Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3
You made my point. Visibility is one trade off to get the look of the car. Yes worthwhile for many, but there are people that won't buy the car for that reason alone. There are others that would drive a panel van with no windows at all if it looked BA and had V8 
Design is what sells this car, I fully agree. But it is also the limitations of that same design that keeps people from buying it as well. I hope the Camaro always has style and I suspect it will. But a great car has both. GM has a trend going that sacrifices some usability for style. CTS Coupe is an example of that. Looks awesome, but there are sooooooo many compromises. |
I'm afraid gunning for both will water down the effectiveness of the design too much. The only "easy" solution I can think of that won't kill the design would be to work for a lower belt line, and try hard to skinny up the A-pillars on the 6th-gen. This improves visibility, but keep the shoulders, and the chopped roof for their aggressive value.
Luckily Tom Peters is darn near a genius with design - and I'm confident they'll address as much of the convenience stuff as they can without loosing any of the Camaro's visual potency. I look at the new Corvette and find hope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3
Cadillac website had RWD 2.0T at 22/32, not 20/30. Base 2.5L is only 22/33 for a 1 mpg increase.
|
Does it? I checked the fuel efficiency tab under ATS, and couldn't find anything that said 22/32? Where'd you see it?