Detroit Show Wrapup: Camaro concept received emergency reworking
by Chris Paukert on Jan 14th 2006 at 7:00AM 
GM's veep of global product development, Bob Lutz and his so-called 'Golden Gut' have become the stuff of business legend. Tales of Lutz walking in on a team well into a vehicle's gestation, only to utter a disappointed 'no' and send designers scurrying for their Dynoc have been well-publicized. So it comes as something of a surprise that an 11th hour reworking of the Camaro concept didn't come at Maximum Bob's behest, but rather at that of General Motors' Chairman and CEO, Rick Wagoner.
Apparently, the NAIAS showstopper was originally destined to be even more of a throwback than it is, but a last-minute Wagoner walkthrough nixed a finished original for mining the nameplate's past a little too closely.
A second design team was brought in under GM's Ed Welburn (VP of global design), and the two combined to create the design that sallied forth earlier this week to great acclaim in Detroit.
This begs the question: How is it that the Chairman and CEO of GM would not look in on the development of what was obviously the company's most important concept car this year until the last minute?
[Source: JustAuto.com]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Derek Bridges 1:04AM (2/16/2006)
I have mixed feelings about pretty much all of the posts I have read here. I DO think that GM was right not to go TOO retro, but they may have backed off too much as well. The Mustangs did very well because they were the first to really utilize the retro idea for a muscle car. Personally, I think that they could have used that concept in a less literal way and done just as well, if not better. Dodge has gone even further in the retro direction with the new Challenger... almost to the point of making it indistinguishable from it. I think that since retro had already been done in a literal sense, they may see a bit of wariness from purchasers investing in one of their own (although from the complaints about the new Charger, I could be wrong). I think that overall, Chevy has gone the right direction by mixing nostalgia with innovation and has the best car of the three to show for it. Honestly, what do the other two have to offer that is new from a design perspective? Not much. Sure, the Camaro's dainty side-view mirrors look like they could snap off at any minute and come across as feminine, but that's an easy fix. The only other things that I wish they would rework are the rear end- going a LITTLE more retro by combining the 2-set taillights into a 3-in-1 design reminiscent of the '69s and doing away with the center crease to possibly create a negative inset across the entire rear panel to house the taillights- but that is strictly a personal preference. The major issue I see, however, is that the nose comes to too sharp of a point. While looking at the car today at the Chicago Auto Show (it looks MUCH better in person than in pictures, by the way) I wanted to push back the forward most point on the nose about 3 inches. In profile, the bumper comes out too far in front of the hoodline, and from above, the center sticks out too far from the fenders. All of this works to feminize the car (a fatal flaw that Camaro saw in its last few of production models). The front point was the one issue that caused me to second guess the new design. On the other hand, I hope that Chevy doesn't take the same road that most manufacturers do when going from concept to production and make the interior boring to "tone it down." DON'T TOUCH THE INTERIOR! I loved everything I could see inside this car, from the guage design and location to the seat-integrated seat belts with their nostalgic buckles. At 25 years old, I know I'm not exactly in their target market, but my first car was a 1967 RS hardtop which I traded a year later for a 1969 convertible that I still own as a second vehicle. I'd give just about anything to be able to trade in my Ford for the new Camaro as a daily driver... if only they'd fix the pointy front end.
Reply
richard elsbree 7:47AM (1/14/2006)
Where was Lutz's famous "gut" when the Buick Lucerne was designed? The
thing is "butt ugly"! Has anyone else noticed how much better Chrysler has
done since Mr. Lutz left?
Reply
Gardiner Westbound 8:15AM (1/14/2006)
By the time the new Camaro comes out in 2008 or 2009 it won't matter what it looks like. Alert and nimble competitors will have mined-out the market. As usual, GM's product is too late and too little.
Reply
cowboy bob 8:44AM (1/14/2006)
Post 2 -- You may be right, but this market is aimed directly at the old boomer group. The people in this group are now just hitting 60, and down to their late 40's. The muscle car era of crem da la' crem. I think the 50'ish boomers will buy this car, perhaps for a two/four year spread. This is the natural lifespan for such vehicles before re-design, or run-out. After that, it will have run it's course. The fly in the ointment is the economy. These boomers spend like there is no problem with money. The world will change drasticly in the nest 4/5 years. Oil, the Chinese, and the Arabs will see to that. Gen X'rs will then fashon the future of car design, as they will be the target.
Reply
Muscle Car Fan 9:00AM (1/14/2006)
Nice new design, however if you put that design next to the one more closely tied to the 67-69 one it probably wouldn't stand a chance. Ford did a great job with the Mustang and hopefully DCX will bring the Challenger to market - I think both are closer to the original designs - seems to be a winning plan.
Reply
laserwizard 9:28AM (1/14/2006)
Please, let's dispense with the notion that Bobby Putz has a "golden gut". This is the guy who admits to developing the Buick LaCrosse, a Buick in name only, and which looks like a Taurus and a Daewoo were thrown into a blender and what you see is what you get. The car is a still born, rolling eyesore. Nothing flows on it.
Yet, Bobby says "it's all his".
Take the Lucerne - a car that sounds like a carton of milk. It features a whale face stuck onto a Passat. Inside it is more dullness than you can shake a stick at. The overall design is so compelling that in a car show visit last week, no one bothered to visit it (along with the LaCrosse) during my 20 minute stay on the side of General, er, Private Motors' display.
When you look at the Lutz record, you don't see any hits. He is either late to the party and takes credit for the successes of others, or he takes credit for something in which isn't a winner (but he spins it like a fine Maytag so that it sounds like a winner).
The new Camaro is a wretched piece of an eyesore - from the mustang side flanks to a front end that is just plain ugly - the car has no shape on the outside and the back end looks too much like a Corvair to be Camaro. The interior is one of the worst ever seen on a show car. I predict that the same stupid 50,000 or so twits that bought the last generation will fork over their dollars (GM will charge a premium over comparably equipped Mustangs supposedly to finance their other bomb projects) for this. Whether or not you'd convince any would be Mustang purchaser (or Challenger buyer) to walk over to the Loser Lutz's stable remains to be seen.
But let's all join in and tell the real story about the anti-Midas touch that Lutz has. In the four years at GM, his success stories are non-existant. The same happened at Ford and Chrysler. He is all wind and no fury....unless he can cuss you out on his blog - the little whiner.
Reply
Dave in MI 9:38AM (1/14/2006)
I like the Camaro concept mainly because it is not retro. It is not Japanese. It is undeniably American. I think the same is true for the Mustang and Challenger. I can't wait to see them on the road playing together.
I wouldn't mind seeing convertible concepts for the Camaro and Challenger to see how they translate.
Reply
Edsel 10:20AM (1/14/2006)
#2 & #3 I think you both accurately described the retro market. My recently acquired 1968 GTO convertible fulfills my "Boomer" lust for a muscle car I could not afford when they were new. After college, as my disposable income grew, the auto industry entered into a protracted performance coma for the next twenty years. We boomers were left with "performance" option pages filled with, gold packages, opera lamps, vinyl roofs, and pins stripes; nary a real honest, bone rattling, performance engine in sight. Even the poor Corvette was castrated beyond belief with a humorous 155HP engine.
Well, I've got "disposable" cash now and American muscle cars are back in a big way so I bought a 1968 GTO instead of a new retro because it was actually cheaper. However, I have since realized "ergonomics" & "safety" in 1968 were simply terms in a dictionary, they were not words used to describe Detroit's products in 1968. Don't get me wrong, I love my GTO but I keep fixating on the new retro stuff because it offers more performance, safety, and convenience than my 38 y/o antique.
Reply
Ron in Champaign, IL. 10:28AM (1/14/2006)
GM better find another Bill Mitchell or Harley Earl and fast! The Dodge Challenger Concept has this Camaro beat hands down.
The current product line is awfull and has been for years. You have to get the customer into the showroom, it's all about style.
In 1949 Gm brought out a thing called a 2DR Hardtop, and the rest is history. Hint, Hint. It sickens me how the mighty have fallen.
Get it together GM or you are history!!! Your customers are praying for you!!!
Reply
B 11:28AM (1/14/2006)
Some of the comments on here are so fringe and jaded that no matter what GM did, they would blather pablum.
GM is a pathetically run company and has been for decades. That said, there are a few new designs coming out that are actually hot. But, they aren't any more hot than competitive products and that is GM's problem. A bit of too little too late.
You'll be glad to know that Waggoner works at home a few days a week. That is how he missed it. And, how said is it that the chairman has to step up on design decisions. What the hell does he know about design? Nada. I guess Waggoner never learned the management style of management by walking around. A superior method of rallying the troops, really understanding what is going on and getting ideas on what is right and wrong with the company. It's ok for a bubble gum factory owner to work at home a few days a week but the largest company on earth sans oil producers? He's out of touch without a sense of urgency.
Reply
Bill Branscum 12:01PM (1/14/2006)
I'm a fity year old "Boomer" that this retro thing is supposed to appeal to - I think GM has lost their minds.
To scrap the original concept car for looking too much like the old Camaro, and rolling out this thing as being "retro" was pitiful. I wish I had been offered a shot at whatever it was they discarded.
I owned a couple of the original pony cars, and I love what they have done to the Mustang. I've been waiting for the "Shelby," but that Challenger is making me think twice. If they put that retro Challenger on the street with the horsepower to match it's looks, I'll want to test drive it before making a decision.
If any of these retro builders designed their car with original chrome bumpers (I know they'd have to switch for production), and left the design such that an aftermarket chrome could be bolted into place - that would sell me.
As for this "Camaro" - who would have looked at that car and thought they werelooking at a 69 Camaro? Even when they tell me what it's supposed to remind me of, it doesn't.
Reply
Michael D in ATL 12:04PM (1/14/2006)
GM's brass is a bunch of cone-heads, a pack of rich boys clueless about why the Japanese and Germans continue to take market share. Chrysler's not much better, take the new Charger. That aint no Charger! Real Chargers have two doors like real Jeeps have round headlights. I had one of the Shelby Chargers. It ran like a bat out of hell. But I wouldn't buy the new Charger regardless of what they stuff under the hood. Now the 300C is a 300C. It's a nice looking car but not for me. I want to see the Challenger and Camaro concepts transformed into reality. I think if they build in retro-styling, they will sell. And forget the V6 econo-models, those things detract from the gene pool.
Reply
Christopher Brown 12:30PM (1/14/2006)
I think that GM is making a BIG MISTAKE that Camaro will not be a big seller .I dont understand what is wrong with GM. The retro look is just that. Make the car have the old school look with a new spend.This car is something from Buck Rodgers. Wake Up GM as Spike Lee would say .Take note from the Mustang Old School look. The New Challeger OLD School look. The New Cuda OLD School look. Or even the PT CRUZZZZ OLD School Look ! Go back to the drawing board or GM will loose its shirt with that car.
Reply
Tad 12:30PM (1/14/2006)
#5 and #8
I have to strongly disagree. Stop looking into the past and start looking ahead. Finally GM is gettin some quality stuff out there and I think this car has a hell of a lot more public appeal then the Challenger or the Mustang. Both Ford and DCX went way too retro and tried to turn and old car into a new one. GM has the right idea here of taking certain aspects of the old Camaro's and incorperating them into a totally new design. I Cant wait for the numbers to come out because I would put my money on the Camaro being the better buy for the performance. This car undoubtly has that ugly Challeneger and Mustang beat!
Reply
designer 12:44PM (1/14/2006)
"This begs the question: How is it that the Chairman and CEO of GM would not look in on the development of what was obviously the most important concept car this year until the last minute?"
Well, having worked in the design studio of one of the 'Big Three' for a number of years, I can tell you that this is really the way it works - upper management is almost completely isolated from the studio, and is fed information only occasionally and even when that's the case, it's a big, pre-planned and packaged event. The Design Directors hurriedly shuffle the design minions back into their cubicles to surf the internet so they can run around and parade their latest creations to the CEO. This is usually one of the only times a CEO-level exec ever sees a design-in-progress. You'd NEVER catch this level of exec wandering into the design studios unannounced, at least at the company I can speak of.
CEO-level execs are basically kept very out-of-touch from the real process so their people can feed them just what they want them to hear that will make them look good. Sometimes this is good because they'd be just another person who thinks they can design and would want their input, but there seems to also be a missed opportunity for the company leadership to know what's going out the door with the company name on it.
This is another reason why the big American car companies are slipping faster than Tara Reid's dress on awards night.
Thanks.
Reply
Chris 1:06PM (1/14/2006)
Ok, now that you got your chance to bash Buicks, Lutz, and everything else about GM you hate....
#4 The reason retro designs work isn't because the designs are spitting images of the originals, its because they hearken those images and revive their soul. While the Charger is a beutiful design, its a design from the 1960's, not a throwback. The Mustang suffers from this problem, although not as much. The Camaro incorporates some of the design from the original without copying it, and thats why i think this design is better. I applaud Wagoner's desicion to change it from a copy to this.
I realize GM's management needs to be shaken up and changed a bit, but for once, applaud GM for not going the easy route by copying its original design. The new Camaro isn't perfect, and will need some touch-ups, but its a NEW Camaro not a 1969...
Reply
Kevin 3:16PM (1/14/2006)
This begs the question, WHAT DID IT LOOK LIKE BEFORE THEY SCRAPPED IT???
The only thing wrong with the concept camaro is the front end. It looks like the front end of the old Caddie symbol.
Bleech!
Reply
laserwizard@juno.com 3:18PM (1/14/2006)
Please, let's dispense with the notion that Bobby Putz has a "golden gut". This is the guy who admits to developing the Buick LaCrosse, a Buick in name only, and which looks like a Taurus and a Daewoo were thrown into a blender and what you see is what you get. The car is a still born, rolling eyesore. Nothing flows on it.
Yet, Bobby says "it's all his".
Take the Lucerne - a car that sounds like a carton of milk. It features a whale face stuck onto a Passat. Inside it is more dullness than you can shake a stick at. The overall design is so compelling that in a car show visit last week, no one bothered to visit it (along with the LaCrosse) during my 20 minute stay on the side of General, er, Private Motors' display.
When you look at the Lutz record, you don't see any hits. He is either late to the party and takes credit for the successes of others, or he takes credit for something in which isn't a winner (but he spins it like a fine Maytag so that it sounds like a winner).
The new Camaro is a wretched piece of an eyesore - from the mustang side flanks to a front end that is just plain ugly - the car has no shape on the outside and the back end looks too much like a Corvair to be Camaro. The interior is one of the worst ever seen on a show car. I predict that the same stupid 50,000 or so twits that bought the last generation will fork over their dollars (GM will charge a premium over comparably equipped Mustangs supposedly to finance their other bomb projects) for this. Whether or not you'd convince any would be Mustang purchaser (or Challenger buyer) to walk over to the Loser Lutz's stable remains to be seen.
But let's all join in and tell the real story about the anti-Midas touch that Lutz has. In the four years at GM, his success stories are non-existant. The same happened at Ford and Chrysler. He is all wind and no fury....unless he can cuss you out on his blog - the little whiner.
Reply
Brian 5:43PM (1/14/2006)
C'mon now, why is everybody baggin' on the Lactose, er, Lucerne? I mean, those steamy windshield wiper thingies could damn well revolutionize the industry!
They should especially come in handy here in San Diego - our harsh winters and all.
Reply
Andy 6:23PM (1/14/2006)
What an ass. Wagoner is a finance guy. If he knew so much about car design then GM's cars wouldn't be so ugly.
He should keep working at home (or wherever he is) and let the designers (who have spent years and years studying and practicing DESIGN) do the designing.
Reply