[L78toLT1]

For the most part, enthusiasts buy Camaros. Enthusiasts, young families, secretaries, non-enthusiasts, etc. Buy Challengers/Chargers and Mustangs.

In my wife's old ~100 home subdivision, inhabited primarily by families with young kids, there were two Chargers, Two Challengers (one scat pack) and at least one 5.0 s550 mustang. Not a single Camaro. These guys for the most part cannot justify a car that is purely a weekend toy. I'll guarantee you if any of these guys looked at a Camaro before buying, mama took one look at the comparatively tiny interior and nixed it right on the spot.

[GearheadSS]

Originally Posted by closs2sx

if they do kill it again it just goes to show how messed up gm is. Ford has not killed the mustang yet (they may at some point) but gm has already killed the camaro once and possibly on track to do it again. They need more power a fresh look and clever advertising to bring it back and no electric or at least a gas alternate until all cars are electric.

Honestly, I think the Camaro's worst enemy is the Corvette. If Camaro was all Chevy had, then I think it wouldn't have to worry about living on(like Mustang for Ford or Challenger/Charger for Dodge). GM will always put the Corvette at the top of it's performance ladder and everything else is just there help offset costs for Corvette.

If Corvette was a $200k plus car like Ford GT, then it might be different for Camaro but as long as Corvette is a $60k performance car, enough people will skip high end Camaros and go that route. Not enough young buyers that want to get into the cheap LS/LT Camaros right now. They'd rather have a Trailblazer, Blazer or some other SUV.

[ember1205]

Originally Posted by GearheadSS

Not enough young buyers that want to get into the cheap LS/LT Camaros right now. They'd rather have a Trailblazer, Blazer or some other SUV.

It's a bit of a catch-22... If you keep the back seats as they are, it's purely a "fun" car that has a small demographic but allows sales on the high-end models and to those (like myself) that are over 6' tall. If you shrink the front of the cabin in favor of making the rear seats useful for more than a reduction in insurance premiums, it makes it hard for someone like me to comfortably drive the car but it opens up the market much more as it will appeal to more people.

The fact that people "want" an SUV is certainly not something to discard as important, but it does open up the "apples and oranges" sort of debate. The same people that "want" an SUV are willing to compromise with a Challenger because it has much more interior room. The Camaro is, in every sense, a one-trick pony as a weekend sports/muscle car. The others are more malleable in what they do...

[closs2sx]

Originally Posted by GearheadSS

Honestly, I think the Camaro's worst enemy is the Corvette. If Camaro was all Chevy had, then I think it wouldn't have to worry about living on(like Mustang for Ford or Challenger/Charger for Dodge). GM will always put the Corvette at the top of it's performance ladder and everything else is just there help offset costs for Corvette.

If Corvette was a $200k plus car like Ford GT, then it might be different for Camaro but as long as Corvette is a $60k performance car, enough people will skip high end Camaros and go that route. Not enough young buyers that want to get into the cheap LS/LT Camaros right now. They'd rather have a Trailblazer, Blazer or some other SUV.

I have a z06 z07 pkg c7 650 rwhp and a zl1 1le with corsa exhaust and an intake for now and a little ss 1le lowered on eibachs specific 1le springs with 850 rwhp and to be honest I enjoy driving the camaros better then the z06. The shifters are so much better in the camaros and the handling is smoother especially on rougher roads. I still love the z06 but its gets driven less than the camaros

[RenegadeXR]

Person working at Motortrend, hearing of the Camaro death rumors that came out in early 2019:



In seriousness though, article is pretty bizarre if the timestamp of "Jul 6, 2020" is really accurate. It feels like it was written well over a year ago because it's talking about the 2020 model year as if it wasn't already on dealer lots for a long time already.

Chevrolet is adding an LT1 model to the Camaro lineup, which will give cheaper V-8 power to the masses. Yep, where you used to have to get the SS package to gain a V-8, you can now do that with the less expensive trim package. For 2020 Chevy also ditched the front nose treatment that was reviled by just about everyone.

[BigGuy81]

I would be shocked if there was a seventh gen at this point, though maybe they could make it CT4-based to save costs.

[Devstrike]

Originally Posted by Camaro_QC

Rumors and again rumors.

Let's wait until GM makes an official announcement.

Until then, gen 7 will happen.

Pretty much my standpoint as well only GM knows for sure and they said nothing on it.

[7speed]

I think they will keep making it after 23. There will be a new Mustang, new Challenger, new Bmw 4 out, Supra is here, Nissan Z is coming. Design it on the new Alpha 2, get the price right and keep competing.
There is space I think below the Vette since really Vette is at least $70k with z51 pkg or any options most people would want.

[samurai]

GM teased an electric Camaro just months ago. So I'm pretty sure a new Camaro is a development. With the C8 Corvette they now also have a way better way to seperate Camaro and Corvette, while C7vette and Camaro6 were way too close technically.

• Corvette can be the midengine supercar with more tradional big engines (maybe hybrid for more performance on top models).
• Camaro can be sold as the big Coupe for a way broader audience with more practicality (meaning Camaro7 should gain more cargo space and usable rear seats) and hybrid engines that meet international pollution and fuel ecnomy standards.

The rumors with Camaro7 launching with a few years pausing after Camaro6 make sense to me. Hybrid and Electric technology is way too expensive at the moment. Releasing a Camaro7 with LT2 engine so it gains a few hp and new interior might sound fine first, but you surely don't want to launch such a car now so you have to hold on to it for 5-7 years when the whole market is switching to Hybrid and EVs that can deliver whole new levels of performance.



The only thing I really worry about is how Covid-19 will effect the carmakers. There surely are projects that have to be cancelled.

[NeverDie]

Originally Posted by DC5

We should discuss why the Camaro is selling so poorly for the millionth time. I'll go first: it has poor visibility.

WhAt aBoUt ThE tIlTy NaV sCrEeN tHo?

[Malbjey]

Originally Posted by RenegadeXR

In seriousness though, article is pretty bizarre if the timestamp of "Jul 6, 2020" is really accurate. It feels like it was written well over a year ago because it's talking about the 2020 model year as if it wasn't already on dealer lots for a long time already.

EXACTLY. As I read further into the article, I began questioning the Jul 6th date as well. Especially the blurb about 'Chevy is adding a LT1 model to the lineup.'


The LT1 has been out for a year now. I agree that this seems to be an old article that was only release recently.

[Michael-k]

Originally Posted by ember1205

It's a bit of a catch-22... If you keep the back seats as they are, it's purely a "fun" car that has a small demographic but allows sales on the high-end models and to those (like myself) that are over 6' tall. If you shrink the front of the cabin in favor of making the rear seats useful for more than a reduction in insurance premiums, it makes it hard for someone like me to comfortably drive the car but it opens up the market much more as it will appeal to more people.

The fact that people "want" an SUV is certainly not something to discard as important, but it does open up the "apples and oranges" sort of debate. The same people that "want" an SUV are willing to compromise with a Challenger because it has much more interior room. The Camaro is, in every sense, a one-trick pony as a weekend sports/muscle car. The others are more malleable in what they do...

I should begin by stating that I don't have my Camaro yet, and that I never owned one. And, I haven't had the chance to analyze the rear seat situation.

Yes, I've read that the rear seats can't quite accommodate a human over age 5.
Could someone explain why GM thought that this was OK? In other words: If there's not enough room for people, why have seats?
Also, could someone explain why the rear seat can not be moved back like 4" or so? Is the structure of the car so limiting?

[ember1205]

Originally Posted by Michael-k

I should begin by stating that I don't have my Camaro yet, and that I never owned one. And, I haven't had the chance to analyze the rear seat situation.

Yes, I've read that the rear seats can't quite accommodate a human over age 5.
Could someone explain why GM thought that this was OK? In other words: If there's not enough room for people, why have seats?
Also, could someone explain why the rear seat can not be moved back like 4" or so? Is the structure of the car so limiting?

Cars without backseats cost more to insure. The premiums on the Camaro would be a fair amount higher if it were simply a two-seater.

Additionally, removing the rear seat changes the lineage of the car since it was always present. So, keep the basic premise of the car the same, build it up as a sports/muscle car, and keep the premiums under control all at the same time.

On the flip side, the rear seat COULD be somewhat usable on the passenger side if the front seat passenger is able to pull their seat up. Similar on the driver's side, although I'm kind of doubting that would actually work in practice. I'm 6'1" with a 33" inseam. My baseball hat is about all that fits between the back of the front seat and the cushion of the rear seat. But, I'll take the manageable insurance premiums.

[17rsvert]

Originally Posted by Michael-k

I should begin by stating that I don't have my Camaro yet, and that I never owned one. And, I haven't had the chance to analyze the rear seat situation.

Yes, I've read that the rear seats can't quite accommodate a human over age 5.
Could someone explain why GM thought that this was OK? In other words: If there's not enough room for people, why have seats?
Also, could someone explain why the rear seat can not be moved back like 4" or so? Is the structure of the car so limiting?

Don't believe that the seats are completely unusable. No one buys a Camaro thinking the rear seats are awesome and the are most convenient option for driving 4 people around everyday. But in a pinch, there is enough leg room with the front seats moved up slightly to fit people back there.

Comfortable? Not really.
Doable? Absolutely!

It comes down to priorities. If you find you are in my situation where you might need fit 3 or 4 people several times a year, it's far from a deal breaker. Don't pass up the car based on this alone.

Moving the rear seats back 4" or so would change either the appearance of the exterior, further reduce the trunk space, or change the chassis dynamics. I'm sure the designers had to work to certain priorities also.