Topic: Test Drive: 2018 Chevrolet Camaro SS

[AutoTrader.ca]

Near perfect despite cabin.
Read more...

[ChaosphereIX]

yes, nobody cares the auto is faster...they want to be lazy - that argument is irrelevant as 99% of even Camaro driving I bet is road and not track driving...and even then, are you counting the 0.0001s that an automatic is faster? No.

[Fobroader]

I sat in one of these at the car show, is the vision out of it as good as our Montero, nope, is it as German machine gun pillbox as some make it out to be, hell no. I would forego a lot of leather and niceties on these just to get the 1LE package, with a 6 spd manual, the way that baby jesus/Tom Cruise/Jewish guy decreed it should be.

[Gurgie]

Near perfect despite cabin.
Read more...

You can make a big deal about the visibility if you want. For the 10th time it's not great but it's not that bad. You get used to it in 4 seconds.

I don't at all agree with the notion of a poor driving position. Indeed, most reviews comment how wonderful the driving position is - especially compared to the Mustang where you feel like you're sitting way too high "on a stack of books." I have my seat set to the lowest setting and I can see the entire hood with no issue. Don't agree. The Recaros are also excellent.

Agree with the poor storage. An issue I personally would say is larger than the visibility if you're going to heavy DD this car or drive it year round. Certainly a compromise that's easy to accept but it is an issue.

Also, can we stop saying "the automatic is faster" when discussing the choice between the manual and the automatic. Does anyone actually buy the the automatic because they tell themselves it shifts faster or is it because they want to sip on their big gulp while they tool around town. You buy the manual because of the experience and the feel. Speed of shifting is basically irrelevant. IMO.

Buddy, you're getting your balls twisted over nothing    That review was pretty fair, Justin said he'd take it in a manual and that you'd get used to the driving position/visibility    And as for seeing the hood you might have longer torso than Justin 

[rrocket]

^^ I'm not upset just sharing the things I disagree with.

On the manual thing I should have been more clear. It wasn't really an attack on him for saying it's faster it's just that that seems to be the general commentary when we have this manual vs automatic debate and it I think it's stupid......like speed has ANYTHING to do with.

If you're buying a GT3 Cup sure sell me on it's faster. For everything else it's a cop out they're catering to people who don't want manual. Which is fine but stop with the faster stuff.

I get the visibility argument. There's actually so little to complain about with this car that it easy to harp on the same thing all the time.

My only two REAL complaints are more storage would be nice but the big one for me is the poor paint quality. The clearcoat chips REALLY easily and that does not mix well with super wide sticky tires that kick up every little pebble on the road.

They used the CTS-V on their record setting Ring run because it was quicker....

Just saying!

And the visibility is a thing. Even the engineers thought so. And it was on their action list of things to "fix". So even internally it was a known issue...a point of contention even. But if you want to pretend it's not, that's fine by me.

[rrocket]

^^ I'm not upset just sharing the things I disagree with.

On the manual thing I should have been more clear. It wasn't really an attack on him for saying it's faster it's just that that seems to be the general commentary when we have this manual vs automatic debate and it I think it's stupid......like speed has ANYTHING to do with.

If you're buying a GT3 Cup sure sell me on it's faster. For everything else it's a cop out they're catering to people who don't want manual. Which is fine but stop with the faster stuff.

I get the visibility argument. There's actually so little to complain about with this car that it easy to harp on the same thing all the time.

My only two REAL complaints are more storage would be nice but the big one for me is the poor paint quality. The clearcoat chips REALLY easily and that does not mix well with super wide sticky tires that kick up every little pebble on the road.

They used the CTS-V on their record setting Ring run because it was quicker....

Just saying!

And the visibility is a thing. Even the engineers thought so. And it was on their action list of things to "fix". So even internally it was a known issue...a point of contention even. But if you want to pretend it's not, that's fine by me.

Did you even read what I wrote?

I acknowledge visibility is a "thing" with this car. I just think it's not that bad. At all. In fact it wouldn't even be on my list of things to address. Just my opinion as an owner. Complete non issue. You want to make it an issue I understand. I'm not alone in this.

I said that faster shifts on the track means something. But that's about it. You then proved my point discussing the CTS-V ring record. If I'm buying a drivers car for the street like 99.9% of the people I want a manual because of the feel and involvement. Speed of shifts is completely irrelevant for me.

Oh I didn't make it an issue (though I agree with it)....the GM engineers did....which is very telling. Inconsequential things don't make it into action lists, then into consumer user/focus groups and internal disagreement.

But again...feel free to pretend. It's all good.

And if you're buying a car for the streets, specifically, you bought the track specific package because? If quicker shifting on the street is irrelevant, then certainly a track tuned suspension even more so, isn't it?

Having driven both CTS-V, I thought the auto was better suited to the engine. FWIW.

[UnknownJinX]

IDK about a Camaro, but the Corvette I have driven is pretty bad. I got used to it... With the top down. With the top up? Good luck.

I am actually stunned that these cars don't come with blindspot mirrors stock. Like, that should be a standard option every Corvette has.

Paddle shifters feel like toys BTW. Real stick shift feels 1000x better.

[rrocket]

Paddle shifters feel like toys BTW. Real stick shift feels 1000x better.

It depends on the stick. I've driven some that feel like a broken chicken leg...in which case I'd rather a good autobox.

[UnknownJinX]

Paddle shifters feel like toys BTW. Real stick shift feels 1000x better.

It depends on the stick. I've driven some that feel like a broken chicken leg...in which case I'd rather a good autobox.

I had a discussion about this with one of my friends before, and we agreed that we would prefer a good stick, good auto, bad stick, bad auto in this order.

So if you compare a Camaro AT and MT, which I assume both fall into the good category, then yes, gimme the stick!

Either way, Vmango does have a point. How many people buy an AT/DCT because they track and they are in it to win it? Most people buy an AT because they can't drive a stick and now you just gave them more excuses...

[rrocket]

Either way, Vmango does have a point. How many people buy an AT/DCT because they track and they are in it to win it? Most people buy an AT because they can't drive a stick and now you just gave them more excuses...

Well I did...but I'm the minority.

But at the same time, as much as I liked the stick in my 911 I didn't find it to be a "great" stick...whereas the PDK is a "great" transmission.  No sure if I'd go PDK next time or not. But no question I'd consider it.

I think there's a bit more to consider too.  Is the stick or auto better suited to the car?  In some cases (boosted applications) sometime the auto is better suited.  Such was the case with the CTS-Vs I drove (and previously in my highly modded Supra).  Yea, you might want a stick...but I thought the car was "better" suited with an auto. 

[UnknownJinX]

Either way, Vmango does have a point. How many people buy an AT/DCT because they track and they are in it to win it? Most people buy an AT because they can't drive a stick and now you just gave them more excuses...

Well I did...but I'm the minority.

But at the same time, as much as I liked the stick in my 911 I didn't find it to be a "great" stick...whereas the PDK is a "great" transmission.  No sure if I'd go PDK next time or not. But no question I'd consider it.

I think there's a bit more to consider too.  Is the stick or auto better suited to the car?  In some cases (boosted applications) sometime the auto is better suited.  Such was the case with the CTS-Vs I drove (and previously in my highly modded Supra).  Yea, you might want a stick...but I thought the car was "better" suited with an auto.

Fair enough. If you want all-out performance, go for an AT/DCT then.

I know turbocharged cars are faster with AT/DCT, but they go back to the same "do you really care about that one bit of performance?" argument.

And I know that for the new 2.0T Accord, the 6MT is slower than 10AT stock vs. stock, but the 10AT supposedly bottlenecks the mod potential of the car as it can't take much more than stock power. The 6MT, however, can handle more mods. That's another factor to consider for some cars.

[rrocket]

Either way, Vmango does have a point. How many people buy an AT/DCT because they track and they are in it to win it? Most people buy an AT because they can't drive a stick and now you just gave them more excuses...

Well I did...but I'm the minority.

But at the same time, as much as I liked the stick in my 911 I didn't find it to be a "great" stick...whereas the PDK is a "great" transmission.  No sure if I'd go PDK next time or not. But no question I'd consider it.

I think there's a bit more to consider too.  Is the stick or auto better suited to the car?  In some cases (boosted applications) sometime the auto is better suited.  Such was the case with the CTS-Vs I drove (and previously in my highly modded Supra).  Yea, you might want a stick...but I thought the car was "better" suited with an auto.

Fair enough. If you want all-out performance, go for an AT/DCT then.

I know turbocharged cars are faster with AT/DCT, but they go back to the same "do you really care about that one bit of performance?" argument.

And I know that for the new 2.0T Accord, the 6MT is slower than 10AT stock vs. stock, but the 10AT supposedly bottlenecks the mod potential of the car as it can't take much more than stock power. The 6MT, however, can handle more mods. That's another factor to consider for some cars.

It was more than the "faster" argument, as least as it pertained to the CTS-V.  The CTS-V just seem to flat out hook up and use the engines massive torque better than the stick.  It was more "driveable". 

[rrocket]

One more Camaro thread.  One more invitation for Ron to troll Vman.   

BTW...where's your muscle car?   

[rrocket]

One more Camaro thread.  One more invitation for Ron to troll Vman.   

Exactly. Not a mistake I stopped replying after it went to troll level delta. Not taking the bait. Lol

Also, because I'm right and posted some facts.  That makes it difficult to argue against.   

[UnknownJinX]

One more Camaro thread.  One more invitation for Ron to troll Vman.   

Exactly. Not a mistake I stopped replying after it went to troll level delta. Not taking the bait. Lol

Also, because I'm right and posted some facts.  That makes it difficult to argue against.   

There is no right answer for "teh feelz" though.