Production Camaro SS front shot
7/11/08, 12:25 PM
#1
I Have No Life
Thread Starter
7/11/08, 03:22 PM
#5
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The front is fine, maybe not what it could have been, but not bad either and certainly passable. Might have done the hood/bumper interface a bit better, but this will certainly suffice.
I agree, the side view is pretty great, with the hips and sculpting the Mustang should have had. The profile is low with great contouring of the beltline, which breaks up the typical for today panel-van slab sidedness so typical in contemporary designs. The greenhouse, while the usual shallow aspect, it doesn't seem to quite sink into gun-bunker silliness though greater glass area and outward visibility wouldn't hurt.
Then there's the rear that will have people groping for the welding goggles lest their sear their retinas.
Both contrived in conception and awkward in execution, there just a lack of coherence and integration evidenced in the rest of the body. The cut/seam lines seem forced by engineering necessity rather than a close integration with design aesthetics. It reflects an pubescent affectation of "bad-azzness" grrr, grrrr aggressiveness that ends up more Neanderthal-level machismo posturing than anything truly good looking. A shame because most/all previous Camaro rear ends were actually very well and tastefully done. Put that rear end design back on the far shelf from which it was grabbed from.
7/11/08, 11:44 PM
#10
MOTM Committee Member
anyone see a resemblance? Remember when ford was afraid that people would think they copied chevy's camaro design when they made the 2010 mustang?
Now we see why..
7/12/08, 02:29 AM
#11
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Join Date: February 1, 2004
Posts: 3,751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Between the taillights and the awful faux-splitter, that rear is just an embarrassment.
As for the front, the lower grille is awful. Makes the MKS lower grill look like a triumph of design, and don't get me started on the non-functional front "scoop"
That's it? That's what we waited through months of the quad-lights for? A non-round main beam and turning indicators that look fresh from the 1990s parts bin? It really took them this long to crank up a production line for that? They couldn't just cut up an old Wrangler's lights?
As for the front, the lower grille is awful. Makes the MKS lower grill look like a triumph of design, and don't get me started on the non-functional front "scoop"
That's it? That's what we waited through months of the quad-lights for? A non-round main beam and turning indicators that look fresh from the 1990s parts bin? It really took them this long to crank up a production line for that? They couldn't just cut up an old Wrangler's lights?
Last edited by Moosetang; 7/12/08 at 02:31 AM.
7/12/08, 02:57 AM
#12
Post *****
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Location: Berkeley/Redwood City, CA
Posts: 18,613
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
I still think it all looks good, amber tailight aside (when did that happen!?)
I suppose one could just tint them.
And as someone who also once had a "what the frick is that doing there?!" tow hitch, I approve
I suppose one could just tint them.
And as someone who also once had a "what the frick is that doing there?!" tow hitch, I approve
7/12/08, 03:25 PM
#13
Shelby GT350 Member
Since the Camaros were testing in Australia, they were required by law to have amber rear turn signals to operate on the roads. They are not production spec for North America as they will certainly be all red. Keep in mind also that if you see prototypes here in the US with amber lenses they were probably shipped here from Australia after evaluation there and do not reflect production specs.
Last edited by watchdevil; 7/12/08 at 03:44 PM.
7/12/08, 10:28 PM
#15
NTTAWWT
the front view looks good, I wouldnt have extended the grill onto the turn signals, the side view looks okay except the rear window/quarter panel looks pretty stupid, and the rear is a joke!
btw, I think they need a new detailer, that car has holograms out the @$$
btw, I think they need a new detailer, that car has holograms out the @$$
7/15/08, 06:31 AM
#17
Legacy TMS Member Pr
The front and sides look okay, but the rear end needs to be redone. Those lame tailights don't resemble anything from the original 67-69 Camaro. I'm really disappointed. They should have used them on the Impalla, not on the Camaro. 
7/15/08, 08:03 AM
#18
Shelby GT350 Member
The Camaro taillights look light they could not decide between the round units of the 1971-73 models or the horizontal rectangular pods of the 1967-70 models. So they compromised.
7/15/08, 08:06 AM
#19
Legacy TMS Member Pr
7/17/08, 09:28 PM
#20
Shelby GT350 Member