The Official Sixth Gen Camaro Thread!

[MX793]

Not digging the rear end, but might also be the quality/angle of the picture.  Front end seems OK in that shot, but I'll wait for better pictures before I make any real judgements.  Curious as to the interior.

[FlatBlackCaddy]

I hate to say it, but it looks heavy too.

[GoCougs]

The rear appears a bit cheap, esp. the taillights, which was the case on the current refresh. The original 4 pot taillights looked best, or at least more distinctive. Hard to tell the effect of overall styling from the BS leaks.

[Rich]

It's supposed to be unveiled today. Where is it?


I'm a Chevy fanboy and I'm pretty dissapointed in the rear end treatment. Profile looks nice, though, but the rear looks rental spec.

[Rich]

Eh I searched on Twitter and I guess it will be in the next hour or so at belle isle. I thought pictures and info would have been released at midnight last night but they must have kept the embargo til the event.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

The reveal is at 4pm...

[Rich]

Fuck that. I'm not waking up at midnight for that shit. Jesus

[r0tor]

A turbo 4 banger is offered... Cougs head will explode

[SVT666]

And it has 45 fewer horsepower than the Mustang EcoBoost.

[MX793]

A turbo 4 banger is offered... Cougs head will explode

I think GM did it right, though.  They made the 4-banger the base option and kept the V6 the mid-level option and they left enough of a power/performance difference between the motors to justify that positioning. 

Ford pitched the 4-banger as their mid-level engine, but its performance is too close to the V6 to really stand out above the V6 on its own, so they had to hobble the V6 model with extremely limited feature/options content to entice buyers into the 4-banger.  All traits considered, I think it's inferior to the V6 out of the box.  For Ford's model structure of V6<Turbo-4 to work, the Ecoboost should have been making ~30 more hp than it does now so that it clearly stands above the V6 without having to resort to withholding feature content on the V6 to get people to buy the turbo.

[GoCougs]

I think GM did it right, though.  They made the 4-banger the base option and kept the V6 the mid-level option and they left enough of a power/performance difference between the motors to justify that positioning. 

Ford pitched the 4-banger as their mid-level engine, but its performance is too close to the V6 to really stand out above the V6 on its own, so they had to hobble the V6 model with extremely limited feature/options content to entice buyers into the 4-banger.  All things beyond performance considered, I think it's inferior to the V6 out of the box.  For Ford's model structure of V6<Turbo-4 to work, the Ecoboost should have been making ~30 more hp than it does now so that it clearly stands above the V6 without having to resort to withholding feature content on the V6 to get people to buy the turbo.

This makes sense:
270 hp turbo 4 and 3400 lbs.
330 hp N/A V6 and 3500 lbs.
440 hp N/A V8 and 3650 lbs.

Ford offering the Ecoboost 4 against their 3.5L N/A V6 in the same vehicle has been a failure - performance, MPG, price, segmentation - in all applications, beyond just the Mustang (Explorer, Edge, Taurus). Rumor is all Camaro engines will have availability of the bevy of tech/luxury/performance options save for MagneRide, which is something else Ford didn't do right on the new Mustang (neutering the V6 model).

[MX793]

This makes sense:
270 hp turbo 4 and 3400 lbs.
330 hp N/A V6 and 3500 lbs.
440 hp N/A V8 and 3650 lbs.

Ford offering the Ecoboost 4 against their 3.5L N/A V6 in the same vehicle has been a failure - performance, MPG, price, segmentation - in all applications, beyond just the Mustang (Explorer, Edge, Taurus). Rumor is all Camaro engines will have availability of the bevy of tech/luxury/performance options save for MagneRide, which is something else Ford didn't do right on the new Mustang (neutering the V6 model).

True, Ford has generally managed the turbo-4 vs NA V6 powertrain and trim level differentiation poorly.  The Mustang is the only car in which Ford offers the 2.3T vs the 3.5/3.7Duratec V6, and those two motors line up pretty closely to each other.  In other offerings, it's the 2.0T against the 3.5, which is an even worse proposition since the 3.5L makes considerably more power than the 2.0T.

[12,000 RPM]

But you can chip it bro

[MX793]

But you can chip it bro

Not many Explorer or Taurus drivers looking to chip their 2.0T motors.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

I like it! The interior looks to be improved also!
http://www.chevrolet.com/2016-camaro/

[Cookie Monster]

Interior looks much better than the Rustangs.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

The rear even looks better in the official pics.

[MX793]

They've taken some steps to improve forward visibility by lowering the dash, but rearward visibility is reportedly even worse than the outgoing model.  Lateral visibility is unlikely to be improved, as the side glass still looks like it was inspired by a Normandy pillbox.

Not loving the rear still, but it looks better than in the grainy leaked photos from yesterday.  Don't like the high-waisted rear bumper (a trait shared with Infiniti G-coupes).  Looks like the top of the bumper is about the same height off the ground as the door handles.  Based on the trunk lid shape, the opening to the trunk is going to be uselessly small. 

Front end, for me, varies from pretty good to meh depending on which grille the car is sporting.  The SS front end treatment looks pretty good to me.  The lesser cars, not so much, though not awful.  Both are kind of Toyota-esque, IMO.

I generally like the interior aesthetics more than the outgoing model, but I'm not sure how I feel about having the center HVAC vents down at the bottom of the center stack (blowing right onto the shifter).  Also not a fan of electric parking brakes.

Styling aside, the tech suite is pretty impressive.  Multiple driving modes (like you get with the Mustang Premium), dual-mode exhaust (works with the driving modes), rev-matching 6MT (in the SS), and an optional 8" screen in the gauge cluster that displays navigation and performance data (I think the Mustang's is only like a 4.3" and only shows performance data).  And, obviously, Magneride will be available on SS models.

[afty]

Looks nice, especially the interior.  Also, LT1! 

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

Interior looks much better than the Rustangs.

I like the way the trim rings on the heating/cooling vents control the temperatures!

[Cookie Monster]

I like the way the trim rings on the heating/cooling vents control the temperatures!

Same, I really like the positioning of the vents, too. I don't know how useful they will be but if they are angled right they should be fine.

[MX793]

Interior looks much better than the Rustangs.

Standard (?) 8" touchscreen infotainment system definitely one-ups Ford's dumpy-looking base stereo unit.  The new S550 interior, particularly in premium trim guise (with the cool toggle switches and touchscreen infotainment system), is very nice.  Even the base interior, minus the stereo unit, is pretty nice in the new Mustang.  Although I'm not a huge fan of touchscreen systems (I like real buttons, easier to find by since you can use a quick glance to generally locate and then go by feel), the standard head unit Ford's using in their vehicles these days isn't very attractive.

[ifcar]

If they've saved some of the ATS's handling, this will be great. It's a pity they didn't make it look a little more different, though, if the character of the car is improving as much as it seems it will.

[GoCougs]

Hmmm. Chevy had the same challenge as Ford - where to go with successful retro styling. Overall it looks more refined/upscale both in and out but at first blush I'm not entirely in love. The rear window looks small and otherwise there is a lot of real estate above the rear wheel. I'm also not a fan of virtual dash boards and the vertical infotainment screen looks odd. I'm sure I'll warm up to it. At least it looks smaller and is overall well proportioned.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

Hmmm. Chevy had the same challenge as Ford - where to go with successful retro styling. Overall it looks more refined/upscale both in and out but at first blush I'm not entirely in love. The rear window looks small and otherwise there is a lot of real estate above the rear wheel. I'm also not a fan of virtual dash boards and the vertical infotainment screen looks odd. I'm sure I'll warm up to it. At least it looks smaller and is overall well proportioned.

I agree about too much space above the rear wheel! Reminds me of the CTS Coupe.

[MX793]

Hmmm. Chevy had the same challenge as Ford - where to go with successful retro styling. Overall it looks more refined/upscale both in and out but at first blush I'm not entirely in love. The rear window looks small and otherwise there is a lot of real estate above the rear wheel. I'm also not a fan of virtual dash boards and the vertical infotainment screen looks odd. I'm sure I'll warm up to it. At least it looks smaller and is overall well proportioned.

The speedo and tach are actual physical gauges, not "virtual".  The rest of the IP (the space between the main gauges) is an LCD screen, which is apparently optional.  Not sure what the IP looks like if you opt out of the screen.  I'm guessing a smaller screen that just displays basic vehicle info (TPMS data, trip meter, etc)?

[MX793]

Yup, did nothing to improve lateral or rear 3/4 visibility.  The window sill on the door is at chin-level and the rear 3/4 windows may as well not even be there.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

I wonder if a sunroof will be available? That reverse Mohawk roof doesn't look sunroof friendly!

[68_427]

I love that you rotate the trim ring around the vents to control the temperature.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

I've said more than once that I doubt I'd buy another new car anytime soon but I might pick up one of these once I see the pricing.