By on June 9, 2016

2016 Chevrolet Camaro SS Exterior Front 3/4, Image: © 2016 Alex Dykes/The Truth About Cars

Automotive crossbreeds don’t always turn out for the better. GM’s past is littered with parts-bin-assembled cars that should never have existed. Pontiac Aztek

2016 Chevrolet Camaro SS

6.2L V8 (455 horsepower @ 6,000 rpm, 455 lbs-ft @ 4,400 rpm

Six-speed manual transmission

16 city / 25 highway / 19 combined (EPA Rating, MPG)

18 (Observed, MPG)

Base Price: $37,295

As Tested: $48,555

All prices include a $995 destination fee.

and Hummer H3 are just two examples of good ideas gone horribly wrong.

The 2016 Camaro is not another example; this is parts bin raiding gone right, oh-so right.

In a nutshell, the new Camaro SS is what happens when you take a Cadillac ATS Coupe and a Corvette Stingray engine and wrap them in the latest Chevy stormtrooper styling. The result is something of an automotive unicorn. Under the hood lies a 6.2-liter small-block V8, yet the Camaro tips the scales at a svelte 3,685 pounds and boasts BMW-like weight balance.

Let’s be honest, the Camaro’s looks are best described as “polarizing.” Half of my Facebook peeps wanted to bear the Camaro’s children, a quarter wanted to pull their eyes out, and another quarter thought it was simply overdone. When it comes to the beauty contest, the Ford Mustang beats the Camaro in my book, although both are overshadowed by the Camaro’s rich cousin and platform donor: the Cadillac ATS-V Coupe. That said, I think the 2016 interpretation of the “stormtrooper” design is the best yet. The 2016 model looks leaner and meaner than the outgoing model thanks to the new GM Alpha underpinnings borrowed from Cadillac. The overall length and wheelbase drop two inches versus the outgoing model, helping trim up the side profile, and the front end is wider and lower, making the Camaro look even hungrier than before. At 188.3 inches long, the new Camaro is the same length as the Mustang.

2016 Chevrolet Camaro Interior, Image: © 2016 Alex Dykes/The Truth About Cars

The Alpha platform giveth and it taketh away. As you’d expect with a two-inch shrink in wheelbase, the interior of the Camaro feels smaller than before. What you wouldn’t expect is that the interior also feels smaller than the Mustang’s cabin, even though the Chevy has a 3.6-inch longer wheelbase. Some of the difference is optical illusion thanks to a nearly shoulder-level beltline, but the 2016 model also loses an inch of headroom in the redesign.

The front seats in our 2SS tester proved comfortable on long trips, but not as comfortable as those in the Mustang or Challenger. The main reason for this is adjustability. Although our model had the top-end 8-way power driver’s seat, the range of motion is limited compared with the latest Ford seats. The lack of adjustable lumbar support is a personal pain point. Unlike Camaros of the past, GM designed the 2016 Camaro with average builds in mind. I found the bolstering on the seat bottom and back near perfect, but larger folks may find them too tight for comfort.

2016 Chevrolet Camaro Rear Seat Folded, Image: © 2016 Alex Dykes/The Truth About Cars

Do Camaro drivers use the back seat? Apparently not, since GM didn’t even bother to measure the rear for its spec sheets. By our estimation, the rear has lost at least two inches of legroom and a similar amount of headroom compared to the 2015 model year. The Mustang’s way-back is a hair more comfortable, but let’s be honest — if you need to carry humans in the back of your two-door, the Challenger is the only American coupe designed for the task.

Aside from the insurance implications, Camaro shoppers are likely to find another use for the back seat: padded cargo storage. That’s because the Camaro has also inherited the Alpha platform’s small trunk. In a reverse-TARDIS move, the Camaro has a massive derriere on the outside, and a teeny-tiny trunk on the inside. With just 9.1 cubic feet of space and a small opening, the Camaro has one of the smallest cargo holds I’ve seen recently. The Mustang’s booty isn’t exactly spacious, but it’s nearly 50-percent larger. The folding rear seatback isn’t just a novelty — it’s a must-have.

2016 Chevrolet Camaro 6.2-liter V8 Engine, Image: © 2016 Alex Dykes/The Truth About Cars

Lumbar support and cargo room worries fade when you pop the hood. Behold, the Corvette Stingray’s 6.2-liter small block V8. With a redline of 6,600 rpm, direct injection, variable valve timing and cylinder deactivation, this isn’t your dad’s small block, even though it’s still a pushrod design.

As you’d expect, the Camaro’s output figures are detuned slightly from the Stingray, but the detune is the slightest possible with the same 455 horsepower rating at 6,000 rpm and a 5 lbs-ft drop to 455 lbs-ft at 4,400 rpm. Although the horsepower figures pale in comparison to the GT350‘s 526 ponies, the Chevy makes 26 lbs-ft more torque 350 rpm earlier.

Instead of the seven-speed manual from the ‘Vette, the Camaro gets a more traditional six-speed unit, or you can check the box for GM’s eight-speed automatic. The eight-speed auto is two cogs ahead of the Mustang GT, but more importantly, it’s two cogs and a torque converter ahead of the GT350, which is only available with a six-speed manual.

2016 Chevrolet Camaro Manual Shifter, Image: © 2016 Alex Dykes/The Truth About Cars

Heresy! Yes, I mention an automatic in a review of a performance car. Why? Because as much as I love a transmission to do my bidding (my last two new car purchases were manual transmissions), I have to admit that automatics just do it better in the real world. (It doesn’t hurt that GM’s eight-speed transmission is almost as polished as the industry benchmark ZF 8HP.) If the stars align and you slip the clutch perfectly and shift as fast as humanly possible, the manual SS will scoot to 60 in 4.2 seconds. If you’re me, you end up at 4.3-4.4 seconds. That’s 2/10ths faster than a Mustang GT. Drop the eight-speed auto in the SS and it’s a different story; a dealer provided model ran to 60 in 3.85 blistering seconds, significantly faster than any Mustang GT and faster than most drivers in a GT350. Seriously. It’s also within a few hundredths of a second of the BMW M4.

This is possible because the eight-speed auto not only has a deeper first gear (12.6:1 vs 9.9:1 effective ratio) and more ratios below 1:1 that keep the engine at an optimum powerband for acceleration, but because it can shift in a fraction of the time possible of a manual transmission. Toss in a stability control program that only cuts in when absolutely required, and you have a $38,790 rocketship that dances like a $73,645 M4. Yep, I said it. A Camaro that does a nearly flawless BMW impersonation.

2016 Chevrolet Camaro Instrument Panel, Image: © 2016 Alex Dykes/The Truth About Cars

Obviously, I’m not talking about luxury amenities or the interior refinement. The Camaro is at least two full steps behind BMW’s highly polished luxury interior. No, I’m talking about the way the Camaro drives. The steering is precise with a hint of feedback; the chassis tuning is near perfect, and the grip is incredible.

Are you surprised? You shouldn’t be. The Cadillac ATS, after all, has won accolades for its handling prowess, not just from TTAC but from the industry in general. I never thought it would be possible to say this, but now and then the Camaro, with a 6.2-liter V8 up front, makes the BMW M4 feel heavy and lethargic.

2016 Chevrolet Camaro Rev Match Paddle Shifter, Image: © 2016 Alex Dykes/The Truth About Cars

Chevrolet has yet to release official weight distribution numbers for the Camaro, but I suspect that when they do they will be within a hair of the M4’s 52%/48% (front/rear) figures. The improved balance is obvious on winding mountain roads where the Camaro responds with more agility than a comparable Mustang GT.

Ride quality is surely an area where the Camaro will lag the BMW, right? Wrong. Thanks to an available magnetic ride suspension, also borrowed from Cadillac, the Camaro SS is daily driver livable. My last stint in a Mustang GT with the “performance package” left me wondering if I had become too soft in my old age. The suspension was just a hair too firm for my daily commute and it left the rear suspension occasionally out of sorts on rough pavement in the corners. The Camaro has a similar feeling if you don’t check the $1,695 box for the active suspension. But if you check that box the Camaro’s ride, while still firm, becomes easy to live with.

2016 Chevrolet Camaro SS Exterior Rear, Image: © 2016 Alex Dykes/The Truth About Cars

With a base price of $37,295 (after a $995 destination charge), the Camaro is $4,000 more than a base Mustang GT. Digging deeper, however, you’ll find that the Camaro comes with about $1,000 more standard gadget and luxury content than the Ford, and Chevy bundles all SS models with a more capable brake package than entry models of the GT. The net cost difference by my calculations to just $1,500, which buys you a more capable chassis, improved road feel, and superior performance.

Perhaps more interesting than the pony-war comparison is the BMW comparison. The last generation of Camaro SS could, of course, be compared to the M3 coupe of the time, but the comparisons always read like this: the Camaro delivers 95 percent of the performance, 80 percent of the handling ability and 70 percent of the finesse for half the price. This SS is an entirely different animal, and delivers equal performance, equal handling ability and superior finesse for half the price.

If you’re just interested in driving dynamics, the Camaro SS is simply the better car. If you’re interested in luxury, the closely related ATS-V is my top pick, but the turbo engine is just not as engaging as the 6.2-liter V8.

The 2016 Camaro has restored my faith in American performance for the masses. We all knew a brand like Cadillac could craft a BMW M4 competitor if they applied themselves, but from Chevy it’s a game changer. The Camaro SS is of course just the beginning. Soon we will see a Camaro ZL1, which is apparently what happens when you blend a 2016 Camaro with a touch of bat-shit-crazy. Count me in.

GM provided the vehicle, insurance and one tank of gas for this review

Specifications as tested

0-30 mph: 2.5 seconds

0-60 mph: 4.4 seconds

1/4 mile: 12.5 seconds @ 115 mph

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

135 Comments on “2016 Chevrolet Camaro SS Review – The Cadillac/Corvette Crossbreed...”


  • avatar
    Hummer

    What the hell is wrong with the H3, it excels at its mission.

    Cheap off-roader with good fuel economy, and it’s capabilities exceed every single Current Jeep product Sans Wrangler.

    • 0 avatar
      cgjeep

      Nothing wrong with the H3. Better trade off between offroad ability to on road ability then the current Wrangler. Was just a Colorado Truck in an SUV body. Wish more manufactures did that today.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Proles love the H3 and resale proves it.

    A more recent mistake was taking a cheap Pontiac and calling it a Cadillac to only they mutilate the I4 intended platform to accept LS motors.

  • avatar
    RedRocket

    But you didn’t mention whether you can see any of the outside world from behind the wheel? I suspect not given the gun-slit windows.

    • 0 avatar
      Compaq Deskpro

      Based on my experience at the last auto show the answer is no, I felt like a kid trying to peak over the door sills. I daily drive a Challenger and while it still is no full size pickup on visibility, the gunslits fit like a glove and neatly fill my field of view.

    • 0 avatar
      zamoti

      I drove a ’13 and while it didn’t provide convertible-like visibility, I don’t think that it was all that bad. Use your mirrors, when you’re backing use the camera. I had NO issues buzzing around the local freeways and moving about across 4 lanes of traffic. It surprises me that so many cry that this car isn’t practical, back seat is too small, trunk is to small, it can’t tow a boat, etc. This is a low mean muscle car–if you want practical, go buy a Camry. These things have a menacing presence and enough muscle to back it up. I would like one, but currently it wouldn’t work for me (not that I could afford it anyway); however I’m certainly not going to call it a failure because it isn’t practical.
      I think these are great and for the brief time I got to drive one around, I was happy as a pig in $hit. It was fast, it had presence and it was fun to make noisy motor sounds when I wanted to get moving. If you don’t like this sort of thing, well I hear you can get a very nice Civic at a good value.

      • 0 avatar
        SSJeep

        Agreed, I rented one for several days and the visibility is not as bad as everyone seems to believe. It is far better than the 80s/90s Camaro, and the mirrors seemed functional enough. The backup camera makes all of the difference. The new Camaro is a blast to drive, although if I were to buy a muscle car, Id probably go with the Mustang GT.

  • avatar
    Compaq Deskpro

    Even more cramped than before, unusable trunk, unusable backseat, and it handles great, which means your spine will rattle over potholes. No thanks.

    I’m surprised anyone would buy this car over the Mustang and Challenger.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Sales figures should be interesting to see of all three in say six months to a year.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        True.

        I’m actually thinking the best deal in this class may well be the base V-6 Mustang with a manual. For 25 grand you get the mad-sexy 5.0 styling and plenty of performance. It’s a steal as long as you can live without stuff like nav or leather seats.

        • 0 avatar
          TMA1

          For 29 grand you can get a 5.0 with no options, after discounts.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Even better. Still, if they’re discounting Mustangs the base V-6 becomes even more of a steal.

        • 0 avatar
          raph

          I’d seriously like to register my discontent over that by kicking somebody in the sack. It just seems like Ford definitely wanted to railroad buyers into the EB Mustang by limiting the V6 Mustang to rental car options and while not a bad place to be for basic transportation it just seems silly outside of a few options (why not just the performance pack stuff being limited to the EB and GT Mustangs?).

          That seems like the error Ford made with the GT350 – supposedly its track ready car that in base form or fitted with the technology pack omitted all the extra coolers and again Forced buyers to pick between the track pack (not to be confused with the GT350-R which had an electronics pack that allowed the buyer to essentially get both the track pack and technology pack) car, the base car (which raised the cost of entry for people wanting a Mustang that could tangle with the Camaro SS on equal footing) and the Technology pack which just added some creature comforts.

          It was such an issue with the GT350 that they now include the coolers as standard with the MY17 car as it should have been from the get go with every GT350 being track capable without fear of the car’s drive train turning into a molten mess.

      • 0 avatar
        Compaq Deskpro

        It will sell, its cool as hell and drivers of the previous gen will appreciate its improvements, I just can’t see this as a useful daily driver. It looks to be a hair away from having the utility of a Miata.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          If I want Miata utility I’m buying a Miata.

          (Even a base Camaro would probably be a lot quicker, though.)

          • 0 avatar
            pbr

            There’s room in my want-list for more than one car with Miata-level lack of utility.

            I like this, I like it better than the Mustang and the Challenger. I had Camaros when I was a kid, so no surprise I like the way it looks. Pure emotion, nothing on a spec sheet or media review can trump that. The price/weight/dynamics/performance as described here sound like a good balance (but grown-up me has had a few Bimmers, so I’m not buying the better than a 4-series line without trying it for myself).

            And this prole does not love H3s. Yech.

      • 0 avatar
        hubcap

        Yeah, but what will be more interesting is average profit per car. Having the sales title is good and all nut making considerably more per car is great.

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        I’m wondering if it will ape the 4th gen and SN95/New Edge sales? The Camaro was the better performer but the Mustang was the more livable car and sales showed people wanted a more livable car.

        The new Camaro is fantastic but as somebody who fell into the car culture during the 80’s when the 69 Camaro was the magazine queen for just about everybody (so much so people would refer to them as Hot Camaro, Camaro Craft, Popular Camaro, Super Camaro, et al) this car which mostly evokes the 1st gen model just doesn’t engage me. If only GM were to have put some more 2nd gen DNA in there (IMO the 70.5-81 cars were the high water mark in F-car styling, especially the closer the car is to that generation’s introduction)

        In any event I’m eagerly awaiting sales figures as it just feels GM made this car for its core fans rather than trying to appeal to a larger group beyond the same bunch of drivers that constantly switch to whomever has the benching racing king of the moment (Usually the guy that had the competitor’s car but buys the new latest and greatest and tells you they’ve always been a Brand-X guy at heart until they switch again after having an epiphany).

    • 0 avatar
      energetik9

      “Even more cramped than before, unusable trunk, unusable backseat, and it handles great, which means your spine will rattle over potholes. No thanks.

      I’m surprised anyone would buy this car over the Mustang and Challenger.”

      I have rented numerous Camaros (although not the latest) in the past couple years. The convertible was by far the worst for space. I’ve also rented the newest Mustang GT and loved it. If the Camaro lost space all around and you are still dealing with those horrible sight lines, I have to say I still would easily place my vote with the Mustang GT. A couple 1/10th of performance here or there at the end of the day is simply auto reviewer noise. It’s meaningless.

    • 0 avatar
      SSJeep

      I would take this car over the Challenger, but probably not the Mustang. The Mustang is a better all-around daily driver IMO.

    • 0 avatar
      phreshone

      This thing really needs a hatch instead of the breadbasket trunk

    • 0 avatar
      hubcap

      @Compaq Deskpro

      Have you sat or drove the new car. If not, give it a try when you get dome free time. Reading others’ opinions is fine but nothing beats firsh hand experience.

      And I’d take the Mustang or Camaro over the Challenger eery day!

  • avatar
    MrGrieves

    My first thought at looking at the engine photos was the coolant expansion tank was totally filled. Is that normal? Where can the coolant go when the system is hot?

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      It’s no longer an expansion tank, they’re pressurized now and called “de-gas bottles.” If you look at it, the compartment below the top chamber is partially full. I don’t know specifically how this one is designed, but the top chamber might be a transient or “surge” tank, with the part below it being reserve.

      • 0 avatar
        EAF

        “De-gas bottle?” I’ve never heard them referred to as such.

        The expansion tank (top) and the overflow tank (bottom) are built as a single unit. As coolant expands, the cap opens, and allows Dexcool to flow through an inner tube down into the overflow tank. As pressure subsides, the cap closes, coolant is drawn up through this same tube.

        JimZ is correct, the top tank is pressurized, the bottom tank is vented.

        I love the look of this car and not being able to look out if it would not stop me from buying it. What would stop me from buying then;

        #1 – Direct Injection (It sucks)
        #2 – VVT (It starves the cam journal that feeds it)
        #3 – AFM (R & R lifters is not fun, can be catastrophic, and because ticking time bomb)

        Although I’d prefer the GM OHV V8, I would have to opt for the Ford DOHC V8 instead.

        • 0 avatar
          SSJeep

          DI isnt going anywhere due to CAFE regulations. Long-term, every vehicle will have some sort of DI variant.

          Honda has run VVT in VTEC motors for years, and cam journals were not starved, nor were valve cams damaged. Granted, this is a GM engine and not a Honda, but the technology is proven.

          GM had some early AFM issues (2007/8). I believe most of those have been cleared up, and they only occurred on about 5% of the installed engine base. However, concern is noted, and if it were me, I would delete the AFM as a proactive measure.

          • 0 avatar
            EAF

            I can’t speak on Honda’s VCM, I’ve yet to come across a single failure.

            AFM on the other hand, I have become proficient at swapping lifters. Valid point, most have been vehicles from that era. I’ve grown weary of it, for me reliability is paramount.

            Google GM VVTi cam journal #2. The issue is widespread, there may even be a TSB out for it?

  • avatar
    seth1065

    While not a car for me it is good to see Chevy/ GM can build a great driving car, the last Camaro I drove was a 2012 and the interior was crap but it drove well, this one looks better but I hope GM would spend a little more cash to make the inside as good as the outside.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    I’ve never driven this car, but I want to like it. Got some seat time in one on a Sunday afternoon and that interior is a no-sale for me – it’s claustrophobic.

  • avatar
    Kenmore

    Guess it’ll have to do till the Bolt gets here.

  • avatar
    Reino

    I saw this at the Denver Auto Show, and was very impressed–until I saw the price tag. Base $37k? My Z28 in 1996 was $27k. Even the Camaro5 SS base was around $32k. Why has the price of this car become so out of reach?

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      The Camaro is actually cheaper now when adjusted for inflation. $27000 in 1996 money is $41000 in 2016 money. It’s also a way better car.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      The car actually starts around $25,000 with the turbo 4, a couple of grand more for the V-6 (which may be the best deal in the lineup).

      If you want the V8, you’re gonna pay, whether it’s in this car, a Mustang or a Challenger.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        You can get a 5.7L Challenger under $30K fairly easily.

        It doesn’t stand a chance against the SS or GT but if the usual publications are to be believed it is still a few ticks quicker than the Camaro V6 or Mustang EB.

    • 0 avatar
      mikedt

      Hate to break it to you, but $27 grand in 1996 was a lot of money. Adjusted for inflation, that’s $41 grand now. So in that regards, the new Camaro is a good value.

      That said, if I wanted a Detroit Muscle Car this one would be third out of the 3 competitors.

    • 0 avatar
      JuniperBug

      I find it strange that so many grown adults don’t understand inflation. For those that do, it’s obvious that cars are cheaper now than they’ve ever been, especially when adjusted for performance, safety content, and features.

      Just one example: the other day I watched a video for the 1990 Mercedes 500SL, and that thing went for $85k back then. Although impressive in some regards (and the reviewers of the day loved it), its 5.0L V-8 gave the same 0-60 time as a new Miata (a car that gets derided today for being underpowered) and averaged around 19 MPG.

      Incidentally, the ’97 Camaro Z28 – noted in its time for being a performance bargain – had a 0-60 time within a couple of tenths of the new Miata, which goes for $25k today (and isn’t a noted performance bargain of today). Let’s not even get into what kind of acceleration $25-30k will buy you today from a pony car, before applying 20 years’ worth of inflation.

      The golden age of performance cars is now.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        Darn right the golden age is now. The V8 pony cars are historically great deals by almost any measure.

      • 0 avatar
        319583076

        Innumeracy is a greater problem than illiteracy in my opinion. In my experience, demonstrating mathematical proficiency in public is received a bit like David Blaine’s street magic, lots of shock and awe but unfortunately, less respect.

        In any case, it literally pays to understand interest and the time value of money.

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          Why do they pixelate David Blaine’s heels (or the backs of his sneakers) when he allegedly levitates (thus freaking out the black people who are inevitably crowded around, because the stereotype is that black people think of magic as evil, like Haiti or the Dominican Republic, or wherever)?

      • 0 avatar
        Reino

        Maybe most grown adults don’t understand inflation because we haven’t seen wages keep pace with cost of goods for the past 20 years. If current pay for the same job was 37% higher than it was in 1996, maybe I could justify the cost of this car.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        “I find it strange that so many grown adults don’t understand inflation.”

        Well, the people that sign my paychecks don’t seem to understand it either.

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        Probably not that they dont understand inflation, its just that people don’t recognize wage stagnation. It gets even worse when you take into account that the big gains in the stock market are said to be gone and that to get the same rate of return going forward people are going to have to double the money they dump into their 401k’s (I seriously cant see somebody dropping 30% or more into their retirement plan or having the foresight to begin saving when they start working in their teen years).

  • avatar
    heliotropic

    That SS badge placement on the rear is killing me.

    • 0 avatar
      energetik9

      Now that you mention it, it kinda looks like a cheap dealer sticker. It also seems like prime placement for it to get scraped off as soon as someone taps the bumper.

      • 0 avatar
        TMA1

        Speaking of parts falling off, I thought the door handle was going to fall off in my hand when I tried to open a Camaro last week.

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          The passenger’s side door handle on my uncle’s 2014 Cadillac CTS had to be replaced at under 15,000 miles, which makes it about 6 things that have gone wrong with it, including an apparently unfixable oil leak.

          They need to bring those square, silver, plastic “GM: Mark of Excellence” badges back.

          • 0 avatar
            sgeffe

            “Mark Of Excellence” = Bold-faced lie!

            My dream garage, the one with unlimited stalls and $$$ to stock said garage, would have the ‘Stang GT 350 before one of these. (With a Charger Hellcat for carrying passengers! As BTSR has stated, a 300 with that motor and every FCA luxury item in the book, along with an increase in interior quality, would be the nutz for this garage!)

    • 0 avatar

      And the air conditioner vents stolen from a 1964 Galaxie 500 factory under dash unit.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      I want to see a new feature regarding “Murican’ Vehicles:”

      List the % of Hecho en Mexico, Hecho en China, Hecho en Thailand, etc., parts content and major components.

      Can this 6G Camaro’s trunk fit the body of a dead hooker within it?

      That’s a Camaro prerequisite based on average buyer demographic.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        p.s. – Alex is a weenie who doesn’t know how to drive a manual gearbox.

        Stick with your CVT planetary gear blah blah autotard transmissions that you love dearly, Alex, or let Jack teach you how to drive.

        • 0 avatar
          tonycd

          Since I don’t care whether DW thinks I’m a weenie:

          I know how to drive a manual, and my first decade of new-car ownership consisted of driving them. But one day I borrowed my mom’s Camry for a half-hour drive and abruptly realized that in a major metro area with a stoplight every 2 blocks, no hills or curves, and gridlock as the soup du jour, the 98% of my driving that was all of the above was unentertaining and tiresome when rowing my own.

          Thanks for the acknowledgment of reality, Alex.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I don’t own a vehicle with a manual transmission anymore, but if I bought in this segment, a manual would be a non-negotiable item. That being said, I know why people get the automatic.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            This. I like having a manual when I actually have the opportunity to *drive.* When I’m sitting in heavy, stop-and-go traffic where I can’t even crawl along at idle in first gear, it becomes an unwelcome chore. and anyone who claims otherwise is a liar.

          • 0 avatar
            sgeffe

            Especially on one of these — I understand that the clutch action is a little stiffer, with longer travel, than something like a Miata.

            (I tried learning stick on an Acura Integra, and failed! That should DQ me right there! Starting up from a stop, even on a little bit of an incline, isn’t my issue, but rather coordination of my right hand and left foot in traffic once at speed!)

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        I don’t have the exact number for the Camaro, but it should be very close to, or the same as, the 82.5% of USA parts content of the ATS/CTS.

        As for the hookers, just one. Just remember that she’s a call girl before she’s dead.

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          American Hookers (and women) are getting really, really fat, and at a faster pace and larger proportion than American men.

          Few American Hookers will fit in the Camaro trunk.

          http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/08/four-in-10-american-women-classified-obese-epidemic

          “More than four in 10 American women are now classified as obese in an alarming new milestone for the nation.

          Obesity rates for men and women in the US had been roughly the same for about a decade. But in recent years, women have surged ahead and now just over 40% of women are obese, compared to 35% of men.

          These percentages were reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in two articles published online on Tuesday by the Journal of the American Medical Association. The numbers are based on a small government survey that is considered the best measure of the nation’s obesity problem.”

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            If you can’t fit a dead hooker in the trunk of a Camaro then you aren’t trying. If you need to actually do that, you’ll really be trying. Dead hookers don’t have a comfort rating scale of car trunks.

        • 0 avatar
          Compaq Deskpro

          Why is it people joke about dead hookers like its no big deal? I’m not one to get offended by stuff, but its kind of like Quentin Tarantino’s dead n-word storage speech from Pulp Fiction.

          I don’t know, it’s like I’m expecting someone to pop out and say “Hey, my friend was a hooker who was murdered, and I don’t find that funny!” but nobody ever does.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Every new cars has the % of “US parts content” listed on the monroney, window sticker.

      • 0 avatar
        threeer

        This was for 2015, but still interesting reading…

        http://www.american.edu/kogod/autoindex/2015.cfm

        Our Cruze does a solid 80% U.S. content. My Escape, sadly nowhere near as well at 63.5%.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          That’s because the Escape’s engines come from England (1.5/6T) and Spain (2.0T). Cleveland should start making the 2.0T soon, but I’m not sure when.

  • avatar
    ajla

    Offer a V8 in the ATS and “normal” CTS you worthless, coffee-slinging jagoffs!

  • avatar
    Jaeger

    An impressive performer but fugly as hell with absurdly poor visibility.

  • avatar
    Nedmundo

    Great review that reminds me of C&D’s most recent Mustang v. Camaro comparison: Mustang wins as a daily driver, but Camaro is a better hard core driver’s car. I’ve sat in the Camaro at car shows, and there is simply no way I could live with such poor visibility, tight storage space, etc.

    I’ve driven a couple of current Mustangs, and while the ergonomics and visibility don’t match my 2010 TSX, it’s great and I could live with it on a daily basis. It feels like a normal car. I couldn’t live with the harsh ride of the Performance Pack (tried it), but add its front strut tower brace to the standard setup, and I think I’d be good to go. If it were smaller and lighter, that is — I’d probably end up in a Focus ST.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      “Mustang wins as a daily driver, but Camaro is a better hard core driver’s car.”

      not surprising that the Mustang is outselling the Camaro nearly 2:1.

      • 0 avatar
        TMA1

        Most muscle car buyers don’t want to pay for the extra performance gear that comes “standard” in the Camaro. It just has to look good and go fast in a straight line. The base V8 model does that, but with a $4K difference in MSRP that’s going to be an even bigger difference in out-the-door prices, Mustang is going to win the sales race this time.

  • avatar
    FAHRVERGNUGEN

    Rented a ragtop Mustang Eco 4 two weekends ago. Only way for two adults (one over 6’3″) to fit in the backseat was to raise and lower the third door.

  • avatar
    Boff

    The performance of this car puts my 2015 Mustang GT in the shade, but in virtually all other respects the Mustang is the better car for me. I can even stuff my goalie equipment into the trunk. One thing I do prefer in the Camaro is the steering wheel…compared to the yacht-tiller affair in my car, the Camaro’s wheel is formula car-like.

  • avatar
    LS1Fan

    This review encapsulates why I’ll never own a modern car, Camaro or otherwise.

    The curb weight of the Dodge Challenger is in SUV territory. Even a Mustang GT weighs nearly 3,900 lbs. Chevy appears to have prioritized keeping the Camaro’s weight down, but the trade off resulted in building a V8 powered hardtop Miata with no windows or trunk space.

    I submit modern safety standards have ended the enthusiast car as we knew it.
    My early 00’s F car was panned back in the day for having “poor sight lines”, yet today it’s a greenhouse compared to most modern family cars! Further still, one actually drove the car back then. The only electronic nanny is a Traction Control button that only kicked in when SHTF. One with a Big Console Button that turned it off, instead of being buried in the source code of the entertainment system OS.

    When driving a modern sportscar of this class ,it feels like I’m driving two door 90s Olds Aurora V8 with 5% tint . No visibility outside, big azz body , heavy handling dynamics, full size curb weight, computer controlled driving experience from the wheels all the way up to the roofline, and an iPad ripoff for a radio and audio interface.

    May as well buy an SUV and have done with it, as at least you’ll have cargo room and real windows to go with the bloated and isolated driving experience.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Well suit yourself, except its price tag does allow more than enough for one hell of a resto-mod IROCz or early Fox Mustang with 400+ hp, KONI shocks, camber plates, Recaro seats, Brembo brakes, roll cage, comp clutch, 3.73 gears, etc. You’re still talking close to 3,500 lbs, but awesome in many other ways.

    • 0 avatar
      tonycd

      LS1Fan, why aren’t you driving a Miata, an old MX-8, or a blown/chipped rear-engine Subie sports coupe? There are still cars made for you — they just don’t have V8 boat anchors in the front.

      • 0 avatar
        LS1Fan

        Because my V8 “boat anchor” motor is so awesome that same, rational people work their butts off to drop it into cars not originally designed for them.

        Such as Mazdas with rotary engines that drink oil the way Yeltsin drank vodka.

  • avatar
    ZCD2.7T

    I’m amazed that you ignored the elephant in the room, Alex – visibility, or rather lack of it.

    I do like the looks of this new Camaro (something I haven’t been able to say since the late 80s), and have no doubt that it drives wonderfully, but the packaging is simply unforgivable in the modern age.

    • 0 avatar
      TrailerTrash

      Exactly.

      Who the hell could NOT build a perfectly balanced, beautiful-sleek looking fun car if you didn’t have to worry about seeing out of it!!!???

      And come on, the trunk opening is almost a joke.

      I understand that all of these cars have fake back seats and perhaps can only fit one adult sideways…but some at least don’t hit their heads.

      I am always looking out for the best rag top…and I seem to be stuck between the larger, heavier but rear seat Mustang, the best Audi A3 but expensive with anything added or the soon to come Fiat 124 Spider…just because I like ts looks and the sound of its motor.

      And everyone of them allows me to see where I am going and where I came from.

  • avatar
    TrailerTrash

    “That’s because the Camaro has also inherited the Alpha platform’s small trunk. In a reverse-TARDIS move, the Camaro has a massive derriere on the outside, and a teeny-tiny trunk on the inside.”

    Epic FAIL.

    So basically this car is just for fast. And forward.

    • 0 avatar
      bumpy ii

      That’s been the Camaro’s mission statement since 1967. No sense in changing it now, while there are still old white guys who can get in it.

      • 0 avatar
        TMA1

        Hey, F-body Camaros were (relatively) fast and practical. I could toss my bike in the hatch with no problems. And see in all directions. Not happening with this Camaro.

        • 0 avatar
          TrailerTrash

          Well…I did love the earlier cars. My best friend even sacrificed every dollar he had saved with his first job way, way back in the early so he could get one way back in the time machine.
          A beautiful red and black car…with glass everywhere.

          But then this WW2 German machine gun bunker design ruined it all.

        • 0 avatar
          kefkafloyd

          You’d be surprised how much you could shove into a fourth-gen Camaro or Firebird with the back seat down because the car was a hatchback and didn’t have a trunk. I dailied one for nearly a decade and as long as you don’t need to put people in the back seat it was a very livable car. I made Ikea runs in the thing without much trouble, even!

          The knock on them back then is the same as now, their visibility was not the greatest. You couldn’t see the end of the hood and there was an awful blind spot in the rear quarters. The dashboard was gigantic because of the slope of the windshield. The car drove very large, the doors had the wingspan of a 747 and the turning radius was huge. The new cars are WORSE in terms of visibility. The fourth gen also suffered the death of a thousand papercuts that was GM engineering in the 90s, like vacuum operated HVAC controls, the converter hump, dex-cool, the weepy water pump above the optispark… but the cars still look like they could be bought brand new (on the outside) and the design has aged incredibly well.

    • 0 avatar
      ponchoman49

      Who in the hell buys a pony car for trunk space? I mean come on. That is why Minivans and sport utilities exist and why they are flying off the lots(CUV/SUV’s). Cars like the Camaro and Mustang are niche performance cars for one to two passengers that a fun driving experience.

  • avatar
    philadlj

    The Aztek has a bad rep, which is partially deserved, but it wasn’t a mistake that should never have happened. It was the first step towards a CUV-dominated future.

    The lessons learned from its eventual failure and infamy were used to build the Lambdas, which while hardly heart-stirring, are as successful a platform as GM has ever produced (mostly because they haven’t all rusted out two years after launch).

    Frankly, it’s aged pretty well amidst the multi-eyed Jukes and Cherokees of the world it partially inspired.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    I’m sure that this will be wonderfully noisy inside when you have to keep the rear seat folded down just to carry your golf clubs.

    I only mention this because in the Midwest where I grew up (an area of the country that is diehard domestic) roughly half the vehicles in the parking lot of a golf course would be muscle cars of various ages and conditions.

  • avatar
    TMA1

    What’s the real price difference between the Camaro SS and the Mustang GT?

    MSRP + destination is $37,295 and $33,295, respectively. I know it’s pretty easy to get thousands off the price of a Mustang. The Camaro? Probably not yet. The pricing difference is going to count when it comes time to tally up sales.

    I’m curious about the better standard brakes that the Camaro gets. Are they not 4-piston Brembos? Essentially the same as the Mustang’s standard brakes then. They both offer a front-only 6-piston Brembo package. That’s part of the Performance Package on the Mustang ($2,495), and an eye-watering $3,175 stand-alone option on the Camaro.

    Where’s the Challenger in all this? The only one that can hang with the GT and SS is the 6.4 powered cars, which start even higher than the Camaro. I know you can talk $5K off a Scat Pack Challenger pretty easily, but it’s still not price competitive with the other two. Why is Chrysler charging so much more for such an old design?

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      MSRP + destination is $37,295 and $33,295, respectively. I know it’s pretty easy to get thousands off the price of a Mustang. The Camaro? Probably not yet. The pricing difference is going to count when it comes time to tally up sales.

      Is it just me or does it seem like GM dealers are the most aggressive of the domestic brands when it comes to Adjusted Dealer Markup? Is that because the Corvette, Camaro, SS – Chevrolet guys are bigger “fanboys” than guys from other brands?

      • 0 avatar
        TMA1

        They probably know Corvette buyers have more money that can be squeezed out of them. Older guys usually do.

        The SS – they don’t really want to sell that car, do they? Few dealers even have them in stock. Those who really want one will pay, because the only other option in their price range is down at the Dodge store, and the SS is buyer is tired of seeing Chargers everywhere.

        The Camaro? Supplies are probably limited right now. I bet the 4 and 6 cylinder cars will be selling for well under MSRP a year from now. All but the most hardcore of drivers will see the SS as too expensive. Chevy really needs to offer a de-contented version, like the base Mustang. Some people just want a V8 to sound good and go fast in a straight line. Not every muscle car needs to be a track star!

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    It still blows my mind that GM didn’t put the LT1 in the ATS-V (or ATS period). Whoever made that call should be fired. “B-b-b-but its not refined enough!” It’s refined enough for a $100K Escalade though? No way is that V6TT cheaper than the LT1 either. GM is a G-D mess.

    As for sales this thing is tanking, I’m guessing because people still need trunks, back seats and visibility, even for pony cars. Seems like GM is prioritizing winning the hearts and minds of auto journalists rather than folks signing on the dotted line… at least with their luxury/performance cars.

  • avatar
    TrailerTrash

    My 80/20 rule. People use 20 percent of a car or truck’s ability and waste 80 percent.

    Most kids around me buy pick up trucks that offer the practicality and utility they will never use.
    The kids who buy them will use 20 percent of the available utility of the trucks.
    Ditto here with the knuckleheads that buy this car, or any powerful muscle car.
    They will use 20 percent of the car’s driving ability.
    I see it everywhere.
    Mustangs and Camaros with power, race track ability being driven by kids to and from the Dairy Queen.
    Ditto for my friends and their “M”s They drive to work and the store…they NEVER drive the car for what it was designed for. Again…using 20 percent of the car’s ability.
    80 percent wasted.

    • 0 avatar
      319583076

      There’s a great driving road between home and work. Last year I followed a C6 Vette onto that road in my NC Miata. I was excited to see how long I could keep up with the Vette although I wasn’t going to push very hard on a public road.

      I didn’t need to worry – the Vette was driven ponderously and dangerously. Consistently 5-10 mph below posted speed limits and crossing the solid yellow line at every freaking corner. I passed him as soon as the road straightened out, but after all the fun stuff.

      People with cool stuff usually can’t do anything cool with it, they just like to have it.

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        Heh… sounds like the time a couple in a Boxster tried to put some distance on me on a nice on-ramp in my AO. The driver made enough mistakes my car easily kept up. The guy gave me a thumbs-up since I was able to keep up and shoot past him but I really wanted to tell him he wasn’t doing it right but I suppose it brought a smile to the guy’s face so ultimately no big deal.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        bragging about beating an opponent who didn’t know you were racing him is pathetic.

  • avatar
    philadlj

    What a surprise! The comments section under an innocent and largely POSITIVE Camaro review turned into a grotesque echo chamber for Camaro, Chevy, and GM hate.

    Why even bother reviewing the car, Alex? Just put a picture of the Camaro at the top, write “Open Thread.”

    Flies on Sherbert.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      Haters gonna hate. I love the new Camaro. I wouldn’t buy one, but that doesn’t prevent me from recognizing that it’s a great car.

      • 0 avatar
        ponchoman49

        I spent considerable time with a V6 base LT coupe and 8 speed automatic. The visibility out of the front was actually a little better than the previous 2010-2015 model as the cowl and hood sit a little lower so forward visibility didn’t pose a problem for me. It was the side windows that were the main issue as the backup camera took care of the rear view fairly well. If this car has an extra inch or two of side glass that would go a long way to making it feel less confined and bunker like. Of course picking up a convertible solves the visibility issue really well.

        The back seat legroom and trunk space are non issues for me and probably most owners of this car. Few are buying this as there only ride.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          The back seat room doesn’t mean a ton to me. The ease of access to put my kid back there is all that’s important. The trunk? Meh, as long as it can fit my laptop bag and carry on, it’s fine.

          Personally, I just find the Mustang better as a day to day vehicle. Part of that is because I skew to Ford products. I also like the driving position in the Mustang better. I am more comfortable. Those are both subjective things though. A pony car would by my daily driver though. I suspect many people buying V8 muscle cars don’t have that issue.

          I can’t fault someone for picking a Mustang, Camaro, or Challenger over the other two. Same with the Big 3’s trucks. They are all excellent products.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      Phil, you must have this place confused with Manufacturer-Gawker supported, teen-infest SlobJobNik, which that way

      <——

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      Truth hurts, don’t it?

      Camaro wins on fun & bench racing superiority, but drops the ball just functioning as a car, even after accounting for the concessions usually made for a pony car. It also makes the ATS-V coupe redundant. Should people bite their tongues to spare the fragile composition of a GM fanboi? Survey says… hell to the naw.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        That’s why I say that the Camaro is a great car that I’d never buy. It’s a blast to drive, but you are right, I can’t daily drive it. The only GM Alpha product that I can daily drive is the CTS.

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          The Camaro is a great car, as long as you don’t care about and/or don’t need:

          1) a useable trunk (yeah, it’s that bad to the point of being nearly worthless)

          2) a useable backseat

          3) interior plastics and material quality that is better than a circa-2002 Hyundai Elantra

          4) the ability to see out of the side windows, and no ability to see what’s on your 6

          5) except for the V8, true performance worthy of the actual price or serious compromises

          6) long-term or short-term reliability/durability

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I should change “great car” to “great driving car”. I enjoyed driving the Camaro SS. I would not enjoy owning one. I’m not going to say what I’d choose over the Camaro because you’ll say I’m on Mt MkFields.

            I’d take the Camaro over the Challenger though. There is something off about the Charger and Challenger to me. I don’t like driving or sitting in either. I like the 300 though.

          • 0 avatar
            LS1Fan

            Allow me to retort (in the voice of Pulp Fiction Samuel L Jackson)

            -1. If you’re shopping sports/pony cars primarily for trunk space, your priorities are jacked up.

            -2. If you’re shopping for a practical kids-mobile in the Camaro/Mustang/ Challenger section, your shopping skills are jacked up.

            3-Give it a rest. Millimeter thin interior panel gaps won’t save you if the rear subframe folds like an accordion, or if your engine eats rod bearings for breakfast. Amirite, BMW M fans?

            Because production cars are always built to a budget, I’d rather GM put the money into a reliable drivetrain and chassis instead of impressing folks who would turn down a Lexus because the glovebox panel is .002 mm wider on the left side versus the right – and making a mechanical time bomb car in the process . See SMG equipped BMW M cars as an example of the latter.

            4-I hate this too, but blame the government on this one. Side impact and other safety standards force companies to make huge cars with gunslit windows. A car made with a greenhouse from 2005 won’t pass modern crash tests. This is an industry problem, not a “Camaro” problem.

            5- Most buyers don’t give a crap about performance. For every SS , Hellcat, or loaded 5.0 Mustang sold ten mid level and base V6s will leave the lot.

            6- Way too early to objectively tell yet for ‘MY 16 models. However, the fact that cared for 00s Camaros (and Firebirds) are still very viable machines today (play skool interior and all) ,while M3s of that vintage(tight interior panel gaps yo!!!) are failing VANOS parts and subframes inclines me to believe this Camaro will be kicking long after the M4s it’s compared to are rotting wherever BMW sticks it’s Lemon Law buybacks.

            7- what does Marsellus Wallace look like ?

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            bball – You can say it, and I’d agree with you.

            I’d pick a new (finally, independent rear suspension, Ford, WTF?!!!) Mustang 5.0 manual gearbox over the Camaro.

            I like the way the new Mustang sounds, how it looks, how it handles (although I still wish it weighed less) and I had a five-oh from way back when that treated me really well from an engine, suspension and mechanical standpoint (a Mustang LX 5.0 5 speed manual with the faster rear end gearing; less plastic cladding than the GT of the time, and faster as well).

            LS1fan – The GM LS is a powerhouse of a V8, and I have NEVER denied GM credit on the merits of this great and mighty engine (which, amazingly, the still manage to make great with pushrods). As much as I loathe GM (I won’t count the ways) for incompetent products and incredibly incompetent management (past and present), I do not speak ill of the LS V8 in this vehicle or any other.

      • 0 avatar
        hubcap

        Have you driven one?

        Different people like different things. It’s just kinda weird when people who haven’t driven or even sat in the cars have such strong opinions.

        So if you haven’t taken one for a spin, do so when you get some free time.

        And what’s wrong with a car being fun? Everything need not be seriously practical. Especially in this segment. I wouldn’t buy a muscle car, or an M2 etc for family hauling duties. That’s not their primary mission.

        So when you get a chance, drive the car.

  • avatar
    vegavairbob

    I’d rather have a Corvette, but I’ll take the Camaro SS and save $20k. The best of all worlds..The brilliant 2006 concept car styling (updated) with the ATS chassis, and of course the Corvette LT-1 engine. It’s a no-brainer. It’s also Motor Trend’s 2016 Car of the Year, for those who live on another planet. I think I’ll take the 2017 Fifty Anniversary edition.

  • avatar
    carguy67

    ” … automatics just do it better in the real world …”

    According to Edmunds, only 3.9% of new cars sold have manual transmissions, which might explain why I see 96.1% of the cars on my daily commute from San Jose to Pleasanton riding their brakes down Sunol Grade. Since I can see hills, I back off the throttle and let the engine control speed, occasionally downshifting if absolutely necessary. Maybe that’s why my original brake pads have 113K miles with three-quarters of the material left.

    Watching automatic drivers sometimes makes me wish I owned a brake shop.

  • avatar
    05lgt

    If you “won the lottery” and didn’t get one each of this, a GT350, and a Challenger Hellcat, did you really win? One Red (Challenger), One White (Mustang), and One Blue (Camaro).

  • avatar
    seanx37

    I have driven both the Camaro SS and the Mustang GT this week. I am not buying, the but the salespeople don’t know that.

    I thought the Mustang was drastically more comfortable in every way. Better seats. Better visibility. MUCH better actually. The Camaro was very claustrophobic. I hated being in it after about 2 miles. But…that engine. That old fashioned wonderful grunt of the small block Chevy. So much low end power. Wonderful.

    The Mustang was more comfortable, cheaper, better stereo. The engine didn’t feel as…strong as the Camaro. Less low end. But the car felt quicker, lighter, more precise.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      Thats what an extra 76 cubic inches will do for ya. The 6.2 LT1 is 378 cubic inches compared to Ford’s 5.0 at 302 cubic inches. The Chevy just has so much more average power compared to the Ford.

      Speaking of Ford they really need to take the 5.2 in the Shelby and slap a cross plane crank in there and figure out how to do an as cast version of the cylinder heads and tune the engine for a little more bottom end grunt (probably work out better in much the same way the New Edge 4.6 Mach 1 engine was better than its Cobra predecessor) and make that the standard GT engine. The 5.0 is really out-classed by the big GM and FCA V8 engines in stock form.

      • 0 avatar
        seanx37

        The thing is…the Mustang was very fast. Faster than almost anyone needs. The Camaro is just more so. I have drive a few Vettes with the engine, and I could live with those. Odd that the Corvette is more comfortable in every way.

        I think I could actually live with the Mustang from day to day. I couldn’t get comfortable in the Camaro at all.

  • avatar
    maserchist

    ~10 comments @ hour, not bad for the keyboard drivers today.

  • avatar
    Wodehouse

    Why is there not a Buick of some sort built on this platform? It would have made a superb foundation for the Cascada (ugh, that name!) instead of the pudgy Delta thing. A coupe and/or convertible with non-Camaro (grown up) styling and design would easily fill in for the departed Cadillac CTS coupe better than the bland shape of the ATS 2 door. A Buick GranSport? I’d buy one.

    I’m starting to look around for a replacement for my CTS coupe, but, am not at all fond of the C-Class, BMW 4er, the upcoming ugly A5, the ATS, Lexus and Infiniti coupes or any of the 4 door coupe group.

  • avatar
    07NodnarB

    When this current Camaro appeared and sales took a nose-dive, I was relieved cuz it meant, like me, people​ have working eyes and saw that thing for the ugly it is. However FF a year, I saw one up close and said hmmm it’s not that bad, possibly even kind of cute, like a scruncy-faced puppy. Still I’m team ‘Stang all the way.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • 87 Morgan: Green..Unless it is on a Morgan, Jag, MG; pass. Perhaps it was the years I worked at a Subaru store and...
  • kosmo: I think that GENERALY, Consumers Union has their heart in the right place, but man, they could suck the joy...
  • stuki: It’s better compared to the HD Payload 1/2 tons Ford sells. When towing and hauling at the upper end of...
  • redapple: People who have never been in a big 3 car plant, should really refrain from commenting how the big 3 should...
  • 87 Morgan: I know…it was a 98 Jetta TDI so this was pre-dieselgate. Great car that defied all VW ownership...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States