2010 - 2015 Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and Multimedia All 2010 - 2011 - 2012 - 2013 - 2014 - 2015 Camaro news, photos, and videos

possible timeline..forseen ......

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jun 6, 2006 | 07:31 AM
  #16  
Bob Cosby's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 3,252
From: Knoxville, TN
Re: possible timeline..forseen ......

Originally Posted by guionM
2007.5?

We are in the 2007 model year already (been since January).

2007 MY ends December 31st. No way on earth you'll see one before then, so perish the thought of ANY 2007, 2007.5,or even a 2007.99 Camaro.

It's going to be mid next year (mid 2008 model year) at the earliest, and I may be dreaming a little on that date.

Best bet, late next year or early '08.
I think we're still saying 2008 as a 2009, if I read this correctly (no winkies, so its pretty easy for simple folk like me to do).

Bob
Old Jun 6, 2006 | 09:02 AM
  #17  
stars1010's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,121
From: Houston
Re: possible timeline..forseen ......

Originally Posted by Bob Cosby
I think we're still saying 2008 as a 2009, if I read this correctly (no winkies, so its pretty easy for simple folk like me to do).

Bob
Yeah that still my timeline guess too.....

LOOK BOB NO WINKIE! LOL
Old Jun 6, 2006 | 01:13 PM
  #18  
guionM's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Smile Re: possible timeline..forseen ......

Originally Posted by EllwynX
That's how I remember it as well. They came out in '93 as 1993 1/2 cars I believe.
Not sure when production started, but I can gaurantee they weren't called 93 1/2.

Even the '64 1/2 Mustang was actually a '65 (Ford never called it a 64 1/2).

If Camaro began production (even if it was just pilot cars) in '92, then the whole run is classified '93. If it was '93, then they were '94s even though Chevy may have marketed them as '93s.
Old Jun 6, 2006 | 01:22 PM
  #19  
EllwynX's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,093
From: Southern NJ
Re: possible timeline..forseen ......

Originally Posted by guionM
Not sure when production started, but I can gaurantee they weren't called 93 1/2.

Even the '64 1/2 Mustang was actually a '65 (Ford never called it a 64 1/2).

If Camaro began production (even if it was just pilot cars) in '92, then the whole run is classified '93. If it was '93, then they were '94s even though Chevy may have marketed them as '93s.
Oh, I don't think they were 'officially called' '93 1/2's. But I remember that was what they technically were...
Old Jun 6, 2006 | 02:06 PM
  #20  
RMC_SS_LDO's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 241
From: Kings Bay, Georgia
Re: possible timeline..forseen ......

Well if the new GMT-900 trucks (Tahoe/Avalanche) can be sold early as a 2007 model during calendar year (CY) 2006, why couldn't GM release a car as a MY 07 during CY 07 regardless of when in 07 it came out?

Shift the MY designation to MY 08 in December or whenever.... when a "full production" version is produced (thinking in terms of the scenario presented by Caps94ZODG.

I understand the "next model year" vehicles are released several months before the CY, but who sets that in stone? I never really understood that to begin with. If it is an MY 07, then release it January 1st of 2007 for petes-sake! I digress....

Would be nice to finally see a worth-while Anniversary edition car- something special vice candy-coating. Would be better seeing it as the Indy or Daytona pace car to boot!
Old Jun 6, 2006 | 07:23 PM
  #21  
Dave89IROC's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,676
From: Melvindale, MI, US
Re: possible timeline..forseen ......

Originally Posted by guionM
Not sure when production started, but I can gaurantee they weren't called 93 1/2.

Even the '64 1/2 Mustang was actually a '65 (Ford never called it a 64 1/2).

If Camaro began production (even if it was just pilot cars) in '92, then the whole run is classified '93. If it was '93, then they were '94s even though Chevy may have marketed them as '93s.
but the "64 1/2"s were definately different then the 65s, the 64 1/2s had a generator, the 65s got a alternator................

so they were not "just" early 65s
Old Jun 6, 2006 | 10:25 PM
  #22  
Bcolon's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 58
From: Toledo, Ohio
Re: possible timeline..forseen ......

Originally Posted by guionM
Not sure when production started, but I can gaurantee they weren't called 93 1/2.

Even the '64 1/2 Mustang was actually a '65 (Ford never called it a 64 1/2).

If Camaro began production (even if it was just pilot cars) in '92, then the whole run is classified '93. If it was '93, then they were '94s even though Chevy may have marketed them as '93s.
I guess my point is Chevy and GM can call it pretty much whatever they want. If GM wants to call a March 2007 car a 2007 are the model year police going to stand up and say, "You can't do that"? I would have to say probably not. It will probably be a moot point anyway. A January-June 2007 release does seem highly unlikely.
Old Jun 6, 2006 | 11:14 PM
  #23  
ZaphodBeeblebrox's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 131
Re: possible timeline..forseen ......

My bet is on an early 2008 release as a 2009 model. Remember the GMT-900's? Came out Jan. 1 2006 as the first 2007 model.

Also, I can't see GM rushing to come up with an "anniversary" model. GM tried this with the GTO (the 2004 for the 40th anniversary), but styling concerns and public knowledge that the 05's would have hood scoops and a 400 hp motor were two of many reasons why the '04's lingered on lots. Best to spend whatever time is needed to make the product right...
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
RRRR
Midwest
19
Jun 4, 2004 02:38 PM
'94 Bad A Z28
South Atlantic
4
Nov 4, 2002 05:53 PM
MichiganSkip
Computer Diagnostics and Tuning
1
Jul 30, 2002 12:37 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:48 AM.