By on October 13, 2016

2017 Chevrolet Camaro 1LT

Updated with comment from GM.

General Motors is adding a new 1LS base trim to the already on-sale 2017 Chevrolet Camaro to ensure more direct comparisons with the less expensive and more popular Ford Mustang.

The Chevrolet Camaro, powered by a huge incentive increase, narrowly outsold the Mustang in the United States this September. Prior to last month, the Mustang had been in the top spot since 2015, when Ford put an end to five consecutive years of Camaro sales leadership. Ford’s pony car has outsold the Camaro by a vast 32,723-unit margin through the first nine months of 2016.

Ahead of the new Camaro 1LS’s arrival, the 2017 Camaro was priced at $27,595 in 1LT form. Initially, that appeared to be a $900 increase in the cost of the base Camaro. But for 2017, the Camaro 1LT includes as standard equipment the automatic transmission that was a $1,495 option on Camaro 1LTs in MY2016.

Now comes news from CarsDirect that Chevrolet is giving the base Camaro new trim line nomenclature. Think Avenir, only less prestigious.

The 2017 Chevrolet Camaro 1LS, available exclusively with a six-speed manual transmission, will be priced from $26,900.

Yes, that’s still $1,085 more than the most basic Mustang. Yes, all GM has done is change the name of its basic Camaro trim.

The 2017 Chevrolet Camaro 1LS is not available with an automatic transmission. The 2017 Chevrolet Camaro 1LT, on the other hand, is available exclusively with an automatic transmission.

Attempts to compare apples to apples, or 2016 1LTs to 2017 1LTs, won’t be possible. The 2017 Chevrolet Camaro 1LT is $900 more expensive than the 2016 Chevrolet Camaro 1LT. But factoring in the eight-speed automatic that’s now standard equipment, the 2017 Chevrolet Camaro 1LT is $495 less costly than it was one model year ago.

This new 2017 Camaro 1LS base car, however, is $205 more expensive than the manual-equipped 2016 Chevrolet Camaro 1LT.

On both the 1LS and 1LT Camaros, Chevrolet’s 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder can be replaced by a $1,495 335-horsepower 3.6-liter V6. In either case, on 1LS or 1LT Camaros, opting for the convertible requires an additional $6,000.

Naturally, monthly swings in an automaker’s incentive regime prove that MSRPs are little more than the jumping off point. Chevrolet was discounting Camaros by an average of more than $3,300 in September; Mustang prices undercut the sticker price by roughly $2,700.

Chevrolet spokesperson Ron Kiino confirmed the late-September addition of the new Camaro 1LS in an email with CarsDirect yesterday. Kiino also confirmed to TTAC that, “The only content difference between the 1LS and 1LT is the transmission.”

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.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

47 Comments on “2017 Chevrolet Camaro Range Expands, Sort Of, With Cheaper, Manual-Only Base Trim...”


  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    “The 2017 Chevrolet Camaro 1LS, available exclusively with a six-speed manual transmission, will be priced from $26,900.”

    Fail, fail, fail. Either knock the price down to $25,000 or less or make the V6 standard with manual trans for the 1LS.

    If the fish ain’t a bittin’ – better check what kinda bait you got on the hook.

    • 0 avatar
      threeer

      With continued incentives, price out the door isn’t likely to transact anywhere near the $26,900 MSRP. But I still think I’d be wandering over to the Ford dealer to look at a Mustang (If I were looking at this type of car to begin with).

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        How many times in the past has GM committed to “base prices more in line with transaction prices”? Dozens, unfortunately.

        They still haven’t learned that if your incentivizing the crap out of something then the MSRP is pure fantasy, the market has spoken, and your goods aren’t worth what you think they are.

        • 0 avatar
          stuki

          A constant markup over ALG 3, or 5, year predicted residuals, are likely a better predictor of transaction prices, than MSRP. At least for most non luxury specced and/or equipped normal cars.

    • 0 avatar
      AK

      You nailed it. $25k for a base model with the v6 and a stick would get me in the showroom.

      • 0 avatar
        Drew8MR

        I might actually buy one if I could get it with the V8. There have to be more folks than just me that want the big motor/manual/lsd (and AC depending on where I was living) and nothing else. I’d even get radio delete if offered.

        • 0 avatar
          bikegoesbaa

          You’d pay $25k for a car without a radio?

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          CAFE gives strong incentives to make big-motor versions more expensive. You won’t see a lot of cars equipped this way until/unless CAFE is reformed.

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            Yup.

            Special case of government and law giving strong incentives to make all desirable things expensive. Gotta keep the peons in their place spinning the hamster wheel, after all.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “CAFE”

            According to the EPA website, for 2017 the automatic V8 Camaro has the same fuel economy as the manual V6. The manual V8 is 1 mpg worse than the manual V6.

            GM’s 3.6L has always been a relative gas hog while their V8s are comparatively fuel efficient. I bet a 5.3L Camaro would do the same (or maybe even a little better) as the V6.

      • 0 avatar
        yamahog

        A Camaro V6 manual with the big brake upgrade is 31k CAD, 23.5K USD at current exchange rates. If they let their U.S customers pay Canadian prices, they could sell the cars at sticker.

        I’m quite chuffed that they need to make the V8s so expensive just to capture top dollar from the boomers who won’t buy anything but. Why don’t they make a car that old folks with free cash flow would hate and serve it up ultra cheap to people who aren’t old folks with free cash flow?

        Like a V8 manual with low, stiff suspension and doors that only open a bit so they’re hard to get in and out of and extra squeaky brake pads?

      • 0 avatar
        05lgt

        good news! 26.9 + 1.5 – “more than” 3.3 = “less than” 25.1k

        visit the showroom. (numbers from the story above, not confirmed independently.)

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      Don’t look at ATS prices…

      The Nova Brougham sedan 2.0T starts at $35,590 and the V6 starts at $47,990.

      On the ATS coupe it is $38,590 and $50,490(!!!).

      Makes a 1LS V6 seem like a deal.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        Nova Omega Ventura Apollo N.O.V.A.

        Please GM make more Alpha derivatives so we can come up with a snarky acronym.

      • 0 avatar
        derekson

        To be fair, the V6 ATS is basically completely loaded now at that price(including stuff like adaptive cruise & navigation IIRC). You’re going to pay at least as much for a competitor if you add those features in.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    OK, step right up all you manual tranny fans, line up and put your money where your collective mouths are, here’s your chance!

    • 0 avatar
      Click REPLY to reload page

      You are assuming that manual transmission fans would actually want to buy a GM product with lousy visibility, instead of something else.
      Personally, I won’t drive an automatic until arthritis cripples me, which is still a few decades away.

      That said, I hope they sell a ton of these. Driving with a real transmission is a skill that should not disappear.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        “You are assuming that manual transmission fans would actually want to buy a GM product with lousy visibility, instead of something else.
        Personally, I won’t drive an automatic until arthritis cripples me, which is still a few decades away.

        That said, I hope they sell a ton of these. Driving with a real transmission is a skill that should not disappear.”

        this is the most concise summary of why the manual transmission is going away.

        “I WANT MY PERFECT UNICORN CAR TAILORED PRECISELY TO MY REQUIREMENTS AND SOMEONE ELSE HAS TO BUY IT BECAUSE I WON’T.”

        • 0 avatar
          FormerFF

          I think the real reason that manuals are going away is that the automatics have gotten so good. My wife’s car has a manual setting on the automatic transmission, I tried using it, and came to the conclusion that it did a much better job than I could, and I’ve been driving manual transmission cars for the vast majority of my 40 years of driving.

          I drove an Audi R8 and a Porsche 911 GT3 at Atlanta Motorsports Park, both with automated manuals. I have to say the car did a much better job managing the gears than I ever could have.

          • 0 avatar
            threeer

            I think manuals are going the way of the mastodon more for the fact that a majority of drivers (at least here in America) simply don’t want to shift the cars themselves. At one time, manuals were more or less the standard trans, with autos being optional. Then the manual started fading away, left mostly to enthusiast cars and economy cars. As the technology has drifted downward, even basic cars can be had with automatics now, so more people can drive shiftlessly, which seems to be the preferred methodology here. I prefer manuals and was reminded of how much I miss having one during my last trip overseas where I thoroughly enjoyed my rather plebian Skoda Octavia rental. But manufacturers here in the US send to dealerships what people actually want, so automatics it is. Full confession, both of my cars are automatic. Wife’s ’13 Cruze (she just doesn’t want to deal with a manual anymore) and my ’14 Escape, as there are precious few CUVs/SUVs with manual (of course, in Europe a Kuga can be had with manual!), much less one that can easily be found and purchased when needed. I see manuals declining even further to the point where only diehard enthusiast-type cars are even offered with them, and then likely as special-order only. Heck, even Ferrari is walking away from row-it-yourself cars.

          • 0 avatar
            Paragon

            As threeer and others have alluded to, these days we all know a lot of shiftless people. Co-workers, neighbors, friends, or family. Could even be you or me…..

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            “I think the real reason that manuals are going away is that the automatics have gotten so good.”

            Basically this. On many cars, there’s not even a price penalty anymore.

            When I got my 2015 Challenger R/T, I could have ordered it with the 6 speed manual, but opted for the 8AT instead. It’s faster, gets better fuel economy and was actually $1,000 cheaper than the TR6060 manual trans option.

            The only reason left to get the manual was “because 3 pedals” and this weird masculinity thing about being able to grab a gear shifter lever and bang it around.

        • 0 avatar
          Click REPLY to reload page

          Is it too much to ask for a car that you can actually see out of?
          Visibility is a deal-breaker, sweet 6-speed manual tranny or not.
          And a company with a reputation for quality would be a pretty important factor, as well.

          • 0 avatar
            ponchoman49

            Well Ford and FCA are hardly the paramount of a quality reputation either.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            Outward visibility and muscle cars have never really gone with each other. Style always comes first.

            There are midsize sedans and CUVs for people who demand fish bowl visibility.

          • 0 avatar
            nrd515

            while I don’t like, or desire a giant greenhouse, the Camaro goes too far. The white car in the pic at the top of the article shows just how ugly it is. The rear quarters are just awkward, the back cap is just plain BAD, and the front, even though it’s the best part of the car, isn’t really good either. Add the useless trunk in, and it’s just an impractical, ugly car. IF it had a hatchback, it would be a huge help, even though it would still be one ugly car, but it could at least be somewhat usable for me. GM messed up big time with this “redesign”. Hopefully, they won’t kill the Camaro, and the next one will move on from the 1st gen horror show, and be a 2nd or even 3rd gen “tribute”, with a useful trunk/hatch, and maybe enough greenhouse to stop the whining, but not enough to screw the looks up. I don’t have much hope for this at all.

      • 0 avatar
        FormerFF

        Not everyone gets arthritis, my mother is 85 years old and does not have it. She’s probably a couple years away from hanging her keys up for good, bot for now she still does a limited amount of driving.

        You may be hard pressed to find a car with a manual transmission 20 years from now, at least in the U. S..

    • 0 avatar
      Syke

      C’mon, this is the Best and the Brightest. They ain’t buying until it’s used. And the longer and louder they demand, the older and cheaper that used car better be.

      • 0 avatar
        Paragon

        You are so right! That’s many of us in a nutshell. But, at the same time, perhaps for any numbers of reasons we’re not presently in the most ideal situation to make a new car purchase. And, some of us continue driving our daily driver for at least 10-15 years or more, so that it has reached maximum life expectancy in the 250-300K mileage range, if not higher. That is to say that much like the very low income people, we sometimes hold off spending money for the next vehicle until we are forced to. The only difference being we are saving money all along the way in preparation for when THAT DAY arrives. But for others, like me, it could simply be waiting to find the perfect car, with the exact options we want, in the exact color we want, AND at the price we are willing to pay.

    • 0 avatar
      Freddie

      Decades ago stick shifts fell off most Americans’ radar because on most domestic cars the alternative to an automatic was not a slick shifting four on the floor but a clunky three on the tree.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    This is just re-arranging the decks chairs.

    Camaro sales and production need to go up and down (respectively) *dramatically*, in order to bring inventories back to the 60-day level.

    A 90-day shutdown would resolve it, but GM will never do that.

  • avatar
    LS1Fan

    It is a wise move by GM.

    Most folks who opt into these cars don’t buy the enthusiast versions. The masses -with some justification- are perfectly OK with cloth seats and a 335 HP V6 for a daily driven 2 door.

    V8s & track packages might be 5% of the overall sales, composed of hardcore enthusiasts , older guys needing a car to show off at the weekly cruise in and the guys who don’t have enough garage space for a lifted Brodozer spec pickup.

    If GM really wants to pick up sales, they should offer a “Spouse Entertainment Package” that includes a smartphone dock ,mobile TV and elevated footrest for the right seat occupant. Make it standard on all V8 trim levels.

  • avatar
    dwford

    I just drove a 2016 Camaro 2LT RS V6 manual yesterday. It feels solid, has a tight but smooth ride, a smooth shifting transmission with a nice clutch and a good sounding V6 (especially with the adjustable exhaust).

    HOWEVER, the poor Camaro suffers from some crippling design flaws that are preventing a normal person from buying one. First of all, at 5’6″ 140lbs I found the interior very tight and confining. Visibility is nil, especially over the shoulder to either side. Many of the controls are uncomfortably placed, like the invisible climate control buttons below the touch screen. The trunk is a bad joke, with a tiny opening and zero space inside. The body work intrudes into the trunk like nothing I have ever seen. The trunk reminded me of a top loading washing machine – a small one. And there is no space under the floor either.

    I really don’t understand how GM keeps doing this. These cars are bought by middle aged guys who want a fun car. Why make them unusable?

  • avatar
    phreshone

    so the base Mustang engine is a V-6, but 2.0T for Camaro…

    Still would get the stang

  • avatar
    cdotson

    Isn’t Ron Kiino an editor of some two-bit auto rag? Or has said rag spent enough time on its collective knees for him to double-dip as a Chevy spokesman and editor?

  • avatar
    Brumus

    I like this idea, but understand I’m not supposed to say anything good about the Camaro because of poor sight lines.

  • avatar
    Pinzgauer

    The car is a dud. The automatic trans sucks, its too bland looking, and the interior is ridiculous. The control for the hvac are the craziest thing I have ever seen.

    I had a SS as a rental of the summer and the 6.2 had real nice power, and it handled well, but overall I would never buy one. I was happy to get back to my Scat Pack.

  • avatar
    2fast4u

    Anyone looking to buy either the 2.0t or V6 Camaro, keep in mind that you cant get a limited slip differential with the automatic transmission. Only the manual 2.0t and V6s come with an LSD.
    Chevy always fucks over people who want autos. The last gen automatics came with a less powerful V8 because they were running a lower compression ratio with their cylinder deactivation.

  • avatar
    TonyJZX

    There must be some mechanical reason why the LSD does not go with the auto, I suspect some NVH issue.

    Be that as it may, the configurator reflects this new 1LT and its about $30k for the 2.0 turbo manual with the brakes and tech pack.

    You dont get the the blind spot monitors and some other stuff locked behind the 2LT but its not terrible if you can live with the view and the inability to carry more than a duffle bag and a laptop.

  • avatar
    cargogh

    Regardless of the aggressive chin, being all-white with slightly tall side walls and the words “less expensive”, I could hear Johnny Olson ripping off the description while one of Barker’s beauties has her palm up and fingers pointing.
    The contestant’s luck had better land them into the final showdown. Hopefully a loaded Corvette will materialize to the thunderous applause of the audience, because this stripper Camaro isn’t the big win.

    On the other hand, it might be something that I’d buy–used. But I still like real grass. Most of the world seem to have developed allergies and won the war with astroturf, but they never slack off lambasting real grass. We’ve all seen the facts. Astroturf is more efficient, never needs mowing, and always looks perfect with absolutely no effort. Some astroturf is offered with the ability to make sounds like a genuine mower revving, which is confusing. For the sake of the ones of us who enjoy mowing, even if it is only a worthless hobby, could you please drop the Round-Up sprayer and let a patch of real grass continue to grow? No one is ever going to make you mow.

  • avatar
    stanczyk

    Good power from Vette-V8 and ATS sporty-platform , .. but just Look at that foto ..

    This thing is plain ugly -> “ill proportioned”(bulky) and “messy designed”(blunt)..

    Previous generation was a “fat pig” , but at least it had clear and purposeful(Hot-Wheels toy) design..

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Scoutdude: Because Ford dropped the Mercury brand name in Canada it is both a Ford and a Mercury as is the Grand...
  • highdesertcat: Arthur, keep in mind that Americans always get what they deserve, because we vote for it. And we have...
  • -Nate: Thanx ! . I saw that movie in 1968 or so, I wish I could find it on TCM or something… -Nate
  • Super555: That isn’t a good deal. I got almost $8,000 off a new 2017 Trailhawk in late 2016. Right now have a...
  • Jeff S: Yes Mitchum did sing the theme song and the actor who played his younger brother was in real life his son.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber