Sent.

 

http://home.comcast.net/~blackwoodga...n/camarov5.jpg

 

IZ28 yours seems a bit busy to me. It’s not bad. I feel like you forced the front end. I do not like the headlights and LT1 4thg en fog lights. I’m also in the 4 circular taillight camp so I’m not liking the wrap around’s. WE should keep playing with this pic though. I defiantly think the artists around here are getting somewhere.

I also like the fact that this design could have a Targa or T-tops along with a vert.

I with I had some sort of computer design program. All I have is paint and I can never produce the results I want with it.

Good try though IZ28, just not my taste.

 

i honestly think people should stop telling other people what the camaro "should" look like since the design is pretty much done with. why don't the people who know what the car looks like voice their opinion on what needs to be changed so that picture looks just like the car already under works? everyone else seems to have an opinion on what the camaro should look like, even though, like i said, it's pretty much done? not trying to flame anyone... just want this post to go to the right direction: what the car looks like and not what everyone wants it to look like.

 

Exactomundo Lets keep this thing rolling. We have a good objective project going now, lets keep it that way.

 

in what way? Thirdgens look nothing like a concorde. I think the MB design with the more pronounced headlights are a lot better. I think there should be a solid in body unit much like the 350Z for a cleaner line, and then HID lighs inside.

 

I was talking of the over-all arrangement of the grille being seperated from the headlights, and slightly below the beltline. The fog / turn lights also follow a pattern.

If you take a look at the front end of each generation from the 2nd on, there is a distinct similarity.....I really didn't need to remind you of that, did I??

Besides, I'm not so sure Chrylser's version didn't come out after the LS1 design did.....that and we all should know that designs don't happen overnight.....

 

Ah, I understand what you mean. yeah, as time went on it went from headlights in with the grill, then headlights outside of the grill, and then the grill got thinner, and moved upwards of the bumper. then it slowly slid back down, and on the third gens, sat below the headlights and its kinda stayed that way since 82. Im not sure what happend first, but the resemblence is uncanny. Stronger then the Grand Prix/GTO argument.... much stronger.

 

 

This is going to be a long one and it has evolved somewhat as I read subsequent posts so I'm addressing stuff that has popped up since I began getting thoughts together for this. Here goes.

Disclaimer: None of what follows is meant to denigrate anyone's views or opinions, we are all looking for the same thing - basically. So, please do not interpret anything herein as flame.

First off, let me extend thanks to everyone who provided feedback on the SS based drawing. To everyone who would change this or that; - remember this by no means an official concept from GM so nothing is written in stone as far as the look, but... I, like Crispey (though I will not attempt to speak for anyone else) and others, put artwork together based primarily upon what was suggested on the Cheers and Gears forums by Evok through possible inside sources, I took the direction of building from the Gongos car aka the SS. To that end, since Crispey's front end was said to be very, very close excepting for the headlights size and number (at least in version 1), I basically grafted the spirit of it (though the result was not a perfect copy and was not intended to be) onto the SS.

For those with the inclination to build on the artwork out there, I'm not saying don't take it upon yourselves to doctor the images to your liking - go for it. Doing so however, distracts from what all of the effort was for in the first place IF you are incorporating details you would personally like to see and NOT the details or directions that are "leaked" by someone (supposedly) in the know. IMO there is a difference and that's how these threads end up going off on tangents and the original intent gets lost (though not always a bad thing).

Personally, I'm up in the air as to which way Chevrolet should go. I'll wait and see for myself when something concrete is available to digest. To that end, no matter what they ultimately do, someone, somewhere is gonna be p***ed off. One needs to look no further then these forums to see divisions popping up amongst the faithful - now over some third party artwork samples. I don't really see an SS based car - albeit with heritage styling elements as retro, - I do see it overall as a move forward, much more forward than the 3rd to 4th gen transformation was. Camaro has always been a car that evolved to reflect the times. So in some years it was less a street/strip terror and more a luxury tourer, so be it. Obviously a lot of things conspired to put the car on hiatus and the car will have to evolve again to better reflect the market. A straight evolutionary path from where it was in '02 may not be the best plan (make no mistake, I do love the 4th gen). After all, the resultant sales were tepid for a car the public at large didn't seem to want any longer and dealers didn't really want to sell. I know this applies at least locally since I can't recall seeing any new Camaro/Firebird on the lot, that wasn't special order, at any of our three GM dealers since basically 96. I have seen more used ones, though the majority have been on non-GM lots.

We have all seen a lot of banter about an upright/retro coupe versus a low slung evolutionary design. My piece has been labelled retro by some. Yes, it has heritage styling elements, but only as per Evok's inside information. I dunno, myself, I think the SS is pretty low-slung as it is and therefore more evolutionary (granted, not from the F platform per se, but certainly much more modern as far as packaging goes) as a starting point for a new performance coupe than say, KrisH's PHR featured, VERY retro rendering (sorry, no offense intended at all) or even the 4th gen car itself for that matter.

Some thoughts regarding my particular piece of artwork and the direction the "real" coupe is apparently taking:

I kinda rushed this out in order to get it online while the topic was hot. It has not undergone any treatment in Photoshop (yet:-) to make it more "real". The wheels and wheelwells were not scaled down to reflect 17-18 inch real-world sizes. In fact if you look close enough you'll see neither calipers nor lugs on the wheel/rotor combos:-). Speaking of perspective, some people noted a droop in the curvature of my front fender line - I'll attribute that to forcing the lines to straighten somewhat given the dramatic curves in the SS fenders that I started with. I suspect that it is a perspective thing. Headlight placement is untouched from the SS although I did scale them somewhat.

Do I think the chrome bar should be present, well no, not as it has manifested itself on the models already on the market - but it is a brand identifier - according to the marketing gurus.

The 4 headlight arrangement, the hoodscoop and the mirrors flowing from the fenders - a la 4th gen were mentioned as "insider" tweaks I believe in an earlier post sometime after Crispey's first rendering whose front end incidentally was reported to be quite accurate. - Nuf said.

I opted for the red bowtie because for me it symbolizes Chevrolet performance; not the gold bowtie. The Camaro's logo would look out of place on the grille as drawn and it's traditional location would render it virtually invisible anyway given the perspective of my drawing.

I incorporated rear 3/4 windows to neither mimic Mustangs nor to be retro, but because I think the Camar - oops there I go again - "Chevrolet performance coupe" needs them to dispel what I personally think is a claustrophobic rear passenger area (at least in the hardtop:-). The only heritage cue I truly hope doesn't make the cut, is the passenger side floorpan hump. But wait, is that not something that ultimately defines the Camaro? ( just kidding-

I would however like to see a stretched wheelbase perhaps back to 108 inches coupled with shorter overhangs. I thought the SS was huge especially since it was described as paying homage to Impalas of yore, 121 inch wheelbase 198 in overall, BIG - wait a minute, that 's only about 5 inches longer than a 4th gen. In fact the 4th gen car is longer than the new for '04 GTO - maybe not heavier. One thing on the SS that I think will have to be overhauled the most is the design of the dash - it's nice but it really harkens back to yesteryear - back before any Camaro hit the street. I would also like to see a more usable/friendly/accessible interior since I do have to sell this to my wife as practical for two, plus two small children.

Obviously what identifies the car as a Camaro as opposed to just a car with the name on it's trunklid to a buyer is going to be somewhat different for each person (I think) and as long as people can take something away from the actual car when it becomes reality that says 'yeah, it's a Camaro' to them, and they can be happy with that, then Chevrolet will have done a good job.

Periscope down, back to lurk mode....

 

Of all the concepts thus far, yours is by far my favorite.

 

Thanks for the kind words, it was actually a lot of fun to draw the car - it's been a long while - although draw is a misnomer since pencil never actually touched paper - it's all digital. When it's all said and done I'm not sure if I was actually designing the car (for real) it would end up going down this path, but I'm quite happy with it nonetheless and if it's close to what's really going on, I'm very anxious to see the real thing.

Since starting this exercise I've been looking at the SS cover shot on MT from last March and every time I see it, I see Camaro in the front 3/4 view - my opinion.

 

Wow,
You got the front of the car,.... down. The headlamp covers were tinted. The creases on the front fenders were not as pronounced on the car I saw (I understand that was a late addition). The profile looks correct the wheel wells were a bit smaller. The rear quarter windows were different. They were not from a '68 Camaro. The were set lower in the body and further back. They did not meet at a sharp point but were chopped and rounded ala 350Z. That's why I mentioned the car manufacturer could be Nissan.

I chopped your pic. Like this. I know it's drab but it won't offend the anti-retro crowd.

camaro_ss_gongos

 

I think I like that rear window better. Kind of reminds me of the 94-96 Mustangs though.

 

racing stripes could look bad *** on that car

lets see a cowl hood on that too.