One good thing is when the car is released GM will move a large volume of V8 models, assuming they release all versions (SS included) at the same time. I like the car alot, that doesnt mean I love the car. Car does look a little squarish, I see hints of charger when I look at the car as a whole. It should be rounded out some, nothing crazy. Personally I like the passenger side fascia, I also like the taillights/pipes in the photochops WAY better than the originals, and I like the design of the wheels. Dont worry about the size, concepts always wear huge wheels for the shows. I expect 17"f/18"r on the V8 models. They could be 17's all the way around for all I care. Base models should go with some attractive 16's, better ride quality and still look good. I hope for the sake of GM that the car sells like rubbers. As it sits I think the sales of base model cars is going to suck. I tried to picture a woman behind the wheel of that car, cant see that one. And how many men who cant afford(but want) a V8 model are going to pick up a V6 "just to have one". Dont know but we'll see. I think it's almost vital that the base model with PW,PL,CC,CD,A4 starts at 18999. Cresting the 20K mark is a bad move IMO. I wish GM all the best and if the car has what I want, I'll buy one. Maybe I'll wait 'til year two, you guys can have the bugs. I'm not trying to be pessimistic, I'm just being realistic.

Good looks (in the eyes of men) - Check
True Duals - Check
LSX based motor - (undoubtedly) Check
400hp or more base V8 - (undoubtedly) Check
Premium interior - $$$$
Strong Solid Rear/option - ????
450-500hp premium model - ????

Realistically, if we want an SS with 500 horse, a strong driveline/rear, AND basically the fit and finish of a luxury car (less the woodgrain and some features). Say hello to 40k or more (we're talking about 2009 people).




Oh yeah, I dont think anyone's mentioned this. If we want more base models to sell we will need a bigger back seat, room for two adults. Nothing huge, just give me a back seat I can get laid in.

 

Independant Rear Suspension

Originals were probably deleted to possibly avoid any type of prosecution by GM.

Watermarks were put in place so no one can copy/save/repost the pic and claim it as their own.

 

I'm glad we have intelligent members here.

 

Where do I sign!!! I love this car. This is something I wanted in the 5 gen. I look at it and don't have to think twice about what it is. If GM makes this car I will be there the whole way. I know this is only a clay model but great job GM.

 

The car also needs a rear spoiler. One like the 67-69 would be fine. If a T/A was done, they coulld put a pedestal spoiler on like the 69 T/A's

 

You guys realize there is little/no chance the car will come with a solid rear axle option if it is indeed IRS right? In the eyes of many people and buyers IRS is better than a solid axle. It is only the hardcore drag racers that want a solid rear axle. Why would the king daddy $30k+ car come with the inferior rear end in it? (remember, perception is reality to people, and people tend to agree that IRS > solid axle)

Look no farther than the mustang for proof. Solid axle in the lower cars to save cost, IRS in the king daddy car.

IRS also ride better. This would bode well for the entry level cars where women and wanna be race car men are buying them. To those people ride is more important that bolting on slicks and sub 1.5 60ft's.

Speaking of 1.5 60fts, I pulled those on my miata with stock IRS. RX7s with stock IRS can do them. Supras with their IRS can do them. How fast of a 60ft are you expecting to pull on a stock rear end exactly? I think 1.5 is well within reasonable for a stock rear end. Now if GM cheaps out and puts a junky IRS into it I agree with you. However, there is plenty of strength in an IRS to be just fine for most of you out there. (IE: If you arent running at least 10 second 1/4's)

 

Thanks for answers to all 3 & since the whole internet got the pics a watermark makes no sense.You saying I'm not intelligent?
I'm uninformed & I ask questions to learn.I don't know.
Ask everyone here with a 10 bolt in their 4th gens & get back to us.
It's been done before & will probably be done again.

 

http://www.maxforums.org/thread.aspx?tid=283791

i didnt read this whole thread, but this isnt what was posted was it?

 

Make it like this!:

 

ahhhhh its gone! damn! did anyone save the pictures on to their computer before they were deleted? if you did.... please PM the pics to me! damn! thanks!

 

lol...no

 

uhmm why does it look like a cross between new mustang and dodge charger? GM bought into a fake retro fad. That's cool, by the time they roll it out, the fad will be gone and people will laugh at this.

Sorry, GM gets no points from me on this "concept". They chose to follow the market instead of leading it. AGAIN.

 

I'm a little disappointed but not surprised GM went retro with the 5th gen. Its so obviously a "me too" response to the Mustang. Then again, that's why the F-body exists in the first place. Other than that, its a good looking piece. I particularly like the front end. It would have been nice to see the front end based off the 69 RS instead of the base 69. But the lights probably would have been too small. The only deficient areas I can see have been pointed out by others: too small side mirrors, taillights, rear bumper and exhaust tips too big. I'm not too crazy about the dipped trailing edge of the trunk either. I see what the stylists were doing, trying to echo the creased front end with the rear while breaking up the mass in the back. But it just looks too squashed. Obiviously those tires won't be on the production model, so I don't care about them. I like the interior, that's one area where I think GM should go retro. Those 60s interiors have way more character than anything they have out now, INCLUDING the C6. I would have liked to see a 67-68 interior remake instead of the 69, but it still looks pretty good. I love the fact they added IRS and true duals, I wasn't expecting that. They also should kiss the T-tops goodbye. The era of T-tops is over. They add weight and sacrifice body rigidity. That's another thing, keep this platform light! The loaded, top of the line model (I'm assuming SS) shouldn't weigh over 3400 lbs. The V6 model should weigh what a Z06 does. Make the V6 version kick ***. It should run with a GT Stang. Then make the V8 model dominant. I'd like to see the Z28 return to its roots, a car made for road racing. Make it limited edition too. It could be a "Z06" Camaro, although not as powerful as the Vette version. But with the same purpose. The SS would be the top of the line model with the most standard equipment and the largest displacement V8 available.

 

Why does EVERYONE think this is retro? It has some retro queues but shares NOTHING with the original car. It has the more upright cabin because that was one of the reasons sales fell off. It was too sporty and most people had problems or complained about getting in and out of the car. That's why so many women buy Mustangs. It's easy to get in and out of and has a real trunk instead of a hatch. Why wouldn't you call the C6 retro then? It has C3 styling elements to it along with other queues from past Vettes mixed into a new vehicle. What kills me the most is the people bitching about it being retro yet LOVE the new Challenger concept and THAT is a direct update of the car from the 70's. It has almost EVERY styling queue of the original, just updated. BTW...GM now doesn't want the pics posted again. I feel like a Yo-Yo. They're up, They're down, They're up again, now they're down again!!! Make up your mind!!! Half the world has already seen them by now!

 

22,000 for a v6 base model? thats way too much. thats why people dont buy them, because they cost too much. should be more like 17-19, 22-24,
27-30. thats more reasonably priced.

 

It's the spitting image of the original Camaro. Just because the smaller details are different doesn't mean it isn't a retro car in the same vein as the new Mustang, Thunder, PT Cruiser, Mini Cooper, etc.

 

Hmmm, I have a 1st gen and this car looks nothing like it. The concept we have seen looks far more modern than a 1st gen. Its not an all-out retro like the Mustang or PT Cruiser. Its a modern styled car with several hints at its heritage. Whats wrong with that? The 1st gen Camaros have a timeless design and style and the '69 is the most popular Camaro ever. Why NOT key into those strong heritage lines? They have seemed to hold true for nearly 40 years.

I sure as hell didn't want some spaceship George Jetson car with "Camaro" stamped on it. I'm glad this one LOOKS like a Camaro.

I really don't understand the retro haters. In case you haven't noticed, most modern cars suck in design and are very generic and boring to look at. The classics are proven to hold their appeal for decades, so why not use them?

I guess you retro haters think the C6 Vette is retro too right? It has clear headlights like the 53 Vette. It has four round tail lights like the 2nd gen. Fastback styling like the 2nd gen. Front grille breathing like the 1st & 2nd gen. Side scallops like all of the gens. Independent rear like the 2nd gen. Leafsprings like the 1st gen. etc....

 

Hit the nail on the head there man, exactly what I have been thinking all along. A few tweaks and the car will be a beautiful futuristic design w/ roots that dig back to each generation. (As opposed to a completely new design.)

 

I agree with Tony, I think the cars look quite different, it's obviously heavily based on the 1st gen, but I think it looks modern at the same time.
not quite the the same angle, but pretty close
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y20.../Vermorel4.jpg
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y20...1/69CAMARO.jpg

 

I don't get why people think this concept is a retro version of a camaro. Any camaro they would have designed would have to have some sort of design element to relate it to a camaro. Outside of it's basic shape, everything else is modern and a step to the future. New chassis, IRS, and I'm sure much more. Calling this camaro a retro version of the original is like calling the new C6 a retro corvette. I guess all I'm saying is the car should look like a camaro because plain and simply thats what it is.