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 dramatically updated.
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 Miata.
"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 differential."
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 long
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.
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.
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.
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.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.