I'm not sure the C6 Z06 would fare too much better. It is also a pretty difficult car to drive quickly and is good bit less docile than the C5 Z06, even with the revised dampers. Grand Sport or base car with F55 or standard suspension could have all potentially scored higher I'd bet.

 

No , your right , it doesnt . But how it feels to drive it does .

I'll tell ya what Chevrolet shoulda been on that list in the Camaro SS's place .....a 2009 Cobalt SS . Im frankly puzzled at its ommission . I think this little underdog would been a safe top 5 .

 

Yeah, but god forbid MT should dare to include 3 Chevys on that list...

 

1st off I'm going to say I LOVE the new Camaro, but the more and more I read; the more I realize how much of a car the 4th Gen FBody really was for it's time and still is now!!!

 

I was surprised to see some of the relative rankings too. But not everything in those ratings is something you can put a hard number on (or if you can it'll be in some engineering units that will mean about zero to most folks). Camaro and Corvette were ranked a little lower than I expected, Mustang and Caddy about the same amount higher.

As I recall, Randy Pobst's commentary regarding the Camaro included the word "potential".

GM really needs to take these consistent remarks seriously. Even Consumer Reports (October 2009) remains carefully qualified in their write-up of the 2SS vs a GT Premium (not GT500) Mustang. In part, the comments go "feels responsive, weight and size steal its agility, steering is nicely weighted but falls short on feedback especially around center, impressive grip but was a bit reluctant to change directions in our tight avoidance maneuver course". Their overall ratings for both normal and emergency handling were "very good" for the Camaro, vs "Excellent" for the GT.

Chevy/GM would do well to bring their version of Mustang's "Track Pack" to market in as little time as possible. They don't have the luxury of five years time like Ford did.


Norm

 

No they shouldn't. Every magazine test was biased. None of those guys knows how to drive - not even the various professional racecar drivers who've reviewed them. Furthermore, they are all biased and lying. It's obvious that they ALL have a personal issue with this Camaro, otherwise they would give it perfect ratings. How dare they --every last one of them.

I applaud the way Chevy has wisely decided to ignore any and all reviewers - whether journalist or race car driver.

Camaro doesn't need to handle better. Nope! It needs reverse warning sensors. THAT my friend is what Camaros are all about!

 

I gotta agree with you, I am still holding out that they will do some sort of track pack. The back up sensors make me scratch my head a bit, it feels like an answer to a question no one asked. I didn't expect the Camaro to come out and walk away with every aspect of performance. I feel it does a damn good job at all categories. It competes well with cars that either beat it to market or never left the market. Ford and Dodge both had some time to get more feedback into their cars and fix issues, well Ford more than Dodge. I just hope Chevy will answer with things better than back-up sensors.

 

You still shouldnt be hearing comments like "it just wasnt fun at the limit" , " When I was done , I just had no desire to drive it anymore " . For me that would be an embarrasing thing to hear from some who what their talking about . Sentiments have been echoed from other proffessional drivers who have driven the car .

Im really not sure if you can say Chevy screwed up or not as to me their goal with the SS seems to have centered more around a balance skewed towards road manners of a daily driven car by JonQpublic and left it up to the enthusists to create their own road racer . Im sure the great F-body aftermarket will do good things for the chassis with "potential" .

 

If you think nobody complained about rear visibility, you haven't been listening.

 

You might get away with saying that about the mass-market motoring monthlies, but since Consumer Reports keeps itself free of advertising its opinions are far less likely to be biased. That's why I included some of their comments (if it makes you feel any better, CR was even less favorably impressed with the Challenger "there is nothing sporty about the Challenger's handling", and they graded it as being only "good" in the normal and emergency handling criteria).

CR did in fact complain about the Camaro's rearward visibility and commented on the very high beltline.


As far as magazine bias is concerned, I find it somewhat surprising that the fact that the Camaro's independent rear suspension doesn't seem to have had most writers at least subconsciously holding the Mustang's stick axle against it precisely where handling is concerned - unless in fact the stick axle/3-link/PHB really is more than holding its own so far.

It would be far easier to believe that MT had made their top 10 choices in such a manner as to stack the deck against Ford's Mustang GT500 instead.


I really want to see this car to succeed on merit as an all-around performance car. I don't want to think I'm looking at a fighter who's still in the ring but too far past his prime.


Norm

 

Consumer Reports is biased in a different way. As Threxx once put it, and as I have been fond of quoting, they are a self-fulfilling prophecy. Their ratings are based on the opinions of their existing subscriber base which, for the most part, bases their opinions on what they read in CR.

Consumer Reports is a crock if you ask me. Nice idea, poor execution.

 

Given the current pace of Camaro sales, I'd say that GM did a pretty good job making the car appeal to "John Q Public".....magazine reviews be damned. I'm sure they'll take what HAS been said seriously, and look at improving - but they are in the business of selling cars, and as far as Camaro goes.....business is good.

Of course, it will be telling to see if business stays that way, once the initial rush has quieted down.

And from my own perspective, I pay little attention to SUBJECTIVE magazine comparisons anyway....and not that much more to their objective results.

 

It is true that their "frequency of repair" ratings are based on reader experiences.

Their test reports, however, have no reader input as basis. Those are their findings and their subjective ratings. And that's what I am saying gives CR greater independence from marketing and advertising pressure than may exist at the other monthlies.

As for any other comparison test, you may want to read between the lines of CR's report a little. I do. But in this particular collection of tests the commentary does read pretty clearly with respect to handling. CR isn't saying that the Camaro's handling sucks. Just that it's not quite as good. In this case there isn't a lot of "wiggle room".


Norm

 

I'm suprised about all the comments i've read about understeer. That wasn't my experience with Camaro's in the past. I think if they want to talk about a driver's car they should have driven them on public roads..WHERE DRIVERS WILL DRIVE THEM. The stupid part is when you see the Miata judged better than the Corvette, and all the comments about the Corvette's handling at the limit. Hey, drive the Corvette at the same speed as the Miata goes, and see if it isn't different.
Plus after all the comments for years about live axles, they're telling us the mustang is better than the Corvette or Camaro. Car and Driver did the same thing in their SS vs. GT article. the mustang has a live axle, but it out handles the Camaro, and rides better?

 

GM has refined the ancient pushrod to rival the dohc's , looks like ford is attempting the same theory with the old stick axle over an IRS .