Design detractors: Chevy Camaro will get a B-pillar
While the concept car and the original Camaro were both hardtop coupes, the production version of the 2010 Camaro will gain a B-pillar. It may seem like a betrayal to some, and Rick Wagoner did pledge to make the production car virtually identical to the concept, but in the end, it's no big deal. Actually, a B-pillar is a plus. The chassis will gain rigidity with the pillar there, and it'll be easy enough to disguise. Paint it black, it'll blend right in. Class rival Challenger has met the same fate - there will be no pillarless ponycar revival.
[Source: Inside Line]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg "2011 Audi A8: Live from Miami")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Preston M 8:07PM (9/29/2007)
I'm all for it, i want one baaaaaad.
Reply
TriShield 8:11PM (9/29/2007)
The Dodge Challenger gets one for production as well, both will still look virtually like their concepts.
Reply
UH2L 8:38PM (9/29/2007)
Sometimes real cars need safety that concept cars don't. Hopefully they execute it well.
Reply
SPG 10:20PM (9/30/2007)
That's all we can hope for.
icetraxx 9:49PM (9/29/2007)
I didn't know the Camaro was designed by a Korean, just goes to show that Hyundai/Kia's bland style has nothing to do with them being Korean. Sorry for the off-topic post but I this was news to me.
Reply
Nonsense 9:55PM (9/29/2007)
Blind spots ahoy!
Reply
focus 9:59PM (9/29/2007)
A real engineer could do it without B-pillars. Too bad GM doesn't have any.
Reply
Jughead 1:22PM (9/30/2007)
What an inane comment. GM has engineers as good as anyone else's. The problems within GM go beyond any stinkin' engineer.
Besides, adding rigidity without the B-pillar requires more added weight - something that the Camaro could do without.
Ronald 10:48PM (9/29/2007)
what the hell man, what part of "chassis will gain extra rigidity" do you not understand. Not to mention how much more safe it will be with it just being there.
Your saying GM has no good engineers but your screenname is "Focus" -I sure hope you were talking about the Europe version and not the American version, where their is absolutely nothing good about that car. Nothing.
So go figure
J M C 3 11:04PM (9/29/2007)
(B pillar).Boooo.
Reply
importjap 11:05PM (9/29/2007)
No B pillar would be a case of style of substance, even safety. A wise choice.
Reply
notsonic 11:07PM (9/29/2007)
of course they could make the car with no b pillar.
but it would be heavier and priced out of range.
all for no pillar? no thanks.
id rather get ttops than rolldown 1/4 windows.
if you care so much about the pillar......get a vert.
Reply
Carlos 11:26PM (9/29/2007)
as long as the doors dont have a window frame
Reply
salguod 11:34PM (9/29/2007)
While it does make it easier to make the roof stronger and the chassis stiffer, I wonder if the real reason isn't avoiding the expense of a window mechanism for that little quarter window. Significant savings there, I bet.
Reply
Carlos 11:45PM (9/29/2007)
Oh no, there's another Carlos posting here!
Reply
why not the LS2/LS7? 11:47PM (9/29/2007)
No B-pillar means frameless windows. Frameless windows means more noise.
I'll take the B-pillar please. Just keep it narrow.
Reply
Tim 12:12AM (9/30/2007)
Wow, one whole comment that's entirely wrong.
There are plenty of cars with B-pillars and frameless windows. Subaru's for one example. You'll actually find far more cars with b-pillars and frameless glass than without the pillar. Getting the front window to seal against the rear glass can be a pain to design, and a nightmare to assemble
And regarding noise, using frameless glass allows you to make it more flush than you can get with a frame, which makes them quieter.
As far as the original post goes, this has to be a cost cutting measure. I had my hands in the first window regulator design, and the dropping rear quarter is a pretty expensive setup, probably double the cost of the front door.
The only thing that this tells me is that the chances of a convertable are diminshed without the dropping quarter glass.
why not the LS2/LS7? 1:41AM (9/30/2007)
Tim, you got your logic all wrong.
I said no B pillar means frameless glass. I never said frameless glass means no B pillar.
Your argument there is specious.
Frameless is noisier because the windows have to try to push inwards (toward the center of the car) against their seals, instead of being jammed in (front to back into a track). At speed, the air flowing around the car pulls the windows away from the seals on a frameless window, allowing air to get around the seal and making noise.
Also, of course, they tend to flap when you close the door.
GM has a policy against frameless windows except on convertibles, I believe it is mentioned in "All Corvettes are Red".
Tim 12:02PM (9/30/2007)
Fair enough, I did misread your comment, however properly designed frameless glass is quieter. You have fewer interruptions of the airflow.
The vette is an example of how NOT to do it. I know this because I have very nearly firsthand knowledge of both the C5 and C6 design. They had to come up with something late in the design of the C5 to keep the glass from pulling out at speed, and the C6 is evolved from that design.
There are other designs that do a better job at keeping the glass seated in the seals.
Owain Ozymandias Buck 4:04PM (9/30/2007)
Good point about the frameless windows. I had an '89 camaro. At speed, you could really feel the wind coming in. Those windows did solve one problem--at times the power locks would go insane, rapidly locking and unlocking a dozen times or so. If my keys happened to be in the ignition at the time, and it ended up in the locked position, it was no problem to pull back the top of the window to jab a stick at the unlock button.
By the way, that '89 had no rear side windows at all--just a big b (b/c?) pillar. Just imagine how flexy those cars would've been without that big chunk of metal there.