Camaro Interior Spy Pictures

Lmandrake · Post by **Lmandrake** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:50 am

Pretty true to the original. I had guages mounted down low like that in a Jetta GLI a long time ago. Never looked at them..... too low.

impuresoul2k3 · Post by **impuresoul2k3** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:55 pm

pretty gay imho

nexus_7 · Post by **nexus_7** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 6:13 pm

gana have to see it on a non crappy cellphone picture to be sure...but looks very american.

chottoED · Post by **chottoED** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:54 pm

Leave it to domestic car designers to

up even basic common sense gauge placement.

DoPeY5007 · Post by **DoPeY5007** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:58 am

You guys are nuts

if you look at what the gauges are, they are do not need to be looked at while driving.

They are fine where they are and leave more room on the dash for the important stuff

Lmandrake · Post by **Lmandrake** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 6:10 pm

Leave it to domestic car designers to up even basic common sense gauge placement

My Jetta had the gauges down low, it was designed in Germany.

My next car, a Pontiac, had all the gauges on the top of the dash.

The first gen Camaros had gauges down low, the second gen up high. Like the Mustang, this car is a replica of the 60's first gen Camaro.

Domestic and foreign designers both do a lot of dumb and smart things. Remember the Pontiac Aztek? Also, the Nissan Quest minivan recently had a redesign where the interior was so bad Nissan had to redo it the next year. The Subaru Tribeca original design sold so poorly they redid the front end after one or two model years.

eGoCeNTRoNiX · Post by **eGoCeNTRoNiX** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 6:14 pm

Aztek = JOKE!

EvilHorace · Post by **EvilHorace** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:50 pm

That guage layout blows IMO. They did make some bad choices in the 60s but those need an upgrade for a modern car. Apparently the word Ergonomics hasn't occured to them.

GuardianAsher · Post by **GuardianAsher** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:30 am

I don't see a problem with it. I agree with Dopey. If those had been things such as the speedo, tach, whatever, yeah, bad placement. But from the pictures, they look like the oil pressure, oil temp, volts, and maybe fuel gauge . You don't need to be looking at those as much as you do the speedo, which is obviously up high near the steering wheel, like a normal car.

I actually like the layout. Nostaligic

EvilHorace · Post by **EvilHorace** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:30 am

It's probably oil pressure and water temp. Two very critical guages when and if there are also no "idiot lights" which was usually the case when guages were used (rarely both).
As for fuel, people manage to run out of gas when the guage is in a good location and even with a low fuel light too. Hiding that guage isn't good either.

Back in the 60s, things like "guage packages" were often optional and that's why they had bad locations in that era. Who'd want that now?

Err · Post by **Err** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:08 am

EvilHorace wrote:It's probably oil pressure and water temp. Two very critical guages when and if there are also no "idiot lights" which was usually the case when guages were used (rarely both).
As for fuel, people manage to run out of gas when the guage is in a good location and even with a low fuel light too. Hiding that guage isn't good either.

Back in the 60s, things like "guage packages" were often optional and that's why they had bad locations in that era. Who'd want that now?

My dad has a 1972 Duster 340 (bought it new). I consider this one of the last muscle cars before the emmissions rules took effect. He has the following guages on the dash: Speedometer, Water, gas and charge. The other space is occupied by idiot lights for the oil and brake. The car had an AM radio with 1 speaker. Bench seats, automatic (at that time insurance was too much for the manual), no air, and a Full Size Spare tire.

True muscle cars were pretty much just an engine and chassis. They weren't build for comfort or for features. The muscle car era died in 72-73 with the new EPA regulations. I like the new Mustang, Challenger, and Camaro. However, I wish the auto industry would stop calling them muscle cars. We can never re-live that era due to current safety and epa regulations.

My point is: The American auto industry needs to quit trying to recapture the glory days. Move forward. Again I like the new Camaro, Mustang and Challenger. However, I'd rather have seen the next evolution from the previous generation of the Camaro and Mustang than the retro looks. Cars are getting "boxy" again.

I always wanted Dodge to take the previous generation Avenger and stick a 340 block in it with RWD. But no, Chrysler would rather make cars that no one can afford like the Prowler, Viper, and Challenger.

renovation · Post by **renovation** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:14 am

gages good or bad .the new Camaro is bad ass . and after seeing one up close body wise anyway . it sure more like a original then it rival the mustang . i also seen the 2008-2009 mustang bullet and it just sucked ! if your a GM person you buy the camaro if your a ford guy you buy the mustang .and if your a chrysler guy you'll buy the challenger. to me in the day back in the late 60 and 70. I liked the mustang fastback 1st .then Challenger 2nd ,and Camaro 3rd in body design .but always felt that chrysler came in 3 place for quality control . but still above the long forgotten American motors cars .
how can we ever for get about the ugly of all cars amc pacer .it top the pontiac aztec .only becouse it was just as bad outside in looks as it was inside . there are not many cars of 1960 - 2000 made in the USA that can top those for ugly except maybe the NASH .
.