[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

Thanks for the insider info, James, as always . However, next time I pop off the taillight cover, I'll check what kind of bracing would need to be cut or removed for split taillights, I don't recall anything being up there that, if missing or smaller or lowered, would hurt much.

I do understand I'm not an chassis engineer and have no experience here, but what I do see is the total lack of engagement from GM in later model years, so unfortunately them simply being unwilling to work on a "best of both worlds" solution is a reasonable assumption.

All water under the bridge, though, given how the Camaro team was disbanded in 2018 and the chief engineer assigned to the Hummer EV project.

Trying to remember a conversation / demonstration from about 12 years ago, but with the trunk open, you’re looking for something in about the 9-10 o’clock and 2-3 o’clock areas around the taillights. There were triangular structures in place that prevented widening the trunk opening. When I was looking at it it was an ATS coupe minus body panels, so I’m not 100% certain how completely that translates to Camaro.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Alan47717

I don't say that the visibility is great, or that the trunk opening is huge or that the back seat accessibility is good. I DO say if you really want those things then you don't want a sports car. The visibility in my car is no worse than it was in my C3 or in any of the C4's I drove as company cars.

The thing that puzzles me is the lack of understanding of what makes this car what it is. A reviewer spends hundreds of words raving about performance, handling, chassis stiffness, etc. then whines about poor "yada, yada, yada" issues without realizing those compromises help make all that good stuff possible.

What you are forgetting is the Corvette is the sports car. The Camaro is NOT. A version of it can be considered one or a Muscle Car, whichever floats the buyer's boat. But it's a sporty coupe available with a 4 and 6 cylinder engine. Neither of those is a muscle car or a sports car.

For the people buying a 4 or 6 cylinder sporty car, they aren't letting the V8 performance make up for all the trade offs made for visibility and usability (both terms Reuss has used to describe what must be true for a Gen7).

When the Camaro died in 2001, the V8 sales were on par with the Mustang. It was the rest of the sales that GM lagged far behind. And 20,000 V8 Camaros is not enough to keep a plant running.

The one thing we never see data on is the % of female buyers in this segment. As much as many used to denigrate the Mustang as a "secretary special", I would also bet the number of women buying Mustangs is much higher than the Camaro. And that is likely because of the things a V8 Camaro buyer is willing to excuse.

I've been laughed at here, but I was as cranked up as anybody here to get a Gen6. But other than over the hood, the visibility was worse than a Gen5. The trunk in a Gen5 could hold 2 sets of golf clubs. Unlike the other Alpha coupe, the Gen6 Camaro trunk is not big enough to hold just the driver. So, I could drive around with my rear seat down (noisy) or keep my driver (and putter but that's a golf discussion) in the back seat. Keeping in mind the C8 Corvette was designed for and can accommodate 2 sets with ease, and this was done to the detriment to the overall size and weight of the car. They knew their customer and I know I've taken countless road trips with golf clubs in C5 and C6 Corvettes, as well as Gen5 Camaros.

As I've said, GM hit a homerun with the Gen6. It did everything in spades that the people they asked wanted. One could say it "exceeded expectations" and I can make that statement with a lot of confidence. The problem was those people were already Camaro owners. So, they designed and engineered a Camaro that was the best Camaro ever but didn't have broad enough appeal to sell well enough for a Gen7.

And finally, I was there when Ed Welborn led Design Center. He was big on the "high belt, slammed roof styling". The Camaro got this in excess but so did the ATS and CTS just not to the same degree. I remember seeing a BMW 3 Series set up to be more similar to the ATS. Imagine taking the roll of black painters' tape and using that tape to simulate a higher belt and lower roof. It did make the 3 Series look like it had gun slits for side windows and windshield. That's what they did to the ATS and the Camaro, with the same front of dash and front architecture had to have the same belt line. And the lower coupe roof of the Camaro just made it worse. And a fun fact, for the ATS coupe, GM laid the a-pillar back a few degrees and dropped the roof an inch, so even though an ATS coupe has loads of rear seat leg room, the rear passenger head room is nonexistent.

Reuss's comments, at least for me, is the admission that GM knows that in a segment that is dying (coupe sales are not good in general) a Gen7 will not only have to address the lack of broad appeal of the Camaro, but it will also have to chin winning over some portion at least of all the people buying SUVs to be a winner. And the hardest part is that without using Alpha 2, GM has no architecture (other than the EVs) in use anywhere around the world to make a RWD coupe off of. So that just makes the investment even higher.

I hope they find the solution. If they do, it will likely not make some on here very happy simply because of the words used by Reuss on usability/versatility.

The best news is that GM has several V8 engines to choose from. An all-new small block for 2027 as well as a few sweet morsels from the C8 Corvette. Side question is will the new small block also generate a replacement for the LT2?

[Devstrike]

The Camaro was not really a muscle car anymore it was actually more of a sports car imo. The Challenger is or I guess was the only true Muscle car left and the only one that really resembled the muscle cars of old imo.

If GM comes out with a 7th Gen Camaro that under performs the 6th Gen because of "Visibility" etc then what will be the point of it. Most people that own a 6th Gen won't buy the 7th Gen if their current car performs better.

[SomeGeoffGuy]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

Well, the problem with the downward angle is that if you have the white seats or anyone sitting in the passenger seat in light colored clothes or dress, the screen will reflect that and become much less usable.

I have the black interior, so this isn't a problem when driving alone, but when my wife is in the car and she wear something even with a lighter pattern, screen visibility is way worse.

This is understandably one of those engineering tradeoffs where you can only decide which finger to bite, that's why you never heard me even mention it here.

All I can think of is the old Graucho Marks routine. "Patient: Doc, it hurts when I go like this. Doc: Then don't go like this". I had a white convertible 2016 car with a white interior and never even noticed the issue that you are describing.

-Geoff

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by SomeGeoffGuy

All I can think of is the old Graucho Marks routine. "Patient: Doc, it hurts when I go like this. Doc: Then don't go like this". I had a white convertible 2016 car with a white interior and never even noticed the issue that you are describing.

-Geoff

Good for you, brother . Groucho Marx doesn't apply here, since if you got the coupe with the white interior, you can't "not go like this" unless you sell the car and buy another. Anyway, it's a thing of minimal consequence, I never complained about it or even notice it much, unlike about one third of automotive reviewers that created videos about the car (which, along with all the other usual gripes, may have swayed a few from buying the car).


Number 3

I for one love Ed Welburn's muscular slammed design language. At least this car has a distinctive, powerful look, unlike the typical bubbly catfish (Mustang), raindrop (Porsche) and pebble (BMW) designs. Yeah, I will say that he overdid it on the Camaro a wee bit, but it's really a matter of an inch here and there and visibility/headroom/legroom complaints would've been mostly nixed.

Although it's just one data point, but interestingly female Camaro drivers actually outnumber us men in the area I live in, our tough southern ladies love this car. There are many more 5th gens than 6th gens, but this applies to both.

Finally, saying that the Camaro isn't a sports car when it ran a 7:16 on the Nürburgring, beating Porsches and Lamborghinis, is a bit rich

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

Good for you, brother . Groucho Marx doesn't apply here, since if you got the coupe with the white interior, you can't "not go like this" unless you sell the car and buy another. Anyway, it's a thing of minimal consequence, I never complained about it or even notice it much, unlike about one third of automotive reviewers that created videos about the car (which, along with all the other usual gripes, may have swayed a few from buying the car).


Number 3

I for one love Ed Welburn's muscular slammed design language. At least this car has a distinctive, powerful look, unlike the typical bubbly catfish (Mustang), raindrop (Porsche) and pebble (BMW) designs. Yeah, I will say that he overdid it on the Camaro a wee bit, but it's really a matter of an inch here and there and visibility/headroom/legroom complaints would've been mostly nixed.

Although it's just one data point, but interestingly female Camaro drivers actually outnumber us men in the area I live in, our tough southern ladies love this car. There are many more 5th gens than 6th gens, but this applies to both.

Finally, saying that the Camaro isn't a sports car when it ran a 7:16 on the Nürburgring, beating Porsches and Lamborghinis, is a bit rich

Don't get me wrong, that look is awesome on paper. Look at any Chip Foose sketch. The problem is translating that into an actual car. For the Camaro it was a reasonable trade off. For the ATS, it made it even more inferior to the BMW which was their number 1 target. "I know, let's make it just like the BMW but we will make it much harder to see out of. That will sell a TON of cars".

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

Good for you, brother . Groucho Marx doesn't apply here, since if you got the coupe with the white interior, you can't "not go like this" unless you sell the car and buy another. Anyway, it's a thing of minimal consequence, I never complained about it or even notice it much, unlike about one third of automotive reviewers that created videos about the car (which, along with all the other usual gripes, may have swayed a few from buying the car).


Number 3

I for one love Ed Welburn's muscular slammed design language. At least this car has a distinctive, powerful look, unlike the typical bubbly catfish (Mustang), raindrop (Porsche) and pebble (BMW) designs. Yeah, I will say that he overdid it on the Camaro a wee bit, but it's really a matter of an inch here and there and visibility/headroom/legroom complaints would've been mostly nixed.

Although it's just one data point, but interestingly female Camaro drivers actually outnumber us men in the area I live in, our tough southern ladies love this car. There are many more 5th gens than 6th gens, but this applies to both.

Finally, saying that the Camaro isn't a sports car when it ran a 7:16 on the Nürburgring, beating Porsches and Lamborghinis, is a bit rich

They run a LOT of cars at the 'ring that aren't "sports cars". Time at the ring doesn't change its definition.

The Camaro was started out as a "Pony Car". A segment started by/created by Ford. Those were never sports cars, but "sporty" cars.

So just because it ran a 7:16 doesn't make it sports car. A great performing car yes, which I've never argued. So we can agree to disagree on whether it's a sports car or muscle car as Chevy tried to market the Camaro as both. For me, the Corvette IS the GM sports car.

Would you call the Xiaomi SU7 Ultra a sports car that beat the Camaro time? Probably not.

[arpad_m]

Indeed, this design is a tradeoff that was probably unacceptable to the ATS target audience. That's a very fair point, but for something like a Camaro, a sport/muscle/pony car , it should be okay indeed, and as I said, the level of compromise could've been lessened to make the car more popular.

The Camaro's perpetual existential threat has always been the Corvette, but now that it has morphed into a cheaper wannabe Ferrari, there could again be room at GM for a more traditional American muscle/pony car. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

Re Xiaomi, haha, that Model 3 replica better go fast with 1550 horsepower . It looks fairly sporty, too, although it certainly isn't a sports car. Good lap times for sure...

[genxer]

Originally Posted by Number 3

What you are forgetting is the Corvette is the sports car. The Camaro is NOT. A version of it can be considered one or a Muscle Car, whichever floats the buyer's boat. But it's a sporty coupe available with a 4 and 6 cylinder engine. Neither of those is a muscle car or a sports car.

For the people buying a 4 or 6 cylinder sporty car, they aren't letting the V8 performance make up for all the trade offs made for visibility and usability (both terms Reuss has used to describe what must be true for a Gen7).

When the Camaro died in 2001, the V8 sales were on par with the Mustang. It was the rest of the sales that GM lagged far behind. And 20,000 V8 Camaros is not enough to keep a plant running.

The one thing we never see data on is the % of female buyers in this segment. As much as many used to denigrate the Mustang as a "secretary special", I would also bet the number of women buying Mustangs is much higher than the Camaro. And that is likely because of the things a V8 Camaro buyer is willing to excuse.

I've been laughed at here, but I was as cranked up as anybody here to get a Gen6. But other than over the hood, the visibility was worse than a Gen5. The trunk in a Gen5 could hold 2 sets of golf clubs. Unlike the other Alpha coupe, the Gen6 Camaro trunk is not big enough to hold just the driver. So, I could drive around with my rear seat down (noisy) or keep my driver (and putter but that's a golf discussion) in the back seat. Keeping in mind the C8 Corvette was designed for and can accommodate 2 sets with ease, and this was done to the detriment to the overall size and weight of the car. They knew their customer and I know I've taken countless road trips with golf clubs in C5 and C6 Corvettes, as well as Gen5 Camaros.

As I've said, GM hit a homerun with the Gen6. It did everything in spades that the people they asked wanted. One could say it "exceeded expectations" and I can make that statement with a lot of confidence. The problem was those people were already Camaro owners. So, they designed and engineered a Camaro that was the best Camaro ever but didn't have broad enough appeal to sell well enough for a Gen7.

And finally, I was there when Ed Welborn led Design Center. He was big on the "high belt, slammed roof styling". The Camaro got this in excess but so did the ATS and CTS just not to the same degree. I remember seeing a BMW 3 Series set up to be more similar to the ATS. Imagine taking the roll of black painters' tape and using that tape to simulate a higher belt and lower roof. It did make the 3 Series look like it had gun slits for side windows and windshield. That's what they did to the ATS and the Camaro, with the same front of dash and front architecture had to have the same belt line. And the lower coupe roof of the Camaro just made it worse. And a fun fact, for the ATS coupe, GM laid the a-pillar back a few degrees and dropped the roof an inch, so even though an ATS coupe has loads of rear seat leg room, the rear passenger head room is nonexistent.

Reuss's comments, at least for me, is the admission that GM knows that in a segment that is dying (coupe sales are not good in general) a Gen7 will not only have to address the lack of broad appeal of the Camaro, but it will also have to chin winning over some portion at least of all the people buying SUVs to be a winner. And the hardest part is that without using Alpha 2, GM has no architecture (other than the EVs) in use anywhere around the world to make a RWD coupe off of. So that just makes the investment even higher.

I hope they find the solution. If they do, it will likely not make some on here very happy simply because of the words used by Reuss on usability/versatility.

The best news is that GM has several V8 engines to choose from. An all-new small block for 2027 as well as a few sweet morsels from the C8 Corvette. Side question is will the new small block also generate a replacement for the LT2?

You're not wrong about the usability issue. Even the fourth gen cars had a more a bunker seating feel versus the Mustang, so livability. It was probably more useful than SN95, but it's look aged like milk ending at hideous - that was the biggest problem at 1st death.

"Golf clubs" is just off as a perspective. It's like a Car&Driver, MotorTrend, etc. pull to elevate luxury. GM's leadership must have believed their own marketing. I feel like the S550 won by being promoted more through youtubers and product placements, and it's now worn off because the car has similar issues. Marketing only carries so far before people value their own lot in life in a 'where's the beef?' way.

It's not just usability with low trim cars. They're boring on the road. An extra 200-350 lbs of luxury structure, smooth motors, suspension is not worth it to get more isolated, to ride in a vault without squeaking, so the 'vert isn't a wet noodle. And ring times really don't matter.

[Alan47717]

Originally Posted by Number 3

What you are forgetting is the Corvette is the sports car. The Camaro is NOT. A version of it can be considered one or a Muscle Car, whichever floats the buyer's boat. But it's a sporty coupe available with a 4 and 6 cylinder engine. Neither of those is a muscle car or a sports car.

For the people buying a 4 or 6 cylinder sporty car, they aren't letting the V8 performance make up for all the trade offs made for visibility and usability (both terms Reuss has used to describe what must be true for a Gen7).

When the Camaro died in 2001, the V8 sales were on par with the Mustang. It was the rest of the sales that GM lagged far behind. And 20,000 V8 Camaros is not enough to keep a plant running.

The one thing we never see data on is the % of female buyers in this segment. As much as many used to denigrate the Mustang as a "secretary special", I would also bet the number of women buying Mustangs is much higher than the Camaro. And that is likely because of the things a V8 Camaro buyer is willing to excuse.

I've been laughed at here, but I was as cranked up as anybody here to get a Gen6. But other than over the hood, the visibility was worse than a Gen5. The trunk in a Gen5 could hold 2 sets of golf clubs. Unlike the other Alpha coupe, the Gen6 Camaro trunk is not big enough to hold just the driver. So, I could drive around with my rear seat down (noisy) or keep my driver (and putter but that's a golf discussion) in the back seat. Keeping in mind the C8 Corvette was designed for and can accommodate 2 sets with ease, and this was done to the detriment to the overall size and weight of the car. They knew their customer and I know I've taken countless road trips with golf clubs in C5 and C6 Corvettes, as well as Gen5 Camaros.

Man, somebody needs to invent collapsible golf clubs. Joking aside, how many golfing trips did you trip in C4's?

Forget the label, performance was the point. If you want the performance improvements AND the weight savings AND the looks you give up some things. TANSTAAFL once again. Raising rooflines, lowering beltlines, splitting taillights to increase trunk access all end up weakening the structure which end up adding weight and so on. Would have been less of a headache to just do a mild refresh of the Gen5 and call it a day.

By the way, I've never owned a Camaro before this one. Drove a couple of Gen4's as pep cars is all.

And the visibility out of my C3 to the front quarter views was worse than the Camaros and I still wish I was looking out over those glorious swoopy front fenders.

[nothing_but_troub1le]

Okay don't attack me but... Do you think if they were to make a new Camaro, and only make it in ss and zl1 equivalent it would be a success?

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by nothing_but_troub1le

Okay don't attack me but... Do you think if they were to make a new Camaro, and only make it in ss and zl1 equivalent it would be a success?

What's the price? Keep in mind Mustang is all alone in the segment today and their sales are dropping year-to-year with models priced as low as $32,000 (and as high as $77k for a Dark Horse). This is in a market where the average car sells for right around $50k. So Mustang starts $18k below the average and can go as high as $27k above. Mustang is on pace for a 40k sales year.

A 2024 Camaro SS started at $44k. ZL1 started at $71k. Mustang outsold Camaro every model year of 6th Gen, so if every person who bought a Mustang in 2025 suddenly said "eff this, I'm buying a Camaro", you're talking 40,000 vehicles tops.

That's my long-winded way of saying "No".

[Glow01]

"Muscle car"
"Sports car"
even "Super car"

seem like pretty vague terms with no clear definition.

If you asked somebody the difference between RWD and FWD, you could get an objectively verifiable answer.

If you asked someone the definition of a sports car, different people will give you different answers. I've never heard the 6th generation ZL1 referred to as a supercar, but there are Italian supercars out there putting out less horsepower. So what makes it a supercar, because it's an exotic import? What about the Ford GT? That sure seems like an American supercar.

My point is, it seems like we're arguing about terms that are a little loose in actual application and splitting hairs on less important parts of the topic.

Just my two cents.