The Camaro is not something that I would buy. With regard to the windows, the Chrysler 300 is similar and is selling. I would like to see a CTS wagon in the next generation CTS. However, the SRX may be as close as we get. Perhaps some of the new crossovers will be OK, but they seem much bigger and heavier than I would like.
I think that the muscle car market like the Mustang and Camaro have gone to the "sports sedan" style of vehicles.
Maybe it's just me but is that thing look ugly or what? The windows are about 6 inches high and the cockpit area looks like it must be pretty clostrophobic in there. The grill has nothing attractive about it.
This is supposed to be marketed for the boomers who wanted a Camaro in their 20's. But haven't we matured to want more sophisticated economical cars with more room inside?
What are they thinking? And if I did want a "muscle car" I would buy a Challenger or Mustang which look more like the original, and not like a cartoon car(thank you Miata).
I think that the muscle car market like the Mustang and Camaro have gone to the "sports sedan" style of vehicles
That would make sense. A Camaro based on a BMW 3 Series fighter. 4 passenger, good performance, a little Euro styling and a handling and a reasonable price. Driving a Camaro is going to be like driving a Hummer by the time it comes out....completely out of date!
With my wife's employer the VP's don't get company cars, but they get a car allowance, thus they buy what they want. You guessed it, all MB, Lexus, BMW, and Audi etc.
If I were the CEO of that company, I'd look to the one guy or gal who chose a domestic with their car allowance as my "go-to" person. Obviously that person thinks outside the box, follows their own mind and passions, and isn't swayed by the herd.
"Maybe a toyota or Honda means the employee is not adventurous and doesn't challenge enough, just accepts that a Toyota is the best car available."
Many people with whom I worked thought that they had to buy a Toyota or Honda because... They had no reason other than peers had told them so. They couldn't list factors and evaluate the items important in each of the cars they could purchase. They just "knew" because someone told them. No brainpower.
I recall one coworker whose Honda wouldn't start. Happened several times. I suggested maybe she needed to get a dependable car! I didn't know her husband was a manager at some level at a Honda dealership (I infer they were separated. I just thought that was humorous when her car wouldn't crank.)
Or they know value and prefer the finer things in life and their "own mind" and "passions" lead them to prefer a more sophisticated automobile. Maybe the guy (or woman) who would choose a Buick or Cadilac is the one who doesn't think outside the box and just accepts that these are the cars we've always bought so they are what I should get. Maybe a Buick or Cadillac means the employee is not adventurous and doesn't challenge enough, just accepts that a Buick is the best car available. IMO most people who work hard like to be rewarded for their work and they would try to choose the best performing/handling car possible and I don't think that is going to be a GM (IMHO).
Many people with whom I worked thought that they had to buy a Toyota or Honda because... They had no reason other than peers had told them so
True, maybe choosing an import or domestic says something about the executive and maybe it doesn't. Maybe the best choice is someone who couldn't care less what car he drives because it isn't that important to that individual. Then again, who is going to appoint an exec to a big position who drives around in a beat up 1992 Taurus? IMO the new Volvo owner would have the inside track, stability, dependable, conservative, economical, safe....but who knows. It would be interesting to guess what the boss would think of a prospective exec who drives a; Lexus, Tahoe, Ford 500, Volvo, 1995 Century, BMW 3, Civic, Accord, Caddie, Impala, Intrepid etc...any human resource people out there? WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO TELL US, "IF YOU WERE THE BOSS AND HAD TO CHOOSE AN EXEC, WHAT DOES THEIR CHOICE OF CAR TELL YOU"?
Not surprised the manager of the dealerships wife's car didn't start....shoe repair owners kids go shoeless type of things.
People on this sight are more knowledgeable than most. Probably most car buyers do go by what other people say, they don't know about push rods, or safety airbags, or ABS brakes, or feel of the road. Most of the population just want a dependable, comfortable, economical car at the lowest price possible...and all the anectodal evidence steers them to a Toyota/Honda.
You could add that the CEO protege has a good sense of humor and is not easily discouraged, as they take on the task of countless trips to the service dept. to have the car basically rebuilt under the warranty period. And what a moral booster to drive a car a notch below their help, knowing this will help the little guy feel like they are doing far better in life than this poor CEO wanna be, struggling to live with his or her rental class car. And what a free and easy going person, with a sense of humor they would be. I agree, hire the person which preferred the lesser car, as they will be more fun at the company parties. .. . just kidding. -Loren
That's what I was saying. All those people not thinking...
I don't get it. If someone is driving a 5 series BMW, or Lexus LS, etc. they are not thinking. So only the people who drive GM products are the enlightened ones?
As far as What does the CEO think about what his execs/VPs drive. I'd bet he doesn't care. What he cares about is how these people do their jobs, not what they drive. If the company is a major supplier to the big 3, then it probably would be an issue.
When I was in high school (late 80's), a neighbor of ours was head of purchasing at the local Bethlehem Steel plant. He drove a Grand Cherokee to work, a Porsche for a toy, and his wife drove a Camry.
Personally, I think the Solstice Coupe should be the $20K Camaro, and a smaller and less expensive CTS coupe and sedan would be so cool too! Something in the $24K to $27K class. BMW sized car for Caddy to sell. The BMW3 sedan starts at $30.9K, but then again, it is the ultimate driving machine, which always adds $3K to 5K to the price And it has the 4 year all maintenance and warranty work bumper to bumper.
Currently, in affordable, as in sub $25K class, RWD there is only the Charger. I think it starts, with typical discounting, around $21K or so.
The Camaro is not something that I would buy. With regard to the windows, the Chrysler 300 is similar and is selling.
Well, will the tiny window style STILL be selling in 2009? As usual this is too little, too late. I predict the Camaro will be the bomb. Remember Ford's resurrected TBird?
Ford blew with the T-Bird in many ways. It was over priced for one. Making it a car not everyone could afford. The Camaro will be affordable. IMO it will be the first competent ion for the Mustang in a long time.
The 350Z is a competent rival to the Mustang GT. It's a different car, but it is a rear drive coupe built for 4 with clearly sporting intentions. I'd cross shop both if I was looking.
As usual, GM management is driving forward by looking in the rearview mirror- so the Mustang is successful and now they want to emulate it by building yet another retro vehicle (the SSR was a bomb, the HHR was a copycat of the PT Cruiser but doing OK). So GM wants to build vehicles that are not in the Asian/European manufacturers sweetspot and therein lies the "new Camaro". Seems kind of white trash/old baby boomer to me. But maybe that's where GM has to live these days- plus the oldsters for Buick, some trucks to sell with the new big SUVs and maybe they can make it for the next few years until their small car/crossover line can be rejuvenated. How about some innovation from GM? Is that too risky for them?
The dual phase hybrid system is quite an innovation, really.
GM also has a large announcement on its fuel cell technology scheduled for later this fall (probably at the LA auto show is my guess).
Rumor is that GM is close to making an affordable fuel cell vehicle. Obviously, getting hydrogen to the car is an issue. But I expect the big oil and other energy companies are going to figure out hydrogen logistics sooner than many think.
I have no idea if the Camaro will still be in style a couple of years from now. However, Automobile magazine's design critic like the Camaro in general. He did comment that the radiator grill was the least attractive part of the car. He also felt that the Mustang would out sell it.
What is good about the Camaro is that the basic platform that it will use is also going to make some RWD sedans possible. The RWD sedans are probably far more important to GM's future than the Camaro is.
In 2009, the hype for the Camaro will have shriveled up... And by the time the car gets here, I would expect it to look drastically more "realistic" for both ease of manufacturing and safety regulations. At the moment it is a fantasy.
I agree, the sedans will play a much, much more important role, if the market switch to RWD, V8 powered family sedans holds promise in the wake of $4/gallon petrol.
The sigma platform may not allow for a lower priced CTS, coupe or sedan. The next generation CTS will get a nicer interior so the $30,000 base price may seem more in line with what one is getting.
The Camaro of old was a four passenger car, not a two passenger sports car. The Solstice design would not allow for a rear seat. The kappa platform might allow for something else, I don't know. A coupe version of the Solstice or Sky may make sense, but should remain as either a Pontiac or Saturn, not rebadged as a Chevy.
Making Pontiac "rental only" means that Pontiac dealers would be selling used vehicles only (I doubt they would like that, and I doubt anyone would be willing to pay a decent sum for used "rental only" brands).
GM and Ford just want to keep the factories running - they don't care about retail customers like you and me and the resale value of anything they sell to us. I agree with the author of the article that this is a bad strategy since GM and Ford will have no choice but to close the factories as retail customers leave them.
My suggestion for GM: Just spare Chevy and Caddy and make them "retail customer only".
Good fun! Wonder how that would work if the boss did show up in a 1984 Laurentian every day?
Our program director alternates between two pickups: a 2000 F-150 and a 2004-05 F-350. His deputy drives a 1996 Honda Accord with plastic hubcaps and a stick shift. And one of the other deputies drives a Windstall that's on its second engine. And for at least a decade our chief scientist drove a CRX that was so basic it didn't even have a headlights-on warning. I lost track of how many times he needed to be jump started.
Nobody around here really buys cars to impress people or make up for other shortcomings. At least the higher-ups don't. There's this one lady that, I don't know what she does, but she drives a used Benz E-class. And one of the secretaries drives an Infiniti Maxima.
Government people usually aren't on the cutting edge when it comes to automotive trends, though! I could understand some people in certain sales type jobs, VP's, etc, or positions where you have to impress clients, buying those stereotypical Audis, Benzes, BMWs, etc. It's a sad reality, but many people DO judge you based on what you drive. To those types of people, your car says a lot about you. I just never was one to really care what my car had to say...just as long as it keeps quiet about that night two years ago with the boss's twin daughters and his good looking Aunt Phyllis. :P
The owner of my business swaps between an Infiniti Q and a 325xi. The VP drives a Camry XLE, my boss drives a Prius and a RAV4. Our parking lot is domminated by import brands, about 80% of them...
We build products for US defense contracts so we are as American a business as you're gonna get.
When I was with a very large database company (you can guess which one), our division Vice President had two company cars at his disposal: A Mercedes S-Class and the high end Mercedes two seat convertible (nice, what choices). The last time I had a company car was with Apple Computer and they had a fleet of Tauruses. When I was fired from them (oops, "downsized", a nicer term), they let me buy the 1994 Taurus for a great price. I had my kids learn to drive on it and used it for another 10 years. Actually, I think many companies do that (let the employees buy the company cars from GE leasing or something) whether they are fired or not.
Feel free to start another discussion about company cars, but this one is reserved for conversation about GM styling - thanks!
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
little windows are here to stay - it's not "styling," it's passenger safety, driven by the EU and Japan requirements re side impacts
and with the number of SUVs on American roads, you should be thrilled the car makers are making some attempt to protect you
for those of you who remember sitting in the back seat of any Camaro, you must be small dudes. I was never comfortable sitting in the back seat or any early 70s Camaro, but I was around 6 feet tall at the time
for those of you who remember sitting in the back seat of any Camaro, you must be small dudes. I was never comfortable sitting in the back seat or any early 70s Camaro, but I was around 6 feet tall at the time
I can fit fine in the back seat of a Camaro, if you either put the front seat up most of the way, or I sit sideways. :P
"little windows are here to stay - it's not "styling," it's passenger safety"
Not being able to see anything out of the windows would make me feel less safe. I test drove a Magnum and the uneasy feeling when changing lanes made me feel no way.
Maybe the impact standards are up but alot of cars that don't have mail slot windows like the Camaro and 300 eet them. Are you sure it's not styling?
The basic issue here is whether the new Camaro should be a "pure" sports car with only two seats; or, a larger cabin with a rear seat, even though it may only be useful for younger people (like children). Someone suggested that the Camaro could be a rebadged Solstice coupe. I think that is a bad idea. The Camaro should be a larger car, with a convertible available, with a back seat that is useable by younger adults for short distances.
The side impact standards are what predicated higher beltlines. However, a car with a high beltline doesn't necessarily have to have small windows. Witness the Ford 500, VW Passat, or heck, even the 1997-04 Century/Regal. I happened to park next to one the other day in my Intrepid, and I'd swear the beltline was a 3-4+ inches higher than that of my car.
Cars like the Yaris and Corolla have high beltlines too, but not small windows. They're probably small compared to something like a 1996 Caprice or a pickup truck, but they're not the little gun slits you see with the Magnum, Charger, etc.
Those small windows make the cars look lower than they really are, and contribute to a tough looking look. So yeah, it's mostly about styling. I test drove a Magnum about 2 years ago, and didn't like the visibility at all. For something that's actually shorter than my Intrepid, it sure didn't feel it! About the only thing I did like about its visibility was that I could see the hood.
true, it is related to styling, but you can't get large windows, the required high beltline, and a rakish look. It's a simple matter of arithmetic. If the bottom of the windown starts at a certain height above the ground, and given the volume of the car, you want a certain roofline to give the car something less than a boxy profile, you are gonna get little windows
the Ford 500 is not sporty looking, nor is the Passat, nor the Regal, nor the Yaris, nor the Corolla
I completely agree that the Magnum is tough to see out of. [imagine how ugly it would be if it had tall windows.]
Of course, you know you are supposed to be using your MIRRORS, not craning your head to see out the window, right? ;-)
Why do you need to see out the windows, anyway? Don't all new cars come with blind-spot detectors?
About the only thing I did like about its visibility was that I could see the hood.
god, you guys and your hoods. Why is it that you need to see the hood? Can you guys really not park your cars? Or is it that you can't figure out if you are going straight unless you can see your hood?
I've always thought it was an odd complaint. I understand it, but you do get over it pretty quickly. I owned a Grand Caravan, and you can't see the hood of that thing. Bothered me until I drove it off the lot. Never bothered me again.
but since you guys don't know how to use your mirrors, I can see why the hood thing would bother you, too
I was always trained to not trust your mirror, so you actually have to LOOK before making certain maneuvers. And the right-side mirror is a relatively new contraption, considering some of the cars I've owned.
I'm tall, so the low window tops cause me to have to slouch a bit to look out well, and the thick roof pillars of today's cars are horrible with blind spots.
Get behind the wheel of a 1985 Silverado for awhile, get used to it, and then go back to a modern car with blind spots galore, tiny mirrors, and an invisible hood and decklid, and tell me how easy it is to drive! :P
The upgraded 224hp 3.5L and the 252hp 3.6L have found their way into the 2007 G6. That's good news. It is funny that the 240hp 3.9L is still offered, having 16 hp more than the basic engine and 12 less than top of the line. Squeezed in there for no reason, it has a worse fuel economy than both of them. What's the point of this engine? This has got to be one of the most pointless engines GM has ever produced. Even the DOD its fuel consumption is so-so.
The upgraded 224hp 3.5L and the 252hp 3.6L have found their way into the 2007 G6. That's good news. It is funny that the 240hp 3.9L is still offered, having 16 hp more than the basic engine and 12 less than top of the line. Squeezed in there for no reason, it has a worse fuel economy than both of them. What's the point of this engine? This has got to be one of the most pointless engines GM has ever produced. Even the DOD its fuel consumption is so-so.
I agree, but I'm sure it comes down to money and/or capacity. I'm sure the 3.6 costs more to produce, but it's hands down the better engine. I wonder if it will find it's way into an Impala?
Some may disagree, but I think the inline 6/5 cylinder engines used in the Trailblazer/Colorado was pretty pointless too. I wonder if GM would have been better off building a 4 liter version of the 3.6 tuned for truck/suv duty. Being a V configuration vs. inline may have allowed it to fit in the Colorado negating the need for the 5 cylinder. But who knows, maybe the engine bay of the Colorado is to small to fit a large v6 too.
But who knows, maybe the engine bay of the Colorado is to small to fit a large v6 too.
I think that was a concern with the Colorado/Canyon, that a V-block engine couldn't easily fit in its engine bay. IIRC, towing and payload capacity actually went down on the Colorado/Canyon compared to the old S-10 because, even with the 3.5 5-cyl, it just didn't have the power that the older 4.3 V-6 in the S-10 did.
The 3.6 is a 60-degree V-6, so it should be tighter than the old 4.3 V-6. But then it's DOHC which is going to bulk it back up, possibly bigger than the 4.3 was. the 4.3 V-6 might be fairly large displacement, but physically it's a very compact engine. I wouldn't be surprised if the 3.6 DOHC is actually bulkier.
"I think that was a concern with the Colorado/Canyon, that a V-block engine couldn't easily fit in its engine bay. IIRC, towing and payload capacity actually went down on the Colorado/Canyon compared to the old S-10 because, even with the 3.5 5-cyl, it just didn't have the power that the older 4.3 V-6 in the S-10 did."
So now it's hard to build an engine bay that will fit a V6 like all of their competitors have? What is wrong with them? It's like they find way to not compete. The obvious answer is to redesign the engine bay.
The I4 and I6 are very smooth running engines and have a great torque curve.
I do not think there is any 5 cylinder out there (be it GM, Volvo, VW, Audi) that is not a little rough compared to 4 or six cylinders. I've never driven one any way.
The problem with the Colorado with anything other than the 4 is price. You can get a Silverado less than many 5 cyl. Colorado configurations. Neither a V6 nor the I5 are going to do that much better than the Silverado drive train mpg wise.
So what is the point of buying one?
I do not think it is any coincidence that the companies that sell a lot of mid-size trucks do not compete well in the full size venue and vice versa.
I suspect many people who buy Tacomas with the V6 would buy a Tundra if it were a better truck. We shall find out this Fall.
I would like to see the Opel common rail diesel in a Colorado!
So now it's hard to build an engine bay that will fit a V6 like all of their competitors have? What is wrong with them? It's like they find way to not compete. The obvious answer is to redesign the engine bay.
I think GM decided to just give up on this market, kinda like how they gave up on minivans. IIRC, the Colorado/Canyon was designed for the Taiwanese market, and using it here in the US was the quickest way to get a new-looking truck to market here, instead of building a dedicated truck for this market.
GM's weird like that, though. I remember you used to be able to get the 3800 V-6 in those old dustbuster minivans. But when they went to the Venture/Montana style minivan, the engine bay couldn't hold that 90-degree V-6, so they had to start using the 3.1/3.4 V-6, which at the time wasn't as powerful or reliable.
But now, if they're putting that 3.6 DOHC engine in the Australian version of the truck but not offering it here, I have nothing to really add. Except that GM needs to be smacked. Hard.
Ah, but the 3.6HF V6 does fit. Witness the Holden Rodeo (rebadged Isuzu D-Max). GMNA is just too trifling to put the HF into mass production.
Good find. What the heck is GM doing? The 3.6 is used in the Aussy market, but they have to "Rube Goldberg" the 4.2L (i.e, make it a 5cyl) for the US Market only to be out done by just about every small truck on the market. This is almost comical. I tend to think not everyone is on the same page at GM.
is maybe realign their pickup/SUV line like how they used to be. For instance, the Blazer/Jimmy used to be based on the same platform as the S-10/15 pickup. But these days, with the domestics at least, it seems the in-thing to do is spawn two different platforms for your midsized pickup and midsized SUV. The Durango/Dakota used to be on the same platform, but these days they're pretty different. And the Explorer is a far cry from the Ranger derivative it used to be.
I think if GM based a pickup on the Traiblazer platform, they might have a more competitive product. Heck, look at Nissan. The Titan, Armada, Frontier, Pathfinder, and even the Xterra are all on the same basic chassis! it's just that the smaller ones don't hang over the frame rails as much as the bigger ones do. Wait, maybe this isn't the best example, because I hear that the Titan/Armada aren't the most reliable things in the world. Although the smaller trucks seem to be pretty durable...if plasticky.
Does Toyota use the same platform these days for the Tacoma and the 4runner?
Comments
I think that the muscle car market like the Mustang and Camaro have gone to the "sports sedan" style of vehicles.
This is supposed to be marketed for the boomers who wanted a Camaro in their 20's. But haven't we matured to want more sophisticated economical cars with more room inside?
What are they thinking? And if I did want a "muscle car" I would buy a Challenger or Mustang which look more like the original, and not like a cartoon car(thank you Miata).
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
the sales and service guys (300 cars?) drive domestic (the Pacifica, believe it or not)
the executives with company cars (very small % of the company - 15?) are driving imports: BMW, DC (but all MB), one Land Rover - nothing domestic
same with the company across the parking lot - executive row is all imports: Jag, Audi, Lexus, Volvo
That would make sense. A Camaro based on a BMW 3 Series fighter. 4 passenger, good performance, a little Euro styling and a handling and a reasonable price. Driving a Camaro is going to be like driving a Hummer by the time it comes out....completely out of date!
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
If I were the CEO of that company, I'd look to the one guy or gal who chose a domestic with their car allowance as my "go-to" person. Obviously that person thinks outside the box, follows their own mind and passions, and isn't swayed by the herd.
"Maybe a toyota or Honda means the employee is not adventurous and doesn't challenge enough, just accepts that a Toyota is the best car available."
Many people with whom I worked thought that they had to buy a Toyota or Honda because... They had no reason other than peers had told them so. They couldn't list factors and evaluate the items important in each of the cars they could purchase. They just "knew" because someone told them. No brainpower.
I recall one coworker whose Honda wouldn't start. Happened several times. I suggested maybe she needed to get a dependable car! I didn't know her husband was a manager at some level at a Honda dealership (I infer they were separated. I just thought that was humorous when her car wouldn't crank.)
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Or they know value and prefer the finer things in life and their "own mind" and "passions" lead them to prefer a more sophisticated automobile. Maybe the guy (or woman) who would choose a Buick or Cadilac is the one who doesn't think outside the box and just accepts that these are the cars we've always bought so they are what I should get. Maybe a Buick or Cadillac means the employee is not adventurous and doesn't challenge enough, just accepts that a Buick is the best car available.
IMO most people who work hard like to be rewarded for their work and they would try to choose the best performing/handling car possible and I don't think that is going to be a GM (IMHO).
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
True, maybe choosing an import or domestic says something about the executive and maybe it doesn't. Maybe the best choice is someone who couldn't care less what car he drives because it isn't that important to that individual. Then again, who is going to appoint an exec to a big position who drives around in a beat up 1992 Taurus? IMO the new Volvo owner would have the inside track, stability, dependable, conservative, economical, safe....but who knows.
It would be interesting to guess what the boss would think of a prospective exec who drives a; Lexus, Tahoe, Ford 500, Volvo, 1995 Century, BMW 3, Civic, Accord, Caddie, Impala, Intrepid etc...any human resource people out there? WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO TELL US, "IF YOU WERE THE BOSS AND HAD TO CHOOSE AN EXEC, WHAT DOES THEIR CHOICE OF CAR TELL YOU"?
Not surprised the manager of the dealerships wife's car didn't start....shoe repair owners kids go shoeless type of things.
People on this sight are more knowledgeable than most. Probably most car buyers do go by what other people say, they don't know about push rods, or safety airbags, or ABS brakes, or feel of the road. Most of the population just want a dependable, comfortable, economical car at the lowest price possible...and all the anectodal evidence steers them to a Toyota/Honda.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
..
.
just kidding.
-Loren
Good fun! Wonder how that would work if the boss did show up in a 1984 Laurentian every day? :confuse:
Would it ever happen in real life?
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
The paralegal a Ford Escape.
I ride a bike (Of course a beautifully custom made bike. :P )
That's what I was saying. All those people not thinking...
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I don't get it. If someone is driving a 5 series BMW, or Lexus LS, etc. they are not thinking. So only the people who drive GM products are the enlightened ones?
As far as What does the CEO think about what his execs/VPs drive. I'd bet he doesn't care. What he cares about is how these people do their jobs, not what they drive. If the company is a major supplier to the big 3, then it probably would be an issue.
When I was in high school (late 80's), a neighbor of ours was head of purchasing at the local Bethlehem Steel plant. He drove a Grand Cherokee to work, a Porsche for a toy, and his wife drove a Camry.
Currently, in affordable, as in sub $25K class, RWD there is only the Charger. I think it starts, with typical discounting, around $21K or so.
Well, will the tiny window style STILL be selling in 2009? As usual this is too little, too late. I predict the Camaro will be the bomb. Remember Ford's resurrected TBird?
Ford blew with the T-Bird in many ways. It was over priced for one. Making it a car not everyone could afford. The Camaro will be affordable. IMO it will be the first competent ion for the Mustang in a long time.
GM also has a large announcement on its fuel cell technology scheduled for later this fall (probably at the LA auto show is my guess).
Rumor is that GM is close to making an affordable fuel cell vehicle. Obviously, getting hydrogen to the car is an issue. But I expect the big oil and other energy companies are going to figure out hydrogen logistics sooner than many think.
What is good about the Camaro is that the basic platform that it will use is also going to make some RWD sedans possible. The RWD sedans are probably far more important to GM's future than the Camaro is.
I agree, the sedans will play a much, much more important role, if the market switch to RWD, V8 powered family sedans holds promise in the wake of $4/gallon petrol.
The Camaro of old was a four passenger car, not a two passenger sports car. The Solstice design would not allow for a rear seat. The kappa platform might allow for something else, I don't know. A coupe version of the Solstice or Sky may make sense, but should remain as either a Pontiac or Saturn, not rebadged as a Chevy.
GM and Ford just want to keep the factories running - they don't care about retail customers like you and me and the resale value of anything they sell to us. I agree with the author of the article that this is a bad strategy since GM and Ford will have no choice but to close the factories as retail customers leave them.
My suggestion for GM: Just spare Chevy and Caddy and make them "retail customer only".
Our program director alternates between two pickups: a 2000 F-150 and a 2004-05 F-350. His deputy drives a 1996 Honda Accord with plastic hubcaps and a stick shift. And one of the other deputies drives a Windstall that's on its second engine. And for at least a decade our chief scientist drove a CRX that was so basic it didn't even have a headlights-on warning. I lost track of how many times he needed to be jump started.
Nobody around here really buys cars to impress people or make up for other shortcomings. At least the higher-ups don't. There's this one lady that, I don't know what she does, but she drives a used Benz E-class. And one of the secretaries drives an Infiniti Maxima.
Government people usually aren't on the cutting edge when it comes to automotive trends, though! I could understand some people in certain sales type jobs, VP's, etc, or positions where you have to impress clients, buying those stereotypical Audis, Benzes, BMWs, etc. It's a sad reality, but many people DO judge you based on what you drive. To those types of people, your car says a lot about you. I just never was one to really care what my car had to say...just as long as it keeps quiet about that night two years ago with the boss's twin daughters and his good looking Aunt Phyllis. :P
We build products for US defense contracts so we are as American a business as you're gonna get.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
And the government will figure out a way to put a tax on it as soon as possible.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
and with the number of SUVs on American roads, you should be thrilled the car makers are making some attempt to protect you
for those of you who remember sitting in the back seat of any Camaro, you must be small dudes. I was never comfortable sitting in the back seat or any early 70s Camaro, but I was around 6 feet tall at the time
I can fit fine in the back seat of a Camaro, if you either put the front seat up most of the way, or I sit sideways. :P
I remember sitting sideways back there
I prefered the big Oldsmolbiles or the Plymough Furies that my friends had, not the Camaros, though the Camaro was way cooler
Not being able to see anything out of the windows would make me feel less safe. I test drove a Magnum and the uneasy feeling when changing lanes made me feel no way.
Maybe the impact standards are up but alot of cars that don't have mail slot windows like the Camaro and 300 eet them. Are you sure it's not styling?
Cars like the Yaris and Corolla have high beltlines too, but not small windows. They're probably small compared to something like a 1996 Caprice or a pickup truck, but they're not the little gun slits you see with the Magnum, Charger, etc.
Those small windows make the cars look lower than they really are, and contribute to a tough looking look. So yeah, it's mostly about styling. I test drove a Magnum about 2 years ago, and didn't like the visibility at all. For something that's actually shorter than my Intrepid, it sure didn't feel it! About the only thing I did like about its visibility was that I could see the hood.
the Ford 500 is not sporty looking, nor is the Passat, nor the Regal, nor the Yaris, nor the Corolla
I completely agree that the Magnum is tough to see out of. [imagine how ugly it would be if it had tall windows.]
Of course, you know you are supposed to be using your MIRRORS, not craning your head to see out the window, right? ;-)
Why do you need to see out the windows, anyway? Don't all new cars come with blind-spot detectors?
god, you guys and your hoods. Why is it that you need to see the hood? Can you guys really not park your cars? Or is it that you can't figure out if you are going straight unless you can see your hood?
I've always thought it was an odd complaint. I understand it, but you do get over it pretty quickly. I owned a Grand Caravan, and you can't see the hood of that thing. Bothered me until I drove it off the lot. Never bothered me again.
but since you guys don't know how to use your mirrors, I can see why the hood thing would bother you, too
:-)
I'm tall, so the low window tops cause me to have to slouch a bit to look out well, and the thick roof pillars of today's cars are horrible with blind spots.
Get behind the wheel of a 1985 Silverado for awhile, get used to it, and then go back to a modern car with blind spots galore, tiny mirrors, and an invisible hood and decklid, and tell me how easy it is to drive! :P
I agree, but I'm sure it comes down to money and/or capacity. I'm sure the 3.6 costs more to produce, but it's hands down the better engine. I wonder if it will find it's way into an Impala?
Some may disagree, but I think the inline 6/5 cylinder engines used in the Trailblazer/Colorado was pretty pointless too. I wonder if GM would have been better off building a 4 liter version of the 3.6 tuned for truck/suv duty. Being a V configuration vs. inline may have allowed it to fit in the Colorado negating the need for the 5 cylinder. But who knows, maybe the engine bay of the Colorado is to small to fit a large v6 too.
I think that was a concern with the Colorado/Canyon, that a V-block engine couldn't easily fit in its engine bay. IIRC, towing and payload capacity actually went down on the Colorado/Canyon compared to the old S-10 because, even with the 3.5 5-cyl, it just didn't have the power that the older 4.3 V-6 in the S-10 did.
The 3.6 is a 60-degree V-6, so it should be tighter than the old 4.3 V-6. But then it's DOHC which is going to bulk it back up, possibly bigger than the 4.3 was. the 4.3 V-6 might be fairly large displacement, but physically it's a very compact engine. I wouldn't be surprised if the 3.6 DOHC is actually bulkier.
So now it's hard to build an engine bay that will fit a V6 like all of their competitors have? What is wrong with them? It's like they find way to not compete. The obvious answer is to redesign the engine bay.
Ah, but the 3.6HF V6 does fit. Witness the Holden Rodeo (rebadged Isuzu D-Max). GMNA is just too trifling to put the HF into mass production.
I do not think there is any 5 cylinder out there (be it GM, Volvo, VW, Audi) that is not a little rough compared to 4 or six cylinders. I've never driven one any way.
The problem with the Colorado with anything other than the 4 is price. You can get a Silverado less than many 5 cyl. Colorado configurations. Neither a V6 nor the I5 are going to do that much better than the Silverado drive train mpg wise.
So what is the point of buying one?
I do not think it is any coincidence that the companies that sell a lot of mid-size trucks do not compete well in the full size venue and vice versa.
I suspect many people who buy Tacomas with the V6 would buy a Tundra if it were a better truck. We shall find out this Fall.
I would like to see the Opel common rail diesel in a Colorado!
I think GM decided to just give up on this market, kinda like how they gave up on minivans. IIRC, the Colorado/Canyon was designed for the Taiwanese market, and using it here in the US was the quickest way to get a new-looking truck to market here, instead of building a dedicated truck for this market.
GM's weird like that, though. I remember you used to be able to get the 3800 V-6 in those old dustbuster minivans. But when they went to the Venture/Montana style minivan, the engine bay couldn't hold that 90-degree V-6, so they had to start using the 3.1/3.4 V-6, which at the time wasn't as powerful or reliable.
But now, if they're putting that 3.6 DOHC engine in the Australian version of the truck but not offering it here, I have nothing to really add. Except that GM needs to be smacked. Hard.
Good find. What the heck is GM doing? The 3.6 is used in the Aussy market, but they have to "Rube Goldberg" the 4.2L (i.e, make it a 5cyl) for the US Market only to be out done by just about every small truck on the market. This is almost comical. I tend to think not everyone is on the same page at GM.
I think if GM based a pickup on the Traiblazer platform, they might have a more competitive product. Heck, look at Nissan. The Titan, Armada, Frontier, Pathfinder, and even the Xterra are all on the same basic chassis! it's just that the smaller ones don't hang over the frame rails as much as the bigger ones do. Wait, maybe this isn't the best example, because I hear that the Titan/Armada aren't the most reliable things in the world. Although the smaller trucks seem to be pretty durable...if plasticky.
Does Toyota use the same platform these days for the Tacoma and the 4runner?