2 more 2009 Camaro spy pics - fuel door location shown! (+ front headlights closeup)

[Silverado]

Just out of curiosity....

Why can't the reverse lights be put in the space between the taillights? I think this would acheive the same thing that the concept did by "hiding" them....they would stand out very little, still be high enough to be legal, less likely to be broken in a parking lot bumper to bumper accident, and the wiring is all right behind that panel anyway.

Just and idea.

[Eisenhower]

Originally Posted by camero

Yeah he's the Manager for Chevrolet/Hummer Shows and Exhibits!

Everyone know's that... That's easy to surmise even if you never register with camaro5, just by reading the posts.

Originally Posted by camero

I was sure the gas cap thing would have removed all doubt! Why is it even hard to believe that someone that worked on the design team for 3 years would be interested in what people that love it and want to buy it would say about it.

Because nobody even knows your real name. Your opinions up to this point may only be conjecture. -Introduce yourself.

[Georgianne]

"an engine and some hoses and a belt ................"

No chains huh?

I still think you should consider my suggestion on the weight issue and take some weight by removing that heavy metal where the "faux" airvents are at the back tires.

[Jak]

Not funny ................. well okey, yeah it was. But you know I had to ask. :tweetz:

Originally Posted by fbodfather

oh...............all right........................


..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.but it has to remain atwixt us............

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

an engine and some hoses and a belt ................

[Jak]

Damn, now that's a hot looking car.

Originally Posted by Fbodybuddy

After downloading the pictures and taking a close up view, it really doesn't look that bad after all. And I see the suggestion about the roof C pillar being too large and changing the location of the filler cap. The fenders are a little less squared at the top and makes less room for the gas cap, too. If that allows for more interior space, then it is well worth it. I hope they still can find a way to change the headlight layout if quads are the final idea. I think I could live with quads if it looked more like the setup on a 67.

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/attach...1&d=1202103592

maybe better?????

Thank you sir, that will be a "Z" for me!!!!!!

[Wiess]

Who cares! Its finally coming together! Still there might be some last minute changes?!?!

Talking about gas cap. Just because im so far behind.

[bouncertime]

I actually prefer the gas cap on the passenger side. It will be easier to find a pump, most of the stations here in Socal require everyone to enter on the same side.

As for the brakes, I think they are bigger than they look in the picture. If you consider that those wheels look like 20's and remember, they are trying to keep the cost down. We can always upgrade to bigger vented brakes later, I know I will.

[Mr. Wyndham]

heehee. Thank you Scott!!!!
That was excellent.

[brasscorpion]

1st post here on the forum.

I owned a 69 z28 when I was 18 so this "retro" look is really a dream come true for me. New EFI technology with horsepower in a RETRO body...especially one that is dear to my heart from my high school days. When Ford did it I new it was just a matter of time for Chevy. I also owned a Cuda...so Dodge and their retro car is also pretty cool.

I must say...I am slightly disturbed and I have been noticing something as these photos keep popping up. Gas cap location and small things are starting to bother me.

It seems as though the body styling and aggressive nature of the concept is being "SMOOTHED" out and blended way too much.

In the 1st rear picture depicting the back fender area. It looks to be rolled smooth from the top of the wheel well to the top of the fender line as compared to the prototype. I was looking for more of a "drag" or "pro street" looking fender well. A back fender, that when you look at it "you know it can handle some meaty wrinkle wall slicks".

This seems to be kind of "grandma-ized". My opinion. Do any of you see it???

You all know what I am talking about when I say "Pro Street" right?

Brass

[sbg]

Originally Posted by Silverado

Just out of curiosity....

Why can't the reverse lights be put in the space between the taillights? I think this would acheive the same thing that the concept did by "hiding" them....they would stand out very little, still be high enough to be legal, less likely to be broken in a parking lot bumper to bumper accident, and the wiring is all right behind that panel anyway.

Just and idea.

Thanks for posting a picture of the concept back end. It's beautiful!

OK, now look at the back end of the concept and tell me, do you really think the preproduction looks better? No possible way!

I don't get camero's reasons for changing the bumper. The Audi TT and Corvette both have flush rear ends. The concept Camaro does and it looks awesome.

I still can't believe they messed it up like that.

The brake lights could have been put any where but where they are in the preproduction. As camero said, it's was a screw up. So much for praising GM who admits they screwed up on something as basic as backup lights.

I would have considered buying the concept Camaro, but for them to have messed it up like this makes me change my mind.

I am still going to wait and see what the final production vehicle looks like, but as of right now I'm so disappointed in GM for changing the back.

[sbg]

Originally Posted by brasscorpion

1st post here on the forum.

I owned a 69 z28 when I was 18 so this "retro" look is really a dream come true for me. New EFI technology with horsepower in a RETRO body...especially one that is dear to my heart from my high school days. When Ford did it I new it was just a matter of time for Chevy. I also owned a Cuda...so Dodge and their retro car is also pretty cool.

I must say...I am slightly disturbed and I have been noticing something as these photos keep popping up. Gas cap location and small things are starting to bother me.

It seems as though the body styling and aggressive nature of the concept is being "SMOOTHED" out and blended way too much.

In the 1st rear picture depicting the back fender area. It looks to be rolled smooth from the top of the wheel well to the top of the fender line as compared to the prototype. I was looking for more of a "drag" or "pro street" looking fender well. A back fender, that when you look at it "you know it can handle some meaty wrinkle wall slicks".

This seems to be kind of "grandma-ized". My opinion. Do any of you see it???

You all know what I am talking about when I say "Pro Street" right?

Brass

YES, YES AND YES!

I've made many posts pointing out the same thing. You are 100% correct...the concept which looked mean and wide no longer looks that way in these preproduction photos.

"grandma-ized" is right.

It's looking more like any other production vehicle. Very disappointing!

[The_Stache]

Originally Posted by sbg

Thanks for posting a picture of the concept back end. It's beautiful!

OK, now look at the back end of the concept and tell me, do you really think the preproduction looks better? No possible way!

Completely subjective, 90% of consumers arn't gong to notice a difference.

I don't get camero's reasons for changing the bumper. The Audi TT and Corvette both have flush rear ends. The concept Camaro does and it looks awesome.

Its been explained numorous times, if it hasn't sunk in it never will.

I still can't believe they messed it up like that.

The brake lights could have been put any where but where they are in the preproduction. As camero said, it's was a screw up. So much for praising GM who admits they screwed up on something as basic as backup lights.

Where did camero admit they screwed up? And while I'm not all gung ho for the backup lights, they are more than passable and they are a throwback to the older models as has been shown

I would have considered buying the concept Camaro, but for them to have messed it up like this makes me change my mind.

I am still going to wait and see what the final production vehicle looks like, but as of right now I'm so disappointed in GM for changing the back.

Be disappointed, I'm not going to lose sleep over it until I see, sit, and Drive the production model. Until then, I just sit back and shake my head at all the SPECULATION

read above...

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by sbg

The brake lights could have been put any where but where they are in the preproduction. As camero said, it's was a screw up. So much for praising GM who admits they screwed up on something as basic as backup lights.

I'm pretty sure he was speaking about putting the concepts lights down there by the bumpers - that was a mistake. I could be wrong...but I don't think I am.

And beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To say they "screwed up" the rear is the purest example of what an opinion is. As you can see there are many here, me included , who happen to think that the prototype's rear is better looking than the concept's. So...don't say there's "No possible way". There is.

I get that you're....upset. But the fact is that what's done is done. Effort would be better spent trying to warm up to the production rear-end, rather than insult it and the team that created it. Don'tcha think?

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by sbg

I would have considered buying the concept Camaro, but for them to have messed it up like this makes me change my mind.

Write a cheque for $2 million to GM and ask them nicely and they might just give you a reproduction of the Concept (but dont hold your breath waiting). Thats how much that car cost them. A bowtie emblem on the concept costs about as much as the real Camaro will cost next year.