[activepat]

So while following the thread, since it is like watching a house burn down, I am throwing in my constructive opinion.

I just spent 17 months driving a new Mustang GT Premium and put 6000 miles on it. This was a fun car to drive. It also had the cross-traffic and blind spot monitors. Of course a backup camera as well. I travel the interstate to and from work. Plus normal around town driving.

As far as actual "straight forward" driving in traffic the car is no different then the Camaro. Keep in mind I moved from a 2013 Corvette to the Mustang. The Vette definitely is the worse of the 3. I drive looking forward at where I am going with my mirrors set correctly. The Vette could use a more useful mirror.

But anybody who buys a sports car and complains about visability, not being able to see the nose or parking curbs, etc. really shouldn't be driving one.

Sports cars are for enthusiasts.

I will say I had been looking at the new Camaro with great interest since it debuted. Never owning a Camaro in my life but having owned a half dozen Vettes, the Corvette engine in the Camaro brought me here.

And then there was driving it. Very nimble and well connected to the road. Much, much nicer with better manors on the highway. The Mustang is a bucking bronco in comparison. Around town both cars are equal. But the Camaro with the dual-mode exhaust is more of a growling animal. It just sounds mean and "corvette like" and, for the record, my 2013 LS3 had the dual mode exhaust but did not sound like this car.

The only issue I found on the first few days was coming out of my neighborhood across 3 lanes of traffic and stopping in the median diagonally l do have an issue seeing on-coming traffic over the right shoulder. I might have stepped up to the 2SS just for this but no real problem and certainly no reason not to own it.

So in response to "is Camaro losing sales to the Mustang?" Not if a true sports car enthusiast drives both with an open mind.

And when asked what I like about my new SS the best, living in the tourist state of Florida, nobody is confusing my Camaro with one of the thousands of rental cars on our roads. Especially when they hear it growl.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by activepat

So while following the thread, since it is like watching a house burn down, I am throwing in my constructive opinion.

I just spent 17 months driving a new Mustang GT Premium and put 6000 miles on it. This was a fun car to drive. It also had the cross-traffic and blind spot monitors. Of course a backup camera as well. I travel the interstate to and from work. Plus normal around town driving.

As far as actual "straight forward" driving in traffic the car is no different then the Camaro. Keep in mind I moved from a 2013 Corvette to the Mustang. The Vette definitely is the worse of the 3. I drive looking forward at where I am going with my mirrors set correctly. The Vette could use a more useful mirror.

But anybody who buys a sports car and complains about visability, not being able to see the nose or parking curbs, etc. really shouldn't be driving one.

Sports cars are for enthusiasts.

I will say I had been looking at the new Camaro with great interest since it debuted. Never owning a Camaro in my life but having owned a half dozen Vettes, the Corvette engine in the Camaro brought me here.

And then there was driving it. Very nimble and well connected to the road. Much, much nicer with better manors on the highway. The Mustang is a bucking bronco in comparison. Around town both cars are equal. But the Camaro with the dual-mode exhaust is more of a growling animal. It just sounds mean and "corvette like" and, for the record, my 2013 LS3 had the dual mode exhaust but did not sound like this car.

The only issue I found on the first few days was coming out of my neighborhood across 3 lanes of traffic and stopping in the median diagonally l do have an issue seeing on-coming traffic over the right shoulder. I might have stepped up to the 2SS just for this but no real problem and certainly no reason not to own it.

So in response to "is Camaro losing sales to the Mustang?" Not if a true sports car enthusiast drives both with an open mind.

And when asked what I like about my new SS the best, living in the tourist state of Florida, nobody is confusing my Camaro with one of the thousands of rental cars on our roads. Especially when they hear it growl.

Nope, sorry soooooo far from the truth.

This car COULD have been awesome AND had improved visibility over a Gen5. It was a decision to do otherwise.

Anyone who claims that a car of this size MUST somehow have bad visibility is, as nice as I can put it, mistaken.

Again, my point all along, you opinion is important and valuable. But it doesn't mean it has to be true for everyone else or even anyone else.

I appreciate that you think "sports cars are for enthusiasts". Well guess what, the I4 and V6 are not Sports Cars, they are Sporty Coupes. And people looking for those cars may not be willing to make the same visibility trade offs you are. And that is one of the concerns here. Is the constant magazine harping on the issue, which is real, hindering sales at all?

But you are correct in that the visibility the Gen6 has is no reason not to own one...............unless having "good" direct vision is important to you. Then it is a reason not to own one.

Keep in mind, this site is primarily V8 SS fanatics. That SHOULD be only about half of the volume if the car is selling well. Maybe a bit more with gas at or about $2 per gallon. The I4 and V6 should be selling well to keep the volume up. This car has to sell far more than the Corvette. If not there won't be room for two low volume cars, one that is profitable and one that isn't.

We are still about 2 months from seeing how I4 and convertible sales help overall sales. It should help and perhaps quiet the concerns about sales relative to the Mustang.

[activepat]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Nope, sorry soooooo far from the truth

Ok, you are right and I am wrong......

[nvrsatisfied]

Originally Posted by 20171LE

For the record, I was productive from the very beginning.
After airing my legitimate visbility issues with my 2016 Camaro, I stated the pro-GM solution is that Chevy releases a Alpha SS Sedan ASAP for Camaro buyers that want improved visibility and utility.

When I asked, Al O told me to my face that a Alpha SS Sedan wasn't even decided yet, and even IF it did happen, that it would be at least another 3 years. This conversation occurred in late 2015.

Well, sell your car or trade it in on something you can see out of without visibility issues. If/when the sedan comes out, buy that one

[vtirocz]

Originally Posted by 20171LE

For the record, I was productive from the very beginning.
After airing my legitimate visbility issues with my 2016 Camaro, I stated the pro-GM solution is that Chevy releases a Alpha SS Sedan ASAP for Camaro buyers that want improved visibility and utility.

When I asked, Al O told me to my face that a Alpha SS Sedan wasn't even decided yet, and even IF it did happen, that it would be at least another 3 years. This conversation occurred in late 2015.

I want an alpha sedan badly!!! Considering buying an old ATS to swap in an LS3/tr6060. I hope the SS sedan for model year 18 is basically an ATS-V with an LT1.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by vtirocz

I want an alpha sedan badly!!! Considering buying an old ATS to swap in an LS3/tr6060. I hope the SS sedan for model year 18 is basically an ATS-V with an LT1.

Too small to replace the SS. I'm hoping for an LT1 powered CTS V-sport. But that would enable a twin for the ZL1 with an LT4 as well.

Actually hoping GM moves the Impala to the Alpha architecture. Chevy doesn't need another compact sedan the size of a Cruze, V8 or not. I'm not even sure with the new Malibu there is room for a CTS sized car in Chevy lineup.

[MrChrisLS3]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Too small to replace the SS. I'm hoping for an LT1 powered CTS V-sport. But that would enable a twin for the ZL1 with an LT4 as well.

Actually hoping GM moves the Impala to the Alpha architecture. Chevy doesn't need another compact sedan the size of a Cruze, V8 or not. I'm not even sure with the new Malibu there is room for a CTS sized car in Chevy lineup.

I agree on the Impala. A rwd sedan like that would also give the option for different engines, and V8 would be sweet. I would think the Impala in this config would give the Charger and the Taurus a good run for their money.

[SpeedIsLife]

I do think that GM should have a RWD sedan available, both in V6/V8 forms. Some people just want RWD, but can't afford a $40,000+ price of entry.

FWD is better for packaging (no need for a rear differential, driveshaft, etc) and is safer for people who either are reckless or inexperienced.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by 20171LE

I have NO idea why my thread would be moved to a completely different website, but I'm asking the following:

C6 & C7 owners who now own Camaro6: How does the visibility/blind spots compare?
Just curious to see if everyone else has the same opinion as I do, so I posted the thread to ask others.

The C7 was another GM decision around styling. To give the car a different look from the side view, GM added a small quarter glass. It did really change the car from the look it had in C4, C5 and C6 which had the simple "bow" across the top with a full glass hatch. In order to have the new look, the hatch got smaller and a car that did not have one, now has a C-pillar.

Styling drives these choices.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by 20171LE

I have NO idea why my thread would be moved to a completely different website, but I'm asking the following:

C6 & C7 owners who now own Camaro6: How does the visibility/blind spots compare?
Just curious to see if everyone else has the same opinion as I do, so I posted the thread to ask others.

Because you were asking Corvette owners...which is better suited to our Corvette7 alter-ego...and because we're not doing another visibility thread, here...

Originally Posted by Number 3

The C7 was another GM decision around styling. To give the car a different look from the side view, GM added a small quarter glass. It did really change the car from the look it had in C4, C5 and C6 which had the simple "bow" across the top with a full glass hatch. In order to have the new look, the hatch got smaller and a car that did not have one, now has a C-pillar.

Styling drives these choices.

Remember the rumor that they were planning a split rear glass like the Stingray concept car?

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by Number 3

The C7 was another GM decision around styling. To give the car a different look from the side view, GM added a small quarter glass. It did really change the car from the look it had in C4, C5 and C6 which had the simple "bow" across the top with a full glass hatch. In order to have the new look, the hatch got smaller and a car that did not have one, now has a C-pillar.

Styling drives these choices.

Do you think that attitude at GM is an attempt to resurrect the glory days of Harley Earl and Bill Mitchell? The styling from those two men made GM a force for 50 years.

An interesting article from last November's Hot Rod (below) and a quote from the greatest designer.

Bill Mitchell - "Designing a car by committee is like 10 guys doing a painting"

Pontiac Aztek & Corvette C6 - Would You Believe These Were Designed By The Same Designer?

You already know the Pontiac Aztek was the ugliest car produced in the last 40 years, and it was a flop. What you don't know is that its designer, Tom Peters, went on to design the 2005–2013 C6 Corvette and now oversees Performance Car Design for Chevy that includes the Camaro and Corvette. So why wasn't he fired, instead, for designing one of the most reviled cars of all time? Well, there were reasons the Aztek looks the way it does, and it was a combo of cockeyed mandates, bad process, and compromise, which Peters had little to do with.

When first conceived as a concept, the Aztek was a cool-looking cross between a station wagon and an SUV. Its proportions were great, and it looked like it could almost have been a rugged, new-millennium Nomad. By the time it was green-lit for production, internal decisions doomed it.

First, it was assigned to the minivan platform and received all their narrow-track, high-roof, high-beltline, slab-sided goodness. Timing is everything, and during this dark period of GM's past, it was heavily criticized for being a staid company creating boring products. So an edict was passed down from the GM Board of Directors mandating 40 percent of all new products be "innovative." This drove engineers and designers to go for all of the versatility crap hung on the Aztek, like the built-in camping tent, seat-mounted back packs, and sliding cargo floor with grocery compartments—never mind that the thing looked terrible. The zeal for innovation blinded developers.

It scored terribly in consumer clinics, yet GM thought it knew better. When it debuted in 2001, Peters was quoted as saying, "[GM] wanted to do bold, in-your-face vehicles not for everybody." Tom's an overachiever, which is one reason he's been such a successful designer, but the "not for everybody" part he might have overachieved just a bit.

http://www.hotrod.com/features/1511-...same-designer/

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by hotlapZL1

Do you think that attitude at GM is an attempt to resurrect the glory days of Harley Earl and Bill Mitchell? The styling from those two men made GM a force for 50 years.

An interesting article from last November's Hot Rod (below) and a quote from the greatest designer.

Bill Mitchell - "Designing a car by committee is like 10 guys doing a painting"

Aztek, although I didn't like the show car much either, is what happens when you design by committee ANND are forced to use an existing architecture (mini van) with an existing manufacturing process.

If you haven't heard the story, Mark Reuss tells it pretty well.

GM definitely wants to make a styling statement and they should. But the victory is a car that performs, accommodates and looks awesome.

What GM has given us in Cadillac over the past few years is a refrigerator that holds half the milk and groceries of the competitor. "Wow, look how awesome it looks" they would say. "People will buy just because it looks so beautiful". But in the end, it's still a refrigerator and it still has to hold all your groceries. If I'm paying 10 grand for a Subzero, it darn well better look good, keep my food perfectly cold, be durable annnnnnd hold all my stuff.

Yes, people will buy a refrigerator simply because it looks cool, but you have significantly restricted your sales. And if you have a business case on selling beautiful things that aren't competitive in everything they do, great for you! And GM may be "settling" for just that in some cases like Cadillac. But if we go back to the Malibu example, I can assure you they aren't in every case.

I took a yellow CTF Aztek on a trip to Florida years ago. Will never forget the kid in the back seat of a car that passed us.......pointing and laughing.

[fastball]

But without the Aztek, there'd be no....

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by Number 3

GM definitely wants to make a styling statement and they should. But the victory is a car that performs, accommodates and looks awesome.

What GM has given us in Cadillac over the past few years is a refrigerator that holds half the milk and groceries of the competitor. "Wow, look how awesome it looks" they would say. "People will buy just because it looks so beautiful". But in the end, it's still a refrigerator and it still has to hold all your groceries. If I'm paying 10 grand for a Subzero, it darn well better look good, keep my food perfectly cold, be durable annnnnnd hold all my stuff.

Yes, people will buy a refrigerator simply because it looks cool, but you have significantly restricted your sales. And if you have a business case on selling beautiful things that aren't competitive in everything they do, great for you! And GM may be "settling" for just that in some cases like Cadillac. But if we go back to the Malibu example, I can assure you they aren't in every case.

After Roger Smith destroyed all GM brand identity with generic, commonized cars, Cadillac used styling to resurrect itself.

"Mark Adams - "If you think about the boldness and the very edgy concept that came about with the Evoq, it was deliberately shocking in a way because the only way we could re-establish Cadillac in people’s memory was to do something bold and evocative."

Cadillac is cool again and the CT6 seems to be moving from edgy to elegant. Are we seeing a similar movement to re-establish Chevrolet? Styling, performance, content, price position, etc.

you obviously know more about the topic but I'll add this. I was a kid in the 70s when GM styling and brand identity was dominant. I clearly recall thinking GM was slipping in the 80s (wtf) and then gave up on GM in the mid 90s other than RWD V8. I'm encouraged by what I'm seeing