How do you know this? They claim they did chassis and aero work, thus I will pass full judgement when it's tested finally.
I don't, for sure. But I know that the rest of the lineup is overweight and is nowhere near being a sports car. I know that magazines like Road and Track compared the Challenger with the Mustang and Camaro once, and then in later comparisons omitted the Challenger entirely because the chassis was so far behind. I know that 707 bhp is a ridiculous amount of power, and that Mopar are very obviously emphasising the power and not how the car drives. And I know that the Chrysler corporation has a very poor record of making good driver's cars. What was their last car with a refined, well balanced chassis that felt good to drive?
Also you find it is "certainly rubbish" doesn't mean anything when there is still a big group wanting to see what it can do.
Almost certainly rubbish. I'd appreciate it if you didn't quote me out of context or twist my words. I, too, am one of the ones waiting.
No one is stopping speculation, I'm just saying what's the point to us rushing because you want us too, you're whole premise seems a bit naive in the way this thread should be operating.
I didn't say people were stopping speculation. I said they stopped speculating on how good the car could be, and seemed instead to be focusing on what will be wrong with it. Which seems very unlike, say, the new Mustang. Now, I don't know why my comparing the launch of this car to the launch of the 2015 Mustang is considered naive, nor do I think that expecting a more interesting discussion is naive unless you have a very poor opinion of most of the people on GTP.
Also I people not liking a rendering doesn't mean they're not hopeless.
What?
The visibility in the ones I've driven aren't that bad compared to other vehicles I've driven. Why would you get claustrophobic are you a bigger person? I'm 6'2 and I did just fine so not sure what the hang up here is.
The convertible isn't too bad, but the high beltline makes it feel like the car is very enveloping. The coupe is just dreadful, the side windows might be maybe 25 cm high, and as a result they don't let in a lot of light, nor does the cabin seem very open. The cowl is high, the beltine higher, and rear visibility is almost nonexistent. As I said, the car has so little glass that it feels claustrophobic to me, because it's very dark and bunker-like inside.
Interior is cheap yet over-styled that hardly makes sense and is almost a contradiction.
Style =/= quality. The Camaro's interior is ugly because they made it too over the top. The gauges are hard to read, the dashboard is unattractive, the door panels are strange. It's designed to look over the top and concept-like, and as a result it's unattractive to me and a lot of people I know, predominantly women. It's cheap because the materials are almost all hard, cheap plastics. It looks toy-like because of the overstyling and that seems cheap, too. The interior looks, feels, and sounds cheap. I don't understand how overstyling and cheapness are mutually exclusive, unless you don't consider material quality, build quality, or material texture to be an influence on how expensive a car feels.
Also how many of these cars have you been in or around since you've said you're British and all and they don't have too much of these roaming around.
I've been in RS and SS models in shows in Pittsburgh. I'll likely get to sit in one or more brand new Camaros in about 2 weeks, and I've already been in at least 3 that I can remember vividly, likely several more at the same events since there are ofte several there.
Also GM has done this plenty of times with a slight sporty car for the general masses and then making it a true performer for the dedicated and many companies do this. The car shouldn't be one or the other all the time.
A car can be genuinely sporty and still be for the masses. The Mazda MX-5 is the best example of this. Sporty cars can sell well, and mundane cars can be made to drive like sports cars. It's not a rule that you want a fun car that you have to buy the performance model of a car. A truly well sorted chassis will be fun, period, not just in high performance applications. And high performance does not mean fun, either. Fun and performance numbers are two totally different things.
Also it makes more than 550 and in it's grouping is actually one a cheaper option and handles quite well. They do build good cars, but they also build reasonable cars and trucks that is realistic to the majority.
So you can't get a sporty car that's realistic to the majority? And what grouping is the Z/28 in? I think it's too track focused to have a grouping. Most other sports coupes for that price are much more civilised, have much more useable tyres, and are better all around cars while still offering an equally good chassis and driving experience.
Also, I used 550 as a vauge number, I know the Z/28 produces over 600 and the ZL1 makes 580. The fact is that that's a huge, huge amount of power, and in the real world you'll never really need a car with more than 300 bhp to have fun on the road. Significantly more power than that and you just can't drive the car flat out on public roads, and most of the fun in driving fast is from the car's at the limit behaviour.
Your age and experience hinder you from buying a "dedicated" sports car so many groups offer entry level that do just enough with in reason (hence cheaper option) yet you complain cause it doesn't perform well enough?
If I could afford to run it, I could buy a dedicated sports car. A cheap, used one, yes, but a dedicated sports car. Something like a Porsche 944 or Mazda RX-8. The idea that fun only comes when you're older and can afford a 50 grand car seems silly to me, especially when you can buy cars like the Mazda MX-5 or Toyota GT86 (see below for more examples of affordable performance). And you should note that I'm not complaining about the performance, but the feel of the car. As I said before, fun =/= performance.
I don't think he understands how tough it is for companies to make cars that run as well as they do and make them as cheap as they are. I mean, yeah, I could bring up the aftermarket again, but most aftermarket tuner companies do not offer good warranties for their parts. One of my dad's co-workers bought a ZL1 and absolutely loves it. I highly doubt that most manufacturers would willingly do what GM and Ford are doing- make high-powered cars with MSRPs that are attainable to the average person.
I'm not buying that for a second. You want to talk about fun cars that are affordable? Toyota GT86/Scion FR-S/Subaru BRZ. Mazda MX-5/Miata. Hyundai Genesis Coupe. VW GTI. Ford Focus ST. Ford Fiesta ST. Mini Cooper S. Fiat 500 Abarth. Subaru WRX. Honda Civic Si.
Now, tell me that manufacturers don't willingly make fun, fast cars for relatively low prices. I dare you.
I'm sure we have, I'm quite thick headed myself. And it's 1:30 AM, so I'm not fully functioning...
