Ok, I have to admit that looks hot, (front could use a little work, back could use a small lip spoiler or somethin')... but I don't think it should produced that way. Honestly to me, it looks way better than the 'Stang but I'm not into this whole retro thing...I just have to wonder what the hell Ford and Dodge are gonna' do to these cars. Where do you go from a retro design? It seems to me that that could be a major problem a couple years down the road.

Oh, BTW...Modernized 4th gen Camaro all the way

 

I agree with most of this (except for the part about the Challenger looking better than the new Mustang). I'm a 4gen - 5gen person too but I would be ok with a retro-themed 5gen if it looked different enough from the 67-69. I should also mention though - if the new Challenger looks like the spy pic, there'll be no way I will be buying one. One of the reasons I got rid of my 4gen Firebird was so my tykes could see out of the back seat better. From the looks of it, the Challenger concept has abysmal rear quarter visibility.

 

The car is what can be called a successful design..... people seem to either hate it or they wet themselves over it. Depends stock should be going way up soon.

I think the car is awesome, but I would have prefered a different set of headlights. Instead of 4 round, I think it should have had single flush lenses filling the spaces on each end of the grille. If anything seems way too "Retro", it's those headlights.

The "C" pillars look kind of thick, but the rear end is perfect. Best looking tail (or use of the term thick) since the time I saw Jennifer Lopez in person.

The whole car looks like a smaller, neat, steroid induced version of the old Challenger. Strangely enough, it works.

 

What a bunch of ********. Period. If it doesn't look like a '69, then automatically only the 300k or so people who bought a 4th gen will want one? What a crock of crap. If the car looks good, it will sell. Why does the 5th gen HAVE TO COPY AN OLD CAMARO to be a sales success? Why does it need to be a ripoff of itself?

I don't want a modernized 4th gen. And yes, I hate retro. I want something NEW, DIFFERENT, and STYLISH. To me, a retro-brick does not qualify!

 

BTW, Ill add here that if its a modernized 4th gen, I will not be buying it.
Ill go further and say that if right now its a choice between a Modern 4th gen or a Modern First gen, Id shoot for option B.

 

What you said x1242352346468567935423134

I so hope we don't get another xerox copy of an old muscle car.

 

That number X2!


NO RETRO! I DON'T WANT SOMEBODY ELSE'S DESIGN HAND-ME-DOWN!

 

That retro brick named Mustang sure sells. The Challenger, if priced the same, will do just as good. The new Camaro needs the overall feel and proportions of the first gen. Its up to Chevy's styling dept, we'll find out soon enough.

 

What will folks say if the 5th Gen comes out is very modern and just hints at it's heritage....

And falls flat on it's face?

 

I hate to restate things, but why does a new car have to be a modernized version of ANY previous iteration? I want a car that you can tell is a Camaro, but just taking a previous design and "Modernizing" it doesn't make the best statement about your design department...

And I'll say this again, too, because many of you just don't get it. The new Mustang sells well because that's what mustangs do. They sell. They could have put a little plastic running horse on the front of a cardboard box with a briggs&stratton, called it a Mustang, and it would sell like snowcones in hell.

 

Allright now I am in a dilema, if the Camaro looks as good as I think it does, I am simply goingto have to buy both the Challenger and the Camaro !

 

Upon further investigation, I'm skeptical. The minivan next to that car does not appear to be a DCX product, which just seems highly unlikely to me.

Maybe it's just a decent hack job like that 1st-gen Camaro on the 4th-gen chassis that caused all that ruckus on these boards a few months ago.

 

Or maybe the van belongs to the camera crew taking the press photos?

 

If they were press photos, they wouldn't be distance shots with a telephoto lens. That van had nothing to do with the photographer. Why would he park right next to it and then walk a few hundred yards away to snap a telephoto shot with a huge lens? That's ridiculous.

 

What do you think the car was doing out in public with lights around it? Go look at the 2nd picture again.