GM Inside News Forum banner

Gen 6 Camaro Render from Spy Pics

29K views 117 replies 54 participants last post by  MonaroSS 
#1 · (Edited)
We have no way of knowing if the lights under the camo are even in the production positions or if the grill bars and outlines relate to final styling.

However, if they are close then the below chop, which I have been styling based on what can be made out, is possible under that camo, as is hundreds of other possibilities.

The point I'm making is that people, thinking it's going to be just a refreshed Gen 5 moved to Alpha, may get a surprise. There is plenty of potential for variation...

I think people assuming Gen6 will be just a Gen5 redux on Alpha are not giving Ed Welburn and his team, who love Camaro, credit for how they can evolve the design in ways we will be surprised at and delighted with.


So I want your opinion, but not on the chop - it isn't relevant beyond being exemplative.

The issue is whether you think the Gen6 will just be Gen5 all over again. Additional discussion is will or should GM evolve the design to something more modern, or perhaps revive styling from some other generation...

That is the opinion sought.... the chop is only there as a metaphor of what could be unexpectedly hidden under the camo, it doesn't matter what the chop looks like...






NOTE: THE CAMARO WILL NOT LOOK LIKE THIS - THIS IS JUST A QUICK EXAMPLE SLAPPED TOGETHER AND CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT SEE SO AS TO DEMONSTRATE HOW DIFFERENT IT COULD BE WHEN SHOWN FROM THE GEN 5...







BTW the wheels on the camo cars are exactly 20 inches. I took the 18 inches wheels from the red Camaro and overlaid a transparency of it and resized it so the wheel nuts were exactly the same size. Then measured top to bottom and side to side on both and both showed the camo wheels 2 inches larger, but it is possible the wheels are metric Michelin runflats used to confuse us - in which case the numbers are up in the air.

Update on all measurements I took off wheels, they are wrong. The wheel covers are actually bigger than the wheel covering some of the tire (you can see it in some of the angled shots with the right light) and screwing with the appearance of wheel size making the wheels usless to measure from... damn....


;)
 
See less See more
1
#24 ·
It's fun to speculate.....it keeps time going and keeps things interesting. This is no different. It's fun to guess the measurements and talk about what the car looks like. But in the end, whenever people are working on something their excited about, they'll tend to talk about it as far as they can go without risking losing their jobs. There's been plenty said about the next gen Camaro by those working on it.

They've said it was going to be evolutionary in design, and the parts that's exposed is almost identical to the current Camaro. Against the other Camaro in the latest picture, we also see that the car (while seemingly not exactly as wide as the current car) is certainly about as long and has the same proportions.....especially the fact that it's front wheels are pushed away from the passenger compartment, and about as far forwards as it will go.

The idea that the next Camaro will have a 103" wheelbase is downright silly. The Chevy Cruze has a longer wheelbase than that. The current BMW 4 series has a 110 wheelbase. If you were pushing Camaro's front wheels forward again in the next gen (which the pictures show that they did), with a mere 103 wheelbase, the car would be no longer than a Ford Focus (whose wheelbase is also longer than 103"), which it clearly is bigger.

Speculation is fun, and letting imaginations run wild is also part of enthusiasts sites even when the conspiracy theorists start chiming in with their ideas that things from the sheetmetal to the lights are done by car companies simply to "throw people off" (they don't, but it's fun to read these anyway). At the end of the day though, it's the people who are making things happen in creating the real thing who you want to go to for the hard facts. No, they won't tell you everything, but if they're giving very general descriptions about where a vehicle is going and what the boundaries and goalposts they set with the new car, you can bet that's exactly what's going to happen.

I'd be the first one to push for a smaller Camaro (as if I had any influence in that regard), but when they're armed with surveys from actual new Camaro buyers, studies from Camaro owners, and feedback given to visiting GM reps to various Camaro club gatherings, the idea of a small Camaro (ie: ATS sized) is a non starter.

But then, don't take my word for it.......we'll all see it very soon. :)





Because it's the best selling sporty coupe in the US, and you don't mess with success...... and they aren't.

It's like trying to paint a portrait of a girl you have only ever groped in the dark... :D




;)
Which would indicate that your picture is quite possibly more wishful thinking than what it'll actually look like when the lights come on?

Outside of knowing if she has all her teeth, an oversized nose, a large brassier size, or facial hair, there's not very much appearance wise that you're going to be able to paint just groping in the dark. ;)

But when you look at the car turning the corner what you are thinking may be an inner headlight element of a wider horizontal headlight flashes bright amber. There is definitely a round single headlight visible at the extremes and the inner light is a turn indicator light. The question is - are they one continuous light fixture or seperate? And in any case they may just be temporary units screwed on with self tappers... so... it's just guessing until we get an accidental on purpose poorly attached camo exposing something while the cars get parked for lunch - when GM wants us to know more. :D



;)
MonaroSS, I'd suspect you of all people should know better than to look at headlights.... under camouflage...... and proclaim what a car's going to look like. Afterall, we all've have been here before ;) :



To this day, I still remember all the hysteria on the internet from people on seeing those lights......even though they already saw the 2006 Camaro concept, and knew the car was going to be near identical!!
 
#14 ·
Did you use some Gen 3 as inspiration for you effort? I am wondering if the rear seat or trunk will be any more user friendly. Based on what the competition does from one generation to another I may be dreaming on that.

I bet the change is not as dramatic as you think. These cars tend to be very evolutionary in appearance changes.
 
#23 · (Edited)
Thats because in the side shots you can see there is at least a few inches of padding on top of the hood leading edge - which I shaved off. From the side up close it is obvious as you follow the hood line down in a gentle curve and then it rises up and protrudes above the hood line..





;)
 
#29 ·
MonaroSS
2 points:
1.) Regardless of whether this rendering is anywhere near close or not, I am happy to see you were not deterred by the acrimonious assault on your last Caddy effort. I always like to see your thoughts brought to life and hope that the inevitable debates can be kept civil.
2.)The very fact that there are always such disparate opinions is exactly why I hate that so much weight is given to feedback from focus groups. The last people on the planet who should be influencing what designs will work on the road 3 - 4 years from now are consumers who can only relate to what they see on the road today and arrived at the focus event in their 2007 Impala.
 
#40 ·
Y'all are going to get a big surprise when the sheet is pulled off the ghost, and you see quite a bit of 3rd Gen Camaro appearance DNA in the 6th Gen. :cool:
 
#43 ·
I already scaled one of the side photos. 20" wheels. 112" wheelbase. about 52" tall. A CTS with the 4 cylinder is 3500 lb...

I don't like the render, and also believe it's nowhere near the actual shape. I don't know how GM will streamline the gen 5 shape, and still have it look good, but I'm counting on the gen 6 looking good.
 
#47 · (Edited)
Some old cars with wheelbase dimensions:

1928 - 1931 ( Model A ) 103.5"

1969 Maverick: 103"

1955-57 Corvette 102"

1967-1969 Camaro: 108"

1964-1969 Mustang: 108"

1967-1969 Cougar: 111"

I once joked, when figures for the next Mustang being touted as 350lb less than the current car, Gen VI Camaro as 3300-3400lb and ATS as 3100lb that these cars would have to be Miata sized. (92" wheelbase, 157" long). Forget Pony Cars, it woudl be Shetland Pony Cars!

I said that as a joke. But a Gen VI 1" more in the wheelbase than a 55 Corvette would represent a very difficult juggling act. Setting aside things like incorporating crumple zones into the bodywork to keep it's NHTSA ratings (and I can't see GM going backwards) then there's the issue of the missing 5" over the original Gen 1 car and what - 6" less than an ATS. That is going to have numerous reprercussions: GM's fours aren't overly compact or light. Mazda makes a tiny motor for the Miata that is very compact and then rearsets it behind the front axle for perfect handling. If Camaro keeps a 2+2 format, you can't sit the engine that far back - unless it becomes a blunt hatchback like the BMW Z4. Not gonna happen. We can see that in the pics. The problem becomes far more extreme when you wedge a LT1 - remember, it's 50lb heavier, bigger and bulkier due to DI than a Gen IV V8 in. If the car does drop 200-300 lb, it is mainly from the rear. If the car is 103" wheelbase and <185" long the only way to keep a reasonable CoG and near-50:50 weight distribution is to drag the engine back. So you options are 2-seater as per 370Z (not likely when you have a 2-seater Corvette), shorten the greenhouse and seats (already tight according to most reviews) or raid the trunk and fuel cells for room. And remember, these cars are lower, which means to fit a normal size human in, unless you want to contort yourself like a Lotus Elise it needs room under the roof. Otherwise you are going to look like Arnold Schwarzenegger driving a Nano! Americans, like most western nations, people ain't getting littler.

And that leads on to the final point: if GM is finding the ATS a difficult sell at the same dollars as a larger Sigma II CTS, how much moreso is it going to find convincing Gen V owners to pay more (no way is it going to be less) for a car with a missing 5" - that makes them feel they are missing 5" in the trouser dept due to it's diminutive size! I can imagine previous Gen owners driving onto the lot to trade up - and doing a doubletake, when it feels like Gulliver in Liliput; when he views a Gen VI, shorter than a Cruze, and lower than a Sonic and even a Spark!

I think, 109" is more doable, and by itself a smaller footprint will lower weight by 100-150lb which is more reaslistic. it's going to have more equipment, more computers, more tech - this will offset the weight reductions from more alloy and smaller size, presuming that is the case.
 
#63 · (Edited)
I measured the pic and made the calculations. However my caveat is that the wheels on the red Gen5 be 18's, which apparently they are, and that the bolt patterns be the same from Gen5 to Gen6, which one assumes. There is another assumption I briefly mentioned which is that these camo wheels are not metric.

That would stuff up my calculations as when dealing with approximations it really helps when you know you are approximating to distinct cutoffs such as is it a 20 or 21 inch wheel? When the number falls between you know it has to be the one it's closest to as they don't make a 20.3 or 20.7 inch wheel. Or do they?

These camo pics have two sized wheels and I was measuring the larger one's, but I did notice they had a strange beading which if memory serves was like on those Michelin metric PAX runflat tires that made an appearance on cars like the Audi A8 and Bugatti Veyron. Those tires are still made but due to be phased out. I wonder if GM would use them just to screw up people trying to measure these cars?

Using my method of sizing the bolt patterns of the 18 inch wheel over the camo wheel, when you push the size down to make the camo wheel 21 inches then the bolt patterns obviously don't match - so you exclude the 21 inch option and that leaves the next one down which is 20 inch. But if you were not bound to the whole inch scale then the bolt patterns could be an acceptable match at as high as 20.7 inches. If that were true the WB, which is easily measured at 5.177 'wheels' long, and thus 103.5 inch with a 20 inch wheel, becomes 107.7 inches long with a 20.7 inch metric sized wheel.

Anyone know the PAX wheel sizes around the 20 - 21 inch size?


;)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top