T-top, b-pillar rant

Paraphrasing several sources in this forum, "The 5th gen cannot have t-tops due to the lack of a b-pillar" or that "it would be an engineering nightmare to design a t-top for a car without a b-pillar". Well apparently although it is too tough for today's technology, it could be done in 1976:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v376/Privateer_Racing/77ta10.jpg

Notice that on the early Hurst hatches, the t-tops don't go all the way back to the edge of the door glass. Now to apply this to the F5, you just end the t-top in front of the rear roll down glass and you'd have the same situation. This would give you solid roof over the rear glass and the intersection of the rear glass, side glass, and t-top would not be at the same point thus making sealing more efficient. If they could do it then, they could certainly do it now.

Crash standards are MUCH less forgiving than they were in 1976.

I see what you are saying, but the 5th gen differs from that Firebird in that it also has a quarter-window glass. The junction where the door glass, quarter window, and T-top meet would be a nightmare in terms of wind noise and, eventually, leakage.

The B pilar in question is the one between the door glass and the rear quarter window (actually, there isn't one on the concept, which most of us want to keep). The pic you show is the same as all 2nd, 3rd, and 4th gen F-bodies, which is different from the 1st gens and the concept.

Crash standards are MUCH less forgiving than they were in 1976.

Then how do we build convertables today?


I see what you are saying, but the 5th gen differs from that Firebird in that it also has a quarter-window glass. The junction where the door glass, quarter window, and T-top meet would be a nightmare in terms of wind noise and, eventually, leakage.

Actually, the intersection point would not be common, the quarter windows would end behind the rear edge of the t-top, so the side window / quarter window intersection would be behind the t-top.

Then how do we build convertables today?

Beats me, I am not an engineer any more. Are you? :p

The bottom line is, there is profit for Chevrolet in a t-top option and if they COULD they certainly WOULD make them available, and I am sure they WANT to but could possibly be UNABLE to. From what I understand, they might not be able to provide them for a number of reasons...one being crash standards. I want t-tops as much as anyone else, but if I ignore the facts, it still doesn't change the facts.

I am just happy we might get the Camaro back at all.

The B pilar in question is the one between the door glass and the rear quarter window (actually, there isn't one on the concept, which most of us want to keep). The pic you show is the same as all 2nd, 3rd, and 4th gen F-bodies, which is different from the 1st gens and the concept.

Right, but if you take the front edge of the c-pillar in the picture and instead of having the bottom of it angle forward, you have it angle around the quarter windows, you would have the same thing. Here is a very crude pic of what I mean. The weather stripping visible in front of my blacked out area would be the stripping bonded to the quarter window. Obviously the back edge of the door would be farther forward too.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v376/Privateer_Racing/419f50c6.jpg

I recently played some Project Gotham Racing on XBOX360.. and I ran into this

http://www.ferraricars.org/img/ferrari-f355/introduction-01.jpg

The middle one.
It's basically what the Camaro is striving to look like. The main problem i have with T-Tops + rear window is look at the ferrari. It looks like the roof just comes up and over out of nowhere. Like a convertible top that doesn't been closed all the way. It looks... WRONG.

At this point in time, I'm thinking. add a pillar. don't allow the windows to rolldown. If T-Tops, paint the pillar body-color, as well as the side of the t-tops, maybe

I do *NOT* trust two windows side by side to keep water and **** out. '67 Camaro RS is like that, and over time that **** just doesn't align anymore. Not to mention you could easily steal the car with a wire, although since then door locks have been moved, so that's not as much an issue anymore.

Beats me, I am not an engineer any more. Are you? :p

The bottom line is, there is profit for Chevrolet in a t-top option and if they COULD they certainly WOULD make them available, and I am sure they WANT to but could possibly be UNABLE to. From what I understand, they might not be able to provide them for a number of reasons...one being crash standards. I want t-tops as much as anyone else, but if I ignore the facts, it still doesn't change the facts.

I am just happy we might get the Camaro back at all.

If you can meet crash standards in a targa car or 'vert, they can be met with a t-top car.

Oh, I'm happy to have the camaro back too, but the "t-tops can't be done" argument just doesn't hold water with me. If they don't show up, it will either be 'cause someone didn't want to spend the money to design them in (regardless of the ROI), or someone felt they didn't fit the modern retro theme (the more likely reason IMO).

Oh, and actually, I am an engineer in the auto industry.

I recently played some Project Gotham Racing on XBOX360.. and I ran into this

http://www.ferraricars.org/img/ferrari-f355/introduction-01.jpg

The middle one.
It's basically what the Camaro is striving to look like. The main problem i have with T-Tops + rear window is look at the ferrari. It looks like the roof just comes up and over out of nowhere. Like a convertible top that doesn't been closed all the way. It looks... WRONG.



Don't forget though, with t-tops you would have the center bar still (unlike the targa Ferrari) to break up the gaping hole look you get from the side view.

Then how do we build convertables today?

Convertibles have different standards than coupes.

Before you ask, GM's Camaro brigade DID attempt to classify 4th gen T-top Camaros as convertibles as a way to prolong F-body production and was denied. The point was made pretty clearly, so there won't be any effort to classify T-tops as a convertible for a 5th gen.




Actually, the intersection point would not be common, the quarter windows would end behind the rear edge of the t-top, so the side window / quarter window intersection would be behind the t-top.


2nd, 3rd, & 4th gen Camaro, 70s era Dodge Chargers, Magnums & Miradas, Ford Mustang II & Fox Mustangs, 70 & 80s era GM G-bodies (Monte Carlo, Cutlass, etc...), Ford's LTD II, Lincoln's Mark IV, Nissan's Z cars, Supras, and every other car that had T-tops had a substantial "B" pillar that was part of the vehicle's structure very close to the T-top cut-out, so roof strength was unaffected.

Without the "B" pillar, the roof relies on longitudinal frames that roughly run above the windows from the A-pillar back to the C-pillar. Now, you imagine what cutting that roof "frame" does to the roof structure, and what type of extra engineering and weight it would take to get that roof strength back. I see what you're saying about using the C-pillars instead, but the rear quarter windows of the 5th gen don't immediately blend into the "C" pillars, so you won't be able to use them in leiu of B-pillars unless you reinforce the day lights out of the roof and C-pillar, adding weight GM is desparately trying to keep off the Camaro.

The cost of doing that would have to come out of someplace. T-tops were a very high priced option in 4th gen Camaros and it had substantial B-pillars & massive lower box frame built into the unibody structure to ensure the passenger compartment didn't accordian in severe front impact. Imagine what the cost (and weight penialty) is going to be, in addition to the warranty costs and the complaint from tops that leak wind and or noise.


GM people read this site. I'm sure they saw the reaction here when the B-pillar question was bought up. I'm sure it affected the prospect of T-tops in the future. :no:

Convertibles have different standards than coupes.

Before you ask, GM's Camaro brigade DID attempt to classify 4th gen T-top Camaros as convertibles as a way to prolong F-body production and was denied. The point was made pretty clearly, so there won't be any effort to classify T-tops as a convertible for a 5th gen.


Are targas classified as 'verts? I would guess probably not.





2nd, 3rd, & 4th gen Camaro, 70s era Dodge Chargers, Magnums & Miradas, Ford Mustang II & Fox Mustangs, 70 & 80s era GM G-bodies (Monte Carlo, Cutlass, etc...), Ford's LTD II, Lincoln's Mark IV, Nissan's Z cars, Supras, and every other car that had T-tops had a substantial "B" pillar that was part of the vehicle's structure very close to the T-top cut-out,so roof strength was unaffected.


I have a late 2nd gen sitting in my garage that would disagree with that statement. $100 worth of subframe connectors ( I would estimate about 40lbs) fix the problem. Not what I would call a difficult engineering hurdle to overcome.


Without the "B" pillar, the roof relies on longitudinal frames that roughly run above the windows from the A-pillar back to the C-pillar. Now, you imagine what cutting that roof "frame" does to the roof structure, and what type of extra engineering and weight it would take to get that roof strength back. I see what you're saying about using the C-pillars instead, but the rear quarter windows of the 5th gen don't immediately blend into the "C" pillars, so you won't be able to use them in leiu of B-pillars unless you reinforce the day lights out of the roof and C-pillar, adding weight GM is desparately trying to keep off the Camaro.


Funny, the Corvette targas don't seem to be paying a huge weight penalty.


The cost of doing that would have to come out of someplace. T-tops were a very high priced option in 4th gen Camaros and it had substantial B-pillars & massive lower box frame built into the unibody structure to ensure the passenger compartment didn't accordian in severe front impact. Imagine what the cost (and weight penialty) is going to be, in addition to the warranty costs and the complaint from tops that leak wind and or noise.


Even with all of that what was the take rate on 4th gens with t-tops? Pretty darn high, right?


GM people read this site. I'm sure they saw the reaction here when the B-pillar question was bought up. I'm sure it affected the prospect of T-tops in the future. :no:

Exactly what I said earlier, the main reason you won’t see them has more to do with aesthetic design theme than structural design.

I At this point in time, I'm thinking. add a pillar. don't allow the windows to rolldown. If T-Tops, paint the pillar body-color, as well as the side of the t-tops, maybe



This isn't a bad idea. If you want a convertible, you have to pay a premium and you get a car with extra structural reinforcement (and weight). So, if you want t-tops, then you get a b-pillar along with some added cost and weight.

Why not have a hidden B-pillar, let the quarter panel glass cover it? I'm a big fan of t-tops, I would not buy a 3rd or 4th gen car without them. However, I'm not sure how they would look on a 5th gen. I think they might be out of place on this car.

Why not have a hidden B-pillar, let the quarter panel glass cover it?


Aww ya beat me to it! I was going to say the exact same thing! and this wouldn't have to be for jsut t-top cars as I can see it possibly being a benefit to those of us who "USE" our cars for hard driving ;)

Why not have a hidden B-pillar, let the quarter panel glass cover it? I'm a big fan of t-tops, I would not buy a 3rd or 4th gen car without them. However, I'm not sure how they would look on a 5th gen. I think they might be out of place on this car.

Because Id much rather have the rear roll down windows at the touch of a button that I can just hit as Im pulling into work every day as opposed to T tops that I have to pull over and get out of the trunk when it starts rainning on weekends.

One of the arguments for B Pillar was that it saved 100 lbs in weight of the car. This cant be the case if T Tops are added can it?

Am I the only one who likes the wide open look and feel of roll down 1/4 windows

I had a Hardtop 3rd gen. I have friends with both 3rd and 4th w/ Ttops and they both leak/noise so I'll stick with a Hardtop, nothing looks better... IMO

Might consider a Vert if they do it right.

Because Id much rather have the rear roll down windows at the touch of a button that I can just hit as Im pulling into work every day as opposed to T tops that I have to pull over and get out of the trunk when it starts rainning on weekends.

One of the arguments for B Pillar was that it saved 100 lbs in weight of the car. This cant be the case if T Tops are added can it?

Am I the only one who likes the wide open look and feel of roll down 1/4 windows

HELL NO you're not the only one! That wide open feeling is great. T-top roofs were great on the cars they came on at the time, but IMHO their time has passed. Does anyone do them anymore? As much as I hate to say it (I love my 85 IROC with them), they have somewhat of a "mullet factor" which is exactly what GM needs to avoid this time around. The car is a classic beauty as is, and those rear quarter windows and NO b-pillar are a HUGE reason why, and they make the car unique in this day and age and are also a big part of the tribute to the first gen design, which, as history has borne out, is really the most successful and sought after and likely always will be. The windows down on my 69 really does give you a very wide open feeling and great visibilty. Give it a chance t-top guys! And go for a ride in a first gen car with all the windows down if you don't buy what I'm saying. Build the car as is. If they do and do it right, it's got a chance at being as great a classic as the first gen car!:D

If I wan't to roll four windows down I'll buy an Impala! ;) Seriously, as much as I love my t-tops I don't think they fit the 5th gen very well. At first I was a little disappointed that the design wasn't right for tops but now think that it would be better off without them.

Quarter windows suck :D....if I have to trade the roll down quarters for t-tops.....I wont lose any sleep over it.

Are targas classified as 'verts? I would guess probally not...

Correct.


I have a late 2nd gen sitting in my garage that would disagree with that statement. $100 worth of subframe connectors ( I would estimate about 40lbs) fix the problem. Not what I would call a difficult engineering hurdle to overcome.

And pass crash tests... and maintain structural rigidity the life of the body....and prevent even the slightest mm of deflection.... all through the abuse and enginering standards cars must pass today? Probally not.

Funny, the Corvette targas don't seem to be paying a huge weight penalty.

Corvette isn't a unibody car either.... neither are those Ferraris.


Even with all of that what was the take rate on 4th gens with t-tops? Pretty darn high, right?

Too bad the sales of the 4th gen weren't.


Exactly what I said earlier, the main reason you won’t see them has more to do with aesthetic design theme than structural design.

GM is going to walk away from a popular option that sends $700-$1000 their way per car just because it doesn't look right??

Doubt it.

....Am I the only one who likes the wide open look and feel of roll down 1/4 windows

No. You aren't. :D

Too bad the sales of the 4th gen weren't.



Everyone re-read that.

When people say that the 4th gens proved the business success of t-tops...it's like saying that Rambler proved the business success of the color beige.

Only thing I would add to this is that I would like the roll down 1/4 windows. Also, the Ferrari did indeed have a structural B-pilar behind the glass.

There is only one car that comes to mind (other than the concept) that is a hardtop and has 1/4 windows w/out b-pilars between them. This is the idea...

http://www.mbusa.com/media/images/main/models/CLK350C_main.jpg

It's easy enough to do this, but you can't go cutting into the edge of the roof w/out major headaches.

That looks pretty cool.. I'd imagine the rear passengers would get a LOT of wind. Also, do you know if those rears are powered windows?

I guess it doesn't matter, as long as your passengers can also get in general lee style, all is good

Everyone re-read that.

When people say that the 4th gens proved the business success of t-tops...it's like saying that Rambler proved the business success of the color beige.


Wow. I don't think it could be said any better;)

Everyone re-read that.

When people say that the 4th gens proved the business success of t-tops...it's like saying that Rambler proved the business success of the color beige.
Maybe it also proved that the Camaro is not supposed to outperform the Mustang :shrug:


;)

So, what happened to the rumor that Mustang would get T-tops???

HELL NO you're not the only one! That wide open feeling is great. T-top roofs were great on the cars they came on at the time, but IMHO their time has passed. Does anyone do them anymore? As much as I hate to say it (I love my 85 IROC with them), they have somewhat of a "mullet factor" which is exactly what GM needs to avoid this time around. The car is a classic beauty as is, and those rear quarter windows and NO b-pillar are a HUGE reason why, and they make the car unique in this day and age and are also a big part of the tribute to the first gen design, which, as history has borne out, is really the most successful and sought after and likely always will be. The windows down on my 69 really does give you a very wide open feeling and great visibilty. Give it a chance t-top guys! And go for a ride in a first gen car with all the windows down if you don't buy what I'm saying. Build the car as is. If they do and do it right, it's got a chance at being as great a classic as the first gen car!:D

Exactly. Roll down quarter windows and NO B pillar are mandatory. They make the car.

all this arguing and bickering over something stupid....

to put it mildly, I don't think the 5th gen should come with T-tops at all. It wouldn't look right. the lines of the car would be ruined, not to mention the added weight to an already heavy car. leave it as a hardtop coupe or a convertible, and nothing else. You want t-tops, buy a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th gen, or do a conversion when the 5th gen comes out. GM shouldn't even bother tossing the idea around.

all this arguing and bickering over something stupid....

to put it mildly, I don't think the 5th gen should come with T-tops at all. It wouldn't look right. the lines of the car would be ruined, not to mention the added weight to an already heavy car. leave it as a hardtop coupe or a convertible, and nothing else. You want t-tops, buy a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th gen, or do a conversion when the 5th gen comes out. GM shouldn't even bother tossing the idea around.
Ok, but no roll-down windowis EITHER because they're added weight. If you want roll-down windows buy a first gen.

Maybe a Panoramic Roof like the G6? Dunno, just tossing ideas out and I like sunroofs. And they would be more acceptable to the general population then TTops...

I figured it would be cool if there was something like dual sunroofs.. It's a weird idea, but it would basically be as if you put your t-tops on the car, but remove the glass. powered so the glass retracts into the back of the roof.

there would probably be less of an opening than one sunroof in the center, but the opening will be directly above each person. you'd have the t-bar in the center, and the roof will still be there above the window, which isn't as cool as having no obstructions like T-tops, but oh well

you could open them and not have to get out, or worry about storage

just an idea i had, i don't think i'd like it more than T-tops, but i think it'd be cooler than the conventional sun roof.. let's call it the Tun roof. T-top sun roof :P

oh well

just an idea i had, i don't think i'd like it more than T-tops, but i think it'd be cooler than the conventional sun roof.. let's call it the Tun roof. T-top sun roof :P
Could also call that a "see-top"... :p

Don't get me wrong...I love t-tops. But if I have to sacrafice them for a working functional rear-side window..........then so be it! I think that it would mess up the beautiful design of the car, if they tried messing with it.

The T-top option, or Roof panels, removable glass w/sunshades (the offical name of them on the 4th gen. cars) was a option that was used on around 65% of hardtops during the 4th gen years. It was pretty consistent every year. So that leaves 35% for the true hardtops, which most were the base V6 cars. Most T-tops were on the performance optioned cars.
I don't think GM should ignore those kind of percentages when developing the 5th gen car.
I vote that T-tops be developed into a targa style roof

I say :bs: fact that T-tops have a mullet factor. The mullet factor with our car is on the 2nd and 3rd gen car.

I say :bs: fact that T-tops have a mullet factor. The mullet factor with our car is on the 2nd and 3rd gen car.

OK...if that makes you feel good. ;)

OK...if that makes you feel good. ;)
Did GM recently do a study of random people and their thoughts about T-Tops? I haven't ever heard anybody think someone else is less sophisticated because their car has T-Tops. Now that doesn't mean they do not think that people who drive FBodies are less sophisticated though. :)

Did GM recently do a study of random people and their thoughts about T-Tops? I haven't ever heard anybody think someone else is less sophisticated because their car has T-Tops. Now that doesn't mean they do not think that people who drive FBodies are less sophisticated though. :)

I wasn't referring to the T-Tops. I was referring to 30th's comment that any mullet image baggage comes from strictly the 2nd and 3rd gens.

I wasn't referring to the T-Tops. I was referring to 30th's comment that any mullet image baggage comes from strictly the 2nd and 3rd gens.
Oh, that is different.

Probably the worst idea ever but I think I would want the rear quarter windows to be fixed on coupes and roll down on convertibles.

Probably the worst idea ever but I think I would want the rear quarter windows to be fixed on coupes and roll down on convertibles.
That's what the mustang did

vert
top up
http://www.rsportscars.com/foto/07/mustangconv05_06.jpg

top down
http://www.rsportscars.com/foto/07/mustangconv05_04.jpg

Hard top
http://www.graphic-express.com/images/2005_mustang_lemans_1a.jpg

Here's a 2000 Mustang pic...too big for here, so follow the link. It had a B-pillar and fixed rear quarter window. No "opera" opening like the newer stangs.

http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2000-2003/2000-Bullitt-Mustang-GT-Concept-side-1280x960.jpg

Probably the worst idea ever but I think I would want the rear quarter windows to be fixed on coupes and roll down on convertibles.



Why?

like I said.......I think a fixed b-pillar would completely mess up the design on that area. I love it how it is.

Probably the worst idea ever but I think I would want the rear quarter windows to be fixed on coupes and roll down on convertibles.

No not the worst. The BMW 650i gets away with it quite nicely and it is the best looking coupe out now (closest to the camaro in size and design) in my opinion.

http://www.bmwusa.com/NR/rdonlyres/2261D35D-847C-412F-A84A-CBB4E0C69E15/0/0667_06.jpg

But having driven with all 4 windows down (69 Camaro) its just a nice wide open feeling that would be even better if you could put up at the touch of a button. Although dont expect that long 1/4 window the mercedees has. 1st gen 1/4s arent quite that long, but the lines are much more pleasing.

http://www.mbusa.com/media/images/main/models/CLK350C_main.jpg

A coworker claimed he took his t tops out all the time. It gives that convertable look and feel for cheaper, but at the cost of having to pull over and trunk space to change them in and out. T tops are cool but personally I just dont use them enough to justify them. Id have to imagine the reinforcement for them would be heavier as well. The rear 1/4s would be able to put up and down with out getting out of the car. Also can be done while its in motion. It would give you an open feel with out using any interior space at all. The only draw back I see with them is if they need help like 1st gens. I would hope they would be able to do it better and more reliably now.

B pillar Hard top coupe vs B pillar less rear 1/4 roll down:
B pillar would save 100lbs and lighten the car a touch, at the expence of the rear roll down windows, the wide open feeling and your view with them down. 100lbs is probably costing you .1sec in the 1/4. You may not realize it because your used to it but your line of sight stops at that b pillar. With those windows down it goes all the way back to the C pillars. The look of the car with them down is more open as well. If youre adding B pillars to save weight, then wide open views are reserved for Convertables. I would imagine you would loose the weight saved if you go to T tops plus some.

Don't forget if you guys want POWER rear windows.. that's MORE weight.

window + guides + relays, wiring

so you're not getting back much more weight, either way

Don't forget if you guys want POWER rear windows.. that's MORE weight.

window + guides + relays, wiring

so you're not getting back much more weight, either way

you really cant add more weight for the window that would be there either way. I may be slightly bigger though.

My dad has a '69 RS and I have a '80 Z28 with t-tops, and comparing the "wide open feel" of 1/4 windows to open t-tops is like comparing the wide open feel of a sunroof to a convertible.

My dad has a '69 RS and I have a '80 Z28 with t-tops, and comparing the "wide open feel" of 1/4 windows to open t-tops is like comparing the wide open feel of a sunroof to a convertible.

Two completely different feels. My 98 gives you an open feel from the top where as the 69 gives you the longer b pillarless open feel from the sides you dont get from non first gen cars. Yes I agree that the T tops are more open but at the cost of trunk space and getting out of the car and removing them manually. To me I like the open feel b pillarless 1st gen gives you and the only cost is weight.

A coworker claimed he took his t tops out all the time. It gives that convertable look and feel for cheaper, but at the cost of having to pull over and trunk space to change them in and out.
Actually on the 4th gens you can pull the t-tops at a stop light and toss them in the back seat... although you do need a passenger to help out on their side of the car.

T tops are cool but personally I just dont use them enough to justify them. Id have to imagine the reinforcement for them would be heavier as well.
Agreed 100%. The T-tops were cool at first. But now mine never seem to come off... and I live in sunny California.

Even back in the day, the first gen Camaros convertibles needed x-bar reinforcing under the unibody and cocktail shakers at the corners to stabilize them. I can't imagine what it takes today to get a convertible to pass crash standards but Chevy desparately needs a moderately priced convertible in their line-up. :D

Take this one to the bank:

The rear quarter glass WILL change from what you saw in the concept.

Not to disagree, but why/how will they likely change? :confused:

I know you're well informed, and that concept cars don't have to pass the kind of standards that a production car does, but I love the roll-down quarter windows, its one of my absolute favorite features of an incredibly perfect vehicle.

Take this one to the bank:

The rear quarter glass WILL change from what you saw in the concept.

Interesting...

Not to disagree, but why/how will they likely change? :confused:

I know you're well informed, and that concept cars don't have to pass the kind of standards that a production car does, but I love the roll-down quarter windows, its one of my absolute favorite features of an incredibly perfect vehicle.

Look at the side view of the car, and then I want you to picture in you mind's eye how far that wheel and tire has to move in full compression.

Then, mentally picture how far inside the car the glass has to drop for that quarter glass to disappear.

They'd have to occupy the same space.

Only way around it is to:

1) Shrink it.

2) Don't let it drop all the way.

ahh, makes sense. That hadn't even crossed my mind. Thanks for the education! :bow:

Look at the side view of the car, and then I want you to picture in you mind's eye how far that wheel and tire has to move in full compression.

Then, mentally picture how far inside the car the glass has to drop for that quarter glass to disappear.

They'd have to occupy the same space.

Only way around it is to:

1) Shrink it.

2) Don't let it drop all the way.

Is this an educated guess or something you know for fact? I would have to have to imagine that production would have more reasonable sized tires. Wouldnt going from 22" tires to 17's and 18s would give up some space for the suspension travel? Also the car isnt going to be sitting right on top of those tires. Aside from that are you saying suspension travel would be going up inside the rear 1/4 panels instead of up to them?

Is this an educated guess or something you know for fact? I would have to have to imagine that production would have more reasonable sized tires. Wouldnt going from 22" tires to 17's and 18s would give up some space for the suspension travel? Also the car isnt going to be sitting right on top of those tires. Aside from that are you saying suspension travel would be going up inside the rear 1/4 panels instead of up to them?

Lalalalala...

Wouldnt going from 22" tires to 17's and 18s would give up some space for the suspension travel?

You are assuming that the wheel sizes will go down to 17" and/or 18".

Look at the side view of the car, and then I want you to picture in you mind's eye how far that wheel and tire has to move in full compression.

Then, mentally picture how far inside the car the glass has to drop for that quarter glass to disappear.

They'd have to occupy the same space.

Only way around it is to:

1) Shrink it.

2) Don't let it drop all the way.


3) Fixed rear glass.

3) Fixed rear glass.

What about on the convertible version?

Either the rear quarter glass drops all the way, or simply remove it altogether.

BTW, on the first gen Camaros the rear quarter glass does not drop straight down. :D

What about on the convertible version?



Good point.

Lalalalala...
:lol:

You are assuming that the wheel sizes will go down to 17" and/or 18".

Ya got me there :D Im also assuming that GM can work something out if they decide to go that route.


BTW, on the first gen Camaros the rear quarter glass does not drop straight down. :D

that is true as well, but I dont understand how they work to be honest. I just know they go down and back.

And yet, the concepts 1/4 windows roll all the way down.

And yet, the concepts 1/4 windows roll all the way down.

When's the next time the concept is going to be travelling 70mph over a Michigan road in spring?

roll down windows are NOT an engineering hurdle.

I was just replying to your statement about how there wasn't room for the windows to roll down because of where the wheelwells are. But in the concept, the windows do in fact, roll all the way down.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/PhotoFlipper?pictureId=24388&pageId=68003&pageCode=photopopup&make=&synpartner=edmunds&model=&usein=il&useuseflag=&adareaname=&showLead=false

But in the concept, the windows do in fact, roll all the way down.
http://www.automobilemag.com/auto_shows/naias_2006/0601_chevrolet_camaro_concept/

As true as that statement is...

http://web.camaross.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3738499&postcount=3

and to add to that...

http://web.camaross.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3741705&postcount=10

:)

The production version WILL be different in MANY ways. It is exceptionally rare (if not impossible) for a production version to come out even nearly identical to the matching concept. Sometimes, it is drastically different...not always in looks but in what is under the skin. There is always the chance of that.

Oh boy I'm going to have a field day when GM announces the production Camaro is in everyway the exact same as the concept.

Oh boy I'm going to have a field day when GM announces the production Camaro is in everyway the exact same as the concept.

Dream on. :)

I was just replying to your statement about how there wasn't room for the windows to roll down because of where the wheelwells are. But in the concept, the windows do in fact, roll all the way down.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/PhotoFlipper?pictureId=24388&pageId=68003&pageCode=photopopup&make=&synpartner=edmunds&model=&usein=il&useuseflag=&adareaname=&showLead=false

Look at the rear tire to wheelwell clearance.

There's nowhere for the wheel to go on jounce... besides right into the rear quarter. Heck, the fronts don't have enough clearance either.

It's going to change. It has to. Major body damage due to hitting a pothole is negative regarding warranty claims.

I can't believe there is this much debate going on about a silly window that rolls down. But my God if they could figure it out in 1967, does anyone think they can't figure it out today? Even w/ modern crash standards. Those standards aside, Ford figured out how to have roll down windows in thier smaller fox Mustang, which also has a shorter wheelbase. I know things will change on the real car, but all I'm saying is if they can put a man on the moon, they can figure out how to have windows that roll down if they want them. Thats all I'm saying.

You mean if they can FAKE a man landing on the moon...

I can't believe there is this much debate going on about a silly window that rolls down. But my God if they could figure it out in 1967, does anyone think they can't figure it out today? Even w/ modern crash standards. Those standards aside, Ford figured out how to have roll down windows in thier smaller fox Mustang, which also has a shorter wheelbase. I know things will change on the real car, but all I'm saying is if they can put a man on the moon, they can figure out how to have windows that roll down if they want them. Thats all I'm saying.

The same goes for t-tops. There is a way to do it if the people who can have an affect on such things say, "go do it".

I can't believe there is this much debate going on about a silly window that rolls down. But my God if they could figure it out in 1967, does anyone think they can't figure it out today? Even w/ modern crash standards. Those standards aside, Ford figured out how to have roll down windows in thier smaller fox Mustang, which also has a shorter wheelbase. I know things will change on the real car, but all I'm saying is if they can put a man on the moon, they can figure out how to have windows that roll down if they want them. Thats all I'm saying.

Bro, at the end of the day, something has to give - either the wheels get smaller, or the rear quarter windows are re-packaged and/or reshaped, or some combination of the above.

Bet on option #3.

Look at the rear tire to wheelwell clearance.

There's nowhere for the wheel to go on jounce... besides right into the rear quarter. Heck, the fronts don't have enough clearance either.

Which is why the wheels have to have more suspension travel in production. Regaurdless, I highly doubt the wheel travel will go into the 1/4's You know better than I that the wheels will get smaller, gaps from the wheels to wheel well will increase.

So once those changes have been made toward a normal production car why couldnt the windows go into the 1/4's?

Perhaps......


The coupe will get fixed rear glass and larger available wheels, and the convertible will get roll down glass and not quite as large (but large nontheless), available wheels.

Perhaps......


The coupe will get fixed rear glass and larger available wheels, and the convertible will get roll down glass and not quite as large (but large nontheless), available wheels.
I doubt they will have different rolling diameters with in the same model. Other than that, wheel diameters don't matter since the difference is offset by the profile of the tire.

You mean if they can FAKE a man landing on the moon...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
...let's start a thread about this. It's probably more or at least as productive as arguing over a 1/4 window rolling down or an LS1 throttle body.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Come on people... they'll drop down and slightly reward into the c-pillar. :p

First gen qtr windows dropped down in an arc, not straight down. They absolutely must roll down on the convertible, so why not make them roll down on the coupe. Thats one of my favorite things about the car.

The rear window isn't glass. It is a force field, so you just turn it off to "roll it down."

The rear window isn't glass. It is a force field, so you just turn it off to "roll it down."

Now somebody finally gets it. ;)