[13vertss]

Originally Posted by ztwentypoop

Right. But GM does NOT indicate if that is a SS with or without MRC. Get it?

Don't shoot the messenger.

[xgnxs]

Originally Posted by Red2014SS

I was under the assumption that MRC was going to be standard equipment on the new SS.

Some automotive sites made it sound like it would be standard but the press release from GM says that it will be "available." Definitely sounds like an optional upgrade.

[Johnman]

Kudos to GM for the rear visibility/styling decision. The Camaro has always had thick rear pillars, it's part of the look. Imagine if Dodge had made the new Challenger with skinny rear pillars-it wouldn't look right.

[Number 3]

I would be shocked if MR was standard in a 1SS. But GM made it standard in the SS Sedan so it all depends on pricing, options and standard equipment.

If GM can offer MR as standard and hold price compared to a base Mustang GT, then awesome.

Also rear visibility is not over blown. It will keep the car from being a wild hit. Trust me on this guys, people will get in that car and if they can't see out of it they won't buy it.

This is history repeating itself if it's bad. Here is why.

The Gen 4 died because the base coupe SUCKED!!!!! The V8s continued to sell at a reasonable volume but the V6 volume tanked for poor ingress/egress, no storage to speak of and as I recall in the many I drove, poor visibility with the big b-pillar.

I've said all along it has to be a great car first and ONLY then a Camaro after that. When you make a Camaro first and then fight for trunk lift over height, rear visibility, ingress/egress, none of those will good. Not impossible, but when you are already making excuses that you talked to your customers and they told you poor visibility was ok then you sure aren't trying to win new customers and get folks thinking of FWD sporty coupes to buy your new car.

Failure will be competing with Mustang only. Hope to the good Lord in heaven they didn't do this AGAIN.

A lot of people on this site will buy it simply because it's the next gen Camaro and even more will buy it because the lower weight and improved performance will out weigh rearward visibility. People looking for a sport coupe and who will consider 4 and 6 cylinders are going to be more demanding of a great car for driving every day.

Also, GM has a long and horrid history of subjugating real world functionality and performance simply for the sake of styling. CTS coupe as the most recent and horrid example.

[13vertss]

Is the Mustang really that much better?

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by 13vertss/r's

Is the Mustang really that much better?

Nope, and the Mustang will likely will be the 2nd or 3rd best pony car by the end of the year.

I just know too much of the history. GM needs to have this be a great car in 4 or 5 years. Not just a year after the Mustang launch.

[benanderson89]

Originally Posted by iSHOOTtheMOON

270 hp out of that Turbo 4? Seems a little weak sauce compared to the ecoboost

Yes but if its a lighter car overall, which I imagine it will be as the Mustang's weight saving's were just a fat lie (see what I did there?) it'd be a potent engine to have under the hood. Does 5.9s in the ATS, with the 2.3 EcoBoost in the Mustang pulling 5.8s on a 60mph sprint.

Its actually a slightly evolved form of the Opel EcoTech engine from the Astra GTC VXR (same numbers). We have a version from factory here that pushes 300hp. Getting it up to 320hp shouldn't be an issue.

[titanfan]

Man, some people sure get bent out of shape. I'm in agreement the base SS on Alpha is likely to out-handle the Mustang GT, without without the PP, that is expected. Will the Mustang boys take issue, that's assured, but who cares what they think? I was simply commenting on the verbiage used by GM. I get why they did it, they want to sell cars, but when things are left ambiguous, some might make claims that are untrue or unrealistic.

[mlee]

Originally Posted by DrkPhx

I was hoping for 460 hp for the LT1 and I think we will see somewhere around that for the final numbers. My concern is the weight and f/r weight ratio. The LT1 is heavier than the LS3. Will the new SS actually weight 200-lbs less than the outgoing SS; or any they comparing base models? I have a feeling we may see very similar numbers to the 5th gen when the dust settles. Let's hope not.

455hp and 200lbs less than current SS

[gs_M6]

440/450?

GM's press site says different 455/455, that sounds about right considering it's got tri-y manifolds.

http://media.chevrolet.com/media/us/...16-camaro.html

"The Gen Six Camaro provides a faster, more nimble driving experience, enabled by an all-new, lighter architecture and a broader powertrain range. Six all-new powertrain combinations are offered, including a 2.0L Turbo, an all-new 3.6L V-6 and the LT1 6.2L V-8, which is SAE-certified at 455 horsepower (339 kW) and 455 lb-ft of torque (617 Nm) – for the most powerful Camaro SS ever. Each engine is available with a six-speed manual or eight-speed automatic transmission."

[Scott@Bjorn3D]

Well I am going to wait for 2017 or 2018 to see what other models besides the SS there will be. I am excited to see the SS is getting better lap times than the 1LE. And finally a 3.73 rear end as stock. The interior looks awesome and that right there wants me to jump now. But I am think 55th birthday present for me will be a new one.

[libertyforall]

Originally Posted by Trans damm

At least we get the 8" dash display.

Does not hold a candle to Tesla Model S' 17" display! I just test drove it too, 691 HP & 681 lb ft TQ in the P85D top dog! Torque all day at an instant! Of course that model starts at $105k...

[sonnydurden]

Standard back up camera??

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by sonnydurden

Standard back up camera??

Yep, most manufacturers are doing this now because the Feds will require it by 2018 anyway.