[Norm Peterson]

Not getting any 80's Monte Carlo vibe . . . those Montes like all of the GM intermediate sedans were much more 'upright' or 'formal' than any Camaro. Or any versions of Doc's concept.

I don't think Doc is subconsciously trying to reinvent the Monte, either. Those were considered "personal luxury cars" by Chevy but were little more than "up-styled" versions of the 2-door Malibu, which itself was a style-driven upgrade over the 4-door/5 passenger 'bu. Camaros have always been 2+2's.


Norm

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by CCG Garnet Red

Front of this car looks like the "Predator" from the movie.

I guess "alien" nails down the first impression I got from that Toyota (that takes that angular-hourglass shape that Lexus is so fond of and embellishes it further with overly aggressive panel shaping). It's not a positive impression, off-putting without being an absolute deal-breaker would be closer to it. I can think of one set of circumstances where I'd buy a car that looked like that, and it would be in spite of its styling rather than because of it.

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.

No argument from me on those points. We recently replaced our "family sedan", and getting what we want in a car took both Ford and Chevy off the list before it even got started.


Norm

[Doc]

Originally Posted by 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.

GM has a history of doing odd things that later bite them in the butt. Chevelles were popular too. They used to dominate the passenger car market but now they're getting out of the passenger car business like that's a disappearing market but it isn't; all they're doing is handing it over to the Asian manufacturers, who not coincidentally, reap the benefits of their passenger car customers wanting the same brand SUV.

Originally Posted by 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.

Thank you for the compliment.

That article about the 67 being used for the Transformers movie is from 2013. Nothing about that image of what they did to that Camaro appeals to me. I'm not a fan of Michael Bay's movie cars. Back in the day, those style of wheel flares were used so wider wheels could be added without having to actually widen the body which was a lot more work. Not exactly an elegant solution but it was cheap to do and worked.

That CTS or CT5 mule is a trick that GM could absolutely do with the Camaro, but that's for chassis development as opposed to body style. If that's what they're doing to develop a chassis update for the Camaro (which honestly it doesn't really need; it has a world-class chassis already) that's fine, but we'd be seeing camo covered models by now if the body style was in the final stages of testing for final production. UNLESS they're planning on a pulling-the-rabbit-out-of-the-hat trick like they did with the Z28, which they could do, but I'm not holding my breath. The 7th gen would have to be a radically different car to make them want to do that. I don't think the current Camaro is selling well enough for them to justify that kind of effort. Pulling Al O out of the Camaro project didn't exactly inspire me with confidence either as to what may or may not be coming.

I saw that KIA concept when browsing through concept images. I like the overall idea of the style, but I'm not a fan of the entire top of the car being glass. I know that's been a dream of designers for 50 years, but I see nothing but a heat nightmare in the summer with something like that. I also don't see how that concept would meet crash rollover regulation requirements. Without a B pillar, it doesn't look like it would have the safety protection necessary. While the door opening style looks great for ingress and egress, again it poses a crash safety problem. Side view is not too good; window sills are too high for my tastes.

The back doesn't look too bad. The dashboard looks like a bad drug trip. Front view is interesting; above and below the headlights looks the best, but I'm not crazy about the headlight/DRL style.

Going electric is posing a whole new level of challenges for car body designers as the need for engine and radiator cooling disappear. The size of the front of vehicles has always been dictated by the size of the engine/radiator combo that was up there. Mid or rear engine cars allowed for much lower, swept down fronts which are great aerodynamically and for the driver view. Not sure why electric car designers are making their designs look like ICE styles with covered over front grilles and openings.

Here's an interesting KIA concept image that shows they could definitely be a contender for coming up with a modern version of the pony car:

Originally Posted by Memphis SS

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.

Interesting that you chose a view of an older version of my concept instead of the current one. Here's a pic of the current version and I put it in white and even tried to match the angle of the shot of the Monte Carlo. Do you really honestly think this looks like a Monte Carlo of the 80's or even a modern version??



Point well taken about the license plates on my concept saying "Camaro". I took those files along with other bits and pieces from an old project folder I did years ago in the Camaro5 forum about a possible future Camaro. I've fixed that now with a new image that simply says "PONY CAR" which you can see in the above image.

If you'll note in my reply to your comment above, I specifically stated that I was taking into account the more advanced features of today's technology compared to the past, and was proposing an adjusted entry price point accordingly. In particular, note the first sentence (you're not the only one that does this by the way).

"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."

Thank you to everyone for your interest and participating in the thread!

[Doc]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

I guess "alien" nails down the first impression I got from that Toyota (that takes that angular-hourglass shape that Lexus is so fond of and embellishes it further with overly aggressive panel shaping). It's not a positive impression, off-putting without being an absolute deal-breaker would be closer to it. I can think of one set of circumstances where I'd buy a car that looked like that, and it would be in spite of its styling rather than because of it.



No argument from me on those points. We recently replaced our "family sedan", and getting what we want in a car took both Ford and Chevy off the list before it even got started.


Norm

Yeah I get the same vibe from those kinds of designs. Why people want to be inside something that looks like this is beyond me.



When I first saw the FNR Concept, Alien was the first thing that popped into my mind. I find the fact that they spent time and money making this to actually be somewhat depressing.




Give us something beautiful, elegant, classy... not something out of a horror movie.

[genxer]

Doc, maybe some of the ones against this thread are 'trust the process' types. It's probably good that the 6th gen refresh differentiated the faces. More would be okay with it if the SS face was part of an optional RS look.

It would be good to show a pony car concept can stretch out to cover the more aggressive expectations (why I brought up wheel well flares). The greenhouse and proportions has to work for all though. You also mentioned trying to work out an interior. It absolutely must show an unhappy 400 lb guy cramped in. For fun.

Some of the anti-pony posts give a scent of MBA-think. So do (other GM forum) posts about: competing with Porsche now, a Portofino next Camaro, the new Blazer as the Camaro crossover, C8 being the start of the Corvette brand. Your thread would never sit well with those types.

[Memphis SS]

Originally Posted by Doc

Thank you to everyone for your interest and participating in the thread!

Thanks for posting your rendering for all to review. Hope you understand I'm just giving some feedback.

You do have some good points and a talent.

Cheers,

[18LTLoveIt]

There will be no more pony car anytime soon. Did you see the trend, GM axing sedans, lots full of cuv and suvs. No end in site for the CUVs & SUVs with customer demand.

[genxer]

That CUV trend is clear. And with the Al O moving news, one can speculate the next Camaro is canceled. But GM execs have made cars on black budgets before.

Part of the CUV thing is the awd. Why not awd Camaros? On the low price end it's more valuable than IRS and 'tech' gimmicks. It could be the most fun stick awd vehicle. On the high end, it would be more Godzilla-like and more streetable.

I wish GM minions would just admit CAFE makes lame CUVs more profitable for them. They'll milk those cows until the margins are gone and they only have trucks, or are done.

[CCG Garnet Red]

Wonder how many of those V6 AWD Challengers that FCA has sold?

[genxer]

Originally Posted by CCG Garnet Red

Wonder how many of those V6 AWD Challengers that FCA has sold?

Good question. The rust belt pushes to a level of pragmatism. For me, I'd also rather not daily drive a large car. A used ATS coupe would be better. It'd have to get de-badged and probably more.

Doc didn't mention awd though. And I posted too much in a previous thread of his.

Changing gears, do the aggressive look guys realize how aggressive the 4th gen was considered at that time? I half remember Lutz saying (not looking it up now) the issue with cars like that is you need half the whole model run's demand made right away. Please correct if the quote's wrong here.

[Norm Peterson]

I completely understand not wanting to DD a large car. Or, these days, drive a car as large as the Challenger/Charger at all. ATS would be a good size, just not a good price (then again, the ATS is a Cadillac).

Compared to today's alien-creature faces, the 4th gen F-body was merely bold. Significantly different from its 3rd gen predecessor without needing a menacing I'm-gonna-eat-you-alive attitude to hammer the point across to the otherwise clueless.

Unless your model line is almost entirely AWD-only with a lot of the bits common across different platforms and even generations, I'd question the chances of fitting AWD into a $25k price point.


Norm

[Doc]

I have to agree about AWD. I don't see how that would be doable as a standard feature at the $25k price point. In addition, not everyone needs or wants it so I'd make it possibly as an option. My 2017 Alfa Romeo Giulia has AWD (I now live in an area that gets real winters) and it was an extra grand if I remember right. Daily driving a big vehicle isn't something I want to do either. My Giulia is just the right size. Depending on where you live and what your commute is like, a pony car can actually make a very good DD.

[redcoats1976]

living in central florida,my 5th gen RS is a good daily driver.i have had smaller cars in the past but most of them lacked legroom.

[Doc]

I realized after a comment I had made, as to who this car was aimed at that I wouldn't buy it myself, I began to wonder why and why not? My conclusion was that it was just a bit too soft as far as body lines. So I've been reworking things to give it a bit more edge, and a more substantial presence.

There are a LOT of changes on this version. I lowered the roof an inch; widened the cabin a couple of inches; reworked the entire front end. The part above the body seam is okay, but the front below the seam still needs some work. I put a 1 inch ridge along the top of the entire body side from front to back to literally give it some edge. I made a lot of adjustments to the back, including adding a ducktail to the upper part that's part of the body itself; not an add-on spoiler. I also noticed that at some point somehow I managed to increase the size of the exhaust pipes to be 3.3 inches. Don't have any idea how or when that happened. Obviously that's a ridiculous size pipe for a turbo 4 or 6, and that wouldn't even be on an 8. I resized them down to 2.75 inches which is much more realistic.

I made the overall stance of the car look a little more "down to the ground". The front grille area is hard to show in a picture, but the area at the bottom of the grille extends outward a good amount. I pulled the top of the grille area back quite a bit. I'm still deciding what to do about headlights; I just have one stuck in there for reference. I still have more work to do on the lower front, including brake cooling ducts.

I like this version better. Has the appearance of more substance to it. The ducktail on the back is a toss-up. What do you guys think? Too much? Not enough? Too retro?