2005... a 1969 re-make
06-13-2003, 01:50 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, CANADA
Posts: 58
2005... a 1969 re-make
I hear rumors that GM shutdown production of the Camaro Line due to Union contracts.
I also hear rumour that a new Camaro will come out in the form of a 1969 remake ... (and compete with the new Mustang concept car, which is HOT)
Ford Concept
I also hear rumour that a new Camaro will come out in the form of a 1969 remake ... (and compete with the new Mustang concept car, which is HOT)
Ford Concept
Last edited by Piet; 06-13-2003 at 01:54 PM.
06-13-2003, 03:18 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SoCal
Posts: 3,463
Well can't blame the UAW for GM's decision to cut the car. Now the reason why we don't have a replacement in the works, well that could be due to a clause in the UAW contract. But again GM's fault they signed the deal..
Blame Don Hackworth and Ron Zarella if you want to place some blame.
(Both gone from GM, thankfully!)
Will a new Camaro be a retro design??
-Well thats a good question. Although I'd have to say with some certainty that IF it does come back it won't be retro. But thats a big IF and from our standpoint now just getting the car back true to its heritage would be enough in any style we get.
Your guess is as good as mine as to the future of the Camaro.
Blame Don Hackworth and Ron Zarella if you want to place some blame.
(Both gone from GM, thankfully!)Will a new Camaro be a retro design??
-Well thats a good question. Although I'd have to say with some certainty that IF it does come back it won't be retro. But thats a big IF and from our standpoint now just getting the car back true to its heritage would be enough in any style we get.
Your guess is as good as mine as to the future of the Camaro.
06-13-2003, 04:30 PM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
Um....
the Camaro was made in Canada. UAW had nothing to do with it.
As far as the CAW goes, GM made the contract, and the workers lived up to it's end.
Ste. Therese was just a plant that was too big, had storage facilities that was too small, combined with the fact that GM had too much capacity & the plant couldn't be brought in line with GM's restructuring that mandates it's car plants make multiple vehicles on one line, and finally, the fact that 2 plants in the US had been closed, and a 3rd was out of the question (can you say big fat target!).
That about sums up the manufacturing side of Camaro's demise. But there is also a WHOLE LOT of reasons why the car itself was killed that had nothing to do with the manufacturing side, but that would also take awhile to explain.
As I said before, it's not a mystery why the F-body was killed. It's just that it's a mystery who it lasted so long under the circumstances it was in. We all owe RP and company a big [B]thank you[/I][B] for keeping the F-body around a little longer than it was supposed to be.
the Camaro was made in Canada. UAW had nothing to do with it.
As far as the CAW goes, GM made the contract, and the workers lived up to it's end.
Ste. Therese was just a plant that was too big, had storage facilities that was too small, combined with the fact that GM had too much capacity & the plant couldn't be brought in line with GM's restructuring that mandates it's car plants make multiple vehicles on one line, and finally, the fact that 2 plants in the US had been closed, and a 3rd was out of the question (can you say big fat target!).
That about sums up the manufacturing side of Camaro's demise. But there is also a WHOLE LOT of reasons why the car itself was killed that had nothing to do with the manufacturing side, but that would also take awhile to explain.
As I said before, it's not a mystery why the F-body was killed. It's just that it's a mystery who it lasted so long under the circumstances it was in. We all owe RP and company a big [B]thank you[/I][B] for keeping the F-body around a little longer than it was supposed to be.
06-13-2003, 08:37 PM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Teeter-tottering between Brilliance and Insanity
Posts: 1,292
I saw a camaro concept image modeled after a 69 about 6 months ago. I dont know if it came from a GM artist of not, but I know it looks mean as hell.
I have the image but I dont have a way to host it.
I have the image but I dont have a way to host it.
06-13-2003, 09:01 PM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Largo
Posts: 7
Motor Trend talks about the 5th generation, and interview some insider sources in GM. I was hearing a rumor that Corvette was going to make it's own Make under GM. Then the Camaro was going to join under Corvette, so we would have a Corvette Camaro, instead of a Chevy Camaro. Just a rumor though.
Although at 1 time Corvette did wanna be its own thing even though it was always Chevrolet.
06-13-2003, 09:20 PM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: At car shows and cruise nights!
Posts: 3,647
I do not want the next Gen to be retro (which it most likely won't be) because it does not last, some cues are fine, but not all-out retro. Some people like it for a sec, but then it just seems......stupid.
Last edited by IZ28; 06-13-2003 at 09:35 PM.
06-14-2003, 12:56 AM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: Holden, Massachusetts
Posts: 187
you guys forget that one of the main reasons why the F-Body was axed was becuase it was not able to pass 2003 crash test standards and GM did not realize this until the last minute and there was no way that GM was able to put together another platform together on time. You have to think the 4th generation was a 10 year old design, 3rd gen same thing, it was due for a redesign but GM slacked and didn't redesign it therefor they screwed them selves.
06-14-2003, 02:27 AM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Z
Posts: 563
Originally posted by BadIroc
you guys forget that one of the main reasons why the F-Body was axed was becuase it was not able to pass 2003 crash test standards and GM did not realize this until the last minute and there was no way that GM was able to put together another platform together on time. You have to think the 4th generation was a 10 year old design, 3rd gen same thing, it was due for a redesign but GM slacked and didn't redesign it therefor they screwed them selves.
you guys forget that one of the main reasons why the F-Body was axed was becuase it was not able to pass 2003 crash test standards and GM did not realize this until the last minute and there was no way that GM was able to put together another platform together on time. You have to think the 4th generation was a 10 year old design, 3rd gen same thing, it was due for a redesign but GM slacked and didn't redesign it therefor they screwed them selves.
06-14-2003, 10:35 AM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,313
Originally posted by BadIroc
you guys forget that one of the main reasons why the F-Body was axed was becuase it was not able to pass 2003 crash test standards and GM did not realize this until the last minute and there was no way that GM was able to put together another platform together on time. You have to think the 4th generation was a 10 year old design, 3rd gen same thing, it was due for a redesign but GM slacked and didn't redesign it therefor they screwed them selves.
you guys forget that one of the main reasons why the F-Body was axed was becuase it was not able to pass 2003 crash test standards and GM did not realize this until the last minute and there was no way that GM was able to put together another platform together on time. You have to think the 4th generation was a 10 year old design, 3rd gen same thing, it was due for a redesign but GM slacked and didn't redesign it therefor they screwed them selves.
06-14-2003, 01:44 PM
#15
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, CANADA
Posts: 58
It was more than crash test ratings. There is always ways to correct that, as we saw in the 1972 to 1973 models. The bumpers did not meet the crash test ratings, therefore new bumper design in a single year. No problem.
Decisions to keep, or dispose of models lines is never done for 'emotional' reasons, nor do I believe that the management at GM would be caught 'off-guard' by changing requirements.
As in all cases, follow the money! Profit per unit was not as much as desired. Many factors come into play, Labor costs, Fixed costs like Factories materials and advertising, dropped sales, etc
I think that they could have done more, but I think they were distracted by thier Hy-wire platform. I think that you can expect a sports car model based upon the Hy-wire technology.
Should be interesting, I wish that GM would let enthusiasts into the process. I see the same frustration on a corvette forum I am on. They all were expecting for from the 50th anniverary corvette. And now they find out that the Cadillac XLR is going to be similar to the corvette (but with more cushy stuff).
I can only hope that new management at GM will start to involve GM enthusiasts in the process...
Decisions to keep, or dispose of models lines is never done for 'emotional' reasons, nor do I believe that the management at GM would be caught 'off-guard' by changing requirements.
As in all cases, follow the money! Profit per unit was not as much as desired. Many factors come into play, Labor costs, Fixed costs like Factories materials and advertising, dropped sales, etc
I think that they could have done more, but I think they were distracted by thier Hy-wire platform. I think that you can expect a sports car model based upon the Hy-wire technology.
Should be interesting, I wish that GM would let enthusiasts into the process. I see the same frustration on a corvette forum I am on. They all were expecting for from the 50th anniverary corvette. And now they find out that the Cadillac XLR is going to be similar to the corvette (but with more cushy stuff).
I can only hope that new management at GM will start to involve GM enthusiasts in the process...