Talking about the angular vs. rounded look on cars. This is part of what sunk the 4th gen Camaro, it was way too bland. Not aggressive like a 3rd gen. The Trans Am was also way too bland in the front for the '93-'97 years. Its weird when you examine the front of that car and compare it to the rear. Lots of curves in the rear, but very straight and again plain in the front. As if different designers where putting together the car, and met halfway. However, I think the '98 Trans Am re-design got it right. In particular with the Ram Air hood, there are lots of nice lines to feast on. And the curvaceousness of the rear is matched by the front wheel wells, this was a well executed re-design. It harkened me back to the '91-'92 Firebird re-design that got me into muscle-cars.

Another point. I find it interesting that people cite the bubble look as the styling demise of the 4th gen. Did you look lately at the 'Vette, it followed the same path as the 4th gen vs. 3rd gen styling evlovement. Much more muscular in the previous generation with stronger lines, moving to a more rounded aerodynamic looking shape. What helped sink the 4th gen was a change in priorities. Metal-heads and hard rockers in the '80s and early '90s bought 3rd gens. That same crowd is driving Integras and Civics today. The Mustang also still sells well because its car like, with a little performance kick. Changing ideas about practicality and comfort also sunk the 4th gen. Few people are willing to accept the drawbacks of this car, vs. the raw performance it provides. We are part of a dying breed.

I believe offering an IRS in the 4th gen would've doubled sales. Why didn't Mustang need one? Because its a car!, lacks a cat hump ..., its more comfortable and civil. And it needs an IRS to sell after the re-design. Putting in an IRS would've introduced a lot more civility to the 4th gen. I'm always amazed how many people didn't know that 'Vettes and 4th gens share the same V8. But almost everyone knows a 4th gen still has a solid rear axle. The car's styling only added to the perception of a dated car and platform.

Regarding the lack of chassis improvement. First of all, the floorplan was updated significantly in the middle of the car. Although the rear is identical, torsional rigidity was increased by >30%, tunnel cross-member was added, tranny cross-member is totally different, floorplan was re-inforced, door sill was widened for added rigidity. Not a total re-design, but a significant improvement nonetheless.

Finally, I plan to test my theory about an IRS, I will be installing a C4 IRS once I have time to drive 1,500 miles to have the work done. I hope the suspension will jump into the '90s with this change.

Later, Dave '91 GTA, '91 T/A (for sale), '01 T/A WS6

 

I agree with this part: Talking about the angular vs. rounded look on cars. This is part of what sunk the 4th gen Camaro, it was way too bland. Not aggressive like a 3rd gen.

Yes. Angular, sharp, and slightly rounded lines equals aggressive and musclular looks and success on musclecars. I hope GM has learned from that by looking at Third Gens and the current M*****g.

 

Sounds strange to me... but everyone's entitled to their opinion. To me, the 4gen's are MUCH more modern-looking than the 3gen's. Windshield rake is just one example.

 

Third Gens look modern because 4ths look too "modern" for their own good. They look as you might picture cars maybe alot of years from now. This was something that might have been viewed as a good idea around 93 but its kinda stupid and didn't win many fans. Almost as if they put a concept car into production. (Maybe they did, if you've ever seen the CA Camaro or the 84 GTZ) Other cars never followed that type of complete round, intergrated, plastic car designing/look and are getting away from it more and more thankfully and going with lines again and designs that actually look like cars. Even the 05 (or 67 ) M*****g has lines.

 

The F4 was futuristic when it premiered in 1993. The F3 had lingered far too long on the market, and I can understand why GM was forced to make a styling statement with its long delayed replacement. If the F3 represented GM's troubled downsizing phase, the F4 was meant to foreshadow a new direction. It was supposed to fell like an uncompromised concept, not a cautious evolution.

Radical styling obviously worked in the early years of the F4, as the sales figures indicated. However, the nameplate was irreparably tarnished by the perceptions attached to the previous generation. The F3 had been a theft prone car. It had often been poorly assembled and finished. Fuel economy had been rotten for the performance models, the ride quality was notorious and body rigidity was nonexistant. Worst of all, it had been ferociously unreliable, just like many 1980's GM products. The F4 was a far better car, but the average man on the street didn't know any better.

By the time the LS-1 came along, the best buyers were slipping deep into Toyotadom and the kids had grown up with an SUV fixation. Nobody was very much interested in the shape-of-things-come. The F-body gave the timid testdriver too many excuses to look elsewhere. In the end, a Camaro defined the term un-hip, and the act of buying one became a strange, counter-cultural move that appalled most bystanders.

The F4 Camaro is a car that will have a hard time falling out of style, if only because it never was in style. It wasn't a car of its times, and it wasn't part of a trend. My Z28 still feels unique and is shaping up to be perpetually modern. That's exactly what I was looking for.

As for the 2005 Mustang, 1967 was old as soon as year 1968 rolled over. I can really see the new 'Stang becoming seriously dated witin a year or two of its introduction. We can only hope that they're already working on a "retro" rendition of the 1969.

 

I disagree, a cautious and more "true to Camaro" design might have kept the car selling the way it was during the Third Gen and previous Gens. Thirds were the 2nd Gen to be around for slighty more than 10 years and still sell good, the 4th was here for 10 years even and sales got lower year by year after 95 so I don't know.

Radical styling obviously worked in the early years of the F4, as the sales figures indicated. However, the nameplate was irreparably tarnished by the perceptions attached to the previous generation. The F3 had been a theft prone car. It had often been poorly assembled and finished. Fuel economy had been rotten for the performance models, the ride quality was notorious and body rigidity was nonexistant. Worst of all, it had been ferociously unreliable, just like many 1980's GM products. The F4 was a far better car, but the average man on the street didn't know any better.

The styling seemed to only "work" in 94 and 95 with 93 being the lowest selling full production year for the Camaro ever. (every1 knows 90 was a half production year) Tarnished perceptions?? You mean like the "cool" and "hot car" perceptions the Thirds created?? Many get the wrong perception because they used mistreated cars for examples. I haven't experienced them with mine or friends cars. It was a theft prone because they were so popular and sought after. If you saw the 89 most stolen list you probably wouldn't believe it. The fuel economy is lousy?? 16/25 MPG is lousy for an 80's EFI car making 245HP and 345 ft.lbs. of TQ?? The stiff suspension is true because of the great handling and the only cases of real complaint about body rigidity I've seen was from people who drove/drive them like complete lunatics. Its OK to mess around sometimes but you can't be absolutely crazy with any car. As for reliablility I dispute that. Thirds can be incredibly reliable cars, it all depends on how they've been taken care of and treated just like any other, and there werent that many improvements on the 4th's they do run on the same chasiss you know. They have many of the same issues, and you expect some issues with cars in this class. Its not like they're daily driver B-Bodies (also great cars too) or something.

In the end, a Camaro defined the term un-hip, and the act of buying one became a strange, counter-cultural move that appalled most bystanders.

That was the too round Chrysler looks that did that along with the LS1's V6-like sound.

The F4 Camaro is a car that will have a hard time falling out of style, if only because it never was in style. It wasn't a car of its times, and it wasn't part of a trend. My Z28 still feels unique and is shaping up to be perpetually modern.

IMO it will always have that same unaccepted, outcast kind of view by most. After the 4th Gen and them being known as the car that put the Camaro on hiatus, I don't see any cars wanting to be designed like that and there weren't before anyway.

I can really see the new 'Stang becoming seriously dated witin a year or two of its introduction. We can only hope that they're already working on a "retro" rendition of the 1969.

Agreed.

 

Un-hip? Counter-Cultural? I don't know how things are where you live, but where I'm at, my car isn't considered un-hip. I go to college too, and get compliments a lot on my car. A lot of people around here are so incredibly stupid when it comes to cars though, I'm not even sure they know my car is a Camaro, all they know is that it's shiny and has blinging chrome wheels . They do recognize the SS badging though.

 

Why can't people see the real downfall of the 4th gen?

It was a 3rd gen in new clothes.... the car was 20 years old when you look at it's basic design, noit to mention 10 years old on it's current design, barring the mild freshening.

It was time for a 5th gen anyway. 10 years in the same basic form is too long for any car.

The fit and finish wasn't up to par with other GM products... ti was just old.

Still a great car, but old.

 

If anyone likes the new Mustang and would actually buy one, then e-mail a picture of it to GM telling them how they lost a sale because they are too damn stupid to compete in the pony car market.

 

Ummm Darth...the Mustang is on the same Fox chassis it rode on in 1979..the cahnges made to it in 94 are along the same level as the changes from the 3rd to 4th gen

 

Yes... I know, and I agree.. BUT, at least Ford is putting money into the current Mustang, via a MAJOR facelift in 99, and offering new special models, and stuff... (Cobra, Mach 1, Bullit, etc etc etc etc)

Mustang is long overdo for a new platform as well, but they have made an effort to give people something to be excited about....

 

Ummm, no, it's not.

SN95 is a whole NEW platform, developed SOLELY for the Mustang. It shares with nothing else, and the tooling was all-new. New unibody, new skin, new interior, and allowances for the wider-decked mod motors that were coming soon there after. FOX died in '93... period.

S197 is the current platform, which IS a derivative of SN95.

 

Perhaps we can just say that Mustang and Camaro both carry over some basics from their previosu generations...

Doesn't really matter... both cars are ancient by today's standards.

 

The changes from the 3rd to 4th gen are on the same level as the change from FOX to SN95...all that carried over from the 3rd gen was the floorpan.


Whats funny is I only hear Mustang fans tout how different the Sn95 is from teh previous FOX cars...most other people assume its the same.

 

Dude, as to your comment about "If GM made an near exact rendition of ANY Gen as F**d has done, I would be pissed.", all I can say is...
"Imitation is the best form of flattery".

I respectfully disagree, claiming that this rendition of "the classic" will in fact, likely drive the interest and prices of the originals up.
After the Bullitt craze a couple years ago, there was a market-run on '67/'68 green fastbacks that sent prices thru the roof.
More recently... the "Gone in 60 Seconds" craze, look at what has happened with Eleanor. How many movies have forced a carmaker to start producing cars in that likeness? (Remember, the T/A in "Smokey and the Bandit" was already a production unit.) $80k? $120k?! $150k for an actual 35 y/o car that has been specifically resto-modded for you?!?!

I can easily see there being a jump in desire and pricing for the vintage cars when this new Mustang comes out. Now ask me why I am thinking about things like this!

I'm not flaming you or anything, honest. But I think the we that you put in that sentence only relates to a FEW individuals. More appropriately, I think you don't need it. The Camaro, for the betterment of it's future, DOES need it, IMO. And I think there are a lot more guys in here (granted, not everyone) that DO want a Camaro with the distinct flavors of the early models, done in a similar fashion as this '05 Mustang concept. Doug Harden's link to THIS rendering said a lot. I too am fond of this particular rendering and would like to see more.

Just my .02