QATransAm

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.

R377

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.

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.

Shellhead

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.......

HAZ-Matt

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

NikiVee

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.

JakeRobb

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".

Diognes56

+1

David

graham

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

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

SSCamaro99_3

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.

2lane69

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.

ZLT195

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.

5thgen69camaro

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?

HAZ-Matt

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.

JakeRobb

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.

2lane69

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'.