By on December 10, 2015


2016 Chevrolet Camaro SS

6.2-liter LT1 pushrod V-8 (455 horsepower @ 6,000 rpm; 455 pounds-feet @ 4,400 rpm)

HydraMatic 8L90 eight-speed automatic transmission

17 mpg city/28 mpg highway/20 mpg combined (EPA)

23.3 mpg combined (Observed 90/10 highway/city)

Base Price: $26,695*

As Tested: $47,395-ish (Chevrolet didn't provide an official price)

No good deed goes unpunished.

When Chevrolet announced its fifth-generation Camaro in 2008 after a long hiatus, many hailed (including yours truly) its avant-garde style and sleeker sheet metal. A starring role and skyrocketing sales couldn’t dim its usual criticism shortly thereafter. Fully four years into that model, good feelings waned; its overweight chassis and zest for precious, expensive gasoline overshadowed most of its good attributes.

Even our sixth-generation tester — which we picked up in Bozeman, Montana on a dreary November morning in between snowstorms and set under overcast skies — didn’t entirely impress.

The lipstick red V-8 clad SS — shod with snow rubber and little else to handle an unforgiving Western Montana winter climate — seemed overmatched with the task of climbing Lookout Pass and into Eastern Washington and beyond. A rear-wheel drive sports car could find friendlier confines than the Montana plains and mountains in winter’s first offensive.

Yet underneath its attention-grabbing red paint and optional, shocking red leather, it represented General Motors’ best attempt at righting some of the perceived wrongs suffered by the last generation Camaro — which begged to be uncovered. The 2016 Chevrolet Camaro is lighter, shorter and more adept at fighting in the pony car class it helped define, even if critical taste had shifted from the out-there sheet metal from 2010 to the Ford Mustang’s svelte hips and raucous engine choices.

I think Chevrolet got our letters.

Where the Mustang is an only child, sharing a chassis with no others in the Ford stable, the new Camaro has a big family. Sharing an Alpha platform with the Cadillac ATS, the Camaro benefits from economy of scale. It’s base, 3.6-liter V-6 is shared with the ATS (unfortunately, so is it’s manual transmission, complete with six-speeds and long throws) but the Camaro’s cabin may as well be an Apollo capsule compared to the Space Shuttle-sized ATS.

Which makes a good point: it’s best to consider the 2016 Chevrolet Camaro in terms of a rocket from here on out.


Camaro aficionados will lament the following phrase, but it feels true: the sixth-generation is an evolutionary, not revolutionary, walk from the fifth-generation body. In Small Town, America — namely Bozeman, Deer Lodge, Missoula, Montana and Wallace, Idaho — the new Camaro hardly earned a second glance from onlookers despite being all-new. Only once in Butte, Montana (home of Evel Knievel, apparently) were we asked about the car from passersby.

The 2016 model’s taut sheet metal is sleeker and sharper than the outgoing Camaro it replaces. The new Camaro isn’t entirely “new,” rather it feels like a significant install atop the last generation’s completely new operating system.

The good news is that its handsome looks extend from the bottom all the way to the top of the range (for now). The $47,295-ish SS tester we piloted didn’t look completely foreign next to its base V-6 LT brother in parking lots. That’ll be good news for budget buyers who won’t opt for the bigger powertrain (even though they should) but bad news for the SS buyer who wants to stand out from the rental-car crowd. A throbbing, growling 6.2-liter LT1 V-8 muscle car should feel special, and our Camaro’s deck-lid spoiler fell flat— at least next to its similarly styled V-6.

The 2016 Camaro is fully 2-inches shorter in length and 1-inch shorter in height than the outgoing model it replaces. It’s figuratively and literally smaller: the 2016 model’s high beltline and comically small greenhouse lets only a sliver of sunlight through its narrow gaps — a hardtop 2016 Camaro is hardly a remedy for seasonal affective disorder. To me, it looks like a frat boy that’s found Crossfit in its junior year.


Around back, a rear ¾-view doesn’t reveal a Camaro at all. The thinner taillights that stretch further across the rear trunk and fat C-pillar look downright like a GT highway cruiser, foreshadowing things to come inside. From the wheel arches up, I’d say Chevrolet just stole the Jaguar F-Type’s thunder, but I’m wrong a lot.

Up front, the thin bar stretching across the front of the 2016 car and sharper hood lines evoke a fifth-generation Camaro that’s just trying that much harder. It’s not all together a bad thing, it’s just working harder and that should impress many potential buyers in many red states.


The exterior makes promises that the interior pays dearly for. To hell with ‘em, I said — at least for the first 60 miles.

More than once behind the wheel, it felt like the Camaro was breaking some sort of law for outward visibility. The car’s narrow driver and passenger window were barely tall enough to push your head out through to look at the curb next to you, and the elbow rest was so high up on the window it felt like we were tickling our own armpit to give our deltoids a breather.


The rest of the 2016 Camaro’s interior felt fresh off the concept car showroom floor, for better or worse. The stocky, chunky interior materials are married to look-at-me tech, which includes an 8-inch digital instrument cluster and an equally large infotainment display titled downward, but nonetheless a magnet for smudges and fingerprints.

Our red Camaro, a shade Chevrolet dubs “Red Hot,” carried an equally blistering shade of red on its interior hides — a shade I could do without. The seats are bolstered well and comfortable on long hauls. Despite its low hip point, the Camaro wasn’t particularly onerous to climb into/out of, nor did it offer a compromised view of the road beyond its small windshield and tall hood.

We chalked up a few niggles to “pre-production” woes: the fit and finish of the plastic of the binnacle was poorly fitted; the air vents were incredibly stiff and the dash felt like it was loosely fitted to the bulkhead. This is the first Camaro built in the U.S. in more than two decades after all.

The Camaro’s flat-bottomed steering wheel is comfortable — if a little too thin in our big ham fists — with easily reachable controls. Ergonomic curiosities abound. The armrests are ridiculously high; the wireless phone charger is placed behind the driver and passenger seats, behind the center console; and, the center-mounted air vents double as climate control knobs, which is only noticeable when you look really hard. Meanwhile, the thrones are comfortable and familiar like a good backyard hammock; a neutral, commanding driver’s position is easy to find; and the pedals couldn’t be suited better if they were made on Savile Row.

If you’re looking for back seats, buy a Malibu.


Chevrolet’s MyLink continues in fine form, and I prefer it over many competitors such as Uconnect and Ford’s Sync in its most-prevalent form (I haven’t used Sync3 yet). [The Handspring Visor Deluxe is also superior to the newest of iPhones. —Mark]

MyLink added CarPlay connectability for this year, which was a blessing and a curse. Apple Maps is nowhere near as functional and helpful as MyLink’s baked-in system. And with an iPhone plugged in, getting to MyLink’s system requires extra taps of the 8-inch screen. Defeating the Camaro’s optional dual-mode exhaust by cranking up the music rewarded us with crisp tones and fairly decent bass.

OnStar adds more features such as concierge service that can book a hotel room for you if you’re blitzing Montana’s roadways, but holy mackerel can the costs add up on monthly subscription fees with LTE wifi capability and data for heavy users.


Full disclosure: Blasting through a snowstorm in Montana on snow tires is hardly the time to check 0-60 mph runs, grip and slip.

Having said that, the Camaro’s 6.2-liter V-8 pushrod hero lifted from the Corvette is just as impressive in this less-expensive cousin. According to Chevrolet, 20 percent of the powertrain components, including the exhaust manifolds, are specific to the Camaro, yet it retains 100 percent of the Corvette’s grunt and thrust.

The SS is rated at 455 horsepower, which makes it the most powerful SS to date. In fact, the Camaro didn’t breach the 400-horsepower threshold until the fifth generation, yet all 455 ponies and 455 pound-feet of twist in the 2016 car feel more refined and more available. The SS will run up to 60 mph in only four seconds — a figure that’s easy to believe — which seems like a herculean feat for a pony car that felt fat and stodgy just a year ago. What a difference 225 pounds of weight loss makes.

The SS is standard with a six-speed manual box that comes from the ATS and is far from my favorite. Risking scoffs and shrugs from the B&B, I prefer the eight-speed HydraMatic 8L90 in the Camaro SS — for this year at least — thanks to its quick shifts and smart logic. A similar autobox in the Corvette around a track made us forget about the third pedal, and the eight-speed in the Camaro made us glad we didn’t have one in the first place.

When mated to an automatic, the V-8 turns on cylinder deactivation, a la the Corvette. In only a few circumstances did we ever find ourselves running on just four pots, and the overall mileage showed it. On a 90-percent highway drive we managed only 23.3 mpg for more than 600 miles. Ouch.

The Camaro also comes in 2-liter turbo four and 3.6-liter V-6 variants, neither of which we drove across Montana and Washington and weren’t sorry for it: the V-8 Camaro is the one you want. Mileage be damned.


It’s equal parts madness and majesty.

Chevrolet stuffed Magnetic Ride Control in V-8 equipped models to keep things tidy when carving corners. The ride selector switch is easier to use than in the Corvette, switching easily between Normal and Sport modes, while Track disabled some of the car’s stability functions. The corners stay exactly where you want them to be thanks to bleeding-edge tech and probably magic.

At full throat, the Camaro is a furious, rigid, blessed brute in a straight line and in corners. We were gifted a few tempting moments of road carving, and they only whet our appetites for more. Better drive routes than Interstate 90 between Bozeman and Seattle beg to be found in the 2016 Chevrolet Camaro.

But it’s equally infuriating behind the wheel. The Camaro offers no real look at the road behind you. The rear window may as well be painted-on: it’s useless.

The Camaro offers no up-to-the-minute driver’s aids such as adaptive cruise, blind spot monitoring or even outward visibility. The V-8 is partially the best pick because you’ll know you have the passing power to remove all doubt that anyone is sitting in your blind spot.

That’s a curious problem for Chevrolet because with just a few additions, such as driver’s aids and better visibility, the Camaro could be a drag-strip warrior in between 500-mile stretches of open road — and equally comfortable in both places. I wish it were more humane, but I applaud its raw nature.

The Camaro’s concept-car good looks and legendary lump up front are only slightly overshadowed by the Camaro’s impractical style.

No good deed goes unpunished.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

95 Comments on “2016 Chevrolet Camaro First Drive – Hostile and Hospitable...”

  • avatar

    Is that a crack in the windshield? How did that happen?

    • 0 avatar

      Wow, BIG crack. I don’t think they’d let you have it with it already there.

      • 0 avatar

        Maybe it is the only press car in the fleet with this build, but man you would think GM would call Safe-Lite or something!! I didn’t notice it until you guys said something. Holy cow that is huge.

        • 0 avatar

          FWIW when I special ordered the windshield for my 67 Camaro, I asked the tech guy at Pilkington (the glass manufacturer) who would be a good local source for the install. He said (paraphrased) I’m not allowed to recommend anyone but I can tell you who to avoid : Safelite

    • 0 avatar

      They mentioned driving through the western plains states. If you’ve ever been there, you’ll find that chips, cracks and spiderwebs in windshields are very easy to pick up and very common on most vehicles here.

      • 0 avatar

        I scuffed up the windshield on the Accord pretty badly when I was following a belly dump through an off-and-on rainstorm in Wyoming. Whatever that cursed truck was carrying was abrasive as hell, and two or three swipes of the wipers was all it took.

      • 0 avatar

        Where I live cracks in the windshield are common place. I don’t bother replacing the windshield as long as as my field of vision is clear or a vehicle inspector or cop tells me to. I’d be changing my glass a few times a year if I replaced one at every long crack.

    • 0 avatar

      Thats just GMs latest weight saving trick, two-piece windshields!

    • 0 avatar

      You’d think the tiny windshield would be a difficult target for rocks to hit.

    • 0 avatar

      GM mark of “excellence”—-something highly visible with a crack in it.

      Our 77 Impala and 79 LeSabre had a cracked dashboard—right down the center; some things never change.

  • avatar

    Good to hear that the handling finally matches the car’s good looks. Not so good is that the ergonomics continue to be designed by a crack addled Rhesus monkey.

  • avatar

    Thanks, Aaron.

    Grammatical nits: “shorter in height” could be “lower.” And I think you meant to say “if a little too thin in our big ham fists” without the “not.”

    Sorry if unsurprised to hear about that outward visibility and the prototype workmanship. Sounds like GM’s using their Year One customers as their beta testers, as usual.

    • 0 avatar

      “Grammatical nits: “shorter in height” could be “lower.””

      It’s funny you mention this as we had a little back and forth about it before the article went up. The English language is a bitch.

      So, the antonym for both “longer” and “taller” is “shorter”. We thought about going with “shorter” (for length) and “lower” (for height). However, “lower” can also be misconstrued in the automotive sense as it can mean the suspension being lower.

      I decided to change it to “shorter in height/length” to get rid of the ambiguity.

      • 0 avatar

        “So, the antonym for both “longer” and “taller” is “shorter”.”

        This is immensely frustrating to me. Suppose you have a cat that isn’t very tall, but is quite long. There’s no way to describe it! It just can’t be done with one word! What the hell, English?!

        • 0 avatar

          You’d expect to be able to describe two different dimensions (length and height) with one word? I wouldn’t.

          Unless you want to resort to geometric shape descriptors as adjectives.

          “My cat is a rectangle.”

  • avatar

    Reviews of the new Camaro just make me more pi$$ed off that GM won’t offer a “normal” V8 in “normal” versions of the ATS and CTS.

    • 0 avatar

      CTS especially. The non-supercharged 6.2L would be excellent in that car.

      Heck, make a Buick version if you don’t want Cadillac to have it. Call it Wildcat and just be done with it.

    • 0 avatar

      This has driven me batty since the ATS was released, and wasn’t really addressed with the CTS. The NA 3.6 should have been the base engine in both, then have the 6.2 LS3/LT1 with bigger brakes as a $5K upgrade. They don’t need all the track focused junk. Just the big engine and big enough brakes to deal with the added thrust. Yeah I know the V-Sport CTS is plenty powerful, but I’d still rather have the LT1. They’d get the same mileage the way I’d drive it, but one would sound awesome. Unless they are going to put the turbo 3.6 in some Buicks for China I’m not even sure why they built it.

  • avatar

    Can you get the V8 without that ugly spoiler? I don’t want to stand out from the V6 crowd. I want to blend in (honestly, enough that I wouldn’t buy a Camaro in the first place).

  • avatar

    Wish I could see out of one. Other than that, I love it.

  • avatar

    That’s uncanny. I like the styling of both cars, so it’s not a bad thing.

    This car is evolutionary, but it’s a beautiful sort of evolutionary. They’ve managed to keep it looking great and evolve beyond the hamstrung retro lines of the last model.

  • avatar

    “On a 90-percent highway drive we managed only 23.3 mpg for more than 600 miles. Ouch.”

    This is bad? It sounds very fine to me for giant V8 with 455HP.

    • 0 avatar

      My car with a 380 hp V8 and 700 pounds of weight on the Camaro gets 30+ mpg on the highway. (We won’t talk about the city.)

      • 0 avatar

        Are you sure, 30? It’s rated at 24.

        • 0 avatar

          I’ve personally seen a tank at 31, driving 70-75 mph. Also another tank with a couple mountain passes (the trip when I drove the car home) at just short of 30. With the 22 gallon capacity this results in insane bladder-killing range.

          My G8 with this engine’s ancestor got 22-24 on the highway. I would have expected this one to do better, especially with the 8-speed.

    • 0 avatar

      Normally I’d agree, but C&D recently reported that they regularly got 30+ mpg on their long-term Stingray. The winter tires must add a decent penalty.

    • 0 avatar

      Considering it’s a new green engine and they were driving it in cold weather which reduces mileage 23.3 is pretty darn good for a 4 second 0-60 car.

  • avatar

    Something’s hanging off underneath, by the way. Be it a skid plate piece or other, needs a fixin.

  • avatar

    Solid review.

    The car looks good.

    Remember you are preaching to a crowd that loves the most spartan cars one can buy with rubber floors that can be hosed out. For everyone else on Earth, I agree with your assessment about the blind spot warning system. For a car that has such bad visibility it should be standard.

    Adaptive cruise is definitely a niche thing that I think needs to be kept off the option sheet here to give space between this and more expensive offerings; however, I had a car in Germany that had adaptive cruise and my god is that an option that I would love to have.

    I think part of what kills the appeal of this car and the Mustang is the rental fleet deal. You and I both know the V6 / 4 banger cars need to exist, but they just cheapen the image of the V8 cars somewhat. Especially when you see the rental stickers on them. Makes them feel less special.

    • 0 avatar

      Rental Camaros and Mustangs are harder to find around Chicago (ie: airport mostly for them, if any). The rental aspect doesn’t bother me. What would you rather rent on vacation – a sedan or pony car?

  • avatar

    Haven’t seen it in person yet but from pictures it looks better then the fifth gen and it appears the greenhouse is bigger. The interior is definitely an upgrade and performance wise many mags are comparing it not to the Mustang GT but to the Shelby GT350.

    Alpha bones + LT1 = YUMMY!

    Wonder what the LT4 powered ZL1 will be like?

    • 0 avatar

      Ford must have colluded with Chevrolet to make sure they sell every GT350 they can build and maintain a healthy waiting list to keep those ADMs sky high until Ford announces its next SE Mustang.

      The Mustang GT is a fine automobile and with the Performance Pack it lives up to its GT moniker but the Camaro SS just plain beats up on the GT in every performance benchmark like some sort of super powered bully. I’m confident the SS will be 5-6 seconds faster (at or below 3 minutes) during next years Lightning Lap.

      Ford’s problem is they always tune the suspension to please geezers worried about a carbuncle and hemorrhoid filled backside which I suppose is fine for the average Mustang GT but when you step up to the Performance Pack it should do just that, even in PP form the Mustang wallows about when it should be taut.

      Then there are the Pirelli tires – the most damning thing I can say about those is that Ford chose to fit the GT350 with Michelin Pilot Sports (from what I hear spec’d to perform better in the rain at the expense of the PSS’s usual stellar dry weather performance but it matters not since Pirellis just flat out suck) and Ford will be equipping the Focus and Fiesta ST cars with the Pilot Super Sport as well, because well Pirellis really do suck yet the Mustang soldiers on with craptacular rubber (the Camaro comes with 4 pot/2 pot brakes which doesn’t really factor into the stopping distance but its better stickier rubber does).

      The engine of course is a fine little mill but that’s the issue with the 5.0, it has no trouble hitting the peak numbers it just doesn’t have the same level of grunt (read average power) compared to the bigger offerings from GM and FCA.

      Of course there is the weight disparity, the Mustang is the BBW this time around.

      Ford can’t do much about addressing the weight and engine (well they could by adopting the the GT350’s 5.2 block and an as cast version of the Shelby’s cylinderheads as well and the latter car’s 12:1 compression ratio but make the engine a cross-plane V8 and that should help make up some lost ground and help those average power numbers.

      So that leaves the chassis which in Performance Pack form should offer better rubber (hey about some more of the Pilot Super Sport goodness) and Ford should ditch the Lincoln Town Car tuned suspension in favor of something more aggressive). IMO there should like the GT350 be a horizontal offering (it offers a tech pack and a track pack) maybe a “Brembo” brake pack that nets you the current Performance Pack equipment and upgrade the Performance Pack with better rubber and an even better suspension.

      • 0 avatar

        Ford needs to throw money at the 5.0 for DI, boost it, or just put the next gen 3.5TT in the Mustang.

        • 0 avatar

          I say 6.2 N/A replaces the 5.0, make a ridiculous statement. There’s already a turbo available and I’d say two is overlap.

        • 0 avatar

          I don’t think DI would be terribly helpful, Ford does a pretty good job with its port injected setup. The LT V8 is only a 1/2 point higher in compression compared to the Coyote and is a half point lower in compression compared to the GT350’s Voodoo V8.

          Also the 5.0 is a snug fit in there making a TT version really a no go. The only space available to place a brace of turbos are down low in the back exposing them to the road and up high in the front placing a tremendous heat load on all the components between the engine and the radiator.

          I strongly suspect if Ford does a boosted engine it will either be a supercharged V8 for packaging reasons or the TTV6 (which IMO unless the new Ford GT flat out blows everybody’s socks off with its bent six making say a 3.5 TTV6 Shelby GT500 is going to go over like a tired peter in a whore house).

          • 0 avatar

            Ford is at a crossroads with the V8 engine. They either need to figure out how to match GM or go the 3.5TT route. The harsh reality is that a Mustang GT with the new 3.5TT, that will put out [email protected] neat 500 HP, would roast a 5.0L GT.

            You know what, they don’t even need to make it a Mustang. Call it a Mark IX or X and be done with it.

        • 0 avatar

          I’m not sure America is ready for a twin turbo V6 to sit atop the general mass production Mustang lineup. It didn’t seem to hurt truck sales though so who knows.

          That being said, I agree it is the most logical approach to bring the fight to GM’s 6.2 and FCA’s 6.4 based on what they have to work with. The 3.5EB makes good usable power over a much wider range than the 5.0. I look down in my wife’s Explorer expecting to be over 4000 rpm given my pace and I’m just getting to 3000. I’d miss the sound, but I’m ready to admit I’d rather have a 3.5EB with 450hp/450+lb-ft and the 10 speed than ~455hp from a DI Coyote with the Getrag. That former combo with some good tires could be a beast.

          I’m wondering how long the 3.5 will be the top of the EB food chain. Maybe a 3.8 V6 or a smaller (than 5.0L) displacement V8?

          A mildly blown Coyote from the factory as the GT engine could be a tuner’s dream though. A potential pulley swap and injectors away from greatness?

      • 0 avatar

        Pretty spot on. The tires are crap and have been for years. The other damning thing about the GT350 is that the Getrag isn’t good enough for it. It’s been the worst part about the car since 2011 (mostly the shifter/shift bracket). The Coyote loves the top of the tach and to really hustle you need to keep it on boil, but that’s hard to do when the damn gear box refuses to be rushed.

        • 0 avatar

          Plebian Mustangs get the Getrag, the GT350 gets a Tremec as God and ‘murica intended!

          And I agree, the Getrag is not all the great. Ford and Getrag must have had plenty of liquor on hand to sauce up journalist when they introduced the transmission. I remember it getting great reviews early on mostly for smooth shifting over the “balky” Tremec.

          I also don’t care for the gearing, it’s practically useless in combination with say that Performance Pack’s 3.73 final drive when your looking to build some steam getting up to speed on an on-ramp or at the strip. Your on top of the rev limiter before you’ve had a chance setup for the next shift.

          I know serious drag racers in the manual cars usually opt for the 3.31 final drive to get more usable shifts and cut down on the shifts as well since the extra shift down the track will slow the car down.

          I haven’t looked at the GT350’s cog spacing but if 1st and 2nd aren’t as deep that will be a good thing. Speaking of I can’t remember the particular Tremec going into the GT350 but it’s the same model used in the ATS-V which I’ve read is lighter than the Getrag and if thats,true another good reason to send that transmission back across whatever large body of water it came from.

          • 0 avatar

            I have the 3.73 in my ’13 and yeah…the gearing is kind of ridiculous. First is basically useless unless you are trying to play stoplight hero or are on a steep incline. Hard launches in first on the street are tough because of the aforementioned junk (and too skinny) tires. I get why the 3.73 final was chosen for performance stats, but you are about to bounce off the rev limiter in 2nd nearing 60 mph, and you are at the very top of 4th in the quarter.

            The GT350 gets the Tremec TR3160. The ATS-V uses the TR6060. I think it’s the 2.0T ATS that actually uses a TR3160.

  • avatar

    ” It’s base, 3.6-liter V-6 is shared with the ATS (unfortunately, so is it’s manual transmission, complete with six-speeds and long throws) ”

    The 3.6 ATS is not available with a six-speed manual.

  • avatar

    The regular ATS uses a TR6060? I assumed that was only in the V.

  • avatar
    S2k Chris

    I believe the car rags that say this thing is better than the Mustang. However, I also know that the base V8 is somewhere in upper $30s ballpark, and a base/baseish Mustang GT 5.0 can be had for give or take $30k, or the same price as a V6 Camaro with a couple options.

    Mustang for me.

  • avatar

    That’s a curious problem for Chevrolet because with just a few additions, such as driver’s aids and better visibility, the Camaro could be a drag-strip warrior in between 500-mile stretches of open road — and equally comfortable in both places. I wish it were more humane, but I applaud its raw nature.

    Aaron, that must have definitely must have been a pre production model because the 2ss comes standard with cross traffic and blind spot alert. I have a hyper blue on the lot with it right now.

    • 0 avatar

      It is, the car is already dipping low into the 12’S and at hero tracks like MIR where the track prep is top notch in combination with fantastic air this time of year ( cool low humidity sea level air ) there are supposedly a few high 11 second passes in probably an automatic.

  • avatar

    This could be my next car. It’s still stonking fast for the money, but if you want leather you need the 2SS and lightly optioned you are in the mid $40s. Besides ergonomics/visibility, one thing Ford has going for the Mustang is cost of entry for a V8.

  • avatar

    So is there the option of deleting the windows entirely and going with cameras and flat-screen TVs all around? It would likely be a more useful way of seeing out of the vehicle.

  • avatar

    Good ol’ GM is it again, launching a pony car in the middle of winter. It will be old news by peak buying season in summer. The interior and rear look like shit so do the ‘toilet bowl lid’ hood and hood vents.

    Their best ever full size sedan was launched just as the segment had died off. The best midsize car they ever made is now hitting dealer lots just as the midsize segment is starting it’s slow and painful death spiral. Throw all your money into cars while the CUVs are 8 to 9 years from their last upgrade. The only bigger screw up they can do is to import a vehicle from China in an election year. Oh, never mind.

  • avatar

    The front looks really good IMO compared to the 5th gen. Only in black and SS trim though, maybe because it hides the ugly hood vents and panel gaps. The rear is a mess. The 5th gen had a much more muscular look in the rear.

    I am a sucker for all black, zero chrome anywhere grilles.×467.jpg

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    For me there are way too many design faults (aesthetics) to consider this vehicle attractive.

    1. The dash has a retro 60s look to it. I do believe the 1960s was an era that forgot that most people actually sit inside the vehicle. The dash is fugly. The dash is the centre piece of the interior.

    2. The exterior styling is quite awful. I don’t like the lines of the vehicle and the narrow slit for the green house. I don’t mind a sports car having low and narrow glass, but this is terrible.

    3. The front end is quite unimaginative. Like the glass house the headlights and grille are just too thin and slit like.

    In the end it still is a better looking vehicle than the Cadillac ATS.

    Aesthectically this Camaro is the the US version of how the French can end up with some awkward looking vehicles. Just to be French they can design some crappy looking vehicles, to be Amercian the US can design some terrible vehicles.

    This is a pity as the engine, drivetrain and suspension could offer some fun.

    The Ford Mustang with is sights set on the global market has a far better and desirable looking vehicle.

    If I was out for a pose, I would rather be seen in a Mustang any day of the week.

    A Commodore SS is better looking.


    • 0 avatar

      I think the exterior styling looks cool in a very American, teenage suburban kid kind of way. But I definitely agree, that greenhouse looks painfully claustrophobic.

      In general, all cars need to figure out how to get those side sills lower, the shitty visibility is just not acceptable.

      Mustang has some aesthetic issues as well but looks much better sorted.

      • 0 avatar

        Ineed, that greenhouse is ludicrous. Lazy styling.

        • 0 avatar

          I largely agree with Al. I think the interior looks a definite step down from the Mustang.

          Ford really do have the Mustang interior nailed down.

          GM tried the retro aesthetic and failed.

          Otherwise I like the exterior styling. It is a tad “Michael Bay” but I really cant fault it. I even dont mind the lesser trims that looks less adorned… a 2.0 turbo with the big brakes looks ok.

          I get that you cant see out of it. The pillbox slash M1 Abrams visibility is a given. Go buy a Honda CRV if you want to see out of it.

          The V6 can go spit. Not a nice motor but the 2.0 w/ 6 spd could be the secretary’s car that surprises.

          Thing is GM dont have the global aspirations of Ford. Didnt Chevy pull out of the EU?

      • 0 avatar

        The current Mercedes CLA, Ford Taurus, Chrysler 300 and Buick LaCrosse suffer the same basic issue with poor rear visibility and tiny side windows. It’s an unfortunate trend that can’t die soon enough.

  • avatar

    >>>Camaro aficionados will lament the following phrase, but it feels true: the sixth-generation is an evolutionary, not revolutionary, walk from the fifth-generation body.

    I don’t understand the constant need for change. If a car looks good, leave it alone. Unfortunately the previous one did not look good at all, and this one looks much better. But it’s still not great.

    >>>Only once in Butte, Montana (home of Evel Knievel, apparently) were we asked about the car from passersby.

    Yup. I know because I once flew on the same plane as EK, from Salt Lake City to Butte (I think it was ’78). Evel had just gotten out of prison. A woman who was going to the same conference I was sat next to him. She said he fell asleep and was kicking her in his sleep. He slept through what was the most turbulent plane ride I was ever on–how appropriate he was on it too. (the plane stopped before butte, and a couple of people who were going to Butte got off in, I forget what town it was. Last we saw Evel, he was making out with his wife in the parking lot.

    • 0 avatar

      Witness Ford and the S-197 Mustangs which generally were considered long in the tooth and stale in 2009 when the Camaro hit. It absolutely cleaned Mustang’s clock and the car really needed a shot in the arm for the 2015 model.

      The 5th Gen derivative styling is good enough for the Camaro faithful as they would rather their favorite car Stat frozen in time until the lights go out at GM but for the rest of the world carrying on 5 year old styling starts to get stale.

      And it’s not like GM has only the 1st Gen cars to draw from. The 70-73 cars are some of the most gorgeous cars bearing the Camaro moniker ( I consider the early 2nd Gen F cars to be the high water mark in styling especially the Firebird )

  • avatar

    Not a fan of the high-beltline-tiny-greenhouse look. That said,am I the only person who feels that those little rows of LEDs under the headlights of most cars these days are going to look as dated as vinyl landau tops in a few years?

    • 0 avatar

      Yup. Under, over and around; they actually annoy me.

    • 0 avatar

      A few years? They already look horrendous on over half the cars that have them. I think Ford did better than most with the angle bar design on the 2015+ Mustangs. I don’t hate the ones on this Camaro. They look like zits on a Durango though. The GMC truck headlights are fugly. The lights on the 2016 Silverado would make me buy a 2015. In general yeah, the LED headlight designs are lazy garbage.

  • avatar

    Still want a Challenger R/T.

    • 0 avatar

      I agree, and I will be looking at another one, a Scat Pack probably, about a year or so from now. My ’10 R/T will be six years old and I will probably be ordering one, as it seems impossible to find a car I want on a lot anywhere. Finding a Scat Pack 8 speed without a sun roof, equipped without the awful “Scat Pack Appearance Package”, but with Sound Group II, is like finding a diamond in a turd. I saw one, in boring as always silver, about six months ago. One. It’s crazy.

      The Camaro is such a disappointment, looks wise, I was hoping for something more 2nd gen, but between it’s lack of headroom, ugly dash, and totally useless trunk (I use mine every day!), I’ll pass on it. A friend is buying one soon, so I can drive one when I want to. Same goes for the Mustang, the lack of trunk kills it for me. That, and well, it being a Ford..

  • avatar

    ” [The Handspring Visor Deluxe is also superior to the newest of iPhones. —Mark]”

    Is this supposed to be some kind of lame attempt at a joke? If so, I don’t get it. It would be nice to return to a time at TTAC when the so called managing editor wouldn’t pointlessly insert himself into every other car review.

  • avatar

    Typical gm dreck. Build a decent engine and a terrible car around it. I got tired of my gm cars having terrible ergonomics and completely falling apart. News flash gm. Its 2015, everyone has decent engines, transmissions, and suspensions. How about you compete by fixing the rest of the cars?

    • 0 avatar

      It’s now reflexive to assume China heavily influences GM’s production decisions but maybe there’s another country that might explain a design that perplexes us.

      Hmmm… where might one find a population with no necks?

  • avatar

    Just spent three days with a 2016 Mustang Eco Boost Premium rental in Charleston, SC. Great visibility all around, wonderful steering feel and ride quality was vastly improved over the 07 GT I used to own. Not crazy about the engine/exhaust sound but a very smooth and willing powertrain (automatic). Traffic in town was always stop and go but still averaged 20 mpg with 90% city driving. Trunk space was good for all of our luggage. Interior was comfortable and well laid out. The Camaro sounds like it must be much more difficult to live with in daily use.

  • avatar

    A gorgeous car. The front end looks great-a huge improvement. The article was well-written. I enjoyed it.

  • avatar
    Chets Jalopy

    I guess hanging your elbow out an open window is not a thing anymore. With sills that high, it’s got to be an uncomfortable and awkward experience, like many new cars.

    • 0 avatar

      Also consider the ubiquity of air conditioning, the increased distance between the driver’s seat and the outside of the door, and the difficulty in cleaning certain seat or other interior materials (I can’t vouch for how difficult it actually is or isn’t; my car’s interior is either plastic or leather with a sort-of vinyl quality to it).

    • 0 avatar

      Your screen name just gave me flashbacks to being 12, and reading Hardy Boys!

  • avatar
    Edsel Maserati

    The outward visibility issue is major. To my thinking it should be the opening comment in any review. Can you actually see OUT of the damned thing.

    It’s not just the Camaro. Plenty of vehicles (SUVs especially) need onboard cameras and sensors to let you know what you’re about to hit. It’s keeping the body shops busy, I can tell you. Anyone’s who shelled out a grand to replaced a cracked bumper knows.

    I only had to sit in the previous generation Camaro for two minutes before I began gasping with claustrophobia. OK. Not really. But rearward sight lines were just one big blindspot.

    Motor Trend did not say a thing about this in its recent Car of the Year enthronement. They gushed about the handling. Many have. But I see this kind of car design and wonder if its for video gamers who have no real sense of anyone else on the road with them.

    • 0 avatar

      MT hasn’t ever said much about the visibility of the ’16 Camaro, from the early pre-production test drives to winning COTY. To their credit, at least Car & Driver has brought it up every time. I know I’m beating a dead horse, but it still boggles my mind that they haven’t at least added a blind spot element to the side mirrors on every trim. Yes the BLIS stuff that’s standard on the $42K 2SS (optional on 2LT) helps, but for the love of Jebus even a simple mirror element as standard would do wonders.

    • 0 avatar

      Driving a car with bad visibility can actually make you tense. Not to mention get you killed in some situations. The fact that so few reviews even mention it, and even then it’s a toss away comment, says a lot about their competence to weigh in on the merits of a vehicle. They review cars based on playing with them, not as expensive things you own and live with daily.

  • avatar

    Looking forward to checking one out closer as the only one was in the showroom. Some say the visibility is better on the forward view due to a lower cowl height but the side windows need to be dropped that extra precious inch to even be useful.

  • avatar

    Ending the trip in Carnation? Thats an awesome bike ride on the Snoqualmie trail!

  • avatar

    IMHO the only good looking Camaro was the first generation. The fifth and sixth gens kinda imitates the first gen with the addition of the (lamentable) squished roof/rising beltline. I find it very frustrating that Chevy seems to have produced a Camaro that is in so many ways so desirable and then f’ed if up with this tired “concept car” or whatever styling.

  • avatar

    WAH! My $45,000 455 hp car only gets 23.3mpg! Wah!

    That’s only a $225/year difference in operating costs for 15,000 miles per year vs a car that got 28mpg highway. Or about 2.25% of the overall annual ownership costs. In other words, negligible. If your payment was $400 or $410 a month, would that change your car choice?

    Readers: The mark of amateur auto journalists is a fixation on small incremental differences in fuel economy. Take what they write with a grain of salt. They’re just parroting what they see the big boys doing. They’re incapable of doing the analysis necessary to really comment on a car.

  • avatar

    It|s got winners equipment (motor and chassy .. and interior) .. but ..
    It|s got a “messy” design (the same problem with Vette design)!(especially front of the car lacks character) – (they should go neo-retro or modern ..
    .. Mustang looks better (although still not enough muscular (“simple&blocky”) and too much “shmancy-fancy – global product” … )

    They are after all “traditional pony-muscle cars” f..f..sake.. >)

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • Jeff S: @Art Vandelay–EB is the one that starts these political discussions and whether we like or don’t...
  • Jeff S: Some of us just don’t need to drive large vehicles. At one time I drove just large cars with V8s which...
  • Jeff S: I did something similar to hypermilling during the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973 with my parents 64 Impala wagon...
  • Art Vandelay: You have nothing to refute with respect to what he says, so you just attack the person. Typical.
  • Jeff S: @Dave M.–He is just part of the Trumpers who are told to go out and spread the big lie that the...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber