There were four Camaro generations to choose from for inspiration. They are listed here in the Camaro's Wikipedia entry.
GM's design staff had a selection problem prior to Welburn's decision. That was because there was little in the way of a consistent Camaro design theme across those four generations. This post presents examples of Camaros from generations 1967, 1970, 1982 and 1993 for your consideration and my conjectures.
This late first-generation version was the one Welburn liked best.
It was succeeded but this design. Here, GM's stylists and engineers had more opportunities to create what they thought a Mustang-beater should look like. I liked the styling when it first appeared, and I still do. Though I must add that it seems a trifle too "feminine" for a potentially hairy Muscle Car.
Third-generation styling was competently done, though it doesn't strike me as being memorable. When it was designed, Irv Rybicki was GM's Design VP.
Chuck Jordan was Design VP when this Camaro was styled. Many GM cars of that time tended to have a "soft" look. Note the large-radius curves on the fenderline that are unlike fender treatments of earlier Camaros.
Rear quarter view.
Another aspect of a fine, Bill Mitchell era design.
The '82's rear is cleaner than that of the '70.
More curves: The aft fender transition to the trunk lid. The zone around the tail lights and trunk lid cut. The rear bumper cladding.
So where is there a consistently "Camaro" design theme. I think we can disregard the '67's styling because it was an ad hoc effort where consideration of restyling possibilities was probably a minor matter at the time.
One carryover from 1967 is the wide aft pillar. But here it's a blending of B and C pillars. Another retained concept is a flowing fenderline. And a long hood.
The long hood remains, but the flowing fenderline is gone. The wide aft pillar is retained, though the backlight rear window is enlarged.
One carryover is the long hood. Another is the fenderline high-point abaft of the rear wheel well. This, in combination with the low hood, provides a fashionable "wedge" shape. The only carryovers from 1970/1982 are the hood length and the wide B/C pillar.
My conclusion is that indeed there really wasn't consistent Camaro "design language" to work with when the 2010 model was conceived. So while Welburn's decision was arbitrary, it was necessarily arbitrary.
1 comment:
The first one did seem like a reasonable response to the Mustang. Both cars defined a coherent and unique style. I think I forgot about all of them after the first two generations. After that they were really fitting in with industry wide trends, not so much being original. The 1993 has a lot in common with the Ford Probe and two next generations of Chrysler products.
On all of these being a very low car with a live RWD axle isn't a good combo spacewise. On the second gen the driveshaft tunnel is higher than the back seats, and not even disguised as a console.
Post a Comment