Say Goodbye to the Camaro.

[cheesepuffs2]

Resembles? Sure.

That's exactly what it's supposed to be. It isn't literally supposed to be a "new" '69.

 

[leadcounsel]

That's exactly what it's supposed to be. It isn't literally supposed to be a "new" '69.

Fail. Everyone knows it.

 

[cheesepuffs2]

Fail. Everyone knows it.

Okie dokie.

 

[Pablo]

That's exactly what it's supposed to be. It isn't literally supposed to be a "new" '69.

I think what folks are saying, sure not identical, but closer would have been nicer. That's like my opinion man.

 

[Slow Car Sport Mode]

Check out this digital render. One last ride !!!

https://www.hotcars.com/new-pontiac-firebird-returns/

I like my F-body more, personally.

 

[Pablo]

Loved Camaro. Firebird not so much. Odd that.

 

[Slow Car Sport Mode]

Loved Camaro. Firebird not so much. Odd that.

I've always wanted an 2001 SLP Firehawk. If I ever saw one and could afford it. I'd drive it everywhere.

Friend in Chicago had one of the 1995-ish or so Camaros with the reverse flow cooling system. Not a fun motor to maintain, from what I hear.

Firebird? I'll take a 1968.. otherwise I mostly agree, even the F-body one I'd probably prefer a Camaro. I do not think I will be buying one any time soon. 1968 Firebird featured prominently in 2004 Christian Bale movie The Mechanic
Looks better than Camaro this gen, in my opinion.

 

[PF52]

Fail. Everyone knows it.

You must've REALLY been in a quandary when the Fox Body Mustangs first came out, because they didn't look at all like the Mustangs that came before them.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Fail. Everyone knows it.

Someone failed in making a point of "taste" in assessing industrial design - which could be considered a fool's errand.

You love the Gen I "Nova with a fancy body" We understand.

 

[Allaneddie]

You're joking. Right?!

1966 Camaro, arguably one of the most beautiful designs for a muscle car.

Here is a typical (2018) Camaro. There is no resemblance whatsoever, and it looks like an Asian car. Literally looks nothing like anything that came from that era, at all. Doesn't look anything like any Camaro before. I absolutely hate the looks FYI.

Meanwhile over at Ford and Dodge, they got it right.

1960s Mustang:

There is no doubt, this is a Mustang:

Dodge did it best IMO.
1970 Challenger

2012 Challenger, is unmistakable as anything else.

Have to agree, the 1970 Challenger is the best designed body.

 

[grampi]

That's exactly what it's supposed to be. It isn't literally supposed to be a "new" '69.

If anything, the 6th gen Camaro nailed looking like a more modern version of the gen 1, whereas the Mustang and the Challenger look too much retro, and the Charger looks like nothing before...

 

[grampi]

Loved Camaro. Firebird not so much. Odd that.

The only Firebird I liked was the '98 thru '02 F-Body with the LS1, and then only in the Formula trim...

 

[leadcounsel]

You must've REALLY been in a quandary when the Fox Body Mustangs first came out, because they didn't look at all like the Mustangs that came before them.

I speculate, that YOU and others are fully missing the point. I don't know how much more clear I can be on this topic.

I will also say that between generations, GM was bold in that it did almost entire novel redesigns. Each generation looks unique, for instance, the hatchback era. From round to square headlights. Etc. I don't necessarily have a issue with a "new" look.

I have no issue with changing looks.

Mustangs, Challengers, Firebirds, etc. all have had radical facelifts. We have our favorites and least favorites.

But here's the difference. Mustangs didn't have a big break in production, whereas the Camaro did and it was billed as being a "throwback" to the originals. In that, it failed badly IMO. The Transformer marketing campaign was also painful.

The "new" generations are soulless, and as I and others have plainly demonstrated, they look more like Asian rice-burners or worse, family sedans, than anything that should be called a Detroit muscle car. There's nothing Camaro, looking in these new gens. They look like sporty Civics.

 

[PF52]

But here's the difference. Mustangs didn't have a big break in production, whereas the Camaro did and it was billed as being a "throwback" to the originals. In that, it failed badly IMO. The Transformer marketing campaign was also painful.

The "new" generations are soulless, and as I and others have plainly demonstrated, they look more like Asian rice-burners or worse, family sedans, than anything that should be called a Detroit muscle car. There's nothing Camaro, looking in these new gens. They look like sporty Civics.

See, that's the great thing about opinions. You get to have your opinion, and we get to have ours. That doesn't make ours automatically wrong, as much as you seem to want it to be so. Lots of people here obviously like the 2010+ Camaros; looks AND performance.

 

[leadcounsel]

See, that's the great thing about opinions. You get to have your opinion, and we get to have ours. That doesn't make ours automatically wrong, as much as you seem to want it to be so. Lots of people here obviously like the 2010+ Camaros; looks AND performance.

Considering US population is roughly 3x the size of 1967-1980, all Gen5 and Gen6 sales are atrocious compared to the earlier eras. Modern era sales never broke 90,000 in a year, and seem to hover around 25,000 per year for the last 3 years. Contrast that with peak sales of 220k, 235k, 243k, 272k, 282k, in the 1960s and 1970s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Camaro

Sales[edit]​

Model year Total sales[47] 1967 220,906 1968 235,147 1969 243,085 1970 124,901 1971 114,630 1972 68,651 1973 96,571 1974 151,008 1975 145,770 1976 182,959

Model year Total sales 1977 218,853 1978 272,631 1979 282,571 1980 152,005 1981 126,139 1982 189,747 1983 154,381 1984 261,591 1985 180,018 1986 192,219

Model year Total sales 1987 137,760 1988 96,275 1989 110,739 1990 34,986 1991 100,838 1992 70,007 1993 39,103 1994 119,799 1995 122,738 1996 61,362

Model year Total sales 1997 60,202 1998 54,026 1999 42,098 2000 45,461 2001 29,009 2002 41,776 Camaro ceases production until 2009

Calendar year US sales 2010 81,299[48] 2011 88,249[48] 2012 84,391[49] 2013 80,567[50] 2014 86,297[51] 2015 77,502[52] 2016 72,705[53] 2017 67,940[54] 2018 50,963[55] 2019 48,265[56]

Calendar year US sales 2020 29,775[57] 2021 21,893[58] 2022 24,652[59] Total 5,594,460

Mustang and Camaro have had a healthy sales battle, with the Camaro giving it a run for the money and beating it in a handful of production years. IMO GM should have focused on those design influences cosmetically. I will acknowledge that the modern era Camaro beats Mustang sales in 2010, 2011, 2013 for sales but generally close competition. I think the 2011+ Mustang suffers the same poor design issues.

With the intro of the Challenger, the Challenger has beating both regularly and handily, however. People like the retro looks IMO. I think sales numbers support that.

 

[Lapham3]

I had a 1967 Firebird convert with my1965 GP's THM400 and 421 and a 1970 Z-28. They were both great cars for me. I thought that the 2005-Mustang and the later Challengers were much better jobs of the original than the Camaro.

 

[IndyIan]

I certainly respect the latest Camaro's performance, but it looks, the lack of visibility outwards and its general impracticalness kind of kill it for me. For a while a manual V6 one was pretty cheap really, but its not really a DD I can live with.
Some automotive writer described it kind of like wearing a batman costume to a halloween party. Looks kind of cool, but eventually its just uncomfortable, you can't see very well, you are surrounded by cheap plastic, and you want to get out of it...
A Corvette can be nearly useless for anything but driving, but almost all the old muscle cars could still be functional cars. The modern Challenger/Charger seats 5 and out sells both the Mustang and Camaro.

 

[cheesepuffs2]

A Corvette can be nearly useless for anything but driving

This is completely untrue unless you're talking like C3 with no trunk. Modern Vettes, let's say C6 for instance, have great trunk space with the lift back, and get very good highway fuel economy. Nothing you can't daily.

 

[IndyIan]

This is completely untrue unless you're talking like C3 with no trunk. Modern Vettes, let's say C6 for instance, have great trunk space with the lift back, and get very good highway fuel economy. Nothing you can't daily.

I guess I was thinking family DD duty, so seats 5, car seat fits in back, has a trunk of some size.
After the kids go, then commuting in a Vette would be nice!

 

[E365]

By most accounts, all the 6th Gen “1LE” cars were spectacular to drive.

I’m sure it’ll be back as a 750+ HP AWD something…