For those that say the Camaro concept isn't retro ...

There seems to be a whole lot of denial going on here about whether or not the Camaro's design is retro. Whenever someone mentions in a thread that the new Camaro is retro, lots of people spring up to insist otherwise, saying that it's a thoroughly modern (and possibly even futuristic!) design. So I thought I'd thought I'd present my reasons for calling it retro :)

When defending the 'modern' argument, some have said to look at the old and new side by side and you'll see they don't look very much alike. In another thread 95 Z/28 LT1 posted this pic:

http://hardenmotorsports.com/images/camaro_conceptsm.jpg

Well of course they don't look exactly alike; you could hardly expect a car made in 2008 to be a panel-by-panel copy of a 40 year old car. But to use the fact that the concept actually looks different than a 69 when compared side by side does not prove it's modern. So let's ponder this: is the VW New Beetle a retro design? Sure it is (or if you say it isn't, what the heck would you consider retro?). Here's a picture of the original and the new side by side.

http://picsorban.com/upload/beetles.jpg

Hmm ... looks like the same story all over again. In both cases the new car is sleeker, less upgright, with a bigger greenhouse. In both cases the new car's execution reflects the 21st century, with modern proportions, aerodynamics, wheels & tires, flush bumpers, etc. However that doesn't mean their overall theme is not retro. The New Beetle is clearly retro, and likewise so is the Camaro concept.

What makes the Camaro retro then? There are some design cues that are definitely from the 1960s, not the 2000s.
- long hood, short deck
- almost downward-sloping side windows
- blunt front end and flat, horizontal hood
- full width recessed grille
- headlights are recessed and not integrated into the body
- dog-leg C-pillar
- wasp-waist middle section
- haunches over the rear wheels
- small individual taillights placed well inboard of the edges

A modern car design just doesn't have these elements, or at least not more than one or two. Then there's the blatantly retro interior, but since that's likely to change in production we'll ignore it for now.

This led me to wonder why people are denying its retro-ness. I think that over time, as people become accustomed to something, they tend to normalize it and the impact of its more prominent elements become dulled. I think if everyone was honest with themselves they would agree that their very first thought upon seeing the leaked pictures last year was "retro". But then after you became used to the pictures your mind would start to make its own interpretations and filter the raw information differently. In a way you start to see what you want to see.

And finally for some objectivity, note that pretty much every publication that reported on the concept last January called it "retro". Even 8 months later articles about the Camaro are still calling it retro (e.g. here (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/driving/story.html?id=59c77fdc-4029-4946-bebf-12f780730513), here (http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2006-08-10-gm-camaro_x.htm), here (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=116461), and here (http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2006/8/emw418750.htm)). For the record, I cannot recall one instance where the word "futuristic" was ever used, then or now. When the majority of people (outside of a handful of die hard enthusiasts) think it's retro, you might want to give that some credence.

What makes the Camaro retro then? There are some design cues that are definitely from the 1960s, not the 2000s.
- long hood, short deck
- almost downward-sloping side windows
- blunt front end and flat, horizontal hood
- full width recessed grille
- headlights are recessed and not integrated into the body
- dog-leg C-pillar
- wasp-waist middle section
- haunches over the rear wheels
- small individual taillights placed well inboard of the edges


I would say that this list of items are the things that define that car as a Camaro..... Espescially the long hood short deck, and the hips or haunches.

I still have to disagree, the Camaro is a modern muscle car. Your list of items does not make it retro, it only reaffirms that the car is what a Camaro should be.

consider this... the 4th gen clearly had alot of the same traits that 3rd gens had... so was the 4th gen retro?

The new Corvette used cues from past generations... is it Retro?

consider this... the 4th gen clearly had alot of the same traits that 3rd gens had... so was the 4th gen retro?

The new Corvette used cues from past generations... is it Retro?

No because the 4th gen was an evolution of the 3rd gen. Hell it was basically a streamlined 3rd gen.

The 5th gen is retro because it jumps back 3 generations (37 years) for the bulk of its design cues.

Evolution:
1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations.
2. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

[QUOTE=danno02SS]No because the 4th gen was an evolution of the 3rd gen. Hell it was basically a streamlined 3rd gen.[QUOTE]


That's funny because the 3rd gen had a lower drag co-effecient than the 4th gen.

I would say that this list of items are the things that define that car as a Camaro..... Espescially the long hood short deck, and the hips or haunches.

I still have to disagree, the Camaro is a modern muscle car. Your list of items does not make it retro, it only reaffirms that the car is what a Camaro should be.



Bingo

I feel the car is definetly retro to a degree, although I like how GM uses a lot of Vette cues in the car, as well as a few borrowed design themes from the F/A-22 Raptor.

ok i usually dont post much i just lurk but i got a question.... and want to be proved wrong.... but not just told i am wrong... someone..... anyone.....please show me design cues of the concept camaro that are from other generations of the camaro.... and when i mean prove please compair them side by side in pictures.. whatever it takes to prove your point....

it is not that i do not like the concept. to tell you the truth i love the car. i have already talked to my local dealer..... i am first in line to order my camaro when they become available (and i didnt have to put down any money sales manager is a very close friend of the family for 25 years or more :) ) but i will say that i completely agree with R377 flame me if you will but the Concept camaro is just as retro as the Beetle is , or the 2001 Thunderbird was, or the 2007 Toyota FJ Cruiser is now ... it directly pulled 90 percent or more of the styling cues from the 67-69 camaro

no it is not an exact copy.. (we leave that to the people at dodge) but you can tell where it came from... but like i said if you think i am wrong dont tell me please act as if i have a learning disablity and show me why i am wrong

How many more post are gona come up with people saying "Its RETRO!@!@!@!"


Its not, GM said its not, Jay Leno said its not...98% of the forum says its not. What else do people need?

Wow, if Jay Leno says it is not retro, then it must not be retro.:rolleyes:
I didn't realize 98% of this forum took that stance. Where have I been?

I would say that this list of items are the things that define that car as a Camaro..... Espescially the long hood short deck, and the hips or haunches. exept the fact that 20 years out 35 it didn't have those traits.

Wow, if Jay Leno says it is not retro, then it must not be retro.:rolleyes:
I didn't realize 98% of this forum took that stance. Where have I been?
:bow:

yes we have confirmed that Jay Leno is the god of cars...

R377 i hope you dont mind if i jack you thread a little and try and get some answers...

lets all not use the word retro anymore that causes to may conflicts around here (kinda like using the word bomb near or within 30 miles of an airport you say that word and the $hit will hit the fan) so retro is out of the question.

but R377 did show a direct compairsion between 2 sets of cars the camaros in question and the Beetle as an example.. Can anyone else show a side by side with the Concept Camaro in one picture and a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th gen Camaro in another and show how they are the same? or how the previous generations influenced the the Concept

Dude(s),
it's retro.

Just about every line on the car is *inspired* by the '69. That's not to say the form was copied verbatim (like Dodge and Ford *tried* to do but only managed to make sterilized versions of their old warhorses). Does it look modern? Sure. Does it look great? I think so. But it's abundantly obvious EXACTLY what car was the inspiration, down to the year.

If you like it fine and if you don't like it fine, but why live in denial?

Funny thing is that with the 350Z, lotsa people WANTED more retro, and the 350Z defenders would try to argue that it was in some ways.

There seems to be a whole lot of denial going on here about whether or not the Camaro's design is retro. Whenever someone mentions in a thread that the new Camaro is retro, lots of people spring up to insist otherwise, saying that it's a thoroughly modern (and possibly even futuristic!) design. So I thought I'd thought I'd present my reasons for calling it retro :)

When defending the 'modern' argument, some have said to look at the old and new side by side and you'll see they don't look very much alike. In another thread 95 Z/28 LT1 posted this pic:

http://hardenmotorsports.com/images/camaro_conceptsm.jpg

Well of course they don't look exactly alike; you could hardly expect a car made in 2008 to be a panel-by-panel copy of a 40 year old car. But to use the fact that the concept actually looks different than a 69 when compared side by side does not prove it's modern. So let's ponder this: is the VW New Beetle a retro design? Sure it is (or if you say it isn't, what the heck would you consider retro?). Here's a picture of the original and the new side by side.

http://picsorban.com/upload/beetles.jpg

Hmm ... looks like the same story all over again. In both cases the new car is sleeker, less upgright, with a bigger greenhouse. In both cases the new car's execution reflects the 21st century, with modern proportions, aerodynamics, wheels & tires, flush bumpers, etc. However that doesn't mean their overall theme is not retro. The New Beetle is clearly retro, and likewise so is the Camaro concept.

What makes the Camaro retro then? There are some design cues that are definitely from the 1960s, not the 2000s.
- long hood, short deck
- almost downward-sloping side windows
- blunt front end and flat, horizontal hood
- full width recessed grille
- headlights are recessed and not integrated into the body
- dog-leg C-pillar
- wasp-waist middle section
- haunches over the rear wheels
- small individual taillights placed well inboard of the edges

A modern car design just doesn't have these elements, or at least not more than one or two. Then there's the blatantly retro interior, but since that's likely to change in production we'll ignore it for now.

This led me to wonder why people are denying its retro-ness. I think that over time, as people become accustomed to something, they tend to normalize it and the impact of its more prominent elements become dulled. I think if everyone was honest with themselves they would agree that their very first thought upon seeing the leaked pictures last year was "retro". But then after you became used to the pictures your mind would start to make its own interpretations and filter the raw information differently. In a way you start to see what you want to see.

And finally for some objectivity, note that pretty much every publication that reported on the concept last January called it "retro". Even 8 months later articles about the Camaro are still calling it retro (e.g. here (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/driving/story.html?id=59c77fdc-4029-4946-bebf-12f780730513), here (http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2006-08-10-gm-camaro_x.htm), here (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=116461), and here (http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2006/8/emw418750.htm)). For the record, I cannot recall one instance where the word "futuristic" was ever used, then or now. When the majority of people (outside of a handful of die hard enthusiasts) think it's retro, you might want to give that some credence.

just seems to me like it a lesser degree of retro which GM calls Heratiage. Same with the Vette. There was a car that was more true to the 69 which got axed last minute because somewhere along the line Retro became a dirty word to GM. Noone is arguing that its not 69 inspired and Im glad it is. But its not the pure retro the Mustang, Challenger or the Camaro that got axed last minute in favor of the final concept was. The car has inspiration from Caddies today. Call it what you will.

Oh btw, if you think a 69's or the 5th gen's front is flat you really havent looked at them...

This contradicts a few things i've said in the past, but after looking at the two side by side pics...both examples are 99% similar.

Reiterating points made...this fact makes the car retro, Its heavily based off the 69...NOT an 02....that certainly is not evolution.

BUT, i love the car, heritage cues, retro, modern...i really don't care what i call it. It looks like a Camaro, its rwd, its gonna be fast...thats all i expect.

That's funny because the 3rd gen had a lower drag co-effecient than the 4th gen.
Drag co-efficients have surprisingly little to do with how a car looks. The 4th gen undeniably looked more streamlined than the third gens, regardless of their actual numbers. Another good example that always sticks out in my mind is the old Eagle Premiere had a better co-efficient of drag than the 1st gen Taurus, despite the Taurus being hyped as an aero car and the Premiere looking like a brick.

Besides, this thread is concerned with looks, not what a wind tunnel says.

How many more post are gona come up with people saying "Its RETRO!@!@!@!"

Its not, GM said its not, Jay Leno said its not...98% of the forum says its not. What else do people need?

GM might be a little biased here, do you think? Car makers spin things the way they think they need to be spun, truth be damned (e.g. I recall GM saying the Monte Carlo was a legitimate competitor to Mustang). Hopefully you're not naive enough to always take them at their word. And this forum is populated with car nuts that might not also be seeing things entirely objectively.

Go back to my original post where I referenced a bunch of mainstream media articles that called the car "retro". And then search through some websites on your own. People with no stake in the car, be it financial or emotional, are likely to be more honest. And they are calling it retro.

I dunno, I see the Beetle comparison as a REAL stretch. The new Beetle isn't retro to me - it's trying to cash in on all the folks who loved the original, but I don't see it as retro. Challenger is retro. Mustang is retro. PT Cruiser is retro. HHR is retro. SSR is retro. To me, retro is trying to make a new car look exactly like an old car. Some examples are closer than others (Challenger vs. Mustang for example). Simply borrowing styling features doesn't make a car retro - it genuinely is heritage - it's as close to DNA as an inanimate object has. Nissan's 350z is a new car, but it's not retro because every feature it borrows has been modernized. The Camaro concept to me isn't retro because the things it borrows have all been modernized.

Just my opinion.......

What does retro even mean? That's what will really determine whether or not these vehicles are retro:

Chevrolet Camaro
Chevrolet Corvette
Chevrolet HHR
Chevrolet SSR
Chrysler 300
Chrysler PT Cruiser
Dodge Challenger
Dodge Charger
Ford GT
Ford Mustang
Ford Thunderbird
Jaguar S-Type
Jeep Commander
Jeep Liberty
Jeep Wrangler
Mini Cooper
Nissan 350Z
Pontiac Solstice
Porsche 911
Toyota FJ Cruiser
VW Beetle

Mustang = copy of original
Challenger = copy of original
Camaro = retro design

The Camaro is a retro design. The Challenger and Mustang I consider to be copies of the original. there is a difference.

The only cars I've ever seen where I look at it and immediately think "retro" is the new Challenger and the most recent Thunderbird.

Common design cues and consistent proportions do not make a car "retro".

i love the car, heritage cues, retro, modern...i really don't care what i call it. It looks like a Camaro, its rwd, its gonna be fast...thats all i expect.

+1 :cool:

David

http://www.firewheelclassics.com/images/Photo_Gallery/kevinp3.jpg
http://www.automobilemag.com/auto_shows/naias_2006/0602_naias_z+2009_chevrolet_camaro_concept+rear_vi ew.jpg

Idunno fellas, its definately inspired by the 1st gen.

Its definatly NOT a recopy thats been run around the rough edges.

I really like it. I also really liked the heavily A&S drawing I saw on here, but have never seen again. Did we ever get pictures of the finalists that GM was looking at before picking this one.

Common design cues and consistent proportions do not make a car "retro".

They are if those general cues and proportions only match a car design that was made from 1967 to 1969.

It is not the evolution of the 4th gen, it is the evolution of the 1st gen. We are moving back nearly 40 years for the design.

The only other vehicle that it resembles as a whole is a '67-69 Camaro.

HOW IS THAT NOT RETRO!?!?!?!

Somebody needs to properly define retro first of all:

Retro- \Retro-\ [L. retro, adv., backward, back. Cf. Re-.]

Involving, relating to, or reminiscent of things past; retrospective:

A prefix or combining form signifying backward, back; as, retroact, to act backward; retrospect, a looking back.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

OK, so it RELATES TO, and is REMINISCENT of things past. It LOOKS BACK, and it SIGNIFIES BACKWARD!! 40 years backward. I'm not saying they are going backward, but their design is clearly taken from the past. It has slight cues from other cars, but it's entire shape and proportion is without a doubt 1st gen Camaro.

BY DEFINITION it is retro, so anyone who disagrees, whether it's Jay Leno, or GM themselves, is basing their opinion on just that, opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

It is retro. This is not based on opinion, but fact.

I'll say its retro because it takes some lines and styling cues from the past ie... 1st gen f-body. If you want one get in line if not. Then buy something else.

I'm still going to buy a Vette unless/if we can get a 500 horse Camaro (weight is an issue too) for the price of a C6. But in reality I'm trying for the Z06 or a fully modded vette anyways, so the camaro is probably not going to happen for me.

This contradicts a few things i've said in the past, but after looking at the two side by side pics...both examples are 99% similar.

Reiterating points made...this fact makes the car retro, Its heavily based off the 69...NOT an 02....that certainly is not evolution.

BUT, i love the car, heritage cues, retro, modern...i really don't care what i call it. It looks like a Camaro, its rwd, its gonna be fast...thats all i expect.


Its not 99% similar. Its 75% similar. Youre spliting hairs. The car that was 99% similar got the axe in favor of the concept because the original was too retro, and Im sure if it made it there would be a ton of complaints here. It is retro, to a lesser degree with futuristic ques thrown in.

The ironic thing is the only thing people truely disagree on in this thread it exact percise definitions. What is the point?

Retro- \Retro-\ [L. retro, adv., backward, back. Cf. Re-.]

Involving, relating to, or reminiscent of things past; retrospective:

A prefix or combining form signifying backward, back; as, retroact, to act backward; retrospect, a looking back.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

OK, so it RELATES TO, and is REMINISCENT of things past. It LOOKS BACK, and it SIGNIFIES BACKWARD!! 40 years backward. I'm not saying they are going backward, but their design is clearly taken from the past. It has slight cues from other cars, but it's entire shape and proportion is without a doubt 1st gen Camaro.Sure, if you strictly follow that definition than every car I listed is retro. But then again, what car wouldn't involve, relate to, or be reminiscent of things past? Even the new Camry would be retro. Surely there needs to be a little more qualification of the term as it relates to auto design.

...
HOW IS THAT NOT RETRO!?!?!?!
...
Okay, look at it this way.

Almost every car that has ever lasted through more than one generation has carried at least one design cue from one generation to the next.

So does that mean that every not-first-generation car is retro? Is the Porsche 997 retro because it looks a lot like the 996? Is the C6 Corvette retro because it retains the old-school quad-taillight design? Where do we draw the line?

Given that viewpoint, for a car to really be considered retro, it needs to be more reminiscent of one or more past generations than the norm.

I think that the Concept does an excellent job of incorporating the best of all four previous generations of Camaros while still looking futuristic, and I do not feel like it is more reminiscent of past generations than the norm.

Therefore, I am comfortable and confident in my claim that the 5th gen is not retro.

The point is its not 99% similar. Its 75% similar. Youre spliting hairs. The car that was 99% similar got the axe in favor of the concept because the original was too retro, and Im sure if it made it there would be a ton of complaints here. It is retro, to a lesser degree with futuristic ques thrown in.

The ironic thing is the only thing people truely disagree on in this thread it exact percise definitions. What is the point of this?

Exactly. I think everyone needs to realize and just accept that it is retro by definition. It is the degree of retro that is causing the fuss. As stated, it is not 99%, or that wouldn't be retro at all, that would be a REPLICA, or a REPRODUCTION. It is in fact retroactive in design.

Retro is not Replication, nor is it Reproduction. It also does not rule out evolution. A car can be evolutionary, even futuristic, and still be retro.

Let's just call it 'Modern Retroactive Evolution'. :cool:

Retro is not Replication, nor is it Reproduction. It also does not rule out evolution. A car can be evolutionary, even futuristic, and still be retro.
Please respond to my post. :)

I look just like my grandfather. Am I retro? :p

For those of you that are really on the ball, no, it's not the grandfather I posted a picture of the other day.

Sure, if you strictly follow that definition than every car I listed is retro. But then again, what car wouldn't involve, relate to, or be reminiscent of things past? Even the new Camry would be retro. Surely there needs to be a little more qualification of the term as it relates to auto design.

I think I qualified it fairly comprehensively in the remainder of the post. As a a whole, in it's entirety, as a single entity, the 5th Gen Camaro ONLY resembles the 1st gen Camaros. It has barely any cues from subsequent generations. It does not look like any Camaro from the 70's, 80's, 90's, or 00's. Prove to me that it shares one panel shape from another generation. Beside the quad taillights ('70-'73), there is hardly evidence at all.

More if it resembles the 1st gen then any other. That design is 40 years old.

That makes it retro.

Would the Challenger be considered Retro?? yes... out of the 3 ponies... the CHALLENGER is the most retro of them all. Why.. well, ask yourself this question.. if we were back to the late 60's and you see the CHALLENGER concept pass by.. while a bunch of other challenger are going by and you are a casual person (not a motor head) would it really stand out?????

Now.. the Mustang... same thing applies.. it travels back to the late 60's and it would stand out more than the other mustangs??? yes.. but not by much to the casual person.

Now.. the Camaro Concept.. that thing WOULD stand out like a sore thumb. Te camaro Concept belongs more in the future than any the other ponies.

Okay, look at it this way.

Almost every car that has ever lasted through more than one generation has carried at least one design cue from one generation to the next.

So does that mean that every not-first-generation car is retro? Is the Porsche 997 retro because it looks a lot like the 996? Is the C6 Corvette retro because it retains the old-school quad-taillight design? Where do we draw the line?

Given that viewpoint, for a car to really be considered retro, it needs to be more reminiscent of one or more past generations than the norm.

I think that the Concept does an excellent job of incorporating the best of all four previous generations of Camaros while still looking futuristic, and I do not feel like it is more reminiscent of past generations than the norm.

Therefore, I am comfortable and confident in my claim that the 5th gen is not retro.

Since you asked, I'll respond. :)

Regarding the Porsche and Corvette. Sure, there are retro cues all over them. I believe the reason that they are not labeled as retro, is because their design has continued to evolve on the same basic shape and production was never ceased. Their basic shapes remain today. There was a continual cycle of 'modernization' and subtle changes over the years. You can clearly see the lineage if you lined them all up from 1st year to present.

To sum it up this way. The VW Beetle was designed by Ferdinand Porsche, and the original 911 was based on the same platform and designs. The Porsche stuck around, but evolved. The Beetle stopped (in the US, and even the Mexican car was not redesigned).

Do we call the Beetle retro? Yes. Why, because it's production was ceased, then it was re-incarnated with a design that clearly harkens back to it's original.

Conversely, do we call the 911 retro? No, we call it 'Classic'. Why? Because it's production never stopped.

The 5th Generation Camaro is a car that saw a period of no production, much like the Beetle, even the Thunderbird, etc. It is brought back to life not looking like the next revision of the most recent design, but rather, a revision of the very first design, some 40 years hence.

So I think if we call something retro, that means it relates closer to something from the past, than it does from the present, especially if that of which it resembles was not it's most recent design.

So what if it is "retro" ???? I will buy it b/c it looks great & will go fast & it's a Camaro.

Conversely, do we call the 911 retro? No, we call it 'Classic'. Why? Because it's production never stopped.

The 5th Generation Camaro is a car that saw a period of no production, much like the Beetle, even the Thunderbird, etc. It is brought back to life not looking like the next revision of the most recent design, but rather, a revision of the very first design, some 40 years hence.
By that logic, the current Impala should be considered retro.

By that logic, the current Impala should be considered retro.

How so? Was it brought back looking just like a '58 Chevy?

How so? Was it brought back looking just like a '58 Chevy?
You said that Beetle and Thunderbird were retro because production stopped and then came back.

Regarding the Porsche and Corvette. Sure, there are retro cues all over them. I believe the reason that they are not labeled as retro, is because their design has continued to evolve on the same basic shape and production was never ceased. Their basic shapes remain today. There was a continual cycle of 'modernization' and subtle changes over the years. You can clearly see the lineage if you lined them all up from 1st year to present.


I think that's the important point. Each generation of the Vette or 911 evolved from the previous one, taking small steps and mostly keeping up with current design trends while still maintaining some defining cues. No generation did a 180 and started all over again from its 1st gen.

Camaro was doing a great job of this up until the 5th gen concept. Third gens were a wonderful improvement over 2nd gens and were among the best looking sporty cars of the 80s (along with the C4 and Fiero). The fourth gen was a perfect evolution of that design, taking it cleanly into the 90s and was again one of the best looking sporty cars on the planet. But the evolution clearly stopped there. There is no possible way you could say the concept is an evolution of the 4th gen. It went back to the 1st gen, and is therefore unequivocally retro.

NICE WORK R377! I coudn't have said it better myself! No one can dispute your arguement - case closed.

You said that Beetle and Thunderbird were retro because production stopped and then came back.

I said: "The 5th Generation Camaro is a car that saw a period of no production, much like the Beetle, even the Thunderbird, etc. It is brought back to life not looking like the next revision of the most recent design, but rather, a revision of the very first design, some 40 years hence."

They were brought back looking very similar to their first generation design. The fact that they were out of production only bolsters the idea of being retro, but admittedly, isn't much of an argument on it's own merits because the Mustang never ceased production, and many would state that the '05's are retro as well.

The Thunderbird was made for years after the '55-57's. Though, none after that looked like those years. The latest car looked like a 1st gen Thunderbird. It didn't look like the latest evolution of the early '90's 'bird! Same with the Camaro. It doesn't look like that latest version of the 2002's. In fact, it doesn't share ANY visual cues from that car, I would argue. Rather, it gets the majority of it's design from the 1st gens.

To me, that qualifies it as retro.

I think we can agree to disagree! :cool:

There is no possible way you could say the concept is an evolution of the 4th gen.
The concept is an evolution of the 4th gen.

http://homepage.mac.com/jakerobb/pictures/camaros.jpg

Don't get me wrong -- it has a LOT in common with the 1st-gen, and I do believe that that was a deliberate move on GM's part. I still don't feel like the car is retro.

The concept is an evolution of the 4th gen.

http://homepage.mac.com/jakerobb/pictures/camaros.jpg

Don't get me wrong -- it has a LOT in common with the 1st-gen, and I do believe that that was a deliberate move on GM's part. I still don't feel like the car is retro.


How so? I don't see a single similarity. Just because it's painted silver, doesn't make it similar. Not a single, solitary, remote aspect of the 4th gen is present in that car. Not the shape of the fenders, doors, quarters, front fascia, grille, lights, mirrors, a pillar, b pillar, roof, trunk, tail lights, or anything. Not a single component. Not the shape, silohuette, nada zippo.

That's my opinion on it. By all means, point out the similarities for us to understand.

Show us what you mean, explain it to me, just don't tell me your opinion.

The concept is an evolution of the 4th gen.

Don't get me wrong -- it has a LOT in common with the 1st-gen, and I do believe that that was a deliberate move on GM's part. I still don't feel like the car is retro.

To me, each generation in that picture gets more modern, more in tune with the contemporary design themes of its time. Then the 5th gen comes along and whoooaaaa, wayback machine!

Or look at it this way: which generation was on the trailer with the concept at the Chrysler preview? Not a 4th gen. Why? Because that's not what it evolved from.

Point out the similarities? Okay, I'll give that a shot. In no particular order:

1. Wheel design.
2. Wheel placement (wheels have moved closer to the corners of the car with each gen, with the exception of the third gen front wheels)
3. Back half of the profile (including roof, glass, and spoiler/lip) this has been largely unchanged for all five generations, with the hatchback coming and then going)
4. The death of the lip spoiler.

I'll try to come up with more later.

Or look at it this way: which generation was on the trailer with the concept at the Chrysler preview? Not a 4th gen. Why? Because that's not what it evolved from.
Or maybe because classic muscle is just cool. Why assume?

Unless you're Rick Wagoner or Bob Lutz or someone else at GM who actually made that decision, you shouldn't be making statements like that.

The people that DESIGNED the car don't think it's retro. How's that for evidence?

Point out the similarities? Okay, I'll give that a shot. In no particular order:

1. Wheel design.
2. Wheel placement (wheels have moved closer to the corners of the car with each gen, with the exception of the third gen front wheels)
3. Back half of the profile (including roof, glass, and spoiler/lip) this has been largely unchanged for all five generations, with the hatchback coming and then going)
4. The death of the lip spoiler.

I'll try to come up with more later.

1. Are you serious? Wheel design? That has nothing to do with the design of the car!!

2. The wheel placement is considerably further out than any prior generation. The 4th gen had just as much overhang as the 2nd and 3rd's.

3. The 4th gen was a hatchback with a huge rear window, and had no rear quarter windows. The 5th gen has what appears to be a trunk, with a significantly less sloping rear glass, and DOES have rear quarter windows. The B pillars are not even close to resembling one another.

5. Lip spoiler? That has nothing to do with it's design. That is an accessory, or part of a body kit. Those are add-ons...and who's to say the 5th gen won't have one, or one available? It lends itself to one, just like the 1st gen.


You are really, really reaching on this one. ;)

1. Are you serious? Wheel design? That has nothing to do with the design of the car!!
I wholeheartedly disagree. If I were a car designer and wanted my car to look a bit retro, I would have gone with something more like Torque Thrusts. I feel that wheels have a lot of influence on the overall character of a car, and the wheels (and the Concept as a whole) do not evoke 1969 in my mind at all.

2. The wheel placement is considerably further out than any prior generation. The 4th gen had just as much overhang as the 2nd and 3rd's.
But they rounded the corners of the 4th gen, making the wheels seem much closer to the front. Remember, we're talking about what the car looks like.

3. The 4th gen was a hatchback with a huge rear window, and had no rear quarter windows. The 5th gen has what appears to be a trunk, with a significantly less sloping rear glass, and DOES have rear quarter windows. The B pillars are not even close to resembling one another.
I said profile. Think of the silhouette of the car from the side. In the section I described, the 4th gen and the Concept look quite similar, aside from a change in the glass angle.

5. Lip spoiler? That has nothing to do with it's design. That is an accessory, or part of a body kit. Those are add-ons...and who's to say the 5th gen won't have one, or one available? It lends itself to one, just like the 1st gen.
Ignoring the fact that you can't count ;), they are part of the look of the car.

You are really, really reaching on this one. ;)
I have an opinion, and you asked me to defend it. I had five minutes. Give me more time to build a defense.

Or, just acknowledge that the car's actual designers agree with me and go on your merry way. :p

Or maybe because classic muscle is just cool. Why assume?

Unless you're Rick Wagoner or Bob Lutz or someone else at GM who actually made that decision, you shouldn't be making statements like that.

The people that DESIGNED the car don't think it's retro. How's that for evidence?

You are trying to make this into a war of opinions. GM doesn't want it to be called 'retro', even though it clearly is, because they don't want to be considered as Johnny come lately. Oh gee, the mustang did it, let's do it too...but let's try to convince people that we aren't copying them or Dodge. So, we'll build a modern interpretation of a '69 Camaro, but say it isn't retro. WTF? So, GM doesn't like that term. Too bad, it isn't their decision to make. It's the publics. Anyone in their right, and unbiased mind will compare this car to a 1st gen, and rightly so, since that is exactly what it looks like. It is retro.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!!

I'm out!

Anyone in their right, and unbiased mind will compare this car to a 1st gen, and rightly so
I agree with this statement, but I still don't think retro when I see the car. :shrug:

I think the reason is that it is a modern interpretation (your words) of the 1st gen.

Let me put it this way. I think it is far less retro than the '05+ Mustang and the Challenger concept. It's nowhere near as retro as the HHR or the Thunderbird.

If it were the only car doing a design throwback to the 50's and 60's, yeah, I might call it retro. But as I said in my original argument, you have to compare it against the norm. I think that the Concept is less retro than the norm, and I am therefore comfortable claiming that it is "not retro".

I really could care less if the design of the car meets somebody's definition of the word "retro". Half of the people will say it is, half won't. I'm just glad that it looks awesome and that I will be able to buy one again. I wouldn't mind hearing that "retro" exhaust note every morning on the way to work.

Let me preface this by saying I have not, and will not read this thread... So feel free not to read this.

However this very much needs to be an, "Agree to disagree" sort of situation.

As stated above the cars shape is what a Camaro and any muscle car should be, long hood, small green house, short rear deck. Every gen has had that.

Neither the quarter window or that side vent make it a carbon copy of first gen. Second, every vehicle that has history enough to do so almost always mix and matches designs from various generations, that in it self does not make it retro.

Im not going to say that you absolutely cannot call it retro if you feel the need to, but compared to Mustang, or worse yet Challenger which are pure copies its the best of both worlds. Its identifiable with the best generations but is still very "new".

I can't believe no one pointed these out, i guess to be expected on a 4th gen site.

- Aside from the overhang, the concept and third gen front fenders are damn near identical. The flare and the door crease especially.

-Another interesting feature in that area is the angle of the recessed grille's outer lip at the fender merge. The 69 is straight up and down there, the concept has an angle just like the third gen headlight pocket.

- on the same note, the profile of the front of the 69 on the bottom is kinda like this
|
.\___
The thirdgen front end and concept front end are more like
. /
|___

- The DEEPLY recessed headlights, while not square, evoke the headlight pockets of the thirdgen and LT1 cars with their large flat surface under the headlight. Unless you've owned a thirdgen maybe you can't relate, but the first thing i thought when i saw the front was, wow, glad you don;t have to push the fascia out of the way to get to a screw to change your sealed beam anymore. The first gen, while recessed, doesn't look as 'shielded' as the concept and pocket headlight cars to me.

- Also note that not only does the 69 not have front wheel flares, it also does not have rear wheel flares. The concept flares match the thirdgen flares IMO.

Lots of third gen in there. Which I suppose still supports the retro arguement, if they threw out 4th gen. :cool:


Hell, 4th gens are ugly, and I drive one. If you want a Corvette get one. :shrug:

I think the reason is that it is a modern interpretation (your words) of the 1st gen.

The Challenger concept is a modern interpretation of the original Challenger. It is also very retro. People here are trying to pick their words carefully enough that they don't accidently identify the 5th gen with direct retro terminology, and it is getting kind of ridiculous in my opinion.

I can't believe this thread! LOL! Wow! Everyone is splitting hairs. The Camaro is retro, end of story. Why are so many in denial about it?

LOL. I think its a cool looking car that is obviously a Camaro - no doubting it for anything else. From my perspective, this line fits the car best: "a modern interpretation of the 1st gen".


Whether or not that makes it "retro" is open for debate. But boy....some of ya'll are REALLY ate up on how this little detail is just like that little detail from this year - thus its a (insert gen here) retro design!

I agree with this statement, but I still don't think retro when I see the car. :shrug:

I think the reason is that it is a modern interpretation (your words) of the 1st gen.

Let me put it this way. I think it is far less retro than the '05+ Mustang and the Challenger concept. It's nowhere near as retro as the HHR or the Thunderbird.

If it were the only car doing a design throwback to the 50's and 60's, yeah, I might call it retro. But as I said in my original argument, you have to compare it against the norm. I think that the Concept is less retro than the norm, and I am therefore comfortable claiming that it is "not retro".

I agree with you on this. I agree that definitions are open to interpretation, as is this car. I do also strongly agree that this car is very modern. :cool:

I think it conveys a blurry line of retro vs modern and does such a damn good job of it, that it will ultimately be left up to the buyer of the car to feel about it how they will. If a guy like me wants retro, I feel that I get that in this car. If my buddy wants a car that's very modern, I'm sure he would feel that he gets that out of this car as well. That's part of what makes it so appealing I think.

Personally, my passion is for the 1st gens...maybe that's why I'm so adamant because I'd like nothing more than a modern '69, and I feel that I'm getting that in this car. But, I also am glad that I'm getting something so modern at the same time. Regardless, this 'Modern Interpretation of a '69' is certainly going to end up in my garage!! :D

A long nose and a short rear deck has always meant Camaro. So has nimble handling and rwd V8 preformance. While there is heritage styling in the concept, there has been heritage styling with every generation of Camaro. As I've said in the past, there are 1st gen styling cues in the 4th gen... you just have to know where to look.

The new Camaro is far less "retro" than the current Mustang or the new Challenger. It has more C6 in it than 69 Camaro. Anyone that insists it is 100% retro is either short-sighted or blind.

In short... it aint retro. Go see it person. See it in person side-by-side with a 69 Camaro. If after doing so, you can still say "its retro" with a straight face, I'll give you the name of a good shrink. :D

I agree with you on this. I agree that definitions are open to interpretation, as is this car. I do also strongly agree that this car is very modern. :cool:
I'm glad we had this conversation. :)

I can't believe this thread! LOL! Wow! Everyone is splitting hairs. The Camaro is retro, end of story. Why are so many in denial about it?

I'm not in denial that it's retro. It obviously drew most inspiration from the first gen shape. However, i think people claiming the comncept is ONLY inpsired by the first gen are in worse denial than the non-retro crowd.

Why, easy. The non-retro crowd is splitting hairs over the definition of retro. A waste of time argument if ever there was one. But to say that there aren't any elements of other generations in it are truly wearing blinders.

my only $0.02 on the retro vs. non- argument is this. The new mustang and challenger (and beetle and tbird) ONLY look like 1 generation of their ancestors. The fact that the camaro blends more than one generation is what muddles the definition to some of us. I really don't care what you call it though so i'm dropping out on this...

All points are moot. GM made it and GM labeled it as "Heritage". Anything else in an opinion. :p

Seems to me that calling a car "Retro" is like calling a politician a "Liberal" -- everyone knows what it is, but nobody will fess up to it because of negative associations.

why does it matter whether or not it is "retro" or not? If you like it good, if you dont good. This thread is all opinions. Buy definition the 5th Gen is retro, heritage, evolution and every other thesaurus word that has to do with them. GM was not trying to make an exact copy of the1st gen but simply a sort of reencarnation of the 1st gen...modernized. It has small design cues from some of the prior generations and large ones from others. I really dont care...GM doesnt like the word "Retro" because ford used the word and if they use it then it would look like they are copying ford. Heritage and retro are very close to each other if you follow each word to there roots. IN MY OPINION, i love the 5th gen and will be right in line with the rest of you to buy one. With out a doubt the 5th gen carries on the distinguishability of the camaro. Just a quick question about retro.....would the Plymouth Prowler be considered retro because if its open wheels and sort of retro look?

All points are moot. GM made it and GM labeled it as "Heritage". Anything else in an opinion. :p
That kinda sounds like how Mercedes made a sedan that they called a "coupe". ;)

That kinda sounds like how Mercedes made a sedan that they called a "coupe". ;)
:lol: Yeah, WTF is up with that new "four-door coupe"?

That's like saying a girl is "ugly hot", or that it's "hot cold" outside. :mad:

It's almost as bad as "front-wheel-drive sports car". :p

The only people who don't call it retro are the people in the 5th gen forum here that are trying to convince the anti-retro crowd that this car is perfectly styled. Even GM recognizes that it's retro. If you think "heritage" styling is anything but a fancy term for the same ol' thing you're delusional. The rest of this message board calls it retro, the f-body email lists I'm on refer to it as retro, my general car buddies call it retro, ricers call it retro, the media calls it retro, the people in my office who don't have an automotive bone in their body say it looks like one of those old ones, the only place anybody tries (and puts lots of effort into doing so) to call it anything but retro is in this forum on this message board.

It's actually pretty remarkable. GM, like the people on this board, want to circumvent any possible negative remarks that some may have with the Camaro. They realize that there are actually people who aren't all that happy about retro styling. They coin the term "heritage styling" and BOOM all of a sudden it's not supposed to be retro.

Why is it that most of the people who are arguing that it is NOT retro the same guys that wanted the 5th gen to be retro???

This is only an issue here so it doesn't really matter. To the rest of the world this car is retro. Unfortunately a lot of people dig it but labelling it anything other that retro is not going to make it look any better to those of us who aren't impressed with retro styling.

The only people who don't call it retro are the people in the 5th gen forum here that are trying to convince the anti-retro crowd that this car is perfectly styled. Even GM recognizes that it's retro. If you think "heritage" styling is anything but a fancy term for the same ol' thing you're delusional. The rest of this message board calls it retro, the f-body email lists I'm on refer to it as retro, my general car buddies call it retro, ricers call it retro, the media calls it retro, the people in my office who don't have an automotive bone in their body say it looks like one of those old ones, the only place anybody tries (and puts lots of effort into doing so) to call it anything but retro is in this forum on this message board.

It's actually pretty remarkable. GM, like the people on this board, want to circumvent any possible negative remarks that some may have with the Camaro. They realize that there are actually people who aren't all that happy about retro styling. They coin the term "heritage styling" and BOOM all of a sudden it's not supposed to be retro.

Why is it that most of the people who are arguing that it is NOT retro the same guys that wanted the 5th gen to be retro???

This is only an issue here so it doesn't really matter. To the rest of the world this car is retro. Unfortunately a lot of people dig it but labelling it anything other that retro is not going to make it look any better to those of us who aren't impressed with retro styling.


Just to dispel the idea that only on the 5th Gen Boards are there people claiming they don't view it as 'retro' I just thought I'd mention that a number of people I've shown it to, while they can see the 1st Gen cues, consider it more modern than retro...

Just to dispel the idea that only on the 5th Gen Boards are there people claiming they don't view it as 'retro' I just thought I'd mention that a number of people I've shown it to, while they can see the 1st Gen cues, consider it more modern than retro...

OK.

Simple question.

Could you imagine a car design (in looks) like the 5th gen back in the late sixties?

That kinda sounds like how Mercedes made a sedan that they called a "coupe". ;)

Yeah, WTF is up with that new "four-door coupe"?

That's like saying a girl is "ugly hot", or that it's "hot cold" outside.

ACTUALLY, its not as contradictory as you might think. The original meaning of the terms "coupe" and "sedan" had nothing to do with the number of doors a car had.

It refers to the roofline. Mercedes is far from the "first" to make a four door coupe, in fact they were quite common in the sixties when the words retained their original meaning.

This is why there were Mustang sedans available, which looked like this...
http://svsrod.com/MEMCARS/IMAGES/mistyside.jpg

And Mustang coupes, which we all know and love, that had the signature fastback roofline, like this.

http://www.geocities.com/fordmustangpics3/1966_Ford_Mustang_GT_fastback.jpg

So by that definition, which is admittedly a bit archaic... Calling this a four door coupe is perfectly acceptable.

http://www.playerscarrental.com/Mercedes%20CLS.jpg

Especially considering there is essentially a sedan version available.

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/04/12/003811.4-lg.jpg

The more you know.

[/HIJACK]

I disagree. The original definition of a coupe is a carriage with two seats on the inside and one on the outside; its name derived from the fact that it looked like a normal carriage cut in half. As it refers to the car, the definition is more classically a closed 2 door automobile with front seats and a luggage compartment. It may also have the qualifier that the rear needs to slope back, but in any event in the strictest sense coupes were only two doors and they only have one row of seats (autos with rear seats were either club coupes or coupe devilles). Therefore, while you could have a 2 door that was a some sort of coupe or sedan, it was not possible to have a 4 door coupe.

I do agree that a sedan has never expressly had to be a 4 door. But even if you follow the silly SAE distinction between the types based on rear passenger compartment volume, the CLS is still a sedan. The ad wizzards are mislabeling the car based on the more sporty connotation of coupe as opposed to sedan.

Well, out nerded I see... :bow:

Mine has pictures though. :p

the SAE says coupe is a car with less than 33 cubic-feet of interior space..

that aint much.. it's possible to have a 2 door with more than that, and thus it'd be considered a sedan

but i don't think it's possible to have a 4 door with that little interior space

Mercedes calling the CLS a 4 door coupe is just a marketing ploy.. coupe sounds sportier than sedan

Well, out nerded I see... :bow:

Mine has pictures though. :p
Yeah I suppose I didn't win any points for presentation. It would seem though that the term "four door coupe" is in fact catching on and might become a class in it's own right.

the SAE says coupe is a car with less than 33 cubic-feet of interior space..
It's 33 cuft rear-interior space. I think the CLS is a little over that, although I couldn't find any solid numbers for the rear. It has 104cuft total interior space, fwiw. Apparently the RX-8 fits the SAE definition of sedan, from what I have read.

None of this has much to do with the 5th Gen except that technically the 3rd and 4th gens weren't coupes, and so that would make the 5th retro in that regard ;)

My grandfather just got one of the "four door coupes", (his is a special edition only 60 were brought to North America, 18" Wheels, Slotted and drilled rotors, hand sewn leather seats, and a bunch of other stuff) and to be honest it does kinda sit more like a coupe than a sedan, its low and sleek and the roofline is more like a coupe.

Just my .02 but I remember when the mustang concepts were first showing up, people on this site were bashing ford for the retro look, saying they ran out of ideals.. etc. etc etc. I even remember people saying chevrolet would never do that! I Love the car, every aspect. But i wont deny that it is a retro look! and i think that a lot of the people who say its not retro are the ones who were bashing the mustang concept a couple of years ago. and they cant admit that stlying cues are taken off the first gen camaro Just as much as the mustang was. Not trying to get flamed just speaking my opinion