“From every angle, you’ll never mistake this for anything but a Camaro,” said Tom Peters, design director for the sixth-generation Chevrolet Camaro. That’s probably because it hasn’t changed that much, at least visually. Yet, under the skin, the new Camaro drops some 200 lbs thanks to its new Alpha platform bones and gains a new base engine – a 2.0L turbocharged Ecotec four-pot.
The new Camaro introduces a turbocharged 2.0L Ecotec powerplant for the first time, bringing with it more horsepower and the same torque figure as the same engine in the Malibu. That puts the new base model Camaro at 275 horsepower and 295 lb-ft of twist. GM says 90 percent of those torques will be available between 2,100 rpm and 3,000 rpm, making the sixth-generation Camaro good for a 60 mph sprint in under 6 seconds while still returning 30 mpg by their own estimates.
Note that I said “base model” above. Unlike Mustang, the Camaro will offer up their four banger as the economy option instead of a premium lightweight option like in Ford’s pony car.
An all-new 3.6L V6 will join the piston party as well with 335 hp and 284 lb-ft of torque. The most notable addition to the now mid-range engine offering is cylinder deactivation. The system will shut down two cylinders effectively turning the V6 into a V4. While the V6 does offer up more output versus its predecessor (323 hp, 278 lb-ft) and claims best-in-class power, it should also return better fuel economy.
A new-to-Camaro 6.2L LT1 V8 will be the headliner, boasting 455 hp and 455 lb-ft of torque, just 5 lb-ft down from on the Corvette.
All engines will be mated to either a six-speed manual transmission (SS models receive Active Rev Match for downshifts) or all-new Hydra-Matic eight-speed automatic (8L45 in LT, 8L90 in SS) with steering wheel mounted paddle shifters, further enhancing fuel economy and performance. Also, unless there’s a change to the preliminary output figures, it seems GM won’t be penalizing customers by slashing engine output for those who choose the automatic transmission in SS models.
Unfortunately, the new platform is so sound dead, all Camaros will have their engine note pumped in one way or another. All four-cylinder models will have active noise cancellation. If you opt for the Bose audio system, you’ll receive the aforementioned faux engine noise delivered by speaker. Thankfully, it can be disabled at the whim of the driver. V6 and V8 models will offer up “enhanced” sound through mechanical means by pumping analog audio into the passenger compartment. A dual-mode exhaust will also bypass the mufflers under hard acceleration for better performance and “better” sound.
Underpinned by the same Alpha platform as the Cadillac ATS and CTS, the new Camaro does shed some unneeded weight, but its dimensions shrink only slightly. Think of the new model as a nip-tuck job over the last generation.
GM claims the Camaro, depending on the model, will lose “200 lbs or more” mass – meaning no matter what the trim, we should expect at least a 200 lb weight reduction. We will see about that when official curb weights are published. The skeptic in me thinks this will not be the case.
The brakes bringing everything to a stop are about the same size in LT (I4/V6) models as the previous generation, but SS models see their brake disc diameters shrink from 14/14.4 inches (front/rear) to 13.6/13.3 inches (front/rear).
With a new platform also comes new suspension setups. Up front are new multi-link MacPherson strut solutions while the rear sees a new five-link independent suspension GM says reduces “squat” during hard launches. Also for the first time, the Camaro SS will be available with Magnetic Ride Control, a much welcomed enhancement over the crashy previous-gen SS suspension.
Another first for Camaro will be an assortment of driving modes, including Snow/Ice, Tour, Sport and Track settings. The latter setting is only available on SS models. The following table provided by GM outlines the different settings in each mode.
| DRIVER MODE SELECTOR SETTINGS | ||||
| Snow/Ice | Tour | Sport | Track (SS only) |
|
| Electronic throttle progression | SNOW/ICE | NORMAL | NORMAL | TRACK |
| Automatic trans. shift map |
NORMAL | NORMAL | SPORT | TRACK |
| Automatic trans. Performance Algorithm Shift | N/A | N/A | AVAIL. | AVAIL. |
| Engine sound management (if equipped with dual-mode exhaust) |
STEALTH | TOUR | SPORT | TRACK |
| Electric power steering calibration | TOUR | TOUR | SPORT | TRACK |
| StabiliTrak – Competitive Driving and Launch Control | N/A | N/A | AVAIL. | AVAIL. |
| Magnetic Ride Control calibration (if equipped) |
TOUR | TOUR | SPORT | TRACK |
| Ambient lighting (if equipped) |
ICE BLUE | BLUE | RED | ORANGE |
One thing needing as much attention as the “My 600-lb Life” levels of bloat was the incredibly cramped, cheap interior. Judging from the photos, the quality of materials has gone up, but issues still remain.
Those not fans of the dual-pod gauges will be pleasantly surprised. While the dual-pod hood remains, the remainder of the pods are gone. Instead, the Camaro is now available with an optional 8-inch screen in the instrument panel. In addition tonavigation and infotainment details, the screen will also provide a location for new digital performance gauges, taking them away from their previous location in front of the shifter where they were virtually useless. And, as before, another 8-inch screen will sit mid-dash.
Another improvement – and this one is quite ingenious – is a redesign of certain HVAC controls, turning them into rings around the low mounted air vents. This gives driver and passenger an easy way to make adjustments through a physical control while still saving space like the touchscreen controls used by other manufacturers.
However, there are two downsides to the new Camaro cabin. One – you won’t be doing any emergency brake induced drifting in the new-gen car thanks to its electronic parking brake. The other, and more crucial issue, is GM seems not to have done anything about visibility. With a fairly high beltline and even taller rear deck, the new Camaro continues its trend of being the worst pony car for rearward visibility.
All in all, the new Camaro has conformed to the new normal by being a more economical, lighter weight and nimbler offering. However, its execution is still decidedly traditional, providing an American coupe shape that prioritizes style over functionality.
The 2016 Camaro will be bolted together in Lansing, Michigan and goes on sale later this year.
Jalopnic has some pictures of the old and the new in similar colors. They look all but identical, but they managed to make the greenhouse EVEN SMALLER.
At least the interior looks to be about 25% less cheap and nasty as before.
Having just spent a week in a ’14 V6 RS Convertible in sunny So Cal (with the sunburn to prove it), I sure hope that massaged V6 and the weight loss make the thing feel faster. With the previous V6, you have to wind it right up to the redline before it really wants to go, and the transmission really doesn’t want to play that game. Though I will say, the throttle blips when downshifting with the flappy paddles was highly entertaining in the Hollywood Hills, and it really did handle and ride very nicely. I have no doubt that I will prefer the turbo 4 to the V6 in the new one.
@krhodes1
The original was engineered in Australia, with RHD/LHD being built in. They had Dale Earnhardt Jr driving the to be released car in various parts of Country Victoria. He was holidaying in Australia at the time
All that work on a whole new platform to end up with a car that looks like a refresh of the old one. Same product planning mistake GM made with the full-size pickups. Anyone want to bet on whether there will be a 7th generation?
From the front, I am reminded of the Corolla/Camry frog face. Not good.
Well seeing that the 2010 Camaro already sported a similar look it would seem that Toyota copied Chevy but somehow managed to make it ugly.
The Camaro’s not my cup of tea. Personally, I think it’s ugly, and if I were buying something in this class I’d go all BTSR and get me some HEMI Challenger. But it’s been very successful in the market.
In fact, if I’m not mistaken, it’s outsold the Mustang in pretty much every model year since it’s re-introduction. That’s no mean feat. Why GM would want to mess with that? Not sure. They aren’t building this car for me, but someone likes it.
Their sales were going down. For the first quarter of the 2015 model year Ford sold over twice as many Mustangs as Chevy did Camaros. You have to keep the styling fresh if you’re going to keep bringing customers back but with that front end on the new Camaro…eeww!
Of course the Mustang outsold it – it’s a brand new model, which really speaks in this market segment (everyone wants the latest and greatest). Meanwhile the Camaro’s been around since 2009 with no real changes. It’s getting outsold, but it’s still holding its own, even with the old design. I’m not crazy about it but someone is.
When the restyled Camaro is introduced then we can draw conclusions. My money’s on this car and the Mustang being neck and neck again sales wise.
@Vulpine,
It is not you, as PCH was banned sometime ago for his disruptive behaviour, now they have let him and his several alias’s back
My wife – oddly a fan of the 5th gens – has a base 2013 bright-red manual with custom-mapped V6, Vararam intake, and Magnaflow bomber exhaust. 22″ chrome spokes all around and pitch black tint complete the successful meth-dealer motif.
With the custom tint, I find the disorientation and visibility normal to these cars frankly dangerous at night. The plastic interior seems stamped from a single vast piece of Tupperware. I have never seen such a big car with so little space; even the relatively voluminous trunk is limited by the tiny aperture which one accesses it. With the custom powertrain bits, it is loud – too loud for residential areas at night.
It is a brash, childish, cartoon of a car; and I’ve learned with experience that is the point.
I’ve been thru my mid-life crisis but if I was to do it again, this isn’t enough to sway me from a Mustang.
Here’s my take as a Mustang (’13) owner and potential customer. The 2015 Mustang looks better (especially) inside and out. The Camaro looks pretty good straight on from several angles like the rear and side. The small touches between trim levels can make a world of difference. The lower trims without the partial clear tails look absurdly cheap from the rear to me, but the SS looks good. Ditto for the cheesy chrome strip in the grill. Some of the 3/4 views just seem weirdly proportioned. Camaro6 has a bunch of nice high res pics. For a laugh, check out the trunk opening of the new one!
http://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=408595
But as much as I love the Coyote, the LT1 is a beast, and both of Chevy’s transmissions are better than what Ford offers. I’m still worried about visibility in the new Camaro, and I’m flabbergasted that they *still* haven’t added blind spot mirrors. It’s such an easy change that helps immensely. The Mustang is far easier to see out of than the gen 5 Camaro but I still use the blind spot mirrors with every lane change.
I’ll have to drive both to decide, but the changes are enough to keep it in contention. I prefer manuals, but the 8 speed SS will be stonking fast. Big barge of a ’16 Scat Pack Charger or ’16 Mustang (worth waiting for Android Auto/Apple CarPlay integration) or ’16 Camaro…practicality be damned in the last two? It’s awesome that all 3 can be had reasonably optioned for $40K or less.
On a side note, the gen 6 Camaro makes the ATS coupe (even the V) DOA. Same platform. You can actually get a V8 in the Camaro. The Camaro looks worlds better. The rear legroom of the ATS coupe is also non-existent. And Cadillac has almost no brand cachet left. You’ll get 95% of the performance of the $64K ATS-V coupe in a better looking ~$40K SS.
That trunk! LOL
Who in the hell buys a pony car for the trunk!
By decree of Ponchoman, we’re removing trunks from all sporty cars. They are superfluous to sporty driving and thus should not exist. Should help the pony cars squeak under 3500lbs, too.
Even if trunks aren’t the primary reason to buy a pony car, bad design is bad design.
“Who in the hell buys a pony car for the trunk!”
Where else am I going to put my golf clubs? Sheesh if I want a quick car with no trunk I can find a well cared for Corvette and skip the new Chevy dealer.
Just like with the Mustang, the only Camaro to get is the V8, as it should’ve.
This Camaro isn’t as trim and aesthetically different from the prior version as it could have and should have been, but if it handles, has the Vette V8, has a precise steering and manual shifter feel, and is durable/reliable, while being price competitive with the Mustang Coyote (as in around 30k to 38k for non early adopter, real world pricing), it has a shot because of the chassis and motor.
But this is GM, so the reliability/durability issue is by no means a given, and the interior still lacks a more sophisticated, better crafted look that is needed.
Still, if the V8 440hp version of this, coupled with a manual transmission, can be had for around the 30k mark in real world pricing (let’s call it 32k because that’s where manual Mustang Coyotes will be a year from now once pent up demand from early adopters is satisfied), it will be a muscle car bargain and appeal to the tuner crowd.
The LT1 in the Camaro makes 455 horses
392 Challenger in arrest me red.
It’s interesting to see the pony car wars turn into an international affair.
If this world car strategy doesn’t work, then this could prove to be the last generation for these things. For our sake, the Europeans had better buy a few of them.
I’m lost… what would make this car internationally marketable? The boosted 4-cyl.?
@Rideheight
Contrary to what Company may say, this would be a nightmare on many tight European country roads
Well, Pch101 has such encyclopedic knowledge of the biz that I’m wondering what he knows about any possible international attraction for what has always been an icon of American males’ obsession with raw, purposeless and impractical power.
Not that any other particular culture is necessarily more balanced, but as you say they mostly don’t have the roads to indulge this automotive variant of penis pumps.
Here’s the issue — originally, pony cars were build on family car platforms. When Ford was able to take a mundane Falcon, stick a coupe body on it, and sell a half-million units per year, it was like printing money and it made no difference that only Americans bought them.
Now that family cars are FWD, there is no longer any such opportunity to share a high-volume platform with the pony class. With the lower sales volumes and loss of high-volume platform sharing, they have little choice but to try to export it.
At least the Camaro shares a platform with the Cadillacs. I wonder what Ford will do if this world Mustang doesn’t work out.
@pch101
Share it with Lincoln or perhaps take on another partner a la Mazda?
My understanding is that there are no plans for a RWD Lincoln on a Mustang platform.
If that’s true, then a lot rests on the Mustang itself being a hit. (If I recall correctly, it doesn’t share a platform with anything else.)
” (If I recall correctly, it doesn’t share a platform with anything else.)”
Actually, I think it shares the platform with the Fusion. The roof is lower, but almost the same in every other dimension.
The Mustang and Fusion do not share a platform.
Well, PCH, I did say, “I think”. Since then I’ve done a slight bit of research and discovered the previous version S-platform was somewhat based on the “Ford DEW platform which served as the basis for the Lincoln LS, Ford Thunderbird, and Jaguar S-Type.” So while I wasn’t completely correct, I wasn’t completely wrong. Yes, the new Mustang is on its own “S” platform today, but only because it has migrated even farther away from the DEW platform. The Fusion itself has also migrated, now to the CD4 platform.
So yes, you are right Pch, the Mustang is now all alone on a platform. My question now is how long will that last?
Here we go again, with the old cliché. You would think that Europeans do not make any cars larger than a VW Golf. What do Europeans do, then, with vehicles such as the S-Class? Or Volkswagen Passats? Or Peugeot 508s?
The stereotype of every European street being 1.65 meters wide has got to die…enough of using that as an excuse as to why American cars should not be marketed there.
@Roberto Esponga,
Depends which European City yout talking about i.e Venice cars are banned, Rome has very narrow streets. Northern Europe much better
He’s never been there but believes Europe is one big Medieval village that you can’t pilot anything bigger than a Vespa without pulling in the mirrors.
“He’s never been there but believes Europe is one big Medieval village that you can’t pilot anything bigger than a Vespa without pulling in the mirrors.”
On the other hand, I have been to Europe and have seen both cities and villages. An American, full-sized pickup truck is highly prized over there, sure–as a status symbol; just like most other American-built cars. They’re still too big for everyday driving on almost every road except the autobahn and equivalent highways. For all that Top Gear has been a comedy over the years, they’ve managed to demonstrate how narrow most of the roads are both in the cities and in the country in almost every nation there.
That’s always a good way to establish credibility… Base your entire European knowledge on Top Gear!!!!!!!
That’s a great way to lose credibility; cherry pick a single statement out of the entire comment. I think you will find that I clearly stated that I had been there myself. I, Personally, know what the roads are like in Europe and if you actually paid attention to the roads and not the commentary of the hosts, you would see that those roads were clearly in evidence throughout the series.
You’ve been where? The tourist destinations and what? You’re like Lou_Baja_California, claiming he’s got the so California midsize pickup scene pegged, going from John Wayne Airport to Disneyland every Christmas.
It’s just one comment but atypical of the way you roll.
Sorry Denver. Two years in Europe is NOT visiting tourist destinations. All you’re doing is showing how clueless you really are.
Your highly anecdotal experience was seen through Vulpine eyes though.
So only on the major European freeways? Only subcompacts may get off? Buses have to break up into rickshaws at the exits???
What about trucks and other vehicles involved in commerce?
Just stop already, crazytrain to nowhere. All high density areas in North America are highly intolerant of bigger autos too, but somehow they exist in big numbers there too. They find a way to do it. It’s not nearly the big deal you make it out to be, like everything else you rant about.
@Denvermike,
I suspect you drive no vehicle at all ,but sit on a computer most of the day Agree with Vulipne, as.regards Europe
@Robert Ryan – Actually everyone here has stated what they drive, except for you. Is it that embarrassing???
Yes, the turbos are intended in part to serve overseas markets. They’ll need to compete against the 4-series, etc.
Denvermik ,
The only “driving” you seem to be aware of is the one on your Computer. Your “driving experience” seems like total fantasy, goes with your many Alias’s
At this point, I don’t know if you’re just trying to get me to laugh, but it worked!! Good job. But you can’t be serious though..
Denvermike,
Your comments are so whacked, they provide entertainment for a lot of people
Ask Ford, they have 1.1million orders for the Mustang in Europe.
The Alpha platform the Camaro rides on is sold worldwide.
Ask Ford how they got 1.1 million orders for the Mustang in Europe RideHeight.
http://racing.ford.com/enthusiasts/newsroom/2015/one-million-mustangs-galloping-into-europe.html
Your source got that wrong. From Ford –
“nearly 1.1 million pony cars configured on Ford’s European websites just a month after ordering banks opened.”
https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia-mobile/fna/us/en/news/2015/03/12/passion-for-mustang-extends-to-color.html
Playing with an online configurator is not the same as laying down a deposit. In a 12.5 million unit market in which VAG has a quarter of the market share, there is no way that anywhere close to 1.1 million of those units will be Mustangs. It may be successful, but it won’t be that successful.
@Jgwag1985
I think someone has their wires crossed . Ford Europe has a hard time selling a Million of anything lately. That reference sounds very strange
If there’s one thing Europe has a huge thirst for is US pony cars. From vintage to current. And muscle cars. Oh and Detroit fullsize pickups and SUVs. I’m not saying they’d set Europe and other places on fire, but if there’s any, it’s these.
Their grey market, cult-like status should be an indicator they’d do alright with normal/official importation or local build/CKD, with the full warranty, financing and service/parts support.
And I do realize European pony cars sell better in the US than at home.
I know as much demand as Ford Duallies and Derek Jeter T-Shits, absolutely huge demand
The 1st dually pickup would have the entire European market to itself though. But let’s 1st start with regular US 1/2 ton pickups. After pony cars that is. As much as you would hate it, F-150s, Rams, Silverados and Sierras already exist in Europe. Raptors too. And with a decent size presents, despite tons of red tape and taxes, besides shipping. And of course no warranty, financing/lease or service/parts support. Test drives? Ha!
So what do have against consumers having more choice?
Will the Aussies complain about the EU’s 22% tariff on American trucks?
Bok! Bok! Bok!!!
So no “track pack” for the 4-cyl turbo? Hmmmmmm I’d love to see after a full year on sale for both the Mustang and Camaro how the owner demographics break down by cylinder count.
In the Camaro, the 4-cylinder engine is the base engine. In the Mustang, it’s positioned above a 6-cylinder base model, similar to the approach taken to the SVO.
My guess is that the average American would prefer a 6-cylinder in this class over a 4-cylinder, which favors the Mustang. However, I would also guess that the turbo Camaro would outsell the turbo Mustang if the former is cheaper, since it costs less. We’ll see how this goes.
I think that the Mustang buyer demographic is going to skew younger overall, specifically toward the EcoBoost 4. In my area the Camaro buyers are skewing 50+ with money especially in SS and up guise.
Though a Camaro early adopter I knew (bought one of the first SS available at our local dealers) just traded it for a brand new black on black Corvette.
Last gaspers chasing an elusive automotive chubby…
The problem here is that Ford has lowered the 3.7 V6’s power down to 300 hp and only 28 highway mpg and worse severely limits options on the V6 model forcing many customers into the 4 cylinder. With the Camaro Chevy makes the V6 the better entry as it should be and it makes a full 35 more horses than Ford 3.7 and should get several better MPG. If Chevy keeps the pricing in line with Mustang it should play out pretty well.
I think the realistic way to view it is the Mustang base engine compares well to the Camaro base engine (slightly lower torque, slightly higher hp), and the mid-level Mustang engine compares well to the mid-level Camaro engine (slightly lower hp but moderately higher torque.
I don’t think Chevy thought this out so well…the base (turbo) engine, with a performance tune, will match the mid-level engine’s performance, cannibalizing sales of that engine, which since it’s NA, will be hard-pressed to make more power while keeping its warranty valid. Because a factory tune for the turbo cannibalizes V6 sales, Chevy is forced to cede that space to the aftermarket. Lose/lose.
The Ford V6 is only ever gonna be 300 hp (guess you could throw an intake on it…), but those who spring for the 2.3 turbo can count on factory tunes yielding 350 hp/375 torque, with full warranty coverage. The Coyote still holds enough of a power advantage here not to lose too many sales to Ecoboost tuners.
Ford’s strategy is much better.
As for the V8, as soon as the Coyote gets DI, it will be knocking on 100 hp/liter, so Chevy’s advantage there will be short-lived.
Style-wise, Chevy is doing the same thing as VW’s Golf/GTI…maybe there is a brand-new platform under there, but it doesn’t look very different. That’s a lot easier to forgive in the space the Golf/GTI plays in than with an intensely style-conscious product like a muscle car, especially one whose previous-gen styling was panned.
Think of how many times the Challenger was picked over the Camaro in comparison tests, even though its performance was inferior, just because the Challenger did a better job of looking the part.
I don’t think going DI on the Coyote is going to get it to around 100 hp/L. The port injection system was retained because Ford felt going to DI didn’t yield enough performance to justify it’s cost.
You might see a decent bump in power, maybe matching the LT1 but I suspect it won’t be much more than that.
Ford would be better off squeezing more displacement out of the engine rather than investing in DI.
As I often point out to my Mustang buddies, hp/L doesn’t matter much when the other guy’s engine has more average power.
In the hands of an average driver the LT1 is going to win more races and feel more powerful because of the LT engines larger displacement making driving the car less of a chore.
No we will not complain and the Europeans would not have clue what you are talking about anyway Who is Derek Jeter? A Dually? No if you said they were going to sell reproductions of Packards and Duesenbergs globally, then you would get their interest
I for one am part of the group of people that hate the fact that Ford is pumping in the engine noise and do not give the owner a way to turn that crap off. I know it is a small thing but i hate fake stuff like that especially in a pony car. active noise cancellation i can understand but fake engine noise? no thanks. I don’t care that it is just “enhancing” etc etc etc.
anyway, if this report is to believed it looks like GM wised up and at least gives the owner the ability to turn it off without having to pull the ding dang fuse of the audio system.
Are they piping it in or artificially reproducing it? I don’t mind piping some intake noise into the cabin so that you know what’s going on with the engine. We’re at the point where many vehicle interiors are too isolating for spirited driving without that. It’s like modifying the intake or exhaust for extra volume, but without the side effect of subjecting anyone outside the vehicle to any unnecessary noise. Even my Mazda3 was a bit too quiet until I installed a stiffer engine mount. Now I can hear and feel the engine a lot better. It communicates with me just as well as a noisy exhaust would.
It would be nice to have the option to block it though, and I would never want a vehicle I’m driving to produce any artificial sounds.
IMO fake engine noise is a way to mask an engine that doesn’t sound as good as it should. Being able to turn it off is a major plus on Chevy’s part.
Jerkfaces still won’t make a targa version.
…Or a V8 ATS.
T-Tops would be a nice and retro option.
I’m going to have to go look at this thing, but it really sounds like they’ve gone backwards in some areas; I easily attained 32mpg+ with the old 3.8L V6 where they’re now claiming that’s better than what the 2.0t can do. Let’s hope that little engine can do better than they’re saying.
You also need to consider the difference in power. Im betting this turbo 4 has quite a bit more.
People hear the “4 cyl” part of the turbo 4 and assume that because its “only” a 4, it must get better mpg than larger engines. It usually does, IF you compare it to a larger engine that makes roughly the same power/torque. Then, it makes sense, more power than a (non-turbo) small engine but with more mpg than a comperable (as far as hp) larger engine. Its a trade off. The power has to come from somewhere, and its a compromise worth considering, depending on your needs.
Although I understand this concept, Id be more likely to choose the larger engine (V-8 in this case, not the 6) and just brush off the poor MPG by saying: “its a sports/pony car, its supposed to drink gas and shred tires, thats the point.” Lol
“You also need to consider the difference in power. Im betting this turbo 4 has quite a bit more.”
Aye. 75 more horses, though I’m thinking we might have lost some aerodynamics from the ’96–I’m not sure of that, but the nose WAS lower on the older model. Thing cruised doing 65mph at 1500rpm. You see, I’m not one of those who sees “4 cylinder” and cringes. Back in the ’80s, 4-cylinder engines offered more performance than the available V6 in Camaros, Mustangs and well, just about everything because they were geared lower. That lower gearing is one reason why they perform so well today, along with closer ratios and higher gear counts. I wouldn’t frown on a turbo 4 Camaro and would probably have just as much fun with it as I did with my old V6 and still surprise people who are stuck in old paradigms.
If they were to develop an engine with only 190-205 hp, or whatever the 3.8 had, be assured they would trounce the old 3.8 on fuel economy.
Compare this 4 cylinder to the 4th gen z28 in terms of fuel economy, because it will smoke it in a drag race.
“Compare this 4 cylinder to the 4th gen z28 in terms of fuel economy, because it will smoke it in a drag race.”
Judging by the numbers that the 2.0T ATS Coupe puts down, I would expect that the turbo Camaro would turn in quarter mile times very close to the LT1 Z28 and be a tick slower than the LS1 version.
I wouldn’t line it up against a 4th gen WS6, Firehawk, or SS without turning up the boost a bit though.
The 4th Gen F-Body with the LS1 were likely very underrated. The numbers those cars put down in the 1/4 mile did not match the power ratings. There were reports of those things putting down over 350 HP on the dyno.
I wouldn’t expect the 2.0L Turbo models to come anywhere close to high 12s and high 4s 0-60 times like the LS powered 4G F-body cars did.
Well in the press release it states that the 275 HP 2 liter turbo will get over 30 MPG on the highway so that could mean 32 or 34 so lets wait and see. Also lets take into consideration that this new 4 banger puts out a whopping 75 more horses and 70 extra torque with a flatter curve in a heavier more safely built car with far more features. The press release also sates to expect under 6 second 0-60 times with the base 4 cylinder which would make it nearly 2 seconds quicker. Now that is impressive!
“Also lets take into consideration that this new 4 banger puts out a whopping 75 more horses and 70 extra torque with a flatter curve in a heavier more safely built car with far more features.”
I’ll give you the first part of that statement–horses and torques–but are you sure it’s heavier? I haven’t seen the specs and I don’t know what the current model weighs, but my ’96 weighed 3600 pounds by the door sticker, so I’m not so sure it’s heavier.
Vulpine
The door sticker lists GVW, which is 4 (200 lb) passengers and 200 lbs of luggage…and there is now way yours said 3600. A V6 4th gen like yours should have a curb weight of about 3300 lbs. The Formula’s were just under 3500lbs with no options.
@PonchoI: Show me a photo of the door sticker on a ’96 with the 3.8 that says something different and I might believe you.
Vulpine
are you the laziest person on earth or just thick in the head? It must be hard going through life expecting everyone to prove themselves to you.
Since I’m not going to waste much of my time doing a search, here is a link to a Firehawk sticker. As you’ll see, just like on every other car built in the last 30 years, it only lists gross vehicle weight, not curb weight. I bet if you walk your rear out to your Jeep you’ll find the same thing. https://www.google.com/search?q=1996+Firebird+gvwr+door+sticker&espv=2&biw=1600&bih=805&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=FoRaVZS1Hc6ZyASQ7oGwDg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg#tbm=isch&q=1996+Firebird+drivers+door+sticker&imgrc=20D0me5F1a8VMM%253A%3BALHMBFDeT4nS4M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fi326.photobucket.com%252Falbums%252Fk418%252FGoMopar440%252F97%252520Camaro%252520SS%252FSLPdrvdooruppersticker.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.camaroz28.com%252Fforums%252Fgeneral-1967-2002-f-body-tech-46%252Fhelp-identifying-my-camaro-1997-a-802068%252F%3B800%3B492
Vulpine ….I’m sincerely sorry for that reply. Just came off a bad week of chemo so my brain has made me more of a jerk than usual. I should know better than to even think about interacting with people I don’t know. No hard feelings I hope
You realize that you really haven’t refuted my comment though, don’t you? The simple point is that if the gross weight of a ’96 Camaro is 3600 pounds and you’re calling the new models ‘porky’, then its GVW must really be heavy, and I find that difficult to believe.
Vulp
I have refuted your point. The Gross weight of your car was about 4300lbs (four 200lb passengers and 200lbs of luggage). That puts your net weight or curb weight right around 3300 lbs. I was not the one who called the gen 6 porky.
Actually, Poncho, you haven’t. If the curb weight was 3300# and the gross weight was 4300#, why did the sticker claim 3600#? Your response is not logical.
Vulpine, until you can understand the difference between gross and curb you won’t get what I’m saying.
What you’re saying is that your car said 3600# gross, which would put it right around 2600 to 2700 curb…yeah, not in this life time on an F-body.
There is no way your car said 3600 on the door sticker.
Using the new EPA rating method, the 1996 3.8L Camaro had an EPA rating of 17/26 with an automatic, 17/28 with a 5-speed. You were not getting 32 mpg with your Camaro.
The new car will also surely be much quicker than the old F-body model.
“Using the new EPA rating method, the 1996 3.8L Camaro had an EPA rating of 17/26 with an automatic, 17/28 with a 5-speed. You were not getting 32 mpg with your Camaro.”
I don’t know what the differences are between the EPA’s new vs old rating methods are, but the old ratings were 20/28 and yes, by actual measurement I was getting slightly over 32mpg on long drives. The EPA’s rating methods are still at fault because they are unrealistic. You can’t measure highway mileage accurately when you’re driving on crowded highways. A good 600-mile run on I-81 gives a far more accurate number. I regularly exceeded the old EPA numbers by 20% with any vehicle I drove and even with my ’08 Wrangler exceed those EPA numbers by 15%+. Then again, I don’t drive 80mph either, I push posted speed limits by no more than 5mph and typically cruise at either 65 or 70 depending on vehicle no matter how much higher the speed limit itself may be.
What I’m able to achieve in fuel mileage is due as much to a smooth driving style as it is the basic economy of the drivetrain. When I am able to achieve 19.5mpg with a 1990 F-150 5.0V8 on the highway despite an EPA rating of only 15, I think driver skill is a definite factor in real-world economy. I don’t hypermile, but I do drive sensibly. If all you get is what the EPA rates, then I question driving ability.
I’ll be more blunt — I don’t believe you. You were not getting 32 mpg in your Camaro.
PCH, I actually believe him about the Camaro mpg
I used to pull down 27 to 28 in an LS1/A4 Trans Am on long trips. A buddy could do 30+ with the 6 speed and conservative speed on the highway…I’ll bet a 3800 F-body would do 32 if you drove it like you were going through a school zone all the time.
Vulpine is generally unreliable. I do not believe him.
Then don’t believe me, Pch; that’s your prerogative. I know what I achieved because I measured it every time I took a longer-than-one-tankful trip in that car. I also measured my commute mileage which was a mix of city/highway (but not expressway) driving where I typically achieved roughly 24mpg, though in town and heavily congested highways got me much worse economy. That ’96 also complained about heavy congestion in summer heat–forcing me more than once to open the windows and run the heater at full blast until traffic opened up.
And Poncho, all I needed to do to achieve 32mpg was get the transmission into overdrive and ease the RPMs down to about 1500/1600–which was about 65mph. I could drive pretty much for 6 hours non-stop and still have about 50 miles of range left on a 16-gallon tank. As I said, driving sensibly and smoothly makes a difference.
No one else should believe you, either.
And you wonder why so many people have been able to prove you wrong so many times, Pch. Granted, you have your fan club; but even they’ve been proven wrong more times than I can count over the years.
Experience really is the best teacher. Some day maybe you’ll realize how wrong you’ve been in the past, but I don’t expect it. Some people are just too stubborn to admit when they’re wrong. I’m not one of them.
You haven’t proven anything at all, which is the point. You have no credibility whatsoever and nobody should believe anything that you have to say.
The EPA rating is what it is, and there is no reason to believe that you could consistently beat it by a wide margin. Just another unverified claim from a guy who has a long track record of never getting anything right.
Au contraire, Pch. I’ve proven the data far more often than you have, as your proofs have invariably contradicted your commentary–killing your credibility entirely. You should be happy I agreed with you on one or two things and actually accepted your correction on one point right in this forum. I at least managed to give you some credibility back–but if you want to continue saying I’m wrong… imagine what that will do to what little credibility you have left.
Oh, and I’m perfectly willing to prove my mileage claims. Just tell me when, where and how and pay me for my time. I don’t do things like that for free. I’m willing to use any tool you choose to verify my claims–just send it to me.
I provided the EPA rating, which is easily confirmed on the EPA website.
You have provided yet more of your nonsensical long-winded anecdotes that you pulled out of your backside.
There is no reason to believe anything that you say.
Once again, an interesting discussion has been hijacked by a bunch of Johnson-waving guys with too much time, turning healthy discourse into an ugly argument that has no winners.
You guys prove that Mark Twain was right about arguing with an idiot. I don’t care who has the bigger Johnson.
“I provided the EPA rating, which is easily confirmed on the EPA website.” — And we all know how accurate those EPA ratings are… NOT!
Unlike you, I can prove my statements by fairly simple processes. But they either require a completely unbiased third party–which I KNOW you wouldn’t trust–or computer gadgetry that can be independently verified. I’m offering to demonstrate it, but no verification would be valid in your eyes unless YOU picked the method and provided the hardware.
Oh, and PCH has hijacked it because the only way he can argue fact is by straw man attacks on the messenger. I’ve offered statements that CAN be verified–he just refuses to believe them.
Vulpine – or, you could be the bigger person and suggest to PCh101 that no one else cares, and that you should either both drop it or take it offline.
For the most part, people here behave like grownups. It’s a car site, not brain surgery.
Which brings up a more philosophical question about these insult-laden posts: How much does “being right” really matter? And if the answer is “a lot,” consider what that says about you.
That isn’t a judgement. It is a blunt suggestions based on hard-learned life experience.
There’s no competition here. One of us is factual, the other is not. Given that the website has “truth” in the title, it would be ironic to just make stuff up as does Vulpine.
As usual, I provided credible information, while Vulpine spewed a bunch of BS that should not be believed in light of that credible information. Nobody should believe anything that he has to say.
@bomberpete: Honestly, I agree with you. However, I’m not going to let anyone simply run me off of a site because he has to argue every statement I make. If you bother to look at my history here, it is far more common for me to make the first and on-topic statement on a given article between the two of us. No, that doesn’t mean I try to do the “FIRST!” thing, but rather comment on either the article itself or another commenter’s statement before the other person appears. This, by the way, could be considered stalking as it is very possible to track a given commenter by their username and see exactly what comments have been made when and where. Normally I try to ignore his statements, but straw man attacks and blatant libel are hard to ignore.
This thread, by the way, is the first time I’ve ever offered to give him the proof he claims to desire–the results of which you can see for yourself.
I do wish, however, that these forums offered a way to flat ignore–block MY viewing–of a flamer’s comments. Some other sites do offer this ability.
Truth is like Kryptonite to this guy.
It’s obvious that you didn’t have a 32 mpg Camaro. Accordingly, your use of this non-existent old car as a benchmark for assessing the new car is bogus.
It appears visibility will not improve with Gen 6 Camaro. I’ve driven current Camaro a few times and it is quite challenging to switch lanes at times. I wish they will lower the trunk and make C-pillar skinnier .
They won’t lower the trunk because a low trunk is an increase in drag, which hurts fuel economy. They could probably narrow the C pillar a bit, though some of its bulk is dictated by adding strength to support the car in a rollover.
The fact is that currently manufacturers would prefer to add rearview cameras and blind spot monitoring systems rather than improving visibility.
After driving vans full of cargo, pickups pulling trailers, and straight trucks full of grain, you generally learn how to drive without any rear visibility to speak of.
It’s time to replace the inside rear view mirror with an LCD screen, wire it to a camera mounted on the back of the vehicle. It’s basically the only way we’re going to get visibility back with new crash, roll-over, and aerodynamic requirements.
I could have been sure that GM was going to put that type of system in the next gen volt, but I guess it didn’t make the cut.
Rear visibility remains dismal but they did lower the front cowl and hood bulge so frontal visibility should be improved some.
I get one of these as a rental sometimes, and they are just hell to drive in Atlanta or Charlotte traffic, especially trying to get over to hit those left lane exits…
They are probably loads-o-fun to drive in wherever they film car commercials, but even trying to back out of a slot in a parking garage convinces me they’d be tough to live with as a daily driver.
Still porcine, in need of liposuction. More piped in exhaust note… so many manufacturers have lost touch with what constitutes a driving experience. Overloaded with features and technology and a promise of an underwhelming sensory experience.
If you want an overwhelming sensory experience and no technology, I invite you to drive a 50-year-old 4020 tractor, gas or diesel, with no cab. Or with a cab, it doesn’t matter. You’ll still be deaf after 10 years.
No need for a tractor, Mr. Hyperbole. There are still some cars out there that fit the bill. Enjoy your porky Camaro.
Here’s an idea. Buy what you like and don’t get your vajayjay in a twist over a car you weren’t going to buy anyway. Enjoy your fiat and the man purse it came with.
Thanks, I’ll also enjoy my ’70 Z28. 2nd gen… GM knew how to build ’em back then.
Vajayjay? If you weren’t a girlie man yourself, you would say vagina just like Eve Ensler.
Interesting alluster that you preach choice and insult Fiat in the same sentence. Have you even driven a Fiat?
Agreed, Marone. Somebody who doesn’t know what he’s talking about because he’s stuck in an obsolete paradigm.
The V-6 Mustang comes in around 3500 lbs.
The `15 Camaro comes in at 3700 lbs.
Initial specs show that the V-6 2016 Camaro loses 300 lbs with the V-6 model; which makes it lighter than the Mustang.
There are articles out there that claim it only lost 200 lbs and I’m not sure your numbers compare similar model to similar model. I also read that the weight estimate on the SS will be 3700 lbs. I’ll wait for more detials to include what weight was actually lost, but I suspect a portly car losing 200 lbs still stays in the porty category.
So its smaller but doesn’t really lose any weight. Those center ac vents will be useless and the dozens of buttons crammed in above them guarantee a frustrating commute.
The weight figure is a “general” statement, there are reports that the V-6 model loses 300 lbs alone which makes it lighter than the V-6 Mustang.
AFAICT, it’s the old V6 to new turbo 4 comparison that spawns the 300 pound number, not V6 to V6.
I’m beginning to think it’s just marketing and there really will be minor weight loss if anything.
Losing 200-300 lbs is pretty impressive especially with today’s obsession with loads of features and gadets and ever increasing safety features. The car that didn’t lose any weight was the new 2015 Mustang.
I was a little suprised by the “smaller” notes I’ve seen in other reviews. I just looked it up to be sure, “New car is 2 inches shorter than the old one, 1-inch narrower and an inch lower. Distance between wheels is about 1 1/2 inches shorter.”
It will be interesting to see the actual space in the new car. Seems like a challenge. I’m all for smaller and more nimble, but compare that to the current model and I’m not sure how much interior space is lost.
Hmm… :-/ Personnaly I think an entry level model powered by a Vortec 4800 should be offered. Such engine would satisfy the Camaro customer that wants a 3rd car with a nice tone to cruise on week-ends. I don’t think the sound of a turbo 4, or even the V6 is suitable for nice fun drives.
The old 3.8 sounded just fine and gave 32mpg on the highway. My only complaint was the high-stall torque converter that failed every 60K miles. Plenty of fun to drive, too. But, interior space was no less cramped than today’s model–20 years later.
This is one of the best from-the-factory v6s I’ve ever heard. Check out the track test drive on TFLcar.
I like it. We are talking about a Camaro right? Like what did you all expect? A brown Camaro Estate with a diesel.
In an age where manual transmissions and V8 are disappearing (remember when GM stopped making the Camaro for a time?), let’s just be a little more grateful for the new Camaro.
+1
Agree on the manual trannie, but it’d be a better car if it shed several hundred pounds. And if it wasn’t made by GM.
I think time will tell. I was never impressed with the previous version, so more detials are needed on what has or has not improved. It really needed to lose around 500lbs, not barely 200. In the end, I don’t see why I would pick this over a new Mustang.
It DID shed 200-300 lbs. Didn’t you read many of the articles written up on this car? As for being made by GM the Camaro has proven to be a stout reliable car from any owner I have questioned.
The Mustang in comparison has fragile made in China manual transmisisons and weak V6 drivelines so Ford is hardly impressing me.
I like it a lot more than I thought I would. It has total cyberpunk vibe to it, much like the 1982 Camaro had when it came out. I only wish they would have made it a HATCH like my old 4th gen Camaro was. It’s a shame this didn’t get the 7 speed manual offered up in the Corvette.
When it comes time to car shop, I’m going to have a hard time deciding between this and the new mustang, it will probably come down to ergonomics, e.g. seats, pedal/steering wheel placement, etc.
Check out TFLcar for their track test drive of the new v6 model, the new LGX, or whatever it is called, with butterfly exhaust valve, is sweet music in my ears!
I’ll agree, Nick. Bringing back the hatch to me is a good idea–though I also have to admit that hump over the rear wheels and that deep well right at the very back made packing it interesting when you needed to use all the space available (I moved twice in my ’96–once over 700 miles with everything I could stuff into the car).
While we’re pumping in engine sound, why not just have an app in the head unit that allows you to select the engine sound? Maybe you want the sound of a Ferrari V12 piped in. Heck, why not put speakers outside the car so your four pot Camaro can sound like an F430 driving by?
I suppose you can’t fault GM; even BMW is doing this crap with the fake/enhanced engine sounds.
I don’t know why the center vents for the HVAC are mounted so low but remind me of the optional under dash GM Cool-Pack units that were offered in the late 50’s through the 60’s.
MRF,
They’re a safety feature.
GM figures you and a passenger will be so excited driving around you need a little cooling off at seat level
Lower vents could be good to shoot the ac up the leg if wearing shorts. Sounds ridiculous. But try living in Florida. The Camaro also has vented seats.
GM products of the 70’s and 80’s with factory A/C had those small adjustable vents at the base of the steering column. A friend of mine used to call it crotch air.
Crotch vents FTW, but these center vents aren’t going to do that very well and they won’t work as regular vents very well either. Temp adjust with the ring around them is cheesy and I don’t think it will be very ergonomic in the real world.
The 4-cyl is the most interesting to my mind. 0-60 in less than 6 seconds? Seriously folks, besides ego and desire, is any more acceleration necessary?
Make mine the manual tranny of course.
My all time favorite Camaro was the ’67-68 Z-28 because it had a small (for the day) motor in a wild state of tune that could vanquish lots of other V-8s with 25-50% more displacement.
The new 4-cyl ranks up there with old Z-28 in my rankings. I mean, here is a motor that is 2/5 as big as the old 302 V-8 with better acceleration.
I still prefer the ’68 with the Rally Sport option when it comes to styling.
I agree, the 4 cylinder turbo is the spiritual successor to the old 302 z28. The modern z28 incarnation of the 5th gen was ridiculous in price and performance.
Same periscope driving position without the Revell model car plastics.
If you didn’t like the 5th gen then the 6th gen is not for you. GM had announced several months ago that there wont be a major departure from the 5th gen. So please stop complaining and stop acting surprised. You are obviously not the 80K buyers a year who buy one. Chevy took the most popular pony car and made it even better in every aspect. They cut weight, improved the interior, increased performance and put it on the best chassis they own. It will matter to the people in the market for such a car.
This is like saying you hoped that the new F150 will be available as a convertible and complaining when you find out there will not be a convertible F150 pickup.
It’s refreshing to see there are still some GM brown-nosers out there in the hinterlands…
Coming from the one who claims that in 1970 “GM knew how to build `em back then!”……..
I guess that if you point out that a car is all-new, and probably improved, you’re a brown noser.
No, I never liked the last gen. It was a dissapointment in looks, ergonomics, interior, comfort and in the lower models performance. But…I am a car guy and I will always be curious about new cars. In my opinion this just seemed like a refresh and I had hoped for much more, especially in weight as it is portly already. The loss seems to be minimal. Honestly, I really thought GM had more potential than that. I’ll wait to see actual reviews and my opportunity to drive it.
I dont know what people were expecting.
Ford does a sea change (as much as styling goes) and people dont like it.
GM stays the course, like they said, and people dont like it.
Better off buying a CUV and forgetting about it.
+2
I don’t think the Mustang is a sea change. Same basic platform with a limited amount of new styling and a new rear suspension.
Great car, but not a radical change from the old one.
I dunnot. This pony car thing must be unique to North America….just like wanting to bomb small countries that are on the opposite side of the world. Or maybe some Neanderthal knuckle dragging gene that keeps america out of tune with the rest of the western world. Or maybe alot of men just haven’t grown up and never will. Hmmmm
Huh? 1.1 million orders from Europe for the Mustang. Out of tune with the rest of the world?
Working an awful lot in Detroit, building instrument clusters for right hand drive versions………and yes I know Mustang built in Flat Rock, instrument clusters are not.
The “pony car” term might be unique to North America, but unnecessarily powerful coupes and the desire to drive such things are actually a worldwide phenomenon spanning many cultures and including such non-American manufacturers as Alfa Romeo, Aston Martin, Audi, Bentley, BMW, Bugatti, Ferrari, Hyundai, Jaguar, Lamborghini, Lotus, McLaren, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Pagani, Porsche, and Toyota, among others. Perhaps you’ve heard of a few of these obscure brands?
The cheap small-block V8 in a coupe body on a family car platform is pretty much a North American and Aussie/Kiwi thing. The European equivalents such as the Ford Capri and Opel/Vauxhall Calibra didn’t have that many cylinders.
As people say, yeah there are rwd front engined v8 coupes available everywhere… however few people can afford a Mercedes CLK or BMW 6 or AML or Lexus whatever…
North American domestic pony cars or muscle cars? they are sort of more attainable at least.
I personally find Camaro, Mustang, Challengers and the Charger to have lots of ‘character’ that is missing in EU and Jap coupes.
That’s just me. I see there’s heaps of hate for them especially from Americans.
Jag XKE, Numerous Ferrari coupes, we can go on and on. It’s “stupid American” day. Unless you need bailing out of a war.
I’m a Mustang guy, but I must say I like the front view, the back view and especially the side view. Nicely done.
The interior is hideous however. I thought the game plan was to move away from retro?
It sounds like it is you that is out of touch or tune
Hmmm, let’s recall that infamous Shaq quote: “How’s my ass taste?”.
I honestly think this is the rare new car/model that makes me feel the purchase impulse.
The other car that would also do this for me would be a:
A refreshed TLX with a 3 motor eSHAWD + DCT transimission…
Back to the Camaro. The V8 model is an enthusiasts dream. The LT1/8spd or LT1/tremec powertrains are highly desirable.
I simply hated the prior gens interior. It was an abomination from a styling standpoint.
This car addresses all my gripes about the prior gen.
“From every angle, you’ll never mistake this for anything but a Camaro”
Really? It looks a lot like a Mustang to me.
You need your eyes checked.
This isn’t the 1990s Nissan/Toyota/Honda sedans that are still impossible to tell apart without badges, the pony cars all represent their brands styling.
Time for a new pair of glasses bub.
You don’t need your eyes checked I see a lot of Mustang cues in this new Camaro too.
The front grillwork has some Toyota Camry in it. Must be the designers are hoping some of that Camry magic rubs off on the Camaro. At the rental lot, my bet is it will be harder to get a Camry than a Camaro. Personally, I would rather own the Camry.
Camary. Just add the two together may increase sales to all those that think the Camry is the only car to buy. Just the roomer of the two sharing a name could increase Camaro sales an decrease Camry sales.
Well seeing how the 2010 Camaro already had a similar lower grill design it would be Toyota that has cribbed Chevy styling but somehow managed to make it look bad.
It’s too small to haul my kid around in, but I could see picking up a stripper V6 model on the used market in a few years to run my long commute in.
If you’re shopping for family transportation then two door muscle cars may be the wrong place to shop.
Considering that the current Camaro was a great success, the new one is bound to do even better by giving buyers what they want. The emphasis is on “buyers” and not Internet forum dwellers that can never be made happy no matter what.
How are you supposed to start a manual transmission car on a steep upgrade with an “electrically operated” emergency brake? Roll back into the car behind you, and use them as a hill-holder?
I think the idea of providing fake engine noise just provides the final confirmation of the essential and total superficiality of these vehicles. Can’t see out, no trunk space, 2″ tall tires so can’t be driven on any road surface that exists in the real world, as big as a sedan but interior space like a Miata…
It used to be that the point of “pony cars” was part styling to impress the neighbors, and part spirited driving performance, and part the fact that you could get one for reasonable money. It looks like it’s just “look at me” now.
I would guess there is a hill-holder feature. Failing that, just dump the clutch and smash the go pedal.
I believe the Camaro built in the last two years has the hill hold feature. I have it in my Stingray and it works great.
It’s damn annoying. I’m trying to back up when it’s downhill, so I’ll let off the brakes and then wait for it.. wait for it… then wait some more, why, because remaining manual drivers are all inept???
It almost certainly does have a hill-holder feature to accommodate old or inexperienced drivers with slow feet. That seems to be a common feature these days.
I would still much rather have a mechanical parking brake though.
I’m personally very disappointed in the car’s still substantial girth. I just feel any “performance” car that weighs over 3,600 pounds or so is a oxymoron. This was barely an attempt to reduce the size, despite several reports over the past two years that the car would be a lot smaller.
But that doesn’t put off buyers in this class, who have been buying 4,000 pound Gen V Camaros, the huge Dodge Challenger, and the new rollier and pollier Mustang in large numbers. I’m just not the target market for this car, which is a very specialized niche. I think it’ll continue to sell well and GM was probably smart to not mess with a good (sales) thing.
“Unfortunately, the new platform is so sound dead”
What’s wrong with that? Personally I like a quiet ride – there’s enough noise going on around everybody that a nice, quiet cocoon is a respite from it all. But then, this is an older fellow talking.
For the record, I used to love the sound of a certain car I used to own, complete with real dual exhausts & glass-pack mufflers, although I did have tail pipes to keep things more-or-less civilized!
Unfortunately, with the almost non-existent greenhouse, it’ll be no sale for me, even in convertible form, unless you can order one with a periscope and rear and side-view cameras!
I’m going to be rude.
“From every angle, you’ll never mistake this for anything but a Camaro.” So it’s apparently possible to mistake this car–a Camaro–for a Camaro?
I’m guessing this is more exactly what the 2010 Camaro should’ve been. Except they had to work it around the large size Holden Commode.