[Doc]

Latest update. Did a lot of tweaking and detail work. This is leaning more in the direction of the 1967 car; think 1967 Camaro and an 2018 F-35 fighter has a baby. I came up with a relatively simple rear spoiler, based on the styling of the wings of the F-35. I also put two heat-exit vents in the hood.





Here are some comparisons with the 5th Gen to get an idea of the size difference. Mine is just a bit lower, shorter overall but with the same basic wheelbase and track. I need to see if I can find a 3D model of the 6th Gen to compare with that.





It's very very hard to get away from retro, and people still recognize/consider it a Camaro. If it goes too futuristic, then everyone's designs start to look a lot alike. I may do an updated 67 just for the heck of it to see what that would look like. I don't think anything like that would ever be produced (not by GM anyways), but it might be fun to see what a modern version would look like.

[motorhead]

Originally Posted by Doc

Latest update. Did a lot of tweaking and detail work. This is leaning more in the direction of the 1967 car; think 1967 Camaro and an 2018 F-35 fighter has a baby. I came up with a relatively simple rear spoiler, based on the styling of the wings of the F-35. I also put two heat-exit vents in the hood.

Attachment 943747
Attachment 943748
Attachment 943749

Here are some comparisons with the 5th Gen to get an idea of the size difference. Mine is just a bit lower, shorter overall but with the same basic wheelbase and track. I need to see if I can find a 3D model of the 6th Gen to compare with that.

Attachment 943750
Attachment 943751
Attachment 943752

It's very very hard to get away from retro, and people still recognize/consider it a Camaro. If it goes too futuristic, then everyone's designs start to look a lot alike. I may do an updated 67 just for the heck of it to see what that would look like. I don't think anything like that would ever be produced (not by GM anyways), but it might be fun to see what a modern version would look like.

I think what you're learning is good design is more then just having some design software. Your thread really makes me appreciate those that do this for a living. Im sorry doc, but you need to kill that thing with fire. The 2019 SS refresh is still lightyears better looking and makes more sense ;eventhough I dont care for it, over whatever that is you are trying to do.

[mdhopt36]

Hmm, that reminds me more of a Caddy (which I like as well, my wife's car)

[Number 3]

Doc, great exercise.

You know where I stand though. What you are working on is just a different look for the same thing. Basically MOHR.

For the Camaro to be sustainable one of two things have to happen:

It goes up further up market costing even more to generate enough profit to be worth the expense and investment. If the Mid Engine Corvette goes up market with lower volumes (which I doubt is the plan, I think they expect to hold volumes) maybe there is a place for a lower volume higher priced Camaro.

Or

You have to broaden the appeal. By that the styling needs to be less "aggressive" and the car needs to be more usable on a day to day basis. Although we've never seen the statistics on this, I believe the reason the Mustang sells better than the Camaro is simply the L4 and V6 cars have sold at higher numbers and likely have an appeal to more female buyers. This is why I chuckle a bit when everyone trots out the ATP numbers. Mustang is lower because it sells more lower priced NON GT models. I honestly wouldn't be surprised at all if the SS/SS 1LE/ZL1 outsold the GT/350/350R.......by a lot.

Coupe sales are dying and ultimately GM won't have room for two low volume performance/sports cars.


Don't want to discourage the exercise as it's always fun to prognosticate and look into the future. Keep going.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by motorhead

I think what you're learning is good design is more then just having some design software. Your thread really makes me appreciate those that do this for a living. Im sorry doc, but you need to kill that thing with fire. The 2019 SS refresh is still lightyears better looking and makes more sense ;eventhough I dont care for it, over whatever that is you are trying to do.

"Whatever that is you are trying to do." I realize looks are subjective, but to say the refresh is "lightyears" better looking is just ridiculous. The problem I have with not only the refresh, but the 6th Gen itself is the edge and sharpness is missing. It reminds me of plastic model car kits, where they have to use thick plastic so the body panels, windshield, etc., look thick and don't have that thin, crisp, sharp edges look.



What I'm "trying to do" is put some edge and sharpness back into the design. It's called 'refinement'. I'm not trying to design a high performance track car; I'm working on an elegant, classy, sophisticated look for the bigger market. Number 3 "gets it" in his comment.

Originally Posted by Number 3

Doc, great exercise.

You know where I stand though. What you are working on is just a different look for the same thing. Basically MOHR.

For the Camaro to be sustainable one of two things have to happen:

It goes up further up market costing even more to generate enough profit to be worth the expense and investment. If the Mid Engine Corvette goes up market with lower volumes (which I doubt is the plan, I think they expect to hold volumes) maybe there is a place for a lower volume higher priced Camaro.

Or

You have to broaden the appeal. By that the styling needs to be less "aggressive" and the car needs to be more usable on a day to day basis. Although we've never seen the statistics on this, I believe the reason the Mustang sells better than the Camaro is simply the L4 and V6 cars have sold at higher numbers and likely have an appeal to more female buyers. This is why I chuckle a bit when everyone trots out the ATP numbers. Mustang is lower because it sells more lower priced NON GT models. I honestly wouldn't be surprised at all if the SS/SS 1LE/ZL1 outsold the GT/350/350R.......by a lot.

Coupe sales are dying and ultimately GM won't have room for two low volume performance/sports cars.


Don't want to discourage the exercise as it's always fun to prognosticate and look into the future. Keep going.

Yeah MOHR is both a problem and a solution. People love the retro look if it's done properly, even though it's been around for half a century. As much as I'd like to move out of that, just where 'that' would be is hard to determine.

Manufacturers today can do things for the mass market that wasn't even possible 50 years ago. With computers, the quality and precision with which they can make things on a mass-produced scale now is incredible. Why that's not producing the distinguishing styles that manufacturers used to have is somewhat baffling. It's like music; computers can literally make any kind of sound, and do it easily, so why does so much music today sound so much alike?

Yep, I'll keep going. You know why WD40 is called that? Because Water Dispersal formulas 1-39 were not 'it'. The only way to find something new is to start looking for it, and keep looking for it.

The software I'm using is fantastic, and fantastically complex. I got it a month ago and the learning curve is seriously steep. It only has an online manual which, I'm sorry maybe it's me, but online manuals are just not as easy to read. Holding a book while doing an exercise, or learning a feature is just easier. Reading through a physical book is easier to learn new things too. Online manuals have a search feature which is great, IF you know what to ask for and use the right terms.

At any rate, last night I figured out how to use lighting and get the light sources to be visible. Here are a few shots of the car in the evening with lights on.

Low beams, fog/driving lights, and turn signal/running lights on:


Low beams, fog/driving lights and DRL lights on:


Rear view with tail lights and turn signal/running lights on:


I still need to figure out side marker lighting, but it's getting there.

I realize some (many?) of you don't like it, but that's expected with this crowd; this is the high-performance enthusiast crowd. The market I'm reaching for isn't in here, nor do they join car forums to go on and on about cars. They tend to be more conservative, but keep in mind, there's a lot more of them than enthusiasts and bringing in their business would be a good thing.

[90503]

I thought the late 60's-early 70's Chevy Novas had a good "platform" for everything from mild to wild....They were economical, sporty, etc., all at the same time....They were modded, raced, kept stock, anything and everything was a good fit for this model...

Perhaps the Camaro could "evolve", or "revolutionize" it's design to something practical, semi-retro, economical, muscle, sporty, hi-po, all at the same time like the Novas...just a thought...

Good luck, Doc....I think there is still hope for the 7thGen to be Camaro's best gen yet..

[motorhead]

Originally Posted by Doc

"Whatever that is you are trying to do." I realize looks are subjective, but to say the refresh is "lightyears" better looking is just ridiculous. The problem I have with not only the refresh, but the 6th Gen itself is the edge and sharpness is missing. It reminds me of plastic model car kits, where they have to use thick plastic so the body panels, windshield, etc., look thick and don't have that thin, crisp, sharp edges look.

Attachment 943803

What I'm "trying to do" is put some edge and sharpness back into the design. It's called 'refinement'. I'm not trying to design a high performance track car; I'm working on an elegant, classy, sophisticated look for the bigger market. Number 3 "gets it" in his comment.



Yeah MOHR is both a problem and a solution. People love the retro look if it's done properly, even though it's been around for half a century. As much as I'd like to move out of that, just where 'that' would be is hard to determine.

Manufacturers today can do things for the mass market that wasn't even possible 50 years ago. With computers, the quality and precision with which they can make things on a mass-produced scale now is incredible. Why that's not producing the distinguishing styles that manufacturers used to have is somewhat baffling. It's like music; computers can literally make any kind of sound, and do it easily, so why does so much music today sound so much alike?

Yep, I'll keep going. You know why WD40 is called that? Because Water Dispersal formulas 1-39 were not 'it'. The only way to find something new is to start looking for it, and keep looking for it.

The software I'm using is fantastic, and fantastically complex. I got it a month ago and the learning curve is seriously steep. It only has an online manual which, I'm sorry maybe it's me, but online manuals are just not as easy to read. Holding a book while doing an exercise, or learning a feature is just easier. Reading through a physical book is easier to learn new things too. Online manuals have a search feature which is great, IF you know what to ask for and use the right terms.

At any rate, last night I figured out how to use lighting and get the light sources to be visible. Here are a few shots of the car in the evening with lights on.

Low beams, fog/driving lights, and turn signal/running lights on:
Attachment 943799

Low beams, fog/driving lights and DRL lights on:
Attachment 943800

Rear view with tail lights and turn signal/running lights on:
Attachment 943801

I still need to figure out side marker lighting, but it's getting there.

I realize some (many?) of you don't like it, but that's expected with this crowd; this is the high-performance enthusiast crowd. The market I'm reaching for isn't in here, nor do they join car forums to go on and on about cars. They tend to be more conservative, but keep in mind, there's a lot more of them than enthusiasts and bringing in their business would be a good thing.

well Doc, while I appreaciate the effort as others has mentioned, they already did that with the buick concept. it was so good the the Camaro boys had to squash it from what I’ve heard.

[JamesNoBrakes]

This will solve everyone's visibility problems

[Cgocifer]

Your "design" isnt cohesive. The exhaust pipes for example dont match at all. They look like cowboy pipes on pickup trucks of the 70s, and the proportions are way off with the long wheelbase. Those tail pipes should be incorporated into the rear valence and more rectangular off to match the "edgy" lines. It looks like a two door sedan, not a sports car or a sports coupe for that matter.

It sounds like what you're going for is a sporty family cruiser which is not a Camaro. Why even bother with the Camaro, just call it something else. Change the tail and call it Chevelle... the Chevelle was Chevys larger, mid sized, more luxurious cruiser.

Yes, this is an enthusiast forum. That's who likes camaros; car and driving enthusiasts. It isnt a car meant for soccer moms or dads nor is it meant for luxury car Audi A5 drivers. It's a Camaro for goodness sakes. Brash, loud, powerful, fast, and unabashedly American. It is an American muscle car icon. I'd rather see it die a legend than morph into some snowflake, wannabe luxury tourer.

Not to bash because obviously you're spending a ton of time playing with design software, but it looks like an 80s camaro rendering from an early video game. Stance is off, proportions are off, etc. The area behind the front wheel to the A pillar is too long and the sides have zero character. Just flat, boring slabs.

GM already has sharp and edgy... Caddillacs. Even their design has evolved into more curvaceous versions. Remember the stealth fighter F117 looking Caddys from the early 2000s? Old news.

Nothing wrong with retro either as the dodge Challenger sales can attest.

[Cgocifer]

Originally Posted by Doc

I beg to differ with you here. They WERE mainstream cars for a long time, and that generated a lot of money. GM needs that again to justify keeping the high development costs of the high performance models. A base model that brings in lots of sales would be a good thing, as it would provide the funds to keep developing leading-edge high performance models. Those models would be in an entirely different class and market. They would look different, sound different, and absolutely perform differently than a base model. You would still get plenty of looks and stares because those models will clearly stand out from the base model.

They were mainstream back when cars including performance cars were popular. Times have changed. SUVs are what mainstream buyers want these days. Cars just aren't practical for current lifestyles. The only reason I have a Camaro is because it is a part time fun car to augment my truck daily driver and my wife's 4Runner. With a Family, there is no way i would own a camaro or any other two door car for that matter as a daily driven, primary vehicle. I dont care how beautiful a car is designed, it wont outsell or even come close to the big money makers of today which are SUVs and trucks. Ford realizes this and is killing all cars except Mustang. I wouldn't be shocked if Chevy does the same thing and kills all cars except the halo Corvette. Yes, the Camaro would be killed too. The Mustang is Ford's halo car. They dont have a Corvette of their own. The Ford GT doesnt count because it is unobtainable for normal folks.

[Doc]

People buy what they like. If they see something they like, and they can afford it, they'll buy it. Depends on the crowd. SUV's are popular because they offer a very useful vehicle for many different things, but a lot of people have more than one vehicle. I'm not reaching for you or those like you; I'm reaching for the affluent buyer who want's a second vehicle, or wants one for their high school/college student. People used to move out on their own by the time they reached 20; now they still live at home until 25 or 30.

I think Ford is making a big mistake by dropping cars; it's a very short-sighted quarterly profit kind of thinking. Once the SUV market saturates, what then? SUV prices are also climbing up. Everybody wants to tap into the upscale affluent buyer market, but that market is not a one-vehicle market. They buy multiple vehicles.

It's a different kind of customer; better educated, better income, more refined, more reserved. They are also style and status conscious. They don't want what you want, and they quite obviously aren't/weren't buying it.

There's nothing wrong with retro, and there's nothing wrong with widening the appeal to a more profitable demographic. Unlike you, I'm NOT okay with the Camaro being discontinued. I don't see that as glorious or anything else but a failure to connect to the market.

By the way, it's perfectly okay to suggest changes or features without the condescending scorn and contempt. It should be apparent that what I'm working on is a work-in-progress; it's not finished by any means. I just stuck a couple of tube objects in the back to get an idea where exhaust pipes would be. I don't have door handles or hood/door/trunk cutouts either. Your idea about the pipes being moved up into the rear valance was a good one, and I've incorporated it. The wheel base is the same as the 5th Gen; it just looks longer because the car body is lower profile. If you look at 4-door sedans, they do NOT have the side profile mine does.

Here are a couple shots with the tail pipes moved up, although they're in shadow, you can still see them.

[ssrs2lt]

I'm with ya need a change..keep cracking at it..so far so good..

[bsimms89]

I still liked when this concept came up when people were speculating on the 6th gen

[Cgocifer]

Originally Posted by Doc

People buy what they like. If they see something they like, and they can afford it, they'll buy it. Depends on the crowd. SUV's are popular because they offer a very useful vehicle for many different things, but a lot of people have more than one vehicle. I'm not reaching for you or those like you; I'm reaching for the affluent buyer who want's a second vehicle, or wants one for their high school/college student. People used to move out on their own by the time they reached 20; now they still live at home until 25 or 30.

I think Ford is making a big mistake by dropping cars; it's a very short-sighted quarterly profit kind of thinking. Once the SUV market saturates, what then? SUV prices are also climbing up. Everybody wants to tap into the upscale affluent buyer market, but that market is not a one-vehicle market. They buy multiple vehicles.

It's a different kind of customer; better educated, better income, more refined, more reserved. They are also style and status conscious. They don't want what you want, and they quite obviously aren't/weren't buying it.

There's nothing wrong with retro, and there's nothing wrong with widening the appeal to a more profitable demographic. Unlike you, I'm NOT okay with the Camaro being discontinued. I don't see that as glorious or anything else but a failure to connect to the market.

By the way, it's perfectly okay to suggest changes or features without the condescending scorn and contempt. It should be apparent that what I'm working on is a work-in-progress; it's not finished by any means. I just stuck a couple of tube objects in the back to get an idea where exhaust pipes would be. I don't have door handles or hood/door/trunk cutouts either. Your idea about the pipes being moved up into the rear valance was a good one, and I've incorporated it. The wheel base is the same as the 5th Gen; it just looks longer because the car body is lower profile. If you look at 4-door sedans, they do NOT have the side profile mine does.

Here are a couple shots with the tail pipes moved up, although they're in shadow, you can still see them.

Attachment 943931
Attachment 943932

I get it. You have more skill than I do with this stuff. I couldn't even attempt graphic design. I can fabricate just about anything out of raw material, but illustrating what's in my mind? Forget it. So, although I dont like the design, props for your efforts.