- #126 of 231
-
More Camaro pics
by readerreader
-
Jan 12, 2007 (3:01 pm)
-
|
From: http://www.chevrolet.com/performance/
|
- #127 of 231
-
One more...
by readerreader
-
Jan 20, 2007 (11:45 pm)
-
|
|
- #128 of 231
-
Re: The question is..... [drfill]
by m1miata
-
Jan 27, 2007 (9:37 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: drfill (Jan 06, 2007 9:52 pm)
The two cars represent the same time period. The New Camaro does look a lot like the original, which was one of Detroits most beautiful cars ever produced. The Mustang looked great too, back in '67. It was more aggressive in nature, and the Camaro was more flowing lines. If they could scale down the New Camaro, I might be interested. Really now, the 79" plus width makes her a bit fat and hard to slot around towns with narrow streets. Suppose to be a Pony car, and not a Clydesdale.
GM missed the boat when they did not introduce the Solstice Coupe. With the 3.6 V6, it would have had potential.
 Loren
|
- #129 of 231
-
Re: The question is..... [drfill]
by albook
-
Jan 27, 2007 (8:04 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: drfill (Jan 06, 2007 9:52 pm)
ME!
THe Comaro still looks awkward to me. But the convertible makes it look a little better. I'm not gonna lie- THe Mustang GT is off the chain! We need not even discuss that cobra!!!!!!
|
- #130 of 231
-
Re: The question is..... [m1miata]
by albook
-
Jan 27, 2007 (8:08 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: m1miata (Jan 27, 2007 9:37 am)
GM missed the boat when they did not introduce the Solstice Coupe. With the 3.6 V6, it would have had potential.
Not completely true. A poll showed that people would rather have the convertible over the coupe. And from the race hardtop version (500hp) I've seen, It might look awkward.
|
- #131 of 231
-
Re: The question is..... [albook]
by mako1a
-
Jan 28, 2007 (8:30 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: albook (Jan 27, 2007 8:08 pm)
I agree. Manufacturers have forgotten that good looking with power sells. A powerful car that looks like an econobox doesn't sell (GTO 2004-2006 RIP) Too many cars with potential have been overlooked as power option cars. Even the Ford 500 would have sold if it had a small V8 in it. But alas it turned into an old folks car with no resale. Chevy had the Impala or Malibu (I don't pay that much attention to these blase' cars) then put front wheel drive in them. What were they thinking? I am so tired of waiting for the new Camaro I built my own. 91 Z28 convertible. Went to speed shop and said I want a race car with license plates. He said how much $$? I said $6k and we'll see what we have. Well $10k later I have a really nice Camaro. Why did GM fall on it's face with the Camaro? They were excellent. SS had power, they all had handling. I bought a Toyota for daily driving. Boring! I sure miss the 60's when you could get a 427 in a Camaro just by checking the box. Engineers have gotten too finnicky (sp). Looks and power. Are you listening GM? Build me a car before I plotz.
|
- #132 of 231
-
Re: The question is..... [albook]
by m1miata
-
Jan 29, 2007 (7:29 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: albook (Jan 27, 2007 8:08 pm)
Polls are interesting. People tend to not always follow up with actions which support there polled selections. I am sure a coupe, as good looking as the Concept Solstice Coupe would indeed sell like hotcakes. It is simply a beauty. That said, one problem could be the bathtub view. I see the Solstice has such a seating position. The Crossfire would have sold if you did not feel so confined inside and could see out of the dang thing. If the Solstice Coupe has too many blind spots, it could fail to sell.
As for the Camaro, it should sell well. I personally am not a fan of too tall doors, but overall do like the look of the New Camaro. If I happen some day to live in a town with wide streets and wide parking spots, I may consider a New Camaro. And by 2008 we will know more of the fate of GM.
As for 2007 it is a G6 or a Monte, if ya want a GM coupe.
As the 2009 models hit the showrooms, I would say there should be three interesting pony cars. The Mustang will get some needed face-lifts and tweaks to style and engines by that year, the Challenger is gonna take the prize for replicar look of '09, and the Camaro, if like the show car looks pretty promising.
-Loren
|
- #133 of 231
-
Re: 2009 Camaro [brian1962]
by casull
-
Feb 02, 2007 (7:50 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: brian1962 (Jan 09, 2007 4:32 pm)
I don't think anyone knows anything for sure other than the Camaro is coming back. I have heard a great deal of speculation however that they will be offering the SS badge only, no Z28. However, that is PURE speculation, no facts.
|
- #134 of 231
-
What Killed Camaro / Firebird Production?
by andysd
-
Feb 07, 2007 (9:17 pm)
-
|
Someone touched on this question, a good one. I don't agree that it was cost that made demand peter out.
As background, I bought a new red '89 Firebird V6 manual for under $10k, and loved it for ten years. However, I wanted to get one of the final F-body cars before they went out of production so I special-ordered a '99 Z28 6-speed, red/black, white leather - for about $24k, and I still have it. Now it has lowering springs, Bilsteins, 17" wheels, 275/40 tires like the SS, and stainless steel fender trim.
No matter where you place the blame for the death of the F-body, it was low demand. Was it the not-so-smooth 4-speed automatic? Poor advertising? The bland plastic "grille?" (I removed mine and it's much more interesting underneath.) Was it the car mags finding faults that I, as an owner, don't share? Mostly, I think the Mustang has a more universal appeal, more of a "secretary's car," or family appeal for a sporty car. The F-body was more enthusiast-oriented in my opinion, and thus appealed to a smaller market. I am not exaggerating when I say that about once a week my Z28 gets a "thumbs up" from other drivers, and several times I've had drivers in cars next to me at lights yell things like, "Nice car, man!"
|
- #135 of 231
-
Re: What Killed Camaro / Firebird Production? [andysd]
by rle4lunch
-
Feb 15, 2007 (9:48 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: andysd (Feb 07, 2007 9:17 pm)
In reply to 'What killed the Camaro/Firebird'. It was a simple decision really for GM. Sales numbers for both cars had been declining drastically over the 1990's and by the end of the 90's, sales numbers hit an all time low. Since GM was having (still having) financial problems, it became a viable option to kill the product line for both cars. Personally, I was happy to see them go, mainly because both designs were getting way too junky and cartoonish looking, sporting big bubble butt rear-ends and way too much plastic all over the place. Hopefully the new one (if it gets built) will actually have some quality put back into it. I owned a '92 IROC (bought it in 94), and I must say I loved the power of the motor, but the rest of the car ended up nickel and diming me with ridiculous little repairs. GM told me it was normal for window motors to go out and T-Tops to leak, which led me to believe that they liked selling junk because of the monies coming in from having suckers like me get it fixed by a GM shop. Since then I haven't owned anything made by them, (which is sad, since my dad and brother both worked for GM for a long time).
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Future Vehicles 
