Bag it or Build it?

[Petra]

It's Your Chance to Vote On Auto Makers' Concept Cars:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113...E_20070116.html

Edited January 18, 2006 by Petra

[Ghost Dog]

Ooops I Bagged the Camaro,Challenger,and Imperial.

[Bimmer325]

I bagged the goofy Challenger.

[Flybrian]

I put the Imperial in a FUBU bag along with a bunch of poseur junk.

And the Toyota is a double-bagger.

[Northstar]

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).

[Sixty8panther]

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

[Satty]

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.

[Croc]

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."

[Sixty8panther]

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.

[NOS2006]

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 January 18, 2006 by NOS2006

[sciguy_0504]

I said "bag it" to all but the Camaro and the Aston Martin.

[NOS2006]

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.

[Croc]

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 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.

[Satty]

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.

[NOS2006]

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!

[pow]

My votes:

Camaro - bag

Challenger - build

Scion F3R - bag

C30 & Roadjet - bag

Imperial - bag

AM Rapide - build

[NOS2006]

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

[Cory Wolfe]

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

[pow]

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?

[sciguy_0504]

I'm not a huge fan of the Camaro because I think it looks too similar to the Challenger.

[NOS2006]

My list:

Camaro......build

Challenger...build

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

Roadjet......build

Imperial......bag

Rapide......build

[balthazar]

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.

[Croc]

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. 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.

[Croc]

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.

[Diognes56]

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

[balthazar]

>>"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. 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."<<

For you, you mean. Clearly this car is not for your tastes- so why advocate changing it for others?

I didn't make anything up- I read between the lines. Once you raise the roof, lower the beltline, shrink the wheels and drop the trunk, you have much of what's already out there with a few different creases. What's the point?

The concept undoubtedly will change in some details (derrrr), but it doesn't have to. The radical factory chopped look delivers exactly what so many have been harping on: the need to not merely match the competition, but to exceed them. It's high style stem to stern- watering it down is everything GM has been lambasted for doing in the past!!! This is a golden opportunity to silence the whiners! So you'd have to lift your bookbag another 12 inches higher to put it in the trunk- exercise is good for the lazy!

>>"Don't even try to tell me the convertible aspect is not important to its success because I will have to laugh."<<

I get it: you're being facetious:

Percent of model years Camaro offered as a convertible: 27%

Average percent of Camaro convertible vs. total production: 12%

Why should the absence of a roof demand driving with one's arm on the sill all the time? Ludicrious.

You should check out where most convertible's (and some non-conv'ts) beltlines are in modern cars: almost everyone is at the top of the the driver's shoulder and some are notably higher. Comfortable elbow-out driving position has the window sill below the armpit- good luck finding that in today's vehicles.

[razoredge]

I dont like high belt lines myself but this is what everyone has been rageing about, this certain modern look. Belt lines have been high enough to ruin elbow on the sill for over a decaded, its highly uncomfortable on our LSS a design that origionated in 92. I can only imagine the last Camaros were the same deal. What about the C6 isnt that a high belt line ? What about the other exotic sports convertables, arent they high belt line, seems to me about all you can see in any car today is the persons head. Im just not sure its fair to try to tarnish this car...alone.....for a high belt line.

Large 21" wheel openings meeting the reality of 16's,17's & 18's is a legitimate concern, some of which is in the profile of the tire which will not affect final sheet metal...too much.

Making issue about the trunk is seriously lame, though we know the "press" will. It brought to mind someone that might complain about the height of a work bench for one example...now I know that went way over the head and opens me up to the typical abuse but bare with me. It has to do with typical working and carrying positions. In other words it is still going to be below the waste so its pretty much irrelevent. The dropped trunk access while its a highly marketable propaganda, in many cases has to much control over styling possibilities. This has had alot to do with how all cars wound up with nearly the same tailights and rear panel appearence........now didnt I just hear a few nasayers talking about "genetic".

Generic & sterile ? This cars styling much more borders on outlandish and potent then the other end of the spectrum. I mean this car is in your face, this car is an accident waiting to happen when met by oncomming traffic, this car will give people whiplash without an airbag going off. Ya wanna turn it into boring, sterile and generic, take all the edges off of it, flatten the header, put off the shelf, huge triangle taillamps so wimpathangs can get 15 pounds up and over the 24" bumper height and you will have generic and sterile. Then the sales will really be through the roof. I dont think this is supposed to be a 2X4 hauler

flat sides ? compared to what ?

retro ? while it does draw out styling ideas we find fimiliar......what doesnt ? I have seen the sigs of those that have put this side by side with 1st generation and the difference is day and night, this Camaro is modern. I would be more worried about some of the changes the few have been calling for would make it more retro.

The interior is once again the same as the styling. Its completely different, refreshing in a world of nearly identical interior approach, something non generic, non "hun duh". The gauges I highly doubt would remain in an obviously poor visibility location and Im sure the shift knob would be changed. Im not looking at it now but I remember thinking it didnt have a comfortable in the hand look, but like everyone sensible has been trying to relay....this is the show concept. Steering spokes are a little phat and obviously an air bag will change the center, BFD ?

As for the voting in this topic or poll, it took to long to load so I skipped it. Anyhow for the real car and Camaro enthousiasts I would pay no attention to the "anti" votes what so ever, it is a combination of a few blind agenda elements.

1."I hate retro" surely anyone that has had children has seen this face -

2. Ford, Chrysler, BMW and hun duh lovers that are totally intimidated

3. people that will shoot everything and anything down just to raise a brow

biggest fear is how much sterilization GM will put on the car turning it into reality, like narrowing the rear stance and quarter swell, putting a minvan roof on it, typical black plastic gauges, that kind of thing.

[regfootball]

I put the Imperial in a FUBU bag along with a bunch of poseur junk.

And the Toyota is a double-bagger.

i agree!!!!!!

[regfootball]

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."

i have some agreement with those statements. As a design, its great. but i love airy cabins and this looks way claustrophobic. the interior isn't really that good. The hood is a few inches too long (even for a musclecar) when considering packaging people. Its probably as much of a bathtub in terms of seating as the last gen camaro.

visually, its awesome, but i am also concerned that this car continues to propagate the redneck/mullet stereotype too much that the camaro already has. I think the next Camaro design has to appeal to traditionalists, but allow the rest of the folks folks to feel like its no longer a mullet cruiser as well. that's why the camaros sales kept nose diving all the time.

They could repackage and reshape the design some to improve the cabin feel and clautrophobia, improve usability, STILL provide a mean assed traditionalist friendly look, and lose the mullet stigma. And give us a usable, somewhat contemporary interior.

Edited January 19, 2006 by regfootball

[regfootball]

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.

agree.

i do love this concept, but i wonder if the Kris Horton Camaros are more practical and less stigmatized.

[regfootball]

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.

the previous camaro was frequently criticized for its cargo area lack of space and setup. I would hate to see them botch it again on this one.

[Cory Wolfe]

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.

[AAS]

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."

1) The beltline isn't high, the roofline is just low.

2) Nobody comlains about the trunk access in the convertible or the hardtop 'Vettes

3) The interior is not a joke, but it is purely a concept. Of course it would not make it to production.

[SoCalCTS]

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

Well the interior is gross. I'm sure that lost some votes.

[Croc]

1) The beltline isn't high, the roofline is just low.

2) Nobody comlains about the trunk access in the convertible or the hardtop 'Vettes

3) The interior is not a joke, but it is purely a concept.  Of course it would not make it to production.

1)The beltline is pretty high. Low roofs are fine, but the overall effect is claustrophobic. Somehow I don't think claustrophobia fits this car's mission.

2)The Corvette is a much lower car overall than the Camaro concept. Also, the Corvette has no back seat. The Corvette is a high-powered sports car that competes with Porsches. The Camaro competes with the Mustang most directly, and while not usually a deal-breaker, poor trunk access could hurt Camaro sales. With the Corvette, it is an issue of much lesser importance, though I do think that GM should address it too, especially since it wouldn't ruin the design any.

3)The interior is extremely conceptual, but even the basic design is not something that should make it into production. The interior on the Alero Alpha and Antares concepts were pretty conceptual, too, though the overall design was easily implementable and turned out to be great. This interior direction shouldn't see the light of day.

[-Camaro-]

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.

I think maybe you should sit in it before you judge that...

And it's more of a modern design, imo. It looks like the older ones, but it's more modern than retro, imo. Besides who says design can't move forward when it looks backwards?! It can evolve in a different way than what happened in the past. It's like a start over and they're going to evolve it into a different car...

[-Camaro-]

Large 21" wheel openings meeting the reality of 16's,17's & 18's is a legitimate concern, some of which is in the profile of the tire which will not affect final sheet metal...too much. 

Then again, who's to say it won't have 21" wheels? The Escalade has them...

[AAS]

Croc: Just out of curiosity... Have you seen the concept in person?

[TurboRush]

mine

Camaro double build

Challenger build

F3R bag (like the arctical says, we arent ready for a car like that)

Roadjet Double build for the Volvo

Imperial Double duild (they should have made this instead of the 300, but will have a bit of overlaping products if they have both the 300 and this)

Rapide whatever.... looks like every other AM... they need something different

Edited January 20, 2006 by TurboRush

[Croc]

Croc: Just out of curiosity... Have you seen the concept in person?

Yes. Saw it in a stunning red at LAIAS.

[TurboRush]

Yes.  Saw it in a stunning red at LAIAS.

The red one was the carved model if I remember correctly....

the actual running, functioning model was the silver one. Has anyone actualy noticed a difference in the 2 or are they identical??

About having a high beltline, the crysler 300 has a high beltline, seems to be the direction that they are going with agressive cars nowadays. I like it, gives it a serious agressive toutch.

As for the interior, the gauges would need to be chaged or be more legible. The actual dash looks like it was stiched leather??!?! from the pics I saw. I love the 4 gauge pods in front of the shifter.... looks realy good

Edited January 20, 2006 by TurboRush

[Croc]

I'm aware it was the clay model. That said, the design/proportions are the same.

As you noted, Chrysler is using the uber-high beltline. Why should Chevrolet? I don't think it fits the Camaro.

[razoredge]

yea, they should change everthing until it looks like every other car out there.

NOT !

not to worry Chevy and GM will use common sense and not sterilize this car to the sobs of a few. This thing is so hot, inside and out, that is why its recieveing such enthousiastic reviews from those who matter and such critique from the predictable few.

[Newbiewar]

the camaro... doesnt need a huge trunk, but the mustang is way tooo small...

if the camaro got how much it got on the 4th gen convertable, it shouldnt be too bad... but it shouldnt be much smaller...

my 4th gen i can carry things much bigger due to the hatchback... i took a bunch of appliances home in mine, that didnt fit in my moms camry... soo... there i love that feature...

[Newbiewar]

The red one was the carved model if I remember correctly....

the actual running, functioning model was the silver one. Has anyone actualy noticed a difference in the 2 or are they identical??

About having a high beltline, the crysler 300 has a high beltline, seems to be the direction that they are going with agressive cars nowadays. I like it, gives it a serious agressive toutch.

As for the interior, the gauges would need to be chaged or be more legible. The actual dash looks like it was stiched leather??!?! from the pics I saw.  I love the 4 gauge pods in front of the shifter.... looks realy good

both of their exteriors are based on the original clay molding...

soo... they are both identical as far as thats concerned... but small details... the silver one had cross drilled brake rotors... thats one thing i noticed....

[pow]

yea, they should change everthing until it looks like every other car out there. 

NOT !

not to worry Chevy and GM will use common sense and desterilize this car to the sobs of a few. This thing is so hot, inside and out, that is why its recieveing such enthousiastic reviews from those who matter and such critique from the predictable few.

There...

The fact that it's a Camaro is far more exciting than the actual styling itself. I just can't not think about this when it comes to the concept's sheetmetal surfacing, and overall, the thought put into it simply seems a bit... shallow? It'd be ridiculous to say that it's a poor design, but I feel the Camaro name deserves more than what GM gave it. It's as if GM went through all the motions of remaking a Camaro, but without the X-factor or the real deal. Perhaps the Camaro has such high, historical expectations that makes it difficult for anyone to do a timeless interpretation.

[Croc]

yea, they should change everthing until it looks like every other car out there. 

NOT !

not to worry Chevy and GM will use common sense and not sterilize this car to the sobs of a few. This thing is so hot, inside and out, that is why its recieveing such enthousiastic reviews from those who matter and such critique from the predictable few.

That isn't what I am asking for and you know it. Quit tainting the boards with your useless prattle

To everyone: I'm getting tired of my posts intentionally being misconstrued. Keep it up, and I will stop holding back. Warning.

[pow]

That isn't what I am asking for and you know it.  Quit tainting the boards with your useless prattle

To everyone: I'm getting tired of my posts intentionally being misconstrued.  Keep it up, and I will stop holding back.  Warning.

Exactly. It's getting difficult to voice my thoughts on a concept without being attacked by razoredge for having different opinions.

[razoredge]

Exactly. It's getting difficult to voice my thoughts on a concept without being attacked by razoredge for having different opinions.

got that attack on hand ?

whats with qouteing me and changing words ?

If this Camaro reminds you of the previous Mustang I just dont know what to tell you, that car had no flow what so ever but looked like something designed by the man that gave us robocop

lets get back to what I said in first post " Generic & sterile ? This cars styling much more borders on outlandish and potent then the other end of the spectrum. I mean this car is in your face, this car is an accident waiting to happen when met by oncomming traffic, this car will give people whiplash without an airbag going off. Ya wanna turn it into boring, sterile and generic, take all the edges off of it, flatten the header, put off the shelf, huge triangle taillamps so wimpathangs can get 15 pounds up and over the 24" bumper height and you will have generic and sterile. Then the sales will really be through the roof. I dont think this is supposed to be a 2X4 hauler"

thats my opinion

[Flybrian]

Razor, again...calm down.