: What size wheel and tire combo? Do you ahve any trouble with rubbing? Killer stance!

All I need to do is walk out to my garage...I own a 1969 RS/SS Pro Touring.... ;)

http://www.hardenmotorsports.com/images/BBb.jpg

I simply meant that as in many vehicles, pillars are hidden due to the glass covering them from the outside....but I would gladly give up T-tops for a no B pillar design......

NIIIIIIIICE!!!! :thumb:

Question for Mr. Harden: What size wheel and tire combo? Do you ahve any trouble with rubbing? Killer stance!

17"x9" all the way around with a 4th gen offset & wheels spacers....245/ 45/17 in front and 275/40/17 in back. I had to trim the wheel lip a little in the back and the wheels hit the front sway bar at full lock, but that's because it's a Hotchkis 1 1/8" bar and not stock. I lowered the car with QA-1 coil overs in the front and blocks in the rear.

"Praise the lowered"....;) :p :D

**5th gen content** I still wish they would have done a concept with the fender sweeps though...but it truly would have been more retro.....so I won't complain too much.

OK, that's pretty damn sweet Doug.

KILLER 69, congrats and thanks for the info!