[RealG]

Originally Posted by BluinSC

Its been standard since the car debut on 2ss models.

Fake News !

[genxer]

Originally Posted by cellsafemode

I dont get why every single year they need to change the front fascia.

Nobody who thought the 2016 was too juvenile / ugly is going to think any different with any of the other fascia's they've come up with because those people who think that will only be happy with some bland neutral look that just doesn't mesh with the way chevy wants to differentiate the camaro from it's lineup and other makes.

they should stop wasting money, just stick to the 2016 front fascia since everything that came after was a mistake and focus their design time on things that need improvement.

Like instead of a new front fascia, how about non-vibrating rear plastic panels so I can listen to the 1000 dollar optional audio system and not have to apologize for it?

Instead of a new front fascia, maybe they could design a place to put my phone that isn't behind me. I dont need it in a place that i can look at, but maybe a place that is less forgetful so i dont have to keep doing double takes after getting out of the car because out of sight == out of mind.

Instead of a new front fascia, maybe ...just maybe... they could do something consumer focused to their demographic and make it actually easy to add your own audio equipment to replace the stock amp / speakers or supplement them if we want to.

Instead of a new front fascia, get rid of absolutely all incandescent bulbs and replace with standard socket led drop-ins wherever possible. Though, you know if they did go 100% led, it would all be some oem specific proprietary connection instead of industry standards.

Maybe dont put chrome colored plastic in the driver's direct line of sight

Maybe update the software so it's at least half as cool as what Dodge puts on their chargers. They have a little dyno app and basically everything an enthusiast could want that is borderline illegal to have on a street car ...even in their V6 models. We have a chintzy stopwatch page and a bunch of redundant gauges.

If you've alienated most of the public with your car's design. Then go all in on the public that isn't alienated. Give us a full diagnostic interface so we can identify trouble codes, run diagnostic tests, clear codes and activate systems so we can do our own work on the car if we want (like activating the abs for fluid changes and brake jobs) without having to go buy a 500+ dollar tool. Make the car enthusiast friendly more than the competition. Stop selling a car that only appeals to enthusiasts and then keeping it closed like it's designed for soccer mom's and dealership service departments to bend us over whenever possible.

Pulling your panels looking for dampening areas is a good idea. You also have a chance to plasti dip trim.

Your frustration is legitimate. Hands on friendliness is a core value of American cars that is being lost. Companies, media, regulators have and are pushing to make autos as top-down dependent as possible. Even those here that disagree with your points share a lot of common ground.

For whatever reason there were very few aftermarket 1.5 din radios. But, the auto media would rip to shreds any new car's interior that had a 2 din. That plays into losing hands on opportunities.

There has been a demoralization campaign against the USA's auto culture since at least the Nader years. Solidly manifested in the Beemer yuppies and Camcord devotees. And it's damned close to being complete.

GM design started going off the rails with the back half of the C7. The JDM-like exaggerations look like a bastardization to appease people raised to want American cars to fail. The same with newer Chevy's Bangle-inspired flame surfacing. And it's baked into generational sheet metal.

But, I'm okay with using RS as a differentiated, trendy appearance package, for those inclined. They could have used a better executed cladding to that end. Villainous cladding had to have been part of that demoralization campaign. Look at the well timed overreaction to Caddy CT5 C-pillars.

[ember1205]

Originally Posted by genxer

Pulling your panels looking for dampening areas is a good idea. You also have a chance to plasti dip trim.

Your frustration is legitimate. Hands on friendliness is a core value of American cars that is being lost. Companies, media, regulators have and are pushing to make autos as top-down dependent as possible. Even those here that disagree with your points share a lot of common ground.

For whatever reason there were very few aftermarket 1.5 din radios. But, the auto media would rip to shreds any new car's interior that had a 2 din. That plays into losing hands on opportunities.

There has been a demoralization campaign against the USA's auto culture since at least the Nader years. Solidly manifested in the Beemer yuppies and Camcord devotees. And it's damned close to being complete.

GM design started going off the rails with the back half of the C7. The JDM-like exaggerations look like a bastardization to appease people raised to want American cars to fail. The same with newer Chevy's Bangle-inspired flame surfacing. And it's baked into generational sheet metal.

But, I'm okay with using RS as a differentiated, trendy appearance package, for those inclined. They could have used a better executed cladding to that end. Villainous cladding had to have been part of that demoralization campaign. Look at the well timed overreaction to Caddy CT5 C-pillars.

Did anyone stop to think about the following:

- Enthusiasts are, and have always been, in the minority of owners.
- Autos today are 'disposable'. This is why we see parking spaces shrinking and people simply not caring about their own property, let alone the property of others (these two sort of go hand-in-hand).
- As people started using their cars more, and spending more time in them, they wanted better features. Manufacturers started offering better options as a way to capture that revenue.
- Few people like the idea of spending X amount of money on a car and then having to shell out significantly more to upgrade the suspension, audio, etc. So, getting it built in from the factory is appealing to them.
- Manufacturers exist to make money, so they need to trim build cost while maximizing sale price. Part of this involves maximizing the sheer volume of units they can sell and by driving up desire (which artificially inflates the cost).
- The INSURANCE INDUSTRY has done more to [negatively] influence auto design over the years than any other single source. Their constant lobbying to get laws passed that require more and more 'safety equipment' to be built into cars has massively reduced the available space for other things. If driving is truly to be understood as a privilege, then maybe we should issue fewer licenses and revoke more to keep those that are behind the wheel the safest they can be on their own WITHOUT all of this unnecessary extra stuff...

[cellsafemode]

Originally Posted by ember1205

- The INSURANCE INDUSTRY has done more to [negatively] influence auto design over the years than any other single source. Their constant lobbying to get laws passed that require more and more 'safety equipment' to be built into cars has massively reduced the available space for other things. If driving is truly to be understood as a privilege, then maybe we should issue fewer licenses and revoke more to keep those that are behind the wheel the safest they can be on their own WITHOUT all of this unnecessary extra stuff...

I dont see how you can win an argument that improves the likelihood you survive a crash ...something far more likely in current cars despite much higher average speed of driving today than in cars of yesteryear where manufacturers were free to develop safer cars but instead chose to make more profit.

Now, where you are correct is that driving tests should be harder, should make all drivers far more proficient in being drivers before being allowed to drive. In doing that, there would be far less of a desire or need for stupid things like sensors that brake for you or tell you cars are in nearby lanes etc. But that just wont ever happen and doesn't mesh with reality. People DO NOT WANT TO DRIVE. They dont want to be good at it. they dont want to deal with it at all. But they dont want to travel next to other strangers and be beholdent to someone else's travel schedule. So we are forced to deal with this reality and it's not going to change. The ultimate evolution is driverless vehicles we never own that just exist all over and move people from A to B on-demand.

[ember1205]

Originally Posted by cellsafemode

I dont see how you can win an argument that improves the likelihood you survive a crash ...something far more likely in current cars despite much higher average speed of driving today than in cars of yesteryear where manufacturers were free to develop safer cars but instead chose to make more profit.

Now, where you are correct is that driving tests should be harder, should make all drivers far more proficient in being drivers before being allowed to drive. In doing that, there would be far less of a desire or need for stupid things like sensors that brake for you or tell you cars are in nearby lanes etc. But that just wont ever happen and doesn't mesh with reality. People DO NOT WANT TO DRIVE. They dont want to be good at it. they dont want to deal with it at all. But they dont want to travel next to other strangers and be beholdent to someone else's travel schedule. So we are forced to deal with this reality and it's not going to change. The ultimate evolution is driverless vehicles we never own that just exist all over and move people from A to B on-demand.

You're right that I wouldn't win that argument. But, I don't want to have that argument. I'm more focused on things like Seat Belt laws which have zero basis. Seat belt use directly affects ME, and has NO IMPACT on other drivers. How, then, can that be successfully argued as being necessary when I am behind the wheel? The law has no justification governing things that I should have 100% choice over. The reason we have mandatory seat belt use instead of allowing insurance carriers to limit coverages for those not wearing belts is because care costs would then end up being passed on to the public. Then again, if there wasn't so much idiocy in how health insurance payments are processed, the total cost for healthcare would go down drastically because there wouldn't have to be so many people involved in trying to get bills paid.

[cellsafemode]

Originally Posted by ember1205

You're right that I wouldn't win that argument. But, I don't want to have that argument. I'm more focused on things like Seat Belt laws which have zero basis. Seat belt use directly affects ME, and has NO IMPACT on other drivers. How, then, can that be successfully argued as being necessary when I am behind the wheel? The law has no justification governing things that I should have 100% choice over. The reason we have mandatory seat belt use instead of allowing insurance carriers to limit coverages for those not wearing belts is because care costs would then end up being passed on to the public. Then again, if there wasn't so much idiocy in how health insurance payments are processed, the total cost for healthcare would go down drastically because there wouldn't have to be so many people involved in trying to get bills paid.

Because we can't leave your useless body on the street when you get into an accident and get ejected from your vehicle or slam into the dash / windshield.

We can't leave your family to fend for themselves when they no longer have your income to keep living if they were depending on it.

The rest of society still subsidizes your existence ...no matter how much you may not want them to.

So yes, seat belt laws do effect the rest of us if you dont wear one. People tend to not want dead bodies just laying about on the roads and the people who deal with that get paid by everyone.

For profit / private insurance drives medical costs up. A single public non-profit insurance company would be able to dictate cost to medical practictioners... But that is only part of the cost of medicine. Litigation costs for malpractice is the other. You would have to protect medical professionals from costly lawsuits anytime someone thinks the doctor didn't do something right in order to really make a dent in medical costs as well as cap the amount they can receive when doctors do make mistakes (since such a thing is always a matter of when, not if unless they all get replaced by robots too).

[ember1205]

Originally Posted by cellsafemode

Because we can't leave your useless body on the street when you get into an accident and get ejected from your vehicle or slam into the dash / windshield.

We can't leave your family to fend for themselves when they no longer have your income to keep living if they were depending on it.

The rest of society still subsidizes your existence ...no matter how much you may not want them to.

So yes, seat belt laws do effect the rest of us if you dont wear one. People tend to not want dead bodies just laying about on the roads and the people who deal with that get paid by everyone.

For profit / private insurance drives medical costs up. A single public non-profit insurance company would be able to dictate cost to medical practictioners... But that is only part of the cost of medicine. Litigation costs for malpractice is the other. You would have to protect medical professionals from costly lawsuits anytime someone thinks the doctor didn't do something right in order to really make a dent in medical costs as well as cap the amount they can receive when doctors do make mistakes (since such a thing is always a matter of when, not if unless they all get replaced by robots too).

I can appreciate where a lot of this is going, but I do think your view on some of it is a bit "askew." But, this isn't the thread, OR the forums, to have a political debate and we've already hijacked this one far enough...

[MackSteelPrivateEye]

Originally Posted by Orangeman13

When do you think the 2021 Camaro’s will be available to order?

Place your order now because they will be selling like HotCakes!

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by MackSteelPrivateEye

Place your order now because they will be selling like HotCakes!

Can’t ‘member the last time I bought hotcakes.

[Zack46]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Can’t ‘member the last time I bought hotcakes.

What is a hotcake?

[MackSteelPrivateEye]

Originally Posted by Zack46

What is a hotcake?

Pancakes

[396ssrat]

Originally Posted by ember1205

Did anyone stop to think about the following:

- Enthusiasts are, and have always been, in the minority of owners.
- Autos today are 'disposable'. This is why we see parking spaces shrinking and people simply not caring about their own property, let alone the property of others (these two sort of go hand-in-hand).
- As people started using their cars more, and spending more time in them, they wanted better features. Manufacturers started offering better options as a way to capture that revenue.
- Few people like the idea of spending X amount of money on a car and then having to shell out significantly more to upgrade the suspension, audio, etc. So, getting it built in from the factory is appealing to them.
- Manufacturers exist to make money, so they need to trim build cost while maximizing sale price. Part of this involves maximizing the sheer volume of units they can sell and by driving up desire (which artificially inflates the cost).
- The INSURANCE INDUSTRY has done more to [negatively] influence auto design over the years than any other single source. Their constant lobbying to get laws passed that require more and more 'safety equipment' to be built into cars has massively reduced the available space for other things. If driving is truly to be understood as a privilege, then maybe we should issue fewer licenses and revoke more to keep those that are behind the wheel the safest they can be on their own WITHOUT all of this unnecessary extra stuff...

Good points all.

[Rock-It Man]

Originally Posted by LT4Greg

2SS 1LE with the A10 would most likely be in the mid to high 50s with options and in my opinion if you are going to spend that much you might as well buy a no/low option ZL1 with the A10!

Two reasons to not "might as well":

1. ZL1 is too much car for almost everyone
2. ZL1 availability is VERY limited

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Rock-It Man

Two reasons to not "might as well":

1. ZL1 is too much car for almost everyone
2. ZL1 availability is VERY limited

I’ll toss in my own personal #3. INSURANCE. When I was researching my car, my insurance agent wanted @30% more for ZL1 Vert over SS Vert.