NEWS: Camaro Convertible Revealed

By Ed Peper
North America Vice President, Chevrolet
A few months ago, we showed you some official “spy shots” of the pre-production version of the new Camaro coupe.
To say the least, response to that post was overwhelmingly enthusiastic – something that was extremely gratifying to all of us here at Chevrolet, who have been hard at work testing and retesting the Camaro development models.
As a reward for your interest – and your patience – here’s a sneak peak of the convertible version of the Camaro, which is also undergoing a similar evaluation as we ready it for full production later next year. (Preproduction models shown. Actual production models may vary.)

http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/camaro-1.jpg

http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/camaro-2.jpg

EDIT: Blown up, sharpened, brightened:

http://www.camaroz28.com/misc/convertible1.jpg
http://www.camaroz28.com/misc/convertible1.jpg

http://www.camaroz28.com/misc/convertible2.jpg
http://www.camaroz28.com/misc/convertible2.jpg

More... (http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives/2008/06/camaro_converti_1.html)

:drool: Dang!

Note the headlights.

Note the headlights.That was the first thing I noticed.

But I never expected it to look that good with the top up! :D

If you look REALLY close...you can see some interesting differences in the first pic compared to what you have seen so far. Subtle, but there...look VERY close since the pic is so small.

:bow::bow::bow:

I'm not a convertible fan, but that is a DAMN good-looking car. It's good that they kept the coupe's profile with the top up.

I notice that the fender flares look more pronounced. Looks good.

If you look REALLY close...you can see some interesting differences in the first pic compared to what you have seen so far. Subtle, but there...look VERY close since the pic is so small.
Are you talking about the foglamps and the front nose below the grill?

note the rear antenna and the bottom grille is larger than the concept.

I just blew the pics up, sharpened and lightened them and added them to the first post.

There also appears to be an accent line in between the headlights and foglights, towards the outer part of the front bumper.

Also, it's nice to see the REAL headlights. I like the "halo" effect.

Are you talking about the foglamps and the front nose below the grill?

...and adding to that small hash lines below the front fender parking lights . The front in general looks a bit different . I typically dont like verts when the top is up , but damn does that ever look good ...top up and all :cool:

Thank you team Camaro 1,000,000 fold for nailing the headlights , if those are production ....the projector and halo from the concept was what I wanted to see :yes::bow:

Now that you blew them up , the grill looks quite a bit bigger than weve seen ...is that just an illusion ?

Chrome/silver rear diffuser?! Interesting.

Am I the only one that wants a black convertible SS after seeing these photos? :D

There's the lip spoiler we've all been clamoring for.

The car looks phenomenal. If the interior & overall driving experience are up to the same standards then we have a real winner, even if she is a bit porky.

WOW:drool::drool::drool: Looks much better than i thought it would with the top up.

:bow::bow::bow:

I'm not a convertible fan, but that is a DAMN good-looking car. It's good that they kept the coupe's profile with the top up.

I notice that the fender flares look more pronounced. Looks good.


I agree 100%....I'm REALLY not a convertible fan...but that thing's sexy.

That can't be the Camaro looking that good. :thumb:

I will be owning one of these. I cannot wait until I get this Mustang paid off so it can be my track car and I can cruise in this thing.:D

What I notice different is that it says "mine" on the side! LOVE IT!:

That is the best looking Camaro I have ever seen!!!! I can't wait to see it parked on my driveway!

Now that you blew them up , the grill looks quite a bit bigger than weve seen ...is that just an illusion ?

I don't think it's an illusion. This looks more like the concept grille than the more "egg crate" grille we've seen on the mules. One grille for V6 and one for V8?

VERY nice looking car.

Bob

PS....headlights could be the old normal style, as far as I'm concerned. No big deal. :)

freakin sweet!

Grille is ugly, looks narrow and tall. Other than that it looks good. Headlamps look nice, but is that the park lamps at the edges of the grille or is it just smoothed out and reflecting the headlights?

Considering the shape of the roof, it's not hard to get it similarly shaped compared to the previous Camaro.

Very nice. I'm glad they nailed the headlights. I think the halo and projector beam combo are a really nice addition to the already great sheetmetal. I think it was something they had to do for this car. Convert looks great even with the top up. That's one way to delete the B-pillar.

to me...it is odd that we seem to be looking at a production convertible(probably), before the hard top though. can't wait to see some bigger, more clear pictures of it:thumb:

If you look REALLY close...you can see some interesting differences in the first pic compared to what you have seen so far. Subtle, but there...look VERY close since the pic is so small.

with the top down, i dont see the antenna, and top up, the antenna is there. That it?

its there with the top down...its just small so you can barely see it at that angle

:drool: Wow! Most verts just look a bit off like they were an afterthought. This car looks like it was made to be a rag top. Very nice.

Wow looks good even with the top down. I'm not usually a big convertable fan, but that car looks damn good top up or down. Well I was originally gonna be buying a hardtop with a sunroof but now.....:lol:

:drool: Just FREAKING AMAZING !!!! Thank you Mr. Ed Peper..... You made my weekend !!!!

It looks like it's ready to pounce on something and eat it.

I have GOT to get me one of those!

Where are those guys who kept on putting up the "Not the real headlights" animation? You guys should make a new one that says "These, yes, THESE are the real headlights"

are we just "assuming" that those are the production headlights or are they REALLY, officially the production headlights?

are we just "assuming" that those are the production headlights or are they REALLY, officially the production headlights?

A little disciple told me they are pretty darn close.........;) Perhaps another discipline might care to elaborote a lil more.......

A little disciple told me they are pretty darn close.........;) Perhaps another discipline might care to elaborote a lil more.......

that's what I wanted to hear.;)

:eek: :D:drool::drool::drool:Those are GREAT!!! I can't wait for the bigger ones to show up later. (just like GM's release of the coupe photos)

Absolutely amazing. Hands-down, 100% beautiful!:yes: Everyone involved in this thing (including the disciples) did an amazing job, thank you ALL!!!!!!

Now a question for Jason, or any disciple that wants to answer...how does that lower grille look in person? Good, bad, meh?

I love it with the top down......not so much with it up. Just like the Mustang.

I hate verts even more now :yuck:

OK I was board so I just tweak the photos a little

http://www.detroitolgy.com/camaro-1%20copy.jpg
http://www.detroitolgy.com/camaro-2%20copy.jpg

me likes.except for 1 problem...16 years ago (see i have not forgotten)..glen ellyn pontiac screwed me over on a new grand am (20% interest raping) and i have not been back on a gm lot since...i may give gm another chance due to how open gm has been with the camaro...look at challenger or mustang and what do we get..nothing (challenger is already a quality nightmare) and the ford bastrads are arrogant to say the least..so due to the actions of scott and others i may give gm a second chance..the vert looks great and i hope some of what is happening with cadillac rubs off on the chevrolet division...

Do the side glass (post b pillar) come off on convertibles? I've never paid any attention to any convertible by choice ever.

Do the side glass (post b pillar) come off on convertibles? I've never paid any attention to any convertible by choice ever.

usually they are power/roll down windows aren't they? seems like they are on other verts I have seen

Edit: Leftlane news REALLY blew the pics up(but really grainy). Click on the pics in this link and maybe someone can attempt to clean these up a little more. http://www.leftlanenews.com/chevrolet-camaro-convertible.html

thatll put it over 4000lbs.

thatll put it over 4000lbs.

verts are more of a cruiser type of car anyway , not typically used for drag/road racing so weight probably is not as much of an issue on them. I know some people will race them though anyway, and more power to them :thumb:

I cannot wait to see her up close now that the truck is paid off I can make double payments on the Suburban. I am still going to wait until the 2nd year but I will have a GMMG 5th Gen Convertible in my garage :) I am getting ready for a $700-$800 a month car payment :)

me likes.except for 1 problem...16 years ago (see i have not forgotten)..glen ellyn pontiac screwed me over on a new grand am (20% interest raping) and i have not been back on a gm lot since...

you're holding a grudge against all of GM because you were stupid enough to pay 20% interest on a grand am 16 years ago???? geeeeeezzzzzzzzzzz:rolleyes: Never going back to the same dealer I could understand, but dude, I think it's time to move on.

me likes.except for 1 problem...16 years ago (see i have not forgotten)..glen ellyn pontiac screwed me over on a new grand am (20% interest raping) and i have not been back on a gm lot since...i may give gm another chance due to how open gm has been with the camaro...look at challenger or mustang and what do we get..nothing (challenger is already a quality nightmare) and the ford bastrads are arrogant to say the least..so due to the actions of scott and others i may give gm a second chance..the vert looks great and i hope some of what is happening with cadillac rubs off on the chevrolet division...

wow! was it the dealer or could it have been you had credit issues or no credit to support a better rate. No that could it be it! It's not like the banks make the rates, it's got to the dealer that does it. :rolleyes:
Sound like someone doesn't take responsibilty for them selves.

That was the first thing I noticed.

But I never expected it to look that good with the top up! :D

My GOD, what a thing of beauty!!!

wow! was it the dealer or could it have been you had credit issues or no credit to support a better rate. No that could it be it! It's not like the banks make the rates, it's got to the dealer that does it. :rolleyes:
Sound like someone doesn't take responsibilty for them selves.

get me once shame on you..get me twice shame on me....credit problems.NO...responsibility..thats funny.......vert looks great..bmwesque....ill give em a 2nd chance solely through the actions of scott and a new inproved GM...it all depends on how the dealers wish to make attempt to screw me over....far as i am concerned dealers are the lowest form of scum on the earth...

Me Likey!!!!!! WOW

Is it safe to use this smiley yet...?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v61/aegis/reallights.jpg

Wow what a car. I was not really interessted in Vert's, but thats one sexy beast !

i think that is the first convertable i like with the top up... it just looks amazing either way... and i liked the fake headlights better than the concept, but i like these the best of all 3. Also i dont really se a spot for a bowtie like i have on some of the other mules running around, would there be a chance of having a bowtieless grill? that would take care of the color arguement...

Is it me or does the paint on this car look way better than all the other Camaros we've seen. Much glossier.
I like the subtle tweaks to the nose and the rear spoiler.

Is this a V-6 model, wih the more flush lower grille and smaller wheels?

I REALLY like this car. I think it's better than the coupe. And I also think it looks like a BMW, only better.

I'll take mine in Glacier Blue with white stripes and parchment interior.

...I haven't read every reply to this thread, ...but indeed there are a some nice things in these two photos ;)

My decisions just keep getting more complicated. Coupe? Vert? Coupe? Vert? ahhhhh!! :)

My decisions just keep getting more complicated. Coupe? Vert? Coupe? Vert? ahhhhh!! :)1 of each!

get me once shame on you..get me twice shame on me....credit problems.NO...responsibility..thats funny.......vert looks great..bmwesque....ill give em a 2nd chance solely through the actions of scott and a new inproved GM...it all depends on how the dealers wish to make attempt to screw me over....far as i am concerned dealers are the lowest form of scum on the earth...

Second chance? It's been 16 years, that's a long time and much has changed at GM. I think it's almost impossible to compare almost any vehicle to 16 years ago. Odds are even the best have gotten better as production tolerances and the abilty to tighten things up have improved. GM ranked very high in the last J.D. Power survey and the Canadian plant they are coming out of has been ranked tops for quality as well. As to the 20% rate issue, it does have to do with banks and not very much the dealer at all. In most states the dealer is capped at 1-2% above the buy rate. So, either you need to can be mad at yourself or the banks, but everyone slams the dealers and a lot of times it is not their fault, although there are some bad ones out there. Do your homework and find someone willing to give you a fair deal. "Getting screwed" has more to do with impatience and wanting the first one no matter what (i.e. Apple iPhone-see it's not just car dealers) than anything else. I am sure our fellow members can help with a good dealer in your area. In this day and age of the internet with pricing and forum feedback dealers are focusing more aware of the "word of mouth" ripples with regards to sales. Sorry for the rant everyone, but 9 times out of 10 I see "the dealers are bastards and they deserve nothing" in a thread. This usually comes from an event like above. 16 years ago? Get over it! Jesus!

get me once shame on you..get me twice shame on me....credit problems.NO...responsibility..thats funny.......vert looks great..bmwesque....ill give em a 2nd chance solely through the actions of scott and a new inproved GM...it all depends on how the dealers wish to make attempt to screw me over....far as i am concerned dealers are the lowest form of scum on the earth...

I would like to share a word of advice from someone who is familiar with the car business:

Secure a voucher < pre-approved loan terms up to a certain money amount > and THEN shop for your vehicle. The dealer will likely try to put you with a financial outfit who will BEAT the finance rate you have in your hand. Request your first payment be a soon as possible as it does reduce the total finance charges. Know your auto loan beacon score. If you are in the 500's you WILL be getting drilled on interest rate, 600's are moderately better, 725 and up is the "GOLDEN" zone, and above 800 you can expect the absolute BEST rates possible.
IOW, buying a car you will finance is 2 transactions ... the car and then the money, as you are buying both. Nothing says you can't shop the money first. Most folks don't, so they can get drilled. Also, a voucher is a preapproved loan which you have to pay only when you buy the car. You can let the dealer beat YOUR best money deal, and often they will.
Hope my opinion helps in some way.:cool:

I cant believe nobody hasn't noticed this, look at the hood! That looks more like a cowl hood and the opening is opened(functionable).Looking good:D

Same info is up on the Camaro home page too

http://www.chevrolet.com/camaro

The grill and front end overall looks incredibly cheap IMO. The car looks a lot more "toy-ish" than the concept does. Could be the angle though, because the side profile looks pretty good.

Same info is up on the Camaro home page too

http://www.chevrolet.com/camaro

says the pictures are still "pre-production" model...so nothing is finalized yet.

Dang. That thing looks awesome. I had pretty much decided on the coupe but that changes my mind. I know I'll be getting a 5th gen but thats about it. Color, trim level, body style. Its all up for grabs. That convertible looks sweet though. I guess the convertibles will be out for 2010 though huh.

I love the grille

No lid? Cheap GM, very cheap.

I call first dibbs when that sexy vehicle comes up used in a couple of years on Autotrader :D :yes:

gotts pay my thingy off first, then I will gets me that gorgeous convertible. I love the lip spoiler, grille, and that side profile is intoxicating :drool:

This next 12 months are so exciting to me... ZR1 soon, and then the beloved Camaro a few months after :metal:

The grill and front end overall looks incredibly cheap IMO. The car looks a lot more "toy-ish" than the concept does. Could be the angle though, because the side profile looks pretty good.

Pretty much how I see it as well, the wheels and it's stance(frt view) don't help either. The chin seems to have pretty much disaapeared(the area right under the lower grille that sticks out) and the lower grille extends further down. Might be 'cause it's the lower base model as the other spy shots are diff.

No B Pillar!!!

The grill and front end overall looks incredibly cheap IMO. and ugly. i know i'm in the minority but i like the the "autozone" lights better. and the grill =:barf:

No B Pillar!!!no roof either.;)

Pretty much how I see it as well, the wheels and it's stance(frt view) don't help either. The chin seems to have pretty much disaapeared(the area right under the lower grille that sticks out) and the lower grille extends further down. Might be 'cause it's the lower base model as the other spy shots are diff.

Yeah, I totally agree on the chin and stance. Its strange though, because I don't think the pictures we have been seeing of the pre-prod coupe reflect these negative aspects - the stance and front end look better.

I like the Halos

It looks pretty good but it also look very toy-esque and fat.

I don't know, I'm reserving final judgment until I see it in person and drive it.

Awesome post thanks...

Whats with the fake brakes AGAIN! gah lol

:drool:

It looks magnificent! That's sex on wheels.

Awesome post thanks...

Whats with the fake brakes AGAIN! gah lol
What are you talking about? That car is all real.

Pretty much how I see it as well, the wheels and it's stance(frt view) don't help either. The chin seems to have pretty much disaapeared(the area right under the lower grille that sticks out) and the lower grille extends further down. Might be 'cause it's the lower base model as the other spy shots are diff.

That's why I asked in an earlier post if this was a V-6 model.

I believe it is because it's not as aggressive as some of the other pre-pros we've seen.

Nice! Headlights are HUGE improvements and the convertible top looks like something off of Mercedes or BMW even though Im not usually a convertible person. I am disapointed the concept girlle made it over the mule grille but at least this one is black.

Very unimpressed with the front bumper, antenna on rear quarter, tiny spoiler, and the ghetto concept grill. The headlights are looking good though, (don't like turn signal placement much though) they should put them on the test cars already so dummies stop thinking they are the real lights all the time. ;) :)

Looking good! :cool:

Is it safe to use this smiley yet...?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v61/aegis/reallights.jpg

lol!

That's why I asked in an earlier post if this was a V-6 model.

I believe it is because it's not as aggressive as some of the other pre-pros we've seen.

I thought I've read that it was a V6, but now I can't find it...maybe I'm just imagining that part.

Anyways, it certainly looks like a V6 as the wheels/tires and height doesn't look performance oriented.

It also appears the fogs are further apart and the lower grille and upper grille area is larger.

If this is how the V6 is going to look, I must get the V8 to escape it. Maybe they will give it the V8 frt fascia w/ 20" wheels as an RS package for the DIV6.

That's gonna be an awesome donor for a Trans Am body kit. :)



Anyone know if the triangles behind the b-pillars are separate roll-down windows like mustangs use in their verts? b-pillars are fine for a coupe but look like @ss on a vert for this reason.

I'll keep my 4th gen vert thank you very much. If those b-pillar sections are fixed parts of the folding top I'll change my mind... but as it is now it'll require two more window motors (and we know how reliable those are) adding even more weight and worse, leading to idiots driving down the street with the rear pillars UP and the side windows down. No, I'm not kidding, mustang idiots do it all the time (and they look like clowns doing it).

Mark my words... those rear b-pillars will be Fiero headlights... in 10 years over half of them will be stuck in the up position for fear of breaking :p

Though I'm even more motivated now to add halo HID driving lights to the T/A's fog sections.

Good looking so far though (just ditch those b-pillars or find a way to fix them to the top).

I wonder if there was any thought given to a folding hard top? :)

That's gonna be an awesome donor for a Trans Am body kit. :)



Anyone know if the triangles behind the b-pillars are separate roll-down windows like mustangs use in their verts? b-pillars are fine for a coupe but look like @ss on a vert for this reason.

I'll keep my 4th gen vert thank you very much. If those b-pillar sections are fixed parts of the folding top I'll change my mind... but as it is now it'll require two more window motors (and we know how reliable those are) adding even more weight and worse, leading to idiots driving down the street with the rear pillars UP and the side windows down. No, I'm not kidding, mustang idiots do it all the time (and they look like clowns doing it).

Mark my words... those rear b-pillars will be Fiero headlights... in 10 years over half of them will be stuck in the up position for fear of breaking :p

Though I'm even more motivated now to add halo HID driving lights to the T/A's fog sections.

Good looking so far though (just ditch those b-pillars or find a way to fix them to the top).

I wonder if there was any thought given to a folding hard top? :)


I think you are getting a pillar confused with a glass. The "pillar" you are referring to is the qtr glass, pillars are fixed and is part of the structure of the vehicle.

That's gonna be an awesome donor for a Trans Am body kit. :)



Anyone know if the triangles behind the b-pillars are separate roll-down windows like mustangs use in their verts? b-pillars are fine for a coupe but look like @ss on a vert for this reason.

I'll keep my 4th gen vert thank you very much. If those b-pillar sections are fixed parts of the folding top I'll change my mind... but as it is now it'll require two more window motors (and we know how reliable those are) adding even more weight and worse, leading to idiots driving down the street with the rear pillars UP and the side windows down. No, I'm not kidding, mustang idiots do it all the time (and they look like clowns doing it).

Mark my words... those rear b-pillars will be Fiero headlights... in 10 years over half of them will be stuck in the up position for fear of breaking :p

Though I'm even more motivated now to add halo HID driving lights to the T/A's fog sections.

Good looking so far though (just ditch those b-pillars or find a way to fix them to the top).

I wonder if there was any thought given to a folding hard top? :)

no B pillars on this vert or the mustang verts. Weatherstripping though....

no B pillars on this vert or the mustang verts. Weatherstripping though....

ok true... so their isn't a PILLAR... just FOUR windows instead of 2, and an ugly black weather stripping. TomAto, ToMato. :)

Same issue... 4 windows, not 2.

I'm glad it has 4 windows.
The blind spot would be HUGE if it had just 2 windows.
Not to mention it would look goofy.

I'm glad it has 4 windows.
The blind spot would be HUGE if it had just 2 windows.
Not to mention it would look goofy.

Not as bad as it'll look with idiots driving aorund with the rear windows up and the top/side windows down.

I really think those windows should be linked to the top somehow, or at least to the top's switch. This way you don't need to roll down FOUR windows along with your top.

While I'm at it I'd like the convertible top to be either solenoid activated (instead of 2 lock handles like we have in the 4th gen) and EXPRESS DOWN on both windows instead of just the driver's side. I can't recall how many times I've had to hold down the slow ass passenger window switch along with the top switch... both should have an auto-down and auto-up function on them. This isn't rocket science... you only have so many fingers and so much patience...

If the express down/up on all windows and top isn't possible (I mean really, why do we pay $4000+ extra for an electric drop top and still have to perform the "switch ballet") at least put the windows and top switch in the same spot so we can hold down all the switches with one hand :rolleseyes:

If you havn't guessed by now I've done some work to my window switches in my 4th gen... and yes I'm looking at ways of doing an express up/down for the top as well.... maybe even a master switch to pulse all 3 circuits at once to get it to work like I want it to. Only catch is the 4th gen's top switch has a fairly unique switch and current path... it'll take some doing to get the relays working right (the pump is DC reversable... not hooked up to ground and the whole load goes through the switch... which I'm also not crazy about).

Anyway, for feedback whose driven both 4-window and 2-window covnertibles for some time, I can tell you the 2-window option is a vastly superior design for ergonomics and experience. Just wish we had express-down everything to do it right. (and maybe a solenoid to lock/unlock the top instead of 2 manual releases).

No offense but the 4th gen window crap was probably designed in 91 or 92 (windows and motors).

I bet the new window motors won't even come from the same supplier.

Its easily been 17 years...

My wifes 02 sebring convertible had all windows auto down when the top went down. It was a really nice feature.

Well there is that, but the 4th gen's main problem was the weight of the large window. A larger motor would have been perfect, but I'm told the same motor in a Surburban whips teh windows up and down in no time flat. It's a matter of cost (using a cross-platform motor design saves a lot of cost compared to a 1-off unit).

I personally wonder why the 5th gen's doors don't go as far back though. Obviously a larger single window per side is more astheticly pleasing, and would seem more cost effective (less windows, less motors, less harness, etc...), but I wonder if its an issue regarding the rear suspension. The 4th gen's solid-rear axle makes for few shock tower requirements other than a spring perch and shock mount (and you can even elliminate the spring perch on the chasis and rear end if converting to a coil-over), but a IRS would obviously need mounts for an upper A-arm as well... which would seem to require a bit more wheel well area. One of the advantages of large flared rear fenders, but at the sacrifice of a slightly shorter door and as a consequece, either b-piller-ish windows (since a single window wouldn't fit in the shorter door, even if you could slide it forward instead of straight down).

As long as they seriously consider what to do with those 1/4 windows int eh back, and automating the top down , window-down dance I'm happy... but I won't assume that's the case until I hear otherwise (based on my experieices with my 4th gen vert).

Granted, this isn't a deal breaker for us enthusiasts, but it DOESN'T count as a plus conpared to other v8 convertibles out there. Car competition is tough and getting even more so as the industry's retail costs are plateauing and quality is not only increasing but as a whole getting much closer together. While few people would EVER consider a honda in the 80's, and NO ONE would knowingly pay for a hyundai in the 90's, both options are very competative in quality and cost now. Hyundai's V8 is a prime example... (less so for the challenger nightmare dodge has on their hands).

It may take a few more weeks at the design table to get a perfectly executed vert, but it'll defintely get the right press if done right. The lines are great, but as Ford found out, those 4-window verts are more of a pain than realized. Stang verts get greif on the 4-button dance (as well as the stupid drive-lock out feature... I mean really... I damn well know if it's safe to drop my top, I don't have to be in PARK to do it... glad GM didn't do that on 4th gens).

That's one more thing to point out... PLEASE don't put a park-enabled top switch in the car. When driving a vert stang I HATED not being able to drop the top at a red light. I do that frequently in the TA without problems (slow to 5mph and start dropping the top while coming to a stop, and if time requires it, I can drive on with the top finishing the last foot or so). Requiring a PARK or Ebrake removes those few extra seconds that may be needed to do this without inconviencing those behind me. Pulling over to drop an electric top seems to be a waste of my time and possibly less safe depending where you pull over and how you'll need to merge back into traffic when done. This really isn't a major problem when it's sunny, but putting the top back up if a rain shower shows up makes this little dance a bit more time-pressed. :)

As i said, with a few more relays the 4th gen system is really nice and I worry GM is taking a step backwards by using 4 windows. If it's automated (i.e. drop the windows hydralicly with the top's motor, or at least electrically relay the top switch to the rear windows and DON'T provide separate switches for them since you'll only ever use them for dropping/raising the top).

Automating circuits like this isn't al that hard or expensive and can really bring out some class. :)

(If they can soleinoid-lock the top instead of hand grips there's no reason the top couldn't be dropped from the remote :)).

Folding hard-tops may be "fancy-cool" and pretty expensive to do, but automating what's already designed should be easier and give it serious pop in the convertible market place. And yes, the vert market IS different... vert owners I know, myself included, don't decide on a model and then check if it's a covertible... that's not a cheap feature to upgrade to... they look at all the convertibles available compare them that way. I seriously think the reason 4th gen verts were so rare isn't that f-body owners don't like verts, it's that most vert owners don't need that much muscle (hense all the miatas, S2000, etc... that sell like hot cakes in comparison). If you want to sell verts to more than just f-body guys you need to bring in others who normally wouldn't consider a muscle car by executing a GREAT convertible package. That means automating circuits and obvious styling both top up and down (which I think they nailed if those 4 windows doesn't spoil the effect with too many buttons or a top down "dance").

Boy I hope Scott reads these posts... they have a real chance at nailing this thing with the right package. :)

No offense but the 4th gen window crap was probably designed in 91 or 92 (windows and motors).

I bet the new window motors won't even come from the same supplier.

Its easily been 17 years...

Yeh seriously. I have a friend who has a green 4th gen vert and he said the car was perfect, except of the windows, the window motors always gave out . GM should have solved this problem and i hope there wont be any BS problems anymore. THe way GM is paying attention to the car, i think there gonna make sure every screw is tight and everything in the car works

Yeh seriously. I have a friend who has a green 4th gen vert and he said the car was perfect, except of the windows, the window motors always gave out . GM should have solved this problem and i hope there wont be any BS problems anymore. THe way GM is paying attention to the car, i think there gonna make sure every screw is tight and everything in the car works

ummm.. to be fair, my 4th gen vert has 1/4 million miles and the passenger window died a few months ago. That's not bad considering it's size and the windows weight. I'd feel better about it though if GM had relays for the motors (though their newer vehicles tend to do this regularly) and managed to size a larger unit for such a big window. The window issue I had wasn't repeated failures, just that they're slow in normal operation. Without an express-down feature for the passenger window, the wait was even more noticable/annoying when dropping the top. :/

with express-down/up on the widows and top I could care less if it's slow (though now that I've done relay mods to both windows that's not a problem anymore). :)

ummm.. to be fair, my 4th gen vert has 1/4 million miles and the passenger window died a few months ago.
Consider yourself lucky. My 4th gen has less than 60k miles and I've replaced the driver's window motor twice.

I personally wonder why the 5th gen's doors don't go as far back though. Obviously a larger single window per side is more astheticly pleasing, and would seem more cost effective (less windows, less motors, less harness, etc...),



A single large long and heavy door? Like how people were complaining from the last 2 generations? And then no c-pillar with a wrap around heavy rr glass like the last 2 generations?

but I wonder if its an issue regarding the rear suspension. The 4th gen's solid-rear axle makes for few shock tower requirements other than a spring perch and shock mount (and you can even elliminate the spring perch on the chasis and rear end if converting to a coil-over), but a IRS would obviously need mounts for an upper A-arm as well... which would seem to require a bit more wheel well area. One of the advantages of large flared rear fenders, but at the sacrifice of a slightly shorter door and as a consequece, either b-piller-ish windows (since a single window wouldn't fit in the shorter door, even if you could slide it forward instead of straight down).

The arms for the rr suspension are attached to the rr cradle and doesnt have anything in frt of the tire. The G8's rr door is close to the rr wheel opening. But the 2 door has a longer rr axle to door distance, so does the CTS coupe. It's more to do with a longer wheelbase and not suspension that makes the doors closer to the wheels. If the 4th gen didn't keep the same floor pan, the wheelbase would've been longer and the door would've been farther from the rr wheel and the overhangs wouldn't have been so long.

Not as bad as it'll look with idiots driving aorund with the rear windows up and the top/side windows down.

I really think those windows should be linked to the top somehow, or at least to the top's switch. This way you don't need to roll down FOUR windows along with your top.

I had a 1997 Cavalier convertible and the 1/4 windows in that car ONLY went up and down with the top. There wasn't a manual up/down for them.

Does the Mustang 'vert require you to manually roll down the rear windows? If so, that's dumb. They should go down with the top - I agree with you there (the option to manually open and close them is nice, too, but when the top goes the quarter windows should too).

Other than small sports cars like the Miata and S2000, I don't think that there are hardly any two window convertibles out there right now. Every other car I can think of has 4.

Am I the only one that wants a black convertible SS after seeing these photos? :D

Yep. The rest of us will be getting Z28's and leaving you in our dust. :p

Does the Mustang 'vert require you to manually roll down the rear windows? If so, that's dumb. They should go down with the top - I agree with you there (the option to manually open and close them is nice, too, but when the top goes the quarter windows should too).

Just had one of these as a rental in Vegas... all four windows automatically roll down before the roof opens when you hit the button for the top; however, each window does have its own switch on the drivers door which was nice because you were able to roll up all four windows to reduce the wind noise. This makes taking that annoying cell phone call possible at lower speeds.

Thanks. That answers my question. That's as it should be.

FWIW my ex's 98 Mustang Convertible had the 4 switches on the door for the windows and the top did not pull them down. I wish the 4th gens came with an express down passenger side window, but that's my only complaint.

But on her Mustang, having the 4 switches meant driving with the top up and front windows up but the "shark fins" could come down. It would get a lot of good circulation in the cabin without really rustling things around or messing up her hair. Also, if you rolled them down during light/medium rain on the highway, you barely got any water in the car as well, where cracking the front windows would let more water in and would also have more wind noise.

I for one like the 4 separate switches, but don't think it should put all 4 windows down, just the shark fins. Just give the other two windows an express down function.

ok true... so their isn't a PILLAR... just FOUR windows instead of 2, and an ugly black weather stripping. TomAto, ToMato. :)

Same issue... 4 windows, not 2.

Well if you dont like having 4 windows thats another issue. I loved being able to roll down my rear 1/4 windows in my 69. I was hoping for roll down 1/4 windows just like the ones you see here to be available on the coupe.

The B Pillar in the coupe is bigger than the weather stripping you see here. Not only that, but with roll down rear 1/4 windows you notice something really cool. Where the B pillar usually is passenger seat, that your eye line usually stops at is gone. Now granted this is the vert so that opens alot of line of sight but its really noticible in a coupe.

Anyway, having 2 door windows and 2 roll down 1/4 windows. means a wider field of view not less. Without them your vision stops at the B Pillar. The door windows would be the same which are almost 4th gen in length, but where the 1/4 windows are would be the rag top. Now if you agree you would like the windows to extend your feild of view past the length of the doors, you need a weather stripping to seal between the two pieces of glass. Thats what we have here.

Sorry, roll down 1/4s was a cool 69 feature I was hoping would make it on the coupe. I get tho weight savings and structure but still not thrilled about loosing that....

Just had one of these as a rental in Vegas... all four windows automatically roll down before the roof opens when you hit the button for the top; however, each window does have its own switch on the drivers door which was nice because you were able to roll up all four windows to reduce the wind noise. This makes taking that annoying cell phone call possible at lower speeds.

That's a new feature... I drove a 2002 that didn't do that. It had 4 separate switches for each window, and yes, it only have express down for the drivers side. What a PITA that was. At least they automated it later, but the very existance of the switches for the rear 2 windows looks like crap. Instead of linking them to the top I suppose they could relay them to the side windows... then they go up/down together and don't need the rear switches.

As your example points out, a 2 window solution is probably the best solution. :).

Yep. The rest of us will be getting Z28's and leaving you in our dust. :pAh but if they also offer the Z28 in a Convertible... ;)

Where the B pillar usually is passenger seat, that your eye line usually stops at is gone. Now granted this is the vert so that opens alot of line of sight but its really noticible in a coupe. agreed... the car does look better with no 1/4 windows in sight. :)

Anyway, having 2 door windows and 2 roll down 1/4 windows. means a wider field of view not less. Without them your vision stops at the B Pillar. The door windows would be the same which are almost 4th gen in length, but where the 1/4 windows are would be the rag top. Seeing over the back of my shoulder to an area you should be looking in a side mirror to see is pointless. Over 8 years driving my 4th gen vert, over 150,000 miles in some of the worst traffic in the nation and I have never needed to see such a spot, it's just not functional.

Now if you agree you would like the windows to extend your feild of view past the length of the doors... ...which I don't. :)

Ah but if they also offer the Z28 in a Convertible... ;)

Irrelevant; Z28's will still leave SS's in their respective dust. :D

Irrelevant; Z28's will still leave SS's in their respective dust. :DTrue. What I meant was that if they offer the Z28 in a convertible, it is not longer as difficult a decision for me. :D

http://www.detroitolgy.com/camaro-2%20copy.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll100/Steve_in_Seattle/vert02.jpg Fixed it.

Less windows, motors, switches = less cost, less weight, less maintainence, less warranty issues= happier buyers.

Besides, it looks damn better as well... more agressive... they could even trail the window back an inch or so at the top line before heading down...

The remaining sliver of window becomes the same hard plaque used in 4th gen tops and folds away with the top.

True. What I meant was that if they offer the Z28 in a convertible, it is not longer as difficult a decision for me. :D

Gotcha. :)

:thumb:

agreed... the car does look better with no 1/4 windows in sight. :)

I dont see the benefit of trying to twist my words. Its a thin weather stripping which is in no way the width of B Pillar. In addition to that if its in your way you can roll it down for the vert. Also I guess I missunderstood you. I thought you wanted one long glass rather than two. That is not possible. The 1/4 glass is in the 1/4 panel. The alternative would be to be looking at the rag top rather than through the 1/4 glass behind the door. Youd rather it be rag top behind the doors Id much perfer the 1/4 glass thats fine.

and no I dont think it looks better at all without the 1/4 roll down windows.


Seeing over the back of my shoulder to an area you should be looking in a side mirror to see is pointless. Over 8 years driving my 4th gen vert, over 150,000 miles in some of the worst traffic in the nation and I have never needed to see such a spot, it's just not functional.


I owned a 4th gen(98) as well which I thought left alot to be desired. The tiny mirrors you mention I never liked either. The roll down 1/4 windows in my 69 were functional. Just because you dont see yourself rolling them down, or looking past the B Pillar as I have doesnt mean it doesnt function. If that were the case I would consider the mirrors of the 4th gen non functional. But then Id be exagerating just as much. Having said that, to me the windows are more of a crusing thing that I like as well as the look.


...which I don't. :)

Nothing wrong with that...

http://www.detroitolgy.com/camaro-2%20copy.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll100/Steve_in_Seattle/vert02.jpg Fixed it.

Less windows, motors, switches = less cost, less weight, less maintainence, less warranty issues= happier buyers.

Besides, it looks damn better as well... more agressive... they could even trail the window back an inch or so at the top line before heading down...

The remaining sliver of window becomes the same hard plaque used in 4th gen tops and folds away with the top.

:lol: to each their own. I wouldnt have thought anyone would intentionally do that. Just pick up a can of flat black spray paint and your good :yuck:

Can you say "side vision required to drive"???

Can you say "side vision required to drive"???

These should do the trick....
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/Jelibear/pvndemo.gif
:D

http://www.detroitolgy.com/camaro-2%20copy.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll100/Steve_in_Seattle/vert02.jpg Fixed it.

Less windows, motors, switches = less cost, less weight, less maintainence, less warranty issues= happier buyers.

Besides, it looks damn better as well... more agressive... they could even trail the window back an inch or so at the top line before heading down...

The remaining sliver of window becomes the same hard plaque used in 4th gen tops and folds away with the top.

Fixed nothing that's much worse. :yuck: The blind spot just got much larger and that's not safe either. If you keep it that way you might as well add some dents to the rear quarter panels as some of our lest talented or experienced 5th Gen buyers will end up loosing sight of hazards lurking back there. You know those first time Camaro buyers that GM really wants and needs to sell this car to.

Your basing most of your complaint on the window motors and them failing. Well there are plenty af vehicles out there with power 1/4 rear windows and they don't suffer the plague the 4th Gen F-body has. So it is possible to do it right and I would think GM knows that and components have improved just like many other aspects of vehicle engineering have improved in the last 16-18 years since the 4th gen was developed.

Well said, I was just going to type the same sort of thing.

...blind spot just got much larger and that's not safe Lets don't go off the deep end here. There are plenty of trucks and nearly any "supercar" which have even less "post-driver" sight. This is what mirrors are for, and as a rule, drivers rarely drive in reverse more than forward. It's not anything worse than 4th gens and there aren't any outbreaks of exploding verts just yet. The big shocker may be that non-GM drivers may drive as well as we do. :)

Your basing most of your complaint on the window motors and them failing. not wholy... also on the experince of driving with 4 switches in a poorly executed mustang vert. That and see'ing idiots drive around with "shark fins". And yes, costs would be lower (last time I checked GM could use a few more bones on each model to help stop the bleeding).

there with power 1/4 rear windows and they don't suffer the plague the 4th Gen F-body has. I wouldn't call it a "plauge"... this isn't like 80's paint flaking off or disasterous results like a pinto exploding... it's fixable, just annoying... but not something GM needs to expose themselves to if they can avoid it.

I guess the main problem is that the roof line is much back than it was in teh 4th gen making that area much larger and a bigger issue to cover.

I'd still like to see them pull the front window back a bit to ditch the 1/4 windows. I suppose it's a compromise between performance and the daily-driving masses. Admittedly there are people who wouldn't like the rear passengers to lose their little windows, but I have a feeling the average convertible shopper doesn't care about a few awkward inches of window that are useless on the driver side and practically blocked by the passenger's head rest anyway.

Everyone has their own ideas between being a "driver" and just "driving a car" I guess this is one of mine... backseat be damned, give me a clean interior with no hassels (like extra switches, costs, time/inconvience).

No matter, I'm sure GM's doing the best they can considering. I still have big expectations for the next f-body.

80's Mercedes...The safest convertibles on the planet:

http://www.worlduph.com/129top1.jpghttp://www.jjproducts.net/jj_products_img/products/Mercedes/107ConvertibleTop.jpg

Maybe we need some fancy, plastic corner-windows to improve visibility.

Drop it Steve. You're in the minority on this one. I've been living with rear quarter windows for years and they've never been an issue.

Lets don't go off the deep end here. There are plenty of trucks and nearly any "supercar" which have even less "post-driver" sight. This is what mirrors are for, and as a rule, drivers rarely drive in reverse more than forward. It's not anything worse than 4th gens and there aren't any outbreaks of exploding verts just yet. The big shocker may be that non-GM drivers may drive as well as we do. :)

You are correct that many Lambo's and Ferrari's have almost a complete lack of rearward visibility and I think for the very few who have and drive those cars who cares what's going on behind ya anyway. But those are rear engine two seat sports cars that 99.9 percent of us will never even get to drive and hence they are not made for regular people. The Camaro is made for the masses.
And rear view visibility is important to the Camaro demographic. GM cares what lines of sight are in the rear just as much as the front from a 95 percentile human outline named "Oscar". More visibility is always better and it's only compromised by engineering needs or in rare cases a style that's just too great to change. In the 5th Gen's case I think GM found a great balance of style and functionality.

And yes, costs would be lower (last time I checked GM could use a few more bones on each model to help stop the bleeding).

Well that's GM's ROI as they have decided that this is an important part of the 5th Gen and they expect all of their cost for development will make a better vehicle that will in turn drive more sales. There are lots of places for GM to cut costs and for all of us 4th Gen owners or just GM owners in general we know where they have cut corners. Instead of looking to GM to cut what seems to be a well received part of this Camaro we should be glad they didn't go cheap on the 5th Gen as many of us will own one. I don't want the cheapest made car with corners cut I want the best I can get.


No matter, I'm sure GM's doing the best they can considering. I still have big expectations for the next f-body.

Agreed and I think there is still plenty of unknowns to debate on this car. But if these pics from GM are to be believed, and I do, this topic seems like a done deal.
No more F-body as GM has switched to platform names using the Greek system. The 5th Gen is Zeta platform based like the G8/Holdens.

80's Mercedes...The safest convertibles on the planet:

http://www.worlduph.com/129top1.jpghttp://www.jjproducts.net/jj_products_img/products/Mercedes/107ConvertibleTop.jpg

Maybe we need some fancy, plastic corner-windows to improve visibility.

Good pics and I liked those SL's from the 80's and 90's. While I wouldn't want plastic corner windows on the 5th Gen's rear I think MB did it for style and visibility. So if it's important to MB and their much smaller demographic for the SL then why not GM for the Camaro. :shrug:
Besides the SL is a 2 seater and the Camaro a 4 seater. So a smaller car and shorter top. Maybe not quite apples to oranges but tangerines for certain.

As your example points out, a 2 window solution is probably the best solution. :).

I'm really at a loss to see how my example proves any point! I was merely stating some facts.

Regardless of my opinion on this issue... There is no way that a manufacturer would do a four seater without quarter windows! I can see the car mags ripping that car a new one for the terrible rear visibility and back seat passengers with no window! -(not that a quarter window provides a big view anyhow) By the way, has that ever been done? I can't think of any.

Regardless of my opinion on this issue... There is no way that a manufacturer would do a four seater without quarter windows! I can see the car mags ripping that car a new one for the terrible rear visibility and back seat passengers with no window! -(not that a quarter window provides a big view anyhow) By the way, has that ever been done? I can't think of any.

Ever seen a third or fourth gen F-body? No quarter windows and no, looking behind you out the rear window doesn't count.

Magazine and newspaper "experts" have demolished more than one convertible in the past by reviews over visibility issues due to the blind spots created by the fabric of the convertible top. I'm sure this is a major concern of any manufacturer.....much more so than worrying about whether they have to pay the price for a small rear window to go up or down to avoid this problem. The public will not buy a car that gets a poor review due to something as serious as having the rear view of the driver blocked by poor design that could have been avoided. The Mitsubichi (spelling?) was well known for this problem and never did get corrected. It was the main reason why my wife bought a Sebring convertible instead.

Lets hope GM does not make the same mistake.....

I've seen renderings. Has anyone heard if they will offer hideaway lights? What I've seen looks great! I have a '68 RS and would wait for this option.

I've seen renderings. Has anyone heard if they will offer hideaway lights? What I've seen looks great! I have a '68 RS and would wait for this option.

not sure what renderings youve seen. There was the red one, and the silver one Kris did here both with hideaway headlights. RS appearance package is possible though I really dont think hideaway headlights will be an option. Welcome to the board!

I think it's been pointed out before that hideaway headlights are illegal....don't know if that's per state or national (not like that would matter).

Ever seen a third or fourth gen F-body?

:lol: :Owned:

Magazine and newspaper "experts" have demolished more than one convertible in the past by reviews over visibility issues due to the blind spots created by the fabric of the convertible top.

And yet the 4th gen vert was touted by magazine \"experts" as one of the best executed convertibles ever. What brought in the glowing reviews?
1) power top (compared the to corvettes manual only at the time)
2) glass rear window (compared to Porsche, Miata, Viper, etc... plastic windows that fog up and deteriorate with age)
3) 2 windows. Yes, it was mentioned time and again that having 2 windows made the car look like it was designed from the start to be a convertible. What I brought up here as criticisms of the mustang vert were touted many years ago in FAVOR of the 4th gen.

The final issus is this... to go to 2 windows you'd probably need either longer doors or to bring the rear of the top forward like the 4th gen did. Perserving the camaro hatch-back's lines in the convertible would have had the same problems you see here... how to fill that gap between the rear of the window and the rear of the top.

The 4th gen's top was very well and they wern't worried about changing the roof line from the hatchback. I just hate to see GM throw out a design that works well and got GREAT reviews.

I think it's been pointed out before that hideaway headlights are illegal....don't know if that's per state or national (not like that would matter).

Wow... I guess my Firebird actually IS and ill eagle. :)


Last time I checked the only thing illegal about headlights are their color (can't be red or blue) and if you have a cover (like tint covers that reduce the light output, or a truck bumper guard that puts bars accross the headlight which can reduce its output). Nothing about hiding the lights when not in use.

I just hate to see GM throw out a design that works well and got GREAT reviews.:rolleyes:

This isn't a 4th gen Camaro and that design wouldn't fit the look and style of the new Camaro.

GM didn't just throw the design of the top out the window, they threw the whole damn car out the window because it was tired, dated and had served its purpose long past its original intent (9 model years). :p

I'd like to belive the boys and girls at GM are smart enough to learn from past projects. :rolleyes:

One more thing to add to the wish list:

A glass rear window that can be raised and lowered independant of the soft top. BMW uses this on it's 6-series so the window can double as a transparent wind screen. I thought it was another BWM gimmick really (talk about increasing weight and costs), but I saw one at the beach yesterday... very neat and well executed.

Obviously this is a few demographics above a camaro, but maybe in a caddy. :)

BTW, anyone know if those new lights will be "adaptive" like BMW and Porsche use (the Hella units that turn left/right and up/down with the steering wheel and car motion?)

Wow... I guess my Firebird actually IS and ill eagle. :)

I think he is right. The difference if I am not mistaken is that there is nothing "covering" them up leaving the lights in a fixed position.

Then again...does any car have pop-up headlights any more?

Wow, that's hot! I think my new Camaro will be just like this with some red stripes!

I think he is right. The difference if I am not mistaken is that there is nothing "covering" them up leaving the lights in a fixed position.

Then again...does any car have pop-up headlights any more?

Good question. Wikipedia says the 1992 Jag XJ220 had covers that hide away their lights, and the last car they listed using pop-up lights was the 2004 Lotus Elise and 2004 C5. Ferrari also had a nicely done popup in 2003...
http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/pictures/VEHICLE/2001/Ferrari/100000878/2001.ferrari.456m.3541-396x249.jpg

Looks like Lotus is ditching the pop-ups as well... here's a spy photo of their 2009 Elise mule... cool lights, but not pop-up.
http://car-news.roadfly.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/2008-lotus-esprit-spy-photo.jpg


Seems like cost, weight, and style changes have finally caught up with the pop-up light.

Wow, that's hot! I think my new Camaro will be just like this with some red stripes!

Agreed, then it will match the Camaro that I own now. :D

I think he is right. The difference if I am not mistaken is that there is nothing "covering" them up leaving the lights in a fixed position.

Then again...does any car have pop-up headlights any more?

Thats why they put the slots in the chrome headlight doors on the Camaros....the headlights would still show through them if the doors didnt open. I believe that later models of the corvette had manual vacuum controls to open the doors in case of failure of the mechanism (my 69 did not have this). The mechanism was spring loaded so that vacuum actually kept the doors closed...so that in case of failure the doors would default to the open position for safety purposes.

I think he is right. The difference if I am not mistaken is that there is nothing "covering" them up leaving the lights in a fixed position.

Then again...does any car have pop-up headlights any more?

I wish to hell my Trans An didn't have them. About a year ago I paid like $400 to fix the driver side motor. Now the passenger side is doing the exact same thing. It still goes up and down fine, but when you arm/disarm the alarm or turn the lights off they close and then this God awful sound happens for like 10 seconds. It sounds like the car is about to blow up or something. REALLY embarrassing. People are like: "Nice car, what the Hell is that noise?":think:

OMG! I totally can't wait until they're out! Black on black with some nice custom pink racing stripes.... ooooh yeaaaaah.

About a year ago I paid like $400 to fix the driver side motor.... It still goes up and down fine, but when you arm/disarm the alarm or turn the lights off they close and then this God awful sound happens for like 10 seconds.

stripped gear... easy fix... do a search. Get a brass gear and never deal with it again. :)

With doors that wide it should be legal to park in the middle of two spots so both driver and passanger can get out with ease :)

With doors that wide it should be legal to park in the middle of two spots so both driver and passanger can get out with ease :)

Naw... passengers can get out before parking.

And you shouldn't be parking in lots that tight anyway :p

Very nice !!!

Whens this bad boy coming out on the market?

Holy old thread batman!