2010 Camaro Mule in Production Body

[Oracle of Delphi]

Well your correct sir. Lets not forgewt that oil barrells today are pushing towards $90.00 and expect to go up. Chevy is late to the party again. Not only that but the Mustang and Challenger are better looking cars. I like the looks of the Camaro from the rear but thats it. I would have to buy a droptop for sure. They look much better then the B coupe. If gas goes $ 4.00 and beyond the lots will be filled with them and any other car that uses a lot of fuel. How many Mustangs will have been sold by 2010?

I would venture to say $100 a barrel by the new year, just in time for the Pontiac G8.

[Sixty8panther]

Sure it will still sell, plenty of crappy cars sell, the Camaro has a lot going for it.

Still why not strive for near-perfection instead of the same old mediocrity?

[Satty]

You're probably the only person alive who will call the Camaro mediocre or imply that it is a crappy car.

[K.C.]

Sure it will still sell, plenty of crappy cars sell, the Camaro has a lot going for it.

Still why not strive for near-perfection instead of the same old mediocrity?

The Camaro is crappy? Please, compare the "crappy Camaro" to other "crappy cars" that sell. I'd love to see these comparisons.

While I agree with your statements on mediocrity, there are many different aspects that make a car mediocre, not just the fact that it does not have a b-pillar.

[Mule Bakersdozen LS]

So the short answer is, yes, this has a B-pillar, and yes, the car still has frameless door glass just like all Camaros, all rear-drive Monte Carlo's, and the 1978-81 Malibu coupes, etc. But who cares? It would be awesome to roll down the windows and have the B-pillar run down for a true pillarless hardtop appearance, but hey, we're getting a Camaro, and a powerful one at that! Now about that Firebird.....

Edited October 19, 2007 by Mule Bakersdozen LS

[silverss/sc]

Offically at this point nothing has been said.

Scott said absolutely no production based Camaro on this year auto show circuit and would make no further comment , other than production based car is next years show . You may be right on a special Camaro "concept"

On the v6 thing . The 3.6 is in everything now . IF in fact the DI 3.6 is optional , one would tend to think the base engine would be the base 3.6 .... the power outputs are scattered enuff . Just going off costs to engineer separate motor mounts between the 2 blocks would seem to make the base 3.6 a shoe in . Just an assumption ...fwiw .

Edited October 19, 2007 by silverss/sc

[hyperv6]

Scott said absolutely no production based Camaro on this year auto show circuit and would make no further comment , other than production based car is next years show . You may be right on a special Camaro "concept"

On the v6 thing . The 3.6 is in everything now . IF in fact the DI 3.6 is optional , one would tend to think the base engine would be the base 3.6 .... the power outputs are scattered enuff . Just going off costs to engineer separate motor mounts between the 2 blocks would seem to make the base 3.6 a shoe in . Just an assumption ...fwiw .

Oh good a real sane poster. The Kool Aid Drinkers Society was getting a little too self indulged in their pity. To bad they will miss the good old days as they are right now!

Yes I just can't pin what they may do but they have to have something cooked up? Could it be a Concept in SS trim? I feel they will give us a little more glimps but still keep us wanting. I see you too understand Scott speak and what he does not say sometimes speaks volumes.

The 3.6 is tomarrows Small Block Chevy. We have not seen anything close to what this engine will do. Also in the numbers it will be built in the cost drops way down per unit cost.

One thing I was told was the 320 HP 3.6 was not Supercharged or Turbocharged. This should negate any problems with high gas prices as it will have performance and economy in one package.

The question is with GM putting so much into the V6 will we get a lot of aftermarket support for it right from the start? GM has already made it clear the Camaro will be heavily supported by the performance part division and aI would expect they also have given some lead time to the aftermarket companies.

I am glad to see you are a Scott follower as he is the guy to watch and read. Start reading the Cheryl Pilchers Interviews as it will give some insight on what is up. She know what to do and will get it done. She is the one beind the Z06 Vette and the lead in to the C6. She and her Husband also a Chevy brand Manager are real car people and not accountants. They are both like Scott and love their work as real car fans.

Edited October 19, 2007 by hyperv6

[ocnblu]

I'd be proud to drive a Camaro with a 3.6L DI V6 and a six speed manual. Marina Blue with black leather interior...

[Sixty8panther]

This was supposed to be the FIRST affordable hardtop from GM since 1976. Actaully PERIOD.

(unless you count the 2-dozen or so Japanese hardtops from the late '70s and early '80s)

That's well over a 1/4 of a century. Long time to wait.

What;s esp. annoying is that since a convertible is coming 75% of the parts required for a

hardtop were already there.

This is a cop out and I will never agree that it is the smart or right choice.

Let me tell you a little story about how car companies pu$$y out every day and feed us marketing B.S.

Back in the late '80s Honda was approached by McLaren to build a V-12 for their upcoming

"super-exotic car", you now know it by the name "McLaren F1".

Honda turned down the deal saying the horsepower & budget #s were unrealistic.

BMW came in ahead of schedule (with said V12) UNDER BUDGET and even though

horsepower #s were HIGHER than McLaren's goal weight was even less than requested.

One a$$holes "imposible" is another man's "HOW HIGH!?"

GM had a perfect opportunity to LEAD for once instaed of following.

[AAS]

This was supposed to be the FIRST affordable hardtop from GM since 1976. Actaully PERIOD.

No... just because the concept was, doesn't mean the production version will be.

What;s esp. annoying is that since a convertible is coming 75% of the parts required for a

hardtop were already there.

That's assuming the convertible will have the rear side windows at all. Balthazar makes a good point for them being there, but I'm just saying...

This is a cop out and I will never agree that it is the smart or right choice.

Can't you just be excited about an affordable Camaro? I also think it would be cool if it were truly a hardtop, but I rather have something than nothing or something really expensive.

[hyperv6]

I'd be proud to drive a Camaro with a 3.6L DI V6 and a six speed manual. Marina Blue with black leather interior...

Sounds like a sweet ride!

[Satty]

What;s esp. annoying is that since a convertible is coming 75% of the parts required for a

hardtop were already there.

Umm.....Just about everything from the windshield back would be completely different in hardtop and convertible form.

[K.C.]

No... just because the concept was, doesn't mean the production version will be.

That's assuming the convertible will have the rear side windows at all. Balthazar makes a good point for them being there, but I'm just saying...

Can't you just be excited about an affordable Camaro? I also think it would be cool if it were truly a hardtop, but I rather have something than nothing or something really expensive.

Agreed, the Camaro was never promised to be a hardtop. It was only promised to be close to the original concept.

The whole idea behind a pony car is to bring performance to the masses. I am excited about the Camaro. I don't think GM is following anyone with this car. I think they are using what resources they have (they are not infinite resources) to introduce a new car with an old name in a burgeoning market segment. I think the Camaro will be class leading, especially the base car. The top models will undoubtedly be the top performers.

[Camino LS6]

The realization just hit me that it is still a possibility that a Camaro could be my next new car. If the Ute doesn't materialize afterall, and no other Zeta coupes show-up in time, the Camaro will be the only car that fits my criteria.

There are much worse things that could happen than driving the most capable GM pony car ever. :AH-HA_wink:

[Northstar]

I saw your post

On Sept 15 GM's Scott Settlmire told me in person that the production line would start up in the 4th quarter 08. He also in person told me that the cars would be expected in the dealers by Feb 09 as 2010 models not just starting production. He restated this same info yesterday on Camaroz28.com

It is not a point of if I believe you or not as I have no idea where your info came from And I know you often have good info. But Scott has been spot on on his info for the last few years on the Camaro . Being the general manager of the Chevy Show division and the past manager of the F body program gives him a good chance of knowing what is up. Sorry this time I tend to go with the info with a name tied to it of a creditable GM offical.

He also is the one who clued me in on the 2 V6 and 1 V8 engines I posted about 6-8 months ago. Your post was more a confirmation that nothing had changed since my first post of this info.

Scott did say nothing in the plant has been changed over yet and there always can be a delay but the time line stands for now. In the end we both could be off and the car may not come in till May if there are problems.

Per Scott The cars built in late 08 will be pilot cars with a slow transition to production. He said this will be a slow start up as they want it right the first time.

As for the engines I was told last spring all three were not in any production cars yet. At that time the LS3 was not out and the 3.6 DI was not out. This leaves the base engine up for grabs? I am not so sure it is the 3.5 or it could be some other updated version. I was told to expect around 240HP on the base engine and last spring the 320 HP V6 was quoted as being a real possibility. I have not heard that number anywhere else but considering the scource I will trust it.

I was also told most of the first cars will be V8 models so I will expect SS models will be the first ones to roll out and a slow roll in of the V6 will soon follow.

Scott said a great deal of importants is being placed on the V6 Camaro's so I expect both will offer different things to different buyers.

Lets just sit back and see what happens.

Well, I guess we'll find out when it does in fact start production :AH-HA_wink:

Perhaps the Camaro gets the normal 3.6 and the DI. However, I am sure the 3.5 is going into either the Impala or Camaro or both.

[silverss/sc]

Perhaps the Camaro gets the normal 3.6 and the DI. However, I am sure the 3.5 is going into either the Impala or Camaro or both.

With comments from Lutz that the Camaro will be class leading , it will set new standards and will surprise alot of people ....I just cant see a old engine like the 3.5 going anywhere near the Camaro . Though obviously updated , this engine dates back to the days of the 2.8 v6 ( 2.8 to 3.1 to 3.4 to 3.5 ) grand am . Even the 3.9 only made 240 hp , the 3.5 would make the heavier than the elipson cars Camaro a super turd . Again man , jmo ....not negating nething your saying . Outside of fleet only ..the 3.5 makes an even worse business case for the Impala

hyperv6 - haha , Scotts vauge 1 liners often speak volumes if u know how to interpret them As far as the auto show ...about the only safe assumption is there probably wont be a SS , Z28 ect ect badge or any parts closer to production than the original concepts . I hope they do come up with something special to upstage the production Challenger .

[balthazar]

What;s esp. annoying is that since a convertible is coming 75% of the parts required for a

hardtop were already there.

Umm.....Just about everything from the windshield back would be completely different in hardtop and convertible form.

It may work out that way, but there is little legitimate reason to engineer 2 'completely different' shells for the same model. Put the bracing in both shells, use the same side glass and you engineer ONE car plus a convertible top instead of 2 individual shells for the same car. The side glass doesn't 'know' if it's rolling up against a rubber seal attached to a canvas roof or a steel one; use the same damned glass! The floor reinforcement cannot weigh that much; unibody cars have no frames and they pass crash standards, the convertible has to pass crash standards/safety benchmarks... aside from things like pop-up roll bars or side air bags in a conv vs. roofed car- how much are we talking about here?

Like I posted earlier, we have no reliable numbers for either (bottom line) cost or weight- some here are taking a lot more stock in "less weight & cost" than others are willing to, regardless of the source. I have no beef with Scott and trust his information, but what are we talking about here: 40 lbs or 400 lbs?? $100 or $1000?? If it's closer to 40 lbs and $100, I'm disappointed.

[hyperv6]

wWll if it is so damn easy to build a hard top that meets all the demands of cost, weight and goverment reg then why has no one under 50K have not figuered it out?

If it is so easy lets see your real numbers. No vauge well will just use convertible parts answer will do.

Give us these numbers.

What is the rigidity/stiffness numbers of the chassie?

What is the added weight?

What is the added cost per unit?

What is the gas milage penalty per unit?

What is the crash score to meet the 5 star rating to keep insurance cost down for the average buyer?

What is the added cost of the rear crank down window and other hardware to build it?

There is a hell of as a lot more to this than just saying GM is copping out. To tell the truth to say that is more of a cop out as you give no real data and proof that it can be done.

Talk is cheap! Give us some numbers.

Once you have these numbers you better share them with GM, Ford and Chrysler as they have not figured it out either. :AH-HA_wink:

[hyperv6]

Well, I guess we'll find out when it does in fact start production :AH-HA_wink:

Perhaps the Camaro gets the normal 3.6 and the DI. However, I am sure the 3.5 is going into either the Impala or Camaro or both.

Scott said that there would be a low powered engine and with the low cost of the starting price targeted a new version of the 3.5 could be in play. He stressed to me that engine power was not a factor to a large group of potential buyers and in fact some were intimidated by many of the performance engines. This leads me to feel there will be a very basic engine just to give all something to want. Just thank God they still don't have the 2.5 Duke around anymore. I would not want anyone to get any bad old ideas.

As for the date more than anythig we both may be off as with unseen delays and the fact the plant is not even changed over yet anything could happen.

The only reason I am sticking with Scotts date is I know he has good info as of this date and I have a real GM officals name I can put with it.

[Chazman]

Regarding the two V6's...

The powertrain lineup has changed a number of times for this car. And I'm not sure that all powertrain choices are even at this point set in stone. I'm pretty confident that a 300+ HO V6 will be optional - either as a stand alone or as part of a package, essentially taking the place of what previously would have been the 5.3L V8's slot.

As far as the base V6, the HV 3.9L was the leading choice for awhile, but more and more, I'm feeling that base duties will be taken over by a more economical version of the HF V6.

Right now I'm thinking two versions of the HF 3.6. An entry level version and a GDI high output version.

Edited October 20, 2007 by Chazman

[balthazar]

>>"If it is so easy lets see your real numbers."<<

Did you miss this ??:

Like I posted earlier, we have no reliable numbers for either (bottom line) cost or weight...

Arguing that they are insignificant is no more 'a cop out' than assuming they are formidable, which seems to be your contention. Go poke Scott with a stick and see if he'll spill "the real numbers"; neither you or I have them. But basic assumptions can be reasonably estimated...

>>"What is the rigidity/stiffness numbers of the chassie?"<<

Better than the convertible- the hardtop has a roof.

>>"What is the added weight?"<<

Same weight as the convertible except, obviously, for the differences in the roof system. Everything else interchanges.

>>"What is the added cost per unit?"<<

Less than a 2-dr sedan since less modeling, parts engineering (& potentially less crash testing) is involved (all amortizied with the convert).

>>"What is the gas milage penalty per unit?"<<

Negligable, if anything. EPA has yet to rate cars in tenths or hundreths of a MPG last time I checked.

>>"What is the crash score to meet the 5 star rating to keep insurance cost down for the average buyer?"<<

A hardtop would get a better score than the convertible due to the rigid structure of the roof.

>>"What is the added cost of the rear crank down window and other hardware to build it?"<<

Nothing added- they're shared with the convertible.

What is the added cost of engineering 2 separate window systems, weathersealing trials, glass molds, inner body quarter structures, etc, etc.

>>"wWll if it is so damn easy to build a hard top that meets all the demands of cost, weight and goverment reg then why has no one under 50K have not figuered it out?"<<

My theory: The accounting department is too short sighted: a fixed pane is 'cheaper' than a roll down window, case closed. Also IMO, the focus is erroneously on a hardtop vs. a sedan, but as soon as a convert is on the table, no one bothers to look at that comparison.

How many identical models are engineered simultaneously & from the start as converts & 2-dr sedans?

How many have no convert model to share engineering/parts with?

How many had a convert added later? This would entail a degree of 're-engineering' to meet safety benchmarks.

>>"If it is so easy lets see your real numbers. No vauge well will just use convertible parts answer will do."<<

How is this vague? Use the same piece on a convertible & a hardtop- only the roofs/accompanying trim differ.

It made perfect working, successful sense in the '50s and '60s, you know, when General Motors --for example-- built a HD THM-400 & a lighter-duty THM-350 that handled every powertrain combo they threw at it, from 225-500HP. Today's SOP is built a new transmission every time the HP load goes up by 30.

[hyperv6]

>>"If it is so easy lets see your real numbers."<<

Did you miss this ??:

Arguing that they are insignificant is no more 'a cop out' than assuming they are formidable, which seems to be your contention. Go poke Scott with a stick and see if he'll spill "the real numbers"; neither you or I have them. But basic assumptions can be reasonably estimated...

>>"What is the rigidity/stiffness numbers of the chassie?"<<

Better than the convertible- the hardtop has a roof.

>>"What is the added weight?"<<

Same weight as the convertible except, obviously, for the differences in the roof system. Everything else interchanges.

>>"What is the added cost per unit?"<<

Less than a 2-dr sedan since less modeling, parts engineering (& potentially less crash testing) is involved (all amortizied with the convert).

>>"What is the gas milage penalty per unit?"<<

Negligable, if anything. EPA has yet to rate cars in tenths or hundreths of a MPG last time I checked.

>>"What is the crash score to meet the 5 star rating to keep insurance cost down for the average buyer?"<<

A hardtop would get a better score than the convertible due to the rigid structure of the roof.

>>"What is the added cost of the rear crank down window and other hardware to build it?"<<

Nothing added- they're shared with the convertible.

What is the added cost of engineering 2 separate window systems, weathersealing trials, glass molds, inner body quarter structures, etc, etc.

>>"wWll if it is so damn easy to build a hard top that meets all the demands of cost, weight and goverment reg then why has no one under 50K have not figuered it out?"<<

My theory: The accounting department is too short sighted: a fixed pane is 'cheaper' than a roll down window, case closed. Also IMO, the focus is erroneously on a hardtop vs. a sedan, but as soon as a convert is on the table, no one bothers to look at that comparison.

How many identical models are engineered simultaneously & from the start as converts & 2-dr sedans?

How many have no convert model to share engineering/parts with?

How many had a convert added later? This would entail a degree of 're-engineering' to meet safety benchmarks.

>>"If it is so easy lets see your real numbers. No vauge well will just use convertible parts answer will do."<<

How is this vague? Use the same piece on a convertible & a hardtop- only the roofs/accompanying trim differ.

It made perfect working, successful sense in the '50s and '60s, you know, when General Motors --for example-- built a HD THM-400 & a lighter-duty THM-350 that handled every powertrain combo they threw at it, from 225-500HP. Today's SOP is built a new transmission every time the HP load goes up by 30.

Your points are worthless and only theory without hard data numbers to back them up.

Just saying you would use the convertible parts just does not wash. Prove that it would not cost much in pure hard data and I will buy it. It may be easy and fun to run GM here but when the real game is on and you a$$ is behind that desk and on the line it is a whole other story. If you make a mistake your the one who will be remembered for killing the Camaro the second and final time.

I am with you on I wish it had not B pillar but since the industry as a whole dose not provide a inexpensive hardtop and there has to be a good reason and not some cop out that it is all the accountants.

Many fail to realize that even the fixed rear side glass adds to the strength of the car as does all all the fixed windows. They just don't glue them in just to keep the water out. It cuts down on the steel and added supports with a material already inplace. If the window is movable you add more steel and you add the bits to move the window and all add to the weight and cost.

The only part of the accounting here is they are doing all to keep the price as low as they can and they have to look at every nut, bolt and bulb to keep cost in check. It was asked of a Camaro group once if the smell of leather in the leather interior was important due to the cost of the smell. Yes they pay extra to attain the specific smell for the leather in all cars. Cost on this car is that important that all things must be looked at.

If you can't show the additional added cost of the labor and materials of the hard top over the post coupe you have no arguemnet. Just because they did it in the 50's and 60's also does not wash today either. They have much different standards today and other objectives they never had to meet in the past. Also the full frame cars of the past did not hold up as well as some of us like to think we remember.

I grew up with a neighbor that owned a towing company and saw often how many of these cars just did not hold up well in the passenger compartments. The t bone in the side of a hardtop sedan often was fatal. While the old cars had great mass they were far from as advanced in the way they can crash today and still let you walk away. I should know having walked away once from a serious crash that in my old Chevelle would have been much worse.

GM is doing all they can to make this as safe of a car at prices under $30K> They have to make hard choices and if they upset 10% that even notice the B pillar that is what they have to do. You can't please everyone only the majority.

Finally with everything Lutz has given Chevy on this car do you think if there was anyway that he would turn his back on a Hardtop? He of all involved know classic cues better than all at GM.

Here again you have to pick and choose because you can't have it all and retain cost. Add to the price you get more toys but you kill volume at a higher price.

The only mistake GM has made it they should have put the pillar in the show car just to keep many from having unrealistic dreams.

Edited October 20, 2007 by hyperv6

[Satty]

The entire body behind the doors on a hardtop would be different from the convertible. Nothing to do with bracing, etc, but the fact that the c-pillar has to come down somewhere. The interior behind the front seats would be different, unless you think the back seat really needs to be smaller in the hardtop. There is a reason convertible back seats are tight, the top has to go somewhere, that usually involves shrinking the back seat. One reason the Mustang outsold the 4th gen is that the Mustang is more livable as a daily driver for people who use their cars as more than one-person transportation. The back seat of a Mustang isn't roomy by any means, but its more comfortable and easier to access than that of a Camaro. Chevy has to appeal to people who would otherwise buy a Mustang, and things like back seat room and access and trunk openings, etc matter. Or do you want two years of strong sales and then a dropoff?

[Chris_Doane]

Some of you will just never understand the cost involved in engineering and validating cars.

[hyperv6]

Some of you will just never understand the cost involved in engineering and validating cars.

In their world you just bolt things on. If it was only that easy!!

[balthazar]

Hyper -- Sorry you think my points are a lot of nothing. The difference here between you & I as I see it is: GM/Scott says 'it cost more & weighs more', and you say "Okee-dokee" where I say "By how much?".

This would not be the first time a manufacturer has said "more" when the reality was 1 or 2% ($300-600 based on $30K). I question how much hard-line price points truely matter in a segment driven primarily by lust. The Camaro will likely increase that much in MY#2 anyway, since the price point is obviously a crucial point for GM and there's a degree of struggle to meet it. Remember when nissan said the titan would have (IIRC) "more than 375 torque" and it had 380? The consumer replied 'BFD'. My belief is that if the "more" is $300, buyers will also say 'BFD' and buy regardless.

IMO, and I think in the opinions of more than even they realize, the 'hardtop experience' is a strong element that would be worth a small penalty in weigh/cost. Most people today have no experience in riding in a hardtop, so sure: they may not believe it matters- they have no frame of reference. Obtainable, iconic hardtops have not been a part of the market since the early '70s, that's around 35 years, or far older than the bulk of people lusting after this car and shrugging their shoulders over the B-pillar issue.

But much like the suspect validity of your "10%" figure for those that 'would even notice', there's no doubt in my mind that if potential buyers were given the chance to experience an '09 Camaro as a sedan and as a hardtop, the majority would chose the hardtop. Right now the only association a hardtop has with the 'youth demographic' is either as from a '60s musclecar or an ultra-lux feature- the latter which would add that much more panache to a $30K Camaro.

Am I saying that selling a 2-dr sedan will limit sales? No. But I do believe being a true hardtop would increase them by a small degree.

>>"GM is doing all they can to make this as safe of a car at prices under $30K>"<<

Convertibles are inherantly unsafe compared to fixed roof cars- how can we be getting one with the above in mind? How can an acknowledged inferior car safety-wise be allowed? Last time and I'm done: if a convert, being engineered at the same time as the fixed roof bodystyle, is acceptable safety-wise, any hardtop would be even safer.

>>"Also the full frame cars of the past did not hold up as well as some of us like to think we remember."<<

They also did not fare as poorly as some of us like to assume.

Satty- you make a good point about the rear seat area of the shells. I was more focused on the door/glass/B-pillar/quarter/floor areas --the 'side impact' area-- those could easily interchange between a hardtop & a convert.

[FloydHendershot]

Sure it will still sell, plenty of crappy cars sell, the Camaro has a lot going for it.

Still why not strive for near-perfection instead of the same old mediocrity?

I know in my heart of hearts GM wants to build a car for someone that hasn't purchased a new car from this century.

[ketch]

Hi-po V6 Camaro sounds intriguing... that's definitely good planning, considering the price of gas these days. It makes the Camaro more of a broad-appeal modern performance car than purely a muscle car (Challenger). The current 3.6 DI makes 304 hp; retuning it for more revs and more power would easily make it competitive with a 335i or G37. Except the Camaro will be a lot better looking...

Ya, with the future of gas prices likley higher than ever, this would be mine, but I'd take a 5.3 DoD v8(Impala SS) engine over it.

[hyperv6]

Hyper -- Sorry you think my points are a lot of nothing. The difference here between you & I as I see it is: GM/Scott says 'it cost more & weighs more', and you say "Okee-dokee" where I say "By how much?".

This would not be the first time a manufacturer has said "more" when the reality was 1 or 2% ($300-600 based on $30K). I question how much hard-line price points truely matter in a segment driven primarily by lust. The Camaro will likely increase that much in MY#2 anyway, since the price point is obviously a crucial point for GM and there's a degree of struggle to meet it. Remember when nissan said the titan would have (IIRC) "more than 375 torque" and it had 380? The consumer replied 'BFD'. My belief is that if the "more" is $300, buyers will also say 'BFD' and buy regardless.

IMO, and I think in the opinions of more than even they realize, the 'hardtop experience' is a strong element that would be worth a small penalty in weigh/cost. Most people today have no experience in riding in a hardtop, so sure: they may not believe it matters- they have no frame of reference. Obtainable, iconic hardtops have not been a part of the market since the early '70s, that's around 35 years, or far older than the bulk of people lusting after this car and shrugging their shoulders over the B-pillar issue.

But much like the suspect validity of your "10%" figure for those that 'would even notice', there's no doubt in my mind that if potential buyers were given the chance to experience an '09 Camaro as a sedan and as a hardtop, the majority would chose the hardtop. Right now the only association a hardtop has with the 'youth demographic' is either as from a '60s musclecar or an ultra-lux feature- the latter which would add that much more panache to a $30K Camaro.

Am I saying that selling a 2-dr sedan will limit sales? No. But I do believe being a true hardtop would increase them by a small degree.

>>"GM is doing all they can to make this as safe of a car at prices under $30K>"<<

Convertibles are inherantly unsafe compared to fixed roof cars- how can we be getting one with the above in mind? How can an acknowledged inferior car safety-wise be allowed? Last time and I'm done: if a convert, being engineered at the same time as the fixed roof bodystyle, is acceptable safety-wise, any hardtop would be even safer.

>>"Also the full frame cars of the past did not hold up as well as some of us like to think we remember."<<

They also did not fare as poorly as some of us like to assume.

Satty- you make a good point about the rear seat area of the shells. I was more focused on the door/glass/B-pillar/quarter/floor areas --the 'side impact' area-- those could easily interchange between a hardtop & a convert.

I agree with your feelings but I just don't agree with your facts.

If you want to prove me, the auto industry and the majority here wrong provide the true dollar figures and weight numbers per unit this can be done for. You will need to factor in the extra engineering cost, testing cost, validation cost, material cost, labor cost, etc. If all this would cost less than around $300 you would think every coupe out there would have it as what MFG would pass this price up as that is penuts.

While the Convertible is a great vehicle folks went to T tops with little complaint. As the B pillar goes it is not a deal breaker for the mass majority. Most people buying this car have been born since the last hardtop was made and thye just don't care and never trun the ac of anyway.

My hwole point is it ain't that easy or cheap and to prove me, Chevy, Ford, and Dodge wrong you just have provide accurate valid numbers that we have not seen yet.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Robert Hall]

Sixty Eight, can you please STFU with your insipid B-pillar ranting? Nobody cares..find something meaningful to contribute.

[CMG]

When the car comes out I bet not many will care about the B pillar anyways.

[Satty]

Sixty Eight, can you please STFU with your insipid B-pillar ranting? Nobody cares..find something meaningful to contribute.

Now who isn't living in reality? :P

It would be nice to get some variety in the mindless rants, like turning an album over to the b-side from time-to-time, just to remind everyone that there is more.

In summation, it wouldn't be practical for the Camaro (or any other new GM) to be a hardtop, and since GM is in the business of making money, not appeasing a minority, a hardtop isn't going to happen in 2009 or 2010 or 2011. I'm sure someone else will be happy to take your place in line for a new Camaro, and I am sure they will love it just as much as you love your next high-mileage foreign car.

[balthazar]

IMHO- a coupe vs. a hardtop is WORLD'S more significant than lower instrument panel material softness, yet we read incessant diatribes on the subtle subjective degrees of that, as if kneecaps were some sort of decision-making demographic market force.

Would still like to learn GM's actual cost differences rather than taking it all at straight face value; shame no one but me is interested in asking the hard questions....

[Satty]

Dash materials do get annoying, unfortunately, thats what the modern car buyer wants, do thats what gets thrown around.

[dylan01]

We built the first one in full sheet metal last week at our factory...

[91z4me]

We built the first one in full sheet metal last week at our factory...

Well then 1 question, if you can answer without getting into trouble: was the production dash similar to the Concept's dash or more modern? Any chance of a sketch?

[Robert Hall]

We built the first one in full sheet metal last week at our factory...

Cool..that had to be memorable.

[Camino LS6]

I for one would like to know the exact issues and costs involved which make a hardtop impossible in an affordable car. We are debating the issue without any meaningful facts - which is largely pointless. Key among the misssing info. is what the determining factor was in the decision to include a B pillar in the Camaro and Challenger.

Was it cost?

Weight?

Safety rating concerns?

I do believe that GM was compelled in some way to not build a hardtop. I'd like to understand the exact nature of that need.

Why?

Because I believe as many others do, that a true hardtop is a major styling and experiential advantage for any coupe. And I've had an idea in my mind about how it might be possible affordably. Without a real understanding of the issues involved (numbers), I can't know if my train of thought is valid.

The general answers given in this thread simply aren't enough.

[dylan01]

Well then 1 question, if you can answer without getting into trouble: was the production dash similar to the Concept's dash or more modern? Any chance of a sketch?

It was only the body where it came by. the dash is later on down the line.

So I unfortunately dont know if it is identical.

But.. the body is IDENTICAL 100% to the concept

[mightymouse]

I for one would like to know the exact issues and costs involved which make a hardtop impossible in an affordable car. We are debating the issue without any meaningful facts - which is largely pointless. Key among the misssing info. is what the determining factor was in the decision to include a B pillar in the Camaro and Challenger.

Was it cost?

Weight?

Safety rating concerns?

I do believe that GM was compelled in some way to not build a hardtop. I'd like to understand the exact nature of that need.

Why?

Because I believe as many others do, that a true hardtop is a major styling and experiential advantage for any coupe. And I've had an idea in my mind about how it might be possible affordably. Without a real understanding of the issues involved (numbers), I can't know if my train of thought is valid.

The general answers given in this thread simply aren't enough.

Its more than discussing money. It's all about structure.

Structure is king!!! and allows the car to feel better, tighter, rigid, safe... A full Bplr makes the car perform as it should and feel right.

The new FMVSS side impact safety stds for 2010 + are incredibly voilent! The Feds are to blame for 68's stubby Bplr missing not GM.

I cannot imagine how any convt will pass them....without enormous structural weight added ...

I would rather have a fullBplronthesideofme than a frontal lobotomy. and a roof too

The Government dictates sooo much of the parameters involved in car design that soon we won't be able to design them anymore.

The mass required for the safety of occupants will be too great to meet the new mpg mandates. No more cars. Thanks a pantload Government, ruin everything.

[Camino LS6]

Par for the course, considering the public's anal fixation with "safety".

I find it disgusting.

Get over it people, life causes death.

[hyperv6]

Par for the course, considering the public's anal fixation with "safety".

I find it disgusting.

Get over it people, life causes death.

Just note how the noses of many cars are so much higher now. This is due to many of the pedestrian regs in Europe on crush space for the body to hit.

Now we have air bags for almost every place but your feet.

To get a true answer you would need a GM Engineer to cover all the fine points strength as well as the cost. I know you have a good grasp of things and understand there has to be not one designer that does not want to do a hard top but safety, weight and cost drive it out. They are the ones that really have to be bumming.

And don't just blame GM for this as there is no one making one cheap and light anymore. For all of them not to be doing it the reason have to be legitimate. There is no way that not one company would not jump on this if it was easy or affordable to do. There would be too much to gain to not to.

[Camino LS6]

Ugh.

Our society is so spineless and governed by the smallest fears.

I want to flip the people that force all of this on us the bird.

Nothing ticks me off more than some jackass trying to protect me from myself.

[ZL-1]

But.. the body is IDENTICAL 100% to the concept

What you wrote means it's time to start the 'sex on wheels' comments, so here it goes: that's sex on wheels!

[dylan01]

Another one went by the other day...

100% identical to the concept.

...wide and sleak as hell!

[Intrepidation]

Just an observation: none of the hardtops in production (as far as I know) are aimed at being performance cars...why would that be?

[balthazar]

Because there's no correlation ?? Aren't there are numerous convertible performance cars?

[Robert Hall]

Just an observation: none of the hardtops in production (as far as I know) are aimed at being performance cars...why would that be?

Hmmm...well, they are luxury cars, but some hardtops are definitely performance cars like the CLK 63 and CL 63..

[hyperv6]

The correct statment is there are no cheap perfromance hardtops.

The idea of the Camaro and Mustang is to serve a well equipedt cat with a V8 for under $30K and to keep the weight down.

The Mecedes is neither cheap or light.

As for the convert it is neither cheaper or lighter and a stifffer platform than a post coupe. Chassie stiffness it a key to better handling and keeping the weight out is a key target.

Same for T tops. No one makes them anymore since the drop tops are back.