Paraphrasing several sources in this forum, "The 5th gen cannot have t-tops due to the lack of a b-pillar" or that "it would be an engineering nightmare to design a t-top for a car without a b-pillar". Well apparently although it is too tough for today's technology, it could be done in 1976:


Notice that on the early Hurst hatches, the t-tops don't go all the way back to the edge of the door glass. Now to apply this to the F5, you just end the t-top in front of the rear roll down glass and you'd have the same situation. This would give you solid roof over the rear glass and the intersection of the rear glass, side glass, and t-top would not be at the same point thus making sealing more efficient. If they could do it then, they could certainly do it now.

 

Crash standards are MUCH less forgiving than they were in 1976.

 

I see what you are saying, but the 5th gen differs from that Firebird in that it also has a quarter-window glass. The junction where the door glass, quarter window, and T-top meet would be a nightmare in terms of wind noise and, eventually, leakage.

 

The B pilar in question is the one between the door glass and the rear quarter window (actually, there isn't one on the concept, which most of us want to keep). The pic you show is the same as all 2nd, 3rd, and 4th gen F-bodies, which is different from the 1st gens and the concept.

 

Then how do we build convertables today?


Actually, the intersection point would not be common, the quarter windows would end behind the rear edge of the t-top, so the side window / quarter window intersection would be behind the t-top.

 

Beats me, I am not an engineer any more. Are you?

The bottom line is, there is profit for Chevrolet in a t-top option and if they COULD they certainly WOULD make them available, and I am sure they WANT to but could possibly be UNABLE to. From what I understand, they might not be able to provide them for a number of reasons...one being crash standards. I want t-tops as much as anyone else, but if I ignore the facts, it still doesn't change the facts.

I am just happy we might get the Camaro back at all.

 

Right, but if you take the front edge of the c-pillar in the picture and instead of having the bottom of it angle forward, you have it angle around the quarter windows, you would have the same thing. Here is a very crude pic of what I mean. The weather stripping visible in front of my blacked out area would be the stripping bonded to the quarter window. Obviously the back edge of the door would be farther forward too.

 

I recently played some Project Gotham Racing on XBOX360.. and I ran into this



The middle one.
It's basically what the Camaro is striving to look like. The main problem i have with T-Tops + rear window is look at the ferrari. It looks like the roof just comes up and over out of nowhere. Like a convertible top that doesn't been closed all the way. It looks... WRONG.

At this point in time, I'm thinking. add a pillar. don't allow the windows to rolldown. If T-Tops, paint the pillar body-color, as well as the side of the t-tops, maybe

I do *NOT* trust two windows side by side to keep water and **** out. '67 Camaro RS is like that, and over time that **** just doesn't align anymore. Not to mention you could easily steal the car with a wire, although since then door locks have been moved, so that's not as much an issue anymore.

 

If you can meet crash standards in a targa car or 'vert, they can be met with a t-top car.

Oh, I'm happy to have the camaro back too, but the "t-tops can't be done" argument just doesn't hold water with me. If they don't show up, it will either be 'cause someone didn't want to spend the money to design them in (regardless of the ROI), or someone felt they didn't fit the modern retro theme (the more likely reason IMO).

Oh, and actually, I am an engineer in the auto industry.

 

Don't forget though, with t-tops you would have the center bar still (unlike the targa Ferrari) to break up the gaping hole look you get from the side view.

 

Convertibles have different standards than coupes.

Before you ask, GM's Camaro brigade DID attempt to classify 4th gen T-top Camaros as convertibles as a way to prolong F-body production and was denied. The point was made pretty clearly, so there won't be any effort to classify T-tops as a convertible for a 5th gen.





2nd, 3rd, & 4th gen Camaro, 70s era Dodge Chargers, Magnums & Miradas, Ford Mustang II & Fox Mustangs, 70 & 80s era GM G-bodies (Monte Carlo, Cutlass, etc...), Ford's LTD II, Lincoln's Mark IV, Nissan's Z cars, Supras, and every other car that had T-tops had a substantial "B" pillar that was part of the vehicle's structure very close to the T-top cut-out, so roof strength was unaffected.

Without the "B" pillar, the roof relies on longitudinal frames that roughly run above the windows from the A-pillar back to the C-pillar. Now, you imagine what cutting that roof "frame" does to the roof structure, and what type of extra engineering and weight it would take to get that roof strength back. I see what you're saying about using the C-pillars instead, but the rear quarter windows of the 5th gen don't immediately blend into the "C" pillars, so you won't be able to use them in leiu of B-pillars unless you reinforce the day lights out of the roof and C-pillar, adding weight GM is desparately trying to keep off the Camaro.

The cost of doing that would have to come out of someplace. T-tops were a very high priced option in 4th gen Camaros and it had substantial B-pillars & massive lower box frame built into the unibody structure to ensure the passenger compartment didn't accordian in severe front impact. Imagine what the cost (and weight penialty) is going to be, in addition to the warranty costs and the complaint from tops that leak wind and or noise.


GM people read this site. I'm sure they saw the reaction here when the B-pillar question was bought up. I'm sure it affected the prospect of T-tops in the future.

 

Are targas classified as 'verts? I would guess probably not.




I have a late 2nd gen sitting in my garage that would disagree with that statement. $100 worth of subframe connectors ( I would estimate about 40lbs) fix the problem. Not what I would call a difficult engineering hurdle to overcome.

Funny, the Corvette targas don't seem to be paying a huge weight penalty.

Even with all of that what was the take rate on 4th gens with t-tops? Pretty darn high, right?

Exactly what I said earlier, the main reason you won’t see them has more to do with aesthetic design theme than structural design.

 

This isn't a bad idea. If you want a convertible, you have to pay a premium and you get a car with extra structural reinforcement (and weight). So, if you want t-tops, then you get a b-pillar along with some added cost and weight.

 

Why not have a hidden B-pillar, let the quarter panel glass cover it? I'm a big fan of t-tops, I would not buy a 3rd or 4th gen car without them. However, I'm not sure how they would look on a 5th gen. I think they might be out of place on this car.

 

Aww ya beat me to it! I was going to say the exact same thing! and this wouldn't have to be for jsut t-top cars as I can see it possibly being a benefit to those of us who "USE" our cars for hard driving