Automotive News, Media & Press - 6th Gen Camaro Concept

I'm sure some of you guys have seen this concept in the magazines. What do you guys think? IMO I'm not a fan..... Taillights look pretty mean looking. Other then that it looks like a 5th gen with 2013 Mustang headlights

Camaro5 guys are obsessed with it? :confused:
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=232115

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=388452&d=1340376321

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=388453&d=1340376321

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=388454&d=1340376321

Mustang concept? :barf:

http://www.mustangheaven.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/2015-Mustang-rendering-1024x680.jpg

http://cdn.slashgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/eos-stang-580x385.jpg

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg835/scaled.php?server=835&filename=14mustang1.jpg&res=landing

It will be interesting to see how much of the concept actually makes it to production. It's not too bad. You can tell they were going for the old RS look with the headlights, but they can definitely do better.

Not a fan. 5th gen looks better imo. Now im really interested in what the new c7 vette will look like.

I like the camaro but the headlights have me kinda iffy but I also hate the headlights on the new Shelby so maybe they would grow on me.(on both cars)
I know some people are over the retro look but hey if it helps sell cars then keep doing what it takes hell ford got a long run out of there retro look why can't Chevy?

As for the mustang I think it's a confused looking car it looks like a current mustang from the side with a Aston Martin nose sorta like a 300c with a Bentley front end (:barf:) and I hope that's not what ford goes with but all signs point to yes so I guess we will see.

Meh, simply a rendering some guy who doesn't even work with GM so don't take it for much.


6th gen just needs to be smaller, lighter, new gen small block and no factory dub size wheels.

6th gen just needs to be smaller, lighter, new gen small block and no factory dub size wheels.

It will definitely be lighter, but not sure on size (length/width/height). I'd assume smaller though. New small block is almost a given, seeing as the car is still 2 years away and we know the C7 will have something new. I completely agree on the "no factory dub size wheels" though. Put factory 18s on it, make the 20s an option for the "baller" look. That alone should shave around 50-100lbs off of the car.

6th gen just needs to be smaller, lighter, new gen small block and no factory dub size wheels.

:stupid: :judge:

Well, it's different. Car designs tend to evolve/devolve pretty quickly, so who knows.

It is not terrible, probably not accurate. Camaro5 guys are idiots. I think they just drool in general.

^^^ :nod: Yes they seem to be on the fanboi end of things.

Camaro5 guys are idiots.

What are you talking about? Just cus they dont know how to use an oild dipstick, doesnt make them idiots :D

retro = :puke:

i'm getting sick of the retro look as well in all honesty....

What are you talking about? Just cus they dont know how to use an oild dipstick, doesnt make them idiots :D

Perhaps we should link them to the washer thread, and really blow their minds.

6th Gen, already? I'm still trying to digest the 5th Gen. Damn, do things change quickly.

The 6th gen isn't officially coming out until a couple years

There's nothing official about it so no use in beating it to death.

Much better then 5th gen IMO

They need to get off this retro crap.
And this stuff with the Mustang and Camaro looking almost the same. "Why does my Chevy look like my neighbor's Ford?"

Edit:

At least they are putting it on a diet. (hopefully close to our 4th gens) and dropping a real nice next generation v8 in. Now maybe they will put T-Tops on this version.

They either need to junk retro, or do it all the way like Dodge did with the Challenger. And for goodness' sake get rid of the chopped roof, high window sill and 20" wheels.

Top 3 reasons why I will not buy a 5th Gen.
1). IRS
2). Windows are too high, and small.
3). It's a really heavy car.

If they made the 6th gen around 3600lbs, increased the window size, but still left the IRS, I would consider buying one.

The 6th gen isn't officially coming out until a couple years

I think I read somewhere it would be a 2016 model year (2015 release) car, but I also think that depends on how many problems they run into adapting with the Alpha platform.

At least they are putting it on a diet. (hopefully close to our 4th gens) and dropping a real nice next generation v8 in. Now maybe they will put T-Tops on this version.

Lighter weight will happen. Next-gen V8 will happen. T-tops will not happen due to crash test standards (unless it weighs as much as a convertible).

Dam.
Im just nervous that the new gen motor is not an ls :(
I hope its a big bore, ls7 heads type engine.
Build the 5.7 350ci but the new version.
Here is my take:
LS7 block aluminum 4.125 bore
4.8 crank 3.268 stroke, 4.8 connecting rods
4.125 flat top pistons. 1.2/1.2/3.0mm rings
LS7 heads, LS7 intake. Dry sump oiling.
rate the motor at 420-450hp.
7000rpm capable from factory.
This motor would more than handle just about anything.
With h/c/i it would make 600+ bhp. And have a high rpm capacity.
I hope gm doesnt jump on the dohc bs. If they do. Im out.

What are you talking about? Just cus they dont know how to use an oild dipstick, doesnt make them idiots :D

Oh this sounds funny. Link?

Dam.
Im just nervous that the new gen motor is not an ls :(
I hope its a big bore, ls7 heads type engine.
Build the 5.7 350ci but the new version.
Here is my take:
LS7 block aluminum 4.125 bore
4.8 crank 3.268 stroke, 4.8 connecting rods
4.125 flat top pistons. 1.2/1.2/3.0mm rings
LS7 heads, LS7 intake. Dry sump oiling.
rate the motor at 420-450hp.
7000rpm capable from factory.
This motor would more than handle just about anything.
With h/c/i it would make 600+ bhp. And have a high rpm capacity.
I hope gm doesnt jump on the dohc bs. If they do. Im out.

Everything points to LS architecture, DI, and 6.2/5.3 depending on application.

A big bore is going to be an enemy of emissions. And a short stroke hurts streetable torque production. They are also tooled up for 6.2/5.3 production. The only changes needed are Fuel System, heads, and pistons.

They need to kill the retard-retro look they have going... The car's WAY too blocky and bulky.

Dam.
Im just nervous that the new gen motor is not an ls :(
I hope its a big bore, ls7 heads type engine.
Build the 5.7 350ci but the new version.
Here is my take:
LS7 block aluminum 4.125 bore
4.8 crank 3.268 stroke, 4.8 connecting rods
4.125 flat top pistons. 1.2/1.2/3.0mm rings
LS7 heads, LS7 intake. Dry sump oiling.
rate the motor at 420-450hp.
7000rpm capable from factory.
This motor would more than handle just about anything.
With h/c/i it would make 600+ bhp. And have a high rpm capacity.
I hope gm doesnt jump on the dohc bs. If they do. Im out.

Dry sump? I'm not terribly familiar with the LS3 and L99 but I thought they were wet sump. Dry is a considerable cost increase with little value for most on the SS unless there is an emissions improvement I'm unaware of.

Dry sump? I'm not terribly familiar with the LS3 and L99 but I thought they were wet sump. Dry is a considerable cost increase with little value for most on the SS unless there is an emissions improvement I'm unaware of.

GM currently uses dry sump on ls7, also ls9 and lsa iirc. So tech and hardware exists at gm.
Current ls3/l99 engines are conventional wet sump. But a dry sump would be a excellent upgrade. im just thinking of parts that are in gm's bin and can be adapted or used.
I wonder why they dont use all those parts available.

Everything points to LS architecture, DI, and 6.2/5.3 depending on application.

A big bore is going to be an enemy of emissions.current 6.2L blocks are 4.065 bore, whats another additional .060? Minimal, and opens up literally for gms highest flowing heads ,the ls7. These parts alredy exist and are proven.
And a short stroke hurts streetable torque production. They are also tooled up for 6.2/5.3 production. The only changes needed are Fuel System, heads, and pistons.
not necessarily true. I dd a rcsb pickup truck with stock 4.8/60e. This truck weighs more than 4000,if not 5000lbs. It accelerates very strong, wot, has alot sotp for such low ci 293ci. My truck has 330k miles. It is the most reliable vehicle i have ever owned. The 4.8 loves to run and accelerates very strong believe it or not. it loves to rev high. But i keep it 6000. Im very convinced that the 3.268 crank will make for a powerful motor with a big bore block. :judge:

The rear looks good...especially with those wide tires.

GM currently uses dry sump on ls7, also ls9 and lsa iirc. So tech and hardware exists at gm.
Current ls3/l99 engines are conventional wet sump. But a dry sump would be a excellent upgrade. im just thinking of parts that are in gm's bin and can be adapted or used.
I wonder why they dont use all those parts available.

Obviously but never on their mass produced engines. There is no justification for the cost increase our the weight increase for that matter.

Maybe 1% of SS buyers would notice any difference if that. They would have to track their car at something more than a casual level. Almost no 5th gen buyers are going to do that, especially with the SS when the 1le or zl1 are offered.

Dry sump would be dumb. Added cost weight and complexity with no quantifiable advantage for the overwhelming majority of buyers.

As far as i'm concerned, Camaros and Firebirds died in 2002

Obviously but never on their mass produced engines. There is no justification for the cost increase our the weight increase for that matter.

Maybe 1% of SS buyers would notice any difference if that. They would have to track their car at something more than a casual level. Almost no 5th gen buyers are going to do that, especially with the SS when the 1le or zl1 are offered.

Dry sump would be dumb. Added cost weight and complexity with no quantifiable advantage for the overwhelming majority of buyers.

^^^^This. Really no need to add it to the base model since they will have two track models unless they want to make it a performance pack but then again isnt that the reason for the 1le even then I'm not sure if it will have dry sump.

I would like the 6th gen to be a slick modified lookin 4th gen...

Food for thought... We saw the 5th gen concept in 2006. So by the time the 6th gen actually hits the streets, the basic design of the 5th is already 10 years old.

Food for thought... We saw the 5th gen concept in 2006. So by the time the 6th gen actually hits the streets, the basic design of the 5th is already 10 years old.

Don't remind us were kinda hoping it's doesn't happen again :bomb:

Looks better than Fords Taurus 2.0

Like one of the previous comments stated...go all out retro or come up with something new.

I think it'd be interesting if they worked the slats on the headlights all the way across the "grill", reworked body lines and just overall size of everything. Might actually resemble a 1st gen...

This is how I see it.... GM already did the whole retro 69 Camaro look & it worked. Some may not like it on here but it did good. Highest sales yet. Argue all you want but its about sales. But some of these people keep thinking GM should make it look like the 70-73 style. & that's where I draw the line. You did the retro look now move on with your own style. Can't just keep remaking styles from previous years. What's the point... Mix it up

GM currently uses dry sump on ls7, also ls9 and lsa iirc. So tech and hardware exists at gm.
Current ls3/l99 engines are conventional wet sump. But a dry sump would be a excellent upgrade. im just thinking of parts that are in gm's bin and can be adapted or used.
I wonder why they dont use all those parts available.

I believe you can get a dry sump LS3 in the GS Vettes. Maybe manual trans only - I can't remember.

^^^^This. Really no need to add it to the base model since they will have two track models unless they want to make it a performance pack but then again isnt that the reason for the 1le even then I'm not sure if it will have dry sump.

Valid point to not add dry sump as a standard. I believe dry sump holds more oil too, so standard oil changes would cost more - something the average owner (who doesn't change their own oil) would not be too happy about.

:judge:

Considering we are talking about burning fuel at a molecular level 0.06 is significant. If my memory is correct, the LS7 was pushing the envelope of hydrocarbon emissions when it came out, and there have been some slight durability concerns due to stuffing the 4.125 bore in a 4.4 bore spacing. DI would most likely help the emissions question. If you are going to live with a 4.125 bore there is almost no reason to destroke it as the current LS7 is 7000 rpm capable. The emission penalty is smaller for stroke vs bore.

A large bore/short stroke engine at 7000 rpm will have higher warranty implications than a more conventional setup at 6300 rpm, if it meets power and effeciency targets. They fave full production lines set up for the 5.3/6.2. There is just no business case for what you are requesting.

Would I love to see a DI LS7, you bet. Who wouldn't want a 600hp 427, other than hippies. Would I suggest you hold your breath for a large bore/short stroke engine instead of a DI 6.2, please don't we would not want to lose you.

This is how I see it.... GM already did the whole retro 69 Camaro look & it worked. Some may not like it on here but it did good. Highest sales yet. Argue all you want but its about sales. But some of these people keep thinking GM should make it look like the 70-73 style. & that's where I draw the line. You did the retro look now move on with your own style. Can't just keep remaking styles from previous years. What's the point... Mix it up

The thing is, every generation of the Camaro carried certain looks or styling cues from the previous generation. 2nd gens still had the overall body lines and shape similar to the 1st gen.

Most drastic was the change when the 3rd gens came out. The sleeker look and square headlights was something far different than previous generations but they still looked cool. About the only thing they carried over from the 2nd gen was the styling of the tail lights. When the 4th gens came out, it was a lot like the transition from 1st gen to 2nd gen all over again. The 4th gen was again sleeker than the 3rd gen but still had many of the same styling cues of the 3rd gen. The chassis was virtually identical aside from the new front suspension. The minor tweak in 98 gave the 4th gens their own LS1 look, and the incredible engine we all love.

Then after a hiatus, the 5th gens came out. Lots of mixed feelings towards them. People who never owned Camaros were flocking to buy them. I hear a lot of guys who own 1st gens say they like the look of the 5th gens. It seems a lot of hate comes from the 4th gen crowd. I don't hate the 5th gen, but I'm not in love with it either. But I do think it looks cool. Maybe GM should have built the 5th gen based on styling cues from the 4th gen. That may have looked interesting but I doubt they would have been as popular as the retro look has been. Especially sitting at it's current weight.

So which direction would be best for the 6th gen? Follow styling cues from the 5th gen and tweak the look? Or maybe go for a 2nd gen look which I think could look very cool if done properly. Or just come up with something entirely different? That could be a big mistake as well. People are accustomed to familiarity and don't usually like drastic changes unless it's for the better. I guess time will tell, but I look forward to hopefully many more generations of Camaros in the future.

As far as i'm concerned, Camaros and Firebirds died in 2002

WINNER!! :judge: this i agree with ^^^^

Well, lets get some fat out of the ole' girl first! The motor is there, it's just too damn fat! Look at a comparable Mustang, Gt is lighter than and SS, GT500 makes more power and lighter....than a ZL1. Come on, the 2010 Camaro was a half thought out, fat pig. I say this knowing my wife wants a 5-gen, mirrors suck, it's heavy, but I'm still drawn to it, we'll see?

-SS

As far as i'm concerned, Camaros and Firebirds died in 2002

Well...your statement is half true.

An interesting and promising article on the new Alpha platform.

http://www.lsxtv.com/news/alpha-based-cadillac-ats-precursor-of-next-gen-camaro/

An interesting and promising article on the new Alpha platform.

http://www.lsxtv.com/news/alpha-based-cadillac-ats-precursor-of-next-gen-camaro/

Ill put money on it not being 500lbs lighter than the ATS. But as for it being on the Alpha platform, thats old news.

An interesting and promising article on the new Alpha platform.

http://www.lsxtv.com/news/alpha-based-cadillac-ats-precursor-of-next-gen-camaro/

That DTS/STS arguement is misleading. Saw a new XTS at ELCO Cadillac. Very good looking car.

Ill put money on it not being 500lbs lighter than the ATS. But as for it being on the Alpha platform, thats old news.

i think they meant it as being 500lbs lighter than the current Camaro;)

i think they meant it as being 500lbs lighter than the current Camaro;)

That I can agree with.

i think they meant it as being 500lbs lighter than the current Camaro;)
So the current thinking is that the next Camaro will weigh nearly what a C6 does? I think that's a tad bit optimistic. I really don't think the Alpha platform is going to be the avenue for a 4 seater Corvette, ppl.