The Chevrolet Celebirty was one (if not #1 overall) of Chevy's best selling cars of all time.


If they made a 'retro Celebrity'... would it sell?

 

Only Mustang fans think SN95 is different from fox?

OK, the SN95 is a very different chassis than the fox chassis of the 80s. The floorpan stamping from the cowl back is a carryover from the fox, but pretty much everything else is new.

If you want, I can access the list of what areas were changed from the fax, but just off the top of my head, the rear suspension (SN95 actually has a slightly longer wheelbase than fox because of this), the entire front sub structure, transmission member, the body sub structure, the floorpan bracing on convertibles, the body reinforcement behind the rear seats, radiator and mounting placement, ditto auto transmission cooler, and save the cowl, every piece of body structure above the floorpan.

There's precious little you could structurally cut out of a fox Mustang structure and weld into an SN95's. Because of that, one can't say it's a carryover.

In a way, it's like structurally comparing a Cadillac XLR to a C5 Corvette.

 

Probably this biggest misconception of the '90s!

I agree about the misconception too. I think that people see the MacPherson struts, and 5.0 in the '94, and just assume - "Yup, it's the same ol' car..." But it really is quite different.

Like you said above, only the real "Mustang-people" know the differences because the differences are "below the skin" - pun intended!

 

Probably would sell OK, not set the house ablaze, but OK. Likewise, Ford could bring back a retro Escort... but what's the driving cause to do these cars retro?

Neither has the culture, history, or the cult-like following that Mustang/Camaro have. Neither have collectible values.

I think I see the point you were trying to make, but I'm not sure these were the cars to do it with...

 

Not really being too serious... but it did have a minor point, I suppose ...

Would the all new 2005 retro Celebrity have the same fabulous nothback look and chrome bumpers... but only chrome in the middle of the bumper insert?!


Regardless... I feel pretty confident in saying we will not see the Celebrity name again...

 

Oh DEFINITELY NOT!!!
Chrome bumpers are for trucks/SUVs now... not cars!
Have you no styling intelect, dear boy?

The proper way to execute the signature "chrome" bumper in the modern design would be to integrate the "chrome bumper" as the new corporate "power bar" in the grill!
And go on to set a new trend by putting the same power bar on the rear too.

Just havin' a lil' fun - nobody take those recommendations seriously... please...

"No sir ociffer, nothing drunk me... and I'm not as think as you drunk I am neither!"

 

ROFL!!!

 

If you want, I can access the list of what areas were changed from the fax, but just off the top of my head, the rear suspension (SN95 actually has a slightly longer wheelbase than fox because of this), the entire front sub structure, transmission member, the body sub structure, the floorpan bracing on convertibles, the body reinforcement behind the rear seats, radiator and mounting placement, ditto auto transmission cooler, and save the cowl, every piece of body structure above the floorpan.

And comparing 4th gen to 3rd: SLA front suspension vs. modified MacPherson strut, front firewall and bracing, transmission cross-member and tunnel brace, additional bracing of floorpan in lots of places including widening of door-sills and pinch weld. From around the rear control arm back the car is pretty much unchanged, but the changes I just listed (and there were more) is a re-design (or evolution) of the floorpan. I have two 3rd gens and a 4th gen, just looking at the floorpan one can see many differences. Also, drive both cars, the rigidity and the way each car flexes is totally different between generations. Basic layout of the car is the same, but lets not BS this was the same car, just re-skinned. And a 30-40% increase in torsional rigidity is something one does notice.

 

Wrong kids the 93 Camaro was about 95% all new where as the 94 Mustang was only about 50% all new.

The Camaro only shares the floorpan and rear suspension from the 3rd gen. The F4 got completely new front short arm/long arm suspension, LT1 V8 etc.

Where as Ford scammed the masses again by SAVING $200,000,000 by coming under budget by that much by keeping the same old anemic 4.9 V8 and T-5 Transmission,tired mcpherson strut suspension, quad link rear axle and fox floorpan....All this while new Z28's were rolling off the line with 275hp V8's and 6 speeds and Elmer Fudd Mobiles (Mark VIII) were running 280hp 4.6 liter 32 Valve V8's
Proud Pony you were saying???

 

Originally posted by Y2KSuperSport
Wrong kids the 93 Camaro was about 95% all new where as the 94 Mustang was only about 50% all new.

How did you arrive at these numbers?


Where as Ford scammed the masses again by SAVING $200,000,000 by coming under budget by that much by keeping the same old anemic 4.9 V8 and T-5 Transmission,tired mcpherson strut suspension, quad link rear axle and fox floorpan....

They must not have felt too scammed, as sales went way up. And they can continue scamming for all I care as long as they offer low cost RWD performance.

All this while new Z28's were rolling off the line with 275hp V8's and 6 speeds and Elmer Fudd Mobiles (Mark VIII) were running 280hp 4.6 liter 32 Valve V8's

Cadillacs were also running with 32V V8's

 

The drivetrain was ALL that was carried over - nothing else was.
Is it your opinion that the drivetrain is 50% of the car? If so, then you could make this claim, BASED on your opinion.

The uni-body design, skins, and interior were ALL NEW. So they re-used the floor pan dies... 2 components out of ???... big deal. The '94 is NOT built on the FOX platform - hence the platform name SN95. The '94-'98 models were not "fox" platform cars - that was the statement I disputed, and thought I did so rather clearly, and other knowledgeable individuals fortified my point.
And since the 5.0 (not 4.9) has been around since 1967, I don't think I'd exactly call it a "carry-over" from the '93 model... just my approach.

I never claimed the drivetrain was "new" for that year anyhow, in fact I stated it wasn't. I even named the MacPherson struts as old hat carryovers. So why did you try to bring those into this argument against my point?

PS - I'm with WERM, if that's "scamming", then scam away - as long as it's what we ask for at a price we want to pay!

 

Haha yea, well alot of us Ford faithful back then who drove say 89 5.0 GT's were just expecting alot more out of the 94 GT than we got. Here it was MM&FF was doing tests of the new Z28 and 93 Cobra saying "wait til we compare apples to apples (LT1 vs 4.6 DOHC) and it never happened in 94. Then to hear about them having the development money left over to do a new front suspension, rear suspension or add the 4.6 DOHC to the GT and they still didnt just put alot of us over the edge and its been GM ever since. I cant continue to blame Ford because the people that made those decisions are not running the company and the 03 Cobra and Mach 1 are going a long way to perhaps winning us over agaiN/