I thought the retro-Mustang was ugly and a bad idea, until I saw the new Retro-Look Camaro,.....it is truly horrid!!! a Hyundai looks more sporty than this lack of design and imagination that the new retro Camaro inspires.
Hey GM, I'll hold on to my "REAL" Camaro , a '97 Camaro.

 

Your opinion flies in the face of the vast majority. The new concept has been warmly embraced by most and has a good balance of new styling and heritage elements, IMHO.

 

Here's the most-asked question of the year:

Have your seen the car in person?

 

I know, I know,....I guess everyone is blind Happy that they "GM" has resurrected our beloved Camaro, (i was too until i saw the curtain raise unvailing "it"). They are not concerned at all that it looks like a brick w/ headlights. In my defense,.. I don't like anything retro except maybe music.

I wonder how many Z-28 owners would have prefered a more streamlined/futuristic version over the one that is to be built.

I didn't much care for the Nissan's resurrected "Z",...didn't think that they could improve upon the 90's version; but it is slowly growing on me. Anyway Nissan engineers went the other direction and let it evolve into futuristic style (then again a retro version for it would have been a Datson 240Z,..which are still not too shabby looking, in my view).

please excuse my ranting,...
"Long live the Z-28!!!!"

 

Well, you can't accuse people for being blind simply for having their opinion...just like you do.

Did you happen to see the car in person?

 

Do you agree that the 350Z pulls many styling cues from the 300Z? It does, the 350Z is an evolution directly from the 300Z with modern styling cues as well. The new Camaro is similar; only Chevy chose to start with the 1st generation Camaro where Nissan chose the 300Z as the starting point. The new Camaro in my opinion is an evolution based off the gen 1 with STRONG modern styling. I see the Camaro as more modern than retro; it has retro styling cues in a modern design. Cars I see more retro than modern are Tunderbird, Mustang, Challenger; these are just plain retro. The Mustang concept was more modern with its hard lines, but those got washed away in the production car. So I'm happy with Camaro, I feel it is evolving and moving into the future, imo.

 

how do we keep the crack heads off of here? There isn't ANYTHING wrong with the "new" Camaro. I currently own a 4th gen f-body and have absolutely NO problem with the throwback look of the new one. In fact I was HOPING for a 69ish style and got what I wanted. The 69 is without question the most beloved of all Camaros. If you want a futuristic one, stick around, it will evolve into one. But shame on any true Camaro fan who utters a discouraging word about the future plans to bring the car back. (Even if the design is not to thier liking) Just get on your knees and thank God that someone at GM had sense and the gonads to bring it back.

 

I'm not a huge fan of the new Camaro, but to say it lacks design and imagination is a little bit to much. Sounds like your trying to pick a fight. Only 10 yr olds do that.

 

All I can say anyone that says this car is retro needs another pair of glasses.
It is a true modern design on a well known car. I can say a car is retro because 20 years ago it had 4 wheels, a trunk, and a motor up front or what ever and still does. I did see the car unvailed and have seen it in person since then close up and in private and my wife is one of the few to ride in it and is the first car she has loved at first sight and thats saying alot for her.
Is the car retro (far from it)

 

I still cannot possibly fathom how people can convince themselves that the 5th gen concept is not retro. Look at the damn car. It takes almost all of it's influence straight from a 1st gen Camaro, a car that was designed in a different automotive epoch. I can understand someone saying that the new Camaro is less retro inspired then the new Mustang, but that doesn't make it none retro. Look no further than to the magazines and the blogs. Everyone describes the car as retro. Sure, it has a modern edge, but it is still a retro looking car. Good luck convincing the rest of the world that the car is not retro.

I was skimming through the newest issue of Classic Motor Trend, and they had a comparo between the 67 Mustang and the 67 Camaro. I found it interesting that back then Motor Trend did not hold the console mounted ancillary gauges in high regard. This is something that people thought was stupid almost 40 years ago, and yet we might still be getting this dumb *** console gauges in our "fully modern" 5th gen.

 

Welp he doesn't like it at all...I guess we should have made it look nothing at all like a Camaro and just call it one maybe even added 4 doors to it. I mean seriously it doesn't matter if it shares no looks from the previous models because after all no one cares about that, that is why the GTO is selling so well, or why the Charger is being given to business men as a company car.

In all seriousness though, GM knew that if they brought the Camaro back that simply changing the front bumper and the rear tail lights wasn't going to cut it. Building a car that ressembles the 1st gen more closely makes perfect sense, why because it sells. When people buy a Camaro they want it to be recognized as such. There should be no wonder as to whether it is a new Supra, Viper or otherwise, these reasons are why they pull design cues out from the past...so that there is icon or brand identification. Building a Camaro that is sleek and futuristic while it may be cool for us grear heads isn't going to sell the car to the average joe who had a vintage Camaro or always wanted one. Instead the futuristic car will sell to the same group of people as the 4th gen did...not much base model v6 sales in that crowd and that is what we need. We need a car that speeks to the volumes of people who loved the looks of the past Camaros not some thing that only serves one niche of this very small market that is muscle cars.

 

Even if it IS retro, so what? More importantly, it is ALL Camaro.

 

My point wasn't does it look good or not. I think GM did a good job on it. My point was, this car is retro. It seems to me people have been trying to find all manner of loopholes in the definition to try and classify this as none retro, but just about everywhere you go for a review, its retroness is noted, and rightly so.

 

Is there any new cars you DO like?

 

I think the problem with the entire "retro" thing going around is it is fashionable to call something retro. It's a fad. So everyone is calling everything retro now. There's a fine line between using old (retro, whatever word you choose to use) cues to design something new. Right now people don't understand that line and call everything retro. For example, Is the new Lambrgini retro to you? Answer...no. But according to how you use the retro label on the Camaro you should also label the Lambrohini as retro. It pulls its styling cues from the 1980's. The 350Z is retro also since it pulls cues from the 1990's. The Mitshubishi Evolution is retro because it uses the same styling from the 1980's. This is all wrong, these cars are not retro, they are use modern interpretations of old (some choose to call retro) cues and brand heritage. Is the Louve (museum in Paris) retro because it has a glass pyramid? That's as retro as it gets right? Of coursse not. The pyramid at the louve is modern and if I.M. Pei heard me call it retro he'd b**ch slap me. If your into fads go by an overpriced $100 Von Dutch trucker hat and wear it everyday, but please stop rewriting the dictionary. No hard feelings, jut my opinion.