By Tim Boles
WARNING: This article may offend owners of modern Camaros!
First the bad news. After 37 years of production, like the Python parrot, the
Camaro has ceased to be. Falling demand was often cited as the reason. But
I believe that the designers were to blame. The car had strayed far too far
from its roots, whilst delivering performance aplenty it had many shortcomings
over the original design: smaller boot, less interior space, worse front and
rear overhangs, and on a comparable basis (with current European designs) a
poorly designed dashboard, but perhaps worst of all it was a poor design from
an aesthetic and practical viewpoint. Whoever was responsible for the 68-degree
rake on the front windscreen? All six-footers have to be extremely careful
when getting into the car for fear of losing an eye at the top of the A pillar
- this is particularly hazardous in the convertible. What is the need for the
long proboscis nose when in fact the engines are the same size V8s as 1967?
Why only a live axle in the 21st century? The 1993 Z28 weighed in at over 3400lbs
whereas the original weighed just over 3000lbs. It is revealing to note the
wheelbase/lengths of the original 1967 model with the outgoing; the original
had a wheelbase of 108.1 inches, a length of 184.6 inches and a width of 72.5
inches. The outgoing Camaro had a wheelbase of only 101-inches, a width of
more or less the same but an overall length of 193.5 inches, and yet had less
interior space and boot room (perhaps this explains the poor packaging).
The modern Camaro was attempting to bridge the gap between the Corvette and
the street, but without the key differentiators of the original design when
compared against the Corvette. I do not believe that the latest Camaro fulfils
this brief. So I for one will not mourn the passing of the Camaro in its
final shape-but I certainly do mourn the passing of so much history and the
Camaro model itself. It needs more room inside, a 4-window retractable design,
the same engines as the Corvette but in a much more appealing package than
the last iteration. In many ways I think that it was a shame that GM didn't
stick with their original name for the car: Panther, which I believe is an
evocative name. But we are stuck with Camaro, and so it must be.
Let us look at the salient lessons that in my opinion can determine the success
or failure of an automotive product. Now these points are certainly not prescriptive
but they are very important. To be a success the product in my opinion should
as a start:
1. Go Good
2. Look Good
3. Sound Good
Get these things right and you may have a success. Get more than one wrong
and you will be looking at an expensive failure. Let us look at some examples
of failures in each criterion.
" Go Good" failures include:
Early 1980 's "Royals" Royce Silver Shadow (before they tuned up
the suspension and re-launched the Bentley Turbo R)
Austin Allegro
First Chevrolet Corvair
Early Ford Sierra.
" Look Good" failures include:
Ford Probe
Late Marcus Sportscars
BMW 850
Jaguar S Type
TVR wedge (chest wig optional)
Ford Edsel
Fiat Multipla
Ford Sierra
80's Nissan Bluebird
" Sound Good" failures include:
Ford Probe - no woman could ever admit to owning a car called a Probe
The classic XJ 220- looked a million dollars but sounded as if it were powered
by a souped up Metro engine (which it was)
Any Vauxhall with their 70s 2300 cc long stroke 4-cylinder engine
The Lotus Esprit with turbo 4 cylinder, even their subsequent V8 powered Esprit
still doesn't sound good as it has a flat plane crank.
|
