[Doc]

Originally Posted by ecko04

No one here would disagree with your premise, which is that we want to see the Camaro live. I don't think anyone at GM would disagree with it either.

However, everything from there is what causes impassioned folks, like yourself, to become upset. The fact of the matter is the days of $20K performance machines are gone. When we account for inflation even those cars that were purchased in the 80s would equate to what a new Camaro costs now. The Camaro, as well as the Corvette, are niche market cars and will remain as such. Sure, GM can lessen them to make them more affordable, but that would be the antithesis of everything we've been asking for (lightness, power, etc.).

Sales are only one indicator of whether a car will continue to the next generation while there are several external factors at play. We look at sales as the only indicator, but it's one of many key performance indicators. Better selling cars than the Camaro have met their fate, while others have continued. You see this thread as reaching out to GM to tug at their heartstrings, which is admirable and most folks here want the same thing, but what you are suggesting would further fragment the customer base and not coalesce it. To do what you are suggesting would require GM to pull the string on the Camaro, let it miss the equivalent of a generation or two, then reintroduced at a new/lower price point and "pony" car pedigree.

As a millennial, and as a younger person, I don't want that shit in the rendering. I call it what it is. I don't care what the price point is, if that were my option, I'd pass in favor of something else. I'm sure my uncle would disagree, and he'd love it, based on the styling. But for me, it does nothing. And this is an example of what I mean by alienating the two bases GM should be seeking to bring together. If GM is seeking to bring in younger folks, they're going to have to continue down the path they went for the 6th gen even if it means alienating some of the faithful contingent. At best, we can hope of a lower end stripped down version for the college kids, but even that isn't going to be some $10-$15K price reduction.

While Mazda produced a nice looking concept, as most companies do, it is a zero percent chance that is the model that comes to market. And when it does come to market in 2025, would it be a fair comparison to a 2019 production Camaro?

You're making the mistake of thinking of yourself and what you want, which is not what this thread is about. I've been advocating them to reinvent the pony car as an ADD to the Camaro. I've always suggested they keep the 'lettered' cars (RS, SS, LE, etc.) as the more expensive high performance cars, and ADD a reinvented pony car as a model for everyone else. It's not proposed as a $20k performance machine; it's proposed as a $25k passenger car that looks sporty, which is what a pony car was. They can call it a Chevelle, Corvair, Panther, whatever. They need to diversify beyond SUV's and trucks so when that market saturates and begins to cool, they have revenue coming in to keep afloat. It's the models and model lines that you or I would never buy that keep the revenue coming in, so they can build the cars that you and I WOULD actually buy.

Sales are more than just an "indicator"; they are the reason why a model, model line, or even an entire division exists or not. If sales aren't enough to keep a production line running, lay-offs begin to happen and if it continues, entire plants are shut down. That's not just a threat; it's happening right now.

The problem with going down the path GM went for the 6th gen, is it's a dwindling path. The manufacturing model for the Camaro is for WAY more than a couple thousand unit sales a month. It isn't set up for low production volumes. The Corvette is which is why they can continue to produce them profitably. Unless they want to change their production model (which is entirely possible) the way things are right now indicates they're in trouble with the Camaro. The only reason it began to sell last year when they had 4 months of inventory sitting on the lots, was they started offering big discounts. How do they reconcile that? How do they keep making a car that doesn't sell unless they offer deep discounts? Either they lower the price to those levels to begin with and re-engineer it so they can sell it at those points and be profitable, or come up with a style and look so desirable, that the people who can spend the higher amounts decide to buy. That market is out there, they just aren't buying the Camaro. They're buying BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar, etc.

Did you know that the Mazda Vision wasn't merely an empty show car shell? It was a fully functional car. Production ready? No, but I wouldn't under-estimate Mazda.

While GM and Ford have been obsessed with SUV's and trucks the past few years, the Asian manufacturers have quietly been moving in and taking over the territory that GM and Ford used to own; passenger cars. The Asian offerings are getting better and better, and the designs and styles are improving too. The ONLY thing still in favor of American cars, and performance cars in particular, is the V8. It's been their ace-in-the-hole for over half a century, but the new turbo technology in 4's and 6's is getting remarkably good. I have a 2017 turbo 4 Alfa Romeo Giulia and it's surprising how good it is. The Alfa Romeo Quadrifoglio with its Ferrari-derived turbo 6 is a stunner. Small displacement turbo engines aren't supposed to perform like that; but they do now. The V8 is starting to have some real competition.

Chevy can keep the Camaro as a track car, but they really should take another look at a model for the street without all the expensive track features. If they don't, the Camaro will become just another niche car that sells 2,500 a month; a 4 seat Corvette basically. Not that that's a bad thing, but it isn't what the Camaro was originally intended to be.

[cellsafemode]

Autonomous cars and the rental economy are a product of unending greed of the generation in power, not the generation too poor to afford owning anything.

Both aspects of the general direction cars are going right now are primarily coming to be because the tech has caught up to the desire to ensure people have to subscribe to cars and to retain control over that property to better control the flow of those subscriptions.

There is no point in being anti-ev though. Electric motors are massively more efficient and easier to maintain that ice engines. Tying that to self driving and the non existent middle class is where things go wrong. It's a fast track to no human drivers and no personal ownership... Meaning no control over your own ability to travel.

All that to say,. Embrace the new... There is good potential there and it is more viable than being constrained by big bulky internal combustion engines. Keep it 6th gen, reduce waistline by not needing a tall engine, open up the trunk, remove the rear seats, make the factory drive train underpowered and cheap. The aftermarket will make it popular to those who can now afford it. Basically, to sell more, they need to make it perform as bad as it did in to 80's, but with the potential to be built like it is now. And yes, it needs to ditch the 6 liter engine. Maybe a 4 liter v8 would still fit, eventually to be replaced by a crazy electric.

[samurai]

Doc, do yourself a favor and don't try to argue with the haters. I really like your work. I think it pretty much fits your idea of a basic simple pony car, not a high performance car that looks like a pissed off transformers. As you know I was sceptical at first, but you really improved greatly which each update.



I actually don't get why the mods are not going after the trolls. They really ruin the fun for the people that actually deliver content to the forum

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by Doc

To me, that's a modern-day re-interpretation of the "surface excitement" design style that a generation or so ago also tended to be "overdone". Mainly on cars of Japanese origin, so it's looking like a case of "the more things change, the more they stay the same".

The feeling that ↑↑↑ gives me is that the designer ran out of fresh ideas and went to the "outrageous for the sake of outrageousness" well.

I don't think even Chris Bangle with his flame-surfacing would have come up with that, and even that's gone past its "sell-by" date.


Norm

[Gen6_1Le]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

To me, that's a modern-day re-interpretation of the "surface excitement" design style that a generation or so ago also tended to be "overdone". Mainly on cars of Japanese origin, so it's looking like a case of "the more things change, the more they stay the same".

The feeling that ↑↑↑ gives me is that the designer ran out of fresh ideas and went to the "outrageous for the sake of outrageousness" well.

I don't think even Chris Bangle with his flame-surfacing would have come up with that, and even that's gone past its "sell-by" date.


Norm

To me it's the number one selling car of 2018 , and many other years for that . Since sales of the Camaro is so important to a lot of people maybe they all should send photos of the Camry to the Chevy Camaro team of designers and it would help with some inspiration.Plenty of room nice trunk space sporty looking its damn near perfect .

[Gen6_1Le]

Originally Posted by redcoats1976

actually was looking at a 2 door honda accord for the wife last month.it was a sportier and nicer car than i had imagined,in fact it would give any camaro other than an SS or ZL-1 a lot of trouble.before you laugh and call me a heretic look at the sportier version with leather interior and fancier wheels.unless youve made up your mind to hate it youll be impressed.i believe the accords,civics,and FRZ/BRZ are stealing away camaro sales among the younger generation and that is the demographic chevy needs to address.

You are right ,just look at the new Honda Civic then look at the Chevy Cruze . If the next Camaro is not built for the look of a 21st century then it will go away like the Cruze .

[Gen6_1Le]

Originally Posted by samurai

Doc, do yourself a favor and don't try to argue with the haters. I really like your work. I think it pretty much fits your idea of a basic simple pony car, not a high performance car that looks like a pissed off transformers. As you know I was sceptical at first, but you really improved greatly which each update.



I actually don't get why the mods are not going after the trolls. They really ruin the fun for the people that actually deliver content to the forum

You have it all wrong , it's not about haters at all it's about something much bigger and stronger , its called passion . That design sets the Camaro back 25 years and just won't work . Doc does good work and i feel he should start another concept .

[CCG Garnet Red]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

To me, that's a modern-day re-interpretation of the "surface excitement" design style that a generation or so ago also tended to be "overdone". Mainly on cars of Japanese origin, so it's looking like a case of "the more things change, the more they stay the same".

The feeling that ↑↑↑ gives me is that the designer ran out of fresh ideas and went to the "outrageous for the sake of outrageousness" well.

I don't think even Chris Bangle with his flame-surfacing would have come up with that, and even that's gone past its "sell-by" date.


Norm

Front of this car looks like the "Predator" from the movie. Chevy was late to this party for the front of the '19 SS. One of the problems is that GM and Ford are giving up most of the car market to the Japanese and South Korean manufacturers without a fight. Sure SUV's and pickups have taken a larger % of the mrkt, but there are plenty of sedans around here and very few are Fords or GM products. Electric has its own issues (battery disposal as more sell, are wrecked, etc), but if gas goes up again Ford and GM will be left with too many big vehicles, as happened before. JMO.

[Memphis SS]

Originally Posted by 90503

I like the looks...but....I know it may be too late to consider, but I still feel the 5th and 6thGen cars are too big overall. They tried to make the 6th smaller, it did lose weight and performs better but it is still too big. IMO the solution is to bite the bullet and get rid of the back seat like the AMX did in the '60s. It was still considered a muscle car and gave it it's unique styling. The only way I see for any real revolutionary styling is to ditch the rear seat go with a larger more useful trunk and/or a hatchback. The Camaro for the 7thGen can't get any smaller and lighter or less expensive being a four seater.

This size car, AMX or even the older Novas, I think would be a good styling change for the 7thGen. Just a thought. Good luck.

Well, GM didn't try, the 6GEN is smaller and lighter. In fact it is within a few inches each way of the 1969 model GEN1.

As far as your comment on a even smaller version, going to a 2 seater and having a hatch.. They are already building that.... It's called a Corvette.

[Memphis SS]

Originally Posted by Doc

Chevy can keep the Camaro as a track car, but they really should take another look at a model for the street without all the expensive track features. If they don't, the Camaro will become just another niche car that sells 2,500 a month; a 4 seat Corvette basically. Not that that's a bad thing, but it isn't what the Camaro was originally intended to be.

I not a hater but each has their on taste in cars and since you posted here on the forum I'm sure you figured that you would have people that like it and justs didn't care for the design. I will add that if this was a spy photo from one of the mags being posted that GM was bulding a new Camaro I got a feeling it would get even more harsh. JMHO

That being said thanks for posting your version but, I'm not a fan. Looks like as some have said "an 80s Monte Carlo."

As far as what the Camaro was built for.. Well it was built to be a less expensive version of the Corvette and compete with the other pony cars. It was from the start built to have a track purpose as part of design. Just check out the ad below. I think that kind of says it all.

Price for a 1967 Camaro base was around $2,572 inflation calculator $20,000.00 today dollars Actual Real staring price $25,000.00

So really the pricing is not far off based on inflation and adding in all the standard technology

[Doc]

Originally Posted by Memphis SS

I not a hater but each has their on taste in cars and since you posted here on the forum I'm sure you figured that you would have people that like it and justs didn't care for the design. I will add that if this was a spy photo from one of the mags being posted that GM was bulding a new Camaro I got a feeling it would get even more harsh. JMHO

That being said thanks for posting your version but, I'm not a fan. Looks like as some have said "an 80s Monte Carlo."

As far as what the Camaro was built for.. Well it was built to be a less expensive version of the Corvette and compete with the other pony cars. It was from the start built to have a track purpose as part of design. Just check out the ad below. I think that kind of says it all.

Price for a 1967 Camaro base was around $2,572 inflation calculator $20,000.00 today dollars Actual Real staring price $25,000.00

So really the pricing is not far off based on inflation and adding in all the standard technology

That ad is from 1968, and by then things had changed quickly. Remember this was back when they updated models every year. Here's a couple of ads from '67 that show the original marketing and price of the entry level Camaro. It was only $2,466.




Adjusted for inflation in today's dollar value it would be $18,663.



Just for comparison, here's what the Corvette cost in 1967 ($4,240) and in today's dollars it would be $32,088.93 which was very expensive back then. That was more than a house cost.



Here's something interesting. Don't you find it interesting that in your mind, my design reminds you of an '80s Monte Carlo, when in fact they're nothing alike?





Apparently people don't read what I write because they keep protesting something that's not what I'm saying. I want GM to ADD a new pony car; not replace the Camaro with my concept. I recognize that today's technology makes cars better than it was even possible to make in 1967, so adjusting for that, I'm proposing a NEW entry-level pony car at a starting price of $24,990. Turbo 4, basic safety features. Rear-wheel drive. Upgrades can include a turbo 6, upgraded interior. MAYBE an RS option, but primarily it would be a sporty consumer passenger car. If it caught on and people wanted more, that could be added in the following model years.

[CCG Garnet Red]

I bought a new '84 Monte Carlo SS, (Dark blue metallic with blue velour bucket interior), and I loved it. Plenty of room for 5, a strong high output 305, and rear wheel drive. They were very popular here in the South and sold really well, really reminded me of a 68 - 72 Chevelle in many ways. They were built in a Texas GM plant and guess why they were dropped. Wanted more capacity to build more pickups.

[genxer]

Hi Doc, I really enjoy your efforts at fleshing out a pony car return. You wrote you've been keeping an eye on concept cars. Do you mind sharing your thoughts on these (only one a concept):
https://www.motor1.com/news/39038/19...-as-bumblebee/
-The Benz picture with it's wheel wells made this come to mind.

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2018/10/...-a-ct5-v-mule/
-Just wondering how much of this related to any new Camaro.

https://www.carscoops.com/2019/03/im...ew-ev-concept/
-Curious for your opinion.

[Memphis SS]

Originally Posted by Doc

That ad is from 1968, and by then things had changed quickly. Remember this was back when they updated models every year. Here's a couple of ads from '67 that show the original marketing and price of the entry level Camaro. It was only $2,466.

Attachment 978344
Attachment 978345

Adjusted for inflation in today's dollar value it would be $18,663.

Attachment 978346

Just for comparison, here's what the Corvette cost in 1967 ($4,240) and in today's dollars it would be $32,088.93 which was very expensive back then. That was more than a house cost.

Attachment 978347

Here's something interesting. Don't you find it interesting that in your mind, my design reminds you of an '80s Monte Carlo, when in fact they're nothing alike

Apparently people don't read what I write because they keep protesting something that's not what I'm saying. I want GM to ADD a new pony car; not replace the Camaro with my concept. I recognize that today's technology makes cars better than it was even possible to make in 1967, so adjusting for that, I'm proposing a NEW entry-level pony car at a starting price of $24,990. Turbo 4, basic safety features. Rear-wheel drive. Upgrades can include a turbo 6, upgraded interior. MAYBE an RS option, but primarily it would be a sporty consumer passenger car. If it caught on and people wanted more, that could be added in the following model years.

Yea, it kinda does remind me of an updated version of a Monte Carlo.. Interesting you left off your front view.

If this is not a Camaro concept as you claim but a new model it would help there bud if you didn't put a Camaro plate on the front of your rendering, I think that would cut down everyone's confusion

As far as today's cost vs 1967 Camaro base model you also have to factor in the technology to cost. The old cars didn't have the safety features or AC, power windows, power locks, radio, power steering, tilt, CC and lot more that is all standard now..

Also the 1967 and 1968 were the same model, I'm not sure what you were referring to there unless you were talking trim levels being added each year like they still do today.