The Official Sixth Gen Camaro Thread!

[Rich]

I wonder if Chevy will sell periscope accessories?

[SVT32V]

3750-3800 lbs, there wasn't much actual weight savings. A far cry from the 3500 lbs that was peddled about. At most 100 lbs lighter.

At $47K, just spend a few grand more and get the GT350.

[MX793]

3750-3800 lbs, there wasn't much actual weight savings. A far cry from the 3500 lbs that was peddled about. At most 100 lbs lighter.

At $47K, just spend a few grand more and get the GT350.

V6 and I4 models are down around 3500 lbs, which is a pretty good drop from the outgoing model.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

3750-3800 lbs, there wasn't much actual weight savings. A far cry from the 3500 lbs that was peddled about. At most 100 lbs lighter.

At $47K, just spend a few grand more and get the GT350.

The car tested was a LOADED V8! Models with less options aren't as heavy! V6 and the Turbo are even lighter. Also the SS can be had for under 40K! And If you think your getting a GT350 for sticker price you're nutty as squirrel shit! 

[MX793]

One of the mags had a base 1SS that weighed 3670.

[GoCougs]

3750-3800 lbs, there wasn't much actual weight savings. A far cry from the 3500 lbs that was peddled about. At most 100 lbs lighter.

At $47K, just spend a few grand more and get the GT350.

GM has always quoted "around 200 lbs" savings. For the SS, minimum savings is 175 lbs and average is a bit over 200 lbs:

2015: 1SS is 3908 lbs and 2SS is 3935 lbs (from Chevy's website)

2016: 1SS w/out MagneRide and w/M/T is 3670 lbs (238 lbs less) and the 2SS w/MagneRide and w/A/T is 3760 lbs (175 lbs less).

The problem with your comparison is the base $49k GT350 (w/out MagneRide) is likely not too much a better performer than an SS w/MagneRide and it will be a stripper. Outfitted equivalently to a fully loaded $47k SS the GT350 comes in at $49k base + $7,500 Tech Package (MagneRide + luxury stuff) + $800 nav + dest = $58k.

[GoCougs]

I should also say it's now pretty obvious why Ford super rushed a very limited number of GT350s for MY2015 release .

[12,000 RPM]

Can't lie, Ford has a serious problem on its hands for a long time. Camaro hits where it hurts, hard. And Ford can't hit back

[FlatBlackCaddy]

So it went from fatter than shit to just plain fat.

[MX793]

Can't lie, Ford has a serious problem on its hands for a long time. Camaro hits where it hurts, hard. And Ford can't hit back

It will be interesting to see how/if Ford answers.  There's still more power left in the 5.0.  It was designed to utilize DI, but currently does not.  As the VooDoo shows, they've got some room for a bit of a displacement bump as well.  Or perhaps, as it was in the 90s, they won't really respond.  The F-body walked all over the SN95 from '94-'02 in any measure of performance and it didn't seem to matter.

[GoCougs]

Can't lie, Ford has a serious problem on its hands for a long time. Camaro hits where it hurts, hard. And Ford can't hit back

Well, for starters, Ford is stuck with the goofy power train segmentation. How could that have ever been a good idea? By initial reviews the Ecoboost simply doesn't measure up against the V6. GM's 8 sp AT is another problem - Ford has no answer as of yet. There can be differentiation with the "super" versions (GT500 was a very different car than the ZL1, GM hasn't announced a GT350 competitor yet) but then again they're just a sliver of the brand.

[GoCougs]

Motor Trend tests RS V6 - they maintain visibility has improved "vastly":  http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/2016-chevrolet-camaro-rs-v-6-first-test-review/.

[GoCougs]

It will be interesting to see how/if Ford answers.  There's still more power left in the 5.0.  It was designed to utilize DI, but currently does not.  As the VooDoo shows, they've got some room for a bit of a displacement bump as well.  Or perhaps, as it was in the 90s, they won't really respond.  The F-body walked all over the SN95 from '94-'02 in any measure of performance and it didn't seem to matter.

The Coyote 5.0's challenge isn't necessarily lack of power, it's lack of VVL. As it is currently, with steeper gearing (by 60 mph it's already in 3rd gear), a bit more power and a bit less weight, the Mustang wasn't any quicker than the 2015 Camaro SS. Now the Mustang is 75-150 lbs heavier and down 20 hp vs. the 2016 Camaro SS and is behind substantially in acceleration. To match the 2016 Camaro SS in acceleration with all else the same (no VVL) IMO the Coyote will need 475-500 hp.

[MX793]

The Coyote 5.0's challenge isn't necessarily lack of power, it's lack of VVL. As it is currently, with steeper gearing (by 60 mph it's already in 3rd gear), a bit more power and a bit less weight, the Mustang wasn't any quicker than the 2015 Camaro SS. Now the Mustang is 75-150 lbs heavier and down 20 hp vs. the 2016 Camaro SS and is behind substantially in acceleration. To match the 2016 Camaro SS in acceleration with all else the same (no VVL) IMO the Coyote will need 475-500 hp.

Having to shift into 3rd to hit 60 is a detriment.  That usually costs 2-3 tenths to 60 vs the same car geared to hit 60 with 1 shift.  But that's moot since even with 3.73s, the GTPP can hit 60 in 2nd gear.  And the only 5G Camaro SS that matched the S550 GTPP was the 1LE, which has similarly steep gearing and more rear tire (hooks up better at launch).

DI, and the accompanying increase in CR should fatten the Mustang's power curve across the range.  So would a displacement increase to 5.2L.  Between the 2, I would think 465 hp/430 lb-ft would be within reason.

[MX793]

Well, for starters, Ford is stuck with the goofy power train segmentation. How could that have ever been a good idea? By initial reviews the Ecoboost simply doesn't measure up against the V6. GM's 8 sp AT is another problem - Ford has no answer as of yet. There can be differentiation with the "super" versions (GT500 was a very different car than the ZL1, GM hasn't announced a GT350 competitor yet) but then again they're just a sliver of the brand.

Rumor has it that the Mustang will get Ford's new 10 speed auto in 2017.

[MX793]

Motor Trend tests RS V6 - they maintain visibility has improved "vastly":  http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/2016-chevrolet-camaro-rs-v-6-first-test-review/.

Improved doesn't mean good.  If a student takes a test and only gets 10% of the questions correct and then takes the test a second time and scores a 25%, they have vastly improved but still scored poorly.

The Camaro's visibility issues were 360 degrees.  Difficulty seeing traffic lights if you were the first car in line.  Cowl was so high that low-lying obstacles, like traffic cones, fall out of view well in front of you.  The A pillars could hide a horse standing on the crosswalk.  Beltline was so high that low-lying obstacles in relatively close proximity cannot be seen.  Rear quarter windows did nothing other than let a little light into the rear seat area.  And the rear window was a mail slot, positioned high so that I doubt you could see a shopping cart if someone left one behind you.

I've heard mixed reviews of the 6G's visibility.  Some say it's no better.  Some say the view forward is much better, but everywhere else is the same or worse.  Others say "much improved" without any elaboration on whether that's all over or just certain areas.  One thing I have not heard anyone say is that the visibility out is now good or even equal to or better than the Mustang.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Rumor has it that the Mustang will get Ford's new 10 speed auto in 2017.

This is not enough speeds.

[565]

Visibility is for pussies that need to see the road to drive.

[GoCougs]

Having to shift into 3rd to hit 60 is a detriment.  That usually costs 2-3 tenths to 60 vs the same car geared to hit 60 with 1 shift.  But that's moot since even with 3.73s, the GTPP can hit 60 in 2nd gear.  And the only 5G Camaro SS that matched the S550 GTPP was the 1LE, which has similarly steep gearing and more rear tire (hooks up better at launch).

DI, and the accompanying increase in CR should fatten the Mustang's power curve across the range.  So would a displacement increase to 5.2L.  Between the 2, I would think 465 hp/430 lb-ft would be within reason.

Interesting. The Mustang GT's new 275/40/19 rear tire (vs. the old 255/40/19) just puts it into 60 mph in 2nd now...

Camaro SS 1LE only had shorter gearing in 3rd and 4th gears but it didn't make a ton of difference owing to the advantage in the upper registers (= muted) - any 5th gen Camaro SS M/T was a 12.9-13.0 car. Even so, the Mustang GT still had significantly shorter gearing than the 1LE:

Speed in gear Camaro SS/Camaro SS 1LE/Mustang GT
1st: 52/51/42
2nd: 77/76/62
3rd: 110/104/89
4th: 157/137/114
5th: 157 (governed)/156 (governed)/149

465 hp will help but judging by the deficit, esp. in 1/4 mile (12.3 vs. 13.0) the Coyote needs a lot more or VVL.

[GoCougs]

Improved doesn't mean good.  If a student takes a test and only gets 10% of the questions correct and then takes the test a second time and scores a 25%, they have vastly improved but still scored poorly.

The Camaro's visibility issues were 360 degrees.  Difficulty seeing traffic lights if you were the first car in line.  Cowl was so high that low-lying obstacles, like traffic cones, fall out of view well in front of you.  The A pillars could hide a horse standing on the crosswalk.  Beltline was so high that low-lying obstacles in relatively close proximity cannot be seen.  Rear quarter windows did nothing other than let a little light into the rear seat area.  And the rear window was a mail slot, positioned high so that I doubt you could see a shopping cart if someone left one behind you.

I've heard mixed reviews of the 6G's visibility.  Some say it's no better.  Some say the view forward is much better, but everywhere else is the same or worse.  Others say "much improved" without any elaboration on whether that's all over or just certain areas.  One thing I have not heard anyone say is that the visibility out is now good or even equal to or better than the Mustang.

The played around with the top of the dash to aid visibility. Judging by the 5th gen's success no one really cares. It's a bit different driving experience but I think it's awesome.

[MX793]

Interesting. The Mustang GT's new 275/40/19 rear tire (vs. the old 255/40/19) just puts it into 60 mph in 2nd now...

Camaro SS 1LE only had shorter gearing in 3rd and 4th gears but it didn't make a ton of difference owing to the advantage in the upper registers (= muted) - any 5th gen Camaro SS M/T was a 12.9-13.0 car. Even so, the Mustang GT still had significantly shorter gearing than the 1LE:

Speed in gear Camaro SS/Camaro SS 1LE/Mustang GT
1st: 52/51/42
2nd: 77/76/62
3rd: 110/104/89
4th: 157/137/114
5th: 157 (governed)/156 (governed)/149

465 hp will help but judging by the deficit, esp. in 1/4 mile (12.3 vs. 13.0) the Coyote needs a lot more or VVL.

Part of the 1LE package was a 3.93 final drive vs 3.45 in the regular SS.  Something's not adding up...

[MX793]

The played around with the top of the dash to aid visibility. Judging by the 5th gen's success no one really cares. It's a bit different driving experience but I think it's awesome.

Some people cared.  I walked away from buying a Gen5 because of it.  That is, in fact, why I give the car such a hard time over it.  It was at the top of my list 5 years ago, but the visibility completely put me off.  My uncle, a GM guy for as long as I can remember, was put off by the visibility as well and ended up with an S197 (a hopped up GT500 clone).  I've heard plenty of others express similar sentiment.

For regular street driving, you can adjust.  Tight or congested parking lots (with curbed islands) would be nerve wracking, though.  As an avid autocrosser, forward and front-quarter visibility is very important to me.  Hard to navigate an autocross course when you can't see the cones.

[GoCougs]

Part of the 1LE package was a 3.93 final drive vs 3.45 in the regular SS.  Something's not adding up...

The other part of the 1LE package was also different transmission such that gears 3 and 4 (mostly 4) were shortened for mid range/track emphasis.

Camaro SS 1LE w/3.91:

1st: 2.66 * 3.91= 10.40:1
2nd: 1.78 * 3.91= 6.96:1
3rd: 1.30 * 3.91= 5.08:1
4th: 1.00 * 3.91= 3.91:1
5th: 0.74 * 3.91= 2.89:1
6th: 0.50 * 3.91= 1.96:1

Camaro SS w/3.45:

1st: 3.01 * 3.45 = 10.38:1
2nd: 2.07 * 3.45 = 7.14:1
3rd: 1.43 * 3.45 = 4.93:1
4th: 1.00 * 3.45 = 3.45:1
5th: 0.84 * 3.45 = 2.90:1
6th: 0.57 * 3.45 = 1.97:1

[GoCougs]

December 2015 issue of Motor Trend has a head-to-head comparo of the 2016 Camaro 1SS vs. 2016 Mustang GT Performance Pack.

As expected, it wasn't really a contest in objective performance - the Camaro is at least a generation ahead, and the car was not equipped with MagneRide. For subjective performance (steeling/brake/gearbox feel, engine note) they also gave the Camaro the nod by a notable margin. Mustang had a bit more compliant ride and a nicer interior (and it should, considering it was loaded up with almost $12k in options (!)).

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

December 2015 issue of Motor Trend has a head-to-head comparo of the 2016 Camaro 1SS vs. 2016 Mustang GT Performance Pack.

As expected, it wasn't really a contest in objective performance - the Camaro is at least a generation ahead, and the car was not equipped with MagneRide. For subjective performance (steeling/brake/gearbox feel, engine note) they also gave the Camaro the nod by a notable margin. Mustang had a bit more compliant ride and a nicer interior (and it should, considering it was loaded up with almost $12k in options (!)).

It was a Ass whipping from Ding to Dong.....

[FlatBlackCaddy]

One of the mags had a base 1SS that weighed 3670.

Wow, that's pretty good. I wonder if they had to tie the car down when they weren't driving it, otherwise it might float away.

[MX793]

December 2015 issue of Motor Trend has a head-to-head comparo of the 2016 Camaro 1SS vs. 2016 Mustang GT Performance Pack.

As expected, it wasn't really a contest in objective performance - the Camaro is at least a generation ahead, and the car was not equipped with MagneRide. For subjective performance (steeling/brake/gearbox feel, engine note) they also gave the Camaro the nod by a notable margin. Mustang had a bit more compliant ride and a nicer interior (and it should, considering it was loaded up with almost $12k in options (!)).

Picked up the latest C&D at the grocery store last night for their comparing.  MT giving the nod to the Camaro isn't surprising since they just don't seem to be big fans of the Mustang.  But even C&D gave the win to the Camaro, and they've typically overlooked performance differences in favor of the Mustang's more well-rounded nature.  They still contend that the Mustang is the nicer car to drive every day by virtue of its larger trunk, better Outward visibility, roomier cabin, and nicer interior.  But thanks to the MR shocks, Camaro no longer gives up any points for the ride/handling balance like the old 1le and the interior has closed the gap.

I've got to hand it to GM on this one.  Much bigger strides between Gen5 and Gen6 than Ford brought with the latest Mustang.  Will be very interesting to see if/how Ford responds.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Picked up the latest C&D at the grocery store last night for their comparing.  MT giving the nod to the Camaro's isn't surprising since they just don't seem to be big fans of the Mustang.  But even C&D gave the win to the Camaro's, and they've typically overlooked performance differences in favor of the Mustang's more well-rounded nature.  They still contend that the Mustang is the nicer car to drive every day by virtue of its larger trunk, better Outward visibility, roomier cabin, and nicer interior.  But thanks to the MR shocks, Camaro's no longer gives up any points for the ride/handling balance like the old 1le and the interior has closed the gap.

I've got to hand it to GM on this one.  Much bigger strides between Gen5 and Gen6 than Ford brought with the latest Mustang.  Will be very interesting to see if/how Ford responds.

Ford must respond swiftly by accenting what they already have: elements of a better daily driver.
A shooting-brake hatchback with a larger rear seat and rear half-doors would make it a car people can not only abuse, but also use. Switch it to a FWD layout and flatten the rear floor. Simple things like that would embarass any Camaro driver.

[SJ_GTI]

Ford must respond swiftly by accenting what they already have: elements of a better daily driver.
A shooting-brake hatchback with a larger rear seat and rear half-doors would make it a car people can not only abuse, but also use. Switch it to a FWD layout and flatten the rear floor. Simple things like that would embarass any Camaro driver.

i lol'd

[afty]

FWIW the C&D comparo was very close, with only 2 points separating the cars.