Autoblog

+1

...and same with the Challenger.

That's the thing about these Retro designs: they're pre-aged so they grow old fast. Besides these designs were/ are the bastion of the American industry's poor design/ poor packaging heyday. About the only thing going for them is that they help those of us old enough to remember...when we got our Farah Fawcett posters up on the wall...and I never got her... so I am way over that!

I thin that - at best - these designs show how out of step the US Industry is with what we need, which is more efficient design and packaging and efficiency. I just filled up my car with $3.35 per gallon high-test...$48 to fill a Subaru! So, like I am interested in owning and paying for a recycled- retro pony car.

Just my O.

↓↑report

Right here with you, Richard, and Jesse, too.

These re-hashes of old designs pull at the heart strings of those who remember the old ones fondly. Even some who weren't alive when the old ones were new.

What the true dissappointment is, that there isn't any sort of modern counterpart to each of those retro cars.

No Modern Cougar, No Modern Firebird planned, and no Modern Chrysler variant of the Challenger. (The Firepower concept showed a little bit of promise, style wise...)

I don't want to deny those who like these designs their choice. The government might, with it's over-regulation, but I don't.

But I don't think the industry can look forward and move forward with it's head turned, and eyes fixed firmly on 40 years past. It's like riding a motorcycle... LOOK where you want to GO, and you'll go there. Where do the 'domestic' companies seem to be looking?

In the mean time... All that is left to those looking for the next big thing, are left with the G37 coupe, which is largely without major competition. (Audi A5 might become a competitor, but is getting up there in price.)

So, until the domestics decide to play another tune besides nostalgia (which can be played simultaneously... they all have several brands with which to do that.) Those of us who want something more than "just the good 'ole boys" are left no options but to consider only imports, which there still aren't that many options.

This leaves me looking at G37, and wishing for Mazda (RX9/Kabura coupe rumors), Subaru (Legacy-based SVX replacement which will probably never happen), or Mitsubishi (Concept RA with EVO drivetrain) to bring something compelling in.

And Hyundai could have done that, but the pics of the Genesis coupe are not looking so good. Softly styled, and a bad side profile with the stupid quarter window-kink.

The other one, the BMW 335i coupe looks like a 2-door chopped down sedan, as it always has. There are sleeker coupes possible. The BMW is a good car. It just looks too much like the 335i sedan. Why not have the practicality of the extra doors, if they are going to look the same anyway? I'd buy the 4-door version of the E90 M3, for the same reason... why not?

Not everybody wants a retro muscle car. Some people want a sport coupe. FoMoCo, GM, and Chryslerberus could do it, but they aren't and probably won't.

The camaro is already overplayed, and GM knows it. That is why they aren't showing it this year. Bad position. They should be announcing job one next month, not a year from then. I know they are just now tooling up the Ontario plant, but Zeta has been in production for some time. If GM wanted to push this faster, they could have.

↓↑report

Is there a semi-cool car that GM has built that they didn't kill just as they got it right, which is generally - for them - between 4 and 6 years in?

How long the Fiero?
How long the Aurora?
How long the Allante'?

How long have they been building the XLR?

↓↑report

2.5 years may be a decent amount of time to create a new car and platform but it is way too long to do so in the public eye. People consider the camaro as an alternative to the Mustang. The new Mustang concept debuted in 2003 and was available for purchase in 2004. Compare that to the Chevy that debuted in 2006 and will available for purchase in 2009. That is just too long of a gap. Its not like they were developing an entirely new class of car, just a revision of the same car they have made for decades. Chevy made a mistake by showing that car prior to actually starting any work on production. Now it is old news before it can even be purchased, and the next mustang revision will steal its thunder. (dont get me wrong i like the car, but this seems like one big PR blunder)

↓↑report

"these designs show how out of step the US Industry is with what we need, which is more efficient design and packaging and efficiency."

Maybe that's what you need, but I don't. I need raw V8 power, RWD, stickshift, decent size, a long non-sloping hood, and a design that isn't wedge-like. Camaro fits that bill quite well (as does Challenger). There's plenty of market out there to sell a V8 pony car with retro styling. It might not be your thing but it doesn't mean its not somebody else's. To me a car is more than transportation and I'm willing to pay for a more enjoyable vehicle. Similar to how people will pay more for a BMW or Cadillac than a Chevy or Honda to get the luxury, its worth it to them. If gas gets to be too crazy I'll pickup an HHR daily driver :).

I'm so sick of all these new cars (except Chrysler's LX cars) all looking essentially the same. They all have that stupid wedge shape, the short sloped hood, the stumpy trunk, and nothing to really set themselves apart. Inside its the same story, nothing unique. Camaro is unmistakable. It's shape isn't wedge-like. Its hood isn't stumpy. Its perfect for me.

↓↑report

I'm one of those Chevy enthusiasts. If the 4.6L motor wasn't such a POS (I had a 1992 Grand Marquis from 80k - 130k, I know the motor quite well), I may have picked one up to trade in for a Camaro :). Instead I hung on to my Caprice to serve as my DD.

↓↑report

Eric77TA
"It's not an evolution of previous versions."

exactly how is a RETRO muscle car not an evolution of previous versions. Sure they arent keeping up the american tradition of using a platform for 20 years or reusing the same interior for 10 years but the camaro is as much an evolution of previous version as any car on the market. How come everyone else can be down the road to production with a revision of a car before showing a concept.

"At the time GM showed the Camaro concept, it was just a concept. There was very little business case for it. It had to be a smash hit on the show circuit to get the bean counters to approve production."

yeah that is exactly my issue. Why couldnt chevy figure out with its 40 years of experience in this market, that there was a market for this car. Im with Frylock350, GM left the party, said the market for muscle cars is dead, realised that if someone actually made a decent muscle car again (mustang) that the market isnt dead. Then they put out a concept car just to do market research to verify that the market is indeed alive. Then told everyone "great glad you like it, we'll give it to you in 3 years". It is evident that GM does not know its own market and they are late to market because of it.

↓↑report

"Exactly how is a RETRO muscle car not an evolution of previous versions."

Because a car that is new from the ground up, whether it is in the spirit of the previous versions or not, cannot by definition be an "evolution."

"Sure they arent keeping up the american tradition of using a platform for 20 years or reusing the same interior for 10 years but the Camaro is as much an evolution of previous version as any car on the market."

I don't think that is true. The new Toyota Corolla, which shares much of its platform with the previous Corolla, is an "evolution" of the Corolla. Whenever Toyota does a clean sheet redesign of the Corolla, in say 4 or 5 years, that will be a new car. Not an evolution. It will likely maintain many of the characteristics that the brand name "Corolla" has come to encompass, but that will not make it an "evolution" of the previous car.

"How come everyone else can be down the road to production with a revision of a car before showing a concept."

Because if it is truly an "evolution" of a previous car and you have a platform to build it on and a plant ready to go to build it in, that's way easier than building an all new car at a totally retooled plant.

"Why couldn't Chevy figure out with its 40 years of experience in this market, that there was a market for this car."

Because General Motors is unfortunately saddled with a bunch of non car-guy bean counters (the root of most, if not all of their problems) that might not have been so sure. That's my guess, but I understand your point here.

"Im with Frylock350, GM left the party, said the market for muscle cars is dead, realised that if someone actually made a decent muscle car again (Mustang) that the market isnt dead."

I'll agree to a degree here as well, but there are other factors. GM left the market because the 4th Gen Camaro and Firebird did not meet 2003 crash standards. The car wasn't selling in big numbers, but was profitable even as it was. Not enough so to merit a complete redesign on what, as you pointed out, amounts to a decades old platform to meet new standards. Instead, they shut down and put Camaro on "hiatus." When it appeared that a platform that might work for a new Camaro was on the way - Zeta, then plans could begin on a replacement. And by waiting, rather than an evolution of an existing car, there is a whole new, clean sheet design with no catalytic converter hump in the floor and an independent rear suspension among a myriad of other benefits.

And Ford didn't have to "make a decent musclecar again." The Mustang was already selling very well, sales were in fact going up, before the new 2005 debuted.


"Then they put out a concept car just to do market research to verify that the market is indeed alive. Then told everyone "great glad you like it, we'll give it to you in 3 years". It is evident that GM does not know its own market and they are late to market because of it."

That's not really the only reason that they are "late to market."

1. There wasn't a whole lot of business case for the Camaro to start with. Sales were falling for the old car. Yes, it was way outdated, but bean counters see only numbers.

2. Prior to the shuttering of St. Therese Chevy could not have made another Camaro if they had wanted to. Due to the contract there, if Chevy had said that they were going to produce the Camaro they would have HAD to have produced it at the outdated and way to large for the purpose St. Therese. By waiting, they are able to retool a line at the much more modern and "right-sized" Oshawa - one of the highest quality assembly plants in North America.

3. There was no platform available to build the Camaro on. The F-Body was the last RWD platform that GM had left, there was no passenger car to base it off of like the 1965 Mustang was based off the Falcon and the 1967 Camaro was based off the Chevy II back in the days when everything was rear drive. A dedicated platform would, obviously, be too expensive and Zeta development had to be completed before there was any chance of a production Camaro seeing the light of day. That whole project was almost scrapped more than once.

Nobody wanted to wait three years for the new Camaro, I'm sure that most at Chevy didn't, either, but remember, it's the blog sites and auto news sites continually running Camaro stories. It's not like Chevy is running TV and magazine ads for it.

I guess Nissan is late to market, too after showing the GT-R Proto in 2005 and just now getting the production GT-R to market. I've been reading about that car for years, darn it. Everywhere. Every site. Every magazine. I'm sick of that car! Oh, wait. I'm not really, because I haven't even seen one yet and I think I'll be excited to get to see one on the street. Even though I could never afford one.

↓↑report

yeah i think in a wierd way we are agreeing here just looking at it from different standpoints. Im saying Chevy dropped the ball a bit, and you're giving me the details as to why.

"Nobody wanted to wait three years for the new Camaro, I'm sure that most at Chevy didn't, either,"

it does suck that the car is still a year away. Sure factory problems and leadership problems, and bean counters are to blame. But that is all Chevy's fault. Sure there are other cars out there that show as concept cars for a while before showing up, like the GT-R you mentioned. But most of those are cars exploring a new market. With Chevy, it is a bread and butter model that they discontinued because they didnt plan properly to replace it.

Im with you and anxious to see a Camaro. If i was in the market for a V8 RWD coupe it would probably be top of my list. Just glad its not on my list and i had to wait 3+ years to get one. I probably would have purchased a mustang by now.

I also hope that these changes to CAFE standards dont kill off these muscle cars. Many car companies are abandoning V8s in their future models even before these cars hit the market.

↓↑report

GM isn't late, they left the party, realized it was pretty fun and are running to get back in before its over.

↓↑report