When the 4th generation Camaro first came out, I was absolutely enamored by its smooth fluid lines and soft edges. It looked fast, and it looked angry. For most of a decade, this was the look of Chevy Performance on the road, as it was built from 1993 through 2002. That’s all the way from “Whoomp! There It Is” from the Addams Family Values soundtrack to “Lose Yourself” from the 8 Mile soundtrack. By the end of its run, the Camaro had lost a lot of its design edge. It was dated. It was old hat. In that same time, the Mustang went from Fox Body to SN95 to New Edge, evolutionary. Since 2002, tastes have changed even more, and the 4th Gen looks worse and worse with every passing year. Somehow, in this picture, the Camaro even strikes me as having some 1995-2000 “Dodge Avenger” in its appearance. What do you think? Is the 4th Gen still cool? Does its styling leave you feeling cold and slimy? Catfish?
From a Facebook group called “PoSC”
Catfished By A Camaro
About
17 responses to “Catfished By A Camaro”
-
I never thought they were ugly and don’t think so now. Not beautiful either. And I sure don’t like the hood on that SS model.
But I had a girlfriend back then with a Z28 and she knew how to handle a stick. She was a hoot to ride and the car was a hoot to drive. Good memories. -
I still think that the 4th-generation Camaro looks good, particularly in its early form. In the other question about ranking the various Camaros, I gave the 4th-gen the nod.
-
Personally I put the 4th generation in 6th place. I shudder just thinking about it.
-
-
I don’t know about beautiful, but the 4th gen camaro sure does has one of the most steeply raked windshields of any car I know. It is a very sleek car, yet manages only a 0.35 drag coefficient, which i guess is decent for the 1990’s, but not that good by today’s standards.
-
Do you what else has a drag coefficient of 0.35? A 1990 Volvo 940 sedan.
https://www.volvoclub.org.uk/history/graphics/models/49_Volvo_940_Sedan_thumb.jpg -
As shown by Sjalabais, as aerodynamic as a gently sloped brick, despite the looks. It was probably the Camaro’s panel gaps that did it in…
-
-
I’ve got a strange fondness for it since the LS1 engine debuted for it when I was a senior in high school. At the time, I thought the Mustang looked better, but I thought the Camaro had it beat for performance, even if only slightly.
It’s definitely VERY 90s in its style though. Still, it looks more dignified than the current Camaro which is just incomprehensible to me. I have no idea WTF they’re trying to communicate with the current style. -
The ’93-’97 cars are still pretty great looking, while the ’98-’02 cars make up for the catfish mouth with the LS1. Mind you, the interior of my old Cavalier was barely adequate in a $700 car, and is kind of inadequate in the F-body.
-
I don’t see any first gen Dodge Avenger in it, but I do think it’s a dead ringer for another Chrysler product: The early second-gen (1998-’01) Concorde.
http://zombdrive.com/images/1999-chrysler-concorde-5.jpg-
Especially in convertible form!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/03-06_Chrysler_Sebring_convertible.jpg -
Honestly, the first time I saw one, I was convinced it was a Chrysler.
My dad set me straight, and I haven’t made the mistake again, but I still see the resemblance very clearly.
-
-
Personally I haven’t liked the looks of any post-70s Camaros, including the current ones. Lately the performance is awesome, but the appearance isn’t cool at all.
-
I never came past thinking the wheel base is too short for their design with these Cameros.
-
Same here. Looks like I did when I tried to put on my Dad’s suit when I was seven.
-
-
Great engine and T56 donors for better chassis’.
The sheetmetal is one thing, but to sit inside them is true misery. You could feed yourself for a year with the crops you could grow in the garden you could plant in the dead space on the dash under that windshield. -
The interior was insta-warp, insta-fade, insta-rattle plastic from one end to the other. It’s hard to overstate how little GM cared for interior material quality. The used market compensated you for this though with low prices. Having half the engine under the cowl probably doomed more of these things than anything. Folks that might otherwise see the drivetrain as fun enough to modify to tolerate the rest of the package instead give up on them. I installed headers, valve springs and roller rocker arms on my ’94. I wouldn’t do it again.
-
When a head gasket blew on my ’95 I got to the point where I could get the heads off except for the stupid coolant line in the back that went between the heads. At that point I said screw it and sold it to some guy. I only sold it for like $600 less than I bought it too.
The packaging is probably the biggest reason why I wouldn’t buy one again.
-
Leave a Reply