# New Camaro



## iLabmAn (Jan 1, 2003)

What do ya think ya'll?


http://autoshow.msn.com/as/article.aspx?xml=GM3&shw=autoshow2006&src=autoshow2006Coverage


----------



## Sloan (Jun 27, 2005)

Its better than the new Charger but beyond that its okay. I am more excited about the Challenger concept car.

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/01/04/dodge-challenger-concept-photo-gallery/


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

Can't say I'm a fan of the new Camaro. It's great that they went way back for the design but the fit and finish are just too tight for that style. I like the roughness of the original. The new Challenger is great but then it hasn't really been modernized, just cleaned up.

Lot's of resurrected designs and lines (Super Chief) in this show. What's your fave?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Jeez, I guess its a matter of taste, but designing cars based on concepts dating from the good old days when the Big 3 actually made profits is unlikely to reverse their slide. These are dinosaurs gasping for air


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Not my cuppa. Too many cars these days accenting the muscle and forsaking the svelte, stealthy, cat-like finesse. This car has all the sex appeal of a frozen side of beef. It's too obvious and in-your-face. It suggests power, but dim-witted brute power.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

My favourite Camaro will always be this generation -- the car has superb lines in my opinion. 









I agree with Max; the new one leaves me a bit cold. Sure it harkens back to the original series however its visual cues, wide tires, and aggressive stance lack the soul of the original. 

If the new prototype goes into production under the name Camaro, a lovely can of worms could be opened. An excerpt from an article found here:




> _
> Back in 1987, GM initially planned on closing its Ste. Therese assembly plant, which would've put thousands of employees out of work. Opened in 1965, Ste. Therese was Quebec's only automotive assembly plant, and was a key contributor to Quebec's economy. The Quebec government was willing to go the extra mile to keep it open. Both the government of Quebec and the government of Canada along with the local Canadian Auto Workers union stepped in with an almost irresistible package for GM. The governments granted GM a 220 million dollar (Canadian) interest-free loan, payable in 30 years. Both the Quebec and Ottawa governments each contributed 110 million each. GM also was awarded over 100 million dollars in tax breaks to keep the plant open.
> 
> This basic agreement helped the Ste. Therese plant win the exclusive mandate from GM to produce the Camaro and Firebird. There has been a lot of speculation on this in various F-body enthusiasts circles, but in a statement regarding labor relations, this arrangement is stated clearly on GM Canada's own media information website: "GM of Canada's Ste. Therese, Quebec plant has the exclusive General Motors mandate to assemble Chevrolet Camaros and Pontiac Firebirds."_


The plant referred to in this article has been torn down; there's absolutely nothing left of it.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

The new Camaro is a bit of a throwback to the old Camaros of the 70's but it's based on the new zeta platform and with a 400Bhp 6.0L LS2 from the Vette it should have enough oomph to keep up with a Charger R/T or a Challenger R/T.

Laterz


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

ooooph, the Doug. That version of the Camaro looked like it had a front and back end that were tacked on with duct tape  . I'm not a muscle car fan by any means, but I did think the last generation had clean styling, albeit not "true to the type" in terms of the camero lineage. I kinda liked the IROC version of the early 90s....


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

I kinda know what you mean but it's still my preferred version. I've attached another pic of a different model from that era, since my photo link above seems to get blocked intermittently. My Mom almost bought a Camaro Berlinetta in 1978 but ended up with an Olds Cutlass instead. The Cutlass was a nice enough car but I was soooooo disappointed she didn't get the Camaro. I preferred the looks of the Berlinetta over the Z28 as it was cleaner & less garish.


----------



## RobTheGob (Feb 10, 2003)

Sorry - but by 79 the Camaro was getting very long in the tooth and had very little in the way of handling *or* power...

I really like the current GTO. Unfortunately it's not available in Canada, mostly because of the lack of 8 km/h bumpers...

It's based on the Holden Monaro and has the 400HP LS-2. Nice suspension setup and it can drfit all day long!

Lot's of people slam its styling (or lack there of) - but I really like the "sleeper" aspect of it. Most people are going to think it's a Sunfire or a Grand Am...


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

RobTheGob said:


> Sorry - but by 79 the Camaro was getting very long in the tooth and had very little in the way of handling *or* power...


I'm talking about looks.  Practically every car in the late '70s handled poorly (in comparison to today's machines, even run-of-the-mill econoboxes), and had less power than earlier cars.


----------



## talonracer (Dec 30, 2003)

I really don't like the look of the new Camaro at all. It looks like it was designed by Cadillac, which is not a good thing in my books.

The new Challenger looks like the old Challenger. Not a bad thing, but... hrm. I know my dad is lusting after it, remembering his 69 (or 70?) Challenger that he used to rule the streets with.

I test drove the new Charger. Great power, but the handling wasn't that great at all. Maybe it is for a "muscle car", or a car of its size, but I am used to my Talons that grip the road like they own it.

I still say that if I ever do buy another car, it will have to have Turbo and All Wheel Drive. Hello, Mitsu!


----------



## draz (Jun 13, 2005)

I haved owned a few over powered cars (vettes, stangs, etc)..but this looks cool. I would definately consider it, but it would have to be the right price. 

But in our current market would it sell....i don't know. How many of the new charger do you see on the road everyday? I see millions of BMW 5 series, Audi A4's and 6's, rows of Mercedes, and a good number of 300C's, a fair amount of mustangs, but no chargers.

If they brought this out at the right price then i think it woudl sell, but would it be a barn burner in the sales...who knows. If it had the right performance for the right price, i would buy one, but not as a primary vehicle. I also am not like the majority of canadians that worry about gas mileage, which if it does have the 6.0 in it will be a serious deal hardener

I do like the retro look more then the challenger (it looks challenged allright). But will it be more appealing then the euro stuff...nah

I will stick with my (300bhp) Jaguar S-Type...fast, sporty, luxurious...and not lined up 3 deep outfront of every starbucks...(like some other euro cars i see)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

iLabmAn said:


> What do ya think ya'll?
> 
> 
> http://autoshow.msn.com/as/article.aspx?xml=GM3&shw=autoshow2006&src=autoshow2006Coverage


I have been trying to put my finger on what this car reminded me of and I think I now know.

From my viewpoint, it could be the retro concept car for the 1965 Mustang. It appears Chevy did a better job than Ford's retro T-Bird attempt.

Anyone else see the similarity?


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

I actually just got back from the Detroit show last night, and lemme say this...

Camaro Concept Vs. Challenger Concept = Camaro victor

I'll post my Flickr set bit later (got some amazing shots of the Miura, was let into the Lambo area, which if you know car shows is unheard of)


----------



## RobTheGob (Feb 10, 2003)

The Doug said:


> I'm talking about looks.  Practically every car in the late '70s handled poorly (in comparison to today's machines, even run-of-the-mill econoboxes), and had less power than earlier cars.


Well - I consider the looks of a 79 Camaro to be pretty bad as well - but looks are a subjective thing...


----------



## RobTheGob (Feb 10, 2003)

talonracer said:


> I still say that if I ever do buy another car, it will have to have Turbo and All Wheel Drive. Hello, Mitsu!


I'm not a *huge* turbo fan (even though two of my current fleet are turbos) - but I've been an AWD fan since the early 80's...

I've been looking into used Audi S4's recently and am really impressed with the prices I'm seeing. If I had my choice, I'd be driving an early 90's S4/6 (with the five cylinder). The later TT V6 S4's are easier to find, however...


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

RobTheGob said:


> Well - I consider the looks of a 79 Camaro to be pretty bad as well - but looks are a subjective thing...


Heh heh -- says he with David Hasselhoff in his avatar.


----------



## RobTheGob (Feb 10, 2003)

The Doug said:


> Heh heh -- says he with David Hasselhoff in his avatar.


Flashing lights and a talking computer make all the difference to an F-body...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I applaud the fact that GM is finally getting it's committee oriented heads around the fact that certain shapes are more pleasing to the eye than others.

And it's good that they are dealing with the simple fact that we might just have hit a high water mark on automotive styling a few decades back. One that still resonates today.

Cars don't HAVE to look like a piece of soap that's been in the shower far too long. And they SHOULD have character and soul.

Designers like Harley Earl and Bill Mitchell and Larry Shinoda knew this. So did Raymond Loewy. Too bad they are all dead now.

(Or maybe, if they were still alive, they'd all commit collective suicide when they took a look at all of the shapeless characterless blobs that sit in the parking stalls of today's mall parking lots. PeeeYOOOK!.)tptptptp 

I've owned a long list of classic American musclecars and I loved every one of them (except the 1966 427 Corvette Stingray 4spd). I also pretty much doubled my money on each of them...while having a very cool ride for a few years! (try THAT with a "sensible Honda")

And I happen to like the new Camaro. I flat out LOVE the new Challenger! My buddy just bought a new Hemi Charger and that car makes my knees weak. The new Chrysler 300 is too cool for words. I would KILL one of my close relatives for a 400 HP Chevy SSR (in jet black, por favor).

I think that the new GTO will get some seriously cool styling in the next year or so. It's already scary fast. All it needs is new clothes.

Bottom line? We may just be seeing a brand new golden age of really truly cool cars emerging. Ones that we actually can afford! (Ferraris and Lamorghinis are a bit beyond most of us, after all). This is a wondrous thing after all of the four-wheeled disposeable (and totally forgettable) appliances that we've been offered for most of the last two and a half decades.

We are at a watershed moment here, folks. There are some really COOL cars being built right now! And I bet that thirty years down the road THESE are the cars that we will be seeing at the Barret-Jackson auction. Going for several times their original purchase price.

Watch and see.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Glad you can afford the gas..... This may indeed be a watershed moment. The last gasps of a desperate Big 3 as they finally drive off (in a straight line) into the sunset. The soap bar cars may not hold a candle in terms of horse-power, but they'll have a lot more staying power. There is a place for dinosaurs and they are magnificent beasts - awesome powerhouses. But the climate has literally changed beneath their feet.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Jim...Some of the new musclecars get pretty good mileage. Better even than the economy cars of a past era. Better than the SUV's that many people have been so in love with for so long. And they are ridiculously clean, to boot. In fact....under all of that beautiful new sheetmetal is the very same technology that the shapeless blob cars have been using so effectively for the past decade or two. The technology that makes them both very clean and very fuel efficient at the same time.

Biggest difference? The new cool cars are simply a lot better looking than the bland blobs. And they mostly have rear wheel drive, so they have a far better front/rear weight bias and should handle MUCH better than the quirky front drive boxes. 

As for the idea that the front drive blobs are cars that will "last"....take a moment and check out an autowrecker some time. The Hondas and Toyotas are stacked ten deep, and most still have all of their parts intact. That means that people are simply tossing them away and no one is really trying to fix them up or keep them running much beyond their normal replacement cycle.

You might also want to watch the Barrett-Jackson car auction that's running as we speak. Tell me if you see any front drive "classics" pulling down any big numbers, Japanese or otherwise.

None. Zero.

Then take note of the cars that ARE selling there for 50 or 60 large. Or even double that. Cars that sold for about four grand when new, BTW.

Which brings me back to your original statement about being able to "afford the gas". If you buy a car and drive it for a few years, and then sell it for double what you paid for it (sometimes triple) then you can "afford" to spend a bit more on fuel.

In fact...it's kind of like getting PAID to drive a really cool car!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Might be something to do with the fact that the Hondas, Toyotas and Mazdas outsell the muscle cars by a factor of 10 to 1..... There are some great classics, no doubt, but when you put a 300+ bhp engine into a car and comfortably only seats 2, the efficiency factor is not on the list of features......

Besides, you still seem to think that oil is unlimited instead of a precious resource that should be conserved. We seem to be happy to accelerate the depletion of this energy source. The only thing that will lead to conservation is an escalating price - which is precisely what we're experiencing. We seem to have adapted to 95cent litres. Won't be too long until the next bump, unfortunately, and this is a trend only a fool would bet against.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Might be something to do with the fact that the Hondas, Toyotas and Mazdas outsell the muscle cars by a factor of 10 to 1..... There are some great classics, no doubt, but when you put a 300+ bhp engine into a car and comfortably only seats 2, the efficiency factor is not on the list of features......
> 
> Besides, you still seem to think that oil is unlimited instead of a precious resource that should be conserved. We seem to be happy to accelerate the depletion of this energy source. The only thing that will lead to conservation is an escalating price - which is precisely what we're experiencing. We seem to have adapted to 95cent litres. Won't be too long until the next bump, unfortunately, and this is a trend only a fool would bet against.


Hang on Jim. Not sure you actually read my previous post here. You seem to still be in attack mode based on some old leftoid myths about the musclecars from the sixties. We are talking about the brand new ones here.

Allow me to enlighten you, once again...

-SUV's are some of the most popular vehicles out there. They account for vast numbers of the new vehicle sales. Tiny four banger econoboxes are a very distant second.

-SUV's get terrible gas mileage compared to almost anything else. They are also inherently top heavy and have rollover issues. No one ever calls them "good handling vehicles". And most people run street car tires on them...so they are not much good when taken off-road.

-There are no potentially "classic and collectible" SUV's out there. Hummers might be, someday. The rest are disposeable. No future value at all.

-There are NO "classic and collectible" front drive sh*tboxes or minivans out there. None. Zero. Two vast classes of one-use vehicles that are totally disposeable. They have no value whatsoever, when they get old. And they present, along with the SUV's, a major challenge for recycling. BIG energy cost here.

They also cost a lot in energy and polloution to build. Buy a new one every few years and toss out the old one, and you are introducing far more polloution into the environment than if you could keep and preserve an older (more DESIREABLE) vehicle for future generations to enjoy. While enjoying it yourself...for an extended period.:clap: 

-The modern musclecars (the really cool ones) will be preserved and cherished and passed on to another generation, long after their more pedestrian siblings have been tossed on the trash heap. This is historical fact.

-Modern musclecars get far better mileage than the giant SUV's. Only slightly worse than your average Honda or Acura, actually. And almost all of them seat four people. (The Dodge Charger Hemi and Chrysler 300 easily seat five or more. In luxury. And they both have four doors too.)

-Modern musclecars are seriously clean! They have to pass the very same emissions standards that all of the rest of the cars on the road have to pass. (One thing many don't realise is this: A high performance motor is often cleaner than a low performance one. Efficiency is what makes horsepower. Efficiency also reduces emissions.)

So, JWoodgett...tell me again why totally disposeable cookie-cutter front drive Hondas and Toyotas...the ones that smoke belching factories are pumping out in droves...are somehow a "better choice" than the brand new musclecars that will last for decades and bring many times their original purchase price...while giving their owners a singularly joyful and rewarding driving experience?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Something to keep in mind here is that people who own vintage muscle cars (like Macnutt and I) drive them very sparingly. My 325 HP 1970 Monte Carlo has made 4,000 miles since I bought and restored it in 1997. That's about 400 miles or 700 kilometers a year, and is hardly polluting the planet. I have seen 15 year old Toyotas puffing blue smoke so bad they do more damage in one 20 km run than my Monte will do in a years worth of driving. Sadly the blue smokers make that 20 km run every day.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Agreed, SINC. Volvo drivers on this leftish island are the worst. They often trail large plumes of heavy blue smoke while popping and banging down the road.

We should also note that many of the smoke belching swedish polloution buckets on this island display a mutitude of stickers on the back that loudly proclaim how leftish the owner is.

My youngest brother is a hard line NDP type union member who is married to a swedish wife. They both HATE their cars (a Volvo and a Range Rover) because they honestly believe that cars are an evil incarnation of western society. Foisted upon them by capitalist forces that are currently beyond their control.

So they "punish" their cars by never tuning them up. Never spend anything on them until they fail. Which both the Volvo and the Range Rover do, rather often.

I know...I've fixed them often enough. And I've choked on the clouds of smelly smoke that a badly tuned over-rich motor can belch out when leaving my driveway after a family dinner.

It's kind of funny...and kind of sad...and kind of pathetic at the same time. Noble ideals...badly executed. Ones that lead to even greater problems in the long run.

Sort of like socialism in general.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Huh? I wasn't condoning SUVs at any point. And I'm not sure why you think Hondas and Toyotas are built in smoke belching factories. Oh, yes, I forgot, you've never seen the ultra efficient assembly plants in Cambridge and Alliston, Ontario which compare rather favorably to the Big3 production plants (although GM does have an excellent plant in Oshawa with the highest productivity of all GM plants on the continent but its being closed for political reasons). The Honda and Toyota plants here lead production efficiency in not only North America but also Japan! 

The relative longevity of the cars also fails to stand up to scrutiny. The percentage of cars that ever become collectors is such a small fraction of the total its irrelevant to the argument. Really, how many Chargers do you expect to see on the road in 2030? As for the relative sales numbers of SUVs versus econoboxes, I suggest you look up the figures for North America. The highest place SUV (Ford Explorer) is 5th or 6th.... As for fuel efficiency, I don't see any of your muscle cars in this list. Besides, the market is driving the result. Ford production dropped 40% in 2005. GM is bleeding.

Please, when making an argument, use some factual back-up. Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it true.  The era of the true muscle cars is on its last legs. The mammals are taking over.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Earth to JWoodgett! Earth to JWoodgett! A few late breaking bulletins for ya here:

-Honda and Toyota and Nissan have ALL begun to build "big smelly V8" trucks of late. Just like GM and Ford and Chrysler.

-ALL are built in modern factories. It takes just as much energy and resources to build a half ton Toyota V8 pickup as it does to build a half ton Chevy V8 pickup. The biggest difference is that the Chevy will last for years and years. The Toyota's motor and powertrain will last for years...but no one will even attempt to keep it going beyond it's normal cycle because no one ever seems to think that they are cool enough to keep around. The people who prefer Toyotas buy new ones every few years. Instead of keeping them for a decade or two. And the body will rot off the Toyota long before that time, anyway.

So the Toyota gets tossed. The Chevy lives on.

-All of the new American musclecars are ALSO built in modern factories. Same ones that build almost all of the other vehicles. 

-It takes a signifigant amount of energy to BUILD a vehicle...and it takes a signifigant amount of energy to RECYCLE a vehicle once it's tossed onto the ash heap. Almost all of the SUV's and pretty much ALL of the front drive blobs will be recycled at some point. The American Musclecars will be kept largely intact and traded amongst people who seriously love them. No energy expended to do this.

There is a difference. 

Oh...and by the way...the new American Musclecars I like the best are the ones made by Daimler Chrysler. That's "Mercedes" to you. 

Are you attempting to tell me that Mercedes is guilty of neanderthal engineering?:lmao:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

A buddy of mine just bought a 2005 Magnum in a clearance sale with the "N" package which of course is the Hemi. Cool ride.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

And I bet that he keeps it a LOT longer than your average Honda driver does. I also bet that the next owner keeps it for quite a while. And the NEXT guy after that will probably double his money on it, too!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacNutt said:


> And I bet that he keeps it a LOT longer than your average Honda driver does. I also bet that the next owner keeps it for quite a while. And the NEXT guy after that will probably double his money on it, too!


Down boy! It's a FOUR door.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

While I know we don't live on the same planet MacNutt, my feet are firmly planted on terra firma. While its a waste of tme debating you since you employ your typical tactic of arguing against things other posters DON'T say and steadfastly refuse to produce any wimper of evidence to back up your claims, I'll remind you that trucks are also NOT cars. The SUV craze was manufactured by all automotive companies to avoid the stringent emissions standards for cars. They found a willing public. Hey, no one said we aren't dumb. 

There's an interesting ad in this months Wired (you can see what its about at http://www.willyoujoinus.com/ ). For every barrel of new oil discovered, we care consuming 2. Wonder who is behind the ad? Chevron.

When we, as a society, view gas guzzlers (be it trucks, muscle cars or whatever) not as a luxury tax on that part of society that likes to flip the finger at conservation but instead as a selfish bunch of people (and companies) who are by their actions wasting resources that can be put to better use in society in general, then we may have a chance to preserve such resources for future generations (e.g. our kids).

Magnum? Is that a large bottle of champagne or a powerful handgun? It looks butt ugly to me. Brute force, yes. Intimidating, yes. Intelligent? I don't think so.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

UTBJ the Magnum is basically a station wagon of old:


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I've seem them SINC. The point is, the longevity of pretty much all mainstrain cars is similar. The fact that one has a Hemi shoe-horned into it, does not cause a miraculous change in lifespan. I am not attacking people's tastes in cars, I just think that trying to justify owning one of these torque machines based on it longevity potential and efficiency is missing the point. If someone wants a powerful car, so be it. Just don't try to tell me that they bought a Hemi and are now going to tootle around in it because it is a long term investment....


----------

