Camaro thoughts 

"Carbon Fiber Sasquatch" (turbopumpkin) 09/09/2018 at 23:28 • Filed to: Camaro

1

52

Had this been the 6th generation Camaro (essentially the Chevy 2-series) instead of the p illbox that we did get, would it have sold better? It certainly would have been easier to see out of. 

DaftRyosuke - So Long and Thanks for All the Fish! > Carbon Fiber Sasquatch 09/09/2018 at 23:38

5

No. The Code 130R was a small sports coupe that would have gotten power from a 4 cylinder or V6. That’s not a Camaro...if anything it’s more of a Corvair.

HammerheadFistpunch > Carbon Fiber Sasquatch 09/09/2018 at 23:42

2

Thats my 2 cents with that story - The camaro is the new corvette (market position) as the Corvette moves up to the supercar level. Chevy doesn’t currently offer a “fun” car. Only serious performance machines with serious performance prices. I mean the Mustang isn’t much different but it certainly takes itself a little less seriously and is priced accordingly. Chevy can do 2 things - decontent an expensive large car and hope for the best (current plan) or fill the void left by the Camaro moving up market with a new model.

LongbowMkII > Carbon Fiber Sasquatch 09/09/2018 at 23:43

1

Nah it’s ugly.

They should’ve followed the lead of the 2nd gen styling. Big grille and led light ‘ bumperettes’ .

The 6th gen looks too much like the 5th.

dogisbadob > Carbon Fiber Sasquatch 09/09/2018 at 23:45

2

Yup! I do beleieve most of the Camaro’s sales problems are due to the poor visibility.  T-tops would be nice, too.

And also, that 130R always reminded me of the Echo for some reason.

DaftRyosuke - So Long and Thanks for All the Fish! > LongbowMkII 09/09/2018 at 23:59

1

They definitely went the big grille route on the 6th gen refresh. I think the early 6th gen is peak Camaro.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Carbon Fiber Sasquatch 09/10/2018 at 00:12

3

Code 130R would have been a bad Camaro.

A worse camaro than the Holden Monaro made as a GTO.

Monaro was a good car, and would have been a good Grand Prix, or Tempest.

Camaro means something. GTO means something, also... re-definining that something is risky at best.

It has to evolve... and arguably Zeta de-volved with too much retro, and Alpha is evolving from that retro, not from the original formula.

Instead of focusing so much on the FLAT TOP look of the Gen-1 Camaro, and emphasizing that to cartoonish proportions in the 5th and 6th generations, it didn’t follow the 2nd-gen mid-run change to wraparound rear glass, that the third and 4th gen hatchback F-bodies had, with plenty of visibility.

5th-gen return to 1st-gen looks, and then strict RETRO adherence after that have been limiting.

wafflesnfalafel > Carbon Fiber Sasquatch 09/10/2018 at 00:59

2

bro-trucks have killed the domestic performance coupe market... 

Gsxr-rider137 > LongbowMkII 09/10/2018 at 05:16

0

If Chevy had followed Ford and D odges lead by making the 5th generation Camero LOOK more like the 1st, sky would have been the limit. When you look at a Dodge Challenger or the Ford Mustang, it’s real easy to see the car they designed it after. With the Camero ....you only get glimpses and some of those you have to sq uint to see. They dropped the ball...plain and simple.

Awesomecars > LongbowMkII 09/10/2018 at 05:48

0

Agreed the sixth generation looks too much like 5th generation. That being said, they should have based the 6th generation on the 4th generation. The 5th generation was ugly. The current 6th is only marginally better. 

Awesomecars > HammerheadFistpunch 09/10/2018 at 05:54

0

The Corvette is not a super car. It will never be in the class of an Aventador, McLaren, Koenigsegg. The Corvette is not exclusive enough for a supercar buyer. If Chevrolet tries to move the Corvette into that price point it will be an instant failure. 

Awesomecars > dogisbadob 09/10/2018 at 06:01

1

Poor visability had absolutely nothing to do with poor sales for the Camaro. First, people are moving away from cars to SUVs. Expect to see more of this. 2nd , a spots car is definitely no longer on the list of most people. For most of the remaining car buyers they are after either an enconobox or a luxury car. Lastly, the fact the Camaro is ugly doesn't help. The refresh is even worse. 

Awesomecars > wafflesnfalafel 09/10/2018 at 06:03

0

Absolutely correct. Trucks and SUVs are the where the $ are now. 

Awesomecars > Carbon Fiber Sasquatch 09/10/2018 at 06:09

0

First, this thing is worse looking than the Camaro. Secondly, poor visability had absolutely nothing to do with poor sales. People no longer want sports cars, at least most do not. Most are switching to trucks and SUVs. Those that are seeking cars are either buying econoboxes or luxury cars. The days of the days of the pony cars are truly numbered.

random001 > HammerheadFistpunch 09/10/2018 at 07:04

7

How dare you say such a thing! The Camaro is a straight line drag racer, not a sports car like the Corvette! Here, look at some lap times.

...

......

.......well, damn....

random001 > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 09/10/2018 at 07:05

1

Always a star for posting Edna.

random001 > DaftRyosuke - So Long and Thanks for All the Fish! 09/10/2018 at 07:05

6

Yeah! The Camaro will never come with a 4-cylinder and a V6!

..

....

.....well, damn....

Nheinrich > Carbon Fiber Sasquatch 09/10/2018 at 07:18

0

I own a 2015 2SS Camero but this new one may have more performance but even my back seat is useless why even have it. As f ar as blind spots why dont they put camera in the mirrors to show up on the entertainment system when you put the turn signal on and a front camera’s for curbs. Don’t get me wrong I love my camero. T hat truck with being a convertible is nuts hard to put things in and hard to take out. The new camero front end is a joke. What weret t hey thinking the 5th gen was attractive this one is ugly.

bhtooefr > random001 09/10/2018 at 07:22

1

RutRut > Carbon Fiber Sasquatch 09/10/2018 at 07:24

1

I had a Camaro rental all weekend and I was phenomenally excited to get back in my STI. I found the Camaro ergonomically to be awful, I’m 5'10" and ~225# and I just could not get comfortable. The seat belt was a crazy reach back, getting to the window switches was uncomfortable, HVAC is hard to read while driving, cupholders in a weird spot. 2/10, would not own.

random001 > bhtooefr 09/10/2018 at 07:34

0

Heh.  Right!?

BigBlock440 > random001 09/10/2018 at 07:47

0

But it wouldn’t have had a V8...

bhtooefr > BigBlock440 09/10/2018 at 08:17

0

If it had been selected as the Camaro, you really think they couldn’t have crammed a V8 in there? Give it a bit of a wheelbase stretch, or use the LS4 from the FWD V8 cars (not as long as a regular LS).

TysMagic > Carbon Fiber Sasquatch 09/10/2018 at 08:36

0

this is not a Camaro, but I do want it. It reminds me of the C-class in a way, which I am also a fan of. I think I am alone in this camp. 

random001 > BigBlock440 09/10/2018 at 08:46

2

LS SWAP ALL THE THINGS!

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Carbon Fiber Sasquatch 09/10/2018 at 09:11

0

Remember when everyone shit on the 130R when it debuted? And then chevy didn’t make it? And then everyone lost their shit when chevy said they wouldn’t make it?

Moral of the story - don’t listen to people. They just want to bitch and moan.

People don’t like it, but the Camaro did fine for a number of years having the SS and Z28 models be for people who wanted an enthusiast car and having the V6 for people who want a sporty coupe. They didn’t need more trim levels going UP, IMO. If anything, I’d be concerned that by having models like the Z/28 and ZL1 up that high, you just make people not want the base models even more. I mean, I guess they did it for bragging rights but I feel like Ford did it a bit better by attaching the Shelby name to the high-po mustangs. Maybe it lets Ford have the mustang be both a sub 30k economical coupe with an automatic and also be a 700hp monster? 

Nobi > BigBlock440 09/10/2018 at 09:32

0

The ATS only comes with a 4 or 6, and it shares a chassis with the Camaro, so...

Nobi > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 09/10/2018 at 09:36

0

This.

The name Shelby differentiates it *just* enough to be not just a Ford Mustang. Chevy should have learned from that and applied the Z/28 and ZL1 nameplates as such.

Nobi > Carbon Fiber Sasquatch 09/10/2018 at 09:37

2

Call it a Nova, and all will be well.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Nobi 09/10/2018 at 09:44

1

Could’ve easily marched out the Yenko name or Callaway/Lingenfelter if they needed to.

Oh wait! Better yet - SLP. Camaro Z/28.  B uilt by chevrolet, perfected by SLP.

PS9 > HammerheadFistpunch 09/10/2018 at 10:23

1

The Camaro and Mustang haven’t moved upmarket . The $20k z28 you could get in 2002 costs $40k now because There’s 18 years worth of inflation between then and now. The american sporty coupe car was also relentlessly attacked as being a V8 on a poorly built chassis and nothing else. Automakers listened, and gave us V8 sports cars that can hang with the best of Europe on the track, with some european-sized price tags to go along with it.

While that was happening, Toyota teamed up with Subaru of Japan to give everyone that low cost ‘fun car’ enthusiasts said everybody wanted only to find a surprise; even with low cost parts already available in the parts bin, you can’t build a sporty FR coupe car on a bespoke chassis for much less than $30k anymore. There’s nothing left to cut out to make the price lower as they already started at the bottom of the possible feature set.

It only looks like the Camaro has moved upmarket to the millions of people who’s incomes have flatlined or declined relative to inflation over that time period. We aren’t seeing the regular FR Corvette go away so the Camaro can replace it. W hat we are seeing is the reality of the $20k performance car; i t is no longer viable for automakers to give us an FR chassis and powerful engines at this price level. $20k worth of fun is going to be FWD only for the foreseeable future.

HammerheadFistpunch > PS9 09/10/2018 at 10:31

1

20, 000 2002 dollars are worth   28, 000 today...

Nobi > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 09/10/2018 at 10:41

0

If they were smart, yeah, they would have partnered with someone. Ford did it right with Shelby, and even Dodge did a good job with its SRT arm. Chevy has a bunch of “Z—” emblems they haphazardly slap on arguably cool cars, but there’s no division separate from Chevrolet the special cars can fall under. Sure they have “GM Performance” er, I mean “Chevrolet Performance” but it’s not the same. Certainly not marketed the same.

PS9 > HammerheadFistpunch 09/10/2018 at 10:42

0

It’s actually worth $32,442 Today . That’s about what a 2002 LS1-performance-level 2018 Camaro will cost you.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > BigBlock440 09/10/2018 at 10:44

1

If we could fit a V8 in a solstice and miatas, then we can fit a V8 in anything. 

CobraJoe > Awesomecars 09/10/2018 at 11:12

0

The Corvette is not a super car. It will never be in the class of an Aventador, McLaren, Koenigsegg. The Corvette is not exclusive enough for a supercar buyer.

That’s true, but also a bit wrong....

The modern Vette is the “Supercar fighter”. It’s performance is not far behind the true supercars, definitely close enough to start making the “Supercars are exclusive!” argument to justify the humongous price difference. (It is an argument, there is something special about owning a car that few others have).

The Vette is the affordable supercar that average people can aspire to owning.  That’s a good thing. 

BigBlock440 > Nobi 09/10/2018 at 11:12

0

What does limiting the engine options in a different model have to do with weather or not one will fit?

HammerheadFistpunch > PS9 09/10/2018 at 11:24

0

No. Its $28,459.18 Today. Don’t be disingenuous and say one number and solve for another. Even if you meant the other number to start with.

CobraJoe > PS9 09/10/2018 at 11:33

0

It’s actually worth $32,442 Today . That’s about what a 2002 LS1-performance-level 2018 Camaro will cost you.

But the base performance level of all cars has raised significantly in the past 20 years. A 1996 base level Taurus got to 60 in 9.9 seconds, and a ‘97 Taurus SHO got to 60 in 8 seconds. A 2017 Fusion S with the base level engine and FWD trans can get to 60 in 8.5 seconds and a Sport can get to 60 in 5.3 seconds.

Plus, that base 1996 Taurus cost $18,000 new (28,900 adjusted to 2018), and a Fusion S starts at $22,200.

All that to say that you can’t directly compare performance and price between the late 90s and today.

CobraJoe > HammerheadFistpunch 09/10/2018 at 11:40

0

Thats my 2 cents with that story - The camaro is the new corvette (market position) as the Corvette moves up to the supercar level. Chevy doesn’t currently offer a “fun” car.

This is well put. Chevy is so focused on bragging rights that they’re not making the fun but livable vehicle that made the pony cars popular in the first place. It’s the same problem the 4th gen F-body had. Great performance, poor livability. (I used to hit my head every single time I got into my friends ‘98 Camaro). At least the 4th gen was cheap, thanks to crappy interior materials.

Chevy can do 2 things - decontent an expensive large car and hope for the best (current plan) or fill the void left by the Camaro moving up market with a new model.

Honestly, maybe a stripped out Camaro with a slightly tweaked turbo 4 and stiffer dampers would be a great option for people who want a fun car but can’t afford much above the base model.  I think there’s still a place for a pony car contender to the hot hatch market. 

PS9 > HammerheadFistpunch 09/10/2018 at 11:44

0

I wasn’t trying to be disingenuous. But ‘$20k’ was a ballpark figure for a 2002 z28. In reality, you needed to bring a few grand more than that for a stripper, and much much more for a loaded convertible. I’ll admit that I should have used ‘$22,800' as a more exact example, but my point - that ~$20k worth of performance in 2002 is worth $30k now - stands firm , given that 2002 Z28-level perfor mance which you could get for about $20k or so back then is a $32k car today.

Also, my other point - that if you want a $20k perfomance car in 2018, you want a FWD hatchback because you’re not getting anything else fun at that price level - also stands firm. A car that slots beneath the Camaro at this price wouldn’t have any of the things that make the Camaro what it is, because they cost too much build for a $20k car.

Nobi > BigBlock440 09/10/2018 at 11:55

0

My point being, if they wanted a V8, they’ll engineer it to be  able to fit.

PS9 > CobraJoe 09/10/2018 at 12:05

0

All that to say that you can’t directly compare performance and price between the late 90s and today.

But you just did that a bunch of times in this post. You even demonstrate that the explosion of horsepower between then and now has pushed certain performance tiers out of desirability . Indeed, if every sedan can do 0-60 in ~ 8 seconds (and most of them should, given that they all make almost 200HP in base form now), then you can no longer charge a premium for that performance tier since you and all your competitors are already there.

Conversely, engines powerful enough to vaporize every stock malaise era muscle car are cheap to make, mass produced, and available in everything from crossovers to compacts. So, while prices have risen relative to inflation, you get much, much, more for your performance dollar now compared to the 90s. Conclusions like these would not be possible if the comparison between the 90s and today were not meaningful.

traumadog > dogisbadob 09/10/2018 at 12:08

1

I would think half the Camaro’s visibility issue (at least in the “claustrophobic feel” sense) would have been fixed if the refresh dropped the door tops like 2 inches. Of course, that would require new side-im pact testing, but could have been a “drop-in” with just new doors sculpted to fit the body lines.

Sgt Jmack > PS9 09/10/2018 at 12:10

0

You mean $50k Camaro.

PS9 > Sgt Jmack 09/10/2018 at 12:17

0

There are no new Camaros MSRPing for $50k exactly. But another $10k would get you a Camaro that has more than double the HP of the 2002 Z28, and would very easily vaporize any 4th gen at the racetrack stock for stock. I think $60k for a Camaro that can hang with a GT3 is more than a fair price.

CobraJoe > PS9 09/10/2018 at 12:37

0

But you just did that a bunch of times in this post.

Comparisons to make a point that only correlating power and price is not accurate over the past 20 years.

You even demonstrate that the explosion of horsepower between then and now has pushed certain p erformance tiers out of desirability. Indeed, if every sedan can do 0-60 in ~8 seconds (and most of them should, given that they all make almost 200HP in base form now), then you can no longer charge a premium for that performance tier since you and all your competitors are already there.

Historically, the “base level sedan” performance tier has often included the base level Mustang and base level Camaro. Back in the mid 90s, the 3400 V6 Camaro and 3.8L Mustang had a 0-60 time in close to 10 seconds. And no, those cars weren’t sold at a premium, they were often cheaper than the sedans (A 1996 Mustang V6 started at $15k).

So, while prices have risen relative to inflation, you get much, much, more for your performance dollar now compared to the 90s. Conclusions like these would not be possible if the comparison between the 90s and today were not meaningful.

That is the only conclusion you can make while comparing price and power from the past 20 years. You’re not getting equivalent power for the price, you’re getting more.

Back to Hammerhead’s original point:  The Camaro is going up market.  It’s more expensive than the Mustang and trying to give more performance in return.  The Mustang has gone up market in performance and price too (It’s now $3k more than the entry level midsized sedan, not $3k less), but it is still more affordable than the Camaro. 

dogisbadob > traumadog 09/10/2018 at 13:02

0

agreed

Wmd > wafflesnfalafel 09/10/2018 at 13:20

0

Bingo!!!? Big (the bigger the better)  dark colored trucks, with aftermarket lifts and wheels are the new thing. Performance no longer matters, it's how high up and how much smoke and noise you can make. Sad really....

someassemblyrequired > Carbon Fiber Sasquatch 09/10/2018 at 14:29

0

The Holden crew should have gone full Torana GT R-X as a giant screw you to GM. There are more than a few cues that I see in the 5th and 6th gen, but a liftback with lots of glass would have made the Camaro much more practical .

Chan - Mid-engine with cabin fever > PS9 09/10/2018 at 14:57

0

I’d argue that in addition to significant inflation, the Camaro’s product placement has also bloated. You can’t sell a giant roaring V8 on a wet noodle chassis anymore—at least that’s what GM and Ford think.

Even if you don’t opt for the SS, today’s Camaro is still twice the car that the last F-bodies were (disclaimer: I still kinda want an F-body to tinker with ) . It’s trying to be a lot more things to a lot more people, and it suffers greatly in the affordability department. A starting price of over $30k is not cheap speed to the average American.

PS9 > CobraJoe 09/11/2018 at 10:37

0

Comparisons to make a point that only correlating power and price is not accurate over the past 20 years.

Not accurate relative to what, exactly ? You cannot decry the comparison as invalid somehow by using it, because a truly invalid comparison can draw no meaningful conclusions, and meaningless conclusions cannot be used to substantiate an argument.

Historically, the “base level sedan” performance tier has often included the base level Mustang and base level Camaro.

No. That was only true for the late nineties-era pony cars. Only one refresh later , the base camaro made an additional 60 HP and the new edge Mustang would soon follow. Both cars in base form could easily wipeout a ‘98 Taurus, as they are a whole second faster to 60 and a second and change faster in the quarter. Today, there is no comparison. A base 4 cylinder Taurus cannot compete against base-form pony cars that offer 4th-gen LS1 level performance. You can’t buy a slow pony car anymore, and almost no sedan even in the luxury segment gives you ~300HP in base form .

Back in the mid 90s, the 3400 V6 Camaro and 3.8L Mustang had a 0-60 time in close to 10 seconds. And no, those cars weren’t sold at a premium, they were often cheaper than the sedans (A 1996 Mustang V6 started at $15k).

Well of course they weren’t sold at a premium. They were no faster than your high school principal’s base Taurus, and the Mustang in particular was laughable in both V6 and V8 forms. The SHO did come at a $5k premium over the Base mustang. If you’re trying to demonstrate how price and performance aren’t correlated with this example, it’s not helping.

The Camaro is going up market. It’s more expensive than the Mustang and trying to give more performance in return. The Mustang has gone up market in performance and price too (It’s now $3k more than the entry level midsized sedan, not $3k less), but it is still more affordable than the Camaro.

In 1998, you could buy an LS1-performance level camaro for ~20k. In 2018, you can buy an 1998 LS1-performance level for a little more than $20 k. Even given that the Camaro of today is more expensive for GM to build then that of 1998, you can still get what you used to have for nearly the same money. Adjusted for inflation, the V8 is only a few grand more. The Camaro has not gone up market. What has happened is a lot of Camaro buyers of yesterday have been priced out of the market they used to be a part of.

CobraJoe > PS9 09/11/2018 at 13:01

0

Not accurate relative to what, exactly? You cannot decry the comparison as invalid somehow by using it, because a truly invalid comparison can draw no meaningful conclusions, and meaningless conclusions cannot be used to substantiate an argument.

By attempting a comparison, you can see if there is a correlation. Price vs Performance over the past 20 years is not a direct correlation, the results are too widely varied to draw any accurate conclusions.

Yes, price and performance are correlated, you have to pay more to get more horsepower. BUT it is not directly comparable across 20 years. Equivalent costs from 20 years ago do not always give you equivalent power figures today.

No. That was only true for the late nineties-era pony cars. Only one refresh later, the base camaro made an additional 60 HP and the new edge Mustang would soon follow.

Both the Mustang and Camaro’s history start far earlier than the mid nineties. The ‘64 mustang had a 101hp engine option, and the ‘67 Camaro had a 140hp engine option. Both of those were less than half the power of other available engines. The early 2000s is when the pony cars started gaining more base power than the average sedan .

In 1998, you could buy an LS1-performance level camaro for ~20k. In 2018, you can buy an 1998 LS1-performance level for a little more than $20k.

This is kind of proving the point that the Camaro has gone up market, both in price and in performance level.

In 1998, you could get a base Taurus for $18k. So, the LS1 powered Camaro was only a couple grand more expensive. Today, a base level Fusion costs $22k (Basic sedan costs didn’t follow inflation), and a base level Camaro that is similar performance stats to a LS1 starts at $25k, which is only a few grand more.

The missing information? A base level Camaro in 1998 started at $16.6k, which is close to $2k less than the base Taurus. It was still probably faster than a base sedan, and certainly more fun to drive, and it was

Also notable? The base level sedan over the past 20 years has gotten a lot quicker and a lot cheaper compared to inflation. The base Camaro on the other hand, has gotten a lot more expensive and a lot more powerful. It’s true that you’re getting LS1 performance, but you’re still paying LS1 prices compared to the base sedan.

The Mustang also has this problem: There is no cheap and low powered option anymore .