Find Reviews by Make:
Cars.about.com‘s Aaron Gold is what I’d call a pushover. So Chevrolet pushed him over.
I know a lot of people are going to fall in love with the Camaro, and I’m glad — this is a gorgeous car, and I can’t wait to see it on the road and listen to it go by. I’d even like to try a second date, if Chevrolet will let me borrow another one (not that they’re likely to after reading this review). But a long-term love connection with me and the Camaro? I’m afraid it ain’t gonna happen. So much for getting everything you want. — Aaron Gold
UPDATE: Chevy’s response:
“You’re right, you definitely won’t be getting a ‘second date’ with the Camaro.”
53 Comments on “Chevrolet Tells Cars.about.com to NSFW Off...”
Read all comments
Considering that they are being kept alive by the taxpayer dime, GM has no reason to be arrogant. Exactly how high up its ass is GM’s head?
How could any car live up to the years of hype?
The interior is fugly. With the extra weekends GM had to “get it right,” it’s becoming apparent the engineers spent their time nursing hangovers.
I won’t be asking for a first date.
Well, as far as “muscle cars” go…it sounds to me, based upon Aaron’s write-up, that it lives up to what muscle cars are (and have always been) about:
Loads of power surrounded by a mediocre chassis, sloppy handling, etc.
Muscle cars were never “real” sports cars (you know it, and I know it)…so for GM to say the Camaro goes head-to-head with a Z is patent nonsense.
At least they continue with the lie which dates back some 30-something years.
See? The good old days…yet again!! :)
(I wonder if they will offer this car in flat primer gray …you know, the “lead sled” type thingy…you think?)
I didn’t find his review that horrible that GM would cut him off from future cars, but then again, working for a 3rd rate ad-fest like *.about.com perhaps he should count himself lucky he got any seat time at all.
I haven’t looked at Camaro shots in a while, but I have to say, I am surprised how craptastic the interior is. With all the hate the current Mustang gets for a poor interior, how the hell is GM going to justify one that is just as bad or even worse in brand new car?
Will the customers who buy this still be able to obtain service and parts when GM declares Bankruptcy?
I’m just curious how that works.
There goes GM again, cutting its own throat, if its accurate that they are positioning the Camaro as a true sports car on par with the 370Z. It is destined to fail by that measure. That’s what the Corvette is for. The Camaro fills a space that no import has feared (or has been smart enough) to tread – muscle car. They should tout the fact that the Camaro is a drop dead sexy muscle car but with very respectable gas mileage.
He was pretty hard on the car, actually. I wouldn’t call him a pushover by any means.
Aaron Gold was unable to verbalize why he “just isn’t into” the Camaro. He refers to the craptastic Mustang interior “cheery” which is laughable, and calls the black Camaro interior dreary. Dreary has worked for the Germans for decades, and we can assume that it will be available in a wide range of color combos.
I’m not yet sure about the Camaro. I can’t wait to see it on the road.
There was some praise in that review. Though overall the car lacked that something that really turned the reviewer’s crank. I can completely understand that.
GM’s “acres of plastic” interiors really do wear you down. It makes you doubt that any of their engineers ever drive stuff from other manufacturers. There are some cars with great interiors, but I can’t say I’ve seen a single one from GM…. ever.
–chuck
adidas – I am with you in that ‘cheery’ is not a word I would use to describe the ’05 – ’09 Mustang interior. Retro, in both the positive and negative senses of the word perhaps, or even possibly outdated, but not cheery.
I also wouldn’t refer to most German interiors as ‘Dreary’. There is a certain beauty and class that can only be achieved with an all black interior. One of my biggest pet peeves in cars is when the carpets, upholstery, and dash/doors are black, but the interior pillars and headliner are light. I love an all black interior, but texture, and perhaps some tastefully applied wood and/or real metal/chrome are needed to really bring it home. Also, there is a huge difference between grey (even dark grey) and black. Grey is institutional, non-commital, and an easy way out. Deep rich black is a classic and furtive choice, one that will never go out of style, but one that takes time and skill to do right.
Maybe Mr. Gold should write for Consumer Reports and focus on reviewing toasters or something other than a modern-day musclecar.
“You said bad things about our thing and we’re gonna go and pout” would be funny if it wasn’t so emblematic of the problem. Okay, it’s pretty funny.
– bob
Good review. Perhaps we can see something similar on TTAC – more in-depth (it’s double the usual TTAC review length) and more photos (38 of the actual car reviewed, complete with links in the text where appropriate). I think he has a pretty good balance of highlighting the things he likes (V8 exhaust note, exterior styling, ride…), while pulling no punches with that he does not (dour grey plastic cabin, lousy over-the-shoulder visibility, small trunk opening, disconnected road feel…). He also is upfront with his disclosure of what GM provided.
I would actually like to see a more in-depth review, along with high-res photos and video that highlights the things we need to see/hear. His review was longer than the TTAC fare, had better pictures, etc., but there is still much room for improvement.
He has a couple of witticisms in there, but not so much as to dominate the review (Exterior: The Camaro looks like it’s going to beat you unconscious… and Back Seat:…comfortable for people of all shape and sizes, provided they don’t have legs.)
I like that he put Chevy’s response on the site as an update. He got in his own NSFW you with that. What a bunch of pansies. Boo hoo, someone didn’t like your shitty interior and disconnected driving experience. Are we surprised? He told the truth. Long live the truth – there and here.
Having just come from the Auto Show, I can tell you that, personally, the interior was MUCH better in person than pictures…and that was an LS model. The SS model was swarmed.
The materials are all soft touch, the radio is cool, etc. It is not that bad.
“You’re right, you definitely won’t be getting a ’second date’.” -Millions of GM cutomers burned by bad reliability, bad customer service, and bad cars in general.
Stay classy, GM. The only thing I was ever interested with from you was the Chevy Colorado, and that was only because it was the most fuel efficient crew cab truck I could find. I think I’ll go with a Suzuki Grand Vitara. Not because of your arrogance, mind you, but because the Chevy Colorado kind of sucks.
Stu Sidoti :
March 24th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Maybe Mr. Gold should write for Consumer Reports and focus on reviewing toasters or something other than a modern-day musclecar.
I think that Consumer Reports takes a lot of undeserved heat regarding car reviews. I find that they do an incredible job of succinctly capturing the essence of most vehicles that they review. They are consistent in their coverage of ride, interior, safety, reliability, etc. in that you can count on them catching most of that detail. They leave out the witticisms, but that’s ok with me. Sometimes a “just the facts” approach is sorely needed.
I’m curious as to what it is that you feel he didn’t capture in his 1,600 words. His is the second similar review of the Camaro that I’ve read that mentions disconnected road feel, poor visibility, light steering, etc. He does mention a number of things he likes, such as exhaust note, menacing exterior styling and power, that tells me that he does indeed appreciate a modern-day muscle car.
@noreserve…From reading his review, IMHO I did not get a sense of someone who enjoys driving cars…I didn’t get the sense that was able to drive the car hard-maybe he wasn’t-not his fault, but he didn’t seem to have any fun and I question from his writing if Mr. Gold knows how to have fun in cars?
Again, this is my opinion only but I enjoy the car thoroughly, have driven several pre-production prototypes and think they pretty much hit the nail on the head. No it doesn’t have the refinement of a BMW, the interior of an Audi, the vault-like quiet of a Rolls or whatever benchmarks people wish to measure such aspects by, but for <$25K you can get a 300HP, RWD, IRS, 29mpg modern-day musclecar that is fun as hell to drive-again IMHO…
Look…at work we have a Challenger, we have Mustangs but everyone fights over the keys to the Camaro. Everyone. It’s just plain fun to drive the snot out of and I just kind of wish Mr. Gold could have had more fun in it-shit I sure have!! Maybe GM didn’t let him. Could be.
Stu Sidoti: I’m glad to hear that you enjoy the drive. I saw it at the Atlanta Auto Show this weekend and confirmed that it looks great in person. The SS wheels are well done and really fit the car. It has a menacing presence and muscular stance. I am disappointed with the weight. I predicted at least a couple hundred pounds better from some lessons learned from the Corvette team. Apart from steering feel, this weight is hard to overcome in the driving dynamics department. 3,400-3,500 lbs should have been a goal. Getting up toward 4,000 robs so much of that engine and kills the handling.
I’m guessing that most GM folks are working on their resumes and lost in thoughts of how they will pay bills if the welfare is cut off.
Add to that the layoffs that are happening and the UAW buyouts and it’s hard to believe that cars are leaving the factory with 4 tires, let alone interior quality.
Juvenile replies like that one from GM do far more damage to their reputation than one negative review does. I would have never even read it if they hadn’t pitched a fit about his comments.
FWIW, GM got three spots on my Best New Cars of 2009 list. So it’s not as if I’m a GM h8r. And in defense of GM, they haven’t responded like this to other reviews that were less-than-ideal. They’ve also been very supportive of About.com, giving us good, early access to most press vehicles. All this, by the way, made their response all the more surprising.
Stu: Chevy did give us the chance to have fun. It was a good drive route and I got lots of seat and photography time. The car just didn’t do it for me. And if you’re questioning my journalistic integrity now, wait until you read my next review, which heaps praise upon the 2010 Lincoln MKZ. No, really.
Oops, gotta go. I’m on deadline for my toaster review. The third rate ad-fest doesn’t like to be kept waiting. — Aaron
seems like i’m the only one, but i prefer the interior of the Camaro over the Mustang and Challenger. only concern i have is the HVAC controls, mainly whether the outer dial rings are nasty hard plastic or rubberised material.
i can’t see how the review was that critical of the car to warrant the response GM gave. what i gathered from the review was that the car is more of an open road GT rather than a corner carver, like a coupe version of a G8. which is exactly what it is!
the reviewers summary made me think of it like an Audi – attractive cars that are technically very good, but often fail to tug the heartstrings
GM at the heart of it, are full of hubris.
They have been under siege for years even before the GFC and now they have a car that people actually want and it’s their time to have their spotlight in the sun.
It’s not a great car by any means but it is glamorous and they will be able to sit on this gravy train (such as it is) for a good 18 months to 2 yrs before the aura dulls.
Let them bask in their inflated glory because besides this car what else do they have?
The Volt?
Jeez, Chevy needs a logo redux pronto.. I mean, c’mon, that bowtie looks silly on the car.
And don’t do a Toyota redux and make your logo look the Pillsbury doughboy.
Does anyone else remember two or so years ago when some Camaro interior shots leaked, and GM swore that they were just an old development mule, and the actual interior would be vastly different?
Its not.
There’s two things happening here (three, if you count GM’s petulant little display):
One, the Camaro has been hyped to such a degree, over such a long period, and carries such inflated expectations that one can’t help but be disappointed. I think people (especially GM fans) were expecting it to be exactly as capable as the Corvette and as well-appointed as an Audi, and forgetting that it’s also priced to compete with the Honda Civic. Something’s got to give, there.
Two, and this is related, is that no matter how you slice it, this is still a big, heavy car. Bigger than the Mustang and much bigger than the Z or Corvette. You can do good work with suspension tuning, but it’s still near or at four thousand pounds.
Realism is a bugger, isn’t it?
Again, it’s still a great car for the price (especially the LS) but it’s not a miracle.
Side note: I’d like to see a few shots of the LS’ interior. Everyone seems to be showing photos of the SS, yes the LS is assuredly going to be the volume seller, and it’s the best choice—in this whole segment—for the frugal enthusiast. Why no photos?
psarhjinian, there were no LS-trimmed cars on the press preview, but I believe the LS’ cabin will look similar to this shot of the 1SS interior, with grey fabric trim and no auxiliary gauge package.
I’ve been reading Aaron’s reviews for along time, I find his taste in cars closer to mine than that of this site. He usually digs muscle cars (TTAC – not so much). I’ve been on the fence about the Camero for awhile, and after reading his review it seems that GM might have dropped the ball, again. This time it was basically on their own turf. If the General can’t even build a muscle car right… Time will tell.
You can buy a new Mustang V6 with a stick, air + cruise, for 16K. Base Camaro is overpriced, overpowered, too expensive for the market. Not that many people want a two door car, forcing you to sit too low to the ground for extended trips, with small rear seats. The old muscle cars sold because of LOW PRICE. Base Camaro is not low price. Always was a small market to begin with, once again, GM missed the mark.
GM died when Chevrolet killed the other divisions. Anything Pontiac had which was exciting had to die, so as not to compete with Chevy. Well, Chevy won the political wars, GM has died, and ain’t nothing gonna save GM now.
Another retro car that will be all the rage for about ten minutes, until everyone realizes that it’s just a rehash and there’s nowhere to go from here.
If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, then nostalgia is its coffin.
I think the problem with the nu-muscle is that there is too much channeling of past.
Its enough that the new cars look like the old cars (looks too much like the old cars if you ask me), but do the interiors have to also?? Every time there is a glimmer of interest in these things I just take one look at the interior and it just screams gimmick.
Pass.
What happens if the auto journalists muscle up? Why not state that, since GM is boycotting journalists who write “bad” reviews, all the auto journalists will boycott GM as long as this silliness continues? Free Aaron Gold, is all I have to say…
How does “You’re right, you definitely won’t be getting a ’second date’ with the Camaro” = no cars in the future?
I thought Aaron came up with a great metaphor to describe his feelings on the Camaro. Someone at Chevy got it and responded in kind (“no second date”). Humorous, not hubris.
Lighten up guys.
“Humorous, not hubris.”
Humorous would be to make a joke out of it in an internal memo. Hubris is to make that joke an official policy. The problem with GM is that they can not afford jokes like that, because it will come back and hit them in their head. Not considering the consequences of ones actions, is what hubris is all about.
I actually thought Aaron’s review was quite good. He was able to cite particulars about the Camaro that he liked and items that he did not like.
He was also able to explain that the items he did not like dampened his enthusiasm for the Camaro.
Personally, I find this style of review very useful, far more so than the sort of review where a vehicle is unquestioningly presented as the best thing since sliced bread.
Ingvar
If that didn’t happen when GM pulled ALL its advertising from the LA Times in response to a Dan Neil column, it won’t happen here.
You could say that most of my colleagues are little more than industry lap dogs, but I couldn’t possibly comment.
RF:
Yeah, I understand that collegial solidarity is not that widespread in the auto journalist business. The problem is, that GM can continue with this policy as long as it’s hidden in the dark. Open statements on a matter of fact basis, stating that because GM has a policy of so-and-so, therefore they are getting a response on a similar level, would make up for it a lot. Reveal the secrets and the drama, all cards on the table. Journalists must have the chance of reviewing products unbiased, without the fear of repurcussions.
And if there’s an official threat, that has to be stated and taken into consideration when reviewing their products. I mean, what is this? Management by fear? Gunboat diplomacy? Omerta? Is Rick Wagoner the head of the biggeast mafia clan this side of the russian oligarcs? Tear them a new one, I say. The emperor has no clothes. And it’s time for people to be noticed, publicly, without fear.
I read the review and it didn’t sound all that bad.
I was behind one yesterday on the drive home from work and personally, I think the rear end is ugly. It doesn’t flow out of the front end. It looks like it was pasted on as an afterthought. For the price Chevy is charging for it, it needs to be better looking.
I have seen, touched and sat in a new Camaro at a car show in Florida. I was left with a similar impression though I didn’t drive it and to be completely objective, I would need to drive it before I could rate it. In stationary form it didn’t seem to be all there. The gun-slit visibility is bothersome and the typical GM “Pep Boys” seat cover interior is still apparent though it is improved over earlier GM cars. The dash layout is really cumbersome and I find this to be a trait in many new cars; too much stuff crammed in a willy-nilly fashion; it’s just not intuitive. I noticed the same issue with the trunk that the reviewer did and mentioned it to a bystander who agreed; it’s not a bad size but you’ll never get anything in it.
All in all, the Camaro felt awkward. As I mentioned, it needs to be driven to make a comprehensive rating but with three years of “development” it should have felt a lot better than it did on first blush as initial impressions are essential in getting a potential buyer really interested. The GM rep, who was present nearby, was surprised that I panned it (go figure!).
At the same show, there was a Challenger present and in spite of its “largesse” it did feel a lot more inviting on first blush IMHO.
Ok Americans, just continue hating this babe, maybe GM will diss you guys and bring this to S.Africa. I’m just tired of this over-priced and horribly-underpowered BMW’s and Audis. I drive a 130I BMW, the Camaro will cruch this POS, as does my Astra 2.0T.
GM’s response of “not getting another date” is really lame and just reeks of the bullshit that has put them where they are. GM needs major good PR right now, and being douchey to a guy just because he picked out a few things about the car that aren’t his preference is just ridiculous. They need to put their cars into the hands of anyone who’s willing to give them some pub, and even if he does point out some bad, at least he seems to like it overall for the purpose that it is supposed to serve. I don’t think the average Camaro buyer will be all that concerned about the size of the trunk opening, or the back seat. They want a car that looks good, is a decent value and goes like stink. GM sucks for giving this guy hassle. I’d prefer journalists actually criticize cars when they deserve it, which is why i like TTAC. Screw GM.
IMHO I did not get a sense of someone who enjoys driving cars
My sense was that the car would have provided more enjoyment for the tester if it didn’t have overboosted steering.
This is 2009, not 1969. Decades of engineering experience should make it possible for even a “muscle car” to have decent road feel. And they wonder why General Motors is in trouble…
There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary. – Brendan Behan
The Camaro review contained more good than bad. Several items were very positive. Chevrolet cannot reasonably expect every design cue to be perceived as a home run.
A mature PR manager would rush the reviewer a model carefully selected to address his issues with view to winning him over. It would in all likelihood gain a follow-up story. Even if the dash still wasn’t his cup of tea, for example, he would undoubtedly restate the positive items.
very well written and quite informative, a great review. Why they would have a hissyfit over this is just bizzare to me, Audi has been getting these so-so reviews for years, while simultaneously gaining market share and customer respect. From what I can tell as a reader they generally make cars available for comparison tests, even when the venue guarantees a loss (vs. BMW on track say).
RF…did GM really pull all its advertising from the LATimes? I was out of town for a while and didn’t see anything about it. There is a remedy for that kind of behaviour when you are a major print publication…screw them hard in future editorials.
This is 2009, not 1969. Decades of engineering experience should make it possible for even a “muscle car” to have decent road feel. And they wonder why General Motors is in trouble…
The perverse thing about that is that, just recently, GM seemed to have figured out the steering thing: the 2008 Corvette finally had better road feel than a sport-trim Corolla, and the Sky/Solstice we’re quite good from the get-go. So is the G8, and, as I recall, the Malibu.
I do hope they’re not backsliding, because prior to these developments, the best steering racks GM offered were in the Aveo and Vibe.
A mature PR manager would rush the reviewer a model carefully selected to address his issues with view to winning him over. It would in all likelihood gain a follow-up story.
GM operates in a bubble—or more accurately, an echo chamber. Because the Camaro was, at best, compared against the Mustang, and because GM never really listens to criticism, anything bad about the Camaro is going to come as quite a shock.
What an awful PR move! GM had a “great” PR machine, even a late-to-the-party guy like me got a taste of the decades of sweet talking and bribing GM gave journos. Of course that didn’t last long…
Maybe we should be glad there’s a gag order on GM talking to TTAC.
Undoubtedly the steering would be better than my ’08 Elantra…
Maybe my bicycle can fit through a breadbox-sized opening…
The beige interior option would eliminate the “Vast Grey Expanse”…
If I keep the oprions down, I can get one for $25k…
Who am I kidding?
Still, something very irrational is making me want a Camaro again.
I highly doubt they said that. If I were him, I’d be bracing for a libel suit…
Ingvar:
I do want to emphasize that this was one person at Chevy (albeit someone kinda high up). For the mostpart, GM has been pretty good to us. There are lots of automakers who don’t “get” the web (they lavish resources on newspaper columnists who reach 250,000 readers and neglect web sites like About.com cars, which has 38 million monthly visitors), but General Motors has been very supportive of. And I’ve always reported (I think) fairly on their products, good or bad. I think this was someone at Chevrolet getting rubbed the wrong way, even though the review wasn’t really all that harsh. Having read other Camaro reviews since posting my own, I have a feeling the car isn’t getting the critical reception they were hoping for. The embargo lifted Friday, I posted my review Monday, and got that response after what was probably a very unpleasant morning. I still love GM, and I think most of ’em still like me.
See, now you know why RF says I’m a pushover.
Tedward: The LA Times thing happened in 2005 and was the subject of TTAC’s GM Death Watch 2.
Golf4me: Really?
jkross22 :
March 25th, 2009 at 1:24 am
Jeez, Chevy needs a logo redux pronto.. I mean, c’mon, that bowtie looks silly on the car.
And don’t do a Toyota redux and make your logo look the Pillsbury doughboy.
Exactly! On both counts, actually. That huge gold ‘bowtie’ is absolutely ridiculous – it looks horrendous on just about everything but a huge honking truck. Not only the size and shape, but the color, too. Gold looks terribly awkward on just about every color car. Except maybe a gold car so that it blends in as much as possible.
And yes, I think the Toyota logo is ugly too, although not as offensive as the bowtie. Too swoopy, too rounded, and too 90s. It must seem funny to some that I’m so OCD about logo design, but since most badges have swollen to dinner-plate size, they play a prominent role in a car’s appearance.
Oh, and comparing this with a 370Z is a joke. What others have said about muscle cars not being sports cars is spot on.
I drove an SS today…Wicked. Awesome.
I just wish it had had a manual instead of paddle-shift…but it was Faaaaaaaaaaaast. Reeeeal fast.