[EJR8402]

Originally Posted by GuywithL86

I only spent a week in it and I loved every second of it. Due to rental discounts I get I am constantly renting $50-$100k vehicles. Never have I been happier with a rental car. (2019 navigator was close though lol)

The performance of the bAse SS had me in shock and I’ve driven a lot of high performance cars. I was even shocked by the build quality as mine was beat to hell and it still felt like a slab of granite.

It would just be so much better if it had the visibility.

It’s like a 10/10 in every category and then a 1/10 in one category.

Yes, it would be. My suspicion is that this issue is more important for the non-enthusiast type buyer (i.e., those who typically settle for I4 or V6 models), and this is why the Camaro's sales numbers consistently lag behind Mustang and now, apparently, Challenger.

I've said it before: the reason the Camaro was discontinued before, (and why it could be discontinued again), is because it could not appeal enough to the market segment mentioned above, and not because of the preferences of the enthusiast crowd.

I had a 2002 model model and it, too, had huge blind spots. The rear hatch area was not very usable either. It had a huge turning radius. Sure, the Z28/SS of that era could out-perform a Mustang GT, but the mass market doesn't care much about 1/4 mile or slalom times.

Take this old Motor Trend article for example:

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/chev...ra-comparison/

"Both players work as everyday drivers, but the Mustang is a friendlier package to live with: easier to get in and out of, more comfortable rear seats, more useable trunk, better visibility, ad infinitum."

Sound familiar? An enthusiast might ask "who give a $hit about the comfort of the rear seats?!?" It's largely the same tune today, exemplified by C&D citing the visibility concerns and calling the interior of the Camaro an "ergonomic atrocity" (which I think is a stretch.)

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...-pack-level-2/

[GearheadSS]

Originally Posted by GuywithL86

The sad part is, they already built it on the same chassis, the ats coupe

Why oh why could they not put an lt1 in the ats-v

Because at the time, Cadillac was so enamored with the idea of a TTV6. When I did V training back before these cars were in production, I asked a Cadillac engineer this very question and I was told that they initially tested the car with the LT1 but execs nixed it and gave the go ahead for the TTV6. They felt that the BMW and Mercedes buyers would be more likely to switch to the V with the TTV6 instead of a V8.

Not gonna lie, I'm glad that dude from Audi is no longer at Cadillac.

[Glen e]

I’m sure it will be discontinued in 2023. They are just simply aren’t enough “non enthusiasts” buying this car. And it’s not a boutique eclectic item, it’s supposed to be a volume production GT/sports car. Unfortunately, demographics have shifted and only the top seller in this class will continue for a little while: The mustang GT.

[whiteboyblues2001]

Originally Posted by Glen e

I’m sure it will be discontinued in 2023. They are just simply aren’t enough “non enthusiasts” buying this car. And it’s not a boutique eclectic item, it’s supposed to be a volume production GT/sports car. Unfortunately, demographics have shifted and only the top seller in this class will continue for a little while: The mustang GT.

First, the top seller right now is the Challenger, it has surpassed the Mustang recently.

Second, it's really not so much the market that will determing the Camaro's fate. It is the factory that it would potentially be built in's utilization that will determine whether it gets built. The new Caddliacs are going to be built at Lansing Grand river, just like the Camaro is now. If the Cadillacs don't fill up the factory's capacity, they will add another vehicle to the line to fill the gap. It will be a parts bin car, just to make the factory more efficient and cost effective (less idle time). In other words, a Camaro. But if the factory is fully utilized, there will be no Camaro...

[ST1LE]

Originally Posted by GearheadSS

Because at the time, Cadillac was so enamored with the idea of a TTV6. When I did V training back before these cars were in production, I asked a Cadillac engineer this very question and I was told that they initially tested the car with the LT1 but execs nixed it and gave the go ahead for the TTV6. They felt that the BMW and Mercedes buyers would be more likely to switch to the V with the TTV6 instead of a V8.

Not gonna lie, I'm glad that dude from Audi is no longer at Cadillac.

Nice to learn why they made that huge mistake, that resulted in a complete failure of a car. Thanks for sharing!

[GuywithL86]

Originally Posted by EJR8402

Yes, it would be. My suspicion is that this issue is more important for the non-enthusiast type buyer (i.e., those who typically settle for I4 or V6 models), and this is why the Camaro's sales numbers consistently lag behind Mustang and now, apparently, Challenger.

I've said it before: the reason the Camaro was discontinued before, (and why it could be discontinued again), is because it could not appeal enough to the market segment mentioned above, and not because of the preferences of the enthusiast crowd.

I had a 2002 model model and it, too, had huge blind spots. The rear hatch area was not very usable either. It had a huge turning radius. Sure, the Z28/SS of that era could out-perform a Mustang GT, but the mass market doesn't care much about 1/4 mile or slalom times.

Take this old Motor Trend article for example:

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/chev...ra-comparison/

"Both players work as everyday drivers, but the Mustang is a friendlier package to live with: easier to get in and out of, more comfortable rear seats, more useable trunk, better visibility, ad infinitum."

Sound familiar? An enthusiast might ask "who give a $hit about the comfort of the rear seats?!?" It's largely the same tune today, exemplified by C&D citing the visibility concerns and calling the interior of the Camaro an "ergonomic atrocity" (which I think is a stretch.)

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...-pack-level-2/

As the owner of a mustang gt and a hardcore car enthusiast, I can confirm that the camaro is pure sports car compared to the mustang. The interior, the seating position, the back seats, the trunk, it’s all completely different from the mustang experience. The mustang feels like a regular passenger car with a huge pair of balls, where as the camaro feels like a dedicated sports car. When I drove the camaro all I could think about was “why does this and the corvette exist”

That is not why enthusiast don’t buy the camaro. I spend a lot of time on other forums and I promote the camaro constantly. They all site the same exact reason as why they aren’t interested, the visibility.

[V8 Firebird]

Current Chevy Malibu will also be gone after 2023. Both aren't really going to rest, both will change to electric power.

[yankee]

Originally Posted by GuywithL86

As the owner of a mustang gt and a hardcore car enthusiast, I can confirm that the camaro is pure sports car compared to the mustang. The interior, the seating position, the back seats, the trunk, it’s all completely different from the mustang experience. The mustang feels like a regular passenger car with a huge pair of balls, where as the camaro feels like a dedicated sports car. When I drove the camaro all I could think about was “why does this and the corvette exist”

That is not why enthusiast don’t buy the camaro. I spend a lot of time on other forums and I promote the camaro constantly. They all site the same exact reason as why they aren’t interested, the visibility.

The visibility issue is gone after properly adjusting everything. I think it’s just a myth that draws people from buying an awesome and very cheap sports car. Btw, the roof being low and having less windshield is perfect in some situations when the sun blinds you

All this visibility problem is just not true. Coming from a guy who has very bad eyesight. Just adjust those mirrors!

[Joe Remi]

The problem with "you'll get used to it" is most people aren't going to take that chance. It's a massive investment to find out a month later "I give up. I can't see where the hell I'm going in this thing."

[seethruya]

Originally Posted by Joe Remi

The problem with "you'll get used to it" is most people aren't going to take that chance. It's a massive investment to find out a month later "I give up. I can't see where the hell I'm going in this thing."

The Camaro’s visibility is no worse than the Challenger yet I never hear people harp on the Challenger’s visibility.

[Number 3]

LOL Getting used to it doesn't make the visibility any better, it just means you've adapted to it. It's still bad.

And a lot of it is the Chip Foose slammed roof. Upward site lines are just bad and that is what give the car the "smaller than it is" feeling inside.

High belt and slammed roof was the look Ed Welburn wanted, even in Cadillacs. The ATS coupe also had the roof slammed and all ATSs had a high belt line.

It is the DNA of the design, but you can't have a car with a high belt, slammed roof and also get to say it has good visibility. They simply don't exist together.

And again, everyone keeps saying simply adjust your mirrors and you're fine. If you like driving with good direct vision, good indirect vision doesn't fix a car that doesn't have it.

[Gunkk]

I thought you ...

slammed a suspension
and
chopped a roof?

Not chop a suspension and slam a roof?


Here's a slammed roof:

[MrChrisLS3]

Originally Posted by Number 3

LOL Getting used to it doesn't make the visibility any better, it just means you've adapted to it. It's still bad.

And a lot of it is the Chip Foose slammed roof. Upward site lines are just bad and that is what give the car the "smaller than it is" feeling inside.

High belt and slammed roof was the look Ed Welburn wanted, even in Cadillacs. The ATS coupe also had the roof slammed and all ATSs had a high belt line.

It is the DNA of the design, but you can't have a car with a high belt, slammed roof and also get to say it has good visibility. They simply don't exist together.

And again, everyone keeps saying simply adjust your mirrors and you're fine. If you like driving with good direct vision, good indirect vision doesn't fix a car that doesn't have it.

True that part of it was the "look" they were going for, but the other part was the performance aspect. The low center of gravity provided by the low roof line combined with the rigidity of the higher belt line are a couple of major factors in the Camaro's handling capability.

I agree with you about the direct vision vs. indirect vision. However, I will argue that for people that drive sports cars, we tend to be a little more vigilant about our surroundings than the typical commuter.

But, yes, at the end of the day, I agree that it is probably a huge factor in sales volume of the Camaro. There is a line between a 'sporty' car and a 'sports' car. Folks that want a 'sporty' car will go more for the Challenger or the Mustang for this among other things. Folks that want a sports car, for the driving experience, will go for the Camaro because it will outperform the competition in just about every way. We are more forgiving to adapt to making adjustments in visibility.

I think it is kind of sad, and must be frustrating to the designers at GM that they build a superior car, and then get flack for the very aspects that make it a superior performer. Life is give and take, if you want some this, you have to give some of that. They really just need to make blind spot, rear cross path, and the rear view mirror cam standard equipment, and they would probably see an uptick in 4 cyl and 6 cyl sales.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by MrChrisLS3

I agree with you about the direct vision vs. indirect vision. However, I will argue that for people that drive sports cars, we tend to be a little more vigilant about our surroundings than the typical commuter.

This is true.... ....unfortunately....