Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
JDP Motorsports
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > General Camaro Forums > 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions

5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions General 5th generation Camaro topics not covered by other subforums.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-07-2007, 02:34 PM   #26
EllwynX


 
EllwynX's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro SS
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Southern NJ
Posts: 2,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAG UR IT View Post
Ok. I take back what I said about not at all liking the pic of the back window up. I does not look bad. BUT... I agree about it not helping the lines. The coupe was shown with windows down.

One of the reasons I had heard why GM might make the rear window fixed is because they had a lot of wear on the rubber material at the edge of the window from regular up and down usage. I was told they wanted it to roll down, but couldn't figure out how to prevent the damage to the rubber material. I'm sure w/ a few guys putting their brains together, they could figure it out. And, weight is not increased that much by adding either a motor or handle and the window track. This Camaro is MUCH more appealing w/ the complete open sides.
I actually noticed the extreme wear on the rubber on the back window while at the Philly Auto Show. If they can't reduce that wear, I can see them being fixed.

I'm not against rolldown windows. I actually prefer they roll down. But TTops AND rolldown windows would be even better. LOL
EllwynX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2007, 02:37 AM   #27
TAG UR IT
www.Camaro5store.com
 
TAG UR IT's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 ZL1 #705
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SA, Texas
Posts: 26,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by EllwynX View Post
I actually noticed the extreme wear on the rubber on the back window while at the Philly Auto Show. If they can't reduce that wear, I can see them being fixed.

I'm not against rolldown windows. I actually prefer they roll down. But TTops AND rolldown windows would be even better. LOL
I saw the wear too. It was pretty bad. They didn't want to roll down the windows because it was getting so bad that they didn't want to damage it more. Why not make it a metal edge on front to protect the rubber side which would house the front window track? That way, they metal would house the rubber which is being damaged. Metal might not look so great, but it could be pained black...or even made of a hard plastic material. It would not be damaged at all if it was made of a hard plastic material like on the wifes Kia.

I would love to see electric rear windows. Basically, you roll down the front windows completely and then by continuing to hold down the button, the rear windows begin to roll down. That would work fine by me. Hell...if I have to, I'll pay extra.

HOWEVER, I would not be opposed ONE SINGLE BIT to having a manual roll down rear window.
TAG UR IT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2007, 07:23 AM   #28
Moose
Moderator
 
Moose's Avatar
 
Drives: '99 Camaro SS #1392
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Newtown, Pa.
Posts: 4,015
Giving it more thought, if I had a choice, I'd prefer that the rear window be functional.

But, if it isn't, it's not really a "big deal" to me. I'm more excited over having an AWESOME looking car, and that that car is a Camaro, which not too long ago, was a "thing of the past".

From where I'll be sitting, which is in the drivers seat, I'll be too busy enjoying the car with a HUGE GRIN on my face to be concerned about the rear window.

What's the saying, "Outta sight, outta mind"
Moose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2007, 07:27 AM   #29
35th02ss
 
35th02ss's Avatar
 
Drives: 02 SS
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wallops Island, VA
Posts: 747
Well here is a thought everyone. You forgot about the vert. The rear windows in the vert are going to have to roll down. No question about it.
35th02ss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2007, 07:34 AM   #30
Moose
Moderator
 
Moose's Avatar
 
Drives: '99 Camaro SS #1392
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Newtown, Pa.
Posts: 4,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by 35th02ss View Post
Well here is a thought everyone. You forgot about the vert. The rear windows in the vert are going to have to roll down. No question about it.
GREAT point! hmm..........
Moose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2007, 09:34 AM   #31
2001ragtop

 
2001ragtop's Avatar
 
Drives: V8 american car
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 1,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by 35th02ss View Post
Well here is a thought everyone. You forgot about the vert. The rear windows in the vert are going to have to roll down. No question about it.
I was going to say the same thing.

Also, I am sure people would revolt that for the high price tag, the window doesn't come down.

Last edited by 2001ragtop; 05-08-2007 at 09:47 AM.
2001ragtop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2007, 02:02 PM   #32
TAG UR IT
www.Camaro5store.com
 
TAG UR IT's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 ZL1 #705
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SA, Texas
Posts: 26,302
The rear windows on the convertable will roll down. Convertibles receive a waiver in the crash testing scores. There won't be a problem w/ that. But, the coupe is another story...they want a B-pillar for the crash test rating (which makes absolutely no freaking sense to me seeing as though the vert does not need a rating......it can just crumple like a tin can). This is just kind of a let down for me. I want the full "open air" experience.
TAG UR IT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2007, 05:27 PM   #33
ChevyNut
 
ChevyNut's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 SS Camaro Black on Black
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 316
you could take a hammer and bust it out, however it may be hard to roll it up later. jk I dont care either way i just want one now!!
ChevyNut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2007, 07:47 PM   #34
TAG UR IT
www.Camaro5store.com
 
TAG UR IT's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 ZL1 #705
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SA, Texas
Posts: 26,302
Yeah........thinkin about it.

That back window will most likely be fixed. This SUCKS. I wonder how difficult it would be to fix them to roll down....seriously. Shoot...probably cost a cool grand in body work, fabricating parts, etc.

TAG UR IT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2007, 11:39 PM   #35
gurulu68
 
gurulu68's Avatar
 
Drives: 68 camaro rs
Join Date: May 2007
Location: nj
Posts: 54
Hi guys, I've been visiting this site for a while and I finally had a comment to add. On the case of the rear windows working on the coupe, I would say they probably are going to work because they are going to work on the convertable. And GM is not going to stamp 2 completely different quarter panels for the coupe and conv., when they can slightly modify the stamping machine to put out both quarters. At least thats what I think.
gurulu68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2007, 07:44 PM   #36
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Camaro 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 25,787
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
Makes sense - money is every thing...but remember They will be building this thing on a flex line...from what I've read, one of the best in the world...there are others but this one's up there. Anyways it will give them more variation power.
__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Before You Post.
SIGN UP for 2014 Camaro5 HPDE @ Gingerman Raceway!
Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2007, 11:47 PM   #37
TAG UR IT
www.Camaro5store.com
 
TAG UR IT's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 ZL1 #705
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SA, Texas
Posts: 26,302
This is pretty tough for me to say, but I have a very STRONG feeling the coupe w/ have fixed rear windows and the vert will have functional windows.... This is due to safety crash test standards. And I think we'll get a clean look at solid 2 piece glass minus a B-pillar from the outside, while having a B-pillar in place....if you follow.
TAG UR IT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2007, 07:25 AM   #38
Silverado
GM Guy For Life
 
Drives: 2010 GMC Yukon XL
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 1,021
Tag, I kind of think you're right. Now, that setup would be fine by me if they use it to their advantage and put t-tops in the thing....I'd be just fine with the fixed rear quarter window if they give it t-tops.
Silverado is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2007, 12:26 PM   #39
Al Robinson
RACKM
 
Drives: 2001 Mazda MilleniaS
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Virginia Beach, Va.
Posts: 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAG UR IT View Post
This is pretty tough for me to say, but I have a very STRONG feeling the coupe w/ have fixed rear windows and the vert will have functional windows.... This is due to safety crash test standards. And I think we'll get a clean look at solid 2 piece glass minus a B-pillar from the outside, while having a B-pillar in place....if you follow.
You seem to have some pretty good inside info..you lucky devil. However why is it that the Mercedes CLK 500 AND the CLS 550 have a both front and rear roll down windows and present a true coupe and still retain the crash test ratings that they do? The structural support in the case of the CLS 550 between the front and rear doors below the beltline is just that a structural support, not a "B" pillar. If I remember my automotive terminology, the "B" pillar is the one that separates the front window from the back above the beltline. Any coupe that has both front and rear windows that roll down does not have a "B" pillar.
Al Robinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2007, 01:43 PM   #40
Silverado
GM Guy For Life
 
Drives: 2010 GMC Yukon XL
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 1,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Robinson View Post
You seem to have some pretty good inside info..you lucky devil. However why is it that the Mercedes CLK 500 AND the CLS 550 have a both front and rear roll down windows and present a true coupe and still retain the crash test ratings that they do? The structural support in the case of the CLS 550 between the front and rear doors below the beltline is just that a structural support, not a "B" pillar. If I remember my automotive terminology, the "B" pillar is the one that separates the front window from the back above the beltline. Any coupe that has both front and rear windows that roll down does not have a "B" pillar.
But, you're talking about a 50K car (or more) too....they can afford to put a little more in structural rigidity below the beltline and around the passenger compartment when they don't care about things like cost, weight, or even performance (although I know both of those cars perform pretty well). When you're trying to put out a performance/muscle car that needs to perform well, weigh in at a reasonable weight (unlike the Stangs) and cost a reasonable amount (in order price them to sell while still making a profit), you have to worry about those kinds of things.

I agree with Tag, I don't think the coupe's rear windows will roll down. I think there will be a B-pillar, probably covered by glass/black plastic to hide it and that will be it. The convertible's rear windows will roll down (hopefully automatically so you don't see some jackass driving with the top and front windows down, but the back windows up...I hate that....).

And, again, if they have to have to have the B-pillar for structural/crash test ratings, then for the love of God, please put T-tops in the thing.

So far GM, you're doing this right....don't screw it up and not take it all the way....give us those t-tops as an option.
Silverado is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2007, 10:32 PM   #41
MerF
Go Rays!
 
MerF's Avatar
 
Drives: 03 Trailblazer
Join Date: May 2007
Location: St Pete, Florida
Posts: 2,537
Doh.

Started to post, did some research and luckily stopped myself before sounding too stupid.

However, I can still comment that it bothers me that with all the technological breakthroughs since 1969, somehow GM hasn't figured out how to combat the problem with making it so a window seal doesn't breakdown quickly under normal use?
MerF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2007, 01:29 AM   #42
AFSNightrod
Back in Black
 
AFSNightrod's Avatar
 
Drives: 2005 Cadillac CTS-V
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Newport News, VA
Posts: 326
Send a message via AIM to AFSNightrod Send a message via Yahoo to AFSNightrod
Personally I think the big issue is the weight savings of a B-pillar. A true hardtop car weighs 100-200lbs more due to the extra bracing needed in the roof and chassis. I'm sure they are having enough trouble keeping the weight down on the thing without sacrificing reliability. Personally I'll take a B-pillar. I don't want a 3700lb Camaro. If it doesn't break 12 seconds in the 1/4 with a Motor Trend or Car and Driver staffer babying it down the track, I'm keeping my loaded 3480lb TA. I'm sure this won't be the case tough.
AFSNightrod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2007, 04:32 PM   #43
MerF
Go Rays!
 
MerF's Avatar
 
Drives: 03 Trailblazer
Join Date: May 2007
Location: St Pete, Florida
Posts: 2,537
That extra weight is causing a major dilemma with me, but in terms of the convertible over whatever design they decide on with the coupe.

Is there a chop of what a supposed B-pillar would look like in the concept coupe? Just to get an idea of just how bad it may or may not affect the lines?

I totally agree with AFSN though...I'll take a B-pillar with a 5-star rating and less weight (not to mention the obvious support this offers the chassis for handling) over a heavier, sloppier car with cleaner lines.

Verdict: The vert will be sacrficing performance for style. Let the coupe sacrifice a BIT of style for a possibly significant amount of performance.
MerF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2007, 09:29 PM   #44
gurulu68
 
gurulu68's Avatar
 
Drives: 68 camaro rs
Join Date: May 2007
Location: nj
Posts: 54
Why are you guys so worried about the wieght of the extra sheet metal that would go between the bottom of the quarter glass and the top? I'm an autobody frame tech, and I know how much an average b pillar wieghs and the area your talking about is 4 to six pieces only about a foot long each that couldn't weigh more than 5 pounds all together. If it concerns you that much, just rip out the entire interior and put in a milk crate so you can sit high enough to look out the windshield! hahaha... just kidding. Personally I prefer it to be like my 68 (with no post) It would just look better that way. Besides most of us are buying the car to get around and look good while doing it, not race it every chance we get.
__________________
gurulu68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2007, 09:53 PM   #45
gurulu68
 
gurulu68's Avatar
 
Drives: 68 camaro rs
Join Date: May 2007
Location: nj
Posts: 54
You know, I was just looking at the side view of the camaro and I don't think there is that much of a gap between the front of the quarter glass and the back of it make much of a difference in a head on impact. You probably don't need a b pillar. Auto makers are starting to use this new metal called boron steel for areas like b pillars and rocker panels and roof rails. It is very light and incredably strong, you couldn't bend it with a sledge hammer , I know I've tired! and you need a special drillbit to drill a hole into it. I'm sure the designers thought about it when they designed it anyway.
__________________
gurulu68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2007, 02:48 AM   #46
theonlyoneleft
 
theonlyoneleft's Avatar
 
Drives: 1995 Camaro
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Naperville, IL
Posts: 33
Send a message via AIM to theonlyoneleft
Quote:
Originally Posted by gurulu68 View Post
Hi guys, I've been visiting this site for a while and I finally had a comment to add. On the case of the rear windows working on the coupe, I would say they probably are going to work because they are going to work on the convertable. And GM is not going to stamp 2 completely different quarter panels for the coupe and conv., when they can slightly modify the stamping machine to put out both quarters. At least thats what I think.
They'll probably have to stamp 2 different quarter panels anyways. Turing a coupe into a vert takes a lot more than just chopping the top off... I remember reading somewhere that while it may not look like it, the concept vert actually has a little bit different of a shape to it so that it could actually be a functioning convertible.

The rear window will probably be fixed unfortunately.
theonlyoneleft is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2007, 07:06 AM   #47
Al Robinson
RACKM
 
Drives: 2001 Mazda MilleniaS
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Virginia Beach, Va.
Posts: 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by gurulu68 View Post
You know, I was just looking at the side view of the camaro and I don't think there is that much of a gap between the front of the quarter glass and the back of it make much of a difference in a head on impact. You probably don't need a b pillar. Auto makers are starting to use this new metal called boron steel for areas like b pillars and rocker panels and roof rails. It is very light and incredably strong, you couldn't bend it with a sledge hammer , I know I've tired! and you need a special drillbit to drill a hole into it. I'm sure the designers thought about it when they designed it anyway.
I agree with you. We have the technology and the materials. They can build it without a "B" pillar and have the windows go down just like the convertible. It's not that hard and the weight is not that much. How much will a set of 21's or 22 inch wheels weigh that some will put on their cars? Down with the rear window.
Al Robinson is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Exclusive: Q&A with the Fbodfather (from 8/8/06) KILLER74Z28 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 19 03-27-2009 11:08 AM
windows vista!!!! jbynum69 Off-topic Discussions 13 02-22-2007 07:14 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.