It wasn’t for kit cars, the Pontiac Fiero would have never realized its dream of becoming a Ferrari or Lamborghini, and we’d be just fine with that.
That product, born of the heady 1980s, seems tame compared to N2A Motors’ latest offering. The U.S. coachbuilder has taken three classic American designs and melded them, Island of Dr. Moreau-style, into the 789 SS.
It’s a questionable way of hiding a fifth-generation Chevrolet Camaro.
In fairness to N2A, several of its models fall short of ringing the bell on the maybe this was a bad idea meter. The company will drop a 1960s Sting Ray-inspired body onto your C6 Corvette (the Stinger), or turn it into a voluptuous Italian supercar (the Anteros).
If you’ve got money burning a hole in your pocket, the company is only too happy to make you happy. This isn’t the Soviet Union — car buyers can express themselves in any way they want (while following all local, state and federal regulations).
With the Camaro 789 SS, N2A enters the why the hell not category. Instead of emulating another car, this creation covers three. The 1957 Chevrolet Bel Air provides the inspiration for the front end, while the 1958 Impala covers the midsection. Out back, the distinctive bat wing taillights and horizontal tailfins of the ’59 Chevy glisten loud — very loud — and proud.
It’s the Human Centipede of cars.
Previous 789s used a donated C5 or C6 Corvette as a canvas, but the Camaro 789 SS uses a less-pricey 2010-2015 Camaro as its starting point. After handing it over to N2A, body panels made of carbon composite and fiberglass transform your drab Camaro into the best Eisenhower-era car never made. Any trim level will be accepted from would-be buyers, but convertibles only, please.
(H/T to Motor Authority)
[Images: N2A Motors]
Why is this an abomination?
Clown spokes, flattened roof and “rugs” height setting abominate it for me.
Because it could potentially create a black hole of bad taste, systematically absorbing all matter and energy within the event horizon until the horizon expands to engulf the whole Earth.
I think your grossly underestimating the power of this thing…
Yeah, its just a cool way to set fire to a pile of money. And I’m not trying to be clever, a lot of people have various expressions of what they consider cool. There have been untold thousands spent on custom Japanese imports.
Yes, a vintage Skyline is great, but I’m not sure spending tens of thousands of dollars on a 1995 Honda Civic DX is a “wise investment”. Not that most hobby cars are, and that’s part of my point-
If it makes them happy, money well spent. If it makes you happy to drive your wife to Sonic or kids/grandkids ball game and to get ice cream on Sundays in the 789 SS, go for it. Assuming you have the means lol. Besides: Probably still has vastly better crash protection than any of its inspiration.
I am not of many such means, but I enjoy making my car better in my way, so who am I to judge this “abomination” or the man/family/whoever that enjoys it?
**edit: look at it this way: a lot (not all) of millenials won’t know it isn’t one factory production car, no clue its a recreation of three based on a fourth. The one I was recently dating included.
There’s an ass for every seat.
I like it…mostly. It’s interesting and a lot cooler looking than the original donor car. That interior, though…
Yeah a huge improvement vs the donor car. I wouldn’t spend big bucks for it but if it makes the buyers happy great for them.
Just remember John Carpenter’s “The Thing”.
What about VW’s Thing? Some love those lol.
I don’t find either appealing, personally, but you know what they say about every seat…
Less Carpenter’s “The Thing” and more Cronenberg’s “The Fly” with this pastiche of co-mingled DNA pleading with the viewer to kill it.
That looks like great fun to me. I’m not going to spend my money that way, but if someone is into it and has the cash, more power to ’em!
If you’re going to wreck a perfectly good pony car like this, shouldn’t it be a Challenger, more of a comfy cruiser than a sporty car?
Good point. You might even be able to see out of a Challenger based monstrosity.
The Challenger starts out better looking though. Unfortunately, just changing the way a Camaro looks does nothing to address its crimes against packaging and ergonomics.
To me, the only giveaway that this thing isn’t right is the greenhouse. And that could be explained as custom chopped windshields and side glass.
Looks as good as most of the baroque and ponderous Big Three offerings of the era. I grew up in the 50s and 60s and saw a lot of the originals. In western New York, along Lake Ontario, the DPWs used so much salt in winter that if you didn’t like the style, wait a bit. Most ungalvanized cars would rust to pieces in short order. Common wisdom was, that if you could afford it, you’d get a new car every 3-5 years if the old one was winter driven.
Even the greenhouse is innocuous enough in this application. The deal-breakers are the clearly-not-period-correct wing mirrors. If they had swapped them for traditional-looking ones, it would be a lot better.
Yeah, those mirrors are a problem. No easy solution, this kit’s volume makes it impossible to justify tooling up something more period-correct-looking. Perhaps they would look better chromed.
Mirrors and wheels. Could take a run at the mirrors with 3D printing. I have no idea of unit cost after the CAD is done, but a mirror housing should be doable with a durable resin in a smaller printer. More work to figure out the look and find an internals assembly you could hook up.
Does anyone make steelies and hubcaps in that size?
There is a super easy solution, pickup some repo 57 Chevy mirrors, you can even get fancy and get the with included LED turn repeaters. https://www.summitracing.com/parts/upd-c555728-led?seid=srese1&cm_mmc=pla-google-_-shopping-_-srese1-_-united-pacific&gclid=CLTewbycmc8CFUZgfgodx7gBSA
FIberglass-bodied cars like the Corvette and Fiero are easier to make into kit cars, because the body panels are non-structural and you can pretty much change the whole thing while retaining the original structural space frame beneath.
Of course, a kit-car maker could also use the running gear from the donor vehicle and design an all-new body around a custom tube frame, or—in the case of the new Vaydor—hack up the original monocoque body and Frankenstein it into a new structure for custom bodywork.
@Kyree: hack up the original monocoque body and Frankenstein it into a new structure for custom bodywork.
You mean something like this:
http://www.madle.org/ecorvorado.htm
A unibody and a monocoque are not the same thing. The body skin is not really structural in a unibody even if they are welded on. On a monocoque he skin is the structure.
I wish they had picked either the ’57 OR the ’59 theme. This hybrid just looks strange.
I agree. Im so over ’57’s tho, and i’d much prefer the 1960 to the ’59 .
“I agree. Im so over ’57’s tho, and i’d much prefer the 1960 to the ’59 .”
While I accept that there are those who prefer edgy over flowing lines, I’m not one of them. The sweeping wings vs broken wings, wide cat’s eye taillights vs tiny bullet dots, even the shape of the headlight surrounds and grill all make for a wonderfully-flowing design that earned it the name of “the most beautiful car in the world” at the time. Yes, the ’60 model inherited some of the 59’s shapes, but to me the overall package came across as ‘cheap’, as those compound curves were expensive to manufacture.
I have thought more than once about taking a mid-sized pickup or SUV and having it lowered slightly (NOT a “stance”) and re-shaped into a ’59 clone. The end result would certainly look better than this.
_THREE_ classic Chevies for the price of one ! .
-Nate
It’s about time the Camaro transformed into something interesting.
The Anteros and Stinger both look like solid well-built repaneled cars. In fact, I think the Anteros would make a nice GM-alt offering straight off the factory floor, offering it as a direct purchase to the company for people who want something more subtle and swoopey. But the 7-8-9 fails because of the batwing tail. It was put on a car that had a flat trunk and a low shoulderline. With modern cars having a rising one it looks all wrong. Just a year prior they would have been perfect with the ’58 strong triangled out lights.
I don’t really understand this, but then I don’t understand a lot of the personals ads on Craigslist.
Does it have a back-up camera?
Probably easier to see out of than a Camaro.
Maybe when the tech allows such toys to be cheaper and custom ordered I could get a ’50 Studebaker Champion Starlight coupe with modern mechanicals!
Maybe over a Pilot platform? Only an inch diff in their wheelbases.
I’d just to stay alive and competent till then.
I remember reading that a guy in New Zealand had used a 3D printer to recreate an old Aston Martin. It took him 3 years of nights and weekends. But now that he has the design, I wonder if he could sell a kit that fit over an S2000 or Toyobaru 86. That would be cool.
Yeah.. I remember that. It’ll take modern equivalents to history’s great obsessives like Thomas Edison or Alfred Krupp to do that kind of groundwork and begin the sharing/theft process.
V6 powered Studie? No thanks!
Supercharged Coyote V8 please.
Ugh. It is a lot easier, and probably cheaper in the long run, to convert your favorite ride from the past to modern specs. Converting a modern ride to something from yesteryear just ends up looking awful. I will concede the safety aspects are impossible to replicate; airbags and crumple zones etc.
But, if you can live with out the airbags and crumple zones, you can stuff a modern GM power train into just about anything.
“Converting a modern ride to something from yesteryear just ends up looking awful.”
Well, you can’t turn Beyoncé’s latest paint-peeler into Schubert’s Ave Maria, no. But beginning with modern quality and adhering to strict aesthetic standards (i.e., just copy the original, no “improving”) could produce retro quality.
Indeed. I’d much rather spend the money taking an original ’65 Impala 2-door, transplanting a LS3 + 6L80 into it, stiffening the frame and body, modernizing the suspension, and adding modern electronics and lighting. I just wouldn’t drive my kid around in the result, except on low-speed local streets.
Stop making me drool.
There was a period in the early- to mid-’60s where design got so clean and focused on proportions. It brought us (among others) the ’61 Continental, ’63 Riv, and both the ’62 and ’65 generations of Impala. All of them would be near the top of my list for restomodding.
Of the Impalas I like the ’65 best because of the taillights. The best imaginable thing would be a ’65 with a ’66 front end but I don’t know if they’re easily compatible.
Putting a 66 front end on a 65 or vice versa is a relatively simple procedure that has been done in the past though most of the time it was likely due to the fact that the sheet metal found in the junk yard was the other year. That kind of thing happened frequently with the era of cars where the shell and doors would last 3 years and new fenders, hood, and/or grille would make it “new” for the next season.
I want to build an EFI 460 powered 77 Continental Town Coupe (or Mark V) with functional side pipes and air suspension.
Art Morrison chassis will do all that hard work for you AND ship it to you!
Just add some seat belts to that 65′ and you are ready to go.
I want a ‘Vette C3 body with all new, modern bits. I just love that Mako shark look. It is my dream restro-mod.
Funny, one of my dream projects is a Greenwood inspired wide body C3 with modern powertrain.
Ok, I absolutely LOVE that ’59 tail. But to plug a ’57 nose onto it? I’d much rather they’d kept the ’59 nose instead.
I want… but ONLY if they change the nose to a ’59.
I agree. 999 not 789. The only person I knew who loved the 58 was a man whose first car was a 58 convertible. It was personal for him. I’d take 57 or 59.
It’s pretty incoherent the way it is — ’57 coming, ’59 going? Bah.
Edit: “999”? Now that’s something Herman Cain might go for.
On this we agree, 59 bumper to bumper for me too.
Actually I like the 57 Chevy front. The car looks much better than the ecorvorado. I always liked the 57 Chevy more than the 58 or 59.
The 789SS is reminiscent of the late Boyd Coddington’s CHEZOOM, a 1957 Chevrolet Bel Air custom. Anecdotally it was designed by Chip Foose, at the time a Coddington employee.
http://www.barrett-jackson.com/Events/Event/Details/1957-CHEVROLET-BEL-AIR-CHEZOOM-CUSTOM-21317
WHY?!
Why do people like ridiculously low cars? They’ve always looked sleazy, slovenly and fragile to me, especially when they’re just boulevard cruisers that absolutely nobody would contend will ever need any cornering power.
Low cars don’t look like cows that could be tipped while sleeping.
Yes! I missed that one, thanks.
We love cows here.
So… not part of the stance nation I take it?
Wasn’t it “bat-wing tail fins” and “cat-eye tail lights”?
As long as there are still living baby boomers, there will be enterprising individuals and firms looking for ways to pick their pockets.
Not Boomers old enough to remember the grace and glory of the original designs.
To us this mutant sag pants travesty is like having the childhood memories of our mothers turned into a MILFS Crave BBC! video.
If I had a five car garage, the Trans Am version of this might be #5.
I like the wings on the back, but not the 57 front end…It was on a much bigger car (kinda like the beak on Acura…good on trucks, silly on small cars)
I’m all for any car that makes you smile, provided you didn’t butcher a bit of old and rare to get it.
It reminds me of the Johnny Cash song, “One Piece at a Time”.
“Well, it was a ’57, ’58, ’59 Chevy…” :)
Me pappy loved that song…
Essay question: Discuss the difference between this car and the VW “New Beetle, other than the fact that the latter was mass-produced for a number of years and that the later reversed the engine and drive wheel placement from that of its ancestor.
It seems to me that modern cars are very much indistinguishable from each other, especially among the seeming ubiquitous and dreaded “CUVs.” I’d be interested in a “vellum venom” essay on why that is — regulatory requirements, desire to reduce the number of engine/transmission combinations, what?
As folks in the PC industry have learned, it is very bad to allow your product to become a commodity. Seems like cars are heading in that direction.
Indeed. This thing at least looks like *something*. Why the hell not?
I agree with other posters that it should have been all ’57 or all ’59 – the mashup of both does not look quite right to my eyes. But perhaps putting the ’57’s vertical fins on a car that already has tall sides would have made it look like it had the height of a building.
Sigh. Something else today’s kids will not have in the future… nostalgia over iconic cars of their childhood. Don’t think a combo 12-13-14 Altima is going to get anybody excited.
“12-13-14 Altima”
Yes – misshapen peaches, even though perfectly safe to eat, are routinely left on the ground to rot.
I was going to make a snide comparing modern cars to soda cans but then I found this can-making video:
youtube.com/watch?v=hUhisi2FBuw
Now I don’t wish to so compliment modern car bodies.
I didn’t mind the Corvette version of the 789 (it looked kinda nice in blue), but I’m not digging the Camaro version.
A visit to N2A’s website displays a cornucopia of ill-proportioned, misshapen lumps. One even advertises itself as “the first American supercar,” a title I’m certain Ford GT, Hennessey Venom, SSC Aero, and even Vector owners would be surprised to hear.
It looks like the designer attended the “Close Enough to Avoid Trademark Infringement School of Design” that many Chinese automakers graduated from.
I could totally see Guy Fieri driving one of these on Triple D.
Full throttle!
But would you ever be able to get the pork fat fingerprints off the shifter, steering wheel, and touchscreen?
I am not sure why you would do this but there are other examples, such as Karl Kustom Corvettes where a perfectly good C6 Corvette is converted to a unpleasantly-proportioned 1963/67 wannabe for vast money. On the other hand, there are some excellent restomods that have modern running gear (chassis, brakes, engine, transmission) with a reconditioned Stingray body that give you most of what you want (for a price) minus those modern airbags and the weirdness.
I like it, and I’ve seen one of the previous gen of this car built on a Corvette chassis in person. I think they’ve done a good job combining design elements of the three model years. As with most retro-styled cars though, I’d rather own the “real thing”, which in this case would be a 1957 or ’59 Chevy.
As someone else said, it needs different mirrors. Chrome covers for those mirrors may be acceptable, but a chrome cover would draw attention to them, and their shape will still be weird. Probably difficult to change the mirrors though. The factory ones are probably power adjust, communicating with the body computer through CANbus.
It also would look better with a chrome windshield surround and chrome on the rear bumper, at least a wide strip like what’s on the corners of the front bumper.
This looks like a thoroughly contemporary vehicle to me, designed to fit modern regulations. Nose raised and bulbous, to fit pedestrian impact regs? Check. Tiny greenhouse for (perceived) crash safety? Check. Windshield laid back at an annoying angle to reduce a little drag? Right-o! Add an overstyled rear end carved by a sushi chef and you’re cleared for production!
Why the modern alloys and not dish wheels (I hope that’s the correct term, correct me if I’m wrong, folks)?
The main issue with this thing (subjectivity aside) is it is straddling retro and modern at once. Ditch the modern alloys.
You’re stuck with modern wheel offset and whatever size wheels will clear the brake calipers on the new Camaro. Personally I would go with the smallest diameter wheels possible, to allow tires that show a little more sidewall. The smallest diameter the 2016 Camaro came with is 245/50R18.
The company was already building this bodystyle for modern Corvettes several years ago.
If they retooled it for the new Camaro then it implies that they have actually sold a few of these things. Like more than 2 or 3.
That’s messed up.