Re: Camaro Unveiled at Detroit

From: Josh Battles (josh.lists@omg-stfu.com)
Date: Tue Jan 10 2006 - 10:35:53 EST


On Mon, January 9, 2006 8:00 pm, Terrible Tom wrote:
>
> Eh - I dunno... its not ugly, but it doesn't strike me as a Camaro
> should. It's no where near as nice as a few retro sketches I've seen.
>
> GM seems to have done to the Camaro concept - what they also did with
> the GTO. GM seems to be afraid of going too far to a "retro" design.
> They are trying to hard to design the cars they way they think people
> want them. They took and released a GTO thats supposed to envoke the
> heritage and performance of the old GTO's with a new look and a modern
> design. Thats what I think they were shooting for with the Camaro
> concept. It has hints as to what the Camaro used to look like... but it
> doesn't scream "1969 CAMARO!"

GM didn't really do anything with the GTO except put a new front end and
badging on a pre-existing model from one of their holdings. It was designed
from the ground up by Holden in Australia. They figured since it was
successful in Australia they might as well import it here and try and make a
few bucks. The sales numbers have been telling a mediocre story, IMHO.

This car looks okay though. It's not my cup of tea but it's certainly
reminiscent of a camaro. IMO, the "hard edges" brand image Chevrolet has
going on right now are what's not done this concept justice. It needs to
flow better and not be so angular. That would probably happen in the
transition from concept to production though, most gripes are usually
addressed somewhere during that process.

> Ford did it perfect... the Mustang proves that you can do a modern take
> on and old classic. Dodge has also hit the nail on the head with the
> Challenger, after making an "oops" with the Charger.
>
> Charger was an attempt at using an old name plate on a new design and
> NOT using strong retro style cues. While the Charger and the GTO are
> both screwming performers in their own right - they do not deserve to
> wear their nameplates.

Sure Ford's done a good job on the Mustang now, but you're forgetting the
many years where the mustang didn't look anything like a mustang. What about
the Mustang II and the Fox body? The Mustang II was one of the biggest flops
in Ford's history, and the Fox didn't have any styling queues from the
previous generations of cars. It (the Fox body) sold well and ended up being
a tribute to the name anyway. It didn't pick these queues up until the SN95
bodystyle.

Retro is what's currently popular in the automotive design world and GM is
late to the party any way you look at it. They tried to take the cheap
alternative by rebranding an existing vehicle and that didn't go anywhere so
it sent them scrambling, and we got this Camaro.

> The Challenger Concept looks more like a challenger, than the Camaro
> looks like a Camaro. Basically Challenger looks more like what it
> should than Camaro.

The last few generations of Camaro didn't look like a Camaro either, why
should this generation be any different? Actually, the entire F-Body line
had nothing in common with it's predecessors stylewise. It didn't matter
though because they stuffed a high output V8 in there with a standard 6-speed
and you could buy them for under $21,000. The F-Body was the biggest bang
for the buck sportscar on the market. If the performance is there, people
won't care about the looks as much, and with the current line of LSx series
engines they've got, they may just give the Hemi a run for it's money.

> And now that I have seen the muscle car offerings from Ford, Chevy, and
> Dodge... rest assured. I WILL have a Challenger in my driveway.
>
> If they build it - I will buy.

I'll probably buy one as well if the price is right, it's a great looking
vehicle that's got a lot of potential.

-- 
- Josh
www.omg-stfu.com



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 01 2006 - 20:27:15 EST