What concept car do u like better
1) Chevy Camaro http://images.businessweek.com/autos/inline/camaro.jpghttp://www.rsportscar s.com/foto/02/challenger06_01.jpg
2) Dodge Challenger http://www.rsportscars.com/foto/02/challenger06_01.jpg
3) Chevy Chevvele http://www.lateral-g.org/hrss454/HRSSlights4.jpg
4) Plymouth Cuda http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/5276/aarsublimefront7zn.jpg
for me its close between the challenger and camaro they both have an aressive look but in the end i would have to pick teh camaro because i am a fan
Camaro, the Cuda' looks a lil cartoonish, the Chevelle looks like COMPLETE ass, and the Challenger looks...sorta like the Camaro.
the Camaro and Challenger are both sweet, the other two are pretty strange. I'd take the Camaro over the Challenger, but I would gladly take both.
Spade <3 Camaro. period.
Are the last two even real concepts? If they are, shame on their companies. The Chevelle has to be the worst looking concept I have ever seen. Scratch that, its the worst looking car I've ever seen.
Cuda..chevelle is just ass!:2cents:
umm, smoooooth....... the cuda is an artist's render....the plymouth name
is never coming back.
So Challenger takes the cake.
But I think I like this even more......
SICK!, I"d hit it! :hi:
2006 ASC Diamondback Viper
Basically a tittyload of carbon-fibre and a combined effort from ASC, Dodge, and McLaren, gives this car less weight and more horsepower...mmm....power......
I love that look on Plymouth Cuda.
Are the last two even real concepts? If they are, shame on their companies.
The Chevelle has to be the worst looking concept I have ever seen. Scratch
that, its the worst looking car I've ever seen.
The camaro and the challenger are actual concepts but the cuda and chevelle is just art that a designer did
the Callenger doesn't look anythng like the new Camaro (and I love
That Chevelle is a modded GTO, done for Hot Rod Magazine. I loved the sketches, but the real thing is misproportioned:
The direct side view looks good, though:
Love the Challenger, the cuda is actualy this, that was a chop that someone
did from the picture here:
I think the Chevelle looks like A$$ and the Camaro looked better on paper and in the concept stage than the finished product (IMO)
I thought the chevelle was a screwed-around-with monte carlo, of the last
back end looks good, but the front looks completely stupid:2cents: :2cents:
that chevelle wanna be is absolutely hideous!!!!!!!!!!!!! disgrace to the name:banghead:
I must say as well the chevelle looks like the worse car I have ever seen.
Challenger isn't a concept anymore, it's going into production. I'm 99.9% sure it is.
The chevelle would look decent if it didnt have four lights and the grill didnt stick out. If they would just change that the car would look quite spiffy.
I don't think it's the number of lights, as it's replicating the '70
Chevelle SS. it's mroe that the headlights/grille are misproportioed
(especially comparted to the original sketch) and the car in total is to
narrow, which puts the nose, tail and qurter panels out of proportion in
anythig but a direct side view.
id have the Cuda' or the viper dodgerforlife posted lol
Gotta be the Challenger for me!
The sketch of the Chevelle is pretty sweet, that would be the next best thing to the Camaro if GM actually built it.
Challenger and Cuda get my vote. Challenger looks way better then the original and has removed some of its terrible features such as cramped wheel base and small rim.
I like the challenger. If it does go into production i wanna have one.
If it weren't for the colour, the cuda wouldn't look to bad, but the chevvelle doesn't look well planned.
I don't like ANY of those cars. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn't
there a reason cars don't look like that anymore? Like maybe the fact they
I can't stand these retro looks all to compete with the new ford mustang, which also has an ugly look.
Don't they look like they would create a lot of resistance with all the boxiness?
You're asking about a segment that really doesn't CARE about aerodynamics.
they aren't trying to be economy cars, using the least fuel possible, and
they aren't trying to be supercars that can go over 200 mph. With those two
issues non-existent, then really, aerodynamics is a minor goal. Styling and
history is more important.
Sorry, you're too narrowminded to like more than one kind of car, and have to have everything molded to one style for you to be happy. Why not accept cars for what they are for a change?
You asked to be corrected if you were wrong. You are wrong. Accept it. If you argue, then I submit that you really didn't mean to ask people to correct you if you were wrong....
Well said. They just aren't worried about Cd soaking up the engine's mechanical energy when it comes to these for any reason.
Huh? Because I don't like the cars I am narrow-minded? Okay. Guess that
makes ME narrow-minded, not you for actually passing that judgement on me
based on the fact I didn't like a couple of cars that YOU liked.
I asked if I was wrong about the aerodynamics, and you inadvertently agreed that it's not as aerodynamic. So I guess that makes me right, and that makes you a jack-ass for trying so hard to make me look wrong, immediately after agreeing that I was right.
I accept it for what they are, but the thread called for people's personal opinions on the cars, and, oh, shit, that's about exactly what I gave.
Guess you are the wrong one in this case, honey.
Forgive me for butting in guys but i need to say something.
No doubt these cars aren't exactly state of the art, they may not be efficient, may not have a low drag coeficient and do 32 mpg. The toyota camry however does have some of these qualities. Its a good car, a magnificent piece of technology. But within a few years it's replaced by a newer model which is alot better. Everybody forgets about it. Now a 1967 shelby mustang gt 500 on the other hand an old grandpa of a car still turns as many heads today as it did in its prime. these cars are design marvels, legendary masterpieces, pure v8 muscle. I love them and i'm not even American. They have changed the way we think about speed. I like the new mustang, so does motortrader magazine, BBC Top Gear,fifth gear, and about 8 other automotive magazines which i can think of. So pull those ticks out of ur nasty behind and shut it.:smoke:
You narrowminded little shit.
The point is, the FACT that they wren't aerodynamic has nothing to do with it. Therefore you're wrong. You hate the way they look because you've made an incorrect assumption because you're ain ignroant assclown. And I said...
And as predictable as the sun coming up, there you are, arguing like the little pile of feces you are.
Until you actually learn something, STFU, bitch.
Sir please don't be angry. My question was to ask about the aerodynamics. I
wasn't trying to ask why they don't look like that anymore, or why these
ones look like thise, I was trying to get verification that these cars
aren't aerodynamic. I am not a physics engineer, so I wasn't really
That's why I said you inadvertently agreed with me.
One thing I learned is that 90-95% of quarrels are because of mere misunderstandings.
As for not learning anything, if my assumption was correct, then how can you say that? Obviously I had the right idea in my mind. The fact that you like the looks and I don't is entirely separate to be quite honest, and has little to nothing to do with knowledge or being learned.
Sometimes we are a little jumpy here.
No, the assumption wasn't really correct. Cars got much less aerodynamic
AFTER those were new, as the swoopy '60s gave way to the boxy '80s. It was
simply about style and some people's need to have new things look different
than old things for the sake of being different. The new versions of these
designs are much more aerodynamic than the old ones, it's true, but the
REASONS they don't look like that anymore has zero to do with aerodynamics,
which is why not only the assumption you had was incorrect, but the
conclusion you arrived at, which in turn drove your dislike. Therefore an
opinion was driven by an erronious conclusion based an a misappliaed
Actually, it does. Cars are not natural objects, and our likes and dislikes are learned responses. So your opinion BASED on what you've learned or not learned. Opinions on this, like on every subject, can change based on learning new information. ALWAYS keep an open mind (but not too open, certain levels of caution are a good thing) and be willing to learn something new that might eradicate a previously held notion, even about something as subjective as aesthetics.
In fact, sometimes it helps to intentionally sample from genres that are not your favorites, with an open mind, and maybe add them to teh list of things you like. I have a feeling most people are afraid to do that in fear of no longer liking that which they alredy like, as if liking onething MEANS disliking another, and if you learn to like that other, you HAVE to dislike that which you liked before. This is especially prevalent in young people, but I've seen it in entrenched behavior in older people as well...
Chris, when was the last time you tried sampling a narrow minded asshat to see if you like them? :laughing:
I was saying all information aside, all purposes aside, the car isn't
aesthetically pleasing. Yeah I understand what they are going for. I feel
like the thread was designed for that response, though. I mean there was
just URLs to pics, not information about the vehicles themselves.
Also, in comparison to modern vehicles, they aren't as aerodynamic, not in comparison to older cars, sorry if that was confusing.
Open-mindedness is the overlying key to success in life (any type of success)
And I will try to keep an open mind about cars too...it's easy to be an ignorant consumer without properly researching everything.
Hell, I seem to sample those all the time, just to keep reminding myself that i don't like them... :orglaugh:
And you find it not aesthetically pleasing why? I daresay it's because you
are USED to modern styled cars, and at 18, don't have much experience with
the cars of the era that these are recalling. And not much knowledge of
what these cars still mean. Have you even tried to appreciate what those
cars mean? The ones that these new cars pay homage to?
Again, it's a learned response, and if you grew up with and loved these cars before, then you find them aesthetically pelasing in a way that modern generic blobs can't be. (and I like modern generic blobs, too..) I mean, you should read all the posts on automotive forums worldwide talking about how all cars are "starting to look the same" and asking "what happened to when cars had a sense of style?"
An example from another forum:
A couple companies make a SMALL number of cars patterned after that era, and suddenly kids like you complain about there being "too much retro" and "that stuff was ugly. I hate old cars." or, like you "I'm tired of all the____ coming out"
You're 18, you haven't experienced enough to be "tired" of anything. And the number of designs in the market that are even CLOSE to retro like this is extremely small compared to all the designs on the market. these may not be what you're looking for, but I'm sure that there are cars out there that are. They ARE what people like me, and a number of young people on these forums, are looking for and like.
Ok, so you can have your reasons for liking the cars, and I can't have
reasons for disliking the cars? Doesn't everyone have reasons for disliking
or liking something? All you're doing is pointing out the reasons I may not
dislike the cars. The fact remains: I DON'T LIKE THEM. How is it any
different? Sounds like double-standards to me.
If you grew up when I did (or am) you might probably appreciate newer cars also. Isn't that only natural to appreciate things you were conditioned to like based on society and your environment? That's all. I don't know why you think it's bad. It's not. It's just normal...lol
And as for the last paragraph, I *NEVER* said I am tired of any style, or that there is too much retro, what the hell man? Like you are upset about people saying that and now I am your outlet to complain about that? Jeez...
Bronxie you just bitch about the cars :/ thats all there is to you. And to recorrect you: The cars are more aerodynamic than you think! Theres purpose to their style and looks. The Camaro, Challenger, And Cuda are all sleek and low to the ground. Sure the front ends look boxy and shit, but they get great airflow through the front bumper and grill. More airflow, within a reasonable amount, equals better gas mileage. Put these cars in against say... almost any foriegn car and well it beats out almost every one :hi: so i guess you think the mustang retro style was a bad idea i guess you have your opinion. I on the other hand, and millions of car enthusiast... that look deeper into it... think it was one of the greatest things to happen to cars.... and i would rather have a peice of shit looking car like that concept chevelle rather than any of this shit coming from japan now-a-days... There i have corrected you for being wrong :clap:
So hes narrowminded shithead about American Muscle, and you're an ignorant twat about foreign cars. Why do people like you two exist?
all four of them.... sweet yea babe smashing..
To blazinblazer and pontiacfan:
I realize the cars have meaning and heritage behind them. I realize there is a demand for them. Personally, I don't like how they look at all. Why is that bad?
And "beating" cars isn't all there is to cars, so don't count that as a reason for me to like them :\
The Challenger and Camaro. The Chevelle looks like shit. Especially in the front end. Maybe if they would switch that up a bit, I'd like it a whole lot better. I'd take the 'Cuda or the Challenger over the Camaro, but I'd be glad to have any one of them.
fastbacks are pretty aerodynamic imo, arent they?
I am not a physics engineer or anything, but I think their boxiness create a lot of resistance. Might be wrong.
OW! That is a MEAN-lookin' car. I've gotta get me one of them ...
I'd have to say challenger all the way.
A couple reasons why:
1. Its gonna have the 6.7L Hemi option.
2. Dodge promised to produce it identically to the concept. I hate seeing a cool looking concept, then the real deal comes out looking like a deformed poo of the original.
To give life to this thread and to learn something... I was reading the Nov. issue of Hot Rod Mag. and saw that they put the LS9 600HP in the survey... Will the new Camaro actually have this option.. If so I wanna see a nice TransAm concept and hope that they pump it up even more...I get tired of seeing so many identical peices between the two which is why i liked the later gens and loved the last gen trans. oh well.