[conemark]

Take a look and see what's on the horizon:

http://www.leftlanenews.com/wp-content/plu...idg=1&idi=1

http://www.leftlanenews.com/wp-content/plu...idg=1&idi=2

http://www.leftlanenews.com/wp-content/plu...idg=1&idi=3

http://www.leftlanenews.com/wp-content/plu...idg=1&idi=4

http://www.leftlanenews.com/wp-content/plu...idg=1&idi=5

http://www.leftlanenews.com/wp-content/plu...idg=1&idi=6

[Rob Hood]

In pictures 3 and 4 the rear brakes appear to be as large as the fronts - maybe not as much swept area on the rear, but overall diameter looks close.

Picture 6 is great because it show ride height comparison to a Mustang. The Camaro sits much lower, but that appears to be a standard Mustang and may not be the best comparison. At least it helps to compare the size of both cars against each other.

All that said, I think the new Challenger is a much more faithful update of its original body than this attempt at reincarnating a 1969 Camaro. I'm on the fence until they come out with a flush-grille, hidden-headlight RS model. Wonder if they will also use a rear spoiler design similar to the 1991-2 Z28; at least that design would allow some rearward vision compared to an updated 1969 spoiler.

Also the greenhouse proportion to the rest of the body size is off. The "chop-top" doesn't look that good to me. Maybe that's because I see more headroom issues...

[patred]

Parked next to those newer Mustangs, it "looks" just a bit smaller, at least sits lower. Although who knows how much it will actually weigh.

It looks more like the latest generation of the Javelin. Not that that's a bad thing. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Pat

This post has been edited by patred: Dec 12 2007, 02:59 AM