[IOMike]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Again, Corvette is classified as a convertible so it doesn't have as strict of standards to pass.

This makes sense, but would a T-top have less structural integrity than a glass roof or some gigantic moonroof that some cars have?

[xgnxs]

Originally Posted by cyberbro

I don't think its any of that, I think its the shape of the roof and the cost since they want to sell you a convertible. If they can get a corvette to pass the crash test with a removable roof
then a t-top would be easier to pass since it has a middle section more then the removable roof does.

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Again, Corvette is classified as a convertible so it doesn't have as strict of standards to pass.

And T-tops are classified as a coupe, which is why it would be much more difficult to get t-tops to pass the roof crush (as well as other tests, I'm sure). It's not just that "they want to sell you a convertible." It's been said (if you want t-tops) that the best course of action would be to petition the NHTSA to reclassify t-tops as a convertible (like a targa) instead of a coupe.

[SS22]

I've had a few Camaros with T-Tops, an 84' and a 01' and neither one rattled or leaked.

[MLL67RSSS]

Not to mention the side curtain airbags.

[classicrockr]

Originally Posted by LilAndyG23

Is it because of some ridiculous law or is it because Gm feels it wouldn't do good in today's market? I believe most camaro die hards would love to see a t top at least offered. Same for the vette!

Good GOD, has this not been asked ENOUGH already???

- Federal regs on frame strength / rollover requirements
- poor design quality in the past = none now

[mt3130]

Originally Posted by IOMike

The press would have a field day if GM offered T-tops. Doesn't get more mullet than that.

lol i just came in here to make a mullet comment.

[Angrybird 12]

Two words... "Aftermarket conversion"

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by LilAndyG23

Is it because of some ridiculous law or is it because Gm feels it wouldn't do good in today's market? I believe most camaro die hards would love to see a t top at least offered. Same for the vette!

merged

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by IOMike

This makes sense, but would a T-top have less structural integrity than a glass roof or some gigantic moonroof that some cars have?

Ok, let's try this.

First, the biggest reason in any performance car to NOT have a T-top or Targa or convertible is structural rigidity. The new C7 is a miracle in this regard, but if you understand the construction of a Corvette, you would clearly see why a Camaro would be degraded. Go back and look at how much weight was added to the Gen 5 Camaro convertible simply to get the rigidity. Rigidity does several things, most importantly improves ride and handling.

Go back a little further. Remember the ride difference and cowl shake in a Gen 3 or Gen 4 convertible with the top down? Horrid. Remember the "bolt in" targa top in the C4 Corvettes that required a tool to unbolt them.

Yes, all of that has improved, but most convertible still require some extra bracing in the body.

Now that being said, a T-top has a bar that crosses between the windshield header and roof structure behind the rear seat. This feature alone is what classifies a car with T-tops as coupe, not a convertible.

Having the roof GONE over the driver and passenger, which a Targa does, is what classifies a car as a convertible.

You can go and read yourself, I think I've actually posted links and see the definition in the FMVSS 216.

Here is a video.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...96B8DD53F94A78

Having a structural "bridge" between the top of the a-pillar and the top of the b-pillar is important to pass this test. Having removable bridge with a latch at each end would be very difficult and expensive to develop. It might also require the a heavier panel to add the structure. One of the customer requirements for a t-top would be "easy to remove and store". This would also become increasingly difficult.

Now you could do a system similar to the jeep, effectively having the two panels link together in the middle making a 2 piece targa top. As we have discussed, a targa on the Camaro would have no place to store so you would have to leave it at home. Refer to the Pontiac Solstice hardtop here. But that type of system would effectively offer no structural rigidity and essentially be a weather protecting system. Works on a Jeep, might not work so well on a Camaro, but that would be the way to actually do it.

So the T-tops you all want are really hard to do because of FMVSS 216. Not impossible, but it would be expensive, might be too heavy and both would be counter to what you all want. Plus you would be adding weight to the car to maintain stiffness for ride and handling.

You could do the 2 piece Jeep roof and classify it as a Targa. That would likely be the end around.

So for those of you that want traditional T-tops, how much $$ would you pay and how much mass would you allow overall in the car?

[Memphis43]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Ok, let's try this.



First, the biggest reason in any performance car to NOT have a T-top or Targa or convertible is structural rigidity. The new C7 is a miracle in this regard, but if you understand the construction of a Corvette, you would clearly see why a Camaro would be degraded. Go back and look at how much weight was added to the Gen 5 Camaro convertible simply to get the rigidity. Rigidity does several things, most importantly improves ride and handling.



Go back a little further. Remember the ride difference and cowl shake in a Gen 3 or Gen 4 convertible with the top down? Horrid. Remember the "bolt in" targa top in the C4 Corvettes that required a tool to unbolt them.



Yes, all of that has improved, but most convertible still require some extra bracing in the body.



Now that being said, a T-top has a bar that crosses between the windshield header and roof structure behind the rear seat. This feature alone is what classifies a car with T-tops as coupe, not a convertible.



Having the roof GONE over the driver and passenger, which a Targa does, is what classifies a car as a convertible.



You can go and read yourself, I think I've actually posted links and see the definition in the FMVSS 216.



Here is a video.



http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...96B8DD53F94A78



Having a structural "bridge" between the top of the a-pillar and the top of the b-pillar is important to pass this test. Having removable bridge with a latch at each end would be very difficult and expensive to develop. It might also require the a heavier panel to add the structure. One of the customer requirements for a t-top would be "easy to remove and store". This would also become increasingly difficult.



Now you could do a system similar to the jeep, effectively having the two panels link together in the middle making a 2 piece targa top. As we have discussed, a targa on the Camaro would have no place to store so you would have to leave it at home. Refer to the Pontiac Solstice hardtop here. But that type of system would effectively offer no structural rigidity and essentially be a weather protecting system. Works on a Jeep, might not work so well on a Camaro, but that would be the way to actually do it.



So the T-tops you all want are really hard to do because of FMVSS 216. Not impossible, but it would be expensive, might be too heavy and both would be counter to what you all want. Plus you would be adding weight to the car to maintain stiffness for ride and handling.



You could do the 2 piece Jeep roof and classify it as a Targa. That would likely be the end around.



So for those of you that want traditional T-tops, how much $$ would you pay and how much mass would you allow overall in the car?

The way these new structures are being built though in regards to stronger materials and chassis construction, it still seems possible to have t tops.

I wouldn't throw it out for this generation or the next with all the improvements they have made


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Angrybird 12]

I think we have as many automotive structural experts on here as we do lawyers...

[90503]

Here ya' go...lol...

It’s okay if you can’t stop smiling. We can’t either. It’s about time T-Tops made a comeback.
Drop Top Customs, which also ironically offers convertible conversion to the current-generation Camaro (in case you’re sick of waiting for the official model), will be offering the T-Top conversion for a mere $6,500. There’s also no need to worry about structural integrity either, as DTC will reinforce the undercarriage the same as it does to the rest of its convertible kits. The T-Tops will make their debut at SEMA and will be on sale next month.
Now if only they came with a lifetime, leak-free guarantee.



Read more: http://gmauthority.com/blog/2010/10/...#ixzz3cETeZypL

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by Memphis43

The way these new structures are being built though in regards to stronger materials and chassis construction, it still seems possible to have t tops.

I wouldn't throw it out for this generation or the next with all the improvements they have made


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

An automotive engineer who works in the industry just explained why it's impossible to do so at Camaro's price point.

[motorhead]

I always wondered why they weren't called I tops. Or if looking at them from either side, H tops.

All well, miss them just the same. I've had many trans ams, and all of then had t-tops. You couldn't own a trans am in the late 70''s without them and still be cool. Lol