 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Pontiac / Pontiac Firebird / April 2005What is the story on a new camaro?
I have been hearing about a new cararo. It is supposed to be "retro" Any definite word yet? How about links to proto types? Thanks Mc >I have been hearing about a new cararo. It is supposed to be "retro" >Any definite word yet? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Thanks >Mc Hot Rod or Chevy High Performance magazines have the pics on their web site in one of the back issues. Should be a simple search to find what you're looking for. I've seen CGI orange and CGI green retro Camaros. ...Ron -- 68' Camaro RS 88' Firebird Formula 00' Mustang GT Vert it will be overpriced,,over weight,,,,, and filled with integrated GM electronics so the real car enthusiast will have no choice in stereos. GM will build another blumder > I have been hearing about a new cararo. It is supposed to be "retro" > Any definite word yet? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Thanks > Mc > it will be overpriced,,over weight,,,,, and filled with integrated GM > electronics so the real car enthusiast will have no choice in stereos. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > > How about links to proto types? None of that thinking would surprise me in the least. PUBLIC NOTICE: If Bob Lutz or any of the GM Brass reads this newsgroup, I hereby offer my services in choosing the next few GM production designs. I'll work for "expenses only" for a period of 2 weeks. After that, put me on salary...after you have some concrete designs selected that WILL sell. Note: I refuse to look at ANY wind-tunnel designs which were not preceded by ARTISTS RENDERINGS prior to wind-tunnel computations. "anon21" wrote: > > it will be overpriced,,over weight,,,,, and filled with > integrated GM [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > were not preceded > by ARTISTS RENDERINGS prior to wind-tunnel computations. Boy, has GM disappointed me. They stopped producing my favorite affordable American car (Camaro/Firebird) and replaced it with an ugly Australian POS (the GTO). (I not knocking the Gto drivetrain, just the looks). While pictures of the new Camaro intrigue me, I suspect it?ll be a lot like the new Mustang, lots of retro-flash but more show than go. We?ll have to see. > "anon21" wrote: > > "I'm Right" <ImRight@urWrong.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > it'll be a lot like the new Mustang, lots of retro-flash but more show > than go. We'll have to see. kLutz will find a way to screw it up for sure. The old bastard needs to retire. > > > > "Mctabish" <mc@nospam.net> wrote in message > > > > news:kZWdnYSUd70dzHrcRVn-2w@comcast.com... [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > kLutz will find a way to screw it up for sure. The old bastard needs to > retire. He's actually got quite a lot on the ball....trouble is, it seems to be all in the business model stages at this point. Noone at GM has done a decent job of design choices or implementation in years. Come on, now....AZTEK? Need I say more than that single word? Yes...three more words: "Front Wheel Drive?" Anyone who's ever driver a car knows that front wheel drive is for MANUFACTURERS, not drivers...and drivers, having driven those crappy little boxes long enough now, have also come to the same realization. We need a rear-wheel drive sports car that is not horrendously overpriced...we also need rear wheelers for the mid-level, economy, and luxury segments as well... PS: NOONE in their right mind would spend 60+ grand on a Cadillac with front wheel drive...you wanna know why they're not selling...Uhmmmm...look under the hood at the $7.53 drive train and you MIGHT find a subtle hint...well...unless you're in MARKETING... >>> > > > I have been hearing about a new cararo. It is >>> > supposed to be "retro" [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > under the hood at the $7.53 drive train and you MIGHT find a subtle > hint...well...unless you're in MARKETING... With a Company as large as GM, with it's major shareholders, and broad of directors to please. Give Lutz creadit. As for the Aztec, People Like them. The Buick platform mate outsells the Aztec in this market. People like the AWD versions around here for when the snow does hit. Both of them are sure footed for those not well suited to snow. Enough front bias to get traction out of a snow drift. Yet enough rear drive to help keep it from washing out when driven at reasonible speeds. After a winter like this one, they both, as well as any 4x4 or AWD vehical will do good in this market. As for Caddilac, it will be Caddilac. They made their last engines in the 70's. There last Real Cars in 1988. The same year GM's RWD Mid-sizes were gone. Leaving a few till the mid, only a few till now. Someone at Caddilac had a wise idea, yet implimented it wrong. They took a Opel/Vuxhall/Holden chassis. Yet stayed with the Opel drivetrain, restyled a a bit and called it the Caterra. Now if they would have just used a Chevolet 3.1V6 or a Buick 3.8, the cars would have been jewels. GM had the right Idea with the GTO. Take a already exsisting chassis that has what people are asking for. Put in the Engine & transmissions they want. Yet where they messed up is cost. If they would have introduced a Chevelle, with a basic inertior, a more agressive nose treatment, and a few other revisions, priced for $10K less. You would not be seeing many dodge magnums on the road. Charles Maybe it's time for the return of the 300 Delux Wagon? > >>kLutz will find a way to screw it up for sure. The old bastard needs to > >>retire. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > As for the Aztec, People Like them. Dood! The only way they SAVED the Aztek platform was by letting Buick redesign it...when they released that first bastardized front end treatment, they didn't sell at all well. They've gotta cut back on the bulk heroin discounts for designers and marketing people, IMHO... > The Buick platform mate outsells > the Aztec in this market. > As for Caddilac, it will be Caddilac. They made their last engines in > the 70's. There last Real Cars in 1988. The same year GM's RWD Mid-sizes [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > restyled a a bit and called it the Caterra. Now if they would have just > used a Chevolet 3.1V6 or a Buick 3.8, the cars would have been jewels. When they released the Allante, they als made a major blunder by issuing it FWD, as well. Thoes were nice looking cars...very smooth...and noone bought them because they didn't want to spend all that money on a FWD. Cadillac is the main reason that more people buy Lincolns anymore, really. You can still get a Lincoln with rear wheel drive...even with their driver's side spring replacement problems, their terrible electrical system faults (ie: $300/visit to fix a bad wiper motor? Three years in a row?!? COME ON, NOW!!!) They really could have done a TON more design and engineering on cornering and body roll on the Town Cars, to put it MILDLY. My Dad always iked his Fords since the mid-80's, ut he's jumped ship and gone Jag now. It's still "technically" Ford, but only by "subsidiary ownership." The Jag drives like nothing else out there...and when you consider that Ford has total access to all Jaguar engineering by simple virtue of owning Jag...there's no excuse to make Town Cars that have such pronouned body roll and other noted and unnoted errors. > GM had the right Idea with the GTO. Take a already exsisting chassis > that has what people are asking for. Put in the Engine & transmissions [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Charles > Maybe it's time for the return of the 300 Delux Wagon? For me...I'd like to see my "El Camaro" concept brought to market...but with my luck, it wouldn't sell. Basically, my idea was an IROC-based, stretched Camaro with an S-10 bed, a la El Camino...they could have used a TON of existing off-the-shelf interior, drivetrain, etc components, reducing production ramp-up costs and time...but they never made any for sale...I think that they killed the El Camino in the mid-80's once and for all. Actually, they DID make ONE about 10-15 years back, but they never brought it to market...I doubt it was my suggestion that caused it, because I doubt that my conversation at the Detroit auto show could have sparked the designers to force a prototype only 1-2 years after I'd talked to them (GM had a booth between 89-91 (can't remember exactly what year now) where the design team were actively sketching ideas right on the auto show floor...so I took advantage of it!) but it would have been nice if they'd have taken ANY suggestions I made THEN instead of waiting for Chrysler and Ford to revamp and rerelease THEIR old designs. I LOVED the Prowler....Chrysler or not...starting to get used to the PT...the Viper was just a bastardized redesign of the Cobra which should have been a Ford--and now Carrol Shelby's back with Ford...what a coincidence?!--GM's had TONS of opportunities to do something radical over the years, but I can tell you that if they'd have released the Pontiac Stinger concept in the early 90's, they'd have had a KILLER for the youth market, as well as the recreational and/or vacationers' market...instead...they went with the Sunfire concept. Sorry...I still don't much care for that one, either...anyway...just my 2.99124 cents (with inflation. ;) > For me...I'd like to see my "El Camaro" concept brought to market...but >with my luck, it wouldn't sell. Basically, my idea was an IROC-based, >stretched Camaro with an S-10 bed, a la El Camino...they could have used a >TON of existing off-the-shelf interior, drivetrain, etc components, reducing >production ramp-up costs and time...but they never made any for sale...I >think that they killed the El Camino in the mid-80's once and for all. I think mating it with the Monte Carlo would be better, but only after they kill the FWD. -- lab~rat >:-) The less you care, the more it doesn't matter. > GM had the right Idea with the GTO. Take a already exsisting chassis The new Goat is a pig. Nothing at all like the 1964, no where close. Butt ugly, looks like a japanese econo-box. The major reason the Mustang kicked the T/A and Camaro's a.ses in sales, and now the GTO's was certainly not performance, we all know that. It was styling and interior. The 4th gen f-bodies, certainly the earlier ones (93-98), were butt ugly and had -really- shitty interiors. The 98-2002 were not a lot better. It takes a bit more than just performance and you are going to see that happen once again with the GTO. Even though it has outstanding performance, it's not selling, and with out a major body re-work, the GTO not going to sell. Without the Camaro/Trans Am, GM has *nothing* that will compete with a Mustang and Mustang is kicking every performance car GM makes a.s except the Corvette, which is almost double the cost of a Mustang. The only competition the Mustang has now is the Chrysler Crossfire, which is yet another butt ugly piece of crap no where near the cost/performance of an f-body. Of course it could be that the WS-6 T/A's where taking sales away from Corvette, which may be the underlying reason GM wasn't all that hot on marketing them. If I didn't own a 2000 T/A convertible, I'd own a corvette, certainly not a Mustang, Crossfire or some rice burner. And for sure, 40 year loyal GM performance fan that I am, including a 1965 goat, I, like most baby boomer age rodders, would -never- buy a new GTO. The name is the same and it does come out of the hole a lot faster, but there are no other comparisons between that and my old 1965 goat. The fact is that the mid sixties GTO's as legendary as they are now, were not the fastest on the street, not even close to the 409's, 427's and the Dodge 410's and 426's. Having the biggest, fastest engine and quarter mile wasn't what made the Goat, nor was it what made the Mustang and early T/A and camaros. It was mostly cost and both the performance and the style. There was a big difference between the Super Stocks (Full size quarter mile only Chevy SS 409's, Plymouth Road Runners, etc) , Pony Cars (Mustang, Camaro and Firebird) and "Muscle" Cars (GTO, Chevelle). As is true today, there was the corvette in a class all by itself. Relative to the rest of the market, the present day GTO almost seems to be a force fit to something like a really expensive Super Stock, which were the first of the american V-8 performance cars to die off. The point being of course, that Baby Boomers are the largest market for american V-8 performance cars these days and will be for quite some time. If we don't like them or like something else better, as was the case with the 4th gen F-Bodies vs the Mustang, it's probably not going to sell and compete with what we do like and suffer the same fate as the 4th gen F-body. The goat will go that way and unless it gets it's sales overseas, the Chrysler Crossfire is doomed also (Talk about a butt ugly piece of sh.t). There will be enough wannabe's professional pit racers to probably keep the Pontiac Solstice and G6 in production for a while. > that has what people are asking for. Put in the Engine & transmissions > they want. Yet where they messed up is cost. If they would have introduced > a Chevelle, with a basic inertior, a more agressive nose treatment, and a > few other revisions, priced for $10K less. You would not be seeing many > dodge magnums on the road. Actually, GM putting a 5.3 Supercharged V8 into the Grand Prix is probably a lot better Idea than f@cking around with present quite overpriced butt ugly Holden badged as a GTO, but still probably not anything that is going to compete in sales with Mustang as neither the GP or the GTO are even close to the total package and price the Mustang is or what the T/A/Camaro's were. All GM needed to do was a bit of restyling on the F-Bodies, especially the interior, and they'd be kicking Mustang's a.s and the Chrysler Crossfire would still be only drawings on the wall. >>GM had the right Idea with the GTO. Take a already exsisting chassis > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- Wow look at all the jack-assedity of this post. First off, the New GTO needs not be anything like the 1964 GTO. Yet if you look at the Story of the 1964, and the story of the new GTO you will see how truely simmular they are. GM Fast-Tracked the GTO. People said they wanted it, GM did it. Who cares if the Chassis line is pure Holden? I don't. GM's Austrailian Devision has some talented engeeners and designer that make hot cars, as well as utilitarian vehicals that would all sell rahter well in the US markets. From 1994 to 2004 (ten years) Ford did not have a Mustang worth anything. Ugly as could be, and got uglier untill the 2005's rooled out. The 2005's have the look, but not the profromance. for that you have to wait for a 2006/2007 Shelby Cobra Mustang. It's time you face it. The F-cars are past life support, there past heighaitus, there Dead. RWD at GM might make a comeback, but outside of pick ups, vans & suv's, We have the Corvette, The SSR and the GTO. Now the question we must ask is: Will the GTO go the way the of the Catterra? Or will GM address some of what people dislike, and increase their sales? Will GM Bring back the Chevelle that Hot Rodders want? Charles The 1964 GTO would have been nothing with out the 1964 Malibu SS. The lower cost, same chassis, same market nitch car. > He's actually got quite a lot on the ball....trouble is, it seems to be >all in the business model stages at this point. Noone at GM has done a >decent job of design choices or implementation in years. That can all be blamed on GM CEO 1981-1990 Roger Smith. With his "corporate decisions" he really turned GM into unexciting bland car company. GM really went down the s#$tter in the late 70's and early 80's. It hasn't been the same since. Lutz is doing his best but unfortunately he has to deal with lots of non-car enthusiast yuppie idiots on the 14th floor.  Signature_________________________________________________________________ Dennis Smith -1971 Trans Am - 455 H.O. - M21 4speed - Cameo white/blue stripe- -1973 Trans Am - 455 - TH400 auto - Buccaneer red- -1984 Trans Am - 5.0 L - TH700R4 auto - Royal blue/silver aero- _________________________________________________________________ > > He's actually got quite a lot on the ball....trouble is, it seems to be > >all in the business model stages at this point. Noone at GM has done a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > went down the s#$tter in the late 70's and early 80's. It hasn't been the > same since. I say that, since we cahn't string him up in the town square like we could in the old days...we at the very least tweak his nipples 'til his eyes water! > Lutz is doing his best but unfortunately he has to deal with lots of non-car > enthusiast yuppie idiots on the 14th floor. Got that right...they've really gotta get people who DRIVE to help with design and marketing....rather than just getting designers and engineers and marketing people...sure, they have their place, but they're NOT in touch with what COULD be in the market...or what the majority of people really WANT to buy. My choices if money were no object? Classics: 1) 1984 (or newer) Ferrari Testarossa, but not so much the 512...(I prefer the cheese graters. ;) 2) 1956 Porsche 356-A Speedster Convertible. (1600cc drivetrain) 3) 1967 Mustang Coupe (390 would suit me fine) 4) Lotus Esprit Turbo 5) 1967 Camaro/Z/SS (350-454/455 would be nice) Currents: 1) ANY Jaguar model--take one for a test drive and you'll understand...push the "S" button on the console (note: NOT "council"...for those who don't know the difference between the center of the front buckets and a group of people in a conference room or a town hall...) and you get a whole new car!!! 2) Austin Mini / BMW re-release (just for putzin' about...cute lil' things, and reliable, from what I've heard) 3) 2007 Mustang Coupe (I hope they'll have fixed the console by then...as well as actually bringing out a Coupe version. Coupe is slated for late '05 or early '06, I've heard. Allegedly will be coming out with a Targa instead of a T system! ;) 4) 2005 Camaro...no wait...they don't MAKE those, do they?! Oh well...they had that goddamned CHRYSLER front end treatment and wrecked rear-view on them anyway...(Remember the '94 front end? Remember the 80's rear treatment? The rear end on the Firebirds wasn't bad...but they wrecked the front when they bubbled the headlights, and the rear views with the '93 models on the Camaros, IMHO...) 5) PT - Yeah...I know...gutless and all that, but for my needs, they're not that bad...now that I'm getting used to them...and they're INEXPENSIVE!!! You can get a PT brand new in Canada for just under 16K! The last Camaro was over 36!!! That's just MY TAKE on the market...what I think may not be the same as what you do...but then again....you're wrong. d8^P |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.