By on March 12, 2014

2014 Chevrolet Camaro

Due in 2015 as a 2016 model, the next-generation Chevrolet Camaro will be based upon the same architecture underpinning the Cadillac CTS and ATS while maintaining its overall retro looks.

Edmunds reports the pony car’s styling will only undergo an evolutionary change in a manner similar to the 2015 Ford Mustang, according to a source familiar with the matter, with the revolutionary change occurring under the skin via the car’s new Alpha platform.

Though Chevrolet remains mum on the upcoming car, brand spokesman Mike Albano said the next Camaro “will have expressive design and will evoke the passion the previous-generation Camaros have done.”

The new Camaro will move from Oshawa, Ontario to Lansing, Mich., where the CTS and ATS are assembled, and will make its global debut during the 2015 Detroit Auto Show.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

147 Comments on “2016 Camaro Receives New Architecture, Maintains Retro Looks...”


  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    V8?

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      Weight balance? How far under the cowl will the rearmost spark plugs be? The Alpha is tiny compared to the Zeta. Perhaps it will share a rear mounted transmission/transaxle with the Corvette. Seven speed manual anyone?

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        Note that the difference in weight between an all aluminum NA LT V8 and GTDI Ecotec with complete turbo hardware is somewhat nominal.

        The new LT-1 weighs in at about 450lbs fully dressed. The Turbo Ecotec plus extra turbo hardware (extra piping, charge air cooler etc.) will come in at ~400lbs.

        Also the difference in F/R weight distribution wouldn’t be much as the LT V8 is only nominally longer, though wider to be sure.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      There will have to be a V8. Imagine the freakout if it were left out.

      The question is whether it will be LS3, LT1, or smaller-LT1.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        That’s why I asked. I recall how one commentator explained ATS drove top heavy with a V6. If the platform was not really designed for a V6/V8, I can’t imagine it being a good driver’s car.

        • 0 avatar

          It’ll take a V8. Remember that this same platform underpins the CTS, and the CTS-V will most assuredly have a V8.

          • 0 avatar
            bumpy ii

            V8 buyers don’t give a crap about anything other than straight-line thrust. People who want a Camaro with actual handling will buy the turbo 4, and bargain hunters will take the V6.

          • 0 avatar
            raph

            @ bumpy – the Boss and 1lE says your wrong.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            Bumpy ii hit it on the head. The love of V8 is a waste of gas and money. At the end of the day a good V6 or even Turbo-4 car will beat the V8 Camaro on handling and only be a few ticks behind it on the track because the V8 will just have a stupid high horsepower advantage. Course, everyday driving will mean my gas savings and pull away speed will be sufficient for me not to give a damn.

          • 0 avatar
            86er

            Horses for courses.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            Thing is, the all aluminum NA, pushrod LS/LT engines are slung low and don’t carry a weight penalty at all over a turbocharged 6 cylinder and would be about even with a 4 cylinder turbo setup.

            As shown in the latest models, combined fuel economy isn’t actually improved using 3.6L GTDI versus the 6.2L either. The CTS Vsport and Camaro SS get the same combined fuel economy and weigh about the same.

            So in this case, there’s really not a big advantage to going the smaller engine turbo route while trying to retain the same power output levels. While there could be some theoretical fuel economy/emissions gains, the fact that buyers in this segment practically demand a V8 pretty much nullifies those small gains for compliance.

      • 0 avatar
        bumpy ii

        The LS architecture is finished. V8 will be an LT something or other, probably a version of the 5.3 in the trucks.

  • avatar
    LALoser

    I have liked and disliked this car…at the same time…

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      Me too. Depending on whether I was inside or outside the vehicle. From the outside, the Camaro’s charisma is undeniable. From the inside, the combination of cheap plastics and reduced sightlines is unacceptable.

      • 0 avatar
        TMA1

        Cheap plastic in a 420hp car that can be had for just over $30K is not the end of the world.

      • 0 avatar
        nrd515

        I have the totally opposite opinion. The inside is ok, and it drives fine. The looks of it, well, it has a case of the serious ugly. Hideous. The front quarters and nose are fine, but from the windshield back…well, I think drugs were involved. It’s a mess.

    • 0 avatar
      EquipmentJunkie

      I agree. I really want to like the Camaro, but it can appear overly cartoon-ish in certain colors and light, plus the interior and greenhouse are horrid. Therefore, I tend to be a Challenger & Mustang champion.

      • 0 avatar
        cpthaddock

        +1

        To my eyes, the overall size is a challenge to the aesthetic. It reminds me of the husky girl trying to look a few sizes smaller, squeazing into the latest fashions.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      Same. I’m not a fan of the exterior design, but it sure is a blast to drive.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    Will we be able to see out of the thing?

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    So basically it’s the same bathtub, different plumbing?

    ;)

  • avatar
    bills79jeep

    Can’t help but think that Ford goes whole hog on the Mustang, while Chevy does what it has to with the Camaro. Oddly, hasn’t the Camaro outsold the Mustang in recent years?

    • 0 avatar
      GiddyHitch

      I seriously doubt that the Camaro has outsold the Mustang as I have yet to get one as a rental.

      • 0 avatar
        GoCougs

        The Camaro has outsold the Mustang every year since it debuted in MY2010, and has lower fleet sales. It also did so in those earlier years without the ‘vert or special editions (1LE, ZL1, Z28).

    • 0 avatar
      EquipmentJunkie

      You are correct on the sales data.
      CY 2013:
      Camaro – 80,567 (down approx. 5% over 2012)
      Mustang – 77,186 (down 7.5%)
      Challenger – 51,462 (up nearly 20%)

      I can’t help but think that the Camaro buyers are less likely to cross-shop competitors while the Mustang has increased Challenger competition…no proof, it’s just my opinion.

      • 0 avatar
        alsorl

        Those numbers area hard to believe. Unless its about 15 to 20% fleet sales for the camaro. Rental lots are filled with camaro’s and convertible Camaro’s.

        • 0 avatar
          EquipmentJunkie

          Those are the official Automotive News numbers…they are rock-solid, industry data. I don’t know the personal/fleet mix.
          FYI – YTD 2014 Mustang is just a few hundred away from Camaro.

          • 0 avatar
            3Deuce27

            Reg; “FYI – YTD 2014 Mustang is just a few hundred away from Camaro.”

            The reason why, is Ford and dealers are heavily discounting the Mustangs. This last weekend in Portland, Or., you could by 2014 Mustangs from several dealers in the area for $17,999. That is a very good buy for a fun to drive Pony with 300+ Hp and 30 MPG going down hill with a tailwind.

        • 0 avatar
          philadlj

          If you’re going to disregard the Camaro’s rental and fleet sales, you’ll have to disregard those of the Mustang and Challenger as well.

          I imagine the final tally would still be very close between the Mustang and Camaro…as it should be.

        • 0 avatar
          sunridge place

          For 2012 CY (last available data from Automotive Fleet) Mustang was 24% fleet and Camaro was 13% fleet…almost all daily rental for both. I doubt 2013 is much different.

          http://www.automotive-fleet.com/statistics/

          • 0 avatar
            mikey

            @sunridge place …You have been around TTAC for long enough, to know that you can’t let facts get in the way of a good GM bash.

            Don’t you remember, back in 09 when the Camaro was launched? All the expert predictions here. The Camaro wasn’t supposed to sell more than 1000 a month.
            The Camaro was supposed to be the next Reatta, or G8. Lucky if it outlasted the Solstice!

          • 0 avatar
            3Deuce27

            It easy to find and reserve a Mustang/Convertible, but very hard , still, to find and rent any Camaro.

            @ ‘sunridge place’ Don’t rent that often, 5-6 times a year, and I’m not loyal to one company. I rent from whoever can give me the car I want, when and where I need it. Have had a hard time nailing down a Camaro, whether that is due to low inventory or it is a popular rental, is unknown too me.

          • 0 avatar
            sunridge place

            @3Deuce27

            Sounds like you rent fairly often? Most people who do that stick to one company…so which rental car company do you typically rent from?

          • 0 avatar
            sunridge place

            Thanks @3Deuce27…was just curious.

            Mustang puts twice the # of units in daily rental as Camaro but there’s still about 10k Camaros going into rental each year. I see them (both Mustangs and Camaros) but they’re usually not on my corporate ‘approved’ list.

            I took a personal trip recently to California and National had a couple of each available but I didn’t pull the trigger. I was driving Hwy 1 up the coast and actually wanted to be able to SEE out of my vehicle (in the case of the Camaro)

      • 0 avatar
        azmtbkr81

        I have a feeling many potential Mustang customers are waiting for the 2015.

        • 0 avatar
          Carfan94

          agreed. I didn’t think of that. The 2015 Mustang is gorgeous they should wait for it.

          • 0 avatar
            nrd515

            A friend of mine wrecked his 2013 GT on Sun night. He hit two deer and then a telephone pole. He and his wife walked away, so the Mustang did it’s job. On Monday night, he bought a 2014, specifically because he doesn’t like the 2015. I don’t like either of them too much, to be honest about it, but I would, on pure looks alone, take the 2014 over the 2015. It’s a close pic though. I’m hoping the new Camaro looks a lot better than the present one, or it’s Challenger time again.

      • 0 avatar
        olddavid

        Those Challenger numbers blow me away. They never approached that in the years of the original.

  • avatar
    juicy sushi

    Will it still be the same size as a moderately-large cruise ship?

    The current generation should have been called Chevelle…

    • 0 avatar
      NoGoYo

      The Camaro is way too wide and way too tall, hope GM will realize that it doesn’t work before its too late.

      Also, Chevelles looked good and had good proportions. The fifth-gen Camaro? Not so much on that second one.

      • 0 avatar
        3Deuce27

        I took my E-36 2-dr Saloon out for a sunny Spring drive today and stopped for lunch and parked next to a new Camaro of the same color. I looked back to see if I had put the passenger window up and couldn’t believe how little the E-36 looked, next to the Camaro. It seemed almost tiny in comparison.

    • 0 avatar
      philadlj

      The ’14 Camaro has only four inches more wheelbase and is only four inches longer, one inch wider, and 3 inches taller than the ’69 Camaro. Not exactly an explosion of bloat over 45 years.

      Meanwhile, the ’14 Camaro coupe has only one inch more wheelbase and is 2 inches longer, 1 inch wider, and almost five inches shorter than a ’14 Mustang.

      • 0 avatar

        Is it “2 inches longer” or “(almost) five inches shorter”?

        • 0 avatar
          Truckducken

          Yeah, that reads funny. I believe he means ‘shorter’ as in ‘not taller’.

        • 0 avatar
          philadlj

          5 inches less tall than the Mustang. Sorry!

          Actually the fact it is so much shorter than the ‘Stang explains why so many people (most, if we’re honest) have such trouble seeing out of it.

          • 0 avatar
            NoGoYo

            It must be the comparatively lower roof and higher belt line that makes the thing look enormous even when it actually isn’t…I have a feeling the current Ford Taurus also isn’t as massive as it looks.

            I saw a photoshopped rendering of a fifth-gen with lowered belt line and taller roofline and it certainly helped.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        And the ’14 Mustang (as well as the ’15) is also too big. These cars are supposed to be sporty. Instead they’re the size of full-size sedans with a couple of inches chopped out of the wheelbase.

        The Camaro and Challenger are especially egregious because of weight. A Camaro is about 250 pounds heavier than a similarly equipped Mustang, and a Challenger is 300 pounds heavier than a Camaro. The ’16 Alpha Camaro should be class-leading in this respect.

        I hope the Camaro ends up closer in size to the ATS as well.

        • 0 avatar
          burgersandbeer

          Agreed that both of these cars are too big. The one disappointment I have from what I’ve read about the 2015 Mustang is it did not get smaller. Instead, it is even wider.

      • 0 avatar
        mnm4ever

        Those numbers amaze me, I always see Camaros and think how enormous they look, while the 60s models look so tiny. I had no idea they were so close. I knew the Stang was also huge though. :)

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        Well, according to my girlfriend, 4 inches is a lot.

      • 0 avatar
        3Deuce27

        Five inches ‘Lower’

  • avatar
    mars3941

    Chevrolet you better come up with better than what I’ve seen or the new Mustang will blow your doors off. That slug looking thing you have now won’t get it done.

  • avatar
    wmba

    Presumably, this thing will lose literally hundreds of pounds of excess weight, drop the not particularly great IRS designed in Oz and get the full Caddy suspension. Except for outward vision, this looks like a really good update, really a complete redesign.

  • avatar
    NewLookFan

    Let’s see…..New trucks, new halo cars like this butt-ugly Camaro with endless special editions, the senseless SS; meanwhile we have the mass market mediocre Malibu and the aging Cruze. Oh yeah, the Impala is OK, but at that price, who’s buying? Who’s bought a Sonic or Spark that wasn’t a former rental? Same old GM. And when it goes belly up next time, don’t look to me for a hand out. Good Luck, Mary.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      1. How many special edition Mustangs have their been just recently? I seem to recall the Boss 302, Bullitt, Cobra, and a 50th anniversary edition coming soon off the top of my head.
      2. The senseless SS is a compliance car for the Australian gov’t.
      3. Malibu was made mediocre on purpose.
      4. Impalas seem to be selling/leasing well around here.
      5. I can’t defend the redundant small models because I personally don’t think they should exist in the GMNA portfolio. Spark seemed to be a cheap way to do an electric Cali compliance car and I think Sonic was supposed to replace Aveo.

      • 0 avatar
        VoGo

        Malibu was made mediocre on purpose? Where do you get this stuff?

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          We’ve been discussing it for months. The thought is the previous Malibu essentially became Chevy’s top midsize/large sedan as W-Impala’ retail value slowly depleted from 2008-2012. Once a new Impala was ready for sale, the Malibu was redesigned to slot below the new Impala, in both size, appearance, and options.

      • 0 avatar
        NewLookFan

        I think it’s silly that there’s so many special edition Mustangs as well. But Ford didn’t go hat in hand to Uncle Sam for a bailout, and its mass market cars (the part of the market where a company usually establishes a customer base) are arguably more appealing and fresher than those from GM. As to your points 2,3,4,5,………um, sure.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          So by your logic a bailed out company should not concern itself with offering numerous special editions?

          • 0 avatar
            NewLookFan

            My point is that the farther we get from 2008, the more GM’s product focus is on V8 RWD vehicles instead of mass market vehicles. We know how that went. GM didn’t rise to prominence with niche vehicles and mediocrity, and I doubt they will again, either.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            If we include all of the various truck/SUV iterations in said focus, I agree with you. I also agree they didn’t get where they are with niche offerings, but it seems with the bread and butter cars they (or Ford) cannot seem to regain dominance over Camcords and Civrollas.

          • 0 avatar
            NewLookFan

            Yeah, it sounded as if I’m a Ford fanboi when I’ve never even come close to owning a Ford. It’s true, Ford hasn’t been able to overcome the market dominance of the Asian sedans, but they seem to be really giving it a go, and I strongly respect that. Maybe it’s the transmission (real or perceived) issues. I feel that Ford is so close to real success with their cars; I wish that GM would try that hard with the Cruze and Malibu before marketing a new Camaro.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @NLF: While I won’t deny the Mass Market Vehicles may be the most common type on the road, they are NOT what draws customers into the showrooms. Today’s MMVs all look so much alike that it’s hard to tell brand from brand, much less model from model. Just look at the Ford models from the Fiesta to the Focus to the Fusion and even to some extent the new Mustang; their only obvious differences are in their overall size, though the Mustang at least keeps some semblance of the classic nose. Chevy isn’t much different as the Volt, Cruze and Malibu all look too much alike and even the Sonic shows its family resemblance in the nose.

            Niche models like pickup trucks and sportsters typically bring in the ‘tire kickers’ who then become fair game to the sales staff. Of those niche vehicles, the pickup trucks have become the most popular, but not everyone wants the size and relatively poor economy of a full-sized truck even though they do offer the most comfortable seating arrangements for roominess and visibility. That’s also why you see fully half of a new-car dealer’s lot filled with trucks in suburban areas while in densely-populated urban areas focus on the much smaller vehicles.

      • 0 avatar
        Loki

        Re: #1 – Honestly, not that many. Bullitt was only from 2008-2009, the last Cobra was 2004, and the Boss 302 was only 2012-2013. The Boss is certainly recent, the Bullitt not so much. Current Mustang has the base model with a V6, the GT with V8, and Shelby GT500 with supercharged V8, and Premium packages on either V6 or V8.

        2015 is projected to have its three engine options, and 50th Anniversary trim (do you really think such a trim is excessive?). No other variants have been announced so far.

        Whereas Camaro has the 1LS, 2LS, 1LT, 2LT, 1SS, 2SS, ZL1 and Z/28? And don’t they throw an RS badge on some models?

    • 0 avatar
      philadlj

      Yes, how dare they build cars that some people personally don’t care for and sell them and such! (Shakes fist at cloud)

  • avatar
    VCplayer

    I guess we’ll finally get to see a retro vs. non-retro sales match when the new Mustang premiers. Chevy seems to be gambling on retired baby boomers.

    • 0 avatar
      philadlj

      The 2015 Mustang is a gorgeous car, but it’s still a fairly retro, evolutionary design with a healthy dollop of Aston Martin/Jaguar XK styling cues.

      As for the Camaro, we don’t know what it will look like (the photo above is the current model), so I’d hold off on guessing what Chevy is or isn’t “gambling” on.

      • 0 avatar
        VCplayer

        I actually disagree about the retro aspect of the Mustang’s new design, unless you’re referring to the New Edge version. The profile and stance has little in common with a 70s ‘Stang, the grille looks like a 90s ‘Stang with Evos DNA, and there’s nothing retro at all about the hood and sides. The taillights are kind of retro, but the angles are very modern. The only retro aspects of the design are elements considered essential to Mustangs since forever.

        Now hopefully Chevy does something interesting with the new Camero, but this article leads me to believe that it will evolve the same way the new Silverado did.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      Okay, this is kind of a velum venom question. What elements qualify the Camaro as retro? I don’t know, it seems to me like a bit of a stretch to call it retro. It’s probably just me.

      • 0 avatar
        VCplayer

        I’m no expert, but the full grill and the “hips” are the two big aspects to me, as well as the “V” shape of the front from the 70s flavor. Round-ish taillights and an implied low stance help with that too.

        I actually really hate the “hips” on the current model. They almost always look like a different color due to lighting, and that was really more of a Mopar trait in the 70s.

      • 0 avatar
        NewLookFan

        Perhaps we should wonder what elements qualify any car as retro versus evolutionary? Would it be fair to say the new Mustang is evolutionary? I would call the 2005 Mustang as well as the current Camaro retro. These cars were stylistic throwbacks to earlier designs, but the new Mustang, to me, at least, is an evolution of the style on the 2014 car (which has evolved from 2005). I think the new Mustang is a handsome car; I haven’t liked the current Camaro and I’m doubtful about the new one.

  • avatar
    thunderjet

    I just hope it’s smaller. The’15 Mustang is smaller (slightly) than the outgoing car. I’m hoping Chevy follows suit. Less weight+same or more power=fun.

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      Yes, please make it smaller. ATS-sized would be perfect.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        That’s almost roadster size, don’t see it happening because of Corvette.

        • 0 avatar
          3Deuce27

          “roadster size”… ?

          ATS>
          Dimensions
          Wheelbase 2,776 mm (109.3 in)
          Length 4,643 mm (182.8 in)
          Width 1,806 mm (71.1 in)
          Height 1,420 mm (55.9 in)
          Curb weight 1,504–1,570 kg (3,315–3,461 lb)

          C7>
          Dimensions
          Wheelbase 106.7 in (2,710 mm)
          Length 176.9 in (4,493 mm)
          Width 73.9 in (1,877 mm)
          Height 48.6 in (1,234 mm)
          Curb weight 1,562 kg (3,444 lb)

          2014 Camaro>
          112.3 in (2,852 mm)
          Length 190.4 in (4,840 mm)
          Width 75.5 in (1,920 mm)
          Height 54.2 in (1,380 mm)
          Curb weight 3,750 lb (1,700 kg)

          It can afford to lose some WB

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      Take the weight of the present Camaro and subtract about 700 pounds from it. Lower the cowl a few inches, and trim the overall length a bit. Say a 7/8ths version of the current car. Fit a real quality interior, and try to make the instrumentation kind of conventional instead of goofy. Keep the engines and transmissions the same. Don’t reduce the size of the brakes. Winner.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        You can’t have the same powertrain and reduce the weight by 700 pounds. Not gonna happen. 700 pounds would be almost as light as a BRZ.

        In fact, you probably can’t reduce the weight by 700 pounds at all. Realistically, you could have 250-350 with the same powertrains and about 100 more if you added a 2.0T option.

        • 0 avatar
          3Deuce27

          Roger that, Dal20402

        • 0 avatar
          raph

          Indeed dal, the Camaro and Mustang have to span the power range from a base 300+ hp 6 or turbo 4 to 500 plus horsepower in the halo vehicles.

          I guess GM could perhaps drop the V8 in a bid to make a very light car but I’ll just cite the emasculated Mustang II as an example why in the long run that is a mistake for either brand as the common consensus is the II was a blight on the car’s heritage (although I admit I have a soft spot for the Cobra II’s as nice drag racing material – light weight and if one is sticking with the diminutive 302 block in big bore form and poked about as far as it can go I think it tops out at around 360 or 370 cubic inches and less than 500 pounds for an aluminum headed iron block combo).

          Rip snorting horsepower (well relative to its decade – 225hp in 1987 was indeed good power and 300 or more was heady stuff in those days) has been part of the identity of these cars since about 1968. Despite the pony car moniker and the light and agile image it conjures. The Mustang and Camaro are muscle cars as well.

  • avatar
    hubcap

    I don’t know how this car made it out of the design studio what that interior. It’s truly a shame and some folks at GM (you know who you are) deserve a swift and resolute kick to the backside.

    But, the ZL-1 will make you laugh hysterically or maniacally, dependent on your disposition towards the force.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      I don’t get the hate of the interior, how many customers would honestly be willing to pay an extra grand for something that they only get to look at, something easier to damage, and more expensive to replace. You can’t keep asking for better interiors unless you want what the vette got with an extra 2 grand plopped on top.

      50k+ buyers seem to not mind.

      Personally I’d take the challenger with the 6.4 all day everyday.

      • 0 avatar
        hubcap

        “50k+ buyers seem to not mind.”

        There’s an ass for every seat. Also, could be some of those buyers purchased in spite of the interior and Chevy could’ve sold more with a better one.

        But the Camaro isn’t the only offender. The BOSS is a great car but the interior is not one of a mid 40k car, at least to me. If V.W. can do it with a GTI, others can also, especially for cars that cost thousands more. I’m not saying I wan’t something plush. I want nice materials and good design screwed together with care.

        The s550 Mustang interior, from what I’ve seen, looks great. Much better than the current car. Thing is, it didn’t take a whole lot to do it.

        As for the Challenger 6.4 preference, like I said earlier there’s an ass for every seat but how you choose that over a BOSS 302 or ZL1 I’ll never know. Oh well, C’est la vie!

    • 0 avatar
      nrd515

      the original, 2010 interior was horrible, but from ’11 on, it’s ok, I have no complaints. My complaints are all due to the looks, or lack of them. It’s a horrible looking mess of a car, from the Windshield back. I like the front of it fine, but it gets worse looking the further back you go. The rear end is horrible, and the whole door/rear quarter panel “interface” makes me think someone was on some serious drugs when it was designed and then again when it was approved. I hope the new one is good enough looking to even think about buying. Make it look like a 2nd or even a 3rd generation, and I’m probably getting my checkbook out, hell, even make it look like the 4th gen. If they screw it up, it’s another Challenger.

      • 0 avatar
        zamoti

        I think it is interesting how so many people take the time bash it on style but don’t mention having driven one.
        I think the looks are fine; big, bucktoothed, mean, agressive–seems about right to me. The interior is meh, but it is not a BMW, it is indeed a reasonably priced Chevy. A Chevy that goes like stink and is a pile of fun to drive. I’ve test driven a Challenger which I did like and the Camaro (rental) and I don’t see a lot of major differences. They’re both big meaty muscle cars that have fans on either side. If what’s under the hood doesn’t do it for you, I would not imagine the styling is going to be the deciding factor.
        Each to their own of course, I like the current Camaro and if it had three seats in the back instead of two, I would probably take it instead of the Chally I will most likely buy soon.
        I also enjoy hearing everyone complain how there’s no visibility in the rear quarters. I have found that there is a very easy solultion to keeping people out of your blind spots–drive faster than everyone else. You’ll know who’s back there because you just passed them.
        You’re all very welcome.

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          “The interior is meh, but it is not a BMW, it is indeed a reasonably priced Chevy.”

          Honestly, the interior of the Camaro is not inferior at all to that of any new BMW anywhere comparable in price. I think anyone who swoons over a lower ended BMW’s interior has damage to their sensory cortices.

          • 0 avatar
            hubcap

            I like clean interiors. take a look at the insides of a 320i. Nice, clean and tidy.Check it out on Google then go to the dealer and sit in one. Nice materials, nice fitment, screwed together well.

            My problems with the Camaro interior are:

            1. The plastic trim surrounding the speedo and tach and the design of the speedo and tach themselves. To me, it just looks half- assed.

            2. The radio buttons on the center console. Same complaint.

            3. Gauges that are tucked inn behind the gearshift. Really?

            It’s been a bit more than a year since I’ve been in a Camaro but the SS I was in at the time felt cheap.

            But here’s the rub. It wouldn’t stop me from buying a ZL1.

            But if you put the 320i and Camaro interior side by side. In fact, open up a couple of tabs with your browser and take a look. And you say the Camaro looks like it would be a better place to be well as Rooster Cogburn says, “I can’t do nothing for ya son.”

          • 0 avatar
            mnm4ever

            @hubcap – you said it in the first sentence: you like “clean” interiors. People have difference preferences, which will drive them to certain choices. I happen to find the BMW interiors to be boring. Functional for sure, but without any style. The Camaro goes too far the other way, aiming for style over function. I am betting @danio was referring to the materials used, which I would agree, the imports have gotten worse while the domestics have gotten better. Style is a personal thing though, it isn’t so important to me, I wouldn’t choose or not choose a vehicle because of the interior styling, but my wife for example is the type that would (and has) chosen vehicles based on how “cool” the interior looks. I imagine Chevy has to decide which group is more important to appeal to.

          • 0 avatar
            hubcap

            @mnm4ever– True, I do like clean interiors and everyone has a preference but that doesn’t preclude me from being able to appreciate different styles. I know I’ve been singling out the Camaro, but the Mustang and Challenger have many of the same flaws.

            From what I’ve seen of the 2015 Mustang (photos and live at a local car show–car was locked) the interior seems to be spot on. Take a look at it. Clean, logical lay out, nice materials. Compare it to the current car and its competitors.

            There’s no reason something similar couldn’t have been on the current car. Same goes for other manufacturers. Customers have been asking for years for better interior refinement and finally the domestic car companies are listening and obliging.

          • 0 avatar
            mnm4ever

            The 2015 Mustang is on top of the short list for my next car, so I agree.

            And I do understand, the interior quality of the current models is a bit below par. I think of them as $20k cars with $20k worth of performance options. But even at $20k the interiors are just not that great. But then again the supposed high quality interior of my GTI is one of the reasons I am getting rid of it, they do not age well. So you can see where corners are cut. I have looked at used 2006-2010 Mustangs and the interiors are at least hardy if not stylish.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            One man’s “clean” is another man’s “plain”. I agree the Camaro’s interior is overstyled, but I don’t think it has any quality problems.

            On the flip side, I’ve checked out a few BMW interiors lately including a 645 and have been consistently underwhelmed by the interiors as compared to any of their competitors. They play in luxury territory, but the interiors aren’t luxurious, they’re plain.

        • 0 avatar
          LALoser

          I have never driven one. Came close, but just could not amp up the interest enough. (Was at a dealer). But in all fairness my preference switched from large-ish V8 cars to smaller imports: WRX/STI, EVO/Ralliart and so on. The cars I really wanted to like enough to buy: Mustang GT, Buick GS, Camaro, (I had a ’72, sweet ride), Legacy GT, where did it go?, Poncho GTO, new version, and Chevrolet SS, a lot o’ cash for what you get IMO.

  • avatar
    pb35

    I hope it doesn’t look like one of those “conversion” Corvettes where they take the body of a ’62 and drop it on a C6 chassis. They just look awkward and out of proportion.

  • avatar
    Dan

    All of these people asking for it to be smaller, I for one think small is the most fundamental problem with the current one and it needs to be bigger.

    You can’t fit both adult ergonomics and attractive proportions in a 190″ car. Being a Camaro it goes without saying that they went with proportions. Which is why you can’t see out of it, use the backseat, even sit up straight in it if you’re taller.

    A foot longer like the Challenger and you can have American proportions in a useable car.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      “You can’t fit both adult ergonomics and attractive proportions in a 190″ car.”

      What? That’s just plain ridiculous. 190″ is enormous, particularly for a sporty coupe where no one expects a full-sized back seat. My G8, based on the same platform, is just four inches longer and has room for 6-footers to sprawl out in all four corner seats. (I have a 6’5″ friend who likes to ride in the car.) Four tall adults fit quite well in any number of 170″ or so FWD compacts.

      The reason you can’t sit up straight is the chopped roof. The reason you can’t see out is the high beltline. Neither of those has to do with the car’s porcine footprint and weight.

      • 0 avatar
        Dan

        So how attractive, exactly, are the proportions of your G8 without a back deck? Let alone those 170″ compacts without a hood either.

        A big platform lets you chop off the roofline, and waste a foot or two at each end on looking good, and still fit people in it. A small platform won’t, and that’s my point.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          Long hoods and decks are not the only way to be attractive. I’m a big fan of some of the Japanese FWD coupes of the late ’80s and ’90s, most of which were under 180 inches long, and all of which fit two adults as well as the Camaro does today.

          I also think a Holden 5-door with a chopped rear overhang, shorter than a Camaro and yet on the G8/SS wheelbase with G8/SS passenger space, would look awesome.

          • 0 avatar
            3Deuce27

            Nissan 240SX had a purty decent back seat with a sports car wheelbase>

            Dimensions
            Wheelbase 2,474 mm (97.4 in)
            Length 4,521 mm (178.0 in)
            Width 1,689 mm (66.5 in)
            Height 1,290 mm (50.8 in)
            Curb weight 1,224 kilograms (2,698 lb)

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            3Deuce27, now those are the kind of dimensions I’m talking about!

            A new coupe that size but built to current safety standards would probably weigh about 3000-3200 pounds depending on powertrain. And that would be fantastic.

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      If people valued back seats so much, the Challenger would be outselling both the Mustang and the Camaro, rather than languishing in 3rd place. The Mustang is much more livable than the Camaro solely because the roof isn’t chopped so low.

      • 0 avatar

        > The Mustang is much more livable than the Camaro solely because the roof isn’t chopped so low.

        Which is ironic for a retro car because the late 60′s camaro’s had decent visibility.

        The current camaro is more like a retro chop job except worse because modern crash standard dictate higher sides and thus the gun turret sightlines.

      • 0 avatar
        Dan

        How many 200 million dollar Michael Bay ads did the Challenger get? How many decades of successive Challengers have their been? How many thousand owner fan clubs did it build up in that time? How many more horsepower did the Mustang and Camaro have with their newer motors? How many of them have slow transmissions from 1996? How much larger and Ford’s and GM’s sales networks?

        For a platform sharing hack job out of nowhere selling over 50K last year is doing pretty well. The livability and great proportions of being the right size are really all the Challenger has going for it. How much better could the Camaro and Mustang do if they had that on top of all their other advantages.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          If you want “livable” with tons of back seat room, why not buy a sedan?

          You buy a coupe because you want something that will carry 2 people with sporting ability. The Challenger is too big to have any sporting ability at all, except in a straight line. If you made the Mustang or Camaro as big as the Challenger, they too would lose the athleticism they have now.

          • 0 avatar
            Dan

            When did this become solely about the back seat? A front seat that you can see out from and sit upright in is worth something too.

            A Chevy SS is about one inch off of the Challenger. Is that only useful in a straight line?

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            You don’t need 200 inches to have a totally usable front seat, even with long-hood/short-deck proportions. Again, it’s factors other than length that give the Camaro ergonomic issues. The only reason you need that much length is to have lots of room in both front and back.

            The G8/SS are very athletic for large sedans, but they will never compete with sports cars. Two-door coupes should be more athletic than large sedans. The Challenger is not (in fact, except for the SRT8, it’s worse than the G8/SS because of the boulevardier suspension tine).

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “Two-door coupes should be more athletic than large sedans”

            Is this even true in the case of the Camaro though? Any publication ever put a G8 or Commodore against a Camaro SS? Braking, acceleration, and skidpad figures all nearly seem to be a draw.

          • 0 avatar
            3Deuce27

            “If you want “livable” with tons of back seat room, why not buy a sedan?”

            Because the Challenger has a sporty ‘Coupe’ look and saloon size without the appliance doors.

            I like the looks of the Challenger, but its build quality leaves a lot too be desired. and some of its practical details, just don’t work for me.

            When it first came out, I was looking forward to buying Challenger ‘RT’ with 375 Hp/6-speed, to commemorate my purchase of a new 68′ Charger ‘RT’ with the same Hp, but a test drive ended that notion. And, the 68′ Charger weighed less.

    • 0 avatar
      mnm4ever

      @dan – you are actually the only person I have ever heard that wants the Camaro and Mustang to be bigger. And I work with some big guys… Guys that like full size trucks cause they can’t fit in cars… Even they say the pony cars are too big, especially the Challenger. You are (thankfully) in an extreme minority.

      • 0 avatar
        Kyree S. Williams

        In my eyes, the Challenger’s primary mission is to be a large coupe. So at least it offers some decent space for being as large as it is. The Camaro and Mustang have jokes for rear seats. It’s not that I think these two should be larger; rather I think that they should use their proportions more efficiently.

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    I know that GM didn’t get in on the retro-styling action until a full five model years after Ford did, but it’s time for retro to die, I feel like retro styling has gone away from being a nice homage to the classic models and toward being a set of elements that cause practicality, functionality and performance compromises, all for a little nostalgia. Plus, it’s hard to have a brand that is moving toward sleeker, modern designs, and yet that brand still has to accommodate a muscle-car with its own over-the-top and dated styling (Ford and Dodge/SRT will have this problem more than Chevrolet will). I’m disappointed that the retro styling is going to stay. Instead of trying to create caricatures of past eras, we should be making our own modern legacies.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    Hmm…..GM is going to try and extract the last out of the baby boomers.

    Once we are gone, smaller more efficient cars and trucks will be the norm in the US.

    • 0 avatar
      hubcap

      Smaller more efficient cars are the norm now. Trucks not so much. You speak as if everyone has a muscle car in their driveway.

      Performance vehicles will always have a place and they’ll always be niche.

    • 0 avatar
      3Deuce27

      Big Al… I know a hell of a lot of early baby boomers, friends and family, who have elected to drive ‘smaller, more efficient cars and trucks’ for many years now. Even the higher performance sporty cars with 4-6 cylinder power. And only one, many years ago, has bought a new V-8 Mustang or Camaro/Pony car. Some wanted them, but never pulled the trigger. A few still fancy buying one, but it is doubtful they ever will.

      Around here, most of the new and newer Ponies and big pick-ups, are driven by 20-40 year old’s. The early boomers drive the fun cars of their youth, and Accords, Optima’s, Hybrids, etc, and small pick-ups, mostly.

      Maybe its a regional situation, but here in the NW, the early boomers drive pretty sensible vehicles, with few sporty cars in the mix. In rural Texas, it seems the vehicle of choice for daily drivers, is a big diesel pick-up with every option,

      People of any age who buy new sports cars or hi-performance cars, are the exception to the rule. I roughly figure about 2-3 percent of the the US market. Based on sales and the profit motive, there is not much incentive for any OEM to service that market,

  • avatar
    3Deuce27

    @ ‘Sun Ridge place’_ “I was driving Hwy 1 up the coast and actually wanted to be able to SEE out of my vehicle (in the case of the Camaro)”

    I have a Camaro reserved next month in Vegas, but I have rented nothing but Mustangs for years.

    Even at 6′-1″ with a proportionately longer upper torso, I don’t have a problem seeing out of the Camaro, but then my daily driver is a a Miata, so maybe I’m just used to limited sight lines. My brother at 6′-3″ and the same physical condition, also drives a Miata, though, he would prefer to drive it with the top down and usually does.

    While I like the Ponies, Camaro, Challenger, and Mustang, after putting 200,000 miles on an E-36 over the past 17 years, even the much newer Ponies, still leave a lot to be desired, and it is sure noticeable, when after a test drive or rental of one of them, you get back into the old E-36 and drive home. Only the Genesis coupe has felt like it was worthy of taking the E-36′s place as the new trip car.

    Hoping one of the new Ponies, Mustang or Camaro…or Barracuda(?), cure my need for a fun trip car, as I don’t want to pay BMW what they want for a new 4-series, and their standard equipment content is sorely lacking. And to get 300+ Hp in a 2-series you have to step up to the M235i and that is $44,000 and up. Compared to what the Ponies and the Genesis offer, the value isn’t there.

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      And I’ll add, the 235 weights about 3,500 lbs – pretty bloated for such small car. But what I wanted to ask, is what kind of Miatas do you and your brother have (NA/NB/NC)? At 6′, I wish the seat in my NC was just an inch or two lower.

      • 0 avatar
        burgersandbeer

        The 228i is 3,260 lbs. Not BRZ territory, but not too bad for a modern car that also has decent power, interior, and some sound deadening. And while the engine doesn’t have the character of the old I6s, it does produce in the power and economy departments. The 228i is a near clone of the E36 M3 in terms of power and size.

        Its cost is unfortunate though. Starting at around $32k seems fair enough, but after adding only the msport package, an interior color I like, and heated seats I’m up to almost $39k. It reminds me of the Top Gear episode where Hammond talked about how BMW was only behind Porsche in the art of ripping you off – “see all this air between you and the windshield? that is free…”

        • 0 avatar
          TMA1

          I took my weight figure from M/T, which indicates the car is within 100 pounds of the 4 series.

          2014 BMW M235i
          BASE PRICE $44,025
          PRICE AS TESTED $46,025
          VEHICLE LAYOUT Front-engine, RWD, 4-pass, 2-door coupe
          ENGINE 3.0L/320-hp/330-lb-ft turbo DOHC 24-valve I-6
          TRANSMISSION 8-speed automatic
          CURB WEIGHT (F/R DIST) 3494 lb (53/47%)

          Now I see you’re talking about the 228, I’m not sure about that one.

  • avatar
    3Deuce27

    @TMAI

    I have several Miata’s, but my daily driver is my 93′ ‘NA’. My brother drives a 2002 ‘SE’ ‘NB’.

    There are after market seats available that will give you that ‘Inch’ and are still quite comfortable. You will lose the headrest speakers, but that is a fair trade.

    Taking off the visors and rear view mirror, helps clear the sight lines through the windscreen. If your tall, the visors can be eliminated, because you can just adjust your head in relation to the header to block the sun, unless, the sun is sitting just off the top of the hood, which doesn’t happen around here, because of the surrounding mountains.

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      I think I might start with replacing the ridiculously large “Homelink” auto-dimming mirror. The real reason I want to sit lower is so that I can see under that thing.

    • 0 avatar
      mkirk

      In the NB, NA seats will give a little more headroom. I swapped my 90 seats into my 04 Mazdaspeed and would have made it permanent if I had kept it.

  • avatar
    3Deuce27

    @ ‘Hubcap’

    “Go take a ZL-1 out. It’s a blast!”

    How did you manage to find one to drive? Since beginning of its availability, I haven’t found one available anywhere on the West coast that a dealer has made available for a test drive.

    A quick check of inventory for five Western states, show none are available in inventory, even in Vegas. My understanding is, that they are primarily ordered by customers, with a few exceptions, none are ordered for dealer stock. Same situation with the Z/28.

    Apparently I will have the opportunity to track both next month at Thunderhill, as a customer of mine has both and will bring them to the shop for the fitting of race cages, fire suppression systems, and other required safety fitments.

    Cars will be available to me for a few laps on the open test day on the 17th of April before the Chump car weekend mayhem. Unfortunately, I’m scheduled to be in Texas on the 15th, so a bit of a quandary… Track a Z/28 and ZL1, or sex… col!

    • 0 avatar

      > I haven’t found one available anywhere on the West coast that a dealer has made available for a test drive. ….so a bit of a quandary… Track a Z/28 and ZL1, or sex…

      Choice is obvious, surely sex available elsewhere on the West coast.

      • 0 avatar
        3Deuce27

        “Choice is obvious, surely sex available elsewhere on the West coast.”

        COL! Yes! But my gal friend in Texas, might not appreciate my availing myself of those ‘opportunities’. And, the cars should be available several times again later in the season at PIR, their home course, ORP, and the Goldendale, Maryhill Loops Hill Climb, and other venues… Patience will get me all I desire.

        PIR> http://portlandraceway.com/

        Oregon Raceway Park> http://oregonraceway.com/

        Thunderhill Raceway> http://www.thunderhill.com/
        Oregon Raceway park> http://oregonraceway.com/

        Maryhill Loops Hill Climb> http://www.nhahillclimb.org/forms/2013MaryhillHillclimbFlyer.pdf

        For those who love the sound of a fast Ford> http://youtu.be/pxyXUrSM1-A

        Loops, run what ya brung, no competition license required> http://youtu.be/cdY2m68oigA

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      They’re definately given to dealers, the small dealership a town over always has 1-2 out front, usually new ones every time I go by.

      • 0 avatar
        3Deuce27

        Reg;
        “They’re definately given to dealers, the small dealership a town over always has 1-2 out front, usually new ones every time I go by.”

        So, none are in stock at the big dealers in the big cities(or anywhere else) in the six Western states, but a little dealer in Podunk, USA has ‘TWO!’. Go figure.

        Getting closer.

        My day finished up nicely, as I was closing down the shop a friend showed up with a friend of his who was driving a Hennessey Camaro ZL1 HPE1000.

        We took it down to the Friday night cruise-in where it took its place among the hot rods, customs, and collector cars. Later we took a roundabout way back to the shop that included a blast down the freeway. Engine comes on like a sledge hammer to the forehead when it hits boost.

        Currently tuned for pump gas so it isn’t putting out over 1,000 Hp at the rear wheels, but still faster then the cars we build around here. Even with around 1,000 Hp, it is still not as quick as the Sevenesque type cars with the LS376, but will catch and pass one at the top end.

        I really liked the body kit and stance on the Hennessey Camaro. It had dark blue ghost paint with carbon fiber chin spoiler, skirts, and rear splitter. The optional nearly $10,000 Brembo brake system was more then adequate to pulling the car down in a hurry from mid triple digit speeds.

        With the brake, chassis work, body kit, wheels, paint, and interior upgrades, I suspect this Camaro ran about $135,000+ out the door.

        Still haven’t driven a ZL1, but now I have ridden in one at very high speeds, that were well below its potential.

        Thanks for the Friday night fun, Ron.

        PS! Makes up for getting bit in the right foot
        early this AM by a big(mixed?) Pit Bull named Sugar.

        Was trying to deliver some circus tickets for the neighbors kids and their guard dog was out. Punched a couple of holes in my right foot, but that was better then my legs, torso , or throat, as he had me down after I slipped in the wet grass and fell back against the house. So, also suffering from a bit of a headache from a banged head and twisted back with sore neck and ribs. But, hey, when I got home tonight, they had delivered a delicious chocolate cake that said ‘Sorry Tre’ Fitting words, indeed. Need to humorously tell them, that a comma would have delivered the proper sentiment… col!

        Still love Pits.

    • 0 avatar
      hubcap

      “How did you manage to find one to drive?”

      Local Cadillac dealer had one come in on trade. White with black wheels, 6MT (and a New Orleans Saints Fleur-de-lis window sticker—whatever).

  • avatar
    Pig_Iron

    I wonder if it will come with those patented GM non-functional air bags?


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States