I'm I the only one that don't like the new camaro looks?

This is coming from a guy that owned

85 Camaro
92 Camaro RS
94 Z-28
98 Z-28
00 Z-28

so, I kinda know what I'm talking about. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE SEEING THE CAMARO MAKE A COMEBACK!! But don't like the looks of it. Couldn't GM come up with a better concept?? I hate the retro look! I have a bad feeling, when the Camaro hit the streets in couple of years, Ford will have a redesign Mustang and dump the retro look. Then GM and Chrysler will probally follow that plan also in couple of years! GM should come out with a drop dead, slick looking, and powerfull Camaro!! Thats my 0.02..

BTW, I would probally buy one anyways ;) it better have that hump in the passenger side floor board:p

But don't like the looks of it. Couldn't GM come up with a better concept??

Im going to sound like a dick here, but do you want them to make one to fit every Camaro enthusiasts tastes? For every person that doesnt like it, there are others that do. I think its a case of "Cant please everyone" and I personally think they did a fine job on the Camaro concept... But thats just me.

Have you seen it in person? It doesn't photograph well enough to do itself justice.

Problem is, the concept still has a too many aspects that are just that ... "CONCEPT". While I don't want the production version to be real watered down, I'm sure it will have slight differences than the current concept we're seeing right now. And also, silver is probably one of my least favourite colors on a car (I mean, for THE color of the car ... don't start knocking the silver stripes on my '02!;)) so my point is, to me, I actually find the color a little boring:shrug:. Now if you've found any of the threads where guys have done photoshops of the car in different colors, with added stripes, rims, etc., suddenly the car takes on a whole new look:cool:. And from my experience seeing it in person at the Detroit auto show, like what was just said, you have to see it in person to appreciate it. Yet again, because I don't love silver, it still doesn't pump me up like it would to see, perharps, a black one, or a yellow one, or red (I wanted to see the red concept car in Toronto, but couldn't make that show).

But at the end of the day, if you still don't like it, hopefully there are enough people that DO like it so the Camaro nameplate can still be a success:).

If you haven’t seen it in person, you haven’t seen it, so quit yer bitching ;)

BTW, its "doesn’t like" not "don’t like"

IMHO the concept already looks watered down and that frightens me because the production version will get even more watered down...I personally think the '89 California Concept is better looking than the new one...I really like my 4th and I also really like the 3rd gens and I wish the new Camaro could have been an evolution of them...Then again, I don't like the new 'Stangs styling or the Challenger's either...All of them look really boring and uninspiring to me...They all look like they came straight out of the late 60's-early 70's...None of the designs look fresh or new, they're just a rehash of what was done nearly 40 years ago...I grew up with the 3rd and 4th gen cars and to me they were always a cheaper and usually meaner looking Corvette. The new one is basically a complete departure from that and it doesn't sit well with me...It really sucks though because really the only cars out now that suit my tastes would be a ZO6 or a Viper, neither of which I'll be able to afford any time soon....It's just depressing that a '93 Z28 or a '98 TA look more aggressive and cool than the new concept :( (Flame suit on ;) )

I'm I the only one that don't like the new camaro looks?

Yes ;)

I'm I the only one that don't like the new camaro looks?

I don't think you're the only one. But you're definitely outnumbered! ;)

No you are not. But any chance for debate over the 5th gen's design has long since passed (by at least 1.5 years).

Let's hope the 6th gen returns to it's poor man's Corvette (with Corvette like styling) roots.

No you are not. But any chance for debate over the 5th gen's design has long since passed (by at least 1.5 years).

Let's hope the 6th gen returns to it's poor man's Corvette (with Corvette like styling) roots.

By roots you mean since 1993? :rolleyes:

This is coming from a guy that owned

85 Camaro
92 Camaro RS
94 Z-28
98 Z-28
00 Z-28



Well, coming from a guy that over 27 years owned:

67 Camaro
73 F100 Explorer pickup (390 4 bbl)
75 Malibu Classic
77 Chevy Monza V6 (with Edelbrock manifold, Holly, & headers)
78 Monza Spyder (w/ transplanted LM1 350 & exhaust)
77 Monza V8 (stock for a change)
85 Mustang special service
89 Mustang GT
92 Mustang SSP
93 Mustang SSP (3 in all)
89 Thunderbird SC (2, 1 modified & 1 restored, both sticks)
93 Thunderbird SC
and not the least...
93 Camaro Z28
97 Camaro Z28
and finally, a 2002 Camaro B4C....

.... I gotta say, I think the new Camaro (it's sinister looks) is simply awesome. :bow:

Just to show you what a hit Chevy has on their hands, my parents are both 67, and both of them love it & can see living with it. Ditto the wife who isn't into cars. This isn't so with my 4th gens!

Also, as you can tell by checking out the sales figures of the 4th gen (let alone those of the Stealth and 3000GT) versus the numbers the Mustang has been generating, the public isn't into low slung, Corvette-like, sit on the ground sporty coupes. They like back to the basics "pony cars". Regardless as to whatever personal tastes we may have, there isn't enough of us to sustain a car model (like it or not).

Bottom line: If the public no-likey = no sales = no profit = no make.

Also, like others have said, if you haven't seen the car in person.... hold your judgement. This car (to steal a term Scott once used to describe it.... is Bad A**ed! :D

But don't like the looks of it.

BTW, I would probally buy one anyways ;) it better have that hump in the passenger side floor board:p

Well I wish it had a touch MORE retro 69 looks but that wouldnt steer me away from the car. Im a touch jelous of the Mustang and Challenger fans. Both got the retro cars with some of their best designs with modern technology. There are a few things I would change(one being opening that grille a tiny bit and 69 swooshes and thats it) but its close to perfection as it is. Had it no 69 ques Id likely wouldnt be interested at all. Ive seen in in person. I want one :)

If you havent seen it in person, please go look for yourself. Its not as retro as you might think if you havent seen it.


69 Camaro
98 Camaro

I am not thrilled these days with it either.

It looks too chunky

Wheels are too big

Windows are tiny

All these things addded up and it looks off to me.

Saying that, I will admit it looks great from some angles.

Perhaps a view in person will help. When do they come out? Oh...right no one knows

Yes ;)
I second that, I think it looks perfect.

I am not thrilled these days with it either.

It looks too chunkyThat's called bold.

Wheels are too bigConcept car's always have big wheels and no fender gap, production will most likely change.

Windows are tiny
will prbly cahnge for production a bit as well, which will prbly help the "chunky" look as you say.
All these things addded up and it looks off to me.

Saying that, I will admit it looks great from some angles.

Perhaps a view in person will help. When do they come out? Oh...right no one knowsno one knows, but as long as it's soon who cares? :D

I'll tell you what will make me decide if I like it or not. I'll park my car, walk out to the lot where they are sitting, and simply ask the salesman to get the keys. Then after he does I'll simply pop the hood, and if I look under there and see an engine crammed inbetween a chasy that's so tight not even Mr Fantastic can work on it. well, I'll simply turn around, tell the salesman
thanks for his time and leave insearch of an easier car to mod.

bah

new car with 400+hp and tight engine bay > rickety ole LT1 with whatever HP in old car and tight engine bay

bah

new car with 400+hp and tight engine bay > rickety ole LT1 with whatever HP in old car and tight engine bay
Till something breaks.... after all it is a chevy.

Till something breaks.... after all it is a chevy.

Eh... just wouldn't be the same without the rattling.

"What's that rattling sound?"
:shrug: "It's supposed to do that."

Eh... just wouldn't be the same without the rattling.

"What's that rattling sound?"
:shrug: "It's supposed to do that."

Put a cat toy under the seat. :p

like I said. I really don't care for the looks but I WILL probally buy one anyways. My GTO will be paid off in 2 years so I'll have some extra cash to purchase one.

I'n going to have to agree with DaSmurfy, i am not to crazy about the concept. It doesn't do anything for me. It actually makes me glad to own my current 98 model. ITs all opionated though. I do agree with the comment about the photoshop pcis with the stripes and diferent color. It looks better with stripes and a different color, but still not anything great (in my opinion). I have actually seen it in person up close, within touching distance, and i don't care for it in person. I just don't understand how people are saying it looks different in person than in the magazines. I thought it looks exactly the same in person. The boody is too bland and most people i talk to think the front looks like a cadillac and the wheels are too big. Its all opinions though.

It's ok I guess, but I really want a Challenger.

GM should come out with a drop dead, slick looking, and powerfull Camaro!!

But they already did that. ;)

I still don't get how people can compare the Camaro's 'retroness' to the Mustangs.

They're leagues apart. The Camaro concept looks like a new car with some hints of retro. Nowhere near the ripoff retro of the Mustang or Challenger.

I see a much more futuristic car in the concept than retro.

I think the homespun firebird concepts look MUCH better.:rolleyes: :metal:

Well Well coming from a female, 26, who has owned,
1991 rs
1992 rs
1991 z28
2000 z28
2000 ss
1982 pace car z28
1978 z28
1994 z28
1989 formula
1976 corvette
1980 corvette
1989 corvette
1992 corvette
2001 corvette
1967 camaro
I CAN SAY I LOOOOVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEE it
I am confident in my taste!

Eh... just wouldn't be the same without the rattling.

"What's that rattling sound?"
:shrug: "It's supposed to do that."
My 1992 rs doesnt have ONE rattle. Nor did my 00 ss

Coming from a guy who owned.

2001 Nissan Sentra (ewwww)
2000 Camaro V6 (<3 my baby)

I think the 5th gen is very very sexy and i WILL own one. Sorry buddy u seem to be one of a few to dislike it on this forum.

My 1992 rs doesnt have ONE rattle. Nor did my 00 ss
You should drive them sometimes. They sound like nice cars, lol.


:p

You're not the only one, I've honestly heard alot of complaints. I attend cruise nights up to 5 times a week sometimes and I get alota mixed stuff. The front bumper is wrong and the rear is off too. The side of the car is nice and the interior is a little wacky. I've seen it in person and IMO that didn't change my opinion much.

This is coming from a guy that owned

85 Camaro
92 Camaro RS
94 Z-28
98 Z-28
00 Z-28

so, I kinda know what I'm talking about.
You think you know what your talking about?

That makes no sense, your opinion is yours. I would hope you know what your talking about.

I dont understand why you think your past ownership of cars has anything to do with whether or not you like something????

I mean, looks are subjective to every person, and you are entitled to your opionion, but i dont get why you think that it matters how much you know.

I could care less how much you know or how many cars you have owned, it doesnt support your opinion on the looks of a car...get what i mean?

You should drive them sometimes. They sound like nice cars, lol.


:p
:lol:

I've seen it twice in person, still not crazy about it.

Every previous generation introduced some bold new design element. This one doesn't even come close to it. I'm not looking for a "cheap 'Vette", er say, but something with a little originality. This is like listening to a cover band.

You aren't the only one. I've been bashed left and right for my opinion but that is fine.

And yes i've seen it in person :rolleyes:

You aren't the only one. I've been bashed left and right for my opinion but that is fine.

And yes i've seen it in person :rolleyes:
No need to roll your eyes. There are a lot of people who don't like it in pictures, but love it in person.

I like it. All I can say is if you don't like it, don't buy it. I like it and plan on buying it, and driving it until the wheels fall off. :D

By roots you mean since 1993? :rolleyes:

Try 1970. Since then the Camaro has been more sports car than pony. Each Generation Camaro (other than the 1st) was heavily influenced by the Corvette of the time.

Look at these side by side pics and tell me they don't share styling principles:
Camaro Corvette comparisons (http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/coleslaw151/album?.dir=/e149scd)

Here's the thing.............

The Camaro inspires passion. That's why most people are on this site. (Exxcept a few!)

Any change is going to get people thinking...and change can be polarizing.

Frankly?

I never thought we'd have as many people as we do -- absolutely in love with the concept. I'm nuts about it......but let me also say that I was NOT happy with many of the alternative proposals.

Yes...for the most part. ....notice I said 'most part' -- those who don't like it change their opinion...and quickly, I might add.....when they see it in person.

There isn't a car or truck out there today that everyone can agree on. So, yes, I wish everyone loved it........that said, that's an impossibility.

An observation: some say to me: "It should be more retro!" ..and I immediately ask them their age. It's always over 35 or 40 years of age. And that's fine.......the problem is that if we don't appeal to the 18-35 age group, we're in trouble.

I think (and yes, I'm prejudiced...but as I said before, there were proposals that I threw up on........) that the concept balances a new design with heritage cues.

So........no, you are not the only one that may not like it....but I can safely say that you are in a minority. No matter where we take it, the response is overwhelmingly positive.

One last tidbit.....

When a new car is unveiled, you get applause.

That was not the case on January 9, 2006. There was great cheering, whistling, yelling, applauding.......and yes, several grown men and women in tears. As one person wrote me: ".......Mr. Settlemire.......the new Camaro has brought me to my knees with it's beauty......" That's pretty powerful stuff.

I DO hope that when the car goes into production that you will like what you see -- or grow to love it. Keep in mind that the 70 Camaro and Firebird were extremely polarizing.......you loved it to death or you wanted to slit your wrists........but the 2nd gen went on to be the most popular Fcar of all time (thusfar.......)

Keep the faith, baby!

Try 1970. Since then the Camaro has been more sports car than pony. Each Generation Camaro (other than the 1st) was heavily influenced by the Corvette of the time.

Look at these side by side pics and tell me they don't share styling principles:
Camaro Corvette comparisons (http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/coleslaw151/album?.dir=/e149scd)

They do but so does the 5th gen. Look at the rear 1/4 panels and tell me they dont look like they were just unbolted from a C6 from a side view. The tail lights have the afterburner 1970/68 Camaro but also look similar to C4 to me. The back window comes to somewhat of a point somewhat like a 63 split window vette. The hood is reminsent of a 69 Camaro but is also formed to a C5 hood somewhat. Of course thats to my eye.

An observation: some say to me: "It should be more retro!" ..and I immediately ask them their age. It's always over 35 or 40 years of age. And that's fine.......the problem is that if we don't appeal to the 18-35 age group, we're in trouble.


well not always. I do like the car as I mentioned at Carlisle, but wish it was a little, just a little more retro 69 touch taller grille and other ques. Im 29. It wouldnt keep me out of a show room though.

I like the car... but I hope it sure has "ENGINE ROOM!!!"

It would be nice if that hood on the Camaro forward like the Vette hoods do. Fenders in all.

They do but so does the 5th gen. Look at the rear 1/4 panels and tell me they dont look like they were just unbolted from a C6 from a side view. The tail lights have the afterburner 1970/68 Camaro but also look similar to C4 to me. The back window comes to somewhat of a point somewhat like a 63 split window vette. The hood is reminsent of a 69 Camaro but is also formed to a C5 hood somewhat. Of course thats to my eye.

They do but so does the 5th gen. Look at the rear 1/4 panels and tell me they dont look like they were just unbolted from a C6 from a side view. The tail lights have the afterburner 1970/68 Camaro but also look similar to C4 to me. The back window comes to somewhat of a point somewhat like a 63 split window vette. The hood is reminsent of a 69 Camaro but is also formed to a C5 hood somewhat. Of course thats to my eye.


You are comparing the 5th gen with previous Corvette generations. The point I was trying to make is that the Camaro (gens 2-4) adopted styling from its contemporary Y-body sibling. The only similarities between the C6 and 5th gen are the rear 1/4 panels, as you mentioned, and the rear taillights to some extent. The 1-1 correlation that I liked between Camaro and Corvette is no longer there for me with the 5th gen.

I could be convinced into buying one however if the top model ran the numbers: 4.5,12.8,0.93,67.5.

Try 1970. Since then the Camaro has been more sports car than pony. Each Generation Camaro (other than the 1st) was heavily influenced by the Corvette of the time.

Look at these side by side pics and tell me they don't share styling principles:
Camaro Corvette comparisons (http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/coleslaw151/album?.dir=/e149scd)

I never realized just how similar they were until seeing those.

. I could be convinced into buying one however if the top model ran the numbers: 4.5,12.8,0.93,67.5.

I'm guessing: 4.5=0-60, 12.8=1/4 mile, 0.93=skid pad?

I'm clueless on 67.5. :shrug:

I'm clueless on 67.5. :shrug:
Lane change or slalom mph?

Try 1970. Since then the Camaro has been more sports car than pony. Each Generation Camaro (other than the 1st) was heavily influenced by the Corvette of the time.

Look at these side by side pics and tell me they don't share styling principles:
Camaro Corvette comparisons (http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/coleslaw151/album?.dir=/e149scd)

Ok sorry. We're talking about two different things here. "Styling" yes. But poor man's Corvette for me is more evocative of fourth gen because the ride height, seating position, visibility, etc. Were all a lot more in line with Corvette or another pure sports car. In the previous gens you got styling cues but still had a fairly upright passenger car feel.

As much as I like the C6 styling I dont think it would really transplant to a new Camaro anyway, it was an evolution of the C5 which was kinda slab sidded, so there isn't all that much to mine.

My 1992 rs doesnt have ONE rattle. Nor did my 00 ss

Lucky for you, because that is definetly not the norm on an fbody.

I never realized just how similar they were until seeing those.

Neither did I. Looks kind of like the Camaro has played some extension of the cheap man's Corvette idea for quite some time now. Longer than the 4th gens run.

Neither did I. Looks kind of like the Camaro has played some extension of the cheap man's Corvette idea for quite some time now. Longer than the 4th gens run.

I actually thought the Firebird was alot closer through the years

The 1-1 correlation that I liked between Camaro and Corvette is no longer there for me with the 5th gen.

I agree completely :bow: It's not there for me either and without those simliarites that have been there since '70 it's not a Camaro to me :(

I actually thought the Firebird was alot closer through the years

With the 3rd Gen's definitely.

If the original poster of this thread hasn't seen the car in person, then he can't say if he liked it or not.

I didn't like it in pics, and loved it at NAIAS. Enough said :bow:

If the original poster of this thread hasn't seen the car in person, then he can't say if he liked it or not.

I didn't like it in pics, and loved it at NAIAS. Enough said :bow:

Why exactly can't he say he doesn't like? Are we censoring opinions based soley on personal observations or just clearing out those of us who aren't retro cheerleaders or in general don't like it? :irk:

That's like a George Bush town hall meeting; don't invite anyone who might have an opposing opinion.


Does this mean we won't have anymore spy photo threads?

Tim, when you see a spy photo, do you decide on the spot whether or not you like the appearance of the car in the image?

Many, many people, on these forums and off, liked the car much more in person than in pictures. Therefore, it is appropriate to take the opinions of those who have not seen it in person with the proverbial grain of salt.

To answer your question...

Yes, you are. Thanks.







j/k


-steve

Tim, when you see a spy photo, do you decide on the spot whether or not you like the appearance of the car in the image?

Many, many people, on these forums and off, liked the car much more in person than in pictures. Therefore, it is appropriate to take the opinions of those who have not seen it in person with the proverbial grain of salt.

I can appreciate that, and agree, but...that is completely different than bluntly stating that you can't/shouldn't possibly have formed an opinion or much less say anything if you haven't seen it in person and then bowing at yourself because your personal epiphany was somehow close to divine intervention. That's really simplistic and a bush-league (sp?) mentality.

When I see a spy photo of a car I, and we all, have an initial reaction and opinion to it. Sure we're all hedging our bets, but, we all form an initial opinion and we've all opined about it.

Storytime from a long time lurker, first time poster:

I personally love the car. I also know that everyone is entitled to their opinion. I go at it all day long with my friends, and have realized that none are wrong or right, and that's the beauty of it all...there are choices. Choose what's best for you.

I've had 3 1st gens, 2 3rd gens and 1 4th gen. I liked them all, but the '69 is my favorite car in the world. I've owned a Vette, Bimmers, Audis, Mustangs, even a Lotus. None of them have evoked the passion that I have for the 1st gen Camaro.

I'm 32 years old now, and have owned 30+ cars/trucks. Some say it's a problem! Anyway, since I was about 10 years old, I dreamt of a modern interpretation of the 1st gens. In my mind, I invented pro-touring long ago when I thought of putting modern vette underpinnings under a '69. :cool:

I tried doing that 2 years ago, but realized I couldn't afford it and it wasn't practical, so I sold the car. About that time the '05 Mustangs came out. I thought it made more sense to buy one of those, and make it more retro then take an old car and make it more modern. But, I just couldn't bring myself to buy the 'stang, or give up my Audi S4. :devil:

Then, I see the Camaro Concept...I cried. I still get tears when I think about how much this car answers my personal dreams and goals. :bow: It's the perfect blend of modern with enough retro cues not to ever mistake it for anything other than a Camaro.

WHEN they build this car, I will buy it. And I'll never sell it. Heck, I'll probably buy 2. I know my parents will buy one too, to replace the red '68 my dad had when he met and married my Mom...she still wishes they had that car, and she's not a car person.

To GM I say, don't change a thing! ;) Well, maybe the roof would look better a bit taller, and maybe that will also satisfy the guys that want more retro, as it'll look even more like a 1st gen, at least in sillouette.

Peace,
Josh :cool:

FWIW, I think the car will succeed and compete very favorably with the 'modern' cars of today, both in looks and appeal to the younger crowd. The long hood, short deck is very popular, look at the G35 coupe, the new Skyline, the M3, etc. Those cars are and will continue to be extraordinarily popular for many reasons, and aside from the obvious..performance..their style is one of them. The Mustang doesn't have enough modern element, it already looks dated. The Camaro concept has the smoother, more modern chiseled look. The Challenger, that's for people that have watched too many episodes of Barrett-Jackson. ;)

That's really simplistic and a bush-league (sp?) mentality.

I guess thats acceptable political bomb throwing. When any responce is talking politics? Thats the second time in this thread. :rolleyes:

Storytime from a long time lurker, first time poster:

I personally love the car. I also know that everyone is entitled to their opinion. I go at it all day long with my friends, and have realized that none are wrong or right, and that's the beauty of it all...there are choices. Choose what's best for you.

I've had 3 1st gens, 2 3rd gens and 1 4th gen. I liked them all, but the '69 is my favorite car in the world. I've owned a Vette, Bimmers, Audis, Mustangs, even a Lotus. None of them have evoked the passion that I have for the 1st gen Camaro.

I'm 32 years old now, and have owned 30+ cars/trucks. Some say it's a problem! Anyway, since I was about 10 years old, I dreamt of a modern interpretation of the 1st gens. In my mind, I invented pro-touring long ago when I thought of putting modern vette underpinnings under a '69. :cool:

I tried doing that 2 years ago, but realized I couldn't afford it and it wasn't practical, so I sold the car. About that time the '05 Mustangs came out. I thought it made more sense to buy one of those, and make it more retro then take an old car and make it more modern. But, I just couldn't bring myself to buy the 'stang, or give up my Audi S4. :devil:

Then, I see the Camaro Concept...I cried. I still get tears when I think about how much this car answers my personal dreams and goals. :bow: It's the perfect blend of modern with enough retro cues not to ever mistake it for anything other than a Camaro.

WHEN they build this car, I will buy it. And I'll never sell it. Heck, I'll probably buy 2. I know my parents will buy one too, to replace the red '68 my dad had when he met and married my Mom...she still wishes they had that car, and she's not a car person.

To GM I say, don't change a thing! ;) Well, maybe the roof would look better a bit taller, and maybe that will also satisfy the guys that want more retro, as it'll look even more like a 1st gen, at least in sillouette.

Peace,
Josh :cool:

Well said. Couple inches thinner will help with that too. Glad to see another 69 fan :D

Glad to be here!! Glad we are all even able to have this conversation!! A year ago, we had nothing, not even a glimmer, now we get to argue about what it should/could/would look like.....life is good!

I can appreciate that, and agree, but...that is completely different than bluntly stating that you can't/shouldn't possibly have formed an opinion or much less say anything if you haven't seen it in person and then bowing at yourself because your personal epiphany was somehow close to divine intervention. That's really simplistic and a bush-league (sp?) mentality.
Yeah, that would have been inappropriate, but I don't think that's what Jason meant in post #51.

I interpreted Jason's :bow: to be towards the Concept, not towards himself. I see no problem with that.

The other thing to note is that most of the people around here don't say exactly what they mean. Yes, Jason's words were "he can't say if he liked it or not," but you shouldn't take him literally. He probably meant what I said in post #53.

I guess thats acceptable political bomb throwing. When any responce is talking politics? Thats the second time in this thread. :rolleyes:
"bush-league" is not a reference to the current President.

:rolleyes: right back at ya. :p

"bush-league" is not a reference to the current President.

:rolleyes: right back at ya. :p

Guess Im showing my ignorance. Sorry bout that :(

Guess Im showing my ignorance. Sorry bout that :(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_league

I guess thats acceptable political bomb throwing. When any responce is talking politics? Thats the second time in this thread. :rolleyes:

bush-league (NOT capitalized) means 'one level down from the pros': i.e, AAA baseball.

Glad to be here!! Glad we are all even able to have this conversation!! A year ago, we had nothing, not even a glimmer, now we get to argue about what it should/could/would look like.....life is good!

How true! Live is VERY good! :cool:

I've said it once and I'll say it again...6+ months after it's unveiling (although we've seen it longer with the pictures leakes at the end of last year), I simply still do not like it (at all). I've owned four 4th gen Camaro's (1 V6 & 3 Z28's) and this new 5th gen concept has no styling appeal to me what so ever. NOW...Not to say that's a bad thing because you can't please everyone as we all know and I'm still shocked GM is even considering re-producing this legend...

But, I've seen every picture imagineable in any color, etc. and I happen to think the 4th gens look 10x better. NOTE: Just my opinion here folks. ;) Granted, I havent seen it in person (yes, I know, I know). However, a car has NEVER looked any different to me in person that it has in picture format, so I don't see where that could be an issue like some of you are making it out to be???

Peace,

Mike

However, a car has NEVER looked any different to me in person that it has in picture format, so I don't see where that could be an issue like some of you are making it out to be???

Mike, I can understand your point and you certainly are entitled to your opinions, but take it from me - paper and reality are two entirely different things. When I first saw the '98 Trans Am on the cover of Car and Driver, it looked awful to me - I thought they basically aped three or four other cars for the front end and I couldn't stand it. It lacked dimension and seemed uninspired. I can remember telling my brother how they killed the styling of the car. I felt the same way about the WS6 when that first came out - couldn't stand it and I looked for every color I could find and every picture on the web.

Finally there was ONE picture of a Navy Blue Metallic TA WS6 that I saw that changed my mind - a little. When I saw my Black TA WS6, I was totally sold on the look of the car! I could appreciate the deep turn signal slots in the front, the shape of the headlights and hood - it all just seemed to fit SO well. I don't mind saying I felt really foolish about my earlier comments, too - but it was the first time I realized that seeing things first hand makes a big difference.

You simply won't know how the 5th gen grabs you until you see it close-up. The C6 didn't impress me until I saw it in person and finally realized what the slight creases did to make the car look agressive. IMHO since the 5th gen shares some of those cues, it's a real beauty. I STILL love the look of my WS6, and it will always be a classic......but then, progress marches on.......

If you haven’t seen it in person, you haven’t seen it, so quit yer bitching ;)

BTW, its "doesn’t like" not "don’t like"


Wrong.........it is don't like
(even when fitting into his sentence structure)

Wrong.........it is don't like
(even when fitting into his sentence structure)
It should be "doesn't" in the thread title.

Have you seen it in person? It doesn't photograph well enough to do itself justice.

Yeah im sure that has a lot to do with it, even NOW i see a lot of pictures on the net of 4th gens that are so-so but have seen a couple with my own eyes (that i thought were ok on the internet) and have completely changed the way i feel about them. Plus im not too big on having stock anything, and was the first third gen anyone saw jaw dropping? (well maybe coming from the looks of the 2nd to the 3rd gen) but there are beautiful third gens out there that people have build that are phenomenol (sp) Sorry im just kind of rambling on now, but i need to see something for real before i make my opinion of it, not just some professionally taken photograph.

I'm 45 and the design is just barley starting to grow on me.
Mostly I think I'm just really enthusiastic about a new Camaro finally coming out. I would have preferred a more retro style. And no, I don't think they picked up the 69 styling cues well at all.

I'm 45 and the design is just barley starting to grow on me.
Mostly I think I'm just really enthusiastic about a new Camaro finally coming out. I would have preferred a more retro style. And no, I don't think they picked up the 69 styling cues well at all.

stand over the hood and look straight down at the hood if you havent already.

stand over the hood and look straight down at the hood if you havent already.

Werd. While I haven't seen the car in person, I've looked at every single picture from every angle I could find, and I've owned 2 '69's and a '67, sold the last one a year ago. 2 of them were restorations, so I'm intimate with the body of these cars. In my personal opinion, they nailed the '69's persona. The grille cannot be mistaken for anything else. The tops of the fenders, the way the crease moves past the A-pillar and curves down into the door. The top of the rear quarter panel from where it starts below the window, the transition from the door window to the rear pillar, the shape of the windows, the shape of the rear pillar, the shark gills ahead of the rear wheel. The overall shape of the form, down to the 'coke-bottle' curves.

They managed to do all this, and still keep it fresh and 'modern'.

The only thing I don't care for is the tail lights, personally. It works on this car if I remove any feelings about the 1st gens, but it's the furthest departure from the 1st gens. My mind just tells me that something isn't right.

In my personal opinion, they nailed the '69's persona. The grille cannot be mistaken for anything else. The tops of the fenders, the way the crease moves past the A-pillar and curves down into the door. The top of the rear quarter panel from where it starts below the window, the transition from the door window to the rear pillar, the shape of the windows, the shape of the rear pillar, the shark gills ahead of the rear wheel. The overall shape of the form, down to the 'coke-bottle' curves.

They managed to do all this, and still keep it fresh and 'modern'.

The only thing I don't care for is the tail lights, personally. It works on this car if I remove any feelings about the 1st gens, but it's the furthest departure from the 1st gens. My mind just tells me that something isn't right.

I wouldnt personally go as far as to say nailed it. The tail lights have grown on me because of the afterburner when the brakes are not on. The one thing that they have nailed is the hood from the angle I described. Im hoping onces its thinner for production it wont look quite as wide. Im wondering if it would look better with a more open grille that you would be able to see the headlights without kneeling but the more I think about it headlights you cant see them from standing because of them being recessed is starting to seem really cool and the front side profile is perfect. If the areodynamics is that much better I dont know but I liked being able to see the 69;s recessed grille. The vented brakes through the shark gills are awesome and I hope they make it. I love the dimensions once it gets thinner. I would like wheel well swooshes. I wonder why the rear bumper is so big but with impact standards it may just be a fact of life like the Mustangs. Honestly I liked alot of what Scotts presentation about the car.

I realize Im in the minority I dont expect them to cater to one person, but thats my opinion but Id like to have one in the drive as is so I guess you can take it for what its worth.

I too wouldn't mind seeing the fender 'swooshes' as you call it...though at times I do like the cleanliness of the '67-'68 cars where the Concept more closely resembles them on the sides.

I don't mean to say they 'nailed' the '69's exact styling, especially since that wasn't their intent, nor my personal interpretation of it. I do think they nailed the 'persona' of a 1st gen with a significant tilt to the '69 while keeping it modern. The 'essence' of those cars is clear to me in the Concept. That's my personal vision of what I see, and I think that is what their goal was. I think they did that very well.

I think the aspect I like most about the concept is the shape of the car when viewed from above, or looking down it from the front or rear, that classic '69 'coke-bottle' stingray-esque curviness.

The taillights are growing on me. I also was surprised at how 'hidden' the headlights were in the videos of the car driving...wasn't sure i liked that at first, but now it's kinda tough looking to me, and reminds somewhat of the RS hide-aways in their 'effect' on the styling.

Yeah, Ford will dump the retro 'stang in the future. Right, why continue with success. Let's do a European, smooth lined, rounded look for all those pimply faced, living on Mommy's money under 30 year old, gum snappin', can't live without a cell phone to their ear, shorts down to their crack type of 'auto' buyers. Yeah, right don't pay any attention to us baby boomers with 30 trillion dollars of pension money to spend. Bring on the retro for 'us' or try selling to those youngsters that once on their own won't be buyin' $150 Jordan shoes or Muscle cars.

Peace out.

Sure, let's instead cater to the generation the has proven itself to be spoiled beyond reprieve, somehow convinced itself it's owed the world, runs for their momma's skirt at the first indication of change, original thinking or a fresh idea, and has demonstrated no ability to responsibly handle their finances and collectived agreed to let the next generation deal with that debt.

:rolleyes:

BTW: I'm 34, have never owned a pair of athletic shoes over $80, own and wear a belt, know where the 'silence option' on my cell is. D**k

Ford has stated that not a single thing will remain on the 'refresh' of the new Mustang, other than the centerline of the roof. It won't be as retro as it currently is.

It is true that the boomers have a lot of discretionary income at their disposal, so the auto makers will cater to that.

However, I personally had the most disposable income while in my 20's. I bought a Corvette a week after I graduated from college. 20 somethings don't have a lot of the responsibilities that the older folks do...so I wouldn't be so quick to rule them out, nor patronize them so readily. Many who are fresh out of college earn more than the median income. You do the math.

I don't know if anyone else has said this yet, but, the new camaro does look nice, it just doesn't look like a camaro. To me it looks more like what the new cadillac xrs should look like. When I saw the new camaro for the first time I thought, "thats a nice lookin caddy" . If you line up all 4 generations of camaros you can see how they've evolved; now add this new thing to the picture and it just doesn't fit. Like I said, it's a nice lookin car; it just shouldn't be wearing the camaro badge.

I don't know if anyone else has said this yet, but, the new camaro does look nice, it just doesn't look like a camaro. To me it looks more like what the new cadillac xrs should look like. When I saw the new camaro for the first time I thought, "thats a nice lookin caddy" . If you line up all 4 generations of camaros you can see how they've evolved; now add this new thing to the picture and it just doesn't fit. Like I said, it's a nice lookin car; it just shouldn't be wearing the camaro badge.

how does it not fit?

If you want to know the truth about it what doesen't fit is the Fourth Gen cars. Every other was more was upright, muscular and more angular like the Concept.

The concept looks like they deleted 2nd and 4th and went from there. Which was a good thing to do IMO.

If you want to know the truth about it what doesen't fit is the Fourth Gen cars. Every other was more was upright, muscular and more angular like the Concept.

.http://www.angelfire.com/hiphop3/s_kurtz/94_camaro.jpg


http://www.nttga.net/images/cotm/cotm.jpg



yup no relation.:D

Let me go out on a limb here and assume that if you didn't suck at teh interweb there would be a picture of a black 4th gen where that angelfire logo is.. :p

Seeing as how I drive a black 4th gen Im quite aware how the fascia makes it look superficially to a 3rd gen.

http://www.nttga.net/images/cotm/cotm.jpg
http://www.carsearch.com/photos/700852.jpeg

In the same way the latter looks superficially similiar too,

http://members.aol.com/jgregg2/WagonPics/stormfront.jpg

But seeing as how I was talking about the stance, proportions and body style, even if I didnt make that as clear as possible, I think you now see my point. That the Concept is a lot more like the third, then the fourth is.

i can see both of my pics i posted so i was unaware that there was a problem.;)


the third and forth gens are more alike than the fifth and any other gens beside the first. the last 20 years!out of 35 total of camaro production they have be a low slung, long hood hatchbacks. even the 2nd gen was a low slung, long hood car. the only one that wasn't was the first gen so thats the one that sticks out in camaro history.

Ok, got me there. They are hatches.


But if the proportions are in line, which they are, who really cares how the trunk opens?

But if the proportions are in line, which they are, who really cares how the trunk opens?
me. that "trunk" looks useless and i love the hatchback so much and i've needed it so much that it's a deal breaker for me.:( it the rear glass opened as well then it would be perfect.

When I think hatch I think 80s econoboxes... How many hatchbacks are even still in production? Corvette being excluded...

http://images.leftlanenews.com/content/1-jul10-leno.jpg

You telling me that isn't "low slung" or that its hood isn't long enough?

http://images.leftlanenews.com/content/1-jul10-leno.jpg

You telling me that isn't "low slung" or that its hood isn't long enough?sure it is but thats not going to be the one we can buy.;)

notice the huge headroom?:D

sure it is but thats not going to be the one we can buy.;)


Well **** if thats the case why are we talking about it at all? :p

Well **** if thats the case why are we talking about it at all? :p
you asked.:shrug:

I'm I the only one that don't like the new camaro looks?


No. He did. ;)

notice the huge headroom?:D

Notice how VERY upright he appears to be sitting? He even appears to be leaning slightly forward to me.

If he'd relax a little, recline the seat a little and I think the headroom would be perfectly fine for an average driver.

I'd NEVER sit that ramrod straight in my car.

the last 20 years!out of 35 total of camaro production they have be a low slung, long hood hatchbacks.

Maybe long hood but, I think the hood is perfect length and look. the 1967-1981 were trunks. Thats 15 years of trunks out of 36 not 35 years you include 67 in the years. Remember the 1 year anaversary would be 68 not 67 so the 35th anaversary is 02 rather than 01 As far as low slung here is the heights. First gen was right where it should have been.

1967 51" high
1969 50.9" high
1992 50.4" high
2002 51.2" high
5th 53 likely to gain an inch or two.

and for comparison currently
54.4" 07 Mustang
54.9 06 GTO
54" M3
54.8 G35


67 Year 1
68 Year 2
69 Year 3
70 Year 4
71 Year 5
72 Year 6
73 Year 7
74 Year 8
75 Year 9
76 Year 10
77 Year 11
78 Year 12
79 Year 13
80 Year 14
81 Year 15
82 Year 16
83 Year 17
84 Year 18
85 Year 19
86 Year 20
87 Year 21
88 Year 22
89 Year 23
90 Year 24
91 Year 25
92 Year 26
93 Year 27
94 Year 28
95 Year 29
96 Year 30
97 Year 31
98 Year 32
99 Year 33
00 Year 34
01 Year 35
02 Year 36
sure it is but thats not going to be the one we can buy.;)

notice the huge headroom?:D

I think its going to be close to production like the Solstice was dont you? I get the feeling production may be hatch which I dont like. My 98 hatch is still off because the guy at the performance place forced it closed over my flowmaster I had in the trunk. The concept looks like the small trunk with high lift point would make more sense if it were hatch because the glass would come up too and allow more room to load stuff. advantages and disadvatages to that I guess. Its all about what makes sense what people like and what looks good now.

Watch me be wrong :D

I think its going to be close to production like the Solstice was dont you? I get the feeling production may be hatch which I dont like. My 98 hatch is still off because the guy at the performance place forced it closed over my flowmaster I had in the trunk. The concept looks like the small trunk with high lift point would make more sense if it were hatch because the glass would come up too and allow more room to load stuff. advantages and disadvatages to that I guess. Its all about what makes sense what people like and what looks good now.

Watch me be wrong :Dif it ends up a hatch i will more interested in it.

I get the feeling production may be hatch which I dont like. My 98 hatch is still off because the guy at the performance place forced it closed over my flowmaster I had in the trunk. The concept looks like the small trunk with high lift point would make more sense if it were hatch because the glass would come up too and allow more room to load stuff. advantages and disadvatages to that I guess. Its all about what makes sense what people like and what looks good now.

I highly doubt that the 5th gen will become a hatch again. It is just not a strong selling point in a pony car anymore.

And honestly, i have gobs more storage room in my Cobalts trunk than i did in my 4th gen or 3rd gen. I mean, granted the Camaros storage was decent, especially with the back seat folded down, but it was more suitable for long thin things. It was terrible for groceries or luggage because they just flopped around if they werent in the "well".

And i'm no expert, but i beleive the hatch was a result of an overall "streamlined" theme to the 3rd and 4th gens. And the 5th gen is really trying to go back to the 1st gen "race on sunday, drive on monday" idea of combining utility with performance.

Not to be argumentative or anything, but the Cobalt is listed as having 13.9 cu ft cargo space, whereas the 4th gens had 33+ if you flipped down the rear seat. Granted, the space at far rear under the flap isn't the biggest area but I think the hatch was at least as practical as a trunk if you aren't going to just leave crap in your car all the time.

Not to be argumentative or anything, but the Cobalt is listed as having 13.9 cu ft cargo space, whereas the 4th gens had 33+ if you flipped down the rear seat. Granted, the space at far rear under the flap isn't the biggest area but I think the hatch was at least as practical as a trunk if you aren't going to just leave crap in your car all the time.

Its cool, i don't mind people being argumentative because i rarely know what i'm talking about:cry: (seriously). Its actually rather refreshing to come from the cobalt forums (full of V8 and turbo guys insulting my mother) to here and actually have a civilized debate.

But in regard to the camaro having 33ft; I would totally beleive it, but the issue is not the quantity, its the actual shape. I mean in my fourth gen i couldn't hardly put a square box in the back.

It was either too big for the deep hole or the glass squished it. I would just end up putting the back seats down and usually say to myself "wtf???, why do i even have a hatch if nothing fits!"

I would rather have 25ft of square trunk room, than 35 feet of curvy and mishapen trunk room.

I would rather have 25ft of square trunk room, than 35 feet of curvy and mishapen trunk room.
Fair enough, but 25 cubic feet isn't really an option for the Camaro.

Find me a regular trunk with 25 cubic feet of room. As previously stated, the Cobalt has 14. Coupes with over 18 cubic feet of trunk space are hard to come by, and I'm willing to bet that most of those don't quite qualify as "square", even using the term loosely. Heck, even the Malibu MAXX only has 22.8 cubic feet.

So here's the question. Would you rather have 15 cubic feet of square trunk room than 35 cubic feet of "curvy and misshapen" trunk room?

Fair enough, but 25 cubic feet isn't really an option for the Camaro.

Find me a regular trunk with 25 cubic feet of room. As previously stated, the Cobalt has 14. Coupes with over 18 cubic feet of trunk space are hard to come by, and I'm willing to bet that most of those don't quite qualify as "square", even using the term loosely. Heck, even the Malibu MAXX only has 22.8 cubic feet.

So here's the question. Would you rather have 15 cubic feet of square trunk room than 35 cubic feet of "curvy and misshapen" trunk room?

Thats a good point and i didn't realize that my 4th gen had that much room. But is that 14.9 ft a measurement of the cobalt's trunk with the back seats down?

Either way, i owned a 4th gen for three years and i have had the cobalt for about 3 months and i have found the cobalt's is simply just easier to use. I guess to each his own though.

Also, when i had my 4th gen, i had a giant probox with two memphis 12" subs in the hole and a 1000watt amp. So my memory of the hatches usefulness may be a little jaded.:p

So here's the question. Would you rather have 15 cubic feet of square trunk room than 35 cubic feet of "curvy and misshapen" trunk room?

Hell Yes! Im assuming that 15 is when the rear seats down? The valley was annoying behind the gas tank. If you put stuff on that area above the gas tank it usually fell into the valley. also the trunk line can come down between the tail lights lower the lift point, increase the rigidity and look, ,make it less cumbersome and less likely to be misaligned. There was no reason to have to take apart the plastic screws and pastic side panels on the side to get to the spare. Or it should have at least been easier to get in and out. Basicaly everything should have fit better. I will admit that the one benefit to the hatch is the size of the hole... but even at that its a big unnecessary hole in the Body.

Do you think the Camaro will get flip down rear seats? Or one little pass through like the VEs are getting?

Do you think the Camaro will get flip down rear seats? Or one little pass through like the VEs are getting?

I was hopeing for something along these lines(impalla) if its not too heavy

http://www.chevrolet.com/i/pic/impala/2007/photogallery/int_gallery08.jpg

Thats a good point and i didn't realize that my 4th gen had that much room. But is that 14.9 ft a measurement of the cobalt's trunk with the back seats down?

Either way, i owned a 4th gen for three years and i have had the cobalt for about 3 months and i have found the cobalt's is simply just easier to use. I guess to each his own though.

Also, when i had my 4th gen, i had a giant probox with two memphis 12" subs in the hole and a 1000watt amp. So my memory of the hatches usefulness may be a little jaded.:palot of the cobalt "easy to use" trunk might be the lift over height-if the 4th gens hatch opened at the bumber height than it would be alot easier to use.


i've put tones of stuff in my car that you claim is hard-like square boxs ( i just moved and i used it for some of the last boxs some of which i don't think would fit in a cobalt). i've also hauled a complete twin bed (matteress. box spring and frame).



i also love the "well" as it fit grocery bags and if you use the boxes then put then on the "shelf".


having the "well" covered by subs doesn't really help.;)

alot of the cobalt "easy to use" trunk might be the lift over height-if the 4th gens hatch opened at the bumber height than it would be alot easier to use.


i've put tones of stuff in my car that you claim is hard-like square boxs ( i just moved and i used it for some of the last boxs some of which i don't think would fit in a cobalt). i've also hauled a complete twin bed (matteress. box spring and frame).

I agree with most of what you've said. I've also moved a complete twin bed when I had my '02. So I agree a hatch is infinitely more useful than a trunk.

But I also had many boxes that, when placed beneath the hatch, got squished. So the previous poster wasn't exaggerating on that... Moving them to the folded down seats helps that out though.

Moving them to the folded down seats helps that out though.

true.. but it is a pain to get them in and out of sitting on the back seat.. you gotta reach so far.. and there's not much room between the roof and the platform behind the seat.. so if it's too tall, it wont fit, or you'll have to go at an angle..

getting a large box out from sitting on top of the back seat is such a pain

i know the advantages of the hatch.. i've fit pretty long stuff in there myself that wouldnt fit in any car with a trunk.. but still i think i'd rather have a trunk... even if it is technically less room

Ever since I got the Miata no one ever wants to borrow my car to help move things anymore. I like it that way.

getting a large box out from sitting on top of the back seat is such a pain
i never found it to be a pain it just needs it's own technique(sp?).

i never found it to be a pain it just needs it's own technique(sp?).

If it's something that will fit thru the door, why not just open the door, slide the front seat forward and get it out that way?? That's what I always did. Not difficult at all.

Back when I lived in a furnished dorm or apartment, I could transport almost everything I owned in the Firebird.

Ive moved a 20" television, 8' x 10' rug, and all sorts of stuff in the Camaro.

But as said above, the space is oddly shaped, I moved all that stuff with me alone in the car, and couldn't have done otherwise.

Then there is the issue that the seats only fold as a whole. Which if you are 6'8" like me, forces you to move the seat forward for a sucky drive, when you really just need to let down one side.

In any case I think hatches are ghey. It screams economy car to me.

Well, I'll jump back into this thread I guess.

I don't think Camaros (F-bodies in general) have ever been renowned for being "really practical":rolleyes:. Sure, you can fit the things you NEED to fit into them (some luggage for the weekend, a few groceries, or maybe/barely a couple passengers in the back) but when I had my '81 Z28, or even with the '73 my Dad currently has, the "trunk space" is kind of an oxy-moron ;).

When it comes to the hatchback design, call it "economy", call it what you will, it is practical. The 4th-gen design for holding the T-tops was probably "The Greatest Design Since Sliced Bread" :yes:. Also, flip the back seat down, and I've fit 4 tires (on rims) in the back of my car! AND, about 2 weeks ago, I had a couple 2 x 4's INSIDE the car, with the hatch CLOSED!!:thumb: ..... the only thing that would have made the car easier to load is if the opening of the hatch came down to the bumper level, like most cars with trunks do.

The problem with the concept is it looks like the sad excuse for a trunk is mostly just a top-loader?:think: But I agree with 97z28/m6 ... have the rear glass open with the "trunk lid" (except make it less conspicuous as the hatch on the 4th-gen) and extend the opening to the bumper, and there will be a winner for practical/functional storage, yet it won't look like an "eye sore" hatch from an econo-box:rolleyes:.

And referring to a few posts ago about the demographic of Camaro buyer, I was also a 20-year-old, post-college, just starting first "real" full-time job (while still living off Mom & Dad!:p) kid, with more money than brains, and I went out and bought a brand new 2002 Z28 :metal:. Don't rule out the 20-year-olds for buying the new 5th-gen ... especially the V6 version, which will most certainly be substantially cheaper on insurance than it's V8 big brother for under 25-year-olds.

And my 24-year-old impression is the concept hugely resembles the '69, while I can recognize very slight hints of other generations (round out the tail-lights, and they'd be '70-'73 look-a-likes) but I also see C6 resemblance, and Cadillac styling cues ..... none of these are bad things to me, and I do like the car. The very first picture I showed my Dad (former owner of a ... you guessed it ... 1969 Camaro SS:D) of the concept, and the first words out of his mouth were: that looks a lot like my old '69 ... spoken by a true veteran.

Anyway, enough rambling ... just more of my $.02!!!:D

If it's something that will fit thru the door, why not just open the door, slide the front seat forward and get it out that way?? That's what I always did. Not difficult at all.because i've moved stuff in mine that wouldn't fit thru the door.

hatchback>trunk.

I bought a new front door at Home Depot and brought it home in the Camaro. I'm not exactly proud, but I was surprised that it fit. It certainly wouldn't have fit in the Regal or the Bonneville...

I bought a new front door at Home Depot and brought it home in the Camaro. I'm not exactly proud, but I was surprised that it fit. It certainly wouldn't have fit in the Regal or the Bonneville...or a mustang or the 5th gen.

Also, flip the back seat down, and I've fit 4 tires (on rims) in the back of my car! AND, about 2 weeks ago, I had a couple 2 x 4's INSIDE the car, with the hatch CLOSED!!:thumb: ..... the only thing that would have made the car easier to load is if the opening of the hatch came down to the bumper level, like most cars with trunks do.

Id call 4 tires in the car practical. Are you suggesting the hatch should have been even bigger to extend to the bumper in the 4th gen? I thought the hatch was huge as it was. Who is ruling out the 20 yr olds?

Im really torn, because I dont like the cheap feel of a hatch and huge hole in the body but I like how much it opens it up and you can get in there. Even so I just think trunk with fold down seat would be higher quality, stiffer body, lighter car that doesnt have to be reinforced for it, better look and better ease of use.

Id call 4 tires in the car practical. Are you suggesting the hatch should have been even bigger to extend to the bumper in the 4th gen? .
no just the opening like this:


http://media.trafficdriver.com/evox/stilllib/scion/tc/2006/3co/49.jpg

What car is that??? :think:

no just the opening like this:


http://media.trafficdriver.com/evox/stilllib/scion/tc/2006/3co/49.jpg

That would have been a bigger hatch if the 4th was modified to add part of that back panel like that

What car is that??? :think:
scion tc.:dead:

That would have been a bigger hatch if the 4th was modified to add part of that back panel like thatbut it would make it sooo easy to use.

but it would make it sooo easy to use.

Easier to get stuff in and out yes, but bulkier hatch and a larger hole in the body that needs added support to compensate. kinda a double edge sword...

Easier to get stuff in and out yes,but i've heard the compaint that the "well" is too difficult to bend over and get stuff out of it and that would solve that.


i'm sure GM could find a solution for the chassis rigidity and not add a buch of weight either.

but i've heard the compaint that the "well" is too difficult to bend over and get stuff out of it and that would solve that.


i'm sure GM could find a solution for the chassis rigidity and not add a buch of weight either.

Im really hoping there wont be a "well" How could they not add a bunch of weight to compensate for a huge hatch? The rear quarter windows add 200lbs in added support. What would a hatch as big or bigger than the 4th gens add? Trunks are light small and if lined up properly you can close them with your fingertips.

What would a hatch as big or bigger than the 4th gens add? Trunks are light small and if lined up properly you can close them with your fingertips.
but all you would be doing is taking metal from one side to the other.

but all you would be doing is taking metal from one side to the other.

Then why are convertables heavier than their hard top counterparts?

Then why are convertables heavier than their hard top counterparts?
because the biggest thing that adds rigidity is gone.:confused:

because the biggest thing that adds rigidity is gone.:confused:

And its compensated by adding even more weight in terms of structural support to stiffen the body than was removed from the top. Same thing isnt it?.

And its compensated by adding even more weight in terms of structural support to stiffen the body than was removed from the top. Same thing isnt it?
No, because the top bar would still be there.

There is minimal, if any, structural support provided by the section of body located between the tail lights.

What's your concern with the actual size of the hatch, anyway? Is it just this perceived structural issue, or do you actually object to the size itself?

No, because the top bar would still be there.

There is minimal, if any, structural support provided by the section of body located between the tail lights.

What's your concern with the actual size of the hatch, anyway? Is it just this perceived structural issue, or do you actually object to the size itself?

Honestly, Personally What I object to most is the look. I perfer the look of a trunk with this particular car. I dont like the gaps that run up the side of the rear glass nor that they fill with leaves somehow... I like to pop open a trunk throw some bags in there with out opening the whole thing close it with little effort and go.

Also use and strength of the actual trunk itself. I think a trunk would be stronger and sturdier at the hinges not having that bulk as well as much easier to open and close not having the bulk of a full hatch on the hinges. A trunk lighter or at least less bulky than the hatch counterpart is easier to use I think. I do object to the actual size of the hatch not perceived because I have used it on my 98 Camaro. Speaking particularly about that 98 car, Had the size of that hatch increased more than it was it would have been unacceptable. I think it is cumbersome, and as I mentioned when the guy loaded my Flowmasters into the trunk he tried to push it closed and misaligned the hatch. Although he did force it closed, At the same time had the car been a trunk I dont think this would have happened, or at least not to the same degree. Speaking about the concept, its hard for me to tell how big it would be if it simply included the glass. Hatches work for the Vette but theyre seem smaller and fit that style. Ive never used a Vette hatch but Id imagine it would be similar to my 82 Rx7?