Jump to content
Petra

Bag it or Build it?

Recommended Posts

Camaro only had 71% "build it," I was expecting 90 or more, but the Challenger was only 64% "build it," so maybe it's not that bad. 60% bagged the Imperial, and 99% built the Aston Martin (funny, it only had "Build it" as a choice).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who says NO to the Camaro? Perplexing. That car is a win-win scenario in every way possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, a new Camaro wouldn't add as much to the bottom line as a competative Malibu or Impala, maybe its people who want to see GM in the black in a few years. Personally I want to see it built so people stop bitching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who says NO to the Camaro? Perplexing. That car is a win-win scenario in every way possible.

People who look at it and see the massive design flaws:

1) For a car with such a storied open-air history, why is the beltline so high, and why is the greenhouse so small? That design doesn't lend itself well at all to an open-air experience. If it were one of your beloved hardtops the situation would be even worse, since there would be very little window-down open space. Not good.

2) Trunk access was clearly an afterthought. They could have and should have designed something more production-friendly.

3) The interior is a joke--no way it will go to production. And I think most of the public picked up on that.

Overall it is a decent effort by GM, but "as is" (which the poll is about) I can see why upwards of 30% have said "Bag It."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummmm... the car is a Hardtop... I can see you really payed attention to the photos of it. Nice going. Perhaps this is why you think a Milan interior is nice but this is a "joke".

The only joke here is the trunk space complaints about a 2+2 muscle car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Croc, the trunk space really isn't an option. You're not getting this car to be hauling a bunch of cargo. I don't think the Mustang has too much trunk space either...

And, well, this is a concept.. it's stated clearly. Obviously the interior wasn't going to be near-production ready, especially when this thing's production is still a couple years off...

You've always been against high-beltlines, haven't you, Croc?

Edited by NOS2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said "Build It" for the Challenger

.

.

.

.

Dodge will make it and see the Camaro CREAM it in every contest and Chevy can totally forget about Dodge in that area.

Then the Camaro can totally CREAM the Mustang, but it won't be as bad of a cream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummmmmm...Sixty8, I have a question for you:

Do you really think that a Camaro (if produced) would NOT have a convertible? The "if it were a hardtop" was referring to a specifically-produced car. As in "If it were a convertible, this would be a problem, and if it were a hardtop, this problem would still exist." It's called proper grammar, you should check into it :rolleyes: Seriously, re-read the post. Even being a hardtop, or the convertible, or whatever body style someone bought, the negative ramifications resulting from a high beltline would be a deterrent, especially in comparison to the Mustang, which has a design far more conducive to open-air touring.

NOS: I said nothing about trunk space. Sixty8 as usual misinterpreted what I said, which was "trunk access." I agree with you that in this class, trunk space isn't all that important. But access still is. My biggest question is why they made the trunklid the way they did. Why doesn't it extend down the rear to the bumper like virtually every other car? With it the way it currently is, one would have to lift things OVER the rear and into the trunk, and as another poster mentioned a few days ago, that is a big negative.

Finally, I am well aware this is a concept, but some things need to be addressed, ESPECIALLY if they are asking "SHOULD WE PRODUCE THIS??"

My answer? They should produce a Camaro based on this design with a completely different interior, a lower beltline (which would reduce the heavy-handedness of the design and also not require such massive wheels for balance of proportions), and with a better rear decklid. As is, it is a good start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mustang's trunk is 13.1/9.7 cu. ft (coupe/vert) the coupe is about .7 cu. ft. less than my Solara which has a more than big enough trunk. Not many people can afford to buy a car that isn't practical for their everyday lives. Many cars have died because they weren't practical. On the flip side, a few "impractical" cars have survived because they're usable everyday, the Miata comes to mind. The insurance on a Camaro is still going to be expensive (just like the new Mustang) and a bunch of them are going to end up on used car lots because they weren't practical enough for everyday use or they used to much gas for everyday use or they're just plain not good daily drivers (just like the new Mustang).

The Camaro is not perfect, no car is. GM would be better served putting its resources into getting the bread-and-butter lineup as close to perfect as possible, then work on frivolities like a new Camaro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Croc, I misunderstood too. I agree on extending it down the back end of it.

I'm happy they had a full-concept interior. It just shows what they can do and the direction they may take with this one.

I have not one gripe about the exterior (except that first line) at all. Keep the beltline.. it's sexy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who says NO to the Camaro? Perplexing. That car is a win-win scenario in every way possible.

Have you... ever considered that, for people other than yourself, the Camaro is not their ideal vehicle nor the greatest vehicle in the world? Obviously not as I've explained this to you I don't know how many times now... I understand your love of Camaros, but come on, Sixty8. Honestly...

Anyways...

Camaro......build

Challenger...bag

F3R.............bag

Roadjet......build

Imperial......bag

Raptide......build

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I ask what you dislike about the Camaro, empowahhhh?

My initial reaction to it was positive, but as time wore on, the styling began to bore me. The sharp lines of the concept are almost generic-looking and sterile, and I think it would seriously benefit from more muscle and sculpting. IDK, I just don't think it'll age well; by '08, it'll be old news. Interestingly, the Challenger, which I panned originally, is growing on me, and DCX seems to be in a more suitable position than GM's to accept a limited-appeal niche car. GM can build brilliant Corvettes, Solstices, Skys, and Cadillacs, but why not brilliant mainstream family sedans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My list:

Camaro......build

Challenger...build

F3R.............bag

Roadjet......build

Imperial......bag

Rapide......build

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) For a car with such a storied open-air history, why is the beltline so high, and why is the greenhouse so small? That design doesn't lend itself well at all to an open-air experience. If it were one of your beloved hardtops the situation would be even worse, since there would be very little window-down open space. Not good.

2) Trunk access was clearly an afterthought. They could have and should have designed something more production-friendly.

A Camaro is (iconically) about aspirational presence & unique lines. It is not another formulaic homogenization with a 'minivan-cut' into the rear bumper or towering side glass ala the Ford Five Hundred or a blow-molded clutterF of a dash ala bmw. You obviously missed that heritage tidbit about the 'maro, eh?

It's supposed to be a low-slung muscle car, it's supposed to have a striking design. You want homogenization & pasturization, there's always the milquetoast GTO.

Don't get it? Don't get one. But stop watering down inspiration so it's weak enough for soccer moms. That's been the near universal damnation of GM for many long years running. Build the Camaro exactly as is- it's killer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's supposed to be a low-slung muscle car' date=' it's supposed to have a striking design. You want homogenization & pasturization, there's always the milquetoast GTO.

Yea...and the Camaro design? Not so low-slung. Think about those wheels. Those are really huge wheels. 21" or 22". That's massive. Yet, they don't look huge due to the overall massiveness of the design.

I said NOTHING about losing the lines. I think the concept is good overall, but not great. Keep the general lines, but lower the beltline. Don't put words in my mouth. No one wants a homogenized design. Nowhere was that stated. You made that up in your head. :rolleyes: The Camaro should be a car, not a rolling bunker. With that high of a beltline and those narrow slits for windows, it is just a bit much.

Oh, and as for the Camaro's heritage? Don't even try to tell me the convertible aspect is not important to its success because I will have to laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My initial reaction to it was positive, but as time wore on, the styling began to bore me. The sharp lines of the concept are almost generic-looking and sterile, and I think it would seriously benefit from more muscle and sculpting. IDK, I just don't think it'll age well; by '08, it'll be old news. Interestingly, the Challenger, which I panned originally, is growing on me, and DCX seems to be in a more suitable position than GM's to accept a limited-appeal niche car. GM can build brilliant Corvettes, Solstices, Skys, and Cadillacs, but why not brilliant mainstream family sedans?

This is also true. The overall lines seem pretty generic in the high beltline/small greenhouse look of the Chrysler LX cars. I do like what GM did to the rear, and the front for the most part is good (I don't think I care for the beaked grille), but the sides do seem a bit bland.

Again, who wants a convertible you cant hang your arm out of comfortably?

I'll say this: I think this was retro done very tastefully, but I am sick of retro. It is boring, it lacks imagination. The fact that several of you enthusiasts pointed out "this line is from this year" and "that line is from that year" just says it to me...It is derivative, not necessarily of any other vehicle, but of its own self. With the exception of the first-gen, you can tell a car is a Corvette even though they don't all look completely evolutionary. Same should be with the Camaro in my opinion, especially since design cannot move forward if it keeps looking backward. Again, this is one of the more tastefully-done retro cars, but I still wish it could have been more thoroughly modern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My votes:

Camaro - Build it

Challenger - build it

F3R - BAG & BURN IT

C30 & Roadjet - Bag them both

Imperial - Double bag it

Rapide - Refused to vote since I could not vote to bag it (I like other Aston Martins but have no use for this car).

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We  Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×