By on August 21, 2015

2016 Chevrolet Camaro SS

Chevrolet announced Friday that its sixth-generation Camaro will start at $26,695 — or $305 less than a comparable 2015 model. However, the former entry 1LS trim has been discontinued, meaning you’ll shell out $2,000 more this year to sit in a bottom rung Camaro compared to its predecessor.

The 2016 Camaro 1SS model, which sports a 6.2-liter V-8, will start at $37,295 (including $995 destination) up $2,795 from the $34,500 sticker it wore in 2015.

The base 1LT model for 2016, which sports an all-new 2-liter turbocharged four cylinder, will start at $26,695, which is nearly $2,000 more than the entry 1LS model for 2015, although Chevrolet won’t initially offer that trim for the 2016 model year. A comparable, 2015 Camaro 1LT is priced at $27,000.

Chevrolet said features including Apple’s CarPlay, backup camera, LED daytime running lamps, leather-wrapped steering wheel and keyless, push-button start that are standard on the 2016 car were optional or not available for the 2015 model.

Additionally, the 1SS trim adds separate cooling systems for the transmission, differential and engine oil, four-piston Brembo brakes and limited slip differential (manual only) as standard.

Chevrolet also added an online visualizer if you’re bored at work today [and not preparing to buy a Charger this weekend —Mark].

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

63 Comments on “Chevrolet Announces 2016 Camaro Pricing, V-8 Gets a $2,795 Bump...”


  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Am I the only one disgusted that rear visibility is so poor that a backup camera became standard on a two door coupe?

    • 0 avatar
      qfrog

      I think *.gov requires it for ’16 model year.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        I thought this as well, gov regulation for 14+ has always been the thing which stuck in my mind.

      • 0 avatar
        whynot

        It is required to be in all vehicles by 2018. It is being phased in though- 10% of an automakers lineup after May 2016, 40% after May 2017, then all by May 2018. But as most manufacturers are releasing cars that will still be built in 2018 (such as this Camaro) there is little point in not making them standard to begin with- it helps fulfill the phase in requirements and the cameras are seen as a desirable feature by many.

        • 0 avatar
          Power6

          This story is well known bud, chevy said the buyers did not want to sacrifice style for visibility. Thats that. Cars are bought on emotion not logic despite product criticism from those who aren’t going to buy the product anyways.

          Id totally like a more upright compact Camaro with bigger windows too, but if I wanted one, and i had the cash, id buy it who cares whats behind you when prod the LT1. My plumber has a windowless Econoline and he does ok.

    • 0 avatar
      dougjp

      You aren’t the only one. The fact that they didn’t fix the visibility problem which was commented on in many reviews, will keep me from buying one no matter how good it is otherwise.

      So much for the theory about visibility doesn’t matter for car buyers in this segment.

    • 0 avatar
      red stick

      It’s a Camaro. What’s behind you is unimportant.

    • 0 avatar

      but…the camera is the ‘mama want’ option placed “cherry on top” of two other option packages, the uprated nav system (want it or not) and if a BMW, leather and custom paint….

      That $8 camera ends up being a $4500 camera

  • avatar
    duffman13

    I guess I don’t get the pricing here. Yeah it’s new, but the Mustang GT starts at $32,300. for that price I could have a GT Premium ($36k) or a GT performance pack with Recaros ($37k).

    I know you have brand loyalists, it’s a new generation, etc., but to have your base V8 be that much more than its closest competitor seems stupid to me. Unless they plan to incentive the crap out of it to make it price comparable.

    • 0 avatar
      carguy

      +1

      $37K for a base model V8 seems kinda steep compared to the competition.

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      Well the Challenger needs to have the 392 to hang with the Mustang GT or Camaro SS, and that starts at $38K with the Scat Pack. Last year it was the Challenger Core 392, and that was $42K.

      Needless to say, I expect Mustang prices to rise. I have a Mustang invoice sitting in front of me right now for a car I test drove. I can have a base Mustang GT with a manual transmission and no options for $29,943 plus tax with the Z-plan (price includes destination). Too bad I don’t like it better.

      The MSRP of the Scat Pack I want is around $45K. A Dodge dealer offered me a similar car for $40K without even negotiating. USAA’s car buying service promises to get it to me for $38K. That’s a pretty huge gap to get the car I like more.

    • 0 avatar
      johnny_5.0

      Yeah, base price for a V8 is a bit disappointing but not too surprising. It’s $1600 more than a Performance Pack Mustang and it will be faster. That being said, how much do I really care about a few tenths when I like the styling better inside and out on the Mustang? I wanted the LT1 and the better transmissions that Chevy offers. But what’s the MSRP of a 2SS with the 8 speed? I’m curious about what the dealer invoice looks like and what actual transaction prices end up being. It seems like they will be missing out if they don’t have a cheaper V8 trim (without Brembos and a few other goodies) to compete with a non-PP Mustang. I see a crap ton of new Mustangs, and the PP cars are less than 25% of GTs. There’s obviously a market that wants the V8 but knows they don’t need the more track focused bits.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      Your getting more car for the money compared to the Mustang. Even with the Performance Pack (if GM’s claims are true that the new SS will hang with or out run the out going 1LE option Camaro) the Mustang GT wont be able to hang. Curb weight sounds like it will be about the same so the Camaro will have another 20 horsepower and 30 pound feet of torque plus the big 6.2 is going to have a lot more average horsepower. If your looking to win at bench racing or any other form of racing your gonna have to step up to the GT350.

      Speaking of the performance pack equipped Mustang I think people are confusing it with a “track pack” of which only the brakes, Torsen and radiator are probably the only track oriented and best features to it. the springs and dampers are not really up to the task and while the tires are summer tires they are Pirellis so definitely a case of “if you don’t have anything nice to say then don’t say it at all”. The final drive is a 3.73 and in combination with the MT82 makes for very short gearing which is neither useful for drag racing (3.31 equipped manual trans cars are faster since it only requires 3 shifts instead of 4) and I suspect equally as useless on a road course.

      Ford really needs to offer a “track pack” that includes the brakes, Torsen, and radiator but offers more track orientated springs and dampers as well as tires that do more than dazzle people who are easily impressed by Italian made rubber (hell Ferrari as far as I know is still using Bridgestones instead of a domestic tire)

      I thought GM would be able to deliver something with more parity pricewise. The 6th gen is an alpha car so it shares the platform with at least two other cars (maybe three) and the LT V8 is cheaper to produce compared to the Coyote in the Mustang.

      The Mustang on the other hand is on a dedicated platform and the aforementioned engine production costs as well.

      I think Ford’s lower price of entry and more aggressive styling change will work to its advantage no matter the content on the SS Camaro or the numbers it puts up and I will be really surprised if Camaro can pull off the same kind of lead over the S550 Mustang as it did with the outgoing S197 Mustang.

  • avatar
    craiger

    I just fired up the inflation calculator to see what my 1984 Camaro would cost in today’s dollars.

    The answer is…$23,800.

    What did I get back then for the money that I earned cutting grass for two summers?

    2.8 V-6 option (107 ponies)
    A/C
    slushbox
    power hatch release
    roof drip moldings !
    F-41 suspension
    Fancy styled steel rally wheels
    tinted glass
    rear window defogger
    styled rear view mirrors, on both sides !
    rear cargo cover
    A radio, with FM option !
    two, TWO! rear speakers

    • 0 avatar
      nickoo

      Closest modern equivalent is the scion tc. Which is slightly cheaper and better in nearly every way.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Those third-gen cars are still beautiful today. Too bad they had about the build quality of a cardboard box on a day when the glue ran out.

      • 0 avatar
        TMA1

        I had a friend visiting from China a few months ago, and when I pointed out a really nice Iroc-Z driving by, I mentioned that my first car looked like that (actually an ’84 Trans Am, but close enough for someone who’s never seen an F-body before). She thought that Iroc was a brand new car!

      • 0 avatar
        fvfvsix

        @dal20402
        Cardboard box is right. I drove an ’83 Camaro from the time I was 17 until about 22. It only had a 5 digit odometer, but since it was my dad’s old car, I knew how well it had been treated and how much it had been driven. During my stewardship, I had to remove the drooping headliner, bypass the heater core (in the middle of winter) until I could afford to get it fixed, replace the starter twice, replace the speedo cable, fix consistent PCV problems, install a couple of clutches, and replace the manual transmission (how many times do you hear of an actual manual trans grenading?). After about 205,000 miles, the ‘Cam decided to crack its engine block. Piece of crap. God, I loved that car.

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        And good performing cars for the time, one of my bucket list items is to find a nice IROC car and do an LS transplant along with a few other mods. Its a shame they have a reputation for being on the porky side. The overall chassis is much better than its Fox counter part but weight is king in drag racing leading to an endless stream of LS powered fox abominations that should rightly be scoured from the face of the earth.

    • 0 avatar
      pbxtech

      2.8 you say, did it need head gaskets? It was that very motor helped bid me a fond FU to Chevy forever.

    • 0 avatar
      Steve Biro

      Interesting. And $25,000 is about all I personally would pay for a V6 Camaro or Mustang these days. I’m not sure I would bother with a turbo four in either of them. V8’s? Sure, nice to think about. But once the pricetag hits $30K my eyes glaze over and I lose interest.

  • avatar
    Ianw33

    geez, almost $40K for the base SS…

    affordable V8 coupes/sedans are slowly going extinct.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      Or you can pay lots more for a 4-cylinder ATS on the same platform!

      • 0 avatar
        Ianw33

        Ha, even better!

        It is interesting how some vehicles (mustang, camaro) are trending up market. In the past, the purpose of these types of cars was the affordable v8 sporty car for young people (and young at heart people).

        I am 31, make OK money, but not as much as i would like. With that said, the way the pricing of these cars keeps drifting higher and higher, its just getting to the point that i dont even consider them any longer.

        You would think they would want an affordable option to get you in the Ford/Chevy/Dodge family early. Then, as you age and become more financially well off, you could graduate to pricier options like the Vette/Viper. Its almost like they are writing off, or abandoning, the younger crowd.

        There is a reason why you see so many “gray hairs” driving the sportier cars these days, they are the only ones that can comfortably afford them now.

        /My opinion

        • 0 avatar
          CoreyDL

          I think in addition to the money, they’re the only people who have the space/desire for a car which, at its truth, isn’t very useful.

          Younger people with kids and homes to maintain need more room for people and things. The third “fun car” is just in the street or in the way. So that’s put off as a retirement or near-retirement gift to themselves, when they’ve got grown chillens.

        • 0 avatar
          TMA1

          I think they’re still making the V6 and turbo-4 models affordable for such people. And honestly, those cars with those engines are faster than all but the rarest of the classic muscle cars. The V8 is nothing but a vanity buy for boomers, and profit for the producers.

          • 0 avatar
            Ianw33

            good point on the optional downsized, somewhat similarly powered engine options.

            with that said, i am not a baby boomer, and after having small turbocharged 4cyls and 6 cyl vehicles, i would prefer the v8’s. Part of the reason is that i think V8’s just inherently sound better. And part of it is that i will take the mileage hit to have effortless usable tq everywhere instead of waiting for a turbo to kick in. Also, if you are driving spiritedly, the smaller turbocharged engines start dumping fuel in at boost and you aren’t really getting as much of a mileage boost as you think you would.

          • 0 avatar
            That guy

            I recently test drove a CTS VSport. By every objective measure, the engine was very good. However, it was lacking character. By comparison, the 6.2L in the SS Sedan sounds wonderful when you step into it. Even though the SS is significantly harder on fuel, the engine vibrates more, and the transmission isn’t as smooth, I still feel like its powertrain would make the VSport a better car.

          • 0 avatar
            Maxb49

            “Even though the SS is significantly harder on fuel, the engine vibrates more, and the transmission isn’t as smooth, I still feel like its powertrain would make the VSport a better car.”

            No, the engine in the SS does not “vibrate more”. A cross plane V8 with counterweights has perfect balance whereas a V6 is inherently unbalanced. That is a matter of fact, not personal opinion.

          • 0 avatar
            Maxb49

            “I think they’re still making the V6 and turbo-4 models affordable for such people. And honestly, those cars with those engines are faster than all but the rarest of the classic muscle cars.”

            No they’re not. Not everyone wants a four cylinder chitbox. Don’t believe the hype. They’re saving money by cutting back on fewer cylinders and using less material.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Maxb49, everything else equal, that might be the case. Everything else is not equal. Drive both engines back to back and you will find that the small-block *transmits* way more vibration to the rest of the car than the turbo V6. There are quite a few different reasons why that could be the case, but it is the case.

          • 0 avatar
            Maxb49

            “Maxb49, everything else equal, that might be the case. Everything else is not equal. Drive both engines back to back and you will find that the small-block *transmits* way more vibration to the rest of the car than the turbo V6. There are quite a few different reasons why that could be the case, but it is the case.”

            Nonsense. That is absolute gobbledygook directly from a marketing playbook. As someone who owns both turbocharged V6 engines and V8 engines, I know this first hand. The V6 is inherently unbalanced and buzzy. That doesn’t mean you can’t make a powerful V6. It means that the V8 has superior noise, vibration, and harshness characteristics. The laws of physics don’t get violated to meet some automakers marketing criteria. Sorry.

        • 0 avatar

          I believe you have just described the classic GM playbook. Sell them a Chevy. When they are a bit more planted, Pontiac or Olds. Later on, Buick if successful, and Caddy if very successful.

          One of the few Chevys I’d consider, the SS, is price competitive with a loaded 3 series. Huh ?

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      They’ve got to recoup the money lost on Hybrid vehicles somehow or at least that’s how Lutz sees it.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    People coming here might also find this enjoyable, for more coupe fun. I thought it was mondo excellent.

    http://www.carscoops.com/2015/08/imagining-pagani-zonda-as-1980s-supercar.html

  • avatar
    BDT

    Maybe I missed it, but where is pricing on the V6? I feel like that might be juuuust right.

  • avatar
    Chan

    If they want to sell Camaros for close to $40k, they had better be luxurious.

    The GT Stang starts at closer to $30k, as it should.

  • avatar
    CJinSD

    This is a response to CAFE. During the first tightening of CAFE beginning four decades ago, GM(and probably others) priced engine upgrades “off scale,” meaning that there was no relation between cost and option price, only a relation to GM’s desire to encourage smaller engines or have the money to pay fines if people insisted on the larger ones.

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      Everything in CJ’s life is because of those darned liberals.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        Richard Nixon passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which enabled people to be stupid enough to vote away their choices. He was a progressive, but not a liberal.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          Why is it that the people who blame CAFE for every problem in their lives don’t also credit CAFE for reducing American demand for oil, which has reduced gas prices so much?

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        …Everything in CJ’s life is because of those darned liberals….

        Well, I’m a Liberal, with a Libertarian bent, and rarely agree with CJ. But his statement about raising the price to reduce the take on the V8 is spot on. Raising the price will cut sales, and the higher price on the V8 will make up for the lost volume. A win for CAFE and a win for the accountants. The market at work.

        • 0 avatar
          Steve Biro

          I agree. What’s more, something has to help pay for all of those cars that the government wanrs GM to build as a part of the bailout agreement. You know, the small, fuel-efficient ones that aren’t moving as well as they’d hoped due to low fuel prices these days? Bob Lutz was making the same connection about $60K pick-up truck prices recently. I tend to lean liberal myself but I’m also a realist. There’s no free lunch. The money has to come from somewhere.

        • 0 avatar
          CJinSD

          You seem to think that perverted markets are working markets. I suppose that’s what you mean when you say you’re a liberal.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        The world/America is not an inherently horrible place. It takes the concerted effort of lots of self promoting imbeciles, to make it come across as one.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      And if CAFE were replaced by a gas tax, as it should be, the V8 Camaro would be cheaper to buy but more expensive to run.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        We’re already paying huge gas taxes in California, and we get less than nothing in return. The solution is to get the government back to its original scope and let markets do their jobs. People that think they’re smarter than markets have nothing but misconceptions to work with.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        And, you’d have a much better chance of seeing independent startups specializing in nothing but V8 enthusiast cars. Making those even cheaper and even better.

    • 0 avatar
      Maxb49

      CAFE didn’t bring lower gas prices. Shale oil drilling and a gut of natural gas lowered gas prices. CAFE is a joke that forces low and middle income citizens to subsidize corporate level pollution.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I wonder if that $2795 is similar to the “CAFE Fine” imposed on the SS.

    The Camaro wouldn’t have the ideal footprint for a V8.

  • avatar
    Power6

    As someone who would love a 1LE with Recaros but cant afford it right now, i have been watching the new one thinking it will be the stuff round about the time my business takes off. By the time it gets a track worthy suspension calibration and you add the recaros it will be an expensive propisition.

    Interesting the move seems upmarket. You want a better interior? You pay for it. Maybe the current 1LE is the sweet spot, too wide and heavy with a cheap interior is pretty much the recipe of a Camaro.

    Of course all auto journalists are bound to declaring the outgoing car absolute rubbish and the new model the second coming of small block Christ.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Chasing the upmarket is what killed so many. The RX7, Z-cars, Supra and MR2 come to mind. It’s the secretaries, others, and lots of blue-collars that made them the wild successes that they were. Yes buying mostly base and lower models. And then greed stepped in.

    GM is being stupid here. Stick to the formula that works.

    • 0 avatar
      Maxb49

      Am I the only one here who thinks the auto industry will soon be in jeopardy?

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        If you have to ask “am I the only one…”, then no.

        Here at home we’ll play in the city /
        Powered by the sun /
        Perfect weather for a streamlined world /
        There’ll be spandex jackets, one for everyone

        What a beautiful world this will be /
        What a glorious time to be free

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Bankrupt states will be soaking up your “gas savings” (in the form of taxation).


Recent Comments

  • salmonmigration: Pete, people seem to think the 3.5L auto drivetrain is poorly tuned. It does surge and lag a lot and...
  • pwrwrench: 2drsedanman, Yup, 6 piston brake calipers have no benefit for 98.5% of buyers/drivers. I gave up on...
  • warrant242: With a pun!
  • warrant242: A cynic might say they closed them exactly for that reason. In the short term, quality costs money. And...
  • TMA1: I agree that the environment friendly paint is probably part of the issue. My ’09 Mazda3 didn’t...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • 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