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

[cc-rider]

Is it just me or do these photos show that the front end does not have that little "chin" (for lack of a better word) that comes out from the bottom of the front end? If you look at the pic of the white car front end, then these pics from side of the black camo car....it looks like its not there?

[radz28]

I agree with you. It just seemed a little awkward to me at first, but I'm over it. The only end that matters is the rear end I'm going to show every other car - the rear end

[cc-rider]

Oh man....I really hope they don't do away with that chin on the front end. I really liked that. Forget the stupid gas cap. that front end was pretty mean looking.

[SoFlaZ]

Originally Posted by TAG UR IT

Now that I look at that center dash thingy, it does look more and more like a speaker....or did I say that already?* lol.I see....Boston Acoustics in our future!* i hope...

Windshield de-fogger? Thats what I think it is.

It could be a speaker too, that would be sweet especially Boston Acoustics.

[sbg]

For "Camero" and all the others who assert that the rear bumper of the preproduction was modified from the concept to meet the 5 mph crash test...

Submitted as further evidence against that claim, two vehicles that do NOT have such an outset and have a smooth, flush back end much like the Camaro concept. There's many more on the road, just look around as you drive.

So, after seeing these pictures, can anyone imagine why the designers went and changed the back end of the conept? We know it's not to meet crash standards since these vehicles I posted had to meet those same standards and kept a smooth back end.

I WANT THE CONCEPT BACK END BACK!!!

I added a picture of the concept and preproduction Camaro for comparison

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by sbg

So, after seeing these pictures, can anyone imagine why the designers went and changed the back end of the conept? We know it's not to meet crash standards since these vehicles I posted had to meet those same standards and kept a smoot back end.

Well...those vehicles you've "submitted" are also much more expensive than the 5thgen is supposed to be, yes? And none of them are Zeta based...so

Actually, we DO know it's for crash standards...because that's what we've been told by those in the know (Scott), and that's our best bet so far because none of us are engineers working on the Camaro, so I assume.

I really do understand that you'd like the concept's rear back...It's gorgeous - but it's not gonna happen. It's too late, and the designers/engineers on the Camaro team DO know what they're doing.

Finally - I'd like to 'submit' some pictures, too. Both of which support the claims of GM's 5mph test....

The first is The Holden Commodore. It's the original Zeta car. Now take a peek at the rear fender. It juts out. (quite a bit - much like many cars today)
BUT, no little 'flare'. So what does this prove? Not much, really...Just that the Zeta cars do require some sort of bumper.

Now, the second picture is the rear end of the Commodore's Twin; the Pontiac G8. Now, besides the uncanny similarities - what can you see? A little fender 'flare'. Pontiac and Chevy are two separate brands with no need to seek similar design cues. So what does this tell us (at least me)? That perhaps GM North America does have their own special 5mph standard. Which would explain the subtle flare.

Finally, take a good look at the pics of the Camaro you just posted up, and compare its rear to the Commodore/G8. Look at how subdued the rear "jut-out" is on the Camaro. I'd say we're darn lucky to get what we got, instead of a bigger bumper like the current Mustangs.(last picture)

All this tells us is that they DID try to keep the concept's bumper...I mean, what reason would they have to change ANYTHING on the concept if they didn't have to. The response to this car was above and beyond anything ever seen before! It was overwhelmingly positive! So to change anything on the show car would be to take a chance on a modification that people may not like.
The show car, btw, wasn't designed with building it in mind, that decision came after the responses they got. So that made the team's job of bringing the concept directly to production even harder.

[DGthe3]

Hmm, well perhaps its because they don't meet the 5 mph impact standard that GM uses? The standard that everyone must meet is 2.5 mph, not 5.

Oh, and just so I don't break tradition with you, you do understand that fancy things cost more than simple things, right? So by making a bumper four times as strong as needed (kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity, so double the speed, quadruple the energy) you end up making it more expensive. And to make a smooth back end is also more expensive than adding a bit to the back. So if the Camaro was to have a bumper that looks the same as those others (ie, not visible) then it would cost far more than they would.

So, one more time, do you care about price or not? It doesn't matter why you don't care, I just want to know because that has a large impact on perspective. I want to buy one. If it costs 40 000 for the base V8 then I can't get one. I feel that I've been kind enough to respond to your questions, but you have yet to extend that courtesy back to me.

[stovt001]

+12 to Dragon and DGthe3. Split them however you see fit.

There have been a number of tests that show the damage caused to each brand's bumper in a small, slow parking lot type incident. The dollar amount has a huge spread between different brands, proving that all bumpers are not created alike. There is a matter of form versus function. Sure it can be done, but possibly at great initial cost and more importantly, at much greater cost later when some loser smacks into your bumper and damages it. I mean, I've seen some beautiful bumpers that sucked so much at actually being a bumper that a little 5 mph smack damaged the headlights and grill as well, requiring thousands of dollars for repair. Hence why I am concerned over the placement of the backup lights. Hopefully GM has found that they are not extra-vulnerable in this location, because I really don't want to deal with replacing them after one minor scrape.

Also, the bumper bulge might also be influenced by real-world packaging concerns (lots of stuff located in the back now) that weren't a factor in making the Camaro.

[acscamarochick06]

Originally Posted by sbg

For "Camero" and all the others who assert that the rear bumper of the preproduction was modified from the concept to meet the 5 mph crash test...

Submitted as further evidence against that claim, two vehicles that do NOT have such an outset and have a smooth, flush back end much like the Camaro concept. There's many more on the road, just look around as you drive.

So, after seeing these pictures, can anyone imagine why the designers went and changed the back end of the conept? We know it's not to meet crash standards since these vehicles I posted had to meet those same standards and kept a smooth back end.

I WANT THE CONCEPT BACK END BACK!!!

I added a picture of the concept and preproduction Camaro for comparison

No offense or anything, but why is the stinkin' bumper such a big deal for you?! The CAMARO is back!!!! Just be thankful!!!

[TAG UR IT]

SBG:

I'm in the same boat w/ you bud. I want the original rear end too. But, it doesn't look like it's going to happen and hopefully you come to the understanding that aftermarket will probably be available.

I honestly don't think you are going to find the answer you are looking for unless it comes straight from a GM employees mouth. We can all assume that the bumper juts out for this reason or that reason...maybe they couldn't extend the entire bumper or it would have made the entire rear end stick out further......Man, there are so many possibilities. We will never know the hard fact of why it sticks out until we get the word from a designer. I don't know if that's going to happen.

The others are right. It's very possible that the rear bumper could have been built flat....at a MUCH higher price which is passed down to all of us. I don't think that's the route GM wants to take.

Sit back, look at the Camaro as a whole, and realize this is a pretty damn good looking car. WE are all pretty lucky. And...no one ever said that was the final style/look. I think I'm finally getting over the initial shock of seeing the changes. It's gong to be ok, ya know? smile...

[Killer CamAro]

why does it look so bad to you anyway?

[Camaro Lives On]

Good question. Why are you getting caught up with the little things? I think it was TAG or Dragoneye (or both) that keep saying over and over again, just be thankful we are getting the Camaro back. So what if there is a little lip at the bottom of the bumper, so what if the gas cap is on the passenger side, at least they are building it, at least they listened to the people on about 97% of the car, at least we are getting the the best thing chevy can build. Be happy we are getting our beloved Camaro back!!

[2001ragtop]

I know why they moved the trunk lid lip here, so it is easier to put stuff in the trunk. Just wanted to mention this change which did take more away from the look of the concept. Not complaining, just informational.
(aaaaaaahhhhhhh leave gm alone )

[cc-rider]

For those feeling bad for GM and concerned that their feelings might get hurt by our comments - lighten up will ya! My god. That's what these forums are for is us to get together to chat and give our opinions. I highly doubt that GM people are hanging on our every word. I know there are a few GMers that hang out here and defend things, but they really don't have to. Forums are popular bitch festivals of which 90% is nit picky stuff like this. But so what....everyone has to have their space to comment and this is ours.

I for one am glad that the camaro is back. And I think they did an excellent job keeping it very close to the concept. But I will respectfully comment at will on things I do and don't like.