Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham
I've spoken to the engineers and designers about this at length. The visibility concern has been a popular criticism since day one. We've seen it on this site, in surveys, in magazines.
I think people were very real about their impressions with the last car. Not sure why you think they weren't. It shows in their execution of the new one. Fact is: As you can see briefly around this thread: reduced visibility (vs other, more mainstream cars) is an issue worth noting, but nearly everyone here has stated in some fashion or another that they're willing to deal with it because something else about the car makes up for it to them. So, the team made a conscious decision to prioritize the design of the car. Meanwhile - they HAVE improved visibility to a degree (except rearward).
Same thing goes with rear seating space. People wanted a lighter car. Lighter means smaller. Smaller means limited rear seat space.
Unfortunately, you cannot please everyone, and some features just aren't possible to engineer or design in together. A "Have your cake and eat it, too" scenario...So it's up to the Camaro team to decide what's most important based on their own expertise and enthusiast/customer input. It's called trade-offs.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503
Unfortunately there will probably be some customers who will believe all the negative hype about visibility that seems to be prevalent before they actually try the car out for themselves. More cases of " wow, the visibility issue was not a big deal after all" have occurred when the customer actually sits in one and drives it for themselves.
The design and visibility do not need to be changed to satisfy a subjective and personal preference on the quality of the visibility, especially for anyone who decides to buy something else without having actually tried out a Camaro for themselves.
A dis-service to the brand is done with comments like "the car requires special training" to get used to...."It's not a great car because you actually have to take a little time to adjust the mirrors to suit your driving needs"...
The last I heard, checking and adjusting your mirrors is still a part of all driver's license tests and driver's training instructions for all makes and models of cars and trucks, not just for the Camaro. If the 6thGen Camaro's visibility was so flawed, it would not be allowed to be driven on the highways.
No one should feel they have to agree that the car is terribly flawed, needs to be re-designed, will be a sales failure, etc., etc.,....Try one out and decide for yourself. It's a normal part of smart car shopping.
There is no mandate or obligation to change the Camaro to something it is not, or was never meant to be.
|
2 points.
First, I fully agree with 90503. Drive the car and you may not care one bit about the visibility. I drove one and found it horrid. I found it a likely reason to not buy the car. But not being able to get 2 sets of golf clubs in the trunk is probably the only reason I don't have one now. Yes, it's that big a deal for me.
Of course trying to get anyone on here to actually admit that the visibility is poor seems impossible. It's a trade off that many folks are more than willing to make to get this really outstanding car. My only point has been that GM held on to "what worked" and made little effort to go for greatness, which they could have done.
As for my Friend, Mr. Wyndham, well the other point I am hoping people will understand is those passionate enough to come to a website and discuss Camaros everyday ARE NOT the general car buying public. What people on this site are expected to do is crave performance and bada$$ery in their Camaro. I would expect nothing less. What I hope beyond hope is that people realize that GM still has an uphill battle with brand image. And getting people to buy in larger numbers will not happen with an even more focused car where styling trumps function in key areas many people use to compare cars. Not everyone in that GP is willing to make the trade offs for visibility, trunk space and rear seat accommodations. There are people that want a sporty coupe and that is it. The iconic styling and bada$$ery mean nothing. They want a sharp car that is fun to drive and works for them without having too many compromises (all cars have them, I understand that......except Hondas......they generally don't).
So my only point at all is that the Gen4 died not because the V8 didn't work well or that it couldn't beat the Mustang.........it died because the base coupe sales went in the toilet.
I was hoping GM would take a swing at something new with this car. Instead they played it way too safe IMO. Sure it's a wonderful car and almost everyone here loves it.
But remember this. When I started working at GM, they were over 40% market share by quite a bit. Just prior to that, there was Norwood Ohio (now a shopping mall) and Van Nuys California (now building Teslas I belive) building nothing but Camaros and Firebirds. Today, GM has 16% market share, less than 10% share on either Coast for passenger cars and a part of one plant building Camaros. I wanted GM to make a huge statement with this car.
I just wanted more. So I apologize for that.