Talk:Chevrolet Camaro (fifth generation)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Platform is now Zeta?

Unless its just me, the 2007 concept is quite a bit smaller than the 2006 concept. May have somehting to do with the switch from Sigma/Sigma-Lite to Zeta. Any Comments? CJ DUB 17:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that they are the very same dimensions except for the height (obviously), but this could very well be the case. It would be a massive change from what GM has been saying, though, and I haven't read anything about a platform change at this point. I would go with what we know so far and so far it's still on Zeta. Roguegeek (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Same here, and on top of that, moving from Sigma or Sigma Lite to Zeta would result in a larger car - Zeta is the larger of the two platforms, from everything I've read. Ayocee 13:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the Sigma concept. That was a huge car. I mean bigger than an Impala! The Zeta looks more diminutive by far. Could they be using a modified Zeta platform? PS. This car is gonna compete with the Corvette, and that's very funny, as people are talking about this car as the one to salvage GMs bang for buck reputation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CJ DUB (talk • contribs).

It's probably a good idea to keep speculation and original research to a minimum. Roguegeek (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

??? This needs a follow-up for inclusion in the article. The original (2006) car was advertized everywhere as being Sigma or Sigma lite. The 2007 concept was just announced as Zeta. That's pretty significant. The 2006 and 2007 are different cars. CJ DUB 18:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems as though there is some confusion here about chassis designations, so let me clear it up... The 2006 and 2007 Camaro Concepts are the exact same with the exception of the 2007 being a convertible. Both concepts are built on donor Sigma chassis from a Cadillac STS. Sigma is not the production chassis, but was just used for the show cars. The production chassis will be Zeta, and will be built along side the other Zeta-based cars at Oshawa Assembly. OctaneZ28 14:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. CJ DUB 17:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The concept cars arent exactly on a donor sigma chassis either... the concept cars are on a platform which is a mix mix of other platforms, some from Sigma, some from Holden's older platform. As a whole, it's not really based on any production platform. Thontor 16:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Rename article

I suggest renaming this article to "Chevrolet Camaro (fifth generation)". The product in an article should always go at the beginning of the title. In fact, we may even want to call it "Chevrolet Camaro (2009)" if we're certain enough of the debut model year. --Vossanova ^o< 20:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: Shortly after this suggestion I noticed there were First-generation, Second-generation, etc. articles for the Camaro as well. So if this article were renamed, those would have to be considered as well. Also, according to the proposed naming convention at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Proposed_naming_convention#Disambiguating_by_year_or_version, auto articles by year(s) should have the year(s) in front of the model name. One could argue "X-generation" articles should be named the same way. So, I'll probably withdraw this suggestion in a few days if no-one has anything to add. --Vossanova ^o< 18:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

i tend to agree that all the articles should be renamed "Chevrolet Camaro (xxxx generation)" it seems like a much cleaner and more formal title for the articles Thontor 13:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not against this idea, but I do think it should be brought up at Talk:Chevrolet Camaro so all editors can participate in the discussions before a decision is made. This naming convention actually conforms with a lot of automobile articles that separate out by generation, which is why I went with it in the first place. Roguegeek (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Existing concept cars

i'm the one who put that list of the existing 2006 concept cars in there, thanks for editing it into paragraph form Roguegeek, looks much better than my bulleted list.. as for the source... i don't think there is any one particular place that describes the existance of all 3 2006 coupe concepts... but it's just a matter of observation that there is the silver car and the red shell of a car in north america, and the silver shell just recently started making the rounds in the australia.... i guess it could be done by referencing 3 individual articles which describe the 3 different cars.. i would have to do some searching for those

also on the bumblebee camaro prop car... there was a featured article in a car magazine a while back... that described saleen's involvement and the whole process of converting late model GTOs into the prop camaros Thontor 16:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me first say I'm always happy to see new editors constructively editing articles and this time is no exception. All of the info added was good. It's just that I've been making it a point to cite sources for everything in this article and, therefore, I want to make sure we can get some proper sources in there for the newly added info. My entire goal when editing any article is to bring it closer to GA status. Citing sources helps this greatly. I suspect the info added on the concept vehicles is true, but it's purely editor speculation right now until we can get proper sources. As for the stuff about Saleen, it sounds like the info came from a proper source. I would suggest getting the info on the magazine and then put it in using the {{cite journal}} template. Roguegeek (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

would this be a good enough source for the bumblebee info? ... it describes what the article says, to a certain point... though ti doesnt mention the whole fake wheel issue http://5thgencamaro.blogspot.com/2006/09/bumblebee-exposed-in-hot-rod-magazine.html Thontor 21:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

actually i found an even better one with pictures and captions which you can read http://tformers.com/article.php?sid=6541 Thontor 16:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Release date pushback?

When did the release get pushed back to 2010? Nearly every source I've read before said the car would be out in late 2008 as an '09 - but now even older sources seem to be pointing to a 2010 model year release. Or am I imagining things? Ayocee 01:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It didn't. 2009 is the first model year for the fifth-gen Camaro. Roguegeek (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Going through the different media outlets, I'm finding they're speculating the Camaro will be a 2010 model year vehicle. I've added this info back into the article, but the official information still claims a 2009 model year. I think it should stay as such until GM says otherwise. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of following the official word myself, but I won't believe the car is out until I get a chance to sit in one at a dealership and make "vroom vroom" noises while I wait for depreciation to do the dirty work for me :) Ayocee 20:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

GM never released anything saying that the car would be MY2009... all they have said is that that production will begin 4th qtr 2008 and the car will go on sale 1st qtr 2009. That has not changed since the initial announcement. A model year has never been officially announced by GM. Lately, inside sources have said that the car will be a MY2010. The media started a rumor that it would be a 2009 and it caught on but that was never official. 69.214.109.131 (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

that was me by the way, forgot to sign in.. and let me just restate.. release has not been pushed back at all... GM has never announced a model yaer... all they have said is when they will start production, and when it will go on sale. and this hasnt changed since they announced it Thontor (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please check out the sources provided for clarification. Roguegeek (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

australia

i found it a bit strange that there was no mention of the deep australian connection to this car, so i added that it was "australian designed and engineered" which was a bit clumsy and i had yet to add a cite but never the less it was trithful. and i came back the next day after finding a cite and it had been deleted, can i ask why.59.154.24.147 (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the info due to no citation given. A claim like that should be properly cited. Furthermore, the vehicle is engineered in Australia, but it is not Australian designed. The final production design simply being finalized in Australia. The vehicle is designed by Sangyup Lee, a Korean native. I'm going to edit to make this more clear. Roguegeek (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Upon further reading of the article provided, I see that it says "Holden and a team of US engineers" are developing the vehicle in Australia. The only thing I want to keep clear is the difference between "Australian-designed" and "designed in Australia", especially since the original design is clearly not of Australian origins. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

that is fair enough. although i have an issue with saying it was desingned in australia rather than australian design, i understand that the cheif designer was lee and that there are americans involved but as this link (http://www.wheelsmag.com.au/wheels/site/articleIDs/04D4EAFB7227081DCA2572C2000A696C?open&pagenum=3) explains most of the work is done in australia by australians. (page 3 paragraph 3)59.154.24.147 (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Price Range...

As it is the year of 2008, some readers may be looking at this article and wondering what the price of this machine will cost them. I am not 100% sure where one would find out what this car might cost but I feel that it is worth looking into. thanks for the time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donniehoward08 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Prices have not been announced by GM yet and, therefore, throwing anything into the article would be purely speculative. The only thing GM has stated when it came to price was that it would be comparable to Mustang which the article does state with a cited source. roguegeek (talk·cont) 07:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well then I guess announcing the prices would be "not an option" thanks anyways tho, and when the prices do hit, it would still be a good idea to announce them in this article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donniehoward08 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup. I am definitely watching it. roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think price info is in the September issue of Maxim but I've already tossed it.. 76.84.106.195 (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Addition of External Link - Discussion Forum Site

I was just wondering if we could add a link to a newer discussion forum dedicated to the fifth gen Camaro. The site is LS3Camaro.net. It's rather new and low on content, but is dedicated strictly to this generation of the Camaro with an emphasis on the LS3 powered variant (SS models).

It's just a thought. I don't know the guidelines here, so I figured I'd bring it up here for discussion first. It's been submitted to dmoz.org. If it's not policy to post these types of external links in the articles, that's fine. You're the experts here.

Ppazz1101 (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to discussion before adding the link, however forums are generally not appropriate as external links. For clarification, take a look at WP:EL. --Leivick (talk) 04:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Seems like we only want to add verified informational resources as external links. Is that the short of it? --Ppazz1101 (talk) 04:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You got it, forums don't really have much if any authority. --Leivick (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article contain any information as to the reception the car received by the world's media? It would be nice to see that. At the moment it's written like an advert!

Trivia

Looking at this guideline, the question is did it really contribute to its popularity even if it did, where did it state that, even for an unreleased car. The reason why it should go is that edit appears to be nothing but pointless trivia in regards to some 2 hour long car advert and very much undeserving for a GA article. Donnie Park (talk) 10:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, a two hour long advert is very notable, is it not? :) I'm by no means a Transformers fan, and I do hate it when people list every single movie they've seen a particular car in, but this is really a special case. GM worked with the movie makers to give the car a "leading role", if you will, and like the Cadillac CTS in The Matrix Reloaded, it is being used as a way to promote the car before (and at the start of) the car's debut at the dealerships. WP:TRIVIA does not mean wipe out every pop culture appearance; it means that only the ones that helped make the item popular should be kept. --Vossanova ^o< 13:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I will have to disagree with you, any corporation can spend billions of dollars do to put their products in a film they like to reach their audience, which then some zealot fanboys can use this to claim notability, even if that said media appearance will be forgotten in a number of years time, therefore some ensuring edit wars will break out sooner or later, hence my reason for getting rid of it.

To me, with this current state of edit and how you stated it, I still don't really think this is really that much significant to be mentioned as it is, what is it, some CGI driven 2-hour car-advert (that is both films you mentioned), which is pretty much like Omega in James Bond films.

I will repeat this again, have you read this guideline, if so what did it say...or shall I write it down here...

Wikipedia generally does not support the addition of trivia and pop-culture sections within articles. There is a tendancy for such sections to degenerate into long lists of movie and TV show appearances, song lyrics, and the like. Similarly, lists of celebrity owners of cars (etc.) tend to grow to inappropriate length. The guideline that has been widely accepted for automotive subjects is that mention of pop-culture references should be strictly limited to cases where the fact of that reference influenced the sales, design or other tangible aspect of the vehicle. It is not sufficient to note that the vehicle had a major influence on its owner or some movie or TV show—such facts belong in the article about owner, movie or TV show. For example, the Koenigsegg CCX article mentions the appearance of the car on Top Gear because the relatively poor initial performance (and crash!) of the car on their test lap directly resulted in the provision of an optional rear spoiler. The addition of that spoiler and its critical effect on the handling capabilities of the car are notable facts. On the other hand, a mention of the film Redline in which the Koenigsegg is prominently featured would not be appropriate, because that movie had no noticable impact on the design, operation or sales of the car.

If you believe it did contribute to its popularity, even if unreleased, why don't you WP:VERIFY your statement in regards to your favorite film, meaning you should states its significance before somebody does the same as what I do, that is purging it. Donnie Park (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This section in its current form is completely within the guidelines and scope. I have reverted your removal of the information. roguegeek (talk·cont) 20:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, IMAO, I disagree. Donnie Park (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)