Lutz reveals B Pillar on the Camaro

[z28luvr01]

It's no shock. We've known this for a while now.

Don't be so quick to jump all over Sixty8. Riding in a hardtop is an experience that really does need to be brought back to the average Joe and Jane.

With that said, I understand the decision to include a B-pillar. Chevy NEEDS to bring this car in substantially lower than the Mustang, and have it be a vastly superior car, for it to be a lasting success once the initial novelty wears off. Sit in a Mustang and it's easy to see where Ford cheaped out to get the thing priced where it's at. I'd rather Chevy stick a piece of metal connecting the roof and the quarter panel of the Camaro than go cheap on the interior, or the brakes, suspension, engine, safety features, etc. Everything from the base model upwards has got to be top notch.

Besides, the first-gen is the only technical pillarless coupe anyway. Everything from 1970 on had a B-pillar, so it's not like having a B-pillar makes it not a Camaro.

Doesn't bother me, I'm set on the orange convertible anyway, which doesn't have a b pillar

[ToniCipriani]

I for one don't care. If it's a competitive car it will sell.

If you want a hardtop so badly, here's a suggestion: get a convertible, rip out the ragtop mechanics and weld a hard top to it. There you go. Your so called true hardtop.

[Newbiewar]

YES!

whats so great about it.. besides rear windows that roll down? (since my 4th gen didnt even have rear windows)

[Sixty8panther]

I for one don't care. If it's a competitive car it will sell.

If you want a hardtop so badly, here's a suggestion: get a convertible, rip out the ragtop mechanics and weld a hard top to it. There you go. Your so called true hardtop.

I'm already thinking about it....

Totalled ragtop + coupe with the rear glass removed + a good body man = HARDTOP.

But the point is this was going to be GM's first true hardtop since 1976 and the

very first affordable hardtop in almost four decades!

[hyperv6]

But the point is this was going to be GM's first true hardtop since 1976 and the

very first affordable hardtop in almost four decades!

Whoa Whoa hold on GM not once ever promised it was going to be a hardtop. It was never going to be the first affordable Hardtop since 1976.

They only said the car would very close to the show car but never exact and they used the word hardtop.

[Oracle of Delphi]

But wait, this is a Zeta, so it's the best thing since sliced bread, rightttt? So stop your yapping! :rotflmao:

[FloydHendershot]

Car and Driver is already billing the G8 as the "sedan that will save Pontiac"

This Zeta may have more value than you may care to consider. :AH-HA_wink:

[Oracle of Delphi]

Car and Driver is already billing the G8 as the "sedan that will save Pontiac"

This Zeta may have more value than you may care to consider. :AH-HA_wink:

I find it prudent to never believe anything I read in C&D, which may explain why I don't receive it in the mail anymore! :AH-HA_wink:

[FloydHendershot]

ahhh, neither do I but that is the perception, no?. Perhaps if you tell a big enough lie long enough, well, whatever that is the perception as of now.

Wouldn't it be nice if this becomes a reality as opposed to the typical "biased" media mutiny and disdain for all that is GM presumption.

[regfootball]

big honkin V8... check

RWD... check

b-pillar... Who gives a rip

the fact of the matter is everyone cried foul when it was over in 2002... with the exception of ford that is.

most people could really care less and most wont know the difference. i cant wait for them to hit the streets... got 7 long years of backorder camaro whoopings to hand out

help me out,.....isn't the camaro supposed to have IRS and the 3.6 high feature as well? That, to me, would make a better performance car buy than a pillar.

no one ever sits in the back of a pony car or wants the windows down with AC anyways.

want a pillarless camaro? there will be a convertible.

I could count the number of people who car on one hand. If you want the airiness of a hardtop, you can buy the vert. If you want a solid roof above your head, you can buy the coupe. There just aren't enough buyers in between to justify it. A hardtop will weigh more, likely less than the vert, but still more than the coupe due to the reinforcements that would be required. It'll also increase price, and for what? A handful of people who think its still 1969? Its 2007, like it or not, there are rules and regulations and cost prohibitions. The Camaro is coming, but I guess they cant please everyone, since its not going to be a hardtop, its not going to have AWD available(sorry reg, no Camaro for you) and its not going to give you a bj every time you turn the key(another reason reg wont buy one) and probably wont have a useful back seat. Some people just cannot accept that their ideal isn't compatible with reality.

I never would expect a mustang and camaro to have AWD. a G8 or impala or park avenue? Yes. But pony cars no, so you can stop with your side swipes.

as far as a car that gives a BJ, first off, i would want pushbutton start then instead of a key, and i am better off because the person in the front seat would be doing the service.....not the car itself. so.....there.

Edited September 30, 2007 by regfootball

[CMG]

Here's my take.....

The Camaro is going to change from the concept as far as a production vehicle goes more than just the addition of a B pillar I'm willing to bet.

As I said in the Challenger thread, how do people think an AFFORDABLE musclecar will be made without a B pillar? It adds cost and weight to have a true hardtop. Simple as that.

(Go read the Challenger thread for some of the comical comments... LOL They now apply to the Camaro too. Big surprise! )

A 60's hardtop with a big block being pounded through the gears would NOT matter a lick of difference if the windows were up or if they were down. The windows were NOT "structural" in any way shape or form.

We used to buy convertible frames for our 1969 Chevelles to try to have a little more structural rigidity.

The B pillar won't detract enormously from the Camaro, but like I say, don't discount the fact there *may* be more changes before production.

[Camino LS6]

It is disappointing to see the ready acceptance of least-common-denominator parameters which are overused in modern cars. Most of them relate to styling,and or, safety. It is sad that things such as true hardtops are reserved for the rich, while the rest of us are supposed to be happy with dumbed-down, over-airbagged, bulbous lumps of aerodynamic boredom. To me this is about far more than a B pillar or the lack of one in a given car, it is about our willingness to be part of the herd and slaves to trend and capricious regulation borne of irrational fear.

I don't give a rat's ass if my car has any airbags or not - I really could not care less. So "5 Star" safety ratings don't mean a damn thing to me. Give me the style instead - I'll take my own chances, thank you.

[Sixty8panther]

Well said Camino.

First it was catalitic converters in the 1970s...

Then it was all sorts of emissions junk in the late 1970s

In 1976 the hardtop got the axe

Then later, in the early 1980s it was MORE emissions garbage

Emission hoses & charcoal canisters

The BOF G-body was replaced with lame FWD/unibody jellybeans with no V8 power

To make matters worse airbags & overcomplication replaced common sense

Then we lost RWD in all but trucks, F-bodys, B-bodys & the Vette

Then we lost BOF cars altogether, stupid, stupid!!!

Now not only do we get told to pound sand if we want a stickshift in anything

except a Corvette but we get power everything and navi shoved down our

throats and 14 airbags standard.

Let's leave the hardtop bodystyle and have the Camaro gain 80 lbs.

Then lets throw out the 450 lbs. of $h! I do not want and end up with

a truly light car. I don't want or need a 200 gig computer, or 7

airbags, or 16 way power searts & 20" rims, don;t giveme a sunroof

or an independant rear suspension....

[balthazar]

The 'cost' arguement doesn't wash; the way Chevrolet is doing the Camaro, they must engineer 2 different unibodies- one a reinforced, pillarless shell with roll-down rear side glass, and a less-reinforced, B-pillared coupe with glued-in glass.... rather than using the convertible shell and being completely locked-n-loaded right out of the box.

The 'less weight=better performance' arguement doesn't wash either: 100 more lbs only costs you 1/10th of a second in the quarter mile- a B-pillar makes a far greater & more direct impact than a --say-- 13.8 sec 1/4-mile vs. a 13.7. Besides- there's no aftermarket remedy for a B-pillar- there will be dozens of Camaro-specific performance upgrades before the car even hits the showrooms.

One more thing: a true hardtop Camaro would be exactly the type of detail that so many hand-wringers here are always harping about: it would be GM 'not just matching the competition, but surpassing them', but many of these same individuals are simply shrugging their shoulders just like they've alleged 'die-hard' GM fans have done in the past.

I agree with Camino's post above 100%. Give me the hardtop, $h!can the NNNAAAVVV and the sunroof (how much does that bull$h! weigh ??

[NOS2006]

Not sure if this has been brought up yet, but has anybody thought that the b-pillar could be hidden? That's a possibility, isn't it?

[SuperSport623]

i totally agree with Camino and 68.... im only 17, so the automotive world i was born into was full of computers, airbags, and more computers.....

i daily drive my 71 nova almost 40 miles a day... my 36 year old hunk o' junk was built in a time when cars were built without compromise..... my car, in its generation, was not offered pillarless.... i hate my b pillar... one reason i love pre 70's cars is the pillarless look... like Camino said.. its not just the piece of metal... its the concept of habing to compromise.... are you telling me that they cant build a pillarless coupe today? did we forget how after the mid 70's?

[Intrepidation]

Not sure if this has been brought up yet, but has anybody thought that the b-pillar could be hidden? That's a possibility, isn't it?

That's not what Toyota would have you believe!

Anyway, I'm a little disappointed but not really surprised...and so long as it looks almost identical otherwise and they put the B-pillar behind the glass (like what Dodge appears to be doing with Challenger) I'll be happy. It's coming back, and that's what matters most.

[cletus8269]

Besides- there's no aftermarket remedy for a B-pillar-

i think dewalt customs has one out... think they are calling it a sawsall

[regfootball]

well sh1t, lets remove the a and c pillars too if we don't want to compromise. doors too.

[Nick]

Not sure if this has been brought up yet, but has anybody thought that the b-pillar could be hidden? That's a possibility, isn't it?

That's what I was thinking...A la BMW e46 330ci

Not that great of an example...works better with tint...

Better examples

[Camino LS6]

I feel like I need to clarify a bit. I think that the Camaro will be a great car, with or without a B pillar. My main gripe is that the American public and the automakers are letting " we can't because..." thinking win too often when we need much more " we did it anyway" thinking to win the day.

The Camaro would have been the perfect way to produce a shining example of that sort of spirit.

I'm just tired of all the grovelling and bending to please every whining entitiy that demands excessive focus on safety. It is way past time to say "up yours" ,we are doing it this way.

It's time to do more demanding and less begging.

[hyperv6]

The 'cost' arguement doesn't wash; the way Chevrolet is doing the Camaro, they must engineer 2 different unibodies- one a reinforced, pillarless shell with roll-down rear side glass, and a less-reinforced, B-pillared coupe with glued-in glass.... rather than using the convertible shell and being completely locked-n-loaded right out of the box.

The 'less weight=better performance' arguement doesn't wash either: 100 more lbs only costs you 1/10th of a second in the quarter mile- a B-pillar makes a far greater & more direct impact than a --say-- 13.8 sec 1/4-mile vs. a 13.7. Besides- there's no aftermarket remedy for a B-pillar- there will be dozens of Camaro-specific performance upgrades before the car even hits the showrooms.

One more thing: a true hardtop Camaro would be exactly the type of detail that so many hand-wringers here are always harping about: it would be GM 'not just matching the competition, but surpassing them', but many of these same individuals are simply shrugging their shoulders just like they've alleged 'die-hard' GM fans have done in the past.

I agree with Camino's post above 100%. Give me the hardtop, $h!can the NNNAAAVVV and the sunroof (how much does that bull$h! weigh ??

The vert as 99% of all oher roofless cars are never as strong as a car with a proper roof. That is why even a Z06 has a solid roof.

As for weight, GM could give a hoot about weight in relation to performance in the 1/4 mile. It is the MPG they have to meet. If it was just 0-60 they just add more power. But with braking and handling too much mass is a bad thing and not eaisily over come.

As for the crap thy have in cars today more people want it than not so they have to please the majority. Also the carp is where most profit is generated. Profit is the whole point of building the thing in the first place. If you are that upset about the pillar your not in the majority of the target group where it is not a important issue. They build cars to make money from the most buyers and that is what it is all ablut not to satify every whim at any cost.

If it was that easy to build a affordable hard top Ford GM and Dodge would have one don't ypu think. IF anyone here thinks it is that easy to meet all the demands placed on these cars today and still be able to sell them to the taget market please come forward. All three companies would have a high paying job for you to show them how to do what they can't so.

Edited September 30, 2007 by hyperv6

[Camino LS6]

they have to please the majority.

This is the part I have a problem with.

Do they have to do it on every car?

I'm waiting to see a bit more "bold" in auto design.

[Camino LS6]

You don't make history or legends by adhering to conformity.

We need to make some legends.

[SuperSport623]

family cars should appease the majority, a pony car should be built for the enthusiest

[Robert Hall]

family cars should appease the majority, a pony car should be built for the enthusiest

Remember, the Camaro is a populist fun car, though..it has to appeal to a wide majority, from base 6 cyl models to the more focused big V8 models..it's not the Corvette.

[balthazar]

hyperv6: >>"As for weight... As for the crap... Profit is the whole point... If it was that easy..."<<

While valid points, your post is heavy with bean-counter POV- not the directing force the majority of Camaro buyers are hoping is in control on this one.

As for the 'hidden B-pillar' advocates: you quite simply don't get it.

I've owned 20 vehicles to date, 11 which have been hardtops/ pillarless (my average model year owned : 1965). Weather permitting, I ALWAYS rolled down all windows BECAUSE it was a hardtop. Arguing that 'many/most people won't put all windows down' is akin to arguing for the elimination of the pickup bed 'because many/most people don't put anything in it'. One could easily apply the same arguement to NAV and sunroofs, but we have those, don't we? What percent of cars have sunroofs- 5-10%?

This should be about individuality and expressionism in an extremely expressive car, not about penny-pinching, not at this stage in GM's history.

Edited September 30, 2007 by balthazar

[hyperv6]

hyperv6: >>"As for weight... As for the crap... Profit is the whole point... If it was that easy..."<<

While valid points, your post is heavy with bean-counter POV- not the directing force the majority of Camaro buyers are hoping is in control on this one.

As for the 'hidden B-pillar' advocates: you quite simply don't get it.

I've owned 20 vehicles to date, 11 which have been hardtops/ pillarless (my average model year owned : 1965). Weather permitting, I ALWAYS rolled down all windows BECAUSE it was a hardtop. Arguing that 'many/most people won't put all windows down' is akin to arguing for the elimination of the pickup bed 'because many/most people don't put anything in it'. One could easily apply the same arguement to NAV and sunroofs, but we have those, don't we? What percent of cars have sunroofs- 5-10%?

This should be about individuality and expressionism in an extremely expressive car, not about penny-pinching, not at this stage in GM's history.

Enthusiast do not buy enough cars as we found in the 4th gen so this has to be more a sporty car for the all the people. God know coupes are a hard enough sell as it is.

Being bold is fine if it is only styling but when it comes to keep the cost to the point you make money and price the product with your competitiors is another. Sorry this is a buisness and they are here to make money.

You may roll all your windows down but you are in the minority today. Look around at the daily drivers and just see how many have thier windows down. Just look at any 67-68-69 and see how the door windows are scatched from going up and down vs the rear on most that have few if any marks. Everytime a window is retrated it is damaged and the tell tale signs of damage are missing from 85% of all first gens. I have judged enough Camaro shows to know this fact well as most restore a car but few replace glass.

As stated we had 12 hard tops in our family and over 20 if you count my grandmothers Buicks she yearly bought in the 60's. All were daily drvers and seldom were all the windows down.

As for sun roofs and NAV both add little weight and do not effect crash standards. Both also drive up profit with little added cost. So you argument does not wash.

Come on the pick up comparo is lame I you can do better than that.

The bottom line is they had to make some choices and what they decided had to be goo for the majority. If your wish got left out you not in the moajoity. THese are hard choices they had to make and they made it so we all just have to live with it.

If hard tops were so easy and cheap to build don't you think everyone would have one for under $60,000? There has to be a good reason Ford GM and Dodge did not build it as if it was as easy and cheap do you think they would have passed it up? I would think not.

When only a few high priced coupe come this way should be a good sign it ain't that easy or cheap.

This will be a non factor for 90% of the buyers and that is why time and money was not spent.

[cletus8269]

wasnt the concept a little over a cool million? if cost IS the reason that would be why that was a true hardtop... cost "one million dollars (pinky rasied to corner of mouth)" production gets all bread and butter on us.

that was one of dodges arguements for a 4dr charger, its hard to sell a 2dr coupe. still dont see why they couldnt have done a 2dr for the srt's

the blacked out pillar in the beamer is a nice trick.

and agreed, i love to roll all 4 windows on my impala down, except for when there are non secured items in the car they tend to get sucked out by the overwhelming volume being sent through the car... lost math homework that way one morning. im pretty sure toddlers should be strapped in too or face a similar fate as the math...

Edited September 30, 2007 by cletus8269

[regfootball]

i'm not sure why anyone would want to make meaningless compromises in safety.

of course, there are plenty of dumbasses who ride motorcycles without helmets....you know, folks who want their brains destroyed by pavement.

[Camino LS6]

Enthusiast do not buy enough cars as we found in the 4th gen so this has to be more a sporty car for the all the people. God know coupes are a hard enough sell as it is.

Being bold is fine if it is only styling but when it comes to keep the cost to the point you make money and price the product with your competitiors is another. Sorry this is a buisness and they are here to make money.

You may roll all your windows down but you are in the minority today. Look around at the daily drivers and just see how many have thier windows down. Just look at any 67-68-69 and see how the door windows are scatched from going up and down vs the rear on most that have few if any marks. Everytime a window is retrated it is damaged and the tell tale signs of damage are missing from 85% of all first gens. I have judged enough Camaro shows to know this fact well as most restore a car but few replace glass.

As stated we had 12 hard tops in our family and over 20 if you count my grandmothers Buicks she yearly bought in the 60's. All were daily drvers and seldom were all the windows down.

As for sun roofs and NAV both add little weight and do not effect crash standards. Both also drive up profit with little added cost. So you argument does not wash.

Come on the pick up comparo is lame I you can do better than that.

The bottom line is they had to make some choices and what they decided had to be goo for the majority. If your wish got left out you not in the moajoity. THese are hard choices they had to make and they made it so we all just have to live with it.

If hard tops were so easy and cheap to build don't you think everyone would have one for under $60,000? There has to be a good reason Ford GM and Dodge did not build it as if it was as easy and cheap do you think they would have passed it up? I would think not.

When only a few high priced coupe come this way should be a good sign it ain't that easy or cheap.

This will be a non factor for 90% of the buyers and that is why time and money was not spent.

Your points are valid and understood, but that doesn't make what those of us on the other side are saying any less valid. Someone needs to step up and make things like affordable hardtops a reality again, I just see this as a lost opportunity for GM to be the first to do so. The Camaro would have been an ideal car to do it on. The 4th gens lost big on style as well as usability, the 5th gen is going to be higher on both counts (even with the B pillar) but even V6 buyers buy a Camaro based mostly on style so to I see this as opportunity lost.

I'd be willing to bet that if the Challenger were going to be pillarless, the Camaro would have been as well. Perhaps we should be blaming Chrysler for lacking the testicular fortitude to make that happen. :AH-HA_wink:

[cletus8269]

i'm not sure why anyone would want to make meaningless compromises in safety.

of course, there are plenty of dumbasses who ride motorcycles without helmets....you know, folks who want their brains destroyed by pavement.

yeah, we call those organ donors in the ER

[deftonesfan867]

That's what I was thinking...A la BMW e46 330ci

Not that great of an example...works better with tint...

Better examples

Oh and BTW, so what if it has a b-pillar? Seriously, like most have said on here, it'll probably be hidden. It isn't like having a b-pillar on the new Camaro is going to instigate the second coming. Besides, I think the car is so damn sexy even Christ himself would drive one when he does come back :AH-HA_wink:

Edited September 30, 2007 by deftonesfan867

[Robert Hall]

Oh and BTW, so what if it has a b-pillar? Seriously, like most have said on here, it'll probably be hidden. It isn't like having a b-pillar on the new Camaro is going to instigate the second coming. Besides, I think the car is so damn sexy even Christ himself would drive one when he does come back :AH-HA_wink:

Arguing about the B-pillar is as stupid and pointless as arguing about the # of cupholders would be..as long as it has at least 2 cupholders, I'd be happy...and the irony is the guy the most upset about the B-pillar is someone who would never buy a new car, so his opinion is essentially pointless...

[hyperv6]

Your points are valid and understood, but that doesn't make what those of us on the other side are saying any less valid. Someone needs to step up and make things like affordable hardtops a reality again, I just see this as a lost opportunity for GM to be the first to do so. The Camaro would have been an ideal car to do it on. The 4th gens lost big on style as well as usability, the 5th gen is going to be higher on both counts (even with the B pillar) but even V6 buyers buy a Camaro based mostly on style so to I see this as opportunity lost.

I'd be willing to bet that if the Challenger were going to be pillarless, the Camaro would have been as well. Perhaps we should be blaming Chrysler for lacking the testicular fortitude to make that happen. :AH-HA_wink:

I agree with you it looks better and I woulds love to have one too, but it is not guts that limit the car companys. To think anyone GM and Dodge would have not like to do a hardtop is crazy as the show cars show what they really would like to have.

The bottom line is in a realistic way is there anyone here that can show them how to build a true hardtop that will have NHV of a post car, cost of a post car, weight of a post car and strenght of a post car. If anyone can show them I am sure you would have a job for life as the best they have now can't cover these points in the box they have to work in.

If it was that simple we would have it. No gut involved just limits that can't be moved.

To build a true hard top with the restrictions we have today in laws, cost and materials at a low price is like the goverment wanting 35 MPG today. We may get to the point with cheaper composits in the future eill make it possible but today it just can't be done and keep the price low.

The options available raise with the price of the car so that is why only the high price cars have it now. In time the use of Carbon Fiber and other items will get cheaper with use in cheaper cars so I do see a time a cheaper hard top may be dueable. So your day may come in the not to distant future

Just right now if this car came out higher priced, over weight, with poor crash standads and cowl and chassie shake it would be grilled by everyone and GM can't afford it to fail in 3 and 4 majore areas just for a B pillar.

Edited September 30, 2007 by hyperv6

[balthazar]

>>"the irony is the guy the most upset about the B-pillar is someone who would never buy a new car, so his opinion is essentially pointless"<<

No more so than anyone else's opinion about a car they have no intention of buying.

-- --- -- --- --

>>"The bottom line is in a realistic way is there anyone here that can show them how to build a true hardtop that will have NHV of a post car, cost of a post car, weight of a post car and strenght of a post car. If it was that simple we would have it. No gut involved just limits that can't be moved."<<

If you truely believe this is absolute, you cannot logically explain convertibles.

-- --- -- --- --

Again on the "hidden B-pillar"- no one is objecting to the LOOK of a B-pillar, so hiding it does nothing. If anything, it's akin to fake hood scoops: gives the illusion but the illusion is fake. The objection to a B-pillar is that ITS THERE and cannot be eliminated/retracted, not how it looks or if it's "hidden".

[JWAcamaro]

So if we are talking about the B-pillar being on the car, does this bring back the possibility of there being T-tops as an option? Just a question!!

[hyperv6]

So if we are talking about the B-pillar being on the car, does this bring back the possibility of there being T-tops as an option? Just a question!!

No.

[Camino LS6]

T-tops would look goofy on this car.

[ZL-1]

No.

Thank God! The new Camaro would look with T-tops Edited October 1, 2007 by ZL-1

[ToniCipriani]

That's what I was thinking...A la BMW e46 330ci

Not that great of an example...works better with tint...

Better examples

This has been done on the G6 coupe, but only works well when the car's tinted.

[prinzSD]

Oh and BTW, so what if it has a b-pillar? Seriously, like most have said on here, it'll probably be hidden. It isn't like having a b-pillar on the new Camaro is going to instigate the second coming. Besides, I think the car is so damn sexy even Christ himself would drive one when he does come back :AH-HA_wink:

Well I myself don't pay attention to this body style(BMW pics). I never noticed the hard top look, to me it had a huge rear window much like it was a four door car without the second set of doors. I have driven nothing but f-bodies so far as my daily drivers and while I consider myself an f-body entusiast, I never notice the pillarless design of the first gen as I said in an earlier thread. We do live in a society where our manufactures have to meet many new criteria they did not have to worry about in the sixties. Whilesome may complain that 80 pounds extra is not a big deal, you have to remember that GM will have to deal with the new CAFE ratings and it is something they need to worry starting with the Camaro. I mean they are talking about killing the next Gen G6 because it will not meat the new CAFE rules. While al this safety gadget may be overloaded it is what many consumers look for. If the Camaro comes in with 4 stars then the public believes the car is not as safe as competition X and they write it off. I like to order my cars the way I want which was not possible in my 4th gen TA, but when it comes to my 17 year old son I am very leary about putting him in our Toyota with no airbags. I have spent too much love and energy too see him killed more easily in a less protected car. Sad but true. One more observation. GM has to keep the mass of hoped for consumers happy too see that the Camaro continues to sell in it's fifth year or they will kill it for good once and for all. One only needs to look at the idiots who bought Hummers and then gave them a poor rating in the JD Powers survey because of all things they were getting poor gas milage. Go figure, but GM needs to protect itself form idiots like that. Am I happy the Camaro won't be a hard top? Not really but if I don't get a Vette before then, then the Camaro will be replacing my 93 TA. I only wish I can order it item per item as I did with the 85TA.

Edited October 1, 2007 by prinzSD

[Intrepidation]

This has been done on the G6 coupe, but only works well when the car is not a hideous pile.

Fixed. :AH-HA_wink:

[Mule Bakersdozen LS]

Will Camaro still have frameless door glass though? Pillared hardtop would be cool I guess, but pillarless would be cooler. And it was no big deal back in the day, why is it now?

[samy1691]

If I were Lutz, I would update Sangs design......this car is already 2 years old...........if GM can't build a real hardtop, then WTF is that company all about anyway!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CMG]

If I were Lutz, I would update Sangs design......this car is already 2 years old...........if GM can't build a real hardtop, then WTF is that company all about anyway!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh I don't know..... "PROFIT" maybe....??

:AH-HA_wink:

[Sixty8panther]

Balthazar said it all.

And BTW: most of you so called conehead "enthusiasts" do not know and can not appreciate

something as gorgeous and timeless as a Dual Cowl Phaeton or a Ruble Seat Roadster, so

while you think my opinion is ,lame it's quite the opposite from where I'm sitting. :wink:

[Camino LS6]

All of this makes me wonder how do-able a retractible B pillar would be.

[AAS]

Just throwing this out there...

We are all ASSUMING that the convertible will have "no B-pillar and back windows that roll down," but have we even seen the concept convertible with the top up? What if the production version ends up like the last generation convertible (just the window in the door)? That kind of kills the argument of "if they are designing the convertible without a B-pillar then why not just make the hard top off that platform."

[hyperv6]

All of this makes me wonder how do-able a retractible B pillar would be.

I was just kidding when I said that.