As Karen Carpenter sang in 1970, “We’ve only just begun.” That seems to be a fitting statement for the ongoing pony car wars, which one could say were at their height in 1970. Not true. The Big Three are stronger than ever, sales are good, and investment into hot metal is even better.
With that precursor, it was only a matter of time before Motor Trend put two pony car rivals head to head: 2016 Chevrolet Camaro SS versus 2016 Ford Mustang GT.
Before the 2016 Chevrolet Camaro walked away with the coveted 2016 MT Car of the Year award, the publication sat both muscle coupes down for a chat, involving winding roads, freeway cruising and plenty of smokey drift maneuvers.
The 2016 Camaro never ceased to impress (except for visibility inside the cabin, which remains a shortcoming), while the Mustang was deemed to feel “old” compared to the fresh, new Alpha-platform based 2016 Camaro.
And, it shows in the standings. The 2016 Camaro walks away with the win from the Blue Oval. Editor-In-Chief, Ed Loh, summed it up best saying, “In terms of which is more impressive, which one I’d use to shock my friends or go supercar hunting on a lark, it’s the Camaro,” he said. “It’s faster, and sharper-handling, yet has a more sophisticated, sinister swagger. The Mustang growls. The Camaro howls.”
Comments
C’mon, GM seriously didn’t improve the visibility in the cabin? I’ve seen this in a few reviews already. unreal.
I am looking forward to driving one and seeing how the visibility is for myself.
They improved it.
Quote from Motor Trend: “Visibility, a major complaint about the last Camaro, remains a bit of an issue.” …. “It’s better than in the previous-gen….” “But hey, it does make the SS more badass-feeling, which is what people want in a ponycar.”
It sounds like a less of an issue. I know it would stop me from buying one.
Meant to say “it would not stop me from buying one”
It is all about style and this new Camaro again looks like a concept car.
I’ve read Motor Trend’s comparo. The SS (1SS) put up times equal to those of Shelby’s GT350. The GT had no chance. Amazing performance. It’s scary to think that there is still couple more monsters lurking on the horizon, the Z/28 and ZL1!
Exactly. The new generation ZL1 will turn heads and hopefully the upcoming Z28 (?) will knock off heads so to speak.
Just wish they made a new frame and didn’t re-use a Cadillac. The Camaro body doesn’t look quite right. Rear is way to thick. Front looks like it should be longer. It’s a shame
I agree. I just seen a 6th Gen Camaro at the dealership by me and the front still looks big and blocky along with the low roof line. I cannot believe the proportions look bad again.
I thought that GM was gonna nail it this time.
The Camaro once again looks cartoony or even like Carstuff previously stated “this new Camaro again looks like a concept car”
Well the Alpha has nothing to do with the styling and that platform is why it handles as well as it does.
You may not like the styling but that is just because of the styling do not blame the platform. They only toned down the last model some and it was one of the best selling Camaro’s of all time. I would have to assume while you may not like it there are a hell of a lot more that do.
Scott3, I appreciate your comment. I do know how platforms work (perhaps you were only talking to the other Scott.).
I only agree with him on how the new Camaro does not look quite right… I don’t mind the style of the 5th & 6th gen. but again the proportions seem a bit funny on the new one.
Megatron below also mentions the window size and he is pretty much dead on the money about that.
I was directing this to him
As for what looks right and what looks not right is subjective. Some folks just don’t like this styling but record numbers like the 5th gen and I expect the same here too.
A lot of what goes on with the styling is part styling like in the past but also they have to account to weight, they have to account to crash standards, they have to account to stiffness and they also have to account for aerodynamics of the car. Often they have to compromise on some of these things to meet all criteria.
As for the platform todays platforms are very flexible compared to the past models. There are still limitations but like with the Alpha it can contain everything from 4-8 cylinders. It also in the case of the Camaro longer and wider than a ATS and shares only the most basic parts of the pan and structure. The CTS is the larger sedan version and shared only the most basic engineering too.
The Alpha dictates nothing on window size at this point it is all styling and in this segment the styling means more in a coupe than a sedan. People buy sedans because they are easier to use and get in and out of or see out of. Coupe and the best looking ones are normally compromised more for styling. Yes you can make a coupe easy to see out of but it is not always the most popular styled one. In the case of a Camaro and Mustang they both most of their lives have had high cowls and large c pillars. It is part of their DNA and people expect them. If given the choice most owners of these cars would choose the styling over no blind spot.
Nut sure you understand how vehicle platforms work.
Ever since Ed Welburn took over as VP of design, every GM car suffers from poor visibility. Compare the windows in this image:
http://st.motortrend.com/uploads/sites/5/2015/11/2016-Chevrolet-Camaro-SS-vs-2016-BMW-340i-side-profile.jpg
The Camaro and corvette are the most extreme examples. Remember the last gen CTS-V? It had a windshield view that could rival the Lambo countach. AND it was ugly. What is Welburn’s obsession with sacrificing function for design? And yet, Nissan, BMW, Honda, Mercedes, Toyota, Hyundai can all produce designs that are both modern and appealing with large enough windows. Compare the Porsche Cayman with the vette or the 3 series with the ATS or the mustang with the camaro, or the malibu with the accord.
Welburn loves these low angle sloping lines that reduce the area of the windows. And a lot of the time, new designs are already dated. I hope he gets promoted to some other job and a proper automotive designer can take over with the foresight to balance looks and utility. Because of GM’s and Welburn’s mistakes, people are getting injured (or worse) in car accidents that could be prevented with better visibility. Check these stats with insurance figures.
Megatron, your insight was helpful. I was not familiar with some of the details you had mentioned & with Welburn.
Well you also have to consider some other things too.
Some of these designs with what appears to be a low roof are really just high sides on the car. Many of the GM cars over time were given higher door sills on the sides to make the cars stiffer and stronger without adding weight. The increase in crash standards and some of the older platforms needed it. The higher sills did not lower the roof it just makes it appear lower.
On the Camaro they tried to make it appear that the car is much lower than it really is but also keep it high enough to make it practical for getting in and out.
Contrary to what some who have not been in the new car want to believe the new car is easier to see out of. Also the coupe styling is one of image and ego vs. ergonomics.
Yes other brands may have better sight lines but they so not sell the number of cars that the Camaro does and also they are not trying to relay the muscle car image that most of them never had what you would call good sight lines.
the priority of these cars to must customers is to look good not as much look out of. With that said they are not perfect in sight lines but they are not as bad as some want to think.
The CTS coupe was to make a statement and promote a more sporting image. Anyone wanting ergonomics was buying the sedan anyways.
As for the Camaro and Corvette they live to present an image of the past with modern design. These cars are no more difficult to see out of than many of the past models they emulate. They have to look like what they are and some things will remain in place to make for blind spots. But the Corvette in the C7 has improved this much of late. The extra side window a new addition to the brand is a move to improve things.
Much of todays designs like the large high noses are due to the regulations where they have to have crush space too in the car. Most cars have high sides to keep the nose from looking too high. In most countries anymore they want the crush space between the hood and engine to give it room to give if you run over someone.
So while some of this may be an Ed issue a lot of it can also be in part to laws and how companies are adopting to the regulations.
Look at most brands even like the Taurus and Fusion they are all high sided and nose to meet the laws.
I see what you are saying
All great points, but I wonder why only GM has trouble increasing visibility. It’s got to be a Welburn design principle. Look at the image of the camaro next to the mustang. You can barely see the driver’s face it’s so obscured. He looks like a child in the driver’s seat.
http://st.motortrend.com/uploads/sites/5/2015/11/2016-Chevrolet-Camaro-SS-VS-Ford-Mustang-GT-MT-homepage.jpg
This means increased likelihood of accidents due to poor visibility. I love the car, and I would love to get the new SS (corvette with a back seat…), but it’s just so hard to see out of. With children in the neighborhood, I’d like to be extra safe when backing up or driving in a parking lot. Also, what’s with that B pillar?! The 4 series is just as big a car, but it had a tiny B pillar and huge windows.
Also, isn’t it desirable to lower the hood and engine in a sports car? To keep the centre of gravity low? So low roof with high front hood should cancel out.
If you look most cars have high door sills and roofs not raised.
Chrysler 300 has high sills and low roof. The Ford Taurus and Fusion both have high sills and in their case they raised the roof to the point it looks odd.
VW CC high sills low roof but the same car in the Passat has a high sill and high roof but looks odd.
If you look most cars have high sills on the doors some keep the roof low some raise it and it is not always to the point it looks good. The SUV look of the Taurus is far from complimentary compared to others. Note the HHR was a Nesbit car not Wellborn’s work.
As for your comments they are a bit over dramatic. I own an HHR that for the most part is a rolling bunker. The low roof and High sills are not an issue. the thick pillar are the worst in the industry but GM has started using Boron Steel in them and it has cut the size but there are limits on how far you can go.
Check the weight of the BMW and the cost and you can see how they can do what they do on the Be pillar but then again does the BMW have the task of looking like a Camaro too. Like stated the Camaro and Mustang have a past to live up to and with them selling 100,000 plus Camaros a year they must have something right.
Yes in sports cars you want the engine low. But unless you go to a sump less engine you are not going to get the Camaro engine lower.
Real question here have you even sat in a 2016 Camaro?
I it is that much of an issue to you then don’t buy it. The fact remains it is one of the best selling Camaros of all time in the 5th gen and the 6 will soon follow. The vision in the new car is improved like it or not. Chevy is not just going to take a Camaro and give it Checker Cab roofs just to make a few people like you happy when the rest get buy just fine and are willing to work with mirrors a little more to have a better looking car.
Scott3, you are definitely right on that about Ford raising the roof so that the car looks odd.
The 2015 Ford Taurus is 61 inches in height and it looks ridiculous when it is parked next to some cars.
This is part of the reason why they made the backup camera standard on all models for the camaro plus some other safety features. This is the likeliest reason why you have to add more options to the mustang in order for it to compare to a camaro. Another is because most people hardly ever buy a base camaro they added features to it and the features in the 6th gen camaro is what most most people got in the 5th gen camaro. Which is why it has a high starting price point. But if you were to add it all up and compare the differences between the 5th and 6th gen I believe it’s within a thousand dollars of one another.
Actually GM has been proactive on items that the government has tossed around as making required safety equipment. They have gone standard on Day Time Lights. Auto lights, Tire pressure sensors and the back up cameras. Some of these did become law some not yet but GM was first to make them standard.
Ford for the most part has played the cheaper price game and worked models to be lower at the starting price but in return you get less for your money too. Case in point the new Camaro cost more but for the couple grand higher starting price you get much more for your money. Chevy is playing the value card vs. Fords cheaper base price card. Neither way is wrong just different ways to market a car that appear to work in the end.
But on the safety things that GM adds many have been topic’s in Washington to become required and GM often adds them before they are even voted on. Other companies have done it too.
I know I take for granted my Auto on lights and forget that some models like Ford, Nissan and Chrysler do not have them standard on many models yet.
Yes Scott, I know “GM’s Fanbase” knows when the General does stuff like this, but for the most part the public does not know that GM is proactive about safety on their vehicles and it’s time to give the Devil his due.
Tony, I am not completely positive, but I think the rear back up camera is standard on all 4 GM divisions starting throughout their 2016 vehicle line up….I am pretty sure that includes the Sonic & Spark.
2016 Sonic it’s available, not standard
Well they marketed some of this but not well.
Also some of the things like Daylight running lights the mood was mixed but GM was trying to sway the regulators some with their proactivity too.
GM is not the only one being proactive as they all have their reasons.
GM is phasing in the screens in most vehicles. Like you said the cheapest Sonic I do not believe has it but it will very soon.
Most cars will have it soon with all MFG accept the cheapest models.
The 2016 Camaro SS has a small horsepower advantage and generates the power at a lower rpm and this allows the 2016 Camaro SS feel responsive than the high-revving 2016 Mustang GT and the Cadillac ATS-V.
Two quick questions for consideration- 1) How is the visibility in the new Mustangs? Better, worse or about the same as the new Camaro?
2) When on earth will we actually be able to SEE some 2016 Camaros at the dealerships? Seems to me GM could have just rebadged most of their 2015 models as 2016 hardware, then rolled out the new stuff as 2017 offerings.
Really looking forward to seeing the 2016 Camaro in person, I’ll admit.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING, everyone!
This month… a few dealers by me already had some 2016 Camaros at the dealerships.
David- Thanks. Getting anxious here, I guess!