Before I start keep in mind I come from all angles, including ways to increase sales. Some of the things I suggest I don't completely agree with (see sunroof suggestion), but these would be the best things, IMHO, to bring back the 'maro and KEEP it here.

In no particular order:
-Useable trunk. Haven't seen one in I can't remember when (81 I think). The rear hatch glass is a huge, heavy unit which increases production cost. Also, a trunk would be a more secure place for valuables, and battery relocation for weight/track purposes. Switching to the trunk would also help...
-Length. I love the sexyness (sp?) of the 3rd and fourth gens, but the car is just way too darn long. I'm sure this is a major sticking point to some male, and a lot of female potential buyers. Half of the engine is under the windshield now, how about shortening the hood some and making it less angled?
-Exterior Styling. I love the look of the 4th gens (especially the WS6), but it's time has passed. There is a Ford guy who noted that the Camaro/Firebird lost it's heritage. I would somewhat agree. Retro has been proven to work. The concept a few years ago based on a 69 RS design is by far the best I've seen. The concept SS will never work. GM is barking up the wrong tree. It's possible to do a 69-styled 5th gen and still have it aerodynamic. We need a more squared-off look to make the F-bod appear more muscular. We also need a way to easily distinguish the 6cyl and 8cyl models. LESS ANGLED WINDSHIELD! T-tops (as much as I love them), need to be traded for a tilt/slide moonroof (see through). It would work better with the coupe design I mentioned, and would kinda get rid of the mulletmobile mentality.
-Interior Styling. A more upright windshield will do wonders for the dash. To be able to sell this car to familes, young kids, and others, the car needs a useable rear seat. This is where a coupe/trunk combo comes in so much more useful. It facilitates a bigger rear seat that can be more useful holding people than packages. This is probably the biggest turnoff to potential buyers. If you want to attract a young and old audience, they have to be able to carry their friends/children around. Do I need to mention dul cupholders?
-Models. Bring in a 4cyl model, or something like that. There needs to be an entry-level model around 13k. I don't know if a 4cyl model is the answer, but it could be a nice entry level. Perhaps have stripper models (like the 1LE, but without the underpinnings). Make it cheaper for those who do not want that crappy oversized radio you keep trying to sell. Limit 6 speed to upper V8 options. Here are my suggestions for a practical audience:
The Entry Level - 4 or 6 cyl with manual windows, doors, seats for 12750. Offer radio delete for a 250 savings.
Mid level - V6 (4.3L?) with power options available (doors, windows, tilt/slide moonroof) and available IRS. Base 16k, Loaded 20.5K

The Brawlers Club (V8 models)
-LX-no power options, save steering. Rear seat delete available. Cost - 19k
-RS-PW, PDL, PM, PMoonroof- Cost - 22k
-Z/28 (bring me back the Z/28, ok?) power options delete available, with 1LE underpinnings) Cost - 20k, with power, 24k
-SS - LS6, perhaps with S/C. All options standard. Available HD rear, HD brakes, etc. Cost - 30k

How about some better plastics (or none, even. CF?) in the uper level models. But the best thing you can do is advertise it and make it affordable for the young buyers.

 

I agree with some points and disagree with others...

I'll just post the things I disagree with, because it makes for better conversation

- T-Tops sold on like 85% of all Camaro Coupes sold over the 4th generation... a sunroof/moonroof is not the way to go, IMO.

- I don't think you can say retro-styling is 'proven' ... it's pretty much a new fad right now, is at most what?, 4-5 years old, and has failed miserably in some cases where the model is gone already. (Prowler)

- I hope a 4 cylinder never finds it way into any Camaro ever again. 6 cylinders should be the base motor. Even the base car needs to be desirable, and a 4-cylinder won't cut it.

- Overall length (or size as a whole) - I am sort of with you and against you on that one... I think the overhangs need to shrink, and the overall size of the car could shrink a little , but, IMO, Camaro needs to maintain a decent size to have that "Camaro presence"

- Lastly, I don't know that $13k is realistic for the entry price.... I am thinking $16,500-$17,000 might be more of the range.

 

I agree with most of what you have to say but Camaros/Firebirds should never have a 4-cylinder and the last time I checked my car had four cup holders. Plus they should keep the t-tops bacuse a sun/moon roof would look dumb on a f-body.

 

You can't talk about a Camaro keeping its heritage in one sentence and then banish T-tops in the next. At this point the car isn't a Camaro without a T-top option.

NO 4 BANGERS! Base V6 is just fine.

Overall lenth needs to decrease obviously. Just package the car better and clean up the sloppy overhangs. I would say 180-185 inches in length (4th gen is 193)....like Darth said it is supposed to be a muscular coupe with some presence to it, not a rollerskate.

 

I gotta meet you some day...
You just demonstarted how much we think alike on these issues.
Allow me to elaborate with my different POVs in addition to yours...

T-tops - No doubting their popularity in the last few years of F-car production. In fact, I would feel safe venturing a guess that MANY of the F-car purchases over the last few years were due SOLELY for that reason. Nobody else offers T's in a similar package. (Unfortunately, I doubt they will actually make it back though due to cost, complexity, and safety reasons. Just MO. )

4-cyl - Agreed. You have to keep the butterfly too far open on a 4-slug to have good economy, performance, emissions, and durability - especially in a 3000+ lb car. Even the Mustang wised-up and dropped the 4's when the SN95 models came out. The V6 got equal or better economy, better emissions, and had more umph than any 4-slug before it (except the SVO/turbo models). Also, V6 components are more common across corporate engine lines, making parts-sharing easier and spreading out the costs. I agree with basic entry-level economy, but go stripper V6, not 4.

Overhangs - Also agreed. The actual overhang from the wheel in inches doesn't bother me so much, but the car will need to be easy to drive and park - meaning good visibility, not blind corner areas with "bodywork out there somewhere". Wifeys and G/F's will use the "creep and bump" technique until it gets them into trouble, then they won't want the car anymore. As long as I can "see" where the corners are to facilitate parallel parking on a busy street, and the body proportions still say "Camaro" instead of Vette or Monte Carlo - I'd be happy.

"Retro" styling - OOPS! Here we go with that word again! I wouldn't consider a very modern looking Camaro with cues from '67-'69 or '70-'74 a "retro" design. Don't photocopy a '69 Camaro, smooth the sharp creases, give it 17" rims, and produce it - that would be "retro" and likely fail in the long term as stated. But a well-executed car that links itself back to it's roots would go over like wildfire IMO.

I don't think that $13k is realistic for the entry price either, but give the guy a break... he was dreaming-up his perfect Camaro!
If it came back with all the other goodies starting at $13k - It'd be a HIT for sure!!!

 

These are my thoughts on the trunk issue. I have a 2nd gen with a trunk and a 3rd gen with the hatch back. Each has its good points and bad points. The trunk is more secure because everything is out of sight and doesn’t increase weight but it’s not very big and you can’t carry anything bigger than a suitcase. The hatchback with the shade keeps stuff hidden as well as the trunk, early 3rd gens also had a locking comparment in the bottom. But if you break into the hatchback your in the car. It is heavy, but you can drop the back seats and have a huge amount of space. I prefer the hatchback myself.

 

Ya, I'm kind of torn on the Trunk/Hatchback issue myself... I think I perfer the hatch... but I am on the fench on this one.

I will say, the hatch style looks sportier to me, at least as far as what is out there right now....

 

There are a lot of good people in the 5th Gen forum. Some I agree with, some I disagree with, but the talk, in general, is pretty good... especially by a lot of the regulars here. It amazingly stays relatively troll-free, somehow, too, when compared to other sites and forums.

I honestly think this is the best forum on the Internet, bar none.

 

they call it a GTO,but they should make a base model and call it a tempest.

 

Just want to add the prowler did not fail miserably like one of you said. It was an image vehicle not made to make profits. It actually was very successful they were always sold out because they were made in such limited numbers and the magazines actually gave them good reviews besides being slightly underpowered for the first few years. They weren't my cup of tea but trying to say the retro 'fad' isn't going to stick around because of cars like the prowler(which did not cease production because of lack of sales), is just silly. I happen to think that retro done right is awesome. If the car is designed well enough, not only will it harken back to the past of that vehicle, but it will stand on its own and look good even when looked at without considering the past connections. I'm not sure exactly how many years it takes for something to be considered a viable trend and not a fad, 10, 15 years? Will people be saying that it's a fad 10 years from now? And so what if 1 or two fail, I guess only retro designed cars fail? We have the Aztek, oldsmobile and plenty of normal cars to prove that wrong. They may be harder to pull off but I think we have also seen they reap much higher rewards when it comes time to sell.

 

Couldn't agree more.
This is the ONLY GM-based site that I post in with any frequency at all. I can't compliment the moderaters, this board, or you guys who frequently post in here enough on your overall professionalism.

I like to respond to posts, but I just don't have time to filter trolls' or surfers' posts on the other boards. In fact, I actually prefer this board over most Ford/Mustang boards I frequent. Too many posters on a board makes it get crazy... loose talk, uneducated comments, unjustified bias, and just plain old trolls make the boards no fun. A problem I have on Stangnet is that there are so many people there, that if you start a thread then go read and post on another one, your original thread will be off the 1st page before you get back! You miss responses, or whole topics in a matter of minutes.

Friends who know me in person - guys with Bonnies, T/As, Z/28s and such that I park beside, work with, buddy-around with, etc know how I am with cars, and I know how they are too. We all love sports cars - period. We have great fun picking at each other, and also have some good discussions with meat too. The fact that we choose to own different ones actually makes our relationships MORE interesting. It would be VERY dull if we all drove black '98 T/As that had same options, wheels, etc. I really feel it's the same way with most guys in this forum.

I actually enjoy the debates between IZ28 and others about "3rd gen superiority", picking with you about "retro", and Branden with recall tallies! It's these different opinions that makes coming in here fun. You can also tell from the sigs that there are a lot of people - regular posters - that drive cars other than Camaros or Firebirds. This too makes me feel like there are real car lovers here, not just Camaro die hards. Obviously, there is a Camaro preference here... but there should be. I think it's great that you guys can allow folks like Rice-Eating 5.0, WERM, and myself to post a different opinion and not lamb-baste us for it. I can't speak for the others, but I hold nothing less than respect for the Camaro and Firebird - and I know that the guys that own them are no different from guys that own Mustangs, GTOs, 'Cudas, or any other Classic American Iron. We can all have a great time and get along if we just will.

In a nut shell, I think that's what sets this forum apart from all the others... the people that come here frequently just "love cars". That's the whole thing right there for me.

 

The main reason I said the next generation should not have t-tops is my suggestion that:
a)the rear seat be useable. Rear seats in hatches aren't.
b)to go to a true coupe (like the 1st and second generations were), the roof is almost always shorter than a hatch roof.

All the 4th gen (not sure about 3rd) Fbods were essentially T-tops to begin with. If anyone has ever read some of the better illustrated t-top conversion websites, you know how the hardtop is setup. IMO, a true hardtop would lend much better support, and be a whole less expensive to mass produce. Same goes for the tilt and slide moonroof I suggested. I have one in my current car and I love it. It's a whole lot easier to fix/keep sun/moonroof leaks than T-top leaks, speaking purely in a mass-produced quanity. No, a tilt/slide moonroof would not look good on the 4th gen. Mainly because it does not have the right lines to support it. Now, if you've seen the concept I've been referring to, the roof would look very good with that design.

While we are talking about heritage, the F-bdy really has none when you think about it. Power, and kicking *** would probably be one of the few, besides affordability. If you think back, the 79 model is the model that sold the most. Why? All it was was a stripe kit. Why is the 69 model so sought after? It was the only year for it, and IMO, had the best lines. I by far am a 1st gen fan first, and everything else last. The Camaro/Firebird line has not been a constant since it was introduced.

Like I said, I introduced my points as someone who has never owned an F-body (but have been trying certainly). Sure, T-tops may have sold a bunch of the cars that sold, but the overall sales were nothing to brag about by any means. When you consider that the Stang outsold both put together, sometimes you have to reconsider your target audience. As much as I hate to admit it, Ford has beaten GM. They went for the right target audience: women, and those who want a sporty looking car, with power second. Not to say Ford doesn't have it's power model, the Cobra. I'd have to say that if GM wants to come back in this market, they are going to have to do something like this. With the superiority GM has with it's base V8s, there is no reason why GM couldn't do what Ford is doing, AND stay on top power wise.

To let you know, I've owned a 65 Beetle, 76 Elky, 90 Probe, 97 Jeep TJ and now a 97 Eclipse. All have had their own highs and lows, but by far the best vehicle I've owned (as far as fun factor) has been this Eclipse, even with it's wrong-wheel drive I4. I can't remember how many times I've said "I wish this thing had a V8 RWD." I know the traditionalists aren't going to like it, but GM can't cater to us hardcore fans anymore. It's not about brand-loyality, because obviously it doesn't sell cars. GM has to appeal to a broader market in order for this car to come back. That is, in something remotely resembling what we had. Remember, this is the company who brought us the first Detroit FWD....Things could be worse than I suggested.

 

I just don't see that happening when the base Cavalier Coupe is selling for $14595 with a similar configuration.

I wouldn't mind a 4cyl Camaro again but it would end up being about the same size price and performance of the base Cavalier... I just don't see Chevy doing this, unless they dump the FWD Cavalier completely and replace it with a base Camaro model.

I'm easy though... I'd accept a Cavalier if it came with RWD and a V8.

 

Hmm... I would have to disagree rather strongly on that one. I would wager that f-bodies have one of the strongest heritages in the automotive industry. The F-body, since its introduction, has been a powerful, stylish, and affordable two-door rwd performance car. Throughout its 35 years of existence it has remained that way. That formula was never compromised by GM. How many other vehicles can you say that about? Camaro has always been a performance car and not an everyday coupe. If that isn't considered heritage, I don't know what is.

As far as the trunk or hatch thing...I'm undecided as well. I'm not really sure which would be better. That being said, I've had no real difficulties or qualms with my hatch. T-tops are a must for an f-body IMO. They are a large part of its heritage. I like them more that sun-roofs anyways. Once you have them, you will really enjoy them. A 4-cylinder Camaro? I hope we never ever have to see that again.

One more thing....Ford didn't really "beat" GM. They just appealed to a different audience. The Mustang has become more of a coupe (up-right seating, blockier styling, etc) than an all out performance car. Therefore, it appeals to more people as a daily driver. The f-body has remained a performance car that makes no excuses. You either like it for what it is, or you don't. That may not have done a lot for sale, but I (as a performance enthusiast) think that it is pretty darn cool

-Mike

 

Great post except this part...

I think you have the points backwards here. The Mustang remained the same, and the Camaro changed IMO.
Mustang HAS ALWAYS BEEN a sporty coupe car - the very first ones in 1964 were very upright-seated and had very vertical windshields, etc. It has never had la-z-boy seats.

The Camaro on the other hand started out with seating and body proportions like Mustang did - very upright. The evolution thru F3 and especially F4 brought the 3-acre dashboards and la-z-boy recliners.

I think both have been geared towards performance from the get go - but Mustang has always kept touch with the base or economical side of it's market though, whereas Camaro was more aggressive and went MORE performance and LESS ergonomic. Just my opinion there tho.