Preproduction Rear Photo Indicates Complete Redesign?

[The_Stache]

Originally Posted by Pencil.Fight

This is an argument that has been used by many people (including myself) to explain the changes to the Camaro. However, the logic really doesn't hold up. The reason the Concept cost $2 million is not because it's really expensive to not have reverse lights, to not have the rear bumper stick out, to add on a spoiler, to have halo headlights, etc. It cost $2 million because it was built all by hand without (m)any factory made parts. If they were to mass produce the Camaro exactly like the concept it would not be a $2 million car to the consumers. It would, however, be much more expensive than most Camaro buyers would be willing to pay, mostly due to interior expenses.

To a degree your right pencil, BUT did you know that the bowtie on the concept is 24k gold? and costed gm in the neighborhood of $20,000.00? Did you know that the frame was a custom off of the CTS subframe? Sure you can produce something that is EXACT and it wont cost 2 million. But I would bet money that it would cost well over 100,000.00. Great now we have a car that will sell only about 10k units a year due to cost.

If you want a car that is priced under 30k you have to make design changes to fit mass production. Plain and simple.

[JamesJ]

anybody else think the side marker lights should have been kept like the concept's, course could be just for this car

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by diarmadhi

To a degree your right pencil, BUT did you know that the bowtie on the concept is 24k gold? and costed gm in the neighborhood of $20,000.00? Did you know that the frame was a custom off of the CTS subframe?

You forgot the insane amount of Billet Aluminum all over that car.

Originally Posted by JamesJ

anybody else think the side marker lights should have been kept like the concept's, course could be just for this car

they were made bigger because of Gov't regs. You have to be able to see them from so far away, or something to that nature. the concept's were to skinny.

[JamesJ]

yea but i liked the skinny ones better

[sbg]

Alright, so there is agreement that the design of the back was modified, including the tail lights. Some might like it, although most seem to like the concept version better.

I not only like the back end of the concept better, but also the small side marker lights. I do, though, understand why those were changed, to meet standards. That makes some sense. To add the outset portion to the back end and to modify other things like the size of the rear lights doesn't make sense. Some have speculated it's because they had to meet crash standards, blah, blah...have you seen an Audi TT? That back end has NO outset. It can be done and should be done with this car.

To Dragoneye:

You said:
Your stressing over nothing. Because - I can tell you right now, I think subconciously, your mind wants to see something "drastically" different in the rear end, where there isn't.

My response:
Are you clairvoyant? Since you have this mind reading power, how about telling me why my subconscious would want to see that?

You said:
I think the light size/depth of the prototype is the same as the concepts. I merely said that the lights/lenses themselves, don't look to be production lights, that they're 'placeholders'.

My response:
I guess those clairvoyant powers have affected your vision. If you compare the two photos provided, imagine taking a small ruler and measuring from the surface of the red, plastic light covers outward to the edge of the bumper. Do that in your mind with both pictures, and you'll then notice a setback of the lights on the white photo, hence proving my observation that the white car's lights have been recessed more.

Your suggestion that the lights are temporary has nothing to do with the amount of recess and width and length.

Originally Posted by diarmadhi

If your that worried about it.. you might want to look else where, becuase what we have seen so far i gaurantee wont be the only changes you will have to live with.

Personally I have never seen a car company stick so close to the actual concept as they have done with this camaro.

What, do you own millions in GM stock? You guys act like this was your mom I was talking about.

You are right, they've stuck very close to the concept, and good for them! You are arguing my point though, that all carmakers can stick close to the concept but make hair brain ideas for who knows what reason.

I think the change of this rear end is one of those hair brain ideas. You could choose to admit that and still like the car. Heck, I may still buy one, but I'm amazed at how some of you can't even admit things you don't like about the changes. Seems it's an all or nothin' with you folks.

[GothamCamaro]

I like the rear on the production though I love the concept rear. It's close enough but if someone speculated that the silver concept rear could be for the V8 and the white for the V6, that's fine... I'm getting the V8 anyway.

It's still way early. I want this year to fly but it's dragging...

GC

[GTAHVIT]

sbg,

I think the point that you might be missing from some of us is that we all agree it is noticeably different from the concept. From this point we are arguing "how different". Quite a few of us don't think it is different enough to take away from the beauty of the car. If you think it's drastic then so be it. We just don't all agree. But, for you to insinuate that it's all or nothing with us is wrong. There are plenty of critical posts in response to the preproduction car photos here.

Fact: None of us know if this is a V6, V8, why they changed what they changed or if it will stay this way. Lots of educated guessing. Take it with a grain of salt. I don't think GM made any (hair brain) decisions with out very careful consideration.

Where the Camaro is concerned, there are more questions to be answered than have been at this point. Looking forward to learning more.

[Sweeper]

Originally Posted by 2001ragtop

Top photo: Camaro V6
Bottom photo: Camaro V8

case closed

I like the production model rear bumper better than the concept.

The production model needs BIGGER rims and a slight drop in ride height.

[Pencil.Fight]

Originally Posted by sbg

What, do you own millions in GM stock? You guys act like this was your mom I was talking about.

You are right, they've stuck very close to the concept, and good for them! You are arguing my point though, that all carmakers can stick close to the concept but make hair brain ideas for who knows what reason.

I think the change of this rear end is one of those hair brain ideas. You could choose to admit that and still like the car. Heck, I may still buy one, but I'm amazed at how some of you can't even admit things you don't like about the changes. Seems it's an all or nothin' with you folks.

I think a large portion of us have expressed opinions on aspects of the prototype that we would like to see done differently. The difference is that we express our views in a constructive and thoughtful manner. Making a list of complaints and getting angry with anyone who disagrees with you is quite counterproductive in my opinion.

Also, I'm going to have to agree with Dragoneye, I don't see a difference in the inset of the rear lights. What you may be seeing is that the entire bumper below the lights is extended out more in the prototype than it is in the concept. This could give an illusion that the lights are set further into the rear than they are. Could just be clairvoyance clouding my vision though.

[Mr. Wyndham]

...response in a few, I'm busy reading minds. Oh, and photoshopping - getting me as damn near close as I can to those rear lamps to get the coloring perfect. So - no, I have no basis to my arguments.


haummmmmmm...............haummmmmmmmm........vraaa ooommmmmmm

[sbg]

To Pencil.Fight:

You said:
The difference is that we express our views in a constructive and thoughtful manner. Making a list of complaints and getting angry with anyone who disagrees with you is quite counterproductive in my opinion.

My response:
Do you think that this first response to me my the site moderator, Dragoneye is "constructive", and "thoughtful"? Does his response sound a bit "angry", as you've accused of me?

Dragoneye said:
Your stressing over nothing. Because - I can tell you right now, I think subconciously, your mind wants to see something "drastically" different in the rear end, where there isn't.

Seriously, can you imagine being told that something you pointed out in a sincere fashion was simply because your subconscious wanted to see it? I find that to be demeaning...do you?

All I'll ask of you is that if you think I was not being "constructive" and that I was getting "angry", please be consistent and admit that Dragoneye did the same thing, and in this case, threw the first punch. I simply responded in kind.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by 2001ragtop

Top photo: Camaro V6
Bottom photo: Camaro V8

case closed

Actually, the top one is a preproduction prototype and the bottom is a concept. There's no reason to put that nice of a paint job on a prototype. Both could have V8 motors. We don't really know unless we pop the hood. Also, look at the wheels. There is no way that Chevrolet will really sell us a car that comes with 21" fronts and 22" rears. I don't know the largest stock (non-option) wheels GM has ever sold, but I can guarantee you that no Camaro will come off the assembly line bearing wheels that big. The white car has 17" or 18" wheels. Expect to see that make production.

[The_Stache]

What, do you own millions in GM stock? You guys act like this was your mom I was talking about.

You are right, they've stuck very close to the concept, and good for them! You are arguing my point though, that all carmakers can stick close to the concept but make hair brain ideas for who knows what reason.

I think the change of this rear end is one of those hair brain ideas. You could choose to admit that and still like the car. Heck, I may still buy one, but I'm amazed at how some of you can't even admit things you don't like about the changes. Seems it's an all or nothin' with you folks.

Its not hair brained and done for nothing.. its already basicaly been declared becuase it has to meet 5mph bumper regs. Yes they could have extended the rear of the vehicle another 1/2inch to inch.. but that would mean more weight and a longer rear deck. More for the masses to complain about. So instead its just a small inset instead of a whole bodypanel/rear end makeover.

Everything done is for an engineering reason or production reason. Nothing is done "just for the hell of it".

And my comments about like it or not.. its basically stating that if some this SMALL is all there is to debate or complain about then we have a MAJOR hit on our hands OR this car is not for you.

[Pencil.Fight]

Originally Posted by sbg

To Pencil.Fight:

You said:
The difference is that we express our views in a constructive and thoughtful manner. Making a list of complaints and getting angry with anyone who disagrees with you is quite counterproductive in my opinion.

My response:
Do you think that this first response to me my the site moderator, Dragoneye is "constructive", and "thoughtful"? Does his response sound a bit "angry", as you've accused of me?

Dragoneye said:
Your stressing over nothing. Because - I can tell you right now, I think subconciously, your mind wants to see something "drastically" different in the rear end, where there isn't.

Seriously, can you imagine being told that something you pointed out in a sincere fashion was simply because your subconscious wanted to see it? I find that to be demeaning...do you?

All I'll ask of you is that if you think I was not being "constructive" and that I was getting "angry", please be consistent and admit that Dragoneye did the same thing, and in this case, threw the first punch. I simply responded in kind.

I have been on this forum with Dragoneye quite a bit since last August and have thus come to know him and his communication style (at least where the Camaro is concerned) quite well. I do not believe that Dragoneye's first post contained any malice at all. He was merely speaking from a psychological standpoint where the powers of one's subconscious often trick us into seeing or believing things we otherwise would not have. I did not read this as a slight to you in the least.

When communicating in purely text based forms, we have to keep in mind that all tone, body language, and facial expressions are not conveyed in our messages. Thus, it is easy to misinterpret the meanings of certain phrases.

According to a study of communications by Albert Mehrabian, 7% of a message about our attitudes and feelings derives from our words, 38% from our voice, and 55% from our facial expressions!

Just things to keep in mind as we traverse the internet forum world. We're all in this because of our common enthusiasm for the new 2010 Camaro. Sometimes that enthusiasm can come across as frustration or anger, but in the end all that matters is