This Camaro is overrated
07-24-2008 | 03:40 AM
#46
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 433
I saw the 2010 at San Diego's Auto Expo.
I was very disappointed. I didn't get the "Oh WOW! I have to buy this car feeling.
I bet I'm not the only Camaro enthusiast who feels let down.
Let me tell you what I don't like about it.
1. The grill looks like it belongs on a truck. Vent slats too wide etc...
2. The shape of the tail lights look lame
3. The sides of the body look too much like the new Dodge Challenger, The car could have been more curvy.
I have currently own a 1967 Camaro and my first car was a 1968.
In my opinion, the 1967-1969's have much better looks than the new 2010.
They really stand out.
Speaking of the old body style, they really need to have an RS/SS version with the "Hideaway Headlights" Now that would look great.
I will not buy one until maybe they had something like that..
Then again I don't need one since I have my trusty 67..
It blows the doors off most vehicles out there....with that
I'm sure I'll be seeing a 2010 in my rearview sooner or later after they come out...
I was very disappointed. I didn't get the "Oh WOW! I have to buy this car feeling.
I bet I'm not the only Camaro enthusiast who feels let down.
Let me tell you what I don't like about it.
1. The grill looks like it belongs on a truck. Vent slats too wide etc...
2. The shape of the tail lights look lame
3. The sides of the body look too much like the new Dodge Challenger, The car could have been more curvy.
I have currently own a 1967 Camaro and my first car was a 1968.
In my opinion, the 1967-1969's have much better looks than the new 2010.
They really stand out.
Speaking of the old body style, they really need to have an RS/SS version with the "Hideaway Headlights" Now that would look great.
I will not buy one until maybe they had something like that..
Then again I don't need one since I have my trusty 67..
It blows the doors off most vehicles out there....with that
I'm sure I'll be seeing a 2010 in my rearview sooner or later after they come out...
Ever seen a Javelin or Cuda? they look pretty similar to your camaro.
07-24-2008 | 03:53 AM
#47
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
07-24-2008 | 06:02 AM
#48
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,139
From: Commerce, mi, USA
Pontiac swore up and down that the Aztek was a winner, and Chevrolet swore that the SSR was a great idea.
Two rather expensive mistakes....
Two rather expensive mistakes....
Incidentally - the Aztek was and is loved by its owners. Despite some quirks in styling, it offered a lot of functionality for the price.
And dont try to make a flimsy case for the G8 being a flop. It is simply not. They are selling very well, even in the current fuel price mess. I believe the new Camaro will have essentially the same marketplace success or better, for similar reasons - it's a great performance value but is also packed with a lot of features
07-24-2008 | 12:42 PM
#49
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 943
Ummmm...
NO.
GM SPECIFIED the car.
Because the engineering got outsourced at that point to meet the specifications means nothing at all. GM outsources design and development engineering all the time nowadays...
EDAG...
Hawtel-Whiting...
Etc... etc... etc..
That being said, GM does not turn over specification control to anyone. Ever.
GM says:
Make (or engineer) a twidget that looks like this, does this, lasts this many cycles in durability according to this schedule... etc... etc... etc...
The suppliers then run off and do precisely that.
Saying that somehow the utter failure that... erm... thing... turned into was somehow the fault of the supply base for building EXACTLY what GM told them to build is nonsense.
You haven't gotten to anyone, Sparky. The depth of your wrongheadedness in this case requires long answers in an attempt to bring you back from the brink of the intellectual abyss.
.
NO.
GM SPECIFIED the car.
Because the engineering got outsourced at that point to meet the specifications means nothing at all. GM outsources design and development engineering all the time nowadays...
EDAG...
Hawtel-Whiting...
Etc... etc... etc..
That being said, GM does not turn over specification control to anyone. Ever.
GM says:
Make (or engineer) a twidget that looks like this, does this, lasts this many cycles in durability according to this schedule... etc... etc... etc...
The suppliers then run off and do precisely that.
Saying that somehow the utter failure that... erm... thing... turned into was somehow the fault of the supply base for building EXACTLY what GM told them to build is nonsense.
You haven't gotten to anyone, Sparky. The depth of your wrongheadedness in this case requires long answers in an attempt to bring you back from the brink of the intellectual abyss.
.
There is a difference between giving constructive criticism and being an internet blowhard. Guess which one you are?
-Geoff
07-24-2008 | 01:16 PM
#50
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,979
ASC
And that matters precisely how?
ASC still designed and engineered PRECISELY what GM told them to - and GM is still responsible for that "thing" being on the road.
The entire idea that you can park an SSR and a Corvette in the same dealer show room, at basically the same price, and come up with the idea that some retard is actually going to pick the SSR over the Corvette points solidly to a system that is horribly, horribly broken.
Thankfully, that's improved.
Some.
The real pisser about the whole deal? It takes pretty much the same amount of money to design and engineer as car for the whopping 24,000 SSRs that got sold a it does to engineer for another car that can sell 100,000.
Once again, the statement stands:
"Saying that somehow the utter failure that... erm... thing... turned into was somehow the fault of the supply base for building EXACTLY what GM told them to build is nonsense."
And that matters precisely how?
ASC still designed and engineered PRECISELY what GM told them to - and GM is still responsible for that "thing" being on the road.
The entire idea that you can park an SSR and a Corvette in the same dealer show room, at basically the same price, and come up with the idea that some retard is actually going to pick the SSR over the Corvette points solidly to a system that is horribly, horribly broken.
Thankfully, that's improved.
Some.
The real pisser about the whole deal? It takes pretty much the same amount of money to design and engineer as car for the whopping 24,000 SSRs that got sold a it does to engineer for another car that can sell 100,000.
Once again, the statement stands:
"Saying that somehow the utter failure that... erm... thing... turned into was somehow the fault of the supply base for building EXACTLY what GM told them to build is nonsense."
Last edited by PacerX; 07-24-2008 at 01:20 PM.
07-24-2008 | 01:19 PM
#51
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,808
From: FL/MI
The Aztek believers were almost what I'd classify as a cult. The ones that loved it loved it deeply. Aztek was hurt by an insistance by the dealer network for cladding. Prior to the Aztek Pontiac was selling a lot of cars that had cladding from the rockers up and Chevy deallers wanted that styling statement bigtime. Look at the early Avalanche...
Aztek was too far of a reach in "quirky" appearance. Quirky lives on and has some followers.
Aztek was thrashed in the auto and general press on it's styling. I didn't "get" the Aztek, but I don't aspire to that sort of utility in a vehicle. Quirky is still a styling statement with followers. The cars out there that continue to succeed haven't been lambasted by the press into "what idiot would buy that" status.
The Scion XB and Honda Element < Excrement > are but a couple I can think of...
07-24-2008 | 01:26 PM
#52
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,979
The Aztek believers were almost what I'd classify as a cult. The ones that loved it loved it deeply. Aztek was hurt by an insistance by the dealer network for cladding. Prior to the Aztek Pontiac was selling a lot of cars that had cladding from the rockers up and Chevy deallers wanted that styling statement bigtime. Look at the early Avalanche...
Aztek was too far of a reach in "quirky" appearance. Quirky lives on and has some followers.
Aztek was thrashed in the auto and general press on it's styling. I didn't "get" the Aztek, but I don't aspire to that sort of utility in a vehicle. Quirky is still a styling statement with followers. The cars out there that continue to succeed haven't been lambasted by the press into "what idiot would buy that" status.
The Scion XB and Honda Element < Excrement > are but a couple I can think of...
Aztek was too far of a reach in "quirky" appearance. Quirky lives on and has some followers.
Aztek was thrashed in the auto and general press on it's styling. I didn't "get" the Aztek, but I don't aspire to that sort of utility in a vehicle. Quirky is still a styling statement with followers. The cars out there that continue to succeed haven't been lambasted by the press into "what idiot would buy that" status.
The Scion XB and Honda Element < Excrement > are but a couple I can think of...
Here's a pic:
It certainly was useful.
The coolant leak at the intake wasn't a whole lotta fun. We were dealing with it (of course...) prior to the class action lawsuit.
Regardless, even I, a relatively happy Aztek owner, understand completely why the thing tanked.
It was god-awful ugly. Fugly even.
Wasn't all that ugly when Peters had his hands on it. Kinda spiffy if you ask me. Then it got focus-grouped and committeed into arguably one of the ugliest vehicles ever built.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
F'n1996Z28SS
Cars For Sale
8
08-24-2023 12:19 AM
CARiD
Supporting Vendor Group Purchases and Sales
0
01-14-2015 05:00 AM
ChrisFrez
CamaroZ28.Com Podcast
2
12-07-2014 07:01 PM
NewsBot
2010 - 2015 Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and Multimedia
0
12-03-2014 01:30 PM