Author Topic: Camaro concept car (Read 10322 times)

Silver Bullet · « **on:** January 30, 2006, 02:57:22 PM »

Anybody see the March 2006 issue of Road & Track ? It has a story on a General Motors concept Camaro that it showcased at the L.A. and Detroit auto shows.

I was never a Chevy guy, but this car looks great. It simultaneously manages to capture the proportions and styling cues from the 1969 Camaro with a modern edginess (think Cadillac) to its treatment of the grill and taillights. I see some deja vu: forty years ago Ford introduced the Mustang, and two years later GM followed with the Camaro and Firebird. Now Ford is selling its new 1967/8/9 retro Mustang, and here comes Chevy with a retro Camaro.

The magazine was guessing that if the car goes into production, it could be here in 2009.

Last month the car magazines were showing a Dodge concept version of the Challenger. It was also a retro version in that the original car could be clearly seen in the lines. The first Challenger was a very "clean" design, and while I liked the new version, I think it is a little too clean.

I much prefer the edginess that Chevy designed into the new Camaro.

...has left the building. · « **Reply #1 on:** January 30, 2006, 03:35:51 PM »

I think it looks terrible. The last Camaro generation was an eyesore and they're following nicely in the eyesore tradition. The grill design would look much better if it didn't have perpendicular lines in it. The headlights hide in the corners and don't do anything to highlight the all-important anthropomorphic shape of a car's front end. The front end "V" design looks silly when compared to the awesome front end of the Challenger or new Mustang. Plus I'm not sure if you can even see out the side or rear windows since they're so small. The rear end also seems much shorter than the Challenger.

But it does put out 400hp which is 66hp/liter. Compare this with a Honda S2K which puts out 110hp/liter...

If this is one of the car's that GM is counting on to save itself, it is in dire straits.

esheato · « **Reply #2 on:** January 30, 2006, 04:02:20 PM »

Link? Pics?

Silver Bullet · « **Reply #3 on:** January 30, 2006, 04:49:17 PM »

You be the judge.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/

garyk/nm · « **Reply #4 on:** January 30, 2006, 05:19:05 PM »

Eeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! What the hell is that?
Sorry, GM, if that is the best you can do, see you in bankruptcy court. I see NOTHING of the original in that abomination.

Strings · « **Reply #5 on:** January 30, 2006, 05:40:50 PM »

I don't see anything I want to be seen in, that's for sure...

Silver Bullet · « **Reply #6 on:** January 30, 2006, 05:44:22 PM »

Quote

see NOTHING of the original in that abomination

Are you kidding ? The side profile and sculpturing ? The inset grill with headlights ?

Here's the original:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cricketfood.com/images/ext1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cricketfood.com/popup_image.php/pID/192&h=482&w=640&sz=80&tbnid=lutRjEtvSVsJ:&tbnh=101&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3D1969%2Bcamaro%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D&oi=imagesr&start=1

...has left the building. · « **Reply #7 on:** January 30, 2006, 05:48:24 PM »

Quote from: Silver Bullet

Quote

see NOTHING of the original in that abomination

Are you kidding ? The side profile and sculpturing ? The inset grill with headlights ?

Here's the original:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cricketfood.com/images/ext1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cricketfood.com/popup_image.php/pID/192&h=482&w=640&sz=80&tbnid=lutRjEtvSVsJ:&tbnh=101&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3D1969%2Bcamaro%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D&oi=imagesr&start=1

The new Challenger looks more like that than the new Camaro does...

Silver Bullet · « **Reply #8 on:** January 30, 2006, 06:06:04 PM »

Quote

The new Challenger looks more like that than the new Camaro does...

Hmmm, no.

Heres the Dodge Challenger concept car:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/funonwheels/01/04/dodge_challenger/

and the 1970 version:

http://www.dealsonwheels.com/search/detailbig.cfm/Autos__ID/000817-200601-000015

Dannyboy · « **Reply #9 on:** January 30, 2006, 06:08:25 PM »

I like it. It doesn't look quite so retro as the Challenger or the Mustang and it looks much better than the Mustang. The Challenger is just bad ass and there isn't much that compares to it right now.

Silver Bullet · « **Reply #10 on:** January 30, 2006, 06:18:55 PM »

A few more pics of the new Camaro:

http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/01/07/detroit-2006-chevrolet-camaro-concept-revealed/

http://my.opera.com/SerbianFighter/albums/show.dml?id=29395

http://www.motorcities.com/contents/06/2009-Chevrolet-Camaro-Concept-16-Full-Size-Photos_06A8L425606602.html

280plus · « **Reply #11 on:** January 31, 2006, 03:18:00 AM »

I hate to say it but from the windshield back it looks like a Mustang to me. Hate the front. For this old mustanger the new retro 'Stang looks pretty close to the late 60's early 70's style and I DO like the extra room under the hood but having sat in a couple I found the interior to be substandard for the amount of ching they want for it. I felt like it was something you'd find in the Escort. Cheap and chintzy. Plus I don't think you can get the big motor in it. You guys were talking about Lee Iacoca in the GM thread. I'm STILL driving a friggin 1990 Acclaim which is nothing more than a "K" car. The thing runs like a top and the only big money I've put into it was $1000 a couple yaers back for paint and just recently another $1000 for brakes, front rotors and a fuel pump. Of course the car only has 84,000 mi on it. That's the way GM and Ford should be going. Give us a reliable car at a reasonable price. They want to get back to their roots? Ford's roots were giving the general public a well built cheap car. There's the roots they should be striving to return to.

I've only got ~64,000 on my 2001 E-250. I've had the rotors turned twice and guess what, they're already warped again. I've replace THREE of these new fangled sprk plug coil packs at $160 each for the parts. "Built Ford Tough". Yea,,,ok... rolleyes

Silver Bullet · « **Reply #12 on:** January 31, 2006, 03:56:03 AM »

Quote

Plus I don't think you can get the big motor in it.

According to the magazine, "Beneath the hood is a 6.0 liter LS2 400-bhp V8 ..."

Quote

the thing runs like a top

I hate cars that spin around.

280plus · « **Reply #13 on:** January 31, 2006, 04:08:04 AM »

Quote

According to the magazine, "Beneath the hood is a 6.0 liter LS2 400-bhp V8 ..."

I meant the Mustang. But don't think 6.0 liters of 400 HP doesn't interest me. Wink

Quote

I hate cars that spin around.

Where's your sense of adventure? Cheesy

OK, here's another one I love, "It still has a lot of pep."

LOL...

brimic · « **Reply #14 on:** January 31, 2006, 04:35:41 AM »

Hmm, the front end looks ugly and the rear end looks like a Lumina. I don't think I'll be buying one anyhow.

richyoung · « **Reply #15 on:** January 31, 2006, 05:30:23 AM »

Quote from: Daniel Flory

I
But it does put out 400hp which is 66hp/liter. Compare this with a Honda S2K which puts out 110hp/liter...
.

OK - you ASKED for it - at 237 Hp , the rice grinder is still 163 horses short of the party - and thats WITHOUT considering the fact that you have to rev the F20 up past the Chevy's red line to get any usable torque out of the thing.

But, its a free country. If fart cans and galvanized "wings" are your thing, and you confuse "Fast and Furious" with a documentary, go right ahead - buy a "honduh", paint it up like a package of Ramen noodles, & get after it...

charby · « **Reply #16 on:** January 31, 2006, 06:29:53 AM »

least they are 2 doors, when I saw the current charger and it was a 4 door, there was no way in hell I was ever going to buy one. Four door charger.. blah just a fast family car, no muscle apeal there.

I do like the looks of the camero and challenger concept cars.

Charby

mtnbkr · « **Reply #17 on:** January 31, 2006, 06:33:25 AM »

Quote from: richyoung

OK - you ASKED for it - at 237 Hp , the rice grinder is still 163 horses short of the party - and thats WITHOUT considering the fact that you have to rev the F20 up past the Chevy's red line to get any usable torque out of the thing.

But, its a free country. If fart cans and galvanized "wings" are your thing, and you confuse "Fast and Furious" with a documentary, go right ahead - buy a "honduh", paint it up like a package of Ramen noodles, & get after it...

That's racist.

Chris

brimic · « **Reply #18 on:** January 31, 2006, 06:51:48 AM »

Quote

OK - you ASKED for it - at 237 Hp , the rice grinder is still 163 horses short of the party - and thats WITHOUT considering the fact that you have to rev the F20 up past the Chevy's red line to get any usable torque out of the thing.

I'd take a Subaru STI- I'm sold on the concept of a little less engine, a lot less weight, and a lot better handling paradigm when it comes to sports cars. Its alot easier to add more horsepower to a light car than it is to lighten up a heavy one.

brimic · « **Reply #19 on:** January 31, 2006, 07:30:48 AM »

""Beneath the hood is a 6.0 liter LS2 400-bhp V8 ..."

GM has to be run by the dumbest people on earth.
I filled up for $2.50/gallon this morning. Just how many 6.0L engined behemoth cars does GM think its going to sell?
I'd love to sit on on one of their planning meetings I bet I'd hear something like this-

Mentally Challenged GM manager No.1 "Our sales of the world's biggest gas guzzling SUV in the world hasn't been as good as we expected, I guess we should have looked at gas prices before marketing it.

Mentally Challenged GM manager No.2 "But it does have a cool sexually suggestive name that no man can say with a straight face"

Mentally Challenged GM manager No.1 "that's true, lets keep building them."

Mentally Challenged GM manager No.3 "I got an idea. Lets ressurrect that nameplate that evokes thoughts of trailer parks across America, make it somewhat ugly so that it looks like some artist worked on it, and put the biggest engine in it that we've used in 25 years for a car. We can market it to aging baby boomers as they will be the only ones who can afford it."

Mentally Challenged GM manager No.1 "MCGMM No.3, you're a genius! Lets also build another car indistinguishable from it under another brand name."

Mentally Challenged GM manager No.2 "Wow! this is like histroy in the making, we'll be able to sell twice as many cars under 2 brand names!"

K Frame · « **Reply #20 on:** January 31, 2006, 07:42:06 AM »

Actually, those are the most intelligent line managers GM has.

I've never had even the slightest big of interest in a Camaro.

I lost all interest in Corvettes when they made the assend as big as Big Momma's, just because people were bitching they couldn't put any junk in the trunk...

Their family cars are enough to put even the most excitable person to sleep in a matter of moments they're so boring.

About the only thing that GM has going for it, in my view, are the Suburban and the full-size pick up.

But even the 1500 pales in comparison to the F150, which in my view pales in comparison to the Tacoma.

Personally?

I think I'll just stick with my Subaru Outback.

charby · « **Reply #21 on:** January 31, 2006, 08:09:23 AM »

Quote from: Mike Irwin

Their family cars are enough to put even the most excitable person to sleep in a matter of moments they're so boring.

About the only thing that GM has going for it, in my view, are the Suburban and the full-size pick up.

So true.. So true...

I still wish they made the S-10 pickup truck, I do not like the Colorado and the upgrade to mid sized truck. I'm trying to figure out what happened to the more fuel efficient vehicles GM used to produce, or fuel efficient engines. I have a 91 S-10 2wd with a 2.8 and 5 speed and I can still get 30mpg at interstate speeds pulling my 14' boat and loaded down with camping/fishing gear. I would love to buy a new S-10 with the same combination of engine and transmission.

C

pauli · « **Reply #22 on:** January 31, 2006, 10:01:21 AM »

i wonder if the ls2 is as efficient (per unit displacement) as the ls1. it's my understanding that a c5 with an ls1 can get 35mpg on the highway, if driven right.

as for the camaro concept... it looks like a chrysler.

brimic · « **Reply #23 on:** January 31, 2006, 10:15:45 AM »

Quote

t's my understanding that a c5 with an ls1 can get 35mpg on the highway, if driven right.

You mean if driven downhill, both ways?

280plus · « **Reply #24 on:** January 31, 2006, 10:34:52 AM »

Quote

s for the camaro concept... it looks like a chrysler.

My thoughts exactly. The front looks like Chrysler the rear looks like Ford.

So it's either a Frysler or a Chord.

News:

Author Topic: Camaro concept car (Read 10322 times)

...has left the building.

Strings

...has left the building.