Good point graham, I didn't think about that. I just hope it's final location is on the driver's side. It wouldn't kill a deal for me or anything but I think more people prefer to have it on the driver’s side.

 

1. I didnt mean the chunk was in the front end, but more as the car seems slightly stretched upwards. this kept the greenhouse very similar to the concept. they could have added the extra room by making the greenhouse larger but they chose the other rout. neither one better than the other, just an observation

7. I saw that too, but wasnt sure that was something really worth pointing out. But I guess i should have.

 

then where do european corvette drivers have their license plates??????

 

I did 3 tours in Germany while I was in the Army. The Germans had a special size plate to fit the American cars.

 

so then why do they use the excuse of european license plates for the new camaro?

 

Who knows?

I rotated out from 2ACR back to the States in 1990 and retired in 1995. But I would think that things would still be the same as far as the special size plates..

I just looked at a Police car club site in Germany and they are still running the US shaped German Plates on there American Police cars. Also there are cars from the Netherlands, same thing.

http://www.pcooa-ev.de/ The site is in German and English just click on the American Flag for English.

Here is another Police Car Cub in England. Again they have special plates to fit the American Police Cars. http://www.911evac.co.uk/index.html

So I can't see a good reason for where the reverse lights are located. Unless it's from down under.

 

I think many of those changes have to do with meeting 5 star safety ratings. But you did an excellent job of pointing them out. I could imagine this is part of what GM is doing right now in their design studios. You could just see in some large room like a college lecture hall they have these two pictures projected on to a wall larger than life, and they disect each difference between the concept and pre-production car with another real life model they have in front of them.

Man, looking at all this neat stuff makes me want to go back to college all over again and go into engineering.

If there is one thing to say for sure, there is no shortage of tallented engineers at GM. It just seems it took Bob Lutz to bring out the best in them (unless this Camaro is being designed by a whole new, young group of folks my age - 30).

 

[QUOTE=JakeRobb;5105468]I think the concept is the "sexier" car. The longer hood, shorter deck, and six extra inches of width gave it better proportions.


So, who said the car is 6" narrower than the concept?! That is the first I've heard of that big a difference in the width of the car. I thought the production car was only going to be about an inch narrower.

 

I know that...I think I posted that for somebody who asked why the lights couldn't be "where?". I like to speak in pictures.

That's so great you took the time to do that. Awesome.
If I may...can I point out a few things myself? I read earlier that some of what I'm about to say has been said, but

From back to front:

1: The trunk access. (you didn't point this one out), I believe it looks like the piece in between the taillights now moves WITH the trunk lid, in an additional effort to enlarge the access hole.

2:the "added bulk". I think that may be an effect of the angle more than not.(i.e. the Prototype shot is tipped a little, where the concept is flat on the ground)

3:"Wider gap"....ehhh, I'm not sold on that, but it does kinda look that way.

4:"Wheelwell stays below bodyline". I think this, again, may be one of those angle things.

5: "extra roof molding" and "loss of body line". It seems to me, that some prototypes have sunroofs (which would be the reason for the "loss of bodylines"), and some do not. (instead they have the hood groove) I believe to allow that flexibility for a sunroof, the roof has become a separate piece from the body - which explains the body moldings. Just pointing it for anybody afraid we've lost the inverted mohawk.

6: I'm still not seeing where there's more chunk in the front fender...

Again, thanks for putting that together, TrickStang,

 

First of all great work. I think we differ on our view of the same picture in a few areas. I think many of you are over analyzing the picture but not actually seing the car itself. The big change in the picture you've used of the concept to compare to is the angle and lighting.

First we agree that the mirrors are differnet. So is the rear bumper in both size and shape, back up lights etc. B pillar also thicker. Moldings are part of production cars plain and simple you'll be glad when it rains that they are there. Trunk now has a lover reach in height and I think that's an improvement. All in all we knew of may of this and expected the rest.

Where we differ and I think it has more to do with lighting and angle but still appears differnt but I doubt it is.

A pillar IMO is the same width. Lighting and angle show the concept as more svelt but the pre-pro pic actually shows light from behind so the inside of the pillar is now seen.

I don't see any more chunk in the front.

Roof details are gone but I think the concensus is that it's due to the very obvious sunroof and other spy pics of of cars w/o sunroofs do have the C6 like roof detail. Thanks Mr. Peters.

Wider area between top of wheelwell and quarter panel deck is most likely also the same as the concept and wheelwell vs body door line. I think it may look this way but only because of the angle of the pre-pro Camaro vs concept. I doubt that it actually is.

Lower valance difference but only in shape not height. I think if the concept had the same design as the pre-pro it would look the same. Personally I like the production version better.

Is the front shorter from the door or the rear longer from back of door or is the wheelbase shorter or the door length?? Not much we can do about it now.

 

Yeah I read someone else say 18s as well but my calculation involved subtracting 2" from the overall wheel diameter of each wheel. I could well be wrong but 18" really look tiny on the VE. 19" look better. 20" look better again.

Anyway, for comparison, these HSV wheels are 19"... so you may be right? Hard to tell.

 

Agreed X3. The backup lights, down on the rear diffuser, looks great on the Vette. While we're at it, I'm glad they put the aggressive rear diffuser on the pre-pro - looks mean! me likey!

 

The concept is 78" wide. AFAIK, the preproduction car is 72" wide. I believe that it is "one inch narrower" compared to a 4th gen, not the concept. Can anyone confirm this? I could be mistaken.

Thicker? The concept didn't have a pillar there at all.

 

Yeah, I'd like to hear this too??? How is the concept 6" wider than the production car???

 

Our very own CamaroZ28.com gives the width of the concept at 79.6" (wider than I thought).

For reference, a Hummer H2 is 81.2" wide.

fbody.org lists the width of a 4th gen at 74.1", which is 5.5" less than the concept.

The 2010 Super Camaro FAQ says that Scott said the production version wouldn't be as wide as the concept.

I can't find anything that actually references the width of the concept, but I remember seeing it recently.