[MisterMarauder]

Originally Posted by Malbjey

Yeah but I guarantee visibility is one of the biggest reasons why it never sold as well as the Mustang or Challenger.



First impressions matter, and when someone's first impression is 'I can't see shit' they are not going to give the car a chance. It's just reality regardless of whether we personally think the visibility is fine.


Literally ever car review mentions the visibility issues as well. You can't read a Camaro review without seeing mention of visibility. It's bad compared to its competitors and I hope GM resolves it if we get a 7th gen.

The Challenger's retro looks and spacious interior really helped drive sales. Also, Hellcat became a household name, whilst ZL1 is unknown to many. Dodge had a halo car that buyers with lower trims aspired to.

[Casper the friendly G]

Originally Posted by MisterMarauder

The Challenger's retro looks and spacious interior really helped drive sales. Also, Hellcat became a household name, whilst ZL1 is unknown to many. Dodge had a halo car that buyers with lower trims aspired to.

Chevy's marketing absolutely just sucks. Dodge had a pretty aggressive and created ad campaign of their car fighting the calvary, and US presidents driving muscle cars etc. Much of it internet videos. Chevy...crickets.

[bootss]

Chevy is not the company it once was.

[Devstrike]

Yeah I am going to go with lack of marketing of the car for why it is in the situation that it is in which makes much more sense. It is like others have said look at Dodge and their advertising then compare it to Camaro. I think you have your answer.

[Malbjey]

Marketing was an issue as well, but besides visibility, Chevy waited way too long to offer the cheap LT1 V8 trim.


The 6th Gen SS cars were always more expensive than the V8 Mustang and Challengers. People weren't willing to pay a few thousand more for a car that's less practical with worse visibility.



Plus Chevy is still messing up with someone who wants creature comforts in an LT1, but doesn't want to pay 8K more for a 2SS. You shouldn't have to pay multiple thousands more if you want heated/cooled seats, blind spot monitoring, etc.



The price gulf for those extra features is nowhere near as large when shopping the turbo 4 and V6 trims. But for whatever reason Chevy wants you to pay 17% more MSRP when comparing an LT1 to a 2SS. That's ridiculous.

[The Maverick]

Not to mention standard blind spot monitoring would have helped blunt the impact of the "I can't see anything" reviews. Shoulda gone there in 2019 with the refresh...

[keep_hope_alive]

Visibility our and around is fine, but I keep the seat higher up so I can see the hood. Mirrors are splayed to eliminate blind spots in adjacent lanes. Rear mirror is sufficient to allow cars to transition from rear mirror to side mirror to side window with no blind spots.

The higher seating position does make some street lights harder to see if I'm the first car. I'm over 9,000 miles in the first 4 months of ownership. Seats are comfortable but the hard plastic knee pads are annoying and will be recovered for adequate padding. Today I'll drive 5 hours west then return tomorrow, long drives have been fine (and i'm getting 27-28mpg on the interstate, averaged over 400 miles).

[Devstrike]

Keep Hope alive you have your mirrors adjusted correctly as I do. Believe it or not that is how I was taught to set them in driving school in every vehicle.

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by Devstrike

Keep Hope alive you have your mirrors adjusted correctly as I do. Believe it or not that is how I was taught to set them in driving school in every vehicle.

Yup. Vehicles catching up in neighboring lanes should smoothly transition out of the rearview mirror while simultanously easing into a side mirror, already visible there even as they enter the blind spot monitoring system's range, then I have direct visual in the appropriate window while the BSM is still signaling.

No need to see my rockers in side mirrors (I already know what they look like anyway ).