+2 :drool: :faint: :headbang:

That's not my rendering...I commented that I like it. It's more "modern" Camaro than Doc's. But, Doc has some skills to put so much thought into his rendering. Keep it up folks, I'm staying tuned...

Doc, I think you are correct saying the 5th Gen was a strong comeback. The 6th Gen will have to "WOW" like this one, and next the C7 Vette will. I think GM goes big. I'm not sure this rendering (can be improved on with time) does it yet. Keep it up, though. It's more than I've done.

I don't like this one bit. It looks like a butchered 5th gen.

I can see how that looks similar; it's a GM product. My styling inspiration was taken from the back of the 1970 Camaro.
Attachment 541172

I could see that in the one with the round tail lights, to me they looked the best.

Camaro would do well to just abandon the whole neo-retro design theme completely.

I like this alot. Looks like an a7 rear

And go in which direction style-wise?

I like this, but too furturistic for a 2016 Chevy model. I don't think chevy is that brave. Ford would do something like this before they do.

Well Doc... thats the million dollar question. lol

Your drawing and these are my opinions: the rear, I am in agreement from the side view it is mustang material. The rear, while it is a sunfire look, it can be worked with. From the side, Id make it round off from the rear window to the end of the car similar to what a 67/70 camaro looks like without the spoiler. Then you add the spoiler to it. The rear bumper, make it a little more sharper. This is all from the side. Then, make the rear lights less of an sideways triangle look and perhaps a little more defined somehow. How? Im unsure.

The front needs to be wider at the headlights and broader. Dont make it too small of a vent between the headlights. The headlights shouldnt be too skinny or to linear. Give them some roundness. Its your design I understand and respect. Im not a fan of triangular or linear lights. It should keep an old school style approach but a little more refined. Also from the side view, make the front straighter up & down rather than that angled look on the bumper. A slight angle above the bumper is good. But the overall approach should be something like "< " as the front of the car but with a lot less of an angle as Im using. The center is where the point should be angled towards the rear fo the car on the top and bottom of the front end. These are my thoughts. Or mayby a sharper angle at th lower end toward the tire. but straighter on the upper end?

EDIT: I just noticed youre drawings redesigned. I really like the look of your #5 & 5b drawings with 70s rendition on the rear. On the front end, I like the round headlights approach, widen it a bit and instead of how the 5th gen "opening" is for headlights and grille, make it follow the headlight edges. Hard to explain what I mean but it would look similar to how the opening is on the sides of headlights of a 67. Also too much body and not enough grille abover or below the bumper. The car should have planety of "breathable" space.In the center between the headlights, you could come up with it a little I guess? But have it angled on the bottom of the bumper towards the tire to be sharper than above IMO. Also as stated above, the top rear needs to be angled or rounded off lower than the rear window, then add the spoiler. Not a huge dropoff, but a little lower. Also on the side view shot, I noticed from the trunk corner towards the conter of the bumper, the angle to too far out imo. Make it a little less of an angle outard. Not straight up and down, but not so much of an angle. Youre spoiler can define the rear end toward the center of the bumper like so "/" maybe?have it go in then out at the center of bumper and then back towards the rear tire? Youre def on the right track though.

A more futuristic approach with some heritage cues.

The retro theme is dead. Thankfully.

But thats what the 5th gen is. A futuristic take on a classic car.

Not calling you out Fen, just making a statement...

The 5th gen was/is clearly a futuristic, aggressive modern interpretation of a classic car. It is not purely "retro" Look at the Challenger...that car looks most like its earlier self than the 2005 Mustang did of its earlier self, and the 2010 Camaro was even farther away than either of those two from its former self.

Again, sorry if its just me, but I strongly feel that retro does not describe the Camaro. Why do you think all the haters call it a "cartoon" car? B/c is has the bold look, the big lines, and the over the top feel that makes it stand out.

So lets say they create a new design for the 6th gen Camaro that doesn't look like the 5th gen. Thats fine, but I guarantee if they don't incorporate some of the classic lines that make a Camaro a Camaro people will b!itch and say "its not Camaro!". Hell...I would! So Chevy is going to have to incorporate something to help us identify with the car.

So when that happens...do we call it "retro"? No.

We don't call Porsche Boxter's or 911s 'retro', but that design is as old as time. Instead, they stuck with a design that just works.

Too vague. What heritage cues? Roofline? Front? Rear? Traditionally "futuristic" has meant lower profile, wedge-like shapes, laid-down reclined seating, etc. The practical realities of manufacturing, compliance with crash safety, combined with comfortable ingress/egress puts limitations on what you can realistically design. No matter the shape and style you have to keep in mind that under that shape you have to put an engine compartment with an engine and all the other goodies, plus a full interior for 4 people that can seat 4 adults. That's a Camaro.

More futuristic in what way? Body shapes? Lower profile? Light shapes?

The whole point of this styling exercise is to do more than just complain and criticize. Just saying "don't like it, looks like a Prelude" doesn't give the Camaro team ANY clue which way to go. I want to contribute some positive constructive feedback so (this is for everyone) if you can, please try to be at least somewhat descriptive as to what kind of shapes you'd like to see.

And thank you for contributing to the discussion! :)

Too futuristic will make it undesireable though. You cant say retro is dead. Look at the sales of the 5th gen. Look at the amount of stangs and challengers on the road. There's a reason WHY sales have been so good. You cant ignore the fact that THAT is why the amount of cars sold as they did. it was because they were retro. Youre going to scrap the whole retro thing and hope you can win and perhaps gain even more sale? Highly unlikely. Its got to be a smaller rendition of the 5th gen body, Just redefined for a more futuristic look. What look will they go for? Hard to say. 2nd gen? 3rd gen? 4th gen? Which nuances will they use from which era? I'd think a 2nd gen approach isnt too far-fetched. What you have to understand is that GM should know is that for MANY 5th gen owners or camaro fan base to give up their cars, it HAS to deliver soemthing more promising. It cant be umpteen HP in a crappy package and hope it sells. It HAS to look almost just as good, equal to, or better. Otherwise its no use. To me the most popular choice since the numbers have shown, is to take the 5th gen and finesse it, redefine it a little on a smaller pltform. Perhaps a 2nd gen approach is the way to go? No one cares if the body itself doesnt change. Its the front and rear end of the car ppl are wondering about. I'd prefer it to have a little more curve than sharpness to it. Though this alpha platform is not that much smaller than our current cars. Its a little shorter, but nothing extremely significant.