U.S. sales of America’s three pony-muscle car coupes slid 2 percent in July 2016 despite meaningful gains from both the Ford Mustang and Dodge Challenger.
Blame?
Cast it all in the direction of the Chevrolet Camaro, sales of which plunged 26 percent, a loss of nearly 2,000 sales for Chevrolet dealers compared with July 2015.
Camaro sales declined in 7 of the last 12 months, diving by 9,517 units during a span of three consecutive year-over-year decreases between May and July. After the Camaro outsold the Ford Mustang in five consecutive years, it now appears certain that 2016 will be the second consecutive year in which the Mustang easily outsells the Chevrolet Camaro.
One might even say the Mustang is going to win, “by a lot.”
Indeed, the question now appears to be whether the Camaro, a genuine volume player for General Motors since returning from hiatus in fifth-generation form in 2009, will even outsell the Dodge Challenger in 2016. It’s not such a far-fetched idea. In each of the last three months, the Camaro’s harsh declines opened up an opportunity for Fiat Chrysler Automobiles’ Dodge muscle coupe to outperform the traditionally much more popular Camaro. And it has.
U.S. Camaro volume, down 37 percent to 16,316 sales since May, is 1,459 units shy of the Challenger’s total from the same period.
Like the Camaro, Challenger sales are decreasing in 2016. Unlike the Camaro, the Challenger isn’t an all-new car. Also unlike the Camaro, Challenger volume is down by a modest 6 percent. The overall car market is shrinking more rapidly than the Challenger’s rate of decline.
Compared with the first seven months of 2015, Camaro sales are down 15 percent, a drop of 7,708 units.
At Ford, meanwhile, Mustang volume is likewise decreasing at the same rate of decline experienced by the Challenger. But July may have marked a turnaround, as Mustang sales jumped 13 percent to 9,565 units, expanding the Mustang’s year-to-date lead over the Camaro to more than 30,000 units through seven months. At the current pace, 2016 could end with the Mustang 50,000 sales ahead of the Camaro in the United States alone.
There are a handful of reasons for the Camaro’s fall from grace. The cars available at dealers in the early launch period were often higher-priced, higher-performing versions, cars which didn’t directly line up against the Mustangs readily available at Ford dealers. The Camaro is now regarded by many to be the dynamically superior sports car, but it’s hampered by poor visibility and exterior styling that almost entirely hides the Camaro’s newness.
GM, of course, pointed to the Camaro’s fleet de-emphasis in our June coverage. As General Motors moves to produce a smaller chunk of its volume with sales to daily rental companies, Ford has taken advantage of the gap in the market to claim a larger slice of that fleet demand without sorely endangering resale values because of the, dare we say it, iconic nature of the nameplate.
Yet Ford’s U.S. retail Mustang volume is still higher, and the in-roads the Mustang is making outside of North America stand in stark contrast to the North America-centric nature of the Camaro and Challenger.
The Challenger isn’t the modern answer to the sportscar that’s now found at Chevrolet and Ford, yet Dodge is certainly within reach of turning 2016 into the Challenger’s eighth consecutive year of U.S. sales growth.
Regardless, long gone are the days when Dodge sold 3,000 Challengers per month.
At least temporarily, also gone are the days in which the Camaro routinely outsold its two main rivals.
[Images: FCA, General Motors, Ford; Graph: © 2016 Timothy Cain/The Truth About Cars]
Timothy Cain is the founder of GoodCarBadCar.net, which obsesses over the free and frequent publication of U.S. and Canadian auto sales figures. Follow on Twitter @goodcarbadcar and on Facebook.
Should’ve renamed it Camero. Those seem to sell well.
At least on Craigslist.
With a Manuel transmission, of course.
And an Elderblock manifold.
wit Holly carb and Headman headers
and Cadillac converters
They blew that Camaro off their back and drove that little girl away…
In a ’69 Chevy 396 with (small block) fuelie heads?
And a hurst on the floor.
But now there’s wrinkles around my baby’s eyes and she cries herself to sleep at night.
So now the dealer markup and refusal to negotiate will be based on “These Camaro’s are rare. We’re not selling many of them.”
Sounds like the all new model looking exactly like the old car has backfired.
Just like the Silverado/Sierra.
Good point.
Imagine if they’d made it look like the Buick Avista concept with a Chevy grille? They’d be selling faster than they could build them.
Imagine they made it so it could be driven as a real car; like every day, and people could actually see out of it.
The Silverado did have a similar issue thou they did seem to regain a little later with buyers who were well truck buyers. But A camaro is a fashion statement alot more then a pickup is so this would appear to be a fatal flaw. Shame because every review seems to indicate it as far superior a driver. Based on my limited time in rentals I would have to agree.
If GM were to follow the Sierra/Silverado strategy they would have to build a Trans Am. Firechickens for the masses.
this is the same mistake they keep making with Chevy.
Except for the Malibu, which they keep finding new ways to make ugly
no, they did exactly that with the Malibu. The 2013 was a substantially changed car from the 2012, but good luck telling the difference from the front.
This model works for the Mustang because the mustang design is timeless. The Camaro design is not.
Even Ford does not follow this model. There are common design themes/cues but the new Mustang is very distinct from the one that comes before it.
Agree with whynot. The Mustang has kept some design cues from the original but has evolved to suite current tastes.
The Camaro has not followed a clear design lineage. I don’t see much heritage between a first generation Camaro and the current one.
Yes.
They should have styled it to look the 1970 2nd generation Camaro. That car was stunning.
And if it did, and if it had even a small USABLE trunk, I would be planning on buying one. But it doesn’t, and I will be buying another Challenger. It looks good, has a huge trunk, which I use every single day, neither of the two others has either of those two qualities, IMHO. The Mustang does look better than the new and previous generation Camaros though. I’ve never been a fan of Mustang styling.
Wow, to be beaten by a fat pig that launched almost nine years ago, *before* the fifth-generation Camaro. Too bad BTSR’s not here, to gloat.
nitpick- the Challenger got a substantial update in 2014. Plus, Dodge offers a dizzying array of sub-models.
I’d say the styling and poor visiblity might be to blame, but those were present on the Zeta Camaro.
I’ll call it what it is, Alpha platform has the Pontiac Curse.
Well the styling on the Zeta Camaro was fresh and new. Now it is 10 years old (since the 2006 Camaro Concept) and nobody is impressed by it anymore. In a market segment that is all about image.
Poor platform can’t catch a break. Even with its paltry $1B development cost it looks like GM will never recoup. I thought GM’s SRX replacement would turn things around but then they went and put that on the Epsilon II platform the rest of Cadillac’s lineup should have been on. Been hard to watch
I thought the Camaro was going to turn things around…
Then they spent all their money making it too driver focused and half-assed everything else.
The driver-focused part is not a bad plan. But that alone cannot make up for the other shortcomings. If the looks were a real evolutionary step forward, if the interior looked better and you could see out of it, it would be a killer. Instead they improved what a lot of buyers were actually satisfied with and did not fix what they weren’t satisfied with.
That is an almost perfect explanation of the problem with the car. But the driver has to be able to see out of the thing to be able to enjoy it. The engineers did a great job on the platform and powertrain and the designers made it so it looked good in a garage. They had mutually exclusive end product expectations. They may have lost the race because of the communication foul up. But what if the new Camaro is built on the C7 Vette architecture when the C8 is introduced? That would be interesting, and it could look like the C2 Camaro as well. I was told they performed a market study for this full scale Revell model and current Camaro owners loved the design. I replied that it would be a good idea to be able to sell the car to people who shopped and bought Porsches instead of Camaros or Mustangs. It is a great track carI guess.
It, indeed, is the curse of the Alpha platform.
While allowing for German-beating handling, it’s packaging with regard to interior space stinks – and Americans like having their space.
This is part of why I’m not sold on the “the Camaro is the new Corvette” argument that some people were making on the mid-engined Corvette article last week.
The Alpha platform is expensive and the cars on it right now don’t sell very well. A mid-engined car will likely be quite expensive and will probably move 10K-20K units.
So GM would be going from 80K Camaro and 30K Corvette sales to ~65K Camaro sales and ~15K Corvette sales. Yes, profit-margin and all that, but more expensive doesn’t automatically mean more profitable. Plus they still have to keep the factories online.
Yeah my biggest problem with the mid-engine $100,000 plus Corvette is the fact that the Corvette has sort of always been an “every man” exotic. Yeah a new base model costs $55K but for a significant swath of the population it has that aura of “Someday, I’m gonna have a Corvette.” A Corvette costing twice that looses that aura and appeal and becomes the plaything of Hedge Fund Managers, Corporate Sharks, and the children of the 1%.
That’s really it. The Corvette has always been a “blue collar supercar”. It’s not cheap, but for someone who’s worked hard for many years it’s not out of reach.
I resemble this remark. Mine is more for its track acumen, but if I can find a base with Z51 package and a manual I’d be a happy guy. I’m getting tired of getting left behind on the straights in my S2000 when I’m on someone’s bumper in the twisty sections and then they’re an ass and don’t give me the point-by in the passing zone.
It’s semi-exotic, and the cheapest way to get the most capable car out there for 99% of performance drivers. The only thing that gives me pause is that I’d be associated with all other corvette drivers, but by the time I buy one I’ll probably be closer to that demographic anyway – I am 32 already.
A $100k Corvette has the same problem a Viper has, and the Skyline too to some extent – It’s too expensive for Joe Everyman, but doesn’t have the brand cachet that you expect for $100k. Those people are buying M4s, AMGs, Jags, and Porsches, or maybe a used Aston unless they *really* always wanted a Corvette. Moving to that price point is a terrible decision and could become a death knell for the model.
Top Gear in many respects called it correctly. They viewed the Corvette as a muscle car not a sports car. At least not a sports car by European standards. You make it mid-engined and it is no longer a “sporting” muscle car. It does not stand a chance outside of the muscle bracket.
Corvette has always been a sports car regardless of what Top Gear says.
In it’s latest iteration, it has performance that rivals much more expensive cars.
As an owner of a Z51 3LT Corvette with a manual transmission I assure you it is most certainly a true sports car and not a muscle machine. Top Gear is highly biased and hardly the only opinion out there.
Please don’t pigeonhole me as a “typical” owner either. I’m not 60, I’m fit and white collar. And this is the only Vette I’ve ever owned.
Gm didn’t see this development coming, its because they were sitting in the drivers seat of this claustrophobic mess of a re-design.
Maybe offer a V8 version that doesn’t cost over $40K? This is one segment that still cares about cylinder count and you can get a V8 Mustang or Challenger for low $30s. Using the 5.3L might be a nice touch.
De-contenting is surely in the game plan….too bad. Never a good solution to a design problem.
Oh man, I just looked up the prices and the SS with the 1LE package makes for a $50,000 Camaro. I mean it’s a pretty high performing car but that kind of money opens up a lot of premium badges…
Starting price is too high. At about $5000 more than a base Mustang GT, the Camaro SS is going to run about $100 more a month on a five year note…that’s really enough to make people stop and think. They need a version of the SS with a little less standard content. Right now the Camaro comes equipped most similarly to Performance Pack Mustangs.
Styling isn’t fresh enough. They need to convince 5th-gen buyers to trade in their Camaros, but the new car looks so similar that the casual buyer isn’t going to see a point.
Practicality is a mess. This broad category of cars appeals to people because they can be used as transport as well as fun, but if it’s hard to see out of, and the trunk is less than useful, and the backseats are useless, then the whole thing becomes less appealing. Both the Mustang and the Challenger offer useful glass, trunks, and seating (particularly the Chally).
The new Camaro is a case study in why you shouldn’t only listen to the enthusiasts. 0-60 times are great for magazine reviews, but the casual test driver won’t notice a difference between the Camaro and the Mustang. They might even “feel” the Mustang is faster with less aggressive tiring being more willing to break loose.
As it stands, the Camaro sacrifices everything for outright performance, but I think Chevy would be better served with a slightly bigger, slightly heavier, more practical car that you can see out of…even if it means the 0-60 is 4.3 seconds instead of 4.
Nice article. But the figure needs a legend – which color is which car? Shouldn’t need to read the article to understand the graph.
Sorry, thought the title as left-to-right would be sufficient. Isn’t.
And it’s fixed.
Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Same problem back in the early ’00s. Why did the dynamically inferior New Edge blow the doors of the rocket sled F body on the sales charts?
Because the Mustang was a practical car, and the F body was not.
Same problem now. While the enthusiast community toasts to the modern Camaro’s performance, John and Jane Public are running to the Ford & Chrysler dealer. No trunk? No rear visibility , interior storage room or useful rear seats? No sale.
To Regular People, having a useable trunk is way more valuable then 1/4 mile times.
Styling isn’t the problem. The Camaros looked the same more or less since Transformers 1 came out and sales haven’t been that adversely impacted. Difference is, the older car was waaaay bigger inside and out ; which makes it practical for daily use. GM shrunk the new car and made it go faster: not smart when your market consists (statistically) of overweight boomers reliving their glory days.
If I were the brand boss of the Camaro, I’d make the SS model a dealer only order. The standard car would sound loud, feel fast, but would (Le sigh) be slower then the Mustang GT and the Challenger at the same trim level. Slower car + bigger body, equals lower insurance rates. It also equals a more practical car.
“While the enthusiast community toasts to the modern Camaro’s performance, John and Jane Public are running to the Ford & Chrysler dealer.”
And some enthusiasts are following John and Jane Public to Ford & Chrysler as well. Enthusiasts may toast the Camaro’s performance, but the fact is many enthusiasts have families too. I want a fun car that can also carry my family comfortably. That’s why I am in the Mustang and not the Camaro. I looked at both. The Camaro was nice, but it wouldn’t work with my family. The Mustang did, and was still plenty of fun.
“I want a fun car that can also carry my family comfortably. That’s why I am in the Mustang and not the Camaro.”
Neither are “family” cars. I’m glad the Mustang works for you buy if I needed backseat space on a regular basis I wouldn’t choose either.
I don’t know what you expect out of 2 door coupes these days. People managed to crawl into the back seat throughout the PLC of the 70’s.
I’ve done hours on the highway in a ’16 Mustang with a 16 year old and a 5 year old (in a front-facing car seat) in the back. It was fine. Maybe not the top choice for a 1-car household, but there were no complaints from the back seat.
Really I had a rental Mustang earlier in the year I couldn’t have fit anything but a bag of groceries behind my self 6’3″ my seat hit the back seat and no way my 10 year old could have fit behind my 5’9″ wife.
Truly, it worked fine. But most of the people I know are short. The tallest person in the car besides myself was probably the 5’5″ 16 year old in the back.
I think styling IS the problem. In this segment, style sells, and the Camaro has the same exact style it’s had for the last zillion years. Meanwhile, the Mustang is sexy as hell.
Except, broadly speaking the Mustang and many other cars are evolutionary redesigns as well. They still sell, because they have practical features consumers need, like rear visibility and trunk space.
The modern Camaro has a lock on the single, no kids upper middle class individual market. Unfortunately for GM most folks making Camaro SS/Mustang GT/Dodge SRT money have kids or near future plans thereof. As such, trunk space and functional rear seats are mandatory.
I sold my FR-S last year to move to Chicago with my fiancé. Now that we’re planning to move back to the east coast once she graduates this Camaro had been at the top of my list since I’ve been saving without a car note. She specifically said no to the Camaro because the rear visibility is so poor and the back seat is too cramped. I test drove one finally by chance a week ago, and the visibility has only gotten worse, with the interior seeming smaller and less useful than my FR-S was. I’ll probably end up putting the money down on a 2018 Ridgeline instead and get used to the idea of just dreaming about a used 6 cylinder Corvette hybrid in 40 years when I retire…
The Mustang may be evolutionary, but it’s evolved into something that looks better.
The Camaro? Same old stuff.
As a vertically challenged person, I would not even consider buying or even driving a Camaro, this was one of the biggest complains about the outgoing model, and they did nothing to remedy it. It is nice to be able to see out of a car you’re driving.
The old Camaro sold in decent numbers despite poor visibility, love it or hate it styling, and being too big and bulky. So after 6 years GM develops a new Camaro that looks exactly like the old one but at 85% of the size, with less visibility and less usable space. What could possibly go wrong? When I saw the useless trunk opening and found I was unable to see anything from the drivers seat I immediately started shopping the Mustang even though I am not a Ford fan. It is really the only choice in this category now.
I don’t care about muscle cars but I have a passion for bowling.
Am I still good here?
Bowl away!
With or without bumpers?
You could still drive a Bowler to the bowling alley, while wearing a bowler.
Lack of visibility has finally come home to roost. Can’t drive a car if you can’t see out of one!
I still want a yellow Camaro convertible, though.
GM bean counters will cancel it. Then everyone will want it again.
They should just shove the Camaro power train into the Colorado, call it a ‘SS’, and watch the sales roll in.
That would make me want a Colorado. I some times look on Ebay for Silverado SS’s Ram SRT-10’s Colorado ZQ8 and my personal favorite Tacoma X runner and S runner. I’m guessing the market for sport trucks is dead but I wonder why.
like a modern take on the 454 SS.
Lesson?
Don’t make your brand new sport coupe look exactly like the last one, when the one down the street is about 10 times better looking. This segment is ALL about stylin’ and profilin’, and the Mustang is one of the best looking cars you can buy at any price.
I see this as more as a tribute to how good the new Mustang is, versus how bad the new Camaro is.
“he Camaro is now regarded by many to be the dynamically superior sports car, but it’s hampered by poor visibility ”
well…doesn’t that sorta say something? who couldn’t build a “superior” sports car if y didn’t have to consider visibility?
For that matter, how about that non existent trunk? I mean if you don’t have to worry about having to have a trunk opening, it should be easier to build the superior car.
Come to think of it, why bother to buy this when you could get a corvette?
“Come to think of it, why bother to buy this when you could get a corvette?”
Very true, when a Camaro similarly equipped to a base Corvette is within a few thousand dollars.
How I WISH the dodge had a convertible.
An affordable one…not a custom job.
While we’re fantasizing…
GIVE ME T-TOPS!
The Bandit agrees.
I’ve been told by a lot of would-be buyers that they were put off by the interior, which is cramped and claustrophobic, even if it is more upscale. Some of them *did* then proceed to either buy the Mustang or the Challenger.
But I think the Challenger’s sales successes are on its own merits. It just had what I would consider to be a very successful second refresh for MY2015, with the interior having been upgraded from mid-aughts DaimlerChrysler to modern Fiat Chrysler. The LED exterior lights really add an upscale aura to the whole thing, and it’s almost as if FCA started making the clear coat shinier and thicker. Plus, the prestige of the Hellcat variant has trickled down to the other models. Even if you just have a Pentastar Challenger, it’s difficult to tell. Not to mention that the Challenger is the only large coupe in the mainstream segment that can reasonably seat four people in comfort (assuming you can see around the giant C-pillar).
It’s no wonder the Challenger’s sales are up.
yeah, I sat in a new Camaro, and the first thing that came to mind was “… Seriously?”
It looks good in there (I like the center console a lot), and quality-wise, it’s a cut above the Mustang or Challenger, but man…talk about claustrophobic. The only one I’d consider would be the convertible.
End of day, pony/muscle cars have to appeal to chicks, especially secretaries and 16 year old girls. Maybe not the V8 fire breathers per se, but the Mustang’s form has always been fairly subdued.
Chicks do love V8, manual Mustangs too. And not just the buzzed hair and wallet chains ones. But women shouldn’t have to be over 5’2″ to ride this ride.
Socially, Mustangs ‘fit in’ about anywhere, ‘Hood to country club. GM and FCA just have to follow a simple formula that’s been working for 50+ years. .
Practicality is what’s making a difference, not gender.
No Ordinary Joe/Jane is spending 40K plus on a car so impractical it can’t even carry an iPad without a trailer.
Female buyers should be their main concern, then work towards appealing to as many types, sizes of buyers possible. I’ve spoken to women owners of Mustangs that really wanted a Camaro but on the test drive, could not see the hood at all. That alone can’t be a comfortable feeling.
Or, more accurately, they have to appeal to the guys who *believe* that a Camaro appeals to chicks.
I don’t see a lot of chicks driving these cars…
Just saw a second 16 Camaro on the road a couple of weeks ago. It had rental bar codes on the windows. They are a rare sight in the greater Nashville area. I doubt if Chevrolet can fix this with the current design. I remember Bob Lutz saying that GM needed to sell 100,000 annually to make the Camaro feasible. I guess that is not going to happen.
I would be the unofficial resident TTAC….”GM Fan Boy”…..For all the reasons stated earlier , in this thread. My only vehicle….?…..A 2015 Mustang.
mikey – once again, well said.
Is your car Guard Metallic? Hard to tell from the photo.
Base the next one on the Gen II Camaro 1970-73. The Gen I styling cues have run their course.
Agreed, I’d have given the 6th gen some serious consideration if it called back to the 70.5-73 cars.
However Camaro guys will just make lemonade by saying they would rather have a car,that sellsounds in low volume so they don’t have to see,themselves at every corner like Mustang.
That, or if you have to base it on the original, go truly retro, like Dodge did with the Challenger.
I wish we could stop doing retro all together. The first 4 generations of Camaro were each distinct from each other. I think the 4th-gen cars still look attractive and contemporary when kept in good condition. I just want to see something new, not a bloated rehash of something from 40 years ago.
We need a modern interpretation of the fourth iconic muscle/pony car: the AMX. How does “Fiat AMX” sound?
The AMC brand name could be revived, for modern takes on archaic models – the Gremlin could be a Kia Soul/Nissan Juke competitor, weird and ugly and all that; the Eagle wagon would now be a mainstream competitor for Subaru; the Matador would be a huge failure, but would make the variations of the 500 look successful by comparison; the 200 could be restyled and called the Concord or the Hornet – it couldn’t sell any worse than it does at the present. A modern interpretation of the Pacer will never be seen, though, because window glass has pretty much gone out of style.
As much as I love the idea of a modern AMX (or Javelin!), please let’s keep Fiat out of it.
You’re right about the other AMC models that could be revived. The Gremlin was a funky little runabout that seemed to embrace it’s own quirkiness/ ugliness, like a Juke, Soul or Cube today. The Eagle was a good 15 years before Subaru dusted off that formula and brought the Outback here. And a new Hornet could be a multi-body style model that covers the low ($15-25k) end of the market. FCA owns the AMC trademark & brands…hmmmm…
Lots or reasons why but I’m starting to wonder if the Alpha platform itself is an issue. It seems none of the Alpha vehicles are selling well.
“The Camaro is now regarded by many to be the dynamically superior sports car, but it’s hampered by poor visibility and exterior styling that almost entirely hides the Camaro’s newness”
Also, it’s ugly. So ugly. Always has been.
Personal judgment, of course, but nevertheless.
The Mustang is the Least Ugly Muscle Coupe.
(If I was forced to have any New Muscle Car, it’d be a Charger, because sedan. But still.)
A few weeks ago, during my commute, I saw a black new Mustang GT, and a few blocks later, a brand new Camaro convertible.
I had lust for the Mustang – to the point that I would like to buy one. The Camaro, on the other hand, isn’t a bad car but the “gun slit” windows make it a non-starter. Part of a performance car, at least by my measure, is to have good visibility since part of the feel of driving fast is to be ultra-aware of your surroundings.
The Challenger’s 2014 refresh is the sort of work that FCA does best.
It took the solid Daimler-Chrysler era chassis and removes the mostly cosmetic weaknesses of the 2009 Challenger, namely the lack of styling details to fill out the flat body lines and the rental-spec interior.
It’s my favourite car out of the three.
FCA’s platform engineering and marketing research are suspect, as evidenced by several rookie mistakes on pretty much all of their other models:
1. The awful 9AT permeating nearly all of its products
2. The undersized 200
3. The poorly named, overpriced and overweight Dodge Dart.
it’s the marketing, same as usual. great cars, lousy merchandising that kills image and desire.
Given that many muscle cars are purchased by style conscious posers, I wonder if Camaro intenders don’t get to the Chevrolet dealership and decide to do a different pose. Leaving instead with a sporty Colorado.
“Given that many muscle cars are purchased by style conscious posers…”
And luxury cars. And sports cars. And SUVs. And CUVs. And watches. And clothes…
I’m happy that impacted you; my work was not in vain.
I really think GM messed up on marketing/pricing front, and design of this car. If you are creating a whole new generation, why make it look just like the old one? Particularly for a segment where design has such huge impact on sales.
Camaro has the performance part down, but sadly, that is the only part where it has an advantage. When it comes to interior refinement and looks, and pricing, Mustang and Challenger got it beat.
Everyone I know with a 5th generation Camaro is an aging, white, baby boomer. Maybe they’re finally starting to slow down in their “relive their youth” car purchases. The Mustang owners I know are much more varied in age and ethnicity.
And the new Mustang is hot…those hips.
It’s amazing the Mustang sells with styling that bad.
The Camaro is puzzling because not only is it a better car than the one it replaced, it’s better than the Mustang as well.
The Challenger is just gorgeous and by far the best value. It’s also the most practical with the best engine lineup and best interior.
And to everyone saying that the Camaro looks like the last gen…see an eye doctor. They’re only similar because they both have round wheels and 2 doors. They really look nothing alike. That is a tired and completely baseless argument.
It’s pretty obvious to everyone here and in the marketplace for these vehicles, the Mustang and Challenger are retro done right, and the Camaro is retro done wrong.
It is a shame because the car seems to really be a dynamic driver, but part of driving everyday is to be able to see, and that is where this car fails dramatically. It really is claustrophobic.
GM also failed to really advance the class by doing a clean sheet design…something way more modern to take on not only the segment, but the Germans and Japanese as well, in the coupe market. GM…Great Mediocrity. Not better than good, but better than poor….pass the bailout money por favor.
I don’t care what the kiddie focus group said about design, people want to see out of their cars, all around. Not cameras.
That just dented the notion of GM chasing margin but if they have inventory backing up and a new model year on the way, what kind choices did they have? Increased fleet sales?
Would be interesting to see the break down of the turbo’s, V6 and V8’s and even the trim level, for these muscle cars suspect there are some interesting details there.
What maybe makes the GM vs FCA predicament worse, is that if you added the Camaro and SS sales numbers together and compare to the Challenger and Charger combined numbers, because the Charger comes in V6 and 3 V8 engines (plus trims), suspect FCA is ahead in this blue collar in this relatively affordable RWD battle.
Shows that models that win car magazine comparisons, like Mazda 3 and Camaro are not always the sales leaders; cars that have lousy comparison sometimes get great sales, market forces in action.
I currently own an ’03 Mustang convertible that I bought new and has been a fair weather garage queen from day one (only 35k miles), but I regularly cruise through Ford and Chevy dealers on weekends (after hours) to look at Mustangs and Camaros. Even though it makes no sense to buy a new one when my existing Mustang is not really even broken in, I’m not completely opposed to the idea of a new convertible.
Although I should be a natural Camaro customer since I grew up in a loyal Chevy family (back in the days when that meant something) and my first car in the ’70s was a ’69 Camaro SS with an L78 396, I have never liked the new Camaro. The styling seems cartoonish to me, almost like a caricature of the ’69, and the dash and instrument pod have been horrendous. I like the new ’16 model a little better, especially from certain angles it looks much more in proportion, but I still don’t like the instrument cluster even though they’ve cleaned it up a bit. I also don’t like the rear, especially the tail lights. It’s like they spent all of their styling time and money on the front 90% of the car and kind of lost interest in the last 10%. It doesn’t match. Why does GM seem to have so much trouble with rear end styling (C7 Corvette)?
The main thing that blows me off the lot, however, are the prices. Wow. There are certain things I don’t like about the ’16 Mustang’s styling too, but overall and especially for the money, there is no way I could justify a Camaro over a Mustang.