It looks mean! I like it. Just like other concept cars there is a great probability that they will never produce it.
2006 Camaro concept?
- Thread starter QuicksilverC5
- Start date
You drive a Formula, what do you know.. teehee ;-) ;-)
Last edited:
I love the front end! looks very 67ish. I agree it will never make production without a front bumper. I hope they bring it back and not follow the Dodge example with a 4 banger turbo (not a flame I just like a V8). Get your head out of your asses GM -bring back the Cam/Trans/Bird!!!!
GM will make it front wheel drive and stuff a 4-banger in it. Thats what they do with all the cars they bring back out (mali, impala,grand-prix.....). -Dan
Artists Rendition of the new Camaro
it that's what is suppose to be it's still ugly
Very unique ..... Like most have said ... much nicer looking than the new C6. Not even in the same universe as the new Stang.
It's nice to see someone is at least trying to make an effort.
It's nice to see someone is at least trying to make an effort.
SuperStallion55
New Member
:lol: I thought for a second I was at CZ28.com too funny til I saw 03DOHC's sig too funny!!
the colors are similar..
the colors are similar..
SuperStallion55
New Member
:lol: nice man you must have inside info at GM!! :kaboom:
Don't know if you've noticed, but bumpers have been disappearing in many sports cars for the last 10 years. I looked all over and did't see one on my C5.:rollseyes Cars have crumple zones now.
Of course it would have a V8 and RWD, it's a Camaro. Though I'm not a big fan of all the retro junk made recently, I think this is a nice blend of new and old.
Just going off 30 years of bastardization of GM cars. No inside info needed.
Quicksilver: Bumpers are required on all vehicles sold in the states. Look under the plastic/fiberglass and you will see it.:read:
What the people here were talking about was visible bumpers...since all we have to go on is a photo. I'm aware there are obviously going to be bumpers in there, but they're not visible and more integrated into the crumple zone. Today's crash protection is more than just a beam to protect the driver. But i digress. Point is, there will of course be a bumper in there, bumpers just aren't on the outside of the cars today. The conversation was in regard to not being able to see a bumper.
K just making sure we are on the same wavelength. They could easily put the bumper on that car behind the grille area.
I wasnt being serious about the 4-banger thing. I am just making it known that GM likes to screw up cool cars. I dont quite understand why they dont use new names for new cars. Why use the old names when the new car isnt anything at all like the old car. Doesnt make sense to me :shrug: .
Scoriox, we agree on something...wow
Don't use new names on cars...like Thunderbird, GT40 (errr GT)??? Point is, they all use old names to draw in peole who always wanted a GTO, GT40, Thunderbird, etc but couldn't afford it back in the day. It's marketing, get used to it.
Don't use new names on cars...like Thunderbird, GT40 (errr GT)??? Point is, they all use old names to draw in peole who always wanted a GTO, GT40, Thunderbird, etc but couldn't afford it back in the day. It's marketing, get used to it.
Flames stay in smack down for the most part.
Not sure about you, but I still won't be able to afford a GT(44).
Well, I'll have my MD soon enough, but it was always an expensive and rare ride. Are they going to call it the GT44?
Nope, just GT.
Just one thing though... It would have been impossible to get your hands on a GT40 back in the mid 60's anyway since they were never an actual production car unless you bought one after they were "decommissioned", and I'd be willing to wager most of em ended up in museums. (I know a couple of em are up at the Henry Ford museum in Michigan)
Users who are viewing this thread
