First 2011 Camaro Convertible Road Trip

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Hopefully the coupe/sedan will be unveiled at Detroit. We'll get a much better look then at the car...then someone can hack a roof off.

I hope it isn't. It's too early. I'd rather not let BMW and Mercedes know what they'll be up against in a few years.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

I hope it isn't. It's too early. I'd rather not let BMW and Mercedes know what they'll be up against in a few years.

I read that it was supposed to be unveiled at the LA show. So I just assumed they pushed it back a little. I know they've already announced plans to refit the plant for a new 'small Cadillac', which should take maximum of a year if the overhaul of Oshawa is any indicator. Which makes for about a ~2012 debut.

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

I read that it was supposed to be unveiled at the LA show. So I just assumed they pushed it back a little. I know they've already announced plans to refit the plant for a new 'small Cadillac', which should take maximum of a year if the overhaul of Oshawa is any indicator. Which makes for about a ~2012 debut.

Oshawa is retooling to produce the XTS, not ATS. ATS is being built at Lansing Grand River. XTS is geared for launch either late next year or in 2012. ATS won't be around until 2014ish.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Oshawa is retooling to produce the XTS, not ATS. ATS is being built at Lansing Grand River. XTS is geared for launch either late next year or in 2012. ATS won't be around until 2014ish.

No, I'm sorry...I was using the overhaul for the Camaro as a time-table estimate for the retooling that's announced will be occurring at Lansing for the ATS. I didn't make that statement clear enough. It would put the plant ready-to-go by early 2012 at the lastest.

[Jake]

v

[RAWarrior]

3, Does the rear seat still fold down? I thought I saw a latch in one of the pics but I wasn't sure. Thanks for all the reconnoissance for us lol!!!

[2001ragtop]

Put those back windows that roll down on the normal Camaro please.

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

And video of the top...

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by 2001ragtop

Put those back windows that roll down on the normal Camaro please.

I'm 99% certain they tried. After all, the original concept had them like that too. But the added cost/weight to do a true hardtop like the 60s and still get meet rollover standards was against them.

Did you know modern vehicle roofs have to be able to hold 2.5x the vehicle's weight?

[Jake]

For those who responded to my post suggesting that people would not want a $70,000 to $100,000 Camaro, that is NOT what I meant or suggested.

Before I try to share exactly what I meant, I want to say I think the Convertible Camaro is the best looking car I have ever seen. I am madly in love with it, but I think there are some important details that have been overlooked that should be addressed AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

Once again, I am NOT saying Chevy should charge $70,000 to $100,000 for the Camaro Convertible.

I am saying with the Camaro Convertible Chevy should absolutely build-in a powered tonneau cover like the BMW 650 has in the video below. Doing so could not add more than $1000 to the retail price of the car, and it would make the car look a zillion times better with the top down.

I realize Chevy offers an additional manual tonneau cover for $150 that you have to keep in the trunk when you are not using it, and this is absolutely absurd!!!

The whole point of a power convertible top is that you can press a button and the top goes up or down. If I have to put the top down, then get out of the car, open the trunk, pull out the tonneau cover, put it in place that is absurd and defeats the purpose of having a power top.

Conversely if in order to put the top up, I have to pull over and park the car, get out of the car, manually remove the tonneau top, open and put it in the trunk, get back in the car, then press a button to put up the top, it is absurd.

I know some people say, but you don't need to use a tonneau top. I realize that, but not having one make the Camaro Convertible, which is the best looking car ever made, look like it is half-baked.

Another missing feature is a color screen for Navigation and controls. Even the Ford Mustang offers this.

If I purchase a top of the line Camaro Convertible for sticker price and ad on sales tax and license, it costs $50,000. If I pay the $5,000 above sticker premium my local dealer wants, it will cost me $55,000.

What I want to know is how does a car that costs $50,000 not have climate control!?!?!?!?!?! Even a $21,000 VW has climate control...

What I am saying, Chevy, is charge me $3000 more, and ad the built-in tonneau cover, climate control and GPS Navigation, and triple the length of the front sun visors so they actually do something.

Just to be CRYSTAL CLEAR, I AM saying Chevy should charge 5% to 10% more for the convertible, and if they added these simple details, this car would really compete with cars like the all-new BMW 650i 2011 Convertible seen with a built-in tonneau cover seen in the video below.

Anybody who thinks American's can't compete with the German's, has to look no further than Apple Computers. If American's can design the best computers, they should certainly be designing the best cars. IF I recall correctly, it was America that put a man on the moon, but Chevy can't put a tonneau cover on the Convertible Camaro!?!?!?!?! Actually, now that I think about it, it was the German's that put the American's on the moon ;-) You know, Wernher von Braun...




I wan't to know why the Camaro Convertible can't have a built-in tonneau cover like seen in the video below, when I have to pay $50,000 for the Camaro Convertible? I think the American auto industry needs to stop making excuses, and start making cars that have excellent design detail...

[Milk 1027]

Sorry Jake, but I think you have a gross misunderstanding of what it takes to build a production ready vehicle. Your "simple" change would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. I think they did a good job without going over the top and making prices rediculously high.
It looks like a great finished car, and adding a built in tonneau cover will raise prices to a point where it would sell less. They don't need a luxury type vehicle right now, they need a great looking and performing car that is affordable.
These types of additions are best left for Cadillac or even Buick.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Jake

I want to say I think the Convertible Camaro is the best looking car I have ever seen. I am madly in love with it,

Dually noted.

Originally Posted by Jake

What I want to know is how does a car that cost $50,000 not have climate control!?!?!?!?!?!

Even the Ford Mustang offers this.

Because you can also get one for as inexpensive as $23,000. And that option in the Mustang is a rarely-checked box, it adds over $2000 to the price of the car.

Besides the very obvious question of what "climate" are you controlling inside a small enclosed box that is a car's interior...I would simply say that the Camaro team is not stupid. If climate control was really an in-demand option for this segment, they would have offered it. But it is not. And they did not, in order to keep development costs down for the other 95% of us.

Originally Posted by Jake

What I am saying, Chevy is charge me $3000 more, and ad the built-in tonneau cover, climate control and GPS Navigation, and triple the length of the front sun visors so they actually do something.

I'm glad you're willing to pay for it. You're clearly a guy who knows what he wants, and what it's worth to him.

Here's the problem with that demand -- $3000 is a lot of money. And with the Mustang's convertible top only a $5000 premium over the coupe, people will have to make a choice, and presumable go with the 1000x more refined Camaro convertible. If it were now an $8000 option....people will NOT, guaranteed, buy a Camaro convertible over a Mustang.\

As for the sun visors, they were done that way for safety standards. Apparently test dummies tended to get decapitated if the visors were any larger. On top of that, the view out front is already horizontally narrow...larger visors would obstruct way too much visible glass to actually use. Like it or hate it, that's what it is. I recommended sunglasses.

Originally Posted by Jake

Just to be CRYSTAL CLEAR, I am saying Chevy should charge 5% to 10% more for the convertible, and if they added these simple details, this car would really compete with cars like the all-new BMW 650i 2011 Convertible seen with a built-in tonneau cover seen in the video below.

The Camaro will NEVER.....EVER....compete against any BMW. That is Cadillac's job. A few people may cross shop the convertibles, but if they are considering a 650...chances are the Camaro wasn't really a serious choice outside of the fact it has a 'Vert option.

Originally Posted by Jake

I wan't to know why the Camaro Convertible can't have a built-in tonneau cover like seen in the video below, when I have to pay $50,000 for it? I think the American auto industry needs to stop making excuses, and start making cars that have excellent design detail...

I'm going to assume that you aren't in the Auto Industry...let alone any consumer-product engineering field. There are hundreds if not thousands of considerations to make when designing a car. And you can't overlook any of them or risk not meeting some standard, or loosing ground to a competitor.

You also need to know your target market. And trust me...they know their market better than any development team on the planet, I'd bet. You are what's called an 'outlier'. Which is not a bad thing at all...it simply means that you're desires generally lie outside the spectrum of most Camaro buyers. This is the primary driver behind cost. And cost is one of the biggest reasons they didn't do what you're lambasting them for.

Finally...you saw, I assume, all the time and thought that went into the stiffening of the chassis to compensate totally for the chopped-off roof? Do you think those same people would make such awful mistakes and excuses that you're accusing them of? Do you even know if the body frame can accommodate a power tonneau cover with the pass-through rear seat? Do you know how much weight it would add? Do you know how much trunk space that would take up if they incorporated it? We've already talked about cost....

I understand exactly where you're coming from. It's just that things don't work that way. Something you might think would be an easy thing to do....usually is far and away more complex that we can imagine. I've only just brushed the surface of the reasons why...I'm sure an engineer on the project could talk your ear off all day on the specifics.

[FenwickHockey65]

Just to be CRYSTAL CLEAR, I AM saying Chevy should charge 5% to 10% more for the convertible, and if they added these simple details, this car would really compete with cars like the all-new BMW 650i 2011 Convertible seen with a built-in tonneau cover seen in the video below.

A Camaro competing with a 650i?

Yeah. Not happening. I don't care if there is a fancy cover to the convertible top.

Like I said, if you want something to compete with the 650i, wait for the ATS Convertible or see if GM will do a CTS Convertible when it moves to Alpha.

[pony]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

A Camaro competing with a 650i?

Yeah. Not happening. I don't care if there is a fancy cover to the convertible top.

So let it compete with the Series 3...
Agreed, there is ALOT that goes into the engineering of these tops, and both operate differently in how the rear "seals" especially for the BMW to allow the auto hard boot. However, I'm guessing because of the "cut lines" on both cars, the entire roof assembly just drops in to the body. Eventually, maybe this will be looked at again by GM engineers. It would be very interesting to see what the engineering cost OR manufacturing cost difference is for just this aspect. Maybe we ARE disillusioned to the costs.

I tend to agree with Jake on one point, that because of the way spy shots and initial photos LOOKED...people were expecting GM to "hit this top out of the park" and have a hard boot like the BMW 3 series. (you gotta admit the top storage cover and body cuts look very similar on both)

With that said, will it keep me from ordering my convertible? NO.
Would I have paid $1000 more for just this option? YES
Do I realize the BMW 3 is roughly $53K YES
Do I love everything else GM has done with the convertible...HELL YES

[FenwickHockey65]

There's a reason we have a brand structure in place. If Chevrolet decides to build a car that competes with the 3-series then what's the point of Cadillac?

It's easy for all of you to say, "Oh, why can't GM just design this cover, it would only cost us a few thousand more, BMW does it so why can't GM?" What both of you are missing is that BMW could not care less how much it costs to engineer a part because their customers are accustomed to paying a lot for a car which pays for that engineering. GM, on the other hand, has to worry about that problem, especially with the Chevrolet brand.

The bottom line is that no Camaro competes with any BMWs. That isn't the point of the car. Having seen the car in person, it looks fine without a cover.