I was invited to the Toronto International Car Show last night for
V.I.P. night and got an early preview of the Camaro up close and
personal. It blew me away. It was just retro enough to remind me of the
early muscle versions, but there's really nothing retro about the drive
train. It is one sweet car when you see it up close. I have over 20
pics of it, but many are the same. I just couldn't stop snapping shots.
I'm sure that there are several doing the circuit, but this one was a
red one. I also got a few pics of the Saturn Sky and I think that it's
a better looking car than the Solstice. My 2 cents.
Saw the Camaro at the Detroit Show -- seems to be the answer to a question
that nobody has asked. Sales (or serious lack of them) killed the old
Camaro, and this one isn't any more attractive.
I'm no Ford-guy, but they got it right with the latest Mustang -- the
"Concept Camaro" and "Dodge Challenger" come across just like the
originals -- pale imitations, too late to market.
I agree that the Sky is nicer looking than the Solstice, but both miss the
packaging mark set by the latest Miata -- more comfortable inside, much
better top, and a trunk that will actually hold something.
I'd really like to see GM "hit one out of the park", but they keep laying
down shaky base hits.
Well Chris, someone must have asked the question, because word around
the Toronto International show was that GM will be putting the Camaro
back into production. Taste in cars is a purely subjective thing but I
happen to think that the Camaro Concept is a great looking car. And
judging the crowds around it, a lot of other people do too.
I'm no Ford guy either, but I also like the Mustang. Ironically, I like
it for the very reasons that you seem to dislike the Camaro and
Challenger. I like the Mustang because it is an updated imitation, or a
retro of the '70's version. The Challenger has strong styling links to
its ''70's grandfather, but the Camaro was ever-so-subtly retro but
You just happened to mention what I consider to be the most boring,
bland econo-vert on the planet. I know, I know! It has had rave reviews
from some automotive journalists for its styling and handling, but I
just find it plain boring. From a purely aesthetic point of view, I
find the Sky far more attractive and exciting. Even the Solstice is
"exciting compared to the blandness of the Miata. But hey Chris, if
bland is your "packaging" of choice, you've picked the right car in the
"SKY Standard equipment includes a 2.4-liter, 16-valve, 4-cylinder cast
aluminum engine with VVT, 177 horsepower, rear-wheel drive, 5-speed
manual transmission, four-wheel independent SLA suspension with
coil-over Bilstein monotube shocks, OnStar(R) with one-year Safe &
Sound Service Plan*, 18-inch alloy wheels, six-speaker CD stereo, power
windows, door locks and exterior mirrors, and remote keyless entry.
Also available: CD/MP3 player Monsoon(R) audio system, XM Satellite
Radio**, 5-speed automatic transmission and a limited slip
That gives it slightly more horsepower than the Miata and a lot better
looks and it comes pretty well optioned in the base model. I wouldn'y
buy a Sky or a Miata if I wanted a cargo hauler Chris. And if I wanted
a real new sports car, I'd buy a Corvette, not a Mustang. Give me
excitement over ho-hum any day.
Chris, they may just have "hit two out of the park", but you may have
been snoozing and missed it. You snooze, you lose. ;-)
Attractive yes; crowd pleaser, certainly; marketable with any kind of
longevity? we'll see.
All 3 could be termed "imitations" of the originals, but my point was that
the original Camaro tried to answer the original Mustang (2 years late) and
the Challenger was a poor-quality rehash of the Camaro that was even LATER
to market. I tend to think that both GM and D-C (aand Ford to some extent)
have taken a rather cynical approach in these cars, playing all the "cues"
that the 50+ crowd remember from the 60's, hoping to find a profitable
replacement for the SUVs that they have relied on for the past few years.
It may just work, but if the "kids" don't take to them, they won't last very
I agree that the Miata styling tends toward bland, but I've had "exciting"
over the years (Austin-Healey, 2 Triumphs) and now I'd rather enjoy the car
from the inside.
NOT available: interior space proportional to the outside size, a properly
engineered top, and trunk space once the top is down.
If you define "cargo" as anything smaller than a loose-leaf notebook, then
the Sky (or Solstice) is your car. But a sportscar that can't hold at least
a soft-side bag for a weekend trip is just a toy ..... and the market for
toy cars isn't large enough to keep these fraternal twins alive for long.
Apples and oranges here my friend.
I guess the market will have the final "wakeup call" on both
Theoretically, the market should last as long as the "boomers" continue
to live, in any significant numbers.
Sorry Chris, I misunderstood your original comments. I agree with what
you say here and I would supplement your comments by suggesting that
the children of white anglosaxon boomers tend to share their parents'
tastes in automobiles to some extent. This admittedly excludes an
increasingly large percentage of the North American population. It is
the aforementioned boomers and their children that will conceivably
determine the fate of the Camaro niche market.
I guess that places my '63 Sting Ray in the "toy" category, but I still
enjoy the exhilaration of the snarling V8. And a couple of overnight
bags are all my wife and I need. We're still apt to drive a thousand or
more miles to a Super Chevy Show or to the Woodward Avenue Cruise. The
Healey and the Triumphs pre-TR7 were always amongst my favourites
Chris. Which Triumphs did you own?
Price-wise, styling-wise and performance wise. The Camaro would
certainly be apples to apples. As is the reincarnated GTO.
Its all in the marketing...todays kids are so stupid and ignorant they will
buy a fresh piece of shit if its wrapped in shiny paper and sprayed down
with perfume. Its all in the marketing ...take for instance rap music which
really isnt music at all but a bunch of ignorant people on stage grabbing
they balls and spewing senseless rhymes acting borderline
retarded...but...look at how its marketed and who its marketed to and how
many people buy it..yep its all in the marketing.
The 'kids' are those from 25-35... while oldsters like the new mustang,
it has to sell to a younger demographic and the Camaro/TA's dropped out
because they forgot to sell a 'base car'. There may be a 'young single
woman buyer' base for the Mustang, that remains to be seen.
But can you imagine that Camaro with a v-6 in it?
They still havent learned the lesson.
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!
The mustang looks like a cheaper version of a 60s mustang. Put it side by
side with a 69 Mustang Mach1 and it pales in comparison. It is a good effort
on Fords part but style wise it will never live up to the golden oldies.
Thats why I dont like retro cars that try to look to much like the originals
which is what Ford tried to do, because it wont stack up. The camaro look a
bit more modern with the a slight body shape retro. The Dodge Charger is
just ugly, and the new Challenger looks like what a 75 Challenger would have
looked like if they made them that year. To close in looks to the original
so I dont like it that much since the original was not the best looker
though not ugly either, just a Barracuda spinoff.
it's a concept. at this stage GM is NOT going to build it for sure.
They are lucky to survive. the camaro was killed by the mustang sales.
they just don't make enough money on it for the amount of cars they'd
sell and the margins on it. Forget it, you won't see it.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.