[hotlap]

People within GM that Number 3 knows very well studied the need for visibility, rear seat room, trunk space, weight, style, performance and cost. This is what they decided was the best business model. It is an enthusiast car. Time will tell how broadly that enthusiasm spreads and turns into sales. I want one.

[Tachyon]

Took a fellow employee that normally drove a sedan or minivan for a ride when I bought my Gen5. He said, "Damn, this car is hard to see out of!"

My response, "This is not a car you see out of... this is a car you're seen in."

The nice thing about humans? We're adaptable.

[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.

[Number 3]

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.

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.

[90503]

Originally Posted by Number 3

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.

You need to apologize for nothing. The timing for these features you desire, though, seems to be something that makes the points you raise seem moot.
The die is cast for several years in the future. The cars will not be re-called for major re-work and re-design as if some massive mistake has occurred.

As much as you want this car to be successful, your arguments at the initial release of the car, seem like sour grapes and an argument that should have been made and incorporated several years ago. I don't think a crusade to establish this 6thGen right now as a flawed, unsellable, bad design serves any positive purpose. You want sales to succeed, don't try and negatively impact them at this point no matter how passionately you believe in your issues.

If you believe the car should have been made differently, fine...but give this one a chance for a while.

[Jeb114]

Its not the visibility that's going to hurt this car its the price. I just ordered a Silverado tonight and at the dealer he had 5 2016 Camaros. I asked the salesman if they were moving and he said no they have gotten a couple of nibbles from some guys but 2 are 2ss and have a sticker for over 51 thousand, and the bank did not qualify the loans. not an entry or mid tier car. the SS's are way to expensive.

[Bongos2U]

Originally Posted by Number 3

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.

I applaud your passion in wanting the latest Camaro to be the best. However, only time will tell if the visibility issue will hurt it. Didn't seem to hurt 5th gen. sales, but will people tire of it over time, as some have suggested? We'll review sales numbers about a year from now to find out.

Some have also suggested that price will hurt the Camaro the most. I concur 100% with this. But that is another argument that only time will tell.

BTW...I believe Teslas are built at the old NUMMI factory in Fremont, CA.

[Factorypilot]

Originally Posted by Jeb114

Its not the visibility that's going to hurt this car its the price. I just ordered a Silverado tonight and at the dealer he had 5 2016 Camaros. I asked the salesman if they were moving and he said no they have gotten a couple of nibbles from some guys but 2 are 2ss and have a sticker for over 51 thousand, and the bank did not qualify the loans. not an entry or mid tier car. the SS's are way to expensive.

That's a dealer issue then.

I ordered my car, and then when I got a little impatient and started looking at other vehicles, my dealer went from 500 back of invoice to what is likely to be 1500 or more back of invoice. It's not that the price was that bad in the first place (4% off MSRP). I know there are a few others here who have received as much as 8% off MSRP...

I agree with the salesman though. I'd never pay 51K for a Camaro SS. Never.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by Factorypilot

That's a dealer issue then.

I ordered my car, and then when I got a little impatient and started looking at other vehicles, my dealer went from 500 back of invoice to what is likely to be 1500 or more back of invoice. It's not that the price was that bad in the first place (4% off MSRP). I know there are a few others here who have received as much as 8% off MSRP...

I agree with the salesman though. I'd never pay 51K for a Camaro SS. Never.

Hell I would never pay over 40 for a Camaro SS/Mustang GT/ Challenger

I know that is just the way times are going, but IMO all of them are getting to expensive. I know that they are so much better than the cars they are replacing but thats still so much. maybe I am just cheap haha

My problem is the first 6th gens that hit my local dealer lots were all almost fully loaded. They had a 2SS with a MSRP of 48 and a 2LT that was over 41. Talk about sticker shock! I will never understand why dealers will load up the first cars they get with every single option possible. They still have those cars on the lot, but have now filled out their inventory with a better selection

[suzook]

The people complaining about the price sound like my parents.....WTF hasn't gone up in price these days? The 6th gen is ALOT better than the 5th gen. How did this happen? More $$$$$.

[SSport16]

You get what you pay for! In the GM stable, a loaded LTZ Impala is over $40K or loaded new Malibu Premier is almost $40K. It sounds like a lot but think about what cars go for I todays day now, unless you buy a small econobox, most basic cars start over $20K, hell my loaded LTZ Cruze that I traded in was stickered at around $26K.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by suzook

The people complaining about the price sound like my parents.....WTF hasn't gone up in price these days? The 6th gen is ALOT better than the 5th gen. How did this happen? More $$$$$.

I know lol the current cars are wayyyy better than the previous ones. I guess I am just still in sticker shock lol

Originally Posted by SSport16

You get what you pay for! In the GM stable, a loaded LTZ Impala is over $40K or loaded new Malibu Premier is almost $40K. It sounds like a lot but think about what cars go for I todays day now, unless you buy a small econobox, most basic cars start over $20K, hell my loaded LTZ Cruze that I traded in was stickered at around $26K.

Yeah cars are just getting expensive.

[DenverTaco07]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

A "Have your cake and eat it, too" scenario...

I really think the saying should be:

"You can't have eaten your cake and still have it in front of you".

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by Number 3

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.

With all due respect.

Many have acknowledged that gen6 visibility is compromised but you appear to want a mass rejection of the car with everyone’s refusal to buy.

Your reference to GM’s decline in market share, previous production of the Camaro at two plant and the gen4 leading to the Camaro’s demise is a little misleading

GM’s fall in market share during your tenure (IMO) was due to increased foreign competition and GM’s uninspiring, badge engineered cars that only distinguished themselves from the Japanese and European manufactures with their poor quality. That GM destroyed the Cadillac brand with jewels like the Cimarron so I similarly applaud the use of "art and science" design to resurrect it.

Camaro and Firebird volume was very high in the 70s and early 80s because the baby boomers were young (Norwood/Van Nuys). Boomers started families and buying minivans but I do recall there was still a lot of enthusiasm for the Monte SS/442/GN that also lead to sales of lesser versions of the same cars. Then came 1988...

Gen4 production ran 10 model years! Toward the end, the LS engine was the only draw (IMO) to buy the same car a second time. That GM lacked heart, milked the platform and let it die.

I’ve been buying cars 35 years and was die hard GM guy the first 16 but they lost me, with the exception of two V8 rear drive models, due to the reasons listed above. I bought Hondas instead. The new GM has heart again so when wifey’s crossover needs replacing, I’ll look at GM again

FYI - Motor Trend Car of the year! Let's wait a little