2009 Chevrolet Camaro


GM might announce actual production plans this coming Thursday!

The all new Camaro would come out in 2008 as a 2009 model.
It will feature a V6 as well as 2 V8 engines.

The V6 means it will be an affordable car, competing with the Mustang.
Let’s hope GM doesn’t change the design too much, or makes it even better.
Chrysler has already announced the production version of the Challenger would be “identical” to the concept…

Check out AmericanMuscle.com and their new line of
Chevrolet Camaro
Parts
.

Conversation 24 comments

  1. this is sad. if all american auto companies can profit on is overdesigned, hideous, and unefficient retromobiles which will likely be bought by retired people living in florida or california, then it’s no surprise why the big three are losing to everyone else. call me crazy, but i would rather have an M3 or a CLK55.

  2. A lot of people would take an M3 or CLK55.
    But that’s the difference between $25 000 and well over $50 000!

    Why not compare a Corolla to a Bentley…

  3. Nice ‘semi-halo’ car, but is this going to save GM? Camrys and Accords and 6’s have gotten so good, they’re never going to catch up.

    Japan and Korea producing great everyday cars that make money…and GM and Ford are off making the kinds of cars that made them money back in the 60’s and 70’s…but aren’t going to sustain their market share.

    As good as it might be…it’s not what GM needs right now.

  4. I rather that they sell this car for $50,000, so middle age men do not have to drive something plastic and rubbish that teenagers want to drive. Give us a credible 911 fighter that can crush Germans or British inside and out. Some may say Corvette is good enough, but those leaf-springs and chocolate box interiors are just not good enough for the modern world.

  5. Hrmm i’m not sure if I believe it when companies say the production version will look ‘identical’ to ‘extremely close’ to the concept.

    They said the same thing about Zeypher and Eclipse. Sure they look pretty close, but it’s missing all the intricate detailing of the concepts.

    I’ll believe their claims when I see it

  6. Hey, in my opinion the camaro just doesn’t do it for me. I say it every time, it looks like a cartoon in its current form. The other poster who wrote that it was overdesigned is right on the money too. This will likely be one of those over hyped, over priced cars that will just flutter like the SSR.

    As for the charger, even though im no fan of retro designs, you can’t help but admire that car for just looking handsome. I would take that one anyday over this camaro.

  7. Anyone notice that the styling cues for this concept were lifted straight from an 85-86 Monte Carlo SS?

  8. Well, their transition from concept to production model can’t be worse than the ultimate let down. The pontiac g6 concept vs the current production model. That concept was perfect and easily produceable.

  9. Just another retro car for erectile-challenged, insecure men to relive their (or imagined) pasts.

    Remember the Thunderbird? Oooh, that was such a smash success.

    Paleeze. Get a real car, guys.

  10. I prefer it to the Challenger: at least GM’s designers didn’t just walk to a Xerox machine and called it a new car. It could work, as there is export potential. Imagine this as the next Monaro, since it is based on the Commodore’s platform.

  11. This concept was a “teaser” and IMHO the auto-equivalent of a cheap hooker. Further, there are too many elements which won’t make production for many reasons-mainly cost and safety considerations. Certainly the production version will have these styling cues but in a much more toned-down version. I think the profile is fine but the front and rear are mistakes. If Chevy does it right the production car will have the same “tucked-in” look that the ’67-68 did when the look was fresh, innocent yet muscular. Ford got it right with the current Mustang and Chevy would be wise to not try to out-do them, just be true to their original from 1967.

  12. I wonder how expensive gaz will be in 2008-2009…

    Once again, a good car at the wrong time…

    With the hybrids picking up production and becoming more and more popular, I wonder if the horsepower war will be over in 2008-09.

    I remember here in Canada when the last Camaro came out… We all tought they missed the boat. We(and auto journalists) were all expecting a smaller V6 camaro with an independant suspension… To go against the better japanese counterparts.

    And Chrysler has seen better years in Canada. Pretty much all their models are V6 or V8 and when I go to a dealership late in the afternoon, I’m often the only customer they’ve had in their day…

    Will we miss the boat another time with cars doing 15-20 mpg when the gallon is $4?

  13. in response to the first two comments, an M3 or maybe even a CLK55 may cost more to buy outwright, but because of the good fuel economy (M3 more so than the Benz), more reasonable insurance (3.6L I-6 versus a 4.0+L V8 in the M3), and better resale values, over time it actually seems a better proposition.

  14. This car will be good for GM. If they don’t screw up the design (an iffy bet) it’ll sell like hotcakes. Yes Chevy needs a good midsized car. Yes Chevy needs a good selection of small cars and efficient cars. But I hope there never is a time when an exciting sports car is the “right car for the wrong time.” Toyota has mastered the vanilla category and has coaxed a lot of Dick-n-Janes into their cars selling well-built mediocrity and even better crafted publicity. No other brand has been able to achieve the same success following that model. Thankfully.

    GM, build this car… make it better than the Mustang. Don’t listen to the cynical group here who base their opinions on an in-depth knowledge of your historical mis-steps. An honest effort (not a superfluous SSR) will be appreciated and be reflected in increased sales. Really, it’s that simple.

  15. For poster #1. Good. I hope you don’t buy it. I don’t want people who pretend they’re smart and then write “unefficient” instead of the correct word “Inefficient” to drive good looking cars.

  16. 1. Retired people in flroida buy buicks, not camaros. Middle aged men buy boxsters and vettes, not camaros, it would attract a much younger market than u imagine, like the new mustang has, there is about a dozen back at school.
    2. As was said, M3 and CLK55 are not in the same segment.
    3. The Camaro has gotten decent gas mileage in the last generation.
    4. If u knock the vette for having a leafspring suspension, u r clueless. The leafspring suspension in the vette ZO6 outperformed the 911 turbo and F430 in roadholding and overall track times. That would make it a strong point, not a liability, according to reason that is. I agree tho the interior is not 50k material but id imagine the new GM will fix that.

  17. i think that the styling will be toned down. it’s just too busy right now (like that cheap hooker comment from earlier). but i think the overall styling will be true to the concept. the only thing we have to worry about is the interior. like 11:36 said, the interior of the G6 concept was totally doable but then they came out with that AWFUL center stack (the rest of the interior is fine). the camaro concept’s interior isn’t as production viable so we’ll see what GM does with it.

  18. Retired people don’t always buy buicks…look at the pt cruiser (a car mainly appealing to 50+ women). they try to “reinvent” themselves by buying something that will make them look younger. look at honda. although it has its fair share of younger people, in the u.k., the average age of a civic buyer was 57. to the last commenter, has gm ever really built a quality product on par with, say, a Lexus? Would you rather spend $51,245 on a V-8 STS or $52,070 on a GS430? which car do you think gets better mpg, has better resale, a better reliability record, and a brand with impeccable customer service? i’m not saying all american cars are trash, and probably none of them are absolutely horrible, but when you consider what else is out there and the ownership costs involved, the american auto industry is just far behind the rest of the world in terms of design, performance, and quality.

  19. Gee, I sure want this gas-hog, retro car designed for balding NASCAR dads and their limp-dick memories.

    Not!

  20. It’s too damned wide! The original was a small, tossable car with beautifully clean, crisp lines. This new one has the crisp part down pat, but it’s heavy and bloated with a hideous front end.

    GM should put as much importance on designing their bread and butter sedans instead of this middle-aged toy.

  21. Cars designs these days are either super-dull, same-old-same-old or overwrought, like this example, the 2009 camaro. I hope GM tidies up the overdone lines and ‘lightens’ the overall look. This design looks too much like a car from a comic book. It does have some nice elements, bold ones (like the stance, overall side profile [although would probably look better being a bit smaller/shorter]) that would make many European designers do a double-take, but they are ultimately derivative of the ’69 design. I don’t see anything truly innovative here, which may be what GM design intended.

    Here is an amateur design that, for me, has a better flow to it:

    Atomic Shark Camaro

  22. Well you people might not like the new camaro, but i think its an incredible car, and once you see me driving down the road with some graphics and 21″ rims, youll want one too. And do think i’ll be thinkin about fuel flyin down the road at buck 40, hell no, its all fun and games from there on out.
    GM love the car, i’ll buy it as soon as it hits the floor

  23. G.M. Needed to do this Car about 5 years ago… once again the bean counters have screwed it up! Remember the lack of a 1976 Z-28??? I totally love the new car; Its WAY OVERDUE! Ford is still building the same old crap-the new Mustang is still rolling on a glorified Fox chassis and running that boat anchor Triton motor! Can we get some kind of pricing PLEASE!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *