The "Camaro look", IMO, is ALL about proportions, stance and attitude....not any specific cues. If you look at McBride's sketch ,(MY PERSONAL FAVORITE, BTW)....it's a picture of a car never seen before. Yet, the moment you see it......you say CAMARO!!

Even without elements like the '69 fender creases...it still looks like a Camaro....and a thouroghly modern one at that.

When the 2nd gen came out, it carried little or none of the 1st gen's look. It was a revolutionary design. It was an American exotic. The same can be said of the 3rd gen. They both blew people away with their fresh, sporty, muscular lines; and everyone knew they were Camaros. Why? Proportion, Stance and Attitude.

I don't think we should get so hung up on picking a gen for the 5th to emulate....in fact to do so may be a mistake.

 

the early (93-97) 4th gen front end looked EXACTLY like the 3rd but it was sucked by a vachum from behind.

 

I think that I have a problem with two front ends.

Invariably, it will come down to the ugly one or the pretty one. Or even worse, the mediocre one.

I'd much prefer to see just one B*E*A*U*T*I*F*U*L one.

 

It goes without saying that the next gen F-Body (really ANY car) should have "proportion, stance, and attitude". The question is:

What DEFINES the proportion, stance and attitude of an F-Body?

"Proportion, stance and attitude" could apply to any car - even ones you or I would consider "ugly". Styling and the three (obvious) things you state that the next gen camaro must have are two different things. The Mini Cooper has it's own unique "proportion, stance and attitude", along with it's own heritage of style, but that doesn't make it an F-Body.

Z284ever, Please define what you feel Proportion, stance and "attitude" makes a Camaro a Camaro.

-B

 

Hey bro, another Chicagoan!

There are many specific and more vague general elements that describe Camaro's proportions, stance and attitude.

I wish I were a designer, so I could use the proper language....but here goes........

Wheels

Camaro is a very wheel oriented car. It requires agressive wheels and rubber to get the "look". These wheels/tires need to be pushed out to the corners in order to get the right proportions. The sheetmetal needs to have the look of being stretched out to encompass them.

Tension

The body must have tension. Almost like skin stretched tautly over sinew and muscle. And muscular creases at the crest of the rear shoulders (quarterpanels).

Tumblehome

The 3rd gens had tumblehome...the 4th gens did not. Did you ever notice how on an IROC-Z, below the beltline , the sheetmetal turns inward as you approach the lower rocker? It not only makes the car look more agressive, it shows off the fat tires below the midline...adding more agressiveness.

This car has it in spades:http://www.roddersedge.homestead.com/G5CONCEPT.html

Long hood/short deck

Speaks for itself

To all of this, I would add short overhangs, compact exterior dimensions, and swoopy agressive lines.

I'm tapped out for now.....I'll give it some more thought.

 

I like your take on what makes a camaro a Camaro, Z284ever

I may have to sleep on what I feel makes a Camaro a Camaro (but I KNOW what makes Firebird a Firebird )

I also very much like that 5th gen design you refer to EXCEPT for that corporate cross-bar. I think the Camaro should NOT look like ANY other car in the Chevrolet lineup. Camaro Styling should be unique unto itself. That crossbar, while nicely integrated in the design you refer to, has become a cliche very quickly in my eyes with it already featured on multiple Chevrolet designs in concept form and even on questionably styled vehicles already in production (yuk).

Also, while I do think the 1st gen fender creases are nice, I am not a biggest fan of the first gen profile (or it's other styling cues). I feel that there's not a lot of surface development or flow in the 1st gen cars. You can have what you you refer to as "tumblehome" and "tension" without having the linear, angular sides. Personally, I much prefer organic, muscular forms than geometric or edgy muscular forms.

I guess I just think that the 2nd or 4th gen F-body "proportion, stance, and atitude" (and styling cues) are what defines an F-body's DNA to me

As I posted earlier, I do hope the next Gen Camaro does include some styling cues from it's past, whether it be from a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th generation F-Body. Really, I am just hopeful that a 5th gen Camaro (and Firebird!) will become a reality, and not just a nice thing to speculate about.

-Bradster

 

I'd like to hear your view on what makes a Firebird, a Firebird.

 

I have to disagree with this statement. I'm not a designer but "tumblehome" as it was explained to me refers to the curve between the beltline and the roof, not beltline and rockers. So the Hummer H1 and H2 have no tumblehome. And, the 4th Gens DID have a considerable inward turn below the beltline and before the rocker panels....take another look.

 

You are 100% correct!

 

IZ28,

What year do you own? I'm curious because I'm not sure how you could make the above statement. Aside from going to a more "sleek, swept back" design on the outside there's a lot more that's similar than dis-similar. On the outside the differing looks is more a trick of the eye. Take away that severely sloped windshield and they'll actually look quite close. On the inside the only real difference is the updated dash area. The rest of the interior is VERY close (center console, seats, floorpan, doors)

I go to junkyards to search for parts every once in a while and will sometimes mistake one stripped car for the other.

Take another look.

 

Agreed.

I think the 92-93 eveolution was the closest in styling of all the transitions... especially the front clip, I mean, it's a clear evolution of the 3rd gen's front end.

 

What.....are you in the 4th gen mafia or something? Believe me I've looked.

Someone asked for my opinion and I gave it. What's your opinion of what makes a Camaro, a Camaro.

 

Yeah you gave your opinion, and a lot of what you said makes the Camaro a Camaro in my opinion as well. Don't forget the fact that Camaro has always been a little lower, wider, and sleeker than Mustang, and has a bit more of a hard-to-describe race car feel to it. JMO.

I just wonder how you've missed the bulge that starts just under the windows and curves inwards and straightens back out near the rockers on the 4th Gen. That's all. If there's anyone on this board that is in a gen-specific "mafia", well, we know who that is.

 

Z284EVER,

I'm pretty sure he has the right definition of tumblehome, but you do have a point on below the beltline.

Here's the difference. the 4th gen curves inward immediately below the beltline and curves straight down. On the 3rd it's pretty much a straight line inward below the belt...not much of a curve. Is this what you're trying to say?

If you're saying it doesn't come inward at all below the belt on the 4th gens, then you're wrong.

I'm no expert but, from what I've gotten reading ACOR, if you pull it inward too much below the belt in between the wheels you'll increase C/D.

 

I know what your talking about. In my personal view....that is not a very elegant line. The way it curves in, gives it some surface interest, But the bulge so high up, reminds me of the Michelin Man.