Trim Levels, Pricing, Configurator For '16 Camaro Revealed!

[hyperv6]

442The market has shifted and over the years people wanted more than a gutted car, Add to that the gutted cars were not all that profitable as a more optioned car.

Bring in to this equation more things like the fact young people can not just afford the car but even the insurance is still out of reach for most.

I went to buy a Trans Am new in the 80's and could afford the car but the insurance was out of sight. The Insurance man said that price was only because I had a good driving record if not he would not even be talking to me. I ended up with a Fiero that I still have today. Today it is much the same on prices till you get married or get much older.

 

The other factor is many young people are no longer buying cars like this. They want a better cell phone or tablet but the car is just for getting there. There is little culture of pride of ownership anymore.  Just look around in years past when someone bought a new car they bought the most fancy as they could afford. [hence the GM tier system] and they would bring it home and it was a neighborhood event. Today my neighbor came home with a new Camry. The only excitement was oh you bought a red car.

 

These smaller cars and RWD are just not selling like they used too and the market share where all the Pony cars and Muscle cars sat is reduced to a small part of the market now covered buy three cars. They are generally bought buy older adults with better incomes as that is all that can afford them now.

GM had looked into the small coupe market but with sales not doing all that great at Scion. Subaru and Hyundai they backed out. The cost of a new platform and with the fact the Camaro heading in a future smaller direction it was impossible to make a business case. That is why the Camaro went from no Turbo 4 to having one. GM did not do the Turbo because of the Mustang as they had other plans even with the Turbo Mustang coming but the Code 130 Concept just could not be justified since this segment just never took off and was going to cost a lot of money.

 

GM could use a cheaper coupe on a FWD that had performance items in the GTI/ Ford ST segment but even then once you price it the car is going to be $25K-35K. Hell my HHR SS was stickered at $28K back in 2008 [Note I did not pay that much for it out the door]

 

I would love to see a real performance option on a 3 door hatch like the Cruze or Opel and I would love to see a real performance engine in the Sonic RS and not just some decal and spoiler package. GM proved with the Cobalt SS that even a crappy car could be made into a real performance car and be popular with the younger people who could afford not just to buy it but also insure and modify it. My SS is faster than any of the Big Block cars I owned stock and gets 25/35 MPG. GM has the engine but are they willing to address this segment with the right product.

 

Australians like to blame Holden and GM for the loss of the Zeta but the truth is their market has slowly lost interest in RWD cars. The Mazda 3 is their best selling car. The Falcon faded from view and interest and even the Holden faired better but sells no where near what it used to. They are also seeing the same shift in the new generations and if you want to bring performance back you need to make it affordable and you need to make it in different ways as they all are not must have RWD and V8 anymore because the insurance and cost are beyond their pockets.

 

Welcome to the new age and things have changed.  I remember the old timers telling of buying a new 69 Z/28 or such just out of high school with no help while working at a gas station. Try that slinging fries at McDonalds today. Even if the Camaro V8 was $25K it would be difficult at best just to afford the insurance.

[El Kabong]

I guess I don't see what the fuss is all about. After all, Car and Driver just did a test of a Mustang droptop that cost 42 grand.

And it had an EcoBoost.

Sorry folks, but that's just reality.

Not sure why this got downvoted. Anyhow, instead of a mouse click, how about someone explain why this might be any less frustrating than a V8 Canaro that starts at 37 large.

[oldshurst442]

Hyper....all your posts about the subject at hand about sums it up...quite nicely and elegantly I might add.

[ccap41]

What really is missing...in 2015...is the original pony car and muscle car formula...

 

Sporty car that most could afford with not that many features...reducing the price necessary to get into one. RWD at that.

 

There is the Toyota/Scion/Subaru Trio.

The Miata.

 

And Im afraid that is it. None of those offer a V8, nor a V6.

The FRS and BRZ are as close to what Falcon based Mustang and Chevy II based Camaro were all about back in the 1960s...

 

Base V6 engines and for the Mustang in 1964...a very anemic V8...

 

We do have the pocket rocket hot hatches...

Those back in the 1980s had the pony car formula...albeit in FWD form...lost it sometime in the 1990s...but since 2010...the hot hatch sporty and affordable formula is back...no...not RWD, but FWD....and keep in mind...today's hot hatches would also embarrass some 1960s muscle cars in the quarter mile...and they turn...and brake...

 

so yeah...I agree with you HyperV6...'tis 2015...and all three "pony cars" from Detroit have grown up...even as far back as 2002...and let us not kid ourselves...a Camaro SS was just a stone throw away in price from a BMW M3...not exactly cheap. And a lot lot cheaper in quality and build at that.

 

this 2016 Camaro...will probably rival the M4 in quality and build...and if not the M3...certainly the 435 Series

That is exactly my point. They aren't pony cars anymore because they made them unaffordable to the average Joe. Simple, big motor, fairly raw, car...that isn't what they are anymore. That is why I loved my Mach 1 so much. Yeah it had the solid rear axle and got real sketchy feeling over slightly crappy roads..but that is what these cars used to be. Big engine, big burnouts, loud noises.

I guess I don't see what the fuss is all about. After all, Car and Driver just did a test of a Mustang droptop that cost 42 grand.

And it had an EcoBoost.

Sorry folks, but that's just reality.

And it sucks..

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

 

Two grand more yet two cylinders less than a base Mustang.

 

That is a bit of a gulf for young people who are cross-shopping fairly broadly. We'll see how the reviews stack up. 

Until they see the rather large absence of options on that V6 Stang.

 

Giving the consumer a CHOICE instead of a one shop bundle price, is always....ALWAYS better for the CONSUMER, assuming final price points with similar hardware, is similar.  One price shopping is ALWAYS better for the manufacturer.

 

Where did we go wrong as car lovers, where some believe that not giving customers a choice, is somehow a good thing.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Wings4Life

[ccap41]

 

 

Two grand more yet two cylinders less than a base Mustang.

 

That is a bit of a gulf for young people who are cross-shopping fairly broadly. We'll see how the reviews stack up. 

Until they see the rather large absence of options on that V6 Stang.

 

Giving the consumer a CHOICE instead of a one shop bundle price, is always....ALWAYS better, assuming final price points with similar hardware, is similar.

 

Where did we go wrong as car lovers, where some believe that not giving customers a choice, is somehow a good thing.

 

I agree.. That is one of the few things that I HATE that Ford does. They have to sell everything in bundles. I understand why companies do this but I do not like it as a consumer.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

^

I am somewhat OK with bundles, if the price point I seek is reasonable or comparative with the competition.  Only when a certain trim level goes up significantly, relative to that same competition, that I have to take umbrage.

[surreal1272]

 

 

Two grand more yet two cylinders less than a base Mustang.

 

That is a bit of a gulf for young people who are cross-shopping fairly broadly. We'll see how the reviews stack up. 

Until they see the rather large absence of options on that V6 Stang.

 

Giving the consumer a CHOICE instead of a one shop bundle price, is always....ALWAYS better for the CONSUMER, assuming final price points with similar hardware, is similar.  One price shopping is ALWAYS better for the manufacturer.

 

Where did we go wrong as car lovers, where some believe that not giving customers a choice, is somehow a good thing.

 

Funny, when I (and several others) mentioned choice in regards to trucks a while back (the GM twins plus the mid size twins vs. Ford F-Series), you (and several other Ford fans) were singing an entirely different tune. Of course, with the news of possibly a new Ranger coming back, that tunes has been altered a bit. Interesting how choice matters now but did not matter when Ford stopped offering choices in other categories.

[surreal1272]

^

I am somewhat OK with bundles, if the price point I seek is reasonable or comparative with the competition.  Only when a certain trim level goes up significantly, relative to that same competition, that I have to take umbrage.

So you are okay with Ford doing bundles, is what you are saying. GM, on the other hand, "Oh where did we go wrong...".

 

 

Two grand more yet two cylinders less than a base Mustang.

 

That is a bit of a gulf for young people who are cross-shopping fairly broadly. We'll see how the reviews stack up. 

Until they see the rather large absence of options on that V6 Stang.

 

Giving the consumer a CHOICE instead of a one shop bundle price, is always....ALWAYS better for the CONSUMER, assuming final price points with similar hardware, is similar.  One price shopping is ALWAYS better for the manufacturer.

 

Where did we go wrong as car lovers, where some believe that not giving customers a choice, is somehow a good thing.

 

And I might add that Ford is offering very little in the way of choices if a buyer wants a V6 Mustang, which was my point to begin with. Again, it's okay when Ford offers little in the way of choice.

[G. David Felt]

Sounds like the drinking deep of the Cool Aid bowl and the mix was changed again so is the tune now that FORD is talking of bringing back the Ranger. LOL

[surreal1272]

Sounds like the drinking deep of the Cool Aid bowl and the mix was changed again so is the tune now that FORD is talking of bringing back the Ranger. LOL

Could not have said it better myself. 

 

Edit: And I see some are taking full advantage of the down vote reinstatement. How typical.

Edited August 26, 2015 by surreal1272

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

 

 

 

Two grand more yet two cylinders less than a base Mustang.

 

That is a bit of a gulf for young people who are cross-shopping fairly broadly. We'll see how the reviews stack up. 

Until they see the rather large absence of options on that V6 Stang.

 

Giving the consumer a CHOICE instead of a one shop bundle price, is always....ALWAYS better for the CONSUMER, assuming final price points with similar hardware, is similar.  One price shopping is ALWAYS better for the manufacturer.

 

Where did we go wrong as car lovers, where some believe that not giving customers a choice, is somehow a good thing.

 

Funny, when I (and several others) mentioned choice in regards to trucks a while back (the GM twins plus the mid size twins vs. Ford F-Series), you (and several other Ford fans) were singing an entirely different tune. Of course, with the news of possibly a new Ranger coming back, that tunes has been altered a bit. Interesting how choice matters now but did not matter when Ford stopped offering choices in other categories.

 

Do you intentionally just completely miss my point to make some other snipe?

 

I clearly was talking about choice of OPTIONS.....not vehicle segments.

 

And yes, more vehicle segments is ALWAYS a better choice, although some less so than others.

[surreal1272]

 

 

 

 

Two grand more yet two cylinders less than a base Mustang.

 

That is a bit of a gulf for young people who are cross-shopping fairly broadly. We'll see how the reviews stack up. 

Until they see the rather large absence of options on that V6 Stang.

 

Giving the consumer a CHOICE instead of a one shop bundle price, is always....ALWAYS better for the CONSUMER, assuming final price points with similar hardware, is similar.  One price shopping is ALWAYS better for the manufacturer.

 

Where did we go wrong as car lovers, where some believe that not giving customers a choice, is somehow a good thing.

 

Funny, when I (and several others) mentioned choice in regards to trucks a while back (the GM twins plus the mid size twins vs. Ford F-Series), you (and several other Ford fans) were singing an entirely different tune. Of course, with the news of possibly a new Ranger coming back, that tunes has been altered a bit. Interesting how choice matters now but did not matter when Ford stopped offering choices in other categories.

 

Do you intentionally just completely miss my point to make some other snipe?

 

I clearly was talking about choice of OPTIONS.....not vehicle segments.

 

And yes, more vehicle segments is ALWAYS a better choice, although some less so than others.

 

More vehicles within a particular segment are called options to the rest of us, which you shunned not to long ago when talking about company profits and ATPs. Options=Choices in this case.

 

BTW, it wasn't a snipe. It was stating a fact that has been brought up here before. Sorry my Ivy League education didn't make that clear enough for you the first time.

Edited August 26, 2015 by surreal1272

[cp-the-nerd]

Let's use some perspective for a moment. The most recent V8 performance cars you could get for less than $30,000 were the 4.6L live-axle Mustang GT and the base Pontiac G8 GT. They had 300 and 360 hp respectively and ran 0-60 in 5.2-5.4 seconds. Despite inflation, you'll be able to get a 335 hp Camaro V6 starting under $30,000 that is exponentially better than either of those cars with better power-to-weight.

 

So shut the hell up.

 

If you want the incredibly advanced LT1 with 455 hp in what is essentially a 2 + 2 sports car, you pay a reasonable $37k. Cry me a river if a heavier, less powerful Mustang GT on a less advanced chassis starts $4,000 cheaper, find one car that measures up to the '16 Camaro SS in the $37-42k price range.

[surreal1272]

Let's use some perspective for a moment. The most recent V8 performance cars you could get for less than $30,000 were the 4.6L live-axle Mustang GT and the base Pontiac G8 GT. They had 300 and 360 hp respectively and ran 0-60 in 5.2-5.4 seconds. Despite inflation, you'll be able to get a 335 hp Camaro V6 starting under $30,000 that is exponentially better than either of those cars with better power-to-weight.

 

So shut the hell up.

 

If you want the incredibly advanced LT1 with 455 hp in what is essentially a 2 + 2 sports car, you pay a reasonable $37k. Cry me a river if a heavier, less powerful Mustang GT on a less advanced chassis starts $4,000 cheaper, find one car that measures up to the '16 Camaro SS in the $37-42k price range.

And again he goes down vote happy. Such a shame that some have to act like 9 year olds with the down voting.

 

Back to the subject.

 

Regardless of how some feel about the pricing of the new Camaro, Chevy will have no problem moving them. It is seemingly better than the outgoing model in every way. 

Edited August 26, 2015 by surreal1272

[surreal1272]

 

Let's use some perspective for a moment. The most recent V8 performance cars you could get for less than $30,000 were the 4.6L live-axle Mustang GT and the base Pontiac G8 GT. They had 300 and 360 hp respectively and ran 0-60 in 5.2-5.4 seconds. Despite inflation, you'll be able to get a 335 hp Camaro V6 starting under $30,000 that is exponentially better than either of those cars with better power-to-weight.

 

So shut the hell up.

 

If you want the incredibly advanced LT1 with 455 hp in what is essentially a 2 + 2 sports car, you pay a reasonable $37k. Cry me a river if a heavier, less powerful Mustang GT on a less advanced chassis starts $4,000 cheaper, find one car that measures up to the '16 Camaro SS in the $37-42k price range.

And again he goes down vote happy. Such a shame that some have to act like 9 year olds with the down voting.

 

Back to the subject.

 

Regardless of how some feel about the pricing of the new Camaro, Chevy will have no problem moving them. It is seemingly better than the outgoing model in every way. 

 

And thanks again Down Voter for proving my point.

 

This is why we can't have nice things.

[hyperv6]

Wow!

 

Grasshopper, For one to see distance one must look past the end of ones own nose. Master Wuu 1975

 

To understand this you really have to consider all the factors big picture and you can not use your own personal preferences to rationalize this. Then you must put this into context of todays market. I know many love to think of the past and the past ways but time waits for no one as the saying goes and you either have to adapt or be a pretty miserable person.

 

As for the Ranger deal it has been a long time coming. Ford built the original Ranger to specs that would make it legal here. The guy in charge of the original program said it was only a matter of will that kept it from this market. Fords focus was to launch the Aluminum truck first and then focus [no pun intended] on the Ranger for the market. This would be a much easier way to do it vs. two programs at once and also they could see how GM's trucks acceptance is.

GM on the other hand took the mid size truck first and next will do not an all aluminum but a lighter truck of many materials like the CT6. This way they can benefit from what Ford learned and not have to deal up front with all the issues of repair and cost like Aluminum presents.

Both moves were smart but just from two different perspectives. I had stated the Ranger would come or Ford would consider it but many would trash me on it. Well here we are. Next the half ton will be getting lighter and less will be put on volume with them as the Mid Size will take up some of it. They will now focus more on the 3/4 and up models for the future and V8 models as they as of now have less MPG regs to deal with. The bottom line is both companies are not putting all their chips on the half ton as it will not be able to carry the load of the truck segment as it did in the past as it has. Split it up and leverage it out over 3 models with varying MPG and regulation.

[El Kabong]

^

I am somewhat OK with bundles, if the price point I seek is reasonable or comparative with the competition.  Only when a certain trim level goes up significantly, relative to that same competition, that I have to take umbrage.

So you are okay with Ford doing bundles, is what you are saying. GM, on the other hand, "Oh where did we go wrong...".

Two grand more yet two cylinders less than a base Mustang.

 

That is a bit of a gulf for young people who are cross-shopping fairly broadly. We'll see how the reviews stack up.

Until they see the rather large absence of options on that V6 Stang.

Giving the consumer a CHOICE instead of a one shop bundle price, is always....ALWAYS better for the CONSUMER, assuming final price points with similar hardware, is similar.  One price shopping is ALWAYS better for the manufacturer.

 

Where did we go wrong as car lovers, where some believe that not giving customers a choice, is somehow a good thing.

And I might add that Ford is offering very little in the way of choices if a buyer wants a V6 Mustang, which was my point to begin with. Again, it's okay when Ford offers little in the way of choice.

Pathetic. That's what that backpedalling was.

[El Kabong]

Let's use some perspective for a moment. The most recent V8 performance cars you could get for less than $30,000 were the 4.6L live-axle Mustang GT and the base Pontiac G8 GT. They had 300 and 360 hp respectively and ran 0-60 in 5.2-5.4 seconds. Despite inflation, you'll be able to get a 335 hp Camaro V6 starting under $30,000 that is exponentially better than either of those cars with better power-to-weight.

 

So shut the hell up.

 

If you want the incredibly advanced LT1 with 455 hp in what is essentially a 2 + 2 sports car, you pay a reasonable $37k. Cry me a river if a heavier, less powerful Mustang GT on a less advanced chassis starts $4,000 cheaper, find one car that measures up to the '16 Camaro SS in the $37-42k price range.

Some folks just want the V8 rumble. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, but if you want a car that dances as well as it sings then the Camaro starts looking pretty good at 37 large.

[cp-the-nerd]

 

Let's use some perspective for a moment. The most recent V8 performance cars you could get for less than $30,000 were the 4.6L live-axle Mustang GT and the base Pontiac G8 GT. They had 300 and 360 hp respectively and ran 0-60 in 5.2-5.4 seconds. Despite inflation, you'll be able to get a 335 hp Camaro V6 starting under $30,000 that is exponentially better than either of those cars with better power-to-weight.

 

So shut the hell up.

 

If you want the incredibly advanced LT1 with 455 hp in what is essentially a 2 + 2 sports car, you pay a reasonable $37k. Cry me a river if a heavier, less powerful Mustang GT on a less advanced chassis starts $4,000 cheaper, find one car that measures up to the '16 Camaro SS in the $37-42k price range.

Some folks just want the V8 rumble. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, but if you want a car that dances as well as it sings then the Camaro starts looking pretty good at 37 large.

 

 

I'm just saying people need to get a grasp on reality before calling price into question. It's perfectly reasonable to lust after a V8, but the price of entry for 455 direct-injected horsepower riding in a world class chassis is a generous $37k.

 

Value hasn't decreased, performance has increased.

 

Granted, I don't understand the $5,000 price hike from 1SS to 2SS either, but we're going off limited pre-production information.

[El Kabong]

Well, the other thing that makes me smile about that is that I've seen folks elsewhere post like the difference between the price of the SS2 and GT350 is small enough that it renders the Chevy moot.

What a fat pantload.

56 grand will, in theory, get you a Shelby GT350, which will have a sweet V8... and absolutely nothing else. No performance pack, no electronics pack. It is CCAP's dream package, but still at a too-high price. And it still won't be especially light, nor will it offer eight speeds, nor will it even match the Chevy's torque.

The Camaro is excellence of execution. No amount of semantics, downvoting, or trolling can change that reality. It will best the GT easily, and it will scare the Shelby. At a far lower price.

[ccap41]

Well, the other thing that makes me smile about that is that I've seen folks elsewhere post like the difference between the price of the SS2 and GT350 is small enough that it renders the Chevy moot.

What a fat pantload.

56 grand will, in theory, get you a Shelby GT350, which will have a sweet V8... and absolutely nothing else. No performance pack, no electronics pack. It is CCAP's dream package, but still at a too-high price. And it still won't be especially light, nor will it offer eight speeds, nor will it even match the Chevy's torque.

The Camaro is excellence of execution. No amount of semantics, downvoting, or trolling can change that reality. It will best the GT easily, and it will scare the Shelby. At a far lower price.

Lol I understand what you mean and as a daily driver.. I would want the amenities. I guess my greatest fault is when I see these cars I think of my climate and how DDing these is very impractical therefore I see them as second cars..toys. And toys do not need nor would I want to fluff the car(a driver's car at that) up with a bunch of things. So for meeee I see the base GT then the near or all of 20k jump to the gt350 as a massive jump as opposed to the daily drive able 40ish grand SS or GT up to the gt350 in raw form. While you gain performance.. You lose the amenities. So 45k loaded GT or SS vs 50k GT350 isn't really a fair comparison as the GT and SS will have all the amenities of a good tourer/daily driver.

[cp-the-nerd]

Yeah, I'm not trying to rip on the Mustang, despite my harsh comment toward it. For several grand less, you get what you pay for. It's a great car in its own right.

 

However, comparing the base GT350 with cloth interior and no option packages is ridiculous. That Mustang starts over $10,000 higher than a comparably equipped, cloth interior 1SS trim. Someone who can afford a $40k performance car isn't magically able to finance one that's $50,000 just for spartan equipment.

[El Kabong]

The GT350 is a nice car. It is also a pretty high-strung and raw one, by definition. You will be able to get good numbers out of it, but you WILL have to work for them. Which is fine because, again, high-strung and raw.

The numbers indicate that a properly-equipped Camaro SS will come fairly close to some of those numbers. But it won't feel the same. And the difference in feel is what will justify the difference in price.

Edited August 27, 2015 by El Kabong

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

 

 

 

 

 

Until they see the rather large absence of options on that V6 Stang.

 

Giving the consumer a CHOICE instead of a one shop bundle price, is always....ALWAYS better for the CONSUMER, assuming final price points with similar hardware, is similar.  One price shopping is ALWAYS better for the manufacturer.

 

Where did we go wrong as car lovers, where some believe that not giving customers a choice, is somehow a good thing.

 

Funny, when I (and several others) mentioned choice in regards to trucks a while back (the GM twins plus the mid size twins vs. Ford F-Series), you (and several other Ford fans) were singing an entirely different tune. Of course, with the news of possibly a new Ranger coming back, that tunes has been altered a bit. Interesting how choice matters now but did not matter when Ford stopped offering choices in other categories.

 

Do you intentionally just completely miss my point to make some other snipe?

 

I clearly was talking about choice of OPTIONS.....not vehicle segments.

 

And yes, more vehicle segments is ALWAYS a better choice, although some less so than others.

 

More vehicles within a particular segment are called options to the rest of us, which you shunned not to long ago when talking about company profits and ATPs. Options=Choices in this case.

 

BTW, it wasn't a snipe. It was stating a fact that has been brought up here before. Sorry my Ivy League education didn't make that clear enough for you the first time.

 

A small truck  is a completely DIFFERENT segment than large......which is my point.

 

Thanks

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

Yeah, I'm not trying to rip on the Mustang, despite my harsh comment toward it. For several grand less, you get what you pay for. It's a great car in its own right.

 

However, comparing the base GT350 with cloth interior and no option packages is ridiculous. That Mustang starts over $10,000 higher than a comparably equipped, cloth interior 1SS trim. Someone who can afford a $40k performance car isn't magically able to finance one that's $50,000 just for spartan equipment.

The Recaro cloth seats with Miko Suede Sport inserts are standard and very comfortable, at least to me personally when I sat in them, which is something I notice immediately with my troublesome back.  And although I prefer leather, it is the last thing you want in any G-force producing machine.

 

So it's hardly just entry level 'cloth' seats.

 

But yeah, a bit too much as a daily driver, but when compared to the 2SS, it is in the same relative universe of extreme performance, with one focused slightly more.

[hyperv6]

What some of you are also forgetting is the price is what the market will bear. The whole point of this car is not just to make a car the public wants or a car with a great image. The bottom line is to make money.

 

Also as with the half ton trucks the prices of the V8 models will continue to go up to help limit sales naturally. Prices on all V8 models will continue to climb and will limit sales due to price vs. market limitations. In time this will also help cover any fines that will be accessed for not meeting MPG standards in the future.

 

Cheap gas will matter little my 2025 as the V8 will be a very expensive option in most of the models it is in.

 

This is why there is so much effort into the smaller cars today.

 

The real question is what can Ford and GM do to increase sales of the smaller engines. I would love to see GM do a special Camaro Turbo 4 with more power. Do away with the premium fuel recommended and go to required and you can see power well into the 300 HP plus range and torque of at least 340 FT LBS or more. The engine will go 400 HP with no internal mods.

 

Make a autocross version with some real performance tweaks and some sticky tires and a lot of power.

 

I tire of the special paint and wheel packages. While nice they need to make some real special editions that matter. You can sell all the V8 models all day as is so let apply some neat stuff to the lesser engine cars and just see where it goes.

 

340 FT LBS can be had on premium fuel and two map sensors. The Solstice got this number with the GM upgrade with a manual tranny.

[El Kabong]

Well... GM has made the turbo the base engine, which will make hotrodding it less expensive. That'll help.

[oldshurst442]

It just hit me...

 

A Camaro is on the verge to becoming...a "tuner" car.

 

 

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Seriously speaking though...I aint against the idea of a 350HP/350 ft.lbs torque twin turbo and intercooled 4 banger going psssssssss-psssssssss in the Camaro.

 

Im actually excited to see the 2016 Camaro 4 cylinder's performance stats.

Im actually awaiting to see what performance upgrades "tuners" will be doing to the Camaro and Mustnag' 4 cylinders turbos to see what performance gains they will garner. Especially in the Camaro where the 4 cylinder Camaro will be relatively light.

 

And I want to see how that will stack up to cars such as the Subaru BRZ....maybe it might wake up Subaru and make the BRZ the true performance 4 cylinder car it should have been in the first place...

Edited August 27, 2015 by oldshurst442

[Frisky Dingo]

I'm not going to quote a bunch of posts, because those of you this one addresses know who you are.

 

I and others aren't saying the car is overpriced just based on nothing of merit. I've clearly underlined what I find to be legitimate questions concerning the price increase. All me to do it again, line by line for clarity-

 

1)The car increased in price by $5,000. That is a 15.5% hike. That is quite considerable on a car that is already 32K. You can argue that the car is new and improved all day long and it is. But it also utilizes a chassis shared with several other cars, an engine shared with another one, and uses much the same hardware- Brembo brakes, 20" wheels, etc- as the last gen.

 

2)The 2SS is 5 grand more than the 1SS, but still leaves several notable features off- Nav, MRC, Sunroof, etc. If the only difference between the 1SS and 2SS is heated/cooled leather, stereo, and a few other minor bits, there should not be a 5K gap there.

 

I did not say, nor imply the GT350 renders this car moot, and to argue such is just clearly being a baby. I said in 2SS form the car is only 5K away from the GT350. It is NOT an unreasonable claim to imagine that could be a factor for some buyers. It would for me. You all act like the GT350 is some stripped-out track car, and that's BS. It has Recaro seats from the factory, all the power amenities you'd want, and would be no more difficult to DD than a base model V6 Mustang.

 

Furthermore, if you want the use the price of one with added features such as MRC, nav, and leather seats and what not, when you add those same things to the 2SS, you're still going to be left with a roughly 5 grand difference. Now, I am a full-fledged GM when it comes to domestics, but I can't imagine it'd be to hard to justify that extra 5 grand for the Shelby. Just for the performance alone, not to mention the intangibles like heritage, exclusivity, prestige, collector value, etc.

 

Some of you guys are hitting the GM kool aid a little too hard. 

It just hit me...

 

A Camaro is on the verge to becoming...a "tuner" car.

 

 

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Seriously speaking though...I aint against the idea of a 350HP/350 ft.lbs torque twin turbo and intercooled 4 banger going psssssssss-psssssssss in the Camaro.

 

Im actually excited to see the 2016 Camaro 4 cylinder's performance stats.

Im actually awaiting to see what performance upgrades "tuners" will be doing to the Camaro and Mustnag' 4 cylinders turbos to see what performance gains they will garner. Especially in the Camaro where the 4 cylinder Camaro will be relatively light.

 

And I want to see how that will stack up to cars such as the Subaru BRZ....maybe it might wake up Subaru and make the BRZ the true performance 4 cylinder car it should have been in the first place...

 

Gawd, I hope so. Because if they made a turbocharged ~275hp BRZ or FRS, I'd have bought one yesterday.

 

I wouldn't, however, buy a turbo-4 Camaro or Mustang. V8 or bust for me.

[El Kabong]

Dingo writes, I respond:

Yes, there's a price hike. The additional equipment added as standard helps contribute. The chassis is shared with other cars. Those cars are Cadillacs. Those Cadillacs have been acknowledged giant killers in the luxury sedan class, both in terms of performance and relatively light weight. Ergo, that kind of chassis tech does not come cheaply.

Again, on paper the Shelby will probably not appear to be that much more expensive than a loaded SS2. In reality it will become apparent to any potential buyer that the two take radically different approaches to performance. The big difference, again, will be that GM's more GT-oriented approach will not necessarily mean GT-level mass. So, it will have the best of both worlds in that regard. Couple it with a Magneride Suspension that will go a long way to aping a Shelby's Track Pack and you will be left with a car that will have nothing to apologize for.

And finally, again: the price doesn't look bad at all when you consider that a four-banger Mustang droptop can go for 42 large. It ain't cheap, but it's worth every penny. And yes, I'm VERY interested in seeing if there are any whackjob tuners out there who'll give you a 400hp Camaro for 32 grand.

[surreal1272]

And of course Wings misses the point entirely while exposing his clearly laid out double standard. Options and choices are only good when Ford offers them.

 

Thanks for playing.

[El Kabong]

We all know what's what with wings and with Ford man. Just because someone SAYS they're winning doesn't make it so... though it does provide a healthy dose of lulz :D

[surreal1272]

 

Yeah, I'm not trying to rip on the Mustang, despite my harsh comment toward it. For several grand less, you get what you pay for. It's a great car in its own right.

 

However, comparing the base GT350 with cloth interior and no option packages is ridiculous. That Mustang starts over $10,000 higher than a comparably equipped, cloth interior 1SS trim. Someone who can afford a $40k performance car isn't magically able to finance one that's $50,000 just for spartan equipment.

The Recaro cloth seats with Miko Suede Sport inserts are standard and very comfortable, at least to me personally when I sat in them, which is something I notice immediately with my troublesome back.  And although I prefer leather, it is the last thing you want in any G-force producing machine.

 

So it's hardly just entry level 'cloth' seats.

 

But yeah, a bit too much as a daily driver, but when compared to the 2SS, it is in the same relative universe of extreme performance, with one focused slightly more.

 

But leather is better. 

[cp-the-nerd]

I'm not going to quote a bunch of posts, because those of you this one addresses know who you are.

 

I and others aren't saying the car is overpriced just based on nothing of merit. I've clearly underlined what I find to be legitimate questions concerning the price increase. All me to do it again, line by line for clarity-

 

1)The car increased in price by $5,000. That is a 15.5% hike. That is quite considerable on a car that is already 32K. You can argue that the car is new and improved all day long and it is. But it also utilizes a chassis shared with several other cars, an engine shared with another one, and uses much the same hardware- Brembo brakes, 20" wheels, etc- as the last gen.

 

2)The 2SS is 5 grand more than the 1SS, but still leaves several notable features off- Nav, MRC, Sunroof, etc. If the only difference between the 1SS and 2SS is heated/cooled leather, stereo, and a few other minor bits, there should not be a 5K gap there.

 

I did not say, nor imply the GT350 renders this car moot, and to argue such is just clearly being a baby. I said in 2SS form the car is only 5K away from the GT350. It is NOT an unreasonable claim to imagine that could be a factor for some buyers. It would for me. You all act like the GT350 is some stripped-out track car, and that's BS. It has Recaro seats from the factory, all the power amenities you'd want, and would be no more difficult to DD than a base model V6 Mustang.

 

Furthermore, if you want the use the price of one with added features such as MRC, nav, and leather seats and what not, when you add those same things to the 2SS, you're still going to be left with a roughly 5 grand difference. Now, I am a full-fledged GM when it comes to domestics, but I can't imagine it'd be to hard to justify that extra 5 grand for the Shelby. Just for the performance alone, not to mention the intangibles like heritage, exclusivity, prestige, collector value, etc.

 

Some of you guys are hitting the GM kool aid a little too hard.

 

The 1SS is priced identically to the 5th gen SS 1LE, which was their performance benchmark, and the SS now includes the RS package which makes it a better deal than the current gen. Performance isn't free. The 2SS is basically stepping on the toes of the Stingray Corvette and nobody ever accused the C7 of being overpriced.

 

The $5k jump from 1SS to 2SS seems like a lot to me too, but we have limited information. Right now it just says leather interior and dual zone auto climate control, this is obviously not $5000 worth of upgrades. Maybe mag-ride is standard, maybe the $500 brake and cooling pkg is standard.

 

People keep expecting better performance, better technology, and nicer interiors, well that sh*t costs money and the Camaro is hugely improved. Go to chevy.com and price out a 2015 Camaro equipped similarly to the 2016. The price difference isn't that vast.

[El Kabong]

In the end I suspect it will be much ado about little.

[Frisky Dingo]

 

I'm not going to quote a bunch of posts, because those of you this one addresses know who you are.

 

I and others aren't saying the car is overpriced just based on nothing of merit. I've clearly underlined what I find to be legitimate questions concerning the price increase. All me to do it again, line by line for clarity-

 

1)The car increased in price by $5,000. That is a 15.5% hike. That is quite considerable on a car that is already 32K. You can argue that the car is new and improved all day long and it is. But it also utilizes a chassis shared with several other cars, an engine shared with another one, and uses much the same hardware- Brembo brakes, 20" wheels, etc- as the last gen.

 

2)The 2SS is 5 grand more than the 1SS, but still leaves several notable features off- Nav, MRC, Sunroof, etc. If the only difference between the 1SS and 2SS is heated/cooled leather, stereo, and a few other minor bits, there should not be a 5K gap there.

 

I did not say, nor imply the GT350 renders this car moot, and to argue such is just clearly being a baby. I said in 2SS form the car is only 5K away from the GT350. It is NOT an unreasonable claim to imagine that could be a factor for some buyers. It would for me. You all act like the GT350 is some stripped-out track car, and that's BS. It has Recaro seats from the factory, all the power amenities you'd want, and would be no more difficult to DD than a base model V6 Mustang.

 

Furthermore, if you want the use the price of one with added features such as MRC, nav, and leather seats and what not, when you add those same things to the 2SS, you're still going to be left with a roughly 5 grand difference. Now, I am a full-fledged GM when it comes to domestics, but I can't imagine it'd be to hard to justify that extra 5 grand for the Shelby. Just for the performance alone, not to mention the intangibles like heritage, exclusivity, prestige, collector value, etc.

 

Some of you guys are hitting the GM kool aid a little too hard.

 

The 1SS is priced identically to the 5th gen SS 1LE, which was their performance benchmark, and the SS now includes the RS package which makes it a better deal than the current gen. Performance isn't free. The 2SS is basically stepping on the toes of the Stingray Corvette and nobody ever accused the C7 of being overpriced.

 

The $5k jump from 1SS to 2SS seems like a lot to me too, but we have limited information. Right now it just says leather interior and dual zone auto climate control, this is obviously not $5000 worth of upgrades. Maybe mag-ride is standard, maybe the $500 brake and cooling pkg is standard.

 

People keep expecting better performance, better technology, and nicer interiors, well that sh*t costs money and the Camaro is hugely improved. Go to chevy.com and price out a 2015 Camaro equipped similarly to the 2016. The price difference isn't that vast.

 

 

Okay, that's a fair enough point I suppose. They are essentially doing what Ferrari does in targeting a special model with a standard one. However, having said that, Ford supposedly did too, by targeting the Boss, and the Mustang didn't get as much of a price jump. I understand the Camaro will most likely be the superior car, but while that matters to people like us, it won't to most buyers.

 

As for the cost difference loaded up, it appears as though the current car is roughly 8K cheaper all up. That's a lot of money. Especially when it encroaches on C7 territory as you said.

 

Time will tell just how good of a car it is, and if reviewers think it's worth the price increase. I still look forward to driving one, but unless I'm blown away by it, I've nixed it from my list of next possible cars.

[El Kabong]

I don't understand how you can say that the Camaro's superiority won't matter to buyers. How do you think it became #1 in sales?

"Good enough" isn't good enough anymore. Nor should it be.

[cp-the-nerd]

 

 

The 1SS is priced identically to the 5th gen SS 1LE, which was their performance benchmark, and the SS now includes the RS package which makes it a better deal than the current gen. Performance isn't free. The 2SS is basically stepping on the toes of the Stingray Corvette and nobody ever accused the C7 of being overpriced.

 

The $5k jump from 1SS to 2SS seems like a lot to me too, but we have limited information. Right now it just says leather interior and dual zone auto climate control, this is obviously not $5000 worth of upgrades. Maybe mag-ride is standard, maybe the $500 brake and cooling pkg is standard.

 

People keep expecting better performance, better technology, and nicer interiors, well that sh*t costs money and the Camaro is hugely improved. Go to chevy.com and price out a 2015 Camaro equipped similarly to the 2016. The price difference isn't that vast.

 

 

Okay, that's a fair enough point I suppose. They are essentially doing what Ferrari does in targeting a special model with a standard one. However, having said that, Ford supposedly did too, by targeting the Boss, and the Mustang didn't get as much of a price jump. I understand the Camaro will most likely be the superior car, but while that matters to people like us, it won't to most buyers.

 

As for the cost difference loaded up, it appears as though the current car is roughly 8K cheaper all up. That's a lot of money. Especially when it encroaches on C7 territory as you said.

 

Time will tell just how good of a car it is, and if reviewers think it's worth the price increase. I still look forward to driving one, but unless I'm blown away by it, I've nixed it from my list of next possible cars.

 

 

How do you figure the current gen is 8k cheaper? I priced a 2015 2SS with just the RS package and 1LE package and it already costs $43,000. Those are built into the '16 Camaro's starting price for the 2SS. I mean looking at the real essentials, the price is basically a wash. If I add the other performance parts, dual mode exhaust, recaro seats, a special edition package, wheels, etc. I can make the 2015 Camaro 2SS cost over $50,000 easy.

 

Also, I wasn't saying the 2SS was priced too close to the Corvette, I was saying the performance and interior are closer to the Corvette than ever. The only difference between the Stingray and Camaro SS is a few hundred pounds of curb weight. I don't think the Alpha chassis gives up anything as far steering and handling, both get the same 8-speed automatic.

[cp-the-nerd]

If I were to sum up my whole argument in one sentence it would be this: the new Camaro is expensive, but it is not overpriced.

[El Kabong]

Check out my new thread on the GT350. Up in Canada I'd say that the Camaro will be looking like a screaming bargain after seeing what they'll be charging for the Shelby.

[Frisky Dingo]

 

 

 

The 1SS is priced identically to the 5th gen SS 1LE, which was their performance benchmark, and the SS now includes the RS package which makes it a better deal than the current gen. Performance isn't free. The 2SS is basically stepping on the toes of the Stingray Corvette and nobody ever accused the C7 of being overpriced.

 

The $5k jump from 1SS to 2SS seems like a lot to me too, but we have limited information. Right now it just says leather interior and dual zone auto climate control, this is obviously not $5000 worth of upgrades. Maybe mag-ride is standard, maybe the $500 brake and cooling pkg is standard.

 

People keep expecting better performance, better technology, and nicer interiors, well that sh*t costs money and the Camaro is hugely improved. Go to chevy.com and price out a 2015 Camaro equipped similarly to the 2016. The price difference isn't that vast.

 

 

Okay, that's a fair enough point I suppose. They are essentially doing what Ferrari does in targeting a special model with a standard one. However, having said that, Ford supposedly did too, by targeting the Boss, and the Mustang didn't get as much of a price jump. I understand the Camaro will most likely be the superior car, but while that matters to people like us, it won't to most buyers.

 

As for the cost difference loaded up, it appears as though the current car is roughly 8K cheaper all up. That's a lot of money. Especially when it encroaches on C7 territory as you said.

 

Time will tell just how good of a car it is, and if reviewers think it's worth the price increase. I still look forward to driving one, but unless I'm blown away by it, I've nixed it from my list of next possible cars.

 

 

How do you figure the current gen is 8k cheaper? I priced a 2015 2SS with just the RS package and 1LE package and it already costs $43,000. Those are built into the '16 Camaro's starting price for the 2SS. I mean looking at the real essentials, the price is basically a wash. If I add the other performance parts, dual mode exhaust, recaro seats, a special edition package, wheels, etc. I can make the 2015 Camaro 2SS cost over $50,000 easy.

 

Also, I wasn't saying the 2SS was priced too close to the Corvette, I was saying the performance and interior are closer to the Corvette than ever. The only difference between the Stingray and Camaro SS is a few hundred pounds of curb weight. I don't think the Alpha chassis gives up anything as far steering and handling, both get the same 8-speed automatic.

 

 

Well, if you are adding the 1LE Pkg to the cost, it narrows the gap, but until I see some figures, I'm not quite sure if adding it is the only fair way to compare pricing of the 15 and 16. A 2016 2SS w/ Nav, MRC, and sunroof alone will be roughly 48K. A 2SS with those same options sans MRC is right at 41K. If you want to go the extra mile and equip the 1LE suspension, it comes in at 43K. That's still a 5K gap.

 

Regarding your second point, I see. I still think the Stingray will have a decisive advantage, but maybe I'm wrong. 

[Frisky Dingo]

If I were to sum up my whole argument in one sentence it would be this: the new Camaro is expensive, but it is not overpriced.

 

 

Fair enough. And I'm not quite saying it is either. But it may be dangerously close, and it may affect sales.

[cp-the-nerd]

'16 2SS - $42,300 (with destination)

Nav - $500

Sunroof - $900

Magnetic ride - $1700 **Not available on 5th gen SS

 

Total: $45,400

 

Why are you rationalizing adding Magnetic Ride Control to the '16 model, but you won't include the 1LE package on the '15? That's a $5,000 price swing combined.

Edited August 27, 2015 by cp-the-nerd

[Frisky Dingo]

Like I said, even if you DO add the 1LE suspension to the 15MY car, it's 5K cheaper than a 2SS with MRC. It's also a 5K diff if you don't add either option to either car.

[cp-the-nerd]

I still don't get how you're arriving at that math. These are numbers I took from the Chevy website.

 

2015 Camaro 2SS - $38,300

RS Package - $1,300 (This is standard on 2016 SS)

Nav - $500

Sunroof - $900

 

Total - $41,000

 

Total With 1LE package - $44,500

[Drew Dowdell]

Two grand more yet two cylinders less than a base Mustang.

 

That is a bit of a gulf for young people who are cross-shopping fairly broadly. We'll see how the reviews stack up. 

 

It will really depend on the balance in the car.  Much like in the ATS where the 2.0T is the best choice for those who want a blend of power and driving dynamics (without going to the V-series), I think the 2.0T in the Camaro will be an excellent handler, probably the best of the non-SS cars. 

 

Younger buyers are also familiar with Turbo-4s, so I don't think that will be a huge issue for them.

[Drew Dowdell]

Next company to take their pony car, give it a 300 mile range on pure electric with a motor like this.

 

420HP, 560 lbs of torque will win!

 

am-racing-amr-dual-stack-250-90-ac-motor-liquid-cooled-permanent-magnet-remy-1.jpg

 

http://www.evwest.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=8&products_id=300&osCsid=rfikd2j0it52odv9jfoo2kfdk4

 

That is my thought and I am sticking to it.

 

If any muscle/pony car goes with an electric powertrain, it should be the Charger.

 

 

what?

 

 

   

[Drew Dowdell]

Crazy stupid pricing like this will kill off the Pony cars for many.

 

That's true of all cars, not just pony cars

[hyperv6]

Drew the Pony car was a light, cheap performance car based on a economy car.

 

The truth is the Pony car died years ago. Today it is a whole new class of car with an old name.

Edited August 28, 2015 by hyperv6