Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

Transformers Special Edition Chevy Camaro Unveiled 299

Posted by samzenpus
from the nerds-roll-out dept.
roelbj writes "Automotive stories are few and far between on Slashdot, but today's news from Chevrolet might just make a few readers' mouths water at the chance to own their own Bumblebee. Today at Comic-Con, General Motors officially announced the 2010 Chevy Camaro Transformers Special Edition. The $995 appearance package can be applied to LT (V6) and SS-trim Camaros in Rally Yellow with or without the optional RS package."

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Transformers Special Edition Chevy Camaro Unveiled

Comments Filter:
  • Damn... (Score:5, Funny)

    by thatkid_2002 (1529917) on Thursday July 23, 2009 @02:31AM (#28792571)
    I don't want a Bumble-Bee! I want a Crazy Frog!
  • by Immostlyharmless (1311531) on Thursday July 23, 2009 @02:36AM (#28792595)
    GM is sinking faster than an anvil in a swimming pool....1000 bucks for 472 dollar rally stripes and some tacky emblems applied in a couple of spots? WOW....HOW about 472 bucks for rally stripes and 500 bucks into a decent aftermarket exhaust? Its obvious they are smoking the good shit in Detroit...
    • by freedom_india (780002) on Thursday July 23, 2009 @03:02AM (#28792675) Homepage Journal

      Neither GM nor Chrysler will "get it".
      Why should they?
      They have governed by finance pros instead of by engineers.
      Finance pros are more concerned with short-term profits than long term growth.
      It takes someone with FORD CEO's instinct to think ahead.
      And being finance pros, they can blackmail the government into funding them into eternity.
      Gordon Gekko was absolutely right when he said: "The new law of evolution in corporate America seems to be survival of the unfittest."

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by MrMista_B (891430)

        If they survive, it means they were the most fit to survive. That is proven by the fact of their continued existance. Value judgements are irrelevant to evolution - it's a process, not a pathway.

        • by somersault (912633) on Thursday July 23, 2009 @04:01AM (#28792987) Homepage Journal

          Actually if they survive it just means they survived, not that they were "most fit". I haven't kept abreast of the news but I heard about GM having trouble years ago, and if they are still struggling then it could just mean that they used to be very fit, but now are just struggling along on reserves and will die if they don't improve matters. Were they one of the companies helped by the government 'bail out' recently? The bail out was presumably affected by 'value judgements'..

          My but it's fun to argue about pointless things online.

          • by wisty (1335733) on Thursday July 23, 2009 @06:20AM (#28793517)

            A company that gets bailed out is fit, just like a virus or tumor. The same could be said for certain business practices. A parasite can hurt its host and still be successful.

            • I didn't say that they weren't fit - their very survival is an indication of some element of current fitness or at least past success. I'm just saying that the "most fit" companies didn't even need a bailout (at least among European and Asian car manufacturers).

            • by Halotron1 (1604209) on Thursday July 23, 2009 @10:01AM (#28795393)

              Seriously, people forget so soon...

              The "bailouts" were the free money given to banks who screwed themselves.
              $20 billion to Bank of America
              $45 billion to Citigroup

              Overall, $700 billion in TARP [wikipedia.org] money set aside for banks who are in trouble, with no restructuring.

              GM got a few billion in federal loans, the government is buying about $50 billion in shares, and they have to restructure their organization.

              GM Chapter 11 Reorg [wikipedia.org]

              Seriously though, we shell out almost a trillion in bailout TARP money in 2008 to save the banks and everybody says "whew!"
              We shell out less than 10% of that and everybody spits on the auto industry.

              GM's filing ($82b) was not even close to the record for the largest bankruptcy filing.
              Last year Lehman Brothers and WaMu declared bankruptcy for $649 billion and $333 billion.

              Chapter 11 bankruptcies [wikipedia.org]

              I'm not trying to say that GM wasn't mismanaged, any company that goes bankrupt obviously wasn't run right.

              I'm just getting sick of everybody spitting on the auto companies, pretending like they are the only reason we are in this mess of an economy.

              Part of the reason GM had to get bankruptcy protection from the government was because the banks wouldn't loan them any of the TARP money they were given. Too busy giving bonuses to their executives I guess!

              • by Golias (176380) on Thursday July 23, 2009 @10:15AM (#28795557)

                I can agree with you that TARP was amazingly toxic and still insist that the GM bailout was also amazingly toxic.

                And in fact, I do. The Bush/Obama Era (a phrase which I'm sadly getting very used to using) has been marked by irresponsible, continuous and ever-escalating raids of the treasury.

                And where the fuck did all the war protesters go? When we were losing soldiers daily in Iraq & Afghanistan under Bush, it was the worst thing ever. Now that we're losing soldiers daily in Iraq & Afghanistan under Obama (with the Iraq draw-down going EXACTLY according to Bush's old time-table), everything is peachy-keen. WTF?

                I voted third-party, but those of you who voted for Obama should be far more pissed at him than I am. On civil liberties, war policy, domestic spending, everything that matters, he's just GWB with a bad health-care plan who likes playing with car companies. It's sick.

                But he doesn't have that dopey smirk or stupid-sounding Texas drawl, so I guess it's all good, right?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Paltin (983254)

          UGH.

          A catastrophic confluence of Smith and Darwin.

          What Smith didn't realize, is that humanity doesn't act rationally; what Darwin didn't get, is that he was just recapitulating Smith's tenet's in a world there they worked.

          In any case, evolutionary standards are inappropriate for discussing economy. Except in theory- theory which doesn't work in real life.

          Mista B, you're proposed superiority of selection fails in the face of human morality. Just as the dreams of eugenicists failed... and for the same reason

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by rohan972 (880586)

            What Smith didn't realize, is that humanity doesn't act rationally;

            No, you just don't understand the term in the context it's being used in.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory [wikipedia.org]
            "The 'rationality' described by rational choice theory is different from the colloquial and most philosophical uses of rationality."

        • Well, that's what it meant before we started nationalizing auto companies..

        • If they survive, it means they were the most fit to survive. That is proven by the fact of their continued existance. Value judgements are irrelevant to evolution - it's a process, not a pathway.

          Governments taking a hand in supposedly private companies is like God reaching down and shaping species from clay. It ceases to be evolution when external forces selectively intervene in the process.

      • by catxk (1086945) on Thursday July 23, 2009 @03:19AM (#28792773)

        The issue is that the government allowed those companies to grow so large. I heard one tenth of all jobs in the US are connected to the three auto companies. That number is enough to scare any politician into a bailout.

        Thus, the issue is not that the government steps in with rescue funds, the issue is that the government, by allowing mergers, allowed for those companies to grow so large that their survival becomes an issue of national economic stability. One can only hope that the government will take this opportunity to hack n' slash the brands out of the company (like GM is doing with Swedish SAAB at the moment) and make sure a similar situation can never arise again.

        • by bitrex (859228) on Thursday July 23, 2009 @03:57AM (#28792965)

          Did the government just allow for the companies to grow so large, or could one say that the government actively encouraged the growth of oligopolies in certain sectors due to effective lobbying by those sectors? Corporations love competition when they are on the offensive, but they hate it when they are on the defensive, and many American corporations (for numerous reasons) have been on the defensive of late. So, the FedGov hates competition, large corporations hate competition - sounds like a match made in heaven! It seems only when this two peas in a pod arrangement goes sour, and the screwups of the corporate siblings threaten their government brother, that there is realization (too late of course) that this match may not have been for the best.

          I'll admit that I don't know a great deal about Libertarian philosophy, but how anyone who works in an economic capacity for the U.S. government can perform their job and say that the government upholds free-market capitalist ideals with a straight face is beyond me. Free market rhetoric must be just some kind of obfuscation to deflect the fact that the much of the US economic system is really a kind of corporate-socialist hybrid, and has been for quite some time (perhaps beginning truly in earnest after World War 2, and the incredible increase in economic power the U.S. was able to obtain when the government and industry joined forces). It appears to be the logical and efficient solution when it works (look at what China has managed to do under this kind of arrangement in the span of only about 20 years!), but watch out when it falters.

          • by catxk (1086945)

            That Communism and Capitalism is pursuing the same endgame has been stated over and over by several scholars. If so, I believe you must make a distinction between the capitalistic technicality and libertarian philosophy. Capitalism is the system in which US politics and corporations has been living in the last half-century or more. To me, it seems as this system is working towards an inevitable end, which would be the total corporate-socialist hybrid you mention, in which a one company, one government rules

            • by jcr (53032) <jcr.mac@com> on Thursday July 23, 2009 @06:04AM (#28793431) Journal

              Capitalism is the system in which US politics and corporations has been living in the last half-century or more.

              I WISH!

              No, you're not even close. The system that our government and the larger corporations have created isn't capitalism, it's a rehash of mercantilism. Capitalism is a system of free markets, in which information is conveyed through profits and losses. By insulating larger players from their losses, the government robs us not only of the wealth they loot from us through taxation or inflation to give to these incompetents, but they also keep resources misallocated.

              -jcr

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by jcr (53032)

          The issue is that the government allowed those companies to grow so large.

          No, the issue is that the government is using usurped power that the people never granted to keep these companies around after they've failed. The government is looting wealth from everyone who has dollars, to give to incompetent organizations like GM's management and the UAW, to allow them to continue their failure.

          -jcr

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by DarkNinja75 (990459)
      Honda sells a special edition motorcycle (CBR1000RR Repsol edition) for $1000 more than the original, even though the only difference is the color of the plastics and rims. You can buy the plastics from Honda separately for $500, and pay a local shop $100 to paint the rims. GM isn't the only one who charges more for a special edition when it can be had for cheaper some other way.
      • by wvmarle (1070040)
        It's apparently a good example of the whole being worth more than the sum of the parts.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by OrangeTide (124937)

          The difference is you can't finance a $600 mod, but when you add it as a $1000 package on top of the price of a car you can make payments on it. Dumb yes, but this is how consumers think. And why it is so very easy to sell car buyers all these packages.

        • by JWSmythe (446288) <jwsmythe AT jwsmythe DOT com> on Thursday July 23, 2009 @05:26AM (#28793303) Homepage Journal

              I look at it this way. I have a 2000 TransAm WS/6 edition. It's a special edition car, and always will be.

              I've known of people who buy the V6 Firebird. They'll swap in the LS1 engine. Then they'll get the body parts from aftermarket vendors to match (nose, hood, tail wing, etc). Then they'll get the logos, decals, etc. They'll put it all together, and have pretty much the same car. Sometimes they'll forget something, like the suspension, exhaust, original wheels, etc. It won't quite be a WS/6, even though it will look like it. Regardless of how perfectly they reproduce it, mine will always be an original WS/6. Theirs will be a modified car similar to the WS/6.

              If they ever go to sell it, a VIN search will show that it has the wrong engine, and that particular one didn't come with WS/6 performance package.

              To a collector, my car with very few modifications is worth a whole lot more than a car made to emulate it.

              In my area, with the mileage and options my car has is will sell retail for $11,300. Someone who modified a regular Firebird (Formula) to look like my WS/6, assuming the dealer overlooked the fact that it was modified from original (which lowers the value), it would only retail for $8,400. As a private sale, the modified car may go for more, but that's all in your salesmanship.

              You're not only paying for $20 worth of plastic trim, you're paying for the fact that a particular vehicle was originally sold as that vehicle.

              Would I buy the Transformers special package? Probably not. It's kinda silly and childish. But hey, whatever. Some people may like that. It will remain a special edition car, which will always have it's bragging rights. What if someone just adds on their own parts later, and says it's the special edition? Well, when you look it up, you'll find that it isn't. You'll also likely find that they missed some detail in their conversion.

              When I work on cars, that's something I hate more than anything. Someone along the line will have converted something, and then you have to figure out what they did so you can get a replacement part that fits. I don't know how many hours I've spent in parts stores with a broken part, asking them to look up various years and models of similar cars to see what some small part came off of.

          • I'm one of those people you talk about. I'm such a menace under the hood. Not only do I buy parts off similar, but superior, cars to swap into mine, I've been known to backyard up my own modifications to intake, exhaust, and other areas, just for fun. I actually hate taking my car to a mechanic for fear of them having exactly the issue you describe.

            Right now, I've got an 04 Subaru with a 'custom' air intake, basically just a cone filter directly mounted to the throttle body, with the PCV valves replumbed

            • by powerlord (28156)

              Which is all fine and well if you are the one maintaining it, or selling it to someone who understands what they are getting.

              To reverse the common Slashdot method of swapping cars and computers, its like comparing a stock MacPro to a custom built rig running OSX.

              You can get near identical specs, and if you're the one using it, great.
              -You know what you're getting into
              -You have "bragging rights" of building it cheaper
              -You may (or may not) have overlooked some detail that will bite you

          • by jcr (53032)

            To a collector, my car with very few modifications is worth a whole lot more than a car made to emulate it.

            What kind of collector would buy any GM car made after the mid 1970s?

            -jcr

            • by jo_ham (604554)

              You'd be surprised. Here in the UK there's a Morris Marina owner's club, and those heaps of junk would have been more appealing if they'd used the metal to craft giant metallic dog turds on wheels.

              One man's meat, and all that.

            • by Sun.Jedi (1280674)

              What kind of collector would buy any GM car made after the mid 1970s?

              There is probably collector interest for almost any year 'vette, but I think you are right in that after the '74 big block or '75 convertible, there isn't much else. I am not a fan of the anniversary editions, or those stupid pace car editions. What about the 80's Hurst olds 442 or the Buick Gran Sport? Maybe there is niche collectors for those and some of the other "performance" upgraded -- late model impala SS, Monte Carlo SS, etc..

              I would rather drive it, than L@@K at it, myself.

            • by Dalroth (85450)

              Go drive a Pontiac G8 or a 2009 Cadilac CTS. Ever driven a Corvette? Even the 2009 Impala is a pretty nice car. My buddy's mid 90's Pontiac Bonnevile got about 180,000 miles on it with no major work when he finally junked it. My 91 Grand Am wasn't a great car, but it was good enough for the price and got the job done without too much hassle. My father has an 84 Corvette. It's not the best Corvette ever made, but it's still a great ride.

              Not all GM cars are bad. Some are really bad, yes, but GM has mad

          • by DebianDog (472284)
            As the owner of a Trans-Am with modifications as good or better than a WS6. I 100% agree. I lost track of how many "car people" have asked me, "Nice car. Is that a WS6?" Then I go into an explanation of the "what's different".

            I would not mind a Camaro, but I can not ever image the day someone asking me, "Why didn't you but the Transformers edition?"
          • by Sporkinum (655143) on Thursday July 23, 2009 @07:02AM (#28793723)

            And if you are lucky, in 40 years or so, the car will be worth the $32k you paid for it when it was new. By then though, $32k will be worth $10k.

            Concerning the V6? $25k new, so I would say yours lost value quicker, as if that made any difference.

            Moot point, really. Both lost value like crazy.

          • I sort of agree..but then.. hmmm

            It's almost like the diamond manufacturers telling you that diamonds bought in some places are better than others... Or telling me that mined diamonds are somehow better than perfect manufactured diamonds. They say it's all about the pedigree. I saw BS; it's all about the marketing.

    • by BitZtream (692029) on Thursday July 23, 2009 @03:12AM (#28792729)

      Because some people won't mind over paying a little over the going rate to get it like that fresh from the factory. Perhaps cause it's cool and they have too much money to care, or perhaps the really aren't THAT into the performance other than to talk to thier non-car people friends. Maybe the just don't want to worry about getting a hassle if they need warrenty repair work from a dealer.

      Just a copy of reasons that come to mind. Its only a few percent increase price, the car companies do well on these deals because it requires you to buy a bunch of other options to get a configuration they will add this package to.

      My last car purchase resulted in me getting every option except the smoking package because I had the money and knew I'd like the features and would never get around to adding them later. It was just easier to have them do it. Yes, the after market optins were "better", in both price and performace, but not enough to justify the work and inconvience later. If I really wanna make it a hot car I'll need far more expensive upgrades across the board.

      If you think a muffler upgrade on it's own makes you car special in anyway then you are a poser. Posers are who the are aiming for.

      Anything that legitimately makes them more money is a good idea. We're not talking about penis enlargement pills level of ripoff here.

      • I used an exhaust upgrade as an example because it was one that was cited in the linked article. RTFA much?
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by jellomizer (103300)

        Don't forget the upgrades prices are with your car total price so you are paying for it via your car loan. Which means you don't need to wait to save up the couple of thousand for these upgrades. Or try to get the bank to loan you more money for extras which may be harder then getting the money for the car. Plus you pay it off with the price of your car. So you can make it part of your normal budget.

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        Because some people won't mind over paying a little over the going rate to get it like that fresh from the factory.

        You should have said "because some people are ignorant". Factory paint is usually pure shit, especially from GM. Even when they hand-paint a car (rare) it looks like dog doo. Orange peel for ever!

        If you think a muffler upgrade on it's own makes you car special in anyway then you are a poser. Posers are who the are aiming for.

        Actually, most factory mufflers are super-restrictive to make a quiet sound, even on so-called performance cars. Replacing the full exhaust system can net over 10 horsepower on cars with big engines and small exhausts... even while making zero other changes. I mean, the top model has 426 HP, that's a tiny percentag

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      I really don't think this is the big 'OMG this is why GM fail' deal you're trying to make it out to be. GM are by no means the first to offer a special edition of a vehicle where some will say that the extra cost cannot be justified by the extras that are included for the money. I can't be bothered trying to locate and link specific examples, but I do know that on at least a couple of occasions Top Gear (very popular UK car themed entertainment programme) have mentioned a special edition of some car or othe

      • No this is an example of why GM will fail. In the movie why on earth did they choose a Camero? Oh yeah because it is a manly car. Frankly Bumble Bee could just as easily have been a Volkswagen Beetle! Or another fuel efficient vehicle from GM. For example it could have been the Opel sportster or Corsa, etc... You may say, "why should they be politically correct?" Ever watched a movie from the 30's or 40's or 50's? A large number of them are REALLY tacky because of the props they chose, and frankly a large
        • by MachDelta (704883)

          They tried to get Volkswagen to sign on for the movie, but VW refused to have anything to do with warfare or violence as a result of their WW2 history. GM went balls deep with the movie, so naturally one of the leading robots would have to be a new GM model.

    • Did you see where they were marketing the camaro to gay men? [motortrend.com]
    • by Mashiki (184564)

      Apparently you missed the part about the Asian automakers being down 56% in the last few quarters too. *waves a giant clue bat* It's not just a north american automaker problem.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by SydShamino (547793)

      Have you seen factory add-on prices for ANY car? BMW charged me $550 to add an iPod jack to my wife's car, and now wants to charge me $800 for mine. You can buy a third-party interface for $135.*

      In this case, of course, not only is there the usual vendor markup, but there's also the licensing cost. Your third-party company putting an autobot logo on your car can be sued.

      * Of course if you buy the third-party kit, you have to pay BMW for a software update anyway.

  • by cosmotron (900510) on Thursday July 23, 2009 @02:37AM (#28792599) Homepage Journal
    ...this is pretty awesome. That being said, they absolutely should make a Decepticon option for the appropriate cars.
  • by The Creator (4611) on Thursday July 23, 2009 @02:40AM (#28792619) Homepage Journal

    Can someone explain it to me with a robot analogy?

    • by zmollusc (763634)

      Curse you! With only 16 comments so far, I was hoping to be the first to ask for a car analogy, but yours was cleverer!

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by CarpetShark (865376)

      Can someone explain it to me with a robot analogy?

      Imagine you're a kid on one of the twelve colonies, and Apollo saves you from being lost in the extras. You beg Apollo for a Cyclon that you can order about, to shoot up your enemies. Apollo goes to see an engineer, and brings back a dumb, annoying person dressed up in a robot suit, calling him Muffet. So you take Apollo's gun while he's playing with the "dagget", and hijack a Viper instead.

    • by brianc (11901) on Thursday July 23, 2009 @06:26AM (#28793537) Homepage

      Can someone explain it to me with a robot analogy?

      Bite my shiny metal ass!

    • For all the robotic warriors out there, they're selling a special edition of the Roboton blaster, and they're calling it the Super Roboton blaster. And they're charging a fortune. But you could get basically the same cannon for less money if you take a regular Roboton blaster and slap on a Megaton scope and a picture of Newt Gingrich's face.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 23, 2009 @02:49AM (#28792639)

    ... to advertise a franchise?

    • by Gerafix (1028986)
      You would be lucky if you didn't get sued for copyright infringement. I can see it now, you're cruising down I-95 and all of a sudden there's twenty police cars behind you a la OJ Simpson.
  • Automotive stories may be few, but automotive illustrations on the other hand....

  • $995 for (Score:5, Funny)

    by hebetudinous_rectum (1583011) on Thursday July 23, 2009 @03:00AM (#28792669)
    the only Camaro option that won't help you get laid.
  • Yawn... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SmlFreshwaterBuffalo (608664) on Thursday July 23, 2009 @03:04AM (#28792693)

    ...wake me when this is offered on a VW Beetle.

    • by lxs (131946)

      And you can wake me when it (or it's prospective owner) actually transforms into a sentient humanoid.

  • by Procasinator (1173621) on Thursday July 23, 2009 @03:05AM (#28792697)
    ... they do it to impress girls. And, with a bright yellow transformers car, I think you might struggle. Oh wait, this is slashdot, nevermind!
    • Actually, and I don't understand this myself, one of the most popular colour for Porsches is 'Speed Yellow' which is a similar garish yellow to the one on the car in the article.
      • by MachDelta (704883)

        Yellow is synonymous with racing. Because it stands out so much, lots of teams have used it as either a base or accent color to make their car more visible. So in the same train of thought, someone driving a "look at me!" expensive sports car is also more likely to choose an eye bleeding red/yellow/orange for the attention factor, while miss soccer mom will be just peachy with her white/silver/black Suburban.

    • by will_die (586523)
      Here they are just tring to impress Michael Bay.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jellomizer (103300)

      Oddly enough cars really don't impress girls that much. It actually impresses the guys more, and the girls follow the guys, so you may improve your exposure chances.

      After looking at the pictures. I kinda wish they didn't put the transformers logo on it. Just the Autobot symbols so it looks like the character. Putting the logo on it reminds me of those cheap $3 costumes for Halloween where you get a mask and a plastic smock with the picture of what you are supposed to look like, its name and what show i

  • by KneelBeforeZod (1527235) on Thursday July 23, 2009 @03:26AM (#28792813)
    If you keep it in the box.
  • About the picture (Score:5, Interesting)

    by noddyxoi (1001532) on Thursday July 23, 2009 @03:34AM (#28792833)
    The marketing picture used in the link makes use of a visual illusion that is achieved by overlapping the two tyres surfaces from opposite corners. This effect draws a tyre that is very wide and we associate it with power and stability.
  • by tetrahedrassface (675645) on Thursday July 23, 2009 @03:49AM (#28792915) Journal
    The new Camaro has some design issues that really irk many people. One is the 'Joker' front end that looks like a big, stupid, Cadillac CTS on acid. The second is the rear sheet metal. It looks like the design team just quit, and it doesn't look good at all. The third are reports of super bad visibility, and a cheap interior.

    That is why I love my Challengers more and more. They have the great lines of inspired design, and while there is always something faster out there, you can't outrun ugly. Here is a nice image comparison of a Challenger and a Camaro: Challenger and Camaro via autoblog. [blogcdn.com] Yet to each their own. At least we live in a day and age where all three historic cars are available at the same time: The Dodge Challenger, Camaro, and Mustang. If you want one you better get one quick though. As the new CAFE standards are implemented these cars will likely go away by 2012. It is 1972 all over again.My SRT8 Challenger gets fair mileage. My R/T Challenger got 26mpg on the highway. I think the Camaro's are comparable. And thank you editors for posting a car story! I love cars. :)

    • I love cars and actually wanted a Barracuda. But frankly the cars you mentioned are old fashioned! They are nostalgia for times WAY BYGONE! I find it weird that they do this. After all how many 57Chevy's look alikes were being built in the 70's! NONE!!!! Instead what I REALLY crave is a tesla! A car that beats the pants off a Ferrari and is environmentally friendly! WHERE DO I SIGN UP!!!!!
    • by Ogive17 (691899)
      Touching on that.. doesn't it seem sad that the only success stories coming out of Detroit these days seems to be the resurrected muscle cars from the 70s?

      This Camaro hits two generations. My generation which grew up playing with transformer toys and my parents' generation which grew up with the muscle cars. Retro is sooo the "in" thing right now.
  • Yup, here it is in all the glory it can muster. lol GM Viral Marketing gone horribly wrong. [youtube.com]

    And yes folks this was a real internet commercial that GM pulled the plug on

    Don't blame me!~ lol

  • couldn't be worse (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dltaylor (7510) on Thursday July 23, 2009 @04:01AM (#28792985)

    They take an iconic American model, one with a decent racing history (Penske in Trans-Am, for example) and make it look like a stupid cartoon toy, so that only someone with the mentality of a 14-year-old would want one, then turn it, literally, into a cartoon toy look-alike?

    After Ford botched the Mustang suspension and engine, then "fixed it" by ruining the styling, and Chrysler built a seriously overweight Challenger, my last hope for a factory "pony car" was Chevrolet. Ain't gonna happen now.

    You can pretty much build a '60s Mustang or Camaro body from parts, and use some late-model items like 4-wheel discs, EFI, and 5/6-speed transmissions, plus some "lessons learned" suspension bits to build a really nice daily driver, cruiser, race car, ...

    http://www.dynacornclassicbodies.com/ford_models.html [dynacorncl...bodies.com]

    http://www.dynacornclassicbodies.com/gm_models.html [dynacorncl...bodies.com]

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      You can pretty much build a '60s Mustang or Camaro body from parts, and use some late-model items like 4-wheel discs, EFI, and 5/6-speed transmissions, plus some "lessons learned" suspension bits to build a really nice daily driver, cruiser, race car, ...

      You will spend at least as much doing that well. If you take it down to white body and paint it back up (which is what you'll have to do with a car that old) the paint job alone will probably cost you a good three grand, and that's after you have the parts sandblasted for about another $300 usually. And have you looked at the price of IRS conversions for first generation Camaros? Which, mind you, are typically not going to be done as well as the factory suspension on the new Camaro? Sorry, but you're not go

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Locklin (1074657)

      so that only someone with the mentality of a 14-year-old would want one

      Isn't that the market for muscle cars?? /ducks

  • by fantomas (94850) on Thursday July 23, 2009 @04:41AM (#28793133)

    Not a big car fan, not an American, so help me here and correct me if I've got it wrong.

    The deal is you pay $1000 and you get some stickers to stick on your car?

    Maybe they stick the stickers onto your car as well, so you don't have to do it and presumably they put them on nice and straight?

    Wow, if this is what you get they'd better be very nice stickers.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 23, 2009 @04:53AM (#28793177)

    But does the radio work properly?

  • by SpaghettiPattern (609814) on Thursday July 23, 2009 @05:28AM (#28793311)
    In related news it is alleged that Nissan will do a pokemon rice job on the Z370. It will however be $100 cheaper.

    WTF! Are xformers so geeky that they a Chevy deserves an article on /.? Sure, car crisis and shit. But hey!
    When the original series was aired I used to take the piss at xformers --con and -tron and all with an all American deep voice. Cars transforming into robots, both goodies and baddies.

    How lame can you get? What's the next level of unlikeliness? Oh shithe that 'll be Tolkien of which hoards of devotees are on /. I see and smell my karma burning....
  • ...then when you get bored pretending that you are piloting a vehicle-morphing robot, you can pretend you are Virgil Tracy rushing to the scene of a huge disaster in Thunderbird 2.

    Thus you will keep your options open despite having a tiny penis.

  • a day late and a dollar short GM is coming up with this bullshit? the specs on this are the ones from the first movie (no longer marketed/marketable) and its basically (as parents have said) just the camaro with stickers.
    I already know a guy who added decepticon logos to his mustang, which was damned cool at the time, but for a production car company to not keep up with hollywood is somewhat unheard of.
    in ghost in the shell, nissan used it as a chance to showcase their newest SUV with the plate number "sa
  • i did not like the first transformers movie changed channels on the TV after a few minutes, and i wont bother to watch the second one either. machine technology has made some great strides but i think the transformers idea is just beyond the sci/fi to reality scope of possibilities...

    nice chevy, yellow is not my favorite color for a car, i would prefer plain white for a light color or dark metallic blue for a dark colored car would suit me, and lose the stripes - stripes and other flashy crap are for tee
  • STEAL ME. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Civil_Disobedient (261825) on Thursday July 23, 2009 @06:56AM (#28793677)

    Those Autobot fender badges are going to get stolen faster than a Chic bass line.

  • Your tax dollars at work. Go go US gov't!

  • to go through the check list [autoblog.com] when you take delivery. You don't want to be stuck with a lemon.
  • I want Bumblebee! Not a Camaro, I've got to go look for a yellow Volkswagon Beetle (The original Beetle, not the lame copy)
  • Rifftrax Transformers, after Bumblebee changes from old camaro look to new camaro look

    "Soundtrack direct to you from Kill Bill"
    "Wow, it's the 2007 Camaro which is crappier and worth less than the old one!"

Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing. -- Roy L. Ash, ex-president, Litton Industries

Working...