![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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).
??? 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)
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)
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)
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)
Please check out the sources provided for clarification. Roguegeek ( talk) 21:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
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)
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.
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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).
??? 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)
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)
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)
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)
Please check out the sources provided for clarification. Roguegeek ( talk) 21:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
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)
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.
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)