[robz71lm7]

http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet...amp;docid=27934

The all-new Camaro will begin with early production versions at the end of 2008 and will go on sale in the first quarter of 2009. “The new Camaro will be almost identical to the concept, a thoroughly modern interpretation of the 1969 model, considered by many to be the best design of the car’s first generation,” said Ed Welburn, GM's global vice president of design, who owns a 1969 Camaro SS. The front-engine, rear-wheel-drive sport coupe will feature an independent rear suspension, and will be offered in a variety of models with the choice of manual and automatic transmissions and V-6 and V-8 engines.

I hope it doesn't weigh 4K lbs and come with skinny tires. It sure is ugly as a dog though IMO. I don't think retro shows any creativity at all. I want a new looking car.

[Rob Hood]

I'm still not totatly convinced it's the right body style from a retro perspective. It reminds me of a Transformers robot more so than a retro-recreation.

The Challenger is a more faithful reinvention of the original E-body, IMO. Its lines are much smoother and offer easier transitions from one body section to another than the new Camaro.

A lightweight (<3300 lbs) with close to 400HP would be a great vehicle, too. Maybe a "off-road" cam in the trunk for dealer install?? (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Gotta have more rear gear options, too. At least a 3.73 offering; that would definitely be "retro!"

[sgarnett]

I'm still not totatly convinced it's the right body style from a retro perspective. It reminds me of a Transformers robot more so than a retro-recreation.

The Challenger is a more faithful reinvention of the original E-body, IMO. Its lines are much smoother and offer easier transitions from one body section to another than the new Camaro.

A lightweight (<3300 lbs) with close to 400HP would be a great vehicle, too. Maybe a "off-road" cam in the trunk for dealer install?? (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I like the Challenger better too, but don't like it's nose either. All of the modern "muscle cars" look really chunky to me, and remarkably similiar to each other. I suspect that part of the problem is the desire to package a very upright seating position while maintaining a low chopped look for the roof and a short overhang, all while being enslaved to historic "design cues". They all look like they need 6 inches shaved off the bottom of the body.

I have nothing against retro, but it seems to me that they should focus less on retro trademarks and more on retro style. One of my all-time favorite body designs is the XKE roadster, but if you try to grab the trademarks and abandon the style, you end up with, well, a late model Taurus. Ugh.

I think they need to do two very important things: Abandon the trademark mandates, but go more old-school in the design process.

I am absolutely no technophobe (I'm an ASIC engineer), but I think they depend a little too heavily on the cad designers, and not enough on the sculptors.

When you think about the really beautiful cars of the past 100 years, none of them look much alike, and none of them were slaves to what came before.

One sad reality, though, is that the low-slung seating position of the 4th gen and most sports cars doesn't sell to most women, and even the male car buyers have wives.

The key to the Camaro's success has always been great bang-for-the-buck performance. I hope they don't lose sight of that.

This post has been edited by sgarnett: Aug 11 2006, 11:15 AM

[Guardsman]

I'm still not totatly convinced it's the right body style from a retro perspective. It reminds me of a Transformers robot more so than a retro-recreation.

The Challenger is a more faithful reinvention of the original E-body, IMO. Its lines are much smoother and offer easier transitions from one body section to another than the new Camaro.

A lightweight (<3300 lbs) with close to 400HP would be a great vehicle, too. Maybe a "off-road" cam in the trunk for dealer install?? (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I like the Challenger better too, but don't like it's nose either. All of the modern "muscle cars" look really chunky to me, and remarkably similiar to each other. I suspect that part of the problem is the desire to package a very upright seating position while maintaining a low chopped look for the roof and a short overhang, all while being enslaved to historic "design cues". They all look like they need 6 inches shaved off the bottom of the body.

I have nothing against retro, but it seems to me that they should focus less on retro trademarks and more on retro style. One of my all-time favorite body designs is the XKE roadster, but if you try to grab the trademarks and abandon the style, you end up with, well, a late model Taurus. Ugh.

I think they need to do two very important things: Abandon the trademark mandates, but go more old-school in the design process.

I am absolutely no technophobe (I'm an ASIC engineer), but I think they depend a little too heavily on the cad designers, and not enough on the sculptors.

When you think about the really beautiful cars of the past 100 years, none of them look much alike, and none of them were slaves to what came before.

One sad reality, though, is that the low-slung seating position of the 4th gen and most sports cars doesn't sell to most women, and even the male car buyers have wives.

The key to the Camaro's success has always been great bang-for-the-buck performance. I hope they don't lose sight of that.

I agree with you about the height of the body, it's way too high, and makes the car look weird.

The other thing that I noticed is that the Challenger and the Camaro look almost identical. I saw a picture of a Challenger in Hot Rod, and I thought it was another Camaro in red paint.

The front end are almost indentical in size and shape, the A- and B-pillars and windows are, if not identical, very close, and the overall size and shape of the cars are very close. It's almost like they had the same design team doing both cars.

http://www.automobilemag.com/auto_shows/na...t/photo_02.html

http://www.dodge.com/dodge_life/news/autos...challenger.html

Open up both, and compare the third photo of the Challenger with the Camaro.

Actually, the differences between them are almost like the differences were between the Camaros and Firebirds, just a few body pieces.

John

This post has been edited by Guardsman: Aug 29 2006, 06:08 PM

[axoid]

The other thing that I noticed is that the Challenger and the Camaro look almost identical. I saw a picture of a Challenger in Hot Rod, and I thought it was another Camaro in red paint.

I disagree. The basic silhouette is similar, but then again it's similar to a BMW 6 series too.

I hate the rear of the Challenger, but I like the nose. And the Camaro has way more character in the creases and edges on side body panels and fender lips than the Challenger does with it's blandly smooth body panels. There is nothing I dislike on the exterior of the Camaro, I can't say that for the Dodge.