[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

I'm not saying visibility in the Camaro is good in absolute terms. That would be silly, it's obviously worse than in a shorter wheelbase sedan with tall windows and narrow pillars, and much worse than in a large SUV or truck where the driver sits at least a foot higher than the rest of the world (which is why they bought said SUV or truck in the first place).

What I'm saying is it feels normal for this class of vehicle, as in, I find it strange that this minor shortcoming would be a dealbreaker for so many with such a relatively cheap car. (And I'm still sure the beltline could've been lowered an inch or two in the refresh, which then could have been a game changer for those who were turned off to the car for this reason.)

Nobody finds the same fault with the C8 where one physically cannot see absolute jack **** behind the car or rearward to the sides, and were it not for the camera mirror (same as the unit in the Camaro), the only thing people could do is be faster than everyone else so they don't need to see what's behind them (j/k). And the C8 is much more expensive.

The frequency of mentions in reviews doesn't hit as hard in this ultra-connected, memeified world where content creators endlessly parrot each other, hoping their take will not be dismissed ("look, he didn't even mention visbility, what a superficial review"). In other words, reviews are far, far from independent of each other.

Anyway, it is what it is, I can totally understand how "normal" people don't like the cockpit feel; to me it's a selling point, and the discussion is moot, I seriously doubt GM would attempt a new Camaro line, especially one that would stand out and not look almost exactly like something else.

Here's why there is such a difference between the Camaro and the Corvette. Camaro, like Mustang, has to generate sufficient volume to make the program profitable or it doesn't make sense. And it has to do that within a certain price band. In order to fit the car within that price band, it has to sell beyond the performance car enthusiast population. Those are the people that are more likely to be considering it as an only car. If it's an only car, it needs to do car things well. Camaro does those things "less well" than Mustang, Charger, or Challenger. So what we see as "shortcomings" the person who's replacing his Ford Escape or her Chevy Cruze will see those shortcomings as deal breakers.

Corvette is what it is. Performance first. And it is rarely an only car. My first Corvette was an only car. For about 6 months. I was 26, had just bought my first house, and I was single. Then winter hit. Bought a used Buick Skylark T-Type with the quickness Before that, Mustangs and Fieros were my "only cars" and they fit the bill just fine. Camaro needed to do the same in the Chevrolet portfolio, but Corvette never needed to. Volume is less important because Corvette has a lot of room for pricing flexibility. Today prices range from $68,300 to a hiccup below $200k. The fact that it costs about half what its primary competitors cost reinforces GM's ability to price profitably for every option. The person buying a Corvette could care less about back seat room (don't have / don't need) and as long as you can see around the curves at Waterford Hills or VIR or Road America it's all good. Sure there are people who never take their Corvette to the track, but they buy it because it's ability to kill on the track translates into street cred and completely forgives any shortcomings as a daily driver.

Corvette doesn't have to reach beyond the core group of performance car enthusiasts to survive. Camaro (and Mustang and Charger / Challenger) absolutely have to. The compromises made in the 6th Gen Camaro make it very hard for a first time sporty car buyer coming out of a more mainstream vehicle come to love it on first impression.