Chevy Impala SS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts
K

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
this is Camaro new look ??

waaw it`s Cool & Classic

 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
I agree .Its an awsome look. Post this in the concern section of the forum
 
C

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
With that low roofline, it looks to me like the wheelbase is about four inches too long. :confused:
 
C

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
it wasnt as big of a deal as you think...and to be honest IF it comes out it wont be for awhile...it was definetly not in the production ready stage that the challenger was
 
M

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
it wasnt as big of a deal as you think...and to be honest IF it comes out it wont be for awhile...it was definetly not in the production ready stage that the challenger was
True... as it stands right now, I'd buy the Challenger. There's just something out of proportion on the Camaro. I understand that somebody's building reproduction '69 Camaro bodies now, I'd rather build one of those. That's a look that GM will never be able to reproduce.
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I like it as well, but something to get used to. Maybe its too stealthly and overdone. I am not complaining, afterall at least from what they" say, it will go into prod. and be out in few years. Some people say that it probabaly would not be as seen, but rather smoother lines to a lesser degree when made. I would like to see what it looks like then, if changed or not. I am with Mauss, a 69 type reproduction would be all anyone would need, hard to beat. The challenger is very nice, sedan but nice. For the money would rather have a coupe for spending $ that much. I would get an Impala SS then.
 
C

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Dynacorn Industries is selling the repop 67 and 69 bodies through Year-One for $16,000. They're supposed to be faithful reproductions that will allow any and all original parts to fit. It's not a bad idea, but if they were going to go this far, they should have corrected some of the problems that the original had like having a real body-on-frame so that the torque from most modern crate motors doesn't warp the body and pop welds. That and coming standard with mini-tubs to allow some decent sized rubber under the car.

With all of that said, I still prefer Kris Horton's (PHR) version of the new Camaro better. But I'm hoping that the aftermarket will come through on the things I would like to change on the new one.
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Originally posted by Freeway Cruiser:
I like it as well, but something to get used to. Maybe its too stealthly and overdone. I am not complaining, afterall at least from what they" say, it will go into prod. and be out in few years. Some people say that it probabaly would not be as seen, but rather smoother lines to a lesser degree when made. I would like to see what it looks like then, if changed or not. I am with Mauss, a 69 type reproduction would be all anyone would need, hard to beat. The challenger is very nice, sedan but nice. For the money would rather have a coupe for spending $ that much. I would get an Impala SS then.
The Charger is a sedan, the Challenger is a coupe.
You can find pics of the Challenger here: www.allpar.com
 
M

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
The concept Camaro reminds me of the Mustangs late '90's all with the angled edges.

I like the Challenger even with the front looking like a 'Cuda and the tail lights looking like a 66's T-Bird.

Rode next to a Charger and the thing reminded me of the Chrysler 300's.

But with GM in the rutt you'll see the Chinese GMs getting imported back here (it'll be fun to see an American car with Chinese instruction manuals) :D .
 
Y

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
GM really needs to get back to its roots. The GTO was a horrible replacement for the 4th gen Fbodies (minus the independent rear suspension and interior).

.. at least Chrysler is going back to its roots (even though the car sits on a Mercedes E-class chassis and used the E-Class 5 speed tranny):

 
W

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
well as being a old school 69 z/28 owner and a pace car owner i seen that new one had to grab a trash can to throw up in ...i can see why gm is going down the toilet. sorry to say, and now i here there not making any more gto's, dont care from them either
 
R

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Originally posted by 89caprice9C1:
With that low roofline, it looks to me like the wheelbase is about four inches too long. :confused:
This new one is actually less than an inch longer than the 69, but has about 2 inchs more wheelbase, and is a bit wider. It is also about 3 or 4 inchs taller.
 
G

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Originally posted by 89caprice9C1:
Dynacorn Industries is selling the repop 67 and 69 bodies through Year-One for $16,000. They're supposed to be faithful reproductions that will allow any and all original parts to fit. It's not a bad idea, but if they were going to go this far, they should have corrected some of the problems that the original had like having a real body-on-frame so that the torque from most modern crate motors doesn't warp the body and pop welds. That and coming standard with mini-tubs to allow some decent sized rubber under the car.

With all of that said, I still prefer Kris Horton's (PHR) version of the new Camaro better. But I'm hoping that the aftermarket will come through on the things I would like to change on the new one.
The mini-tubs are an option on the Dynacorn bodies. And what is this about warping bodies and popped welds from a lack of a full frame? Big block Camaros, Hemi Cudas, Boss 429 Mustangs, to name a few, did ok without a full frame. :rolleyes:
 
A

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Originally posted by Raxstone:
This new one is actually less than an inch longer than the 69, but has about 2 inchs more wheelbase, and is a bit wider. It is also about 3 or 4 inchs taller.
I read somewhere that the Camaro concept is wider than a Tahoe. :eek: Not sure if it's true. I'd still buy one. :D
 
B

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
My only gripe is that the wheels are WAY TO BIG. Then again, thats what everyone likes....
1st thing I would do is toss some 15X12 on there with some stickies
 
N

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Looks like a hot wheels car - built offshore - by someone who thought they knew what a Camaro looked like.
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Originally posted by 95RoadMonsterWagon:
Looks like a hot wheels car - built offshore - by someone who thought they knew what a Camaro looked like.
Amen.
 
C

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Originally posted by GN 1220:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
The mini-tubs are an option on the Dynacorn bodies. And what is this about warping bodies and popped welds from a lack of a full frame? Big block Camaros, Hemi Cudas, Boss 429 Mustangs, to name a few, did ok without a full frame. :rolleyes: [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]If you're ever in the Central WI neighborhood during the Summer, look me up and I'll take you for a ride in my 502-powered '68 Camaro. Trust me, with your arm resting on the door panel and the window down just far enough to let out cigarette smoke, you WILL pinch your fingers if I punch it! And I can send you the pictures of the cracked paint and body work on the rear valance panel or the tears in the sheet metal at the lower right corner of the rear window to prove it.
Yeah, those cars did alright. As long as they didn't/don't get traction. ;)

Thanks for the heads-up on the mini-tubbing. I didn't see that option listed on the Year-One website. I also got the price wrong.
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Ugh, what a disgrace to the F-Body..

You know, it really hurts to say it but:

Ford really hit the nail on the head when it comes to retro / modern looks.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top