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

[Jak]

Personally, I'm not having a problem with what I'm seeing on this car. There's still a lot of time till actual production and if people would take a deep breath, step back a moment and remember that what we're seeing is a MULE, yes, it's getting very close to what the production will look like but it's still a mule. . a very, very sharp looking mule . There's still changes to be made, like the headlights and I hope and pray to the GM Gods that they'll move the freaking filler location to the left side for the US cars since we drive on the normal side of the road

[SSmoked]

Originally Posted by TAG UR IT

Headlights? Don't even get me started. Scott said it and it's been said here a MILLION times they are from Auto Zone.

Everyone, if you don't like something, it's okay to say you don't like it. As i've said before, there's a way to communicate (and this is NOT directed to anyone in particular). Let's just try to be cool to one another.

on the reverse lights i kinda understand the historical significance behide it the 69 camaro rs version us to have the reverse lights in the same postion.

and the headlights so ur saying those headlights on it now r not going to be on the production one? cause if thats tru thats asom cause right now thats the only thing im not realy enjoying on the car.

[Mungo]

Tag are you saying that the headlights on the mule will not be the same on the production car. I travel a LOT so I don't get to see all of the posts. As for the fuel door. The Mazda Miata has a fuel door on the top of the drivers side rear fender and I've never heard of any complaints from their owners. Has anyone considered that (again with the fuel door) that it might be a design up grade to an "SS" OR "Z28" option? I wish (if we're allowed) the back-up lights would have flanked the license plate mounted vertically on both sides.

[camero]

Originally Posted by sbg

Once again, my biggest complaint is the back bumper and those backup lights. The flush, clean concept rear end is so much better. That lower buldge in the bumper is dumb. GM, are you listening

The bumper was necessary to meet the 5mph crash standard that GM uses. The lights were put there because there was no other place that was legal and acceptable. Sorry. We knew it didn't look perfect, but there was no other choice. The location that we had planned didn't work out. The ones you see are an actual mistake. We can admit that.

Originally Posted by GameOv3r

... And those hideous headlights...don't even get me started. GM if you read this, I KNOW what you're thinking and going with these headlights and you better wipe those THOUGHTS out of your MIND. ..

You're going to like the real headlights.

Originally Posted by KILLER74Z28

I’m still suspect…

Ha!

Originally Posted by camaro10

One question, What's up with the grille? Could this be a V6 grille with the V8 being the single slot grille like the concept? I'm not likeing this grille as much so I'm hopeing that's the case.

I was wondering if anyone was going to say anything about that ugly grill!

Originally Posted by DGthe3

It is absolutely horrible that general motors would ever let this happen to the Camaro. Those lights look hidious and because of them I will refuse to buy the new Camaro. I'm sorry, but thats it for me. And if that wasn't bad enough then there is also the gas cap. It has ruined the entire look of the car. And the paint is awful. Why in the hell would GM ever do that? The beautiful lines of the car can hardly be seen

So hilarious!!! I love you!

Originally Posted by sbg

What's worse is those of you who assume that GM is making changes for good reasons. NOPE. On what basis do you make such an assumption?...None....just 'cause you like GM, or something silly like that. Someone on this thread said it right...it's about money! It would cost them too much to put that gas cap on top. The change to the rear bumper and the backup lights....that's just poor choices by GM designers. And no, don't post giving me some made up reasons as to why they had to do that, like to meet some code, etc. We all know they can design just about anything they want. The change to the rear bumper and the placement of the backup lights was a design change. A very poor design change at that. I say to GM...make it like the concept! Sure, change the things you have to, but not those that you don't.

Again, nobody wanted to change ANYthing on the concept car to put it in production. The orders from above were to make it possible to produce with as few changes as possible. Any changes that were made were to make it legal, practical, productionable, and affordable. If not for the changes the car wouldn't exist. Sorry, but that's the truth.

Originally Posted by TAG UR IT

I think a great deal of us are a little perterbed at some of the recent changes we've seen. What makes it even more difficult for us, is that no one is explaining the reasoning behind those changes. If we were told a b-pillar was to be put in for crash test safety standards and ultimately less weight, that would make a lot more sense than either not being told anything at all, or being told some off the wall reason that someone here thought up. (I'm using this as an example...please, let's not rehash this topic!!!) When it comes to this gas cap, it was a beautiful thing. It was changed and there's no finite reason from GM why it was changed. People speculate it was because doors get hit when exiting at the fuel pumps and also because of potential spillage ruining the paint. What if there is a bonified reason why the location was changed???

Yes, there's a reason that practically all cars have B pillars and normal gas caps. Lots of reasons that all add up actually. They are engineering requirements, not design decisions. It's very difficult and expensive to get around stuff like that. AudiTT's are like $45,000 for a car that's just a VW Golf with fancy stuff like aluminum gas caps all over it. And even it has fixed rear windows which make its absence of b-pillars pointless.

Originally Posted by Skyman 08

Some keep talking aboput a 5 MPH hit to the rear. That standard never existed, it is and has been for many years a 2 1/2 MPH impact. ... One reason for the loctation change for the Gas cap, and this is just speculation on my part, is maybe the top fender location was not going to be safe in a rollover accident, it could be torn from the car creating a gasoline spill and potential fireball...

GM uses a 5mph standard to keep our customer's insurance rates lower. And there are a lot of other reasons filler doors are on the side.

Originally Posted by Jak

Personally, I'm not having a problem with what I'm seeing on this car. There's still a lot of time till actual production and if people would take a deep breath, step back a moment and remember that what we're seeing is a MULE, yes, it's getting very close to what the production will look like but it's still a mule. . a very, very sharp looking mule . There's still changes to be made, like the headlights and I hope and pray to the GM Gods that they'll move the freaking filler location to the left side for the US cars since we drive on the normal side of the road

Well it's a lot more than a mule! More of an IVER build (Integration Vehicle Engineering Release) and no the gas cap is not still moving! Its location was fixed at least two years ago! I've been designing and driving cars for many years and have never noticed any pattern to their location. I think that they are randomly placed on either side to break up the flow of traffic at gas stations. http://ask.metafilter.com/18864/Gas-...ars-which-side Demanding it on one side or the other is not very encouraging to us that are trying to please the customer.... it just shows that it's impossible. I even think that if we were able to keep it as a solid aluminum handmade one-of-a-kind piece of art on the top there'd be people complaining about that. Thanks, though, to all those that appreciate the work done on the concept and production versions and have said so!

[camaro10]

[QUOTE=camero;43005] The location that we had planned didn't work out. The ones you see are an actual mistake. We can admit that.




I was wondering if anyone was going to say anything about that ugly grill!

QUOTE]
On the mistake comment, does that mean you ARE moving them or no?

And since you said the grille is ugly,(remember, I didn't I just said I didn't like it) why is it even there? Design exercise, V6, what?

Camero, all that being said, most of us here are died in the wool enthusiasts (I've owned three)and, like you, want the production car to look as close as humanly possible to the concept because the concept was one of the most beautiful, bad ass, kick the imports back to Japan with their lack of style, kind of cars ever produced, so we've been, or at least I have been, drooling ever since.
Please don't take our whining personally, but understand that with every image that is either leaked, spied, or released by GM that we see, the actual production car comes into focus better for us and some of our hopes are dashed, but others are realized.
I would have to say that probably 99% of us on this site are waiting for the day we can buy one regardless of what small details are eliminated.
Anyway, thanks for the answers!!

Now, don't take away anything else!!

[TAG UR IT]

Originally Posted by TAG UR IT
I think a great deal of us are a little perterbed at some of the recent changes we've seen. What makes it even more difficult for us, is that no one is explaining the reasoning behind those changes. If we were told a b-pillar was to be put in for crash test safety standards and ultimately less weight, that would make a lot more sense than either not being told anything at all, or being told some off the wall reason that someone here thought up. (I'm using this as an example...please, let's not rehash this topic!!!) When it comes to this gas cap, it was a beautiful thing. It was changed and there's no finite reason from GM why it was changed. People speculate it was because doors get hit when exiting at the fuel pumps and also because of potential spillage ruining the paint. What if there is a bonified reason why the location was changed???

Yes, there's a reason that practically all cars have B pillars and normal gas caps. Lots of reasons that all add up actually. They are engineering requirements, not design decisions. It's very difficult and expensive to get around stuff like that. AudiTT's are like $45,000 for a car that's just a VW Golf with fancy stuff like aluminum gas caps all over it. And even it has fixed rear windows which make its absence of b-pillars pointless.

The whole point I was making, was that no GM employees were giving us reason as to why things changed. You claim to be affiliated w/ this project. Why won't you give us the reasons???

[sbg]

Originally Posted by camero

The bumper was necessary to meet the 5mph crash standard that GM uses. The lights were put there because there was no other place that was legal and acceptable. Sorry. We knew it didn't look perfect, but there was no other choice. The location that we had planned didn't work out. The ones you see are an actual mistake. We can admit that.

Are you a designer on the camaro? If so, then maybe you could provide some evidence to backup your claims. Here are the ones I still have the most problem with.

"...bumper necessary to meet the 5mph crash standard..."

How about the Corvette that doesn't have some ugly looking buldge (supposed to be a bumper) in the back? We know the Corvette meets 5mph bumper, right.

1) So why couldn't you guys design the Camaro with a smooth bumper like the concept? I'd like a technical answer please.

Also, I don't get it concerning the backup lights. Come on, do you think we're that naive? Once again, the Corvette has them in the lower valance next to the exhaust in some recent models. If that was legal in the Corvette then placing them in the Camaro in the same spot would also be legal.

2) Why couldn't you place them in the lower valance next to the exhaust like in the Corvette?

See, that's my complaint about many of the people on this site, they just ain't being logical.

I will wait for specific responses to my two questions from the designer. All others can remain quiet 'cause you're just repeating yourselves and providing assertions without any evidence.

I want evidence

[sbg]

To TAG UR IT:

You seem to be about the most reasonable person on this site. You are simply asking for what everyone should ask for...reasons, not assertions.

Let's agree that for us to ask this supposed "designer" for the reasons behind his assertions is just normal, reasonable.

I often feel like on this board that people get pissed off at me for criticizing the changes I see. If we don't voice our opinion now, then there truly is no chance once the car rolls off the assembly line.

For all you making assertions without ever providing evidence, I now hold your feet to the fire. Either put up or shut up. I don't mind opinions of any kind, but don't put me down for pointing out what I don't like and claiming it's because of some design requirement when you really don't know. That's being dishonest!

[Jak]

Camero, I really hope you didn't take my post too seriously. As I said, I really like what I'm seeing. Granted Mule might be the wrong choice in words, but didn't I say just what you did, that what we're seeing here is going to be very close to what's going to go into production? As far as the fuel filler, hey, I've said it before, it's far from a deal braker it's just something to get used to, no big deal. GM should be proud of themselves. Now if we could just get a peek under the hood on the V-8.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by sbg

Are you a designer on the camaro? If so, then maybe you could provide some evidence to backup your claims. Here are the ones I still have the most problem with.

"...bumper necessary to meet the 5mph crash standard..."

How about the Corvette that doesn't have some ugly looking buldge (supposed to be a bumper) in the back? We know the Corvette meets 5mph bumper, right.

1) So why couldn't you guys design the Camaro with a smooth bumper like the concept? I'd like a technical answer please.

Also, I don't get it concerning the backup lights. Come on, do you think we're that naive? Once again, the Corvette has them in the lower valance next to the exhaust in some recent models. If that was legal in the Corvette then placing them in the Camaro in the same spot would also be legal.

2) Why couldn't you place them in the lower valance next to the exhaust like in the Corvette?

See, that's my complaint about many of the people on this site, they just ain't being logical.

I will wait for specific responses to my two questions from the designer. All others can remain quiet 'cause you're just repeating yourselves and providing assertions without any evidence.

I want evidence

Keep in mind that the Corvette starts at twice as much as the base Camaro will (give or take)

Oh, and about design requirements there is 1 that we do know, that the Camaro is going to be priced competitively with the Mustang.

[camero]

Originally Posted by camaro10

On the mistake comment, does that mean you ARE moving them or no? And since you said the grille is ugly,(remember, I didn't I just said I didn't like it) why is it even there? Design exercise, V6, what?

No, putting them there was the fix for the mistake. They were supposed to go down below like the Vette but it didn't work out. I think it had to do with being able to see them from every angle. And no more hints about the grill! :-]

Originally Posted by TAG UR IT

The whole point I was making, was that no GM employees were giving us reason as to why things changed. You claim to be affiliated w/ this project. Why won't you give us the reasons???

Well part of it is that the reasons are usually combinations of issues from many different engineering groups and I don't even know ALL of them.

Originally Posted by sbg

How about the Corvette that doesn't have some ugly looking buldge (supposed to be a bumper) in the back? We know the Corvette meets 5mph bumper, right. So why couldn't you guys design the Camaro with a smooth bumper like the concept? I'd like a technical answer please.

I'm amazed that you think the Vette has a smooth bumper.... look again, but it doesn't have a bumper offset because its soft fascia wraps up and over the entire rear end of the car and it's taillights are sunk in. If we did that with the Camaro people would really be freaking out!

Originally Posted by sbg

For all you making assertions without ever providing evidence, I now hold your feet to the fire. Either put up or shut up. I don't mind opinions of any kind, but don't put me down for pointing out what I don't like and claiming it's because of some design requirement when you really don't know. That's being dishonest!

Obviously the production version is as close to the concept as was possible, what do you think; it's a coincidence that they look almost identical?

Originally Posted by Jak

Camero, I really hope you didn't take my post too seriously. As I said, I really like what I'm seeing.

Yeah it broke our hearts seeing the concept get changed a bit even more than it's hurting you guys.... it's just that it was a few years ago for us and I'm telling you that the production version looks great and you're going to love it and you're not even going to notice two more lights or a little flip out in the bumper once you get yours.

[Jspeed]

Many of us would park farther to avoid getting door dings, so we shall be ok with walking to the right side of the car in exchange for not risking hitting the island with the door while filling up.

Hopefully this makes some people accept the fuel door location more easily. The engineering reason is probably that Zeta platform was designed that way. It would be cost-inefficient to change it just for the Camaro.

[SilverTurtle]

something to think about:

the roof was raised 14mm and there was a b-pillar added to the inside of the car... the b-pillar was added to reach crash safety standards... the taller roof was added to make room for drivers (and passengers) greater than 6'1" tall... this affects the roofline because now you have to widen the roof at the sides to give adequate room for the b-pillar to fit inside the car and not cut into head room... and you have to slightly elongate the roofline to retain the same overall shape of the Concept and not make the production car look like its too tall or top heavy... combine the two and you've moved the c-pillar out and back just a bit... so the room that you used to have for the super cool billet gas filler cap is now taken up by the quite necessary c-pillar... to put the gas cap on top would have put it almost next to the trunk... and I believe we all learned a lesson with the GTO that taking away from trunk space to put any kind of fuel cell or filler neck in that vicinity is a bad idea... so the only real place you have left is on the side of the fender.

now this may not be the only reason that they moved it... and the reason for it being on the right hand side is probably because of where the car was developed and the other cars that the platform will be shared with... since almost every, if not every, Holden car has the filler neck on the right hand side, I blame that on the choice of sides... but when you combine crash safety standards, augmented roof lines and global car development together, you really do get putting the filler neck on the right hand side fender as a more logical place to put the gas cap.

its not what most of us want, but at least we still get the killer looks of the car... and I think that a flush mount filler cap will make it all that much better

[Camaro Lives On]

Hey SilverTurtle, thank you for providing some actual logic. You have a good point about the roof, but I'm just wondering, by bringing the c-piller back and out slightly, wouldn't that cause designers to have the make the back end slightly longer, and wider also, so the slightly longer, wider greenhouse wouldn't look funky? Or would it really be very noticable at all?? I'm just guessing cause I'm not really a super-smart dude when it comes to this kind of stuff. if this would be the case, then that would at least make room for the gas cap to be on top of the fender on the right side, wouldn't it (i say the right side just because im pretty sure the Zeta platform is designed for a right side filler neck)? Well I've said before, I love this car, no matter were the gas cap is, its a beautiful car, and I thank GM for a BEAUTIFUL CAR!!

BTW, camero, thanks for some descent answers bro, but about the reverse lights, and the rear bumper, it actually reminds me of the reverse lights on a '69, so I like it, even if it was a mistake. And i know what u mean bout the 'vette, the rear fascia has somewhat of a bulge, instead of a lip like in the Camaro, and IMHO, I really like the way the rear end of the Camaro is coming along, almost better than the concept. That's just IMO tho!