What Generation should the 5th draw it's stlying cues from?..if any..

I say keep the look more in the image of the 3rd and 4th Gen. To be honest most of the younger coupe buying crowd would be much quicker to recognize a Camaro based on those gens than a 1st gen. That is just my perspective since most kids my age think IROC Z before SS/RS and hidden headlights. If a new Camaro is hoping to sell it needs to real in younger buyers...not older ones...again just my opinion..

Personally I don't want anything retro really i would rather an evolution of teh current styling. I also belive that the car coould retain it's swoopy looks if it had a better designed chassis. Who knows..maybe we will see two front ends for the car...one retro and one designed for speed:eek:

To be completely honest the whole 3rd generation lost me. Yeah its a cool car, but I just don't see a smooth transition from 2nd to 3rd. But then, there wasn't a smooth transition from 1st to 2nd either. I see a lot more 2nd gen in the 4th generation than I do 3rd gen... except for that damn hatchback.

So I guess if we look back historically, the 5th generation is going to be a complete departure from the last generation. Heck it might even end up looking more like the 1st generation.

Ok... enough of that. My head is starting to hurt! :rolleyes:

Originally posted by jg95z28
To be completely honest the whole 3rd generation lost me. Yeah its a cool car, but I just don't see a smooth transition from 2nd to 3rd. But then, there wasn't a smooth transition from 1st to 2nd either. I see a lot more 2nd gen in the 4th generation than I do 3rd gen... except for that damn hatchback.

So I guess if we look back historically, the 5th generation is going to be a complete departure from the last generation. Heck it might even end up looking more like the 1st generation.

Ok... enough of that. My head is starting to hurt! :rolleyes:

How can you not see the transition...they were all eveolotions of one another IMO.

Third Gen mostly and some 1st Gen.

That link DH gave us and 90Z28SS's design were more 1st and Third Gen based and to me that's the way to go.

Originally posted by formula79
I say keep the look more in the image of the 3rd and 4th Gen. To be honest most of the younger coupe buying crowd would be much quicker to recognize a Camaro based on those gens than a 1st gen. That is just my perspective since most kids my age think IROC Z before SS/RS and hidden headlights. If a new Camaro is hoping to sell it needs to real in younger buyers...not older ones...again just my opinion..

Personally I don't want anything retro really i would rather an evolution of teh current styling. I also belive that the car coould retain it's swoopy looks if it had a better designed chassis. Who knows..maybe we will see two front ends for the car...one retro one designed for speed:eek:

Interesting idea!!! Two front ends, one retro and one for speed! That's exactly what I have been working on for the Camaro contest at the GMI website. When I get them set up today I will post a link so you can view them.

Originally posted by ja witcombe
Interesting idea!!! Two front ends, one retro and one for speed! That's exactly what I have been working on for the Camaro contest at the GMI website. When I get them set up today I will post a link so you can view them.

That IS a super idea. What if the next Camaro has 2 front ends like, for example the way the 1997-2002 Grand Prix's had 2 front ends. One that was ok, on the SE, and one that was cooler, on the GTP/GT.
That would be sweet to see what the differences of the two would be on the Camaro.

Sort of like back in the First Gen, you could get different front end treatment between say, an RS or SS.

sharpen out the 4th gen look, with a little less front overhang.. I'm still split on the hatchback or notchback with a real trunk.. but thats what they should have done about 5 years ago.

anyways, lets forge on to the future.. keep the "heritage" by staying with an affordable V8 RWD peformance car that kicks ass.. Give factory support in roadracing for the Camaro..

Originally posted by formula79
How can you not see the transition...they were all eveolotions of one another IMO.
Maybe because I'm a lot older than you.

When I was younger, 1st gen and early second gens were all the rage. Only adults or rich kids could afford the late second gens (78-81).

When they unvield the 3rd gen it was a complete departure from the previous generation. That was their selling point! First it had a hatchback (never offered prior); second it offered a convertible for the first time since 1969 (with a few exceptions); thirdly it was much more squared off along the body lines; and fourth... quad headlamps, never offered before either! Other than being a 2+2, RWD Coupe with T-tops, there's no comparison between a 1981 model and 1982 model other than the name!

The fourth generation returned to the stylish curvy lines of the second generation, yet maintained the quad-lamp nose, and hatchback of the third gen.

Evolution? Yes. Transition? Not in the least... which is why we should expect anything and everything for Gen-V.

Also the argument of "kids" remembering the 3rd and 4th gens doesn't hold water. They'll mostly be minivan and SUV customers by the time the "next" Camaro is available. The majority of enthusiast buyers will be old farts like me that prefer a little 1st and 2nd gen nostalgia.

:D

1st gen style - I still think the Muscle tone hot wheels would be a perfect 5th Gen, it's NOT RETRO, but still definatly a Camaro. give it a trunk like the mustang too.

my second choice would be an evolution of the 4th gen with hatch and maybe quad head lights.

....1st gens not withstanding.....it seems to me the Camaro's design has been more of a sense of proportion and element placement than actual design elements.....i.e. the Mustang has triple vertical taillamps, side coves, Horse emblem, etc....

IOW, the 2nd gen to present Camaros had:

* Headlamps above the belt line
* Grille below the beltline
* Grille narrower than headlights
* Prominent fog lamps...usually below the headlamps
* Long hood
* Short rear deck
* Nearly vertical B-pillar
* No rear side windows
* Sloping rear window....w/ & w/o hatch
* Various front & rear spoiler designs
* Tail lamp shape usually was tear drop shaped, wrapping the rear corners
* Sides have been fairly un-adorned...beltline crease, minor wheel opening flares...some 2nd gen Z's had vents in fenders.

Personally, I never associated a particular design element, like the Mustang's side coves...with the Camaro's design. Even the world acclaimed and much copied cowl hood was a one year (1969) offering.

That being said...the link I provided to McBride's concept (you can see his work in major magazines) has picked one of the more memorable design elements, the upper wheel body lines, from argueably one of most revered Camaro designs, the 1969. He also uses some of the same proportional design elements I mentioned above...tweek the nose a little and I'm ready to buy one!

In today's world of dozen's of sports sedan choices, I think it would be a good move to re-adopt an actual design element as something to identify the car with...something the McBride concept did extremely well. :D :cool: :bow:

Originally posted by jg95z28 To be completely honest the whole 3rd generation lost me. Yeah its a cool car, but I just don't see a smooth transition from 2nd to 3rd. But then, there wasn't a smooth transition from 1st to 2nd either. I see a lot more 2nd gen in the 4th generation than I do 3rd gen... except for that damn hatchback.

So I guess if we look back historically, the 5th generation is going to be a complete departure from the last generation. Heck it might even end up looking more like the 1st generation.

Originally posted by jg95z28
Maybe because I'm a lot older than you... not more informed either. [/B] Otherwise see this post for more insighthttp://web.camaross.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=66133

IMO the closest transition btwn gens is 3rd to 4th. Those 2 cars were VERY close to each other. Other than that nobody can say that the changes were minor. There were always major changes between gens.

What was similar? Well, with the possible exception of 1st gen I'd say the dimensions. Proportions for sure!

Long hood and short rear deck should be a must. After that I'd like to see a complete restyling. Something forward thinking. Too much retro won't cut it. Camaro has always looked forward not backwards.

Cues that I like? The wrap around tail lights. The transition of headlights to hood from the late '70's and the split grill from late 70's. The "swoosh" over the wheels from the 1st gens.

Originally posted by jg95z28
Maybe because I'm a lot older than you.

When I was younger, 1st gen and early second gens were all the rage. Only adults or rich kids could afford the late second gens (78-81).

When they unvield the 3rd gen it was a complete departure from the previous generation. That was their selling point! First it had a hatchback (never offered prior); second it offered a convertible for the first time since 1969 (with a few exceptions); thirdly it was much more squared off along the body lines; and fourth... quad headlamps, never offered before either! Other than being a 2+2, RWD Coupe with T-tops, there's no comparison between a 1981 model and 1982 model other than the name!

The fourth generation returned to the stylish curvy lines of the second generation, yet maintained the quad-lamp nose, and hatchback of the third gen.

Evolution? Yes. Transition? Not in the least... which is why we should expect anything and everything for Gen-V.

Also the argument of "kids" remembering the 3rd and 4th gens doesn't hold water. They'll mostly be minivan and SUV customers by the time the "next" Camaro is available. The majority of enthusiast buyers will be old farts like me that prefer a little 1st and 2nd gen nostalgia.

:D

I may be able to relate to that. I think the early gen 2s were the best looking Camaros, far better than the me-too-Mustang look of the 1st gen.

The 3rd gens were dramatic when they 1st came out. They were painfully slow, but they were headturners.

The early Thirds weren't as slow as later 2nd's. ;) And that was with 305's.

To me Thirds and 4ths look almost like 2 cars that are not even of the same line, besides minor things. Thirds being alot better looking of course. :) The 4th's are the farthest from "Camaro" styling and cues ever, thats not good IMO. 1st-2nd Gen is also a big difference in style, looking almost nothing alike.

Personally, I like the early 2nd gen Camaros (and Firebirds) a lot. I based my 5th gen design proposal (see thread) on the '70 Camaro. I am not a fan of edgy,angular styling. I prefer more organic, flowing forms (absolutely LOVE my 4th gen'Bird!).

Whatever the next gen Camaro looks like, I do hope it incorporates at least a few design elements from a previous generation Camaro (not the dorky corporate crossbar Chevy is currently putting on everything).

So I guess if I had a choice, I would hope the 5th gen Camaro has styling cues from the 2nd or 4th gen F-body designs:)

-Bradster

The "Camaro look", IMO, is ALL about proportions, stance and attitude....not any specific cues. If you look at McBride's sketch ,(MY PERSONAL FAVORITE, BTW)....it's a picture of a car never seen before. Yet, the moment you see it......you say CAMARO!!

Even without elements like the '69 fender creases...it still looks like a Camaro....and a thouroghly modern one at that.

When the 2nd gen came out, it carried little or none of the 1st gen's look. It was a revolutionary design. It was an American exotic. The same can be said of the 3rd gen. They both blew people away with their fresh, sporty, muscular lines; and everyone knew they were Camaros. Why? Proportion, Stance and Attitude.

I don't think we should get so hung up on picking a gen for the 5th to emulate....in fact to do so may be a mistake.

Originally posted by IZ28
The early Thirds weren't as slow as later 2nd's. ;) And that was with 305's.

To me Thirds and 4ths look almost like 2 cars that are not even of the same line, besides minor things. Thirds being alot better looking of course. :) The 4th's are the farthest from "Camaro" styling and cues ever, thats not good IMO. 1st-2nd Gen is also a big difference in style, looking almost nothing alike. the early (93-97) 4th gen front end looked EXACTLY like the 3rd but it was sucked by a vachum from behind.

Originally posted by 95 Z-28 LT1
That IS a super idea. What if the next Camaro has 2 front ends like, for example the way the 1997-2002 Grand Prix's had 2 front ends. One that was ok, on the SE, and one that was cooler, on the GTP/GT.
That would be sweet to see what the differences of the two would be on the Camaro.

Sort of like back in the First Gen, you could get different front end treatment between say, an RS or SS.

I think that I have a problem with two front ends.

Invariably, it will come down to the ugly one or the pretty one. Or even worse, the mediocre one.

I'd much prefer to see just one B*E*A*U*T*I*F*U*L one.

It goes without saying that the next gen F-Body (really ANY car) should have "proportion, stance, and attitude". The question is:

What DEFINES the proportion, stance and attitude of an F-Body?

"Proportion, stance and attitude" could apply to any car - even ones you or I would consider "ugly". Styling and the three (obvious) things you state that the next gen camaro must have are two different things. The Mini Cooper has it's own unique "proportion, stance and attitude", along with it's own heritage of style, but that doesn't make it an F-Body.

Z284ever, Please define what you feel Proportion, stance and "attitude" makes a Camaro a Camaro.

-B

Originally posted by Raven99
It goes without saying that the next gen F-Body (really ANY car) should have "proportion, stance, and attitude". The question is:

What DEFINES the proportion, stance and attitude of an F-Body?

"Proportion, stance and attitude" could apply to any car - even ones you or I would consider "ugly". Styling and the three (obvious) things you state that the next gen camaro must have are two different things. The Mini Cooper has it's own unique "proportion, stance and attitude", along with it's own heritage of style, but that doesn't make it an F-Body.

Z284ever, Please define what you feel Proportion, stance and "attitude" makes a Camaro a Camaro.

-B

Hey bro, another Chicagoan!:)

There are many specific and more vague general elements that describe Camaro's proportions, stance and attitude.

I wish I were a designer, so I could use the proper language....but here goes........

Wheels

Camaro is a very wheel oriented car. It requires agressive wheels and rubber to get the "look". These wheels/tires need to be pushed out to the corners in order to get the right proportions. The sheetmetal needs to have the look of being stretched out to encompass them.

Tension

The body must have tension. Almost like skin stretched tautly over sinew and muscle. And muscular creases at the crest of the rear shoulders (quarterpanels).

Tumblehome

The 3rd gens had tumblehome...the 4th gens did not. Did you ever notice how on an IROC-Z, below the beltline , the sheetmetal turns inward as you approach the lower rocker? It not only makes the car look more agressive, it shows off the fat tires below the midline...adding more agressiveness.

This car has it in spades:http://www.roddersedge.homestead.com/G5CONCEPT.html

Long hood/short deck

Speaks for itself

To all of this, I would add short overhangs, compact exterior dimensions, and swoopy agressive lines.

I'm tapped out for now.....I'll give it some more thought.

I like your take on what makes a camaro a Camaro, Z284ever :)

I may have to sleep on what I feel makes a Camaro a Camaro (but I KNOW what makes Firebird a Firebird :) )

I also very much like that 5th gen design you refer to EXCEPT for that corporate cross-bar. I think the Camaro should NOT look like ANY other car in the Chevrolet lineup. Camaro Styling should be unique unto itself. That crossbar, while nicely integrated in the design you refer to, has become a cliche very quickly in my eyes with it already featured on multiple Chevrolet designs in concept form and even on questionably styled vehicles already in production (yuk).

Also, while I do think the 1st gen fender creases are nice, I am not a biggest fan of the first gen profile (or it's other styling cues). I feel that there's not a lot of surface development or flow in the 1st gen cars. You can have what you you refer to as "tumblehome" and "tension" without having the linear, angular sides. Personally, I much prefer organic, muscular forms than geometric or edgy muscular forms.

I guess I just think that the 2nd or 4th gen F-body "proportion, stance, and atitude" (and styling cues) are what defines an F-body's DNA to me:)

As I posted earlier, I do hope the next Gen Camaro does include some styling cues from it's past, whether it be from a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th generation F-Body. Really, I am just hopeful that a 5th gen Camaro (and Firebird!) will become a reality, and not just a nice thing to speculate about.

-Bradster:cool:

Originally posted by Raven99

I may have to sleep on what I feel makes a Camaro a Camaro (but I KNOW what makes Firebird a Firebird :) )


-

I'd like to hear your view on what makes a Firebird, a Firebird.

Originally posted by Z284ever
The 3rd gens had tumblehome...the 4th gens did not.

I have to disagree with this statement. I'm not a designer but "tumblehome" as it was explained to me refers to the curve between the beltline and the roof, not beltline and rockers. So the Hummer H1 and H2 have no tumblehome. And, the 4th Gens DID have a considerable inward turn below the beltline and before the rocker panels....take another look.

Originally posted by Z28Wilson
I have to disagree with this statement. I'm not a designer but "tumblehome" as it was explained to me refers to the curve between the beltline and the roof, not beltline and rockers. So the Hummer H1 and H2 have no tumblehome. And, the 4th Gens DID have a considerable inward turn below the beltline and before the rocker panels....take another look.

You are 100% correct!

To me Thirds and 4ths look almost like 2 cars that are not even of the same line, besides minor things.

IZ28,

What year do you own? I'm curious because I'm not sure how you could make the above statement. Aside from going to a more "sleek, swept back" design on the outside there's a lot more that's similar than dis-similar. On the outside the differing looks is more a trick of the eye. Take away that severely sloped windshield and they'll actually look quite close. On the inside the only real difference is the updated dash area. The rest of the interior is VERY close (center console, seats, floorpan, doors)

I go to junkyards to search for parts every once in a while and will sometimes mistake one stripped car for the other.

Take another look.

Originally posted by Joe K. 96 Zeee!!
IZ28,

What year do you own? I'm curious because I'm not sure how you could make the above statement. Aside from going to a more "sleek, swept back" design on the outside there's a lot more that's similar than dis-similar. On the outside the differing looks is more a trick of the eye. Take away that severely sloped windshield and they'll actually look quite close. On the inside the only real difference is the updated dash area. The rest of the interior is VERY close (center console, seats, floorpan, doors)

I go to junkyards to search for parts every once in a while and will sometimes mistake one stripped car for the other.

Take another look.

Agreed.

I think the 92-93 eveolution was the closest in styling of all the transitions... especially the front clip, I mean, it's a clear evolution of the 3rd gen's front end.

Originally posted by Z28Wilson
I have to disagree with this statement. I'm not a designer but "tumblehome" as it was explained to me refers to the curve between the beltline and the roof, not beltline and rockers. So the Hummer H1 and H2 have no tumblehome. And, the 4th Gens DID have a considerable inward turn below the beltline and before the rocker panels....take another look.


What.....are you in the 4th gen mafia or something? Believe me I've looked.

Someone asked for my opinion and I gave it. What's your opinion of what makes a Camaro, a Camaro.

Originally posted by Z284ever
What.....are you in the 4th gen mafia or something? Believe me I've looked.

Someone asked for my opinion and I gave it. What's your opinion of what makes a Camaro, a Camaro.

:) Yeah you gave your opinion, and a lot of what you said makes the Camaro a Camaro in my opinion as well. Don't forget the fact that Camaro has always been a little lower, wider, and sleeker than Mustang, and has a bit more of a hard-to-describe race car feel to it. JMO.

I just wonder how you've missed the bulge that starts just under the windows and curves inwards and straightens back out near the rockers on the 4th Gen. That's all. If there's anyone on this board that is in a gen-specific "mafia", well, we know who that is. :D

Z284EVER,

I'm pretty sure he has the right definition of tumblehome, but you do have a point on below the beltline.

Here's the difference. the 4th gen curves inward immediately below the beltline and curves straight down. On the 3rd it's pretty much a straight line inward below the belt...not much of a curve. Is this what you're trying to say?

If you're saying it doesn't come inward at all below the belt on the 4th gens, then you're wrong.

I'm no expert but, from what I've gotten reading ACOR, if you pull it inward too much below the belt in between the wheels you'll increase C/D.

Originally posted by Z28Wilson

I just wonder how you've missed the bulge that starts just under the windows and curves inwards and straightens back out near the rockers on the 4th Gen.


I know what your talking about. In my personal view....that is not a very elegant line. The way it curves in, gives it some surface interest, But the bulge so high up, reminds me of the Michelin Man.

Originally posted by Joe K. 96 Zeee!!
Z284EVER,


Here's the difference. the 4th gen curves inward immediately below the beltline and curves straight down. On the 3rd it's pretty much a straight line inward below the belt...not much of a curve. Is this what you're trying to say?



Oh...you're talking to me. I thought I saw IZ28. Hold on...let me go in my garage and pull the cover off of my IROC.


....................OK, I'm back.

3rd gens' lines start going outwardly starting at the base of the window and then start curving back in at the beltline, like this:

(looking from the front), < >...... and 4th gens look like this: ) (

Yeah...I put the worng name up there and went back and changed it....

Soooo....you're not going crazy! Congrats!:D

Originaly posted by Z284ever:

I'd like to hear your view of what makes a Firebird a Firebird

Glad you asked!

First of all, let me preface my post by saying that what I or anybody else believes makes Firebird a "FIREBIRD" (or a Camaro a "CAMARO") is strictly personal preference. There is no real "correct answer". It's motivating to exchange ideas with other people - if only to reconfirm one's own opinions on things.

Having said that, here's what I believe makes a Firebird a "Firebird":

First of all, to answer that question I must first ask myself which Model year(s) do I see when I picture a Firebird in my mind. For me (and this may be due to my age) the answer is the 1977 Firebird Trans Am (yes, Bandit's car), and the current (4th generation) Firebirds ( LT1/LS1 Trans Ams and Formulas). I do not picture the 1st gen Firebirds, which were hastily designed (and looked it), or the 3rd gen Firbirds, which to me lost a lot of the visual charisma that 2nd gens possessed. Yes, I LIKE the screaming chicken, and NO I am not a fan of KITT!!:p

So now that I have the two generation types of Firebirds that to me define the "breed", what is it that is similar between the two generations that I may categorize into a single listing of what makes a Firebird a "Firebird".

First let's start with the profiles of each car. Both examples have a longish hood with a fastback rear end. The fourth generation's hood may not appear as "long" as the 2nd gen hood in pure silhouette, but that is because the base of the windshield has been moved considerably forward, literally over the engine (!) and the curvature of the windshield has been dramatically enhanced. However, the position of the drivers seat in relation to the front wheels has not changed between generations. Primarily just the rake of the windshield has changed. Regardless, no one would term the 4th gen's proportions as "cab-forward". Resolved: a Firebird to me should have a fastback rear end (3 of 4 generations had this as a styling element)

Next, let's look at the stance of both generations. Pontiac has for decades touted its vehicles as having a "Wide Track" stance, and both generations live up to this premise. Kind of a "no-brainer" here.

Getting back to proportions, both the 2nd and the 4th gen Firebirds have relatively long rear overhangs and a pronounced spoiler or wing. The front overhang of the 4th gen Firebird (especially the 93-97 ones) is moderately longer than the 2nd gen 'birds, but some of that length is mitgated by the marked pointy-ness of the plan view of the 4th gen's design. Regardless, I do not believe the front overhang (long or short) necessarily defines a Firebird as a Firebird.

Styling cues that have been incorporated in both generations include quad headlights - in the 4th gen case, they are pop up, although the quad turn signal/driving light & foglight setup of the LS1 Formulas I find very appealing aesthetically. I prefer pop up headlights because they allow for a lower nose and front fender line. Another trait found on both the 2nd and 4th gen 'birds is the honeycomb pattern motif found on grilles and tail lights and even on wheel designs. I enjoy this motif and find it distinctively "Pontiac", if not necessarily a unique Firebird styling trait. Of course, the peaked nose and split grille (or in the 4th gen's case, split ports) is also a a distinctive Firebird/Pontiac styling que. Not to mention the twin Ram Air scoops offered as as an option in both 2nd and 4th generations.

I love the shaker scoop incorporated on the one-off Trans Am GM Design staff introduced last year at the Woodward dream Cruise - a wonderful adaptation of a 2nd gen styling cue(that helped defined Trans Ams of the 70's) integrated onto a slightly widened 4th generation body. Vented fenders are also design elements found in both 2nd and 4th generation T/A's, along with T-Tops (although I prefer hardtop models). Other (obvious) traits found on both generations is the long doors and wide B-pillars with no rear quarter windows. I do not believe a a hatchback (or lack thereof) defines a Firebird one way or another.

So in summation, if you take the similar design elements of the 2nd and 4th generation Firebirds, then that to me is what defines what a "Firebird" is. Hopefully, if GM decides to re-introduce the Firebird someday, it will incorporate at least a few of these styling elements and proportions that I outlined above.

That's my take on things,

-Bradster

P.S.: (Sorry for the long post - I hope I didn't bore anybody or piss off too many people);)

Originally posted by Raven99
Originaly posted by Z284ever:



Glad you asked!


I love the shaker scoop incorporated on the one-off Trans Am GM Design staff introduced last year at the Woodward dream Cruise - a wonderful adaptation of a 2nd gen styling cue(that helped defined Trans Ams of the 70's) integrated onto a slightly widened 4th generation body. Vented fenders are also design elements found in both 2nd and 4th generation T/A's, along with T-Tops (although I prefer hardtop models). Other (obvious) traits found on both generations is the long doors and wide B-pillars with no rear quarter windows. I do not believe a a hatchback (or lack thereof) defines a Firebird one way or another.




Hey, good post. We must be about the same age....because, I too, am strongly influenced by the 2nd gen Trans Ams of the '70s.

The influence those T/As had on me, sort of ruined the 3rd and 4th gens for me. And nothing says Trans Am to me as strongly as a shaker scoop.

If Firebird ever comes back, I sure hope it's not another Camaro with the "Pontiac Styling Package" again. I'd like to see real differences in them....like powertrain for instance. Of course we'll never see a T/A 6.6 again :(...but maybe the GM partsbin could supply a different motor.

How about a supercharged version of the 4.4 V8 going into the Bonnie GXP?

LOL Z28W, I wonder who you're talking about?! :D

Zeeee, the 4th Gen is very different, that is my opinion as is Z284s' and he's doing a good job of explaining so I'll leave it to him. ;) The ONLY thing that looks slightly obvious Third Gen on a 4th is the 93-97 front, otherwise they look completly different.