Guess what? Motortrend favors the Camaro again

[JohnnyUtah]

I have the HUD in my 1LE. It's cool, but not a necessity for me. It is nice to have on track as I like to quickly see my speed when crossing certain visual cues so that I know whether the previous corner was done better/worse based on exit speed. The PDR is another thing that is really nice but not a necessity.

Sponsored

 

[ALUSA]

Put me in the anti HUD camp. I don't get it, and the reflection of the mechanism in the window is distracting, IMO.

It suppose to be the opposite and safer so that you don’t move your eyes way down to the rpm gauge or speedometer or even the gps screen to catch a glimpse of when to shift, how fast you are going, or where you are going. Everything is right infront your eyes including the road itself. I have it in my cadillac and had it in my 12 2ss camaro. Some cars even have the night vision and motion detection system reflecting the possible objects infront of you in white color at night.

 

[martinjlm]

Let's not kid ourselves though, a HUD isn't a requirement in today's cars...it's a novelty. Let's put it another way, do you think the majority would rather have the HUD or Bluetooth connection for their phone? Or how about the fancy new digital dash? I personally car much about back seat leg room and trunk space than a HUD that I have lived without for my 25 years of driving.

I have the HUD in my 1LE. It's cool, but not a necessity for me. It is nice to have on track as I like to quickly see my speed when crossing certain visual cues so that I know whether the previous corner was done better/worse based on exit speed. The PDR is another thing that is really nice but not a necessity.

HUD is one of those technologies that you don't know you "need" until you have had it and then no longer have it. Sort of like an iPad. When iPad first came out, I saw no use for it. I had a phone. I had a laptop. It was just a tweener. Then my wife bought me one and I haven't been without one since.

When I was in the Tech Insertion part of Product Planning, we were talking to product teams about what was then "next gen" HUD. Some really interesting stuff happened that I will never forget. For starters, I had a number of Vehicle Line Executives tell me they were not interested in HUD because it was expensive, the number of GM cars with it was dropping, and nobody else was using it, so they didn't see the point. This was when I would typically tell them that other automakers weren't using it because GM still had the patent, so they couldn't use it, and that BMW was standing in the wings waiting for the patent to expire so they could release it. That happened. I also pointed out to them that the reason there were fewer GM cars that had it was that just through serendipity, several of the highest volume vehicles that were using it had come to the end of their life-cycles and weren't being renewed (Buick Park Avenue, Pontiac Bonneville, Buick Rendezvous). Only Grand Prix and Corvette were left.

The other interesting thing was customer perception of the technology. This was my first experience with focus groups. When we tested 2nd Gen HUD (color, reconfigurable) with consumers by describing how it worked, then having them sit at a desk where the tech was simulated, the response was in essence....meh. When asked how much they would pay for the tech the answer was pretty much...I wouldn't. But when we talked to people that had previously owned a vehicle that had it almost all said in their prequalifying surveys that presence or lack of a HUD would be a big influencer in terms of whether or not they would even consider a vehicle. If picking between two similar vehicles, one with HUD, one without, they would choose the one with.

 

[millhouse]

HUD is one of those technologies that you don't know you "need" until you have had it and then no longer have it. Sort of like an iPad. When iPad first came out, I saw no use for it. I had a phone. I had a laptop. It was just a tweener. Then my wife bought me one and I haven't been without one since.

When I was in the Tech Insertion part of Product Planning, we were talking to product teams about what was then "next gen" HUD. Some really interesting stuff happened that I will never forget. For starters, I had a number of Vehicle Line Executives tell me they were not interested in HUD because it was expensive, the number of GM cars with it was dropping, and nobody else was using it, so they didn't see the point. This was when I would typically tell them that other automakers weren't using it because GM still had the patent, so they couldn't use it, and that BMW was standing in the wings waiting for the patent to expire so they could release it. That happened. I also pointed out to them that the reason there were fewer GM cars that had it was that just through serendipity, several of the highest volume vehicles that were using it had come to the end of their life-cycles and weren't being renewed (Buick Park Avenue, Pontiac Bonneville, Buick Rendezvous). Only Grand Prix and Corvette were left.

The other interesting thing was customer perception of the technology. This was my first experience with focus groups. When we tested 2nd Gen HUD (color, reconfigurable) with consumers by describing how it worked, then having them sit at a desk where the tech was simulated, the response was in essence....meh. When asked how much they would pay for the tech the answer was pretty much...I wouldn't. But when we talked to people that had previously owned a vehicle that had it almost all said in their prequalifying surveys that presence or lack of a HUD would be a big influencer in terms of whether or not they would even consider a vehicle. If picking between two similar vehicles, one with HUD, one without, they would choose the one with.

I have a few problems with your comments. First off, all of the information in the HUD is available elsewhere...without even having to move the head. This isn't like incorporating a phone, watch and MP3 player into one device, it amounts to moving your phone, watch and MP3 player to a pair of glasses.

Second, if anyone had to choose between having HUD or not....everyone would choose to have it, but the same can be said about nearly every tech option (Blu-tooth, USB etc.). Ask those same people if they would pay extra for Blu-tooth phone connectivity and see what they say. That right there shows you the value of the HUD. Again, it's nice...I've tested them out. Given the choice however between the new GT's digital dash and HUD...I would choose the digital dash every day (as would most).

 

[martinjlm]

I have a few problems with your comments. First off, all of the information in the HUD is available elsewhere...without even having to move the head. This isn't like incorporating a phone, watch and MP3 player into one device, it amounts to moving your phone, watch and MP3 player to a pair of glasses.

Second, if anyone had to choose between having HUD or not....everyone would choose to have it, but the same can be said about nearly every tech option (Blu-tooth, USB etc.). Ask those same people if they would pay extra for Blu-tooth phone connectivity and see what they say. That right there shows you the value of the HUD. Again, it's nice...I've tested them out. Given the choice however between the new GT's digital dash and HUD...I would choose the digital dash every day (as would most).

I was trying to not be too wordy in describing how the selections are set up. There's an art to it. I can interpret, but I'd be hard pressed to set up such a test. The vehicle choices are not as simple as Vehicle A vs Vehicle A + HUD. It's like Vehicle A has this content [includes HUD but not something else] while Vehicle B has that content [includes something else, but not HUD]. Typically respondents chose Vehicle A over Vehicle B, regardless of what "something else" was. There were usually multiple iterations. Could have been HUD versus Mode Switch. Then HUD vs Dual Climate Control. Then Dual Climate Control vs Mode Switch. Then similar combinations with other techs. In these sorts of pairings, HUD was often a deciding factor of which vehicle to purchase, though not necessarily the tech that the consumer was willing to pay the most for.

 

[millhouse]

I was trying to not be too wordy in describing how the selections are set up. There's an art to it. I can interpret, but I'd be hard pressed to set up such a test. The vehicle choices are not as simple as Vehicle A vs Vehicle A + HUD. It's like Vehicle A has this content [includes HUD but not something else] while Vehicle B has that content [includes something else, but not HUD]. Typically respondents chose Vehicle A over Vehicle B, regardless of what "something else" was. There were usually multiple iterations. Could have been HUD versus Mode Switch. Then HUD vs Dual Climate Control. Then Dual Climate Control vs Mode Switch. Then similar combinations with other techs. In these sorts of pairings, HUD was often a deciding factor of which vehicle to purchase, though not necessarily the tech that the consumer was willing to pay the most for.

I completely understand. Every option has a value. I've yet to meet anyone (maybe you're the exception) that made a vehicle decision based on HUD. Hell, it's not even a major factor in most magazine publications reviews...and it's all because the information is available elsewhere.

When HUD starts displaying real-time safety information (which is now starting to be seen on higher end vehicles), then it will start to really become a must have. Until then, I pity those who have to replace their windshields out of their own pocketbook with a factory HUD.

 

[Marvinmadman]

Oh yeah. Them HUD windshields are pricey. Replaced the windshield on my 2007 GP GXP and it was around $700.

 

[chain]

I rented a Camaro SS a few years ago with the HUD and I loved it. It isn't enough to make me want a Camaro over the Mustang. I would say though that if it were an option for the Mustang, I'd gladly pay for it. I'd pick that over the digital dash any day. I would also say that it's the one thing that would make me consider trading in my 2017 for a new one if it were an option. Right now there's nothing compelling enough to make me want to trade in. Yeah I'd lose my ass if I traded in....I just really want a HUD. =)

 

[4V Mayhem]

People that want to overlook the camaros issues will buy them. Those that are objectionable will not.

The mustang simply doesn't have those flaws...and no, being marginally slower isn't a flaw. The camaro was designed with a ridiculously small trunk opening and a extremely high belt line with a low roof and giant A and C pillars. GM chose form over function and it's obvious to anyone that sit's in them back to back with a mustang.

Does it make it a bad car? No...except for those that don't like to rubber neck at stoplights, those that rely on visual blind spot checks and those that like to fit golf clubs in their trunks.

Have you ever purchased a set of tires that were just loud driving down the road? The noise never goes away, and it never gets better...yet you will eventually stop noticing it. This is what happens with the camaros visibility...and quite honestly it's a design flaw that sways buyers away from it.

People will overlook or downplay or completely deny flaws in any car that they prefer. From what I see, people are driving the Camaros and are enjoying them. They sell good enough to justify their existence. And I don't see reports of them slamming into things or running off the road due to the extreme lack of visibility. I seriously just don't think it is as much of an issue as it is being made out to be. I wouldn't expect a critic of the car to agree. But it isn't a big issue. I don't see people trading it in or complaining about it.

Let's not kid ourselves though, a HUD isn't a requirement in today's cars...it's a novelty. Let's put it another way, do you think the majority would rather have the HUD or Bluetooth connection for their phone? Or how about the fancy new digital dash? I personally car much about back seat leg room and trunk space than a HUD that I have lived without for my 25 years of driving.

Why can't you have both? It is a cool feature and hopefully the Mustang will get it soon.

I have a few problems with your comments. First off, all of the information in the HUD is available elsewhere...without even having to move the head. This isn't like incorporating a phone, watch and MP3 player into one device, it amounts to moving your phone, watch and MP3 player to a pair of glasses.

Second, if anyone had to choose between having HUD or not....everyone would choose to have it, but the same can be said about nearly every tech option (Blu-tooth, USB etc.). Ask those same people if they would pay extra for Blu-tooth phone connectivity and see what they say. That right there shows you the value of the HUD. Again, it's nice...I've tested them out. Given the choice however between the new GT's digital dash and HUD...I would choose the digital dash every day (as would most).

If you've raced cars around a track, you'd see how valuable HUD can really be. Sure it is only a split second. But that split second does one thing. It makes it that much easier. Ok, so if you're at home and you're going to be inside the entire night, do you heat up your food in the oven or in a microwave? I mean, you have all night? So what do you need a microwave for? LOL! Or, why do you need paddle shifters? Or BLIS? Why do you need 90% of the technologies present in any of these cars? Because it makes things a little easier. Maybe by itself it isn't much. But when you put all those little things together, it adds up. And when 2 cars cost the same but one has a bunch of little features that the other one doesn't have, it sways people.

 

[millhouse]

People will overlook or downplay or completely deny flaws in any car that they prefer. From what I see, people are driving the Camaros and are enjoying them. They sell good enough to justify their existence. And I don't see reports of them slamming into things or running off the road due to the extreme lack of visibility. I seriously just don't think it is as much of an issue as it is being made out to be. I wouldn't expect a critic of the car to agree. But it isn't a big issue. I don't see people trading it in or complaining about it.

Every single review points out the poor visibility. Some people ignore it, but it's undeniable. It's one of the first things most people notice when they get in the car, and it's the first major compromise they have to decide to live with. When you start adding compromise, you're in trouble. I expect sales this year to continue their downward spiral.

Why can't you have both? It is a cool feature and hopefully the Mustang will get it soon.

It would be nice, but not if it meant paying extra.

If you've raced cars around a track, you'd see how valuable HUD can really be. Sure it is only a split second. But that split second does one thing. It makes it that much easier. Ok, so if you're at home and you're going to be inside the entire night, do you heat up your food in the oven or in a microwave? I mean, you have all night? So what do you need a microwave for? LOL! Or, why do you need paddle shifters? Or BLIS? Why do you need 90% of the technologies present in any of these cars? Because it makes things a little easier. Maybe by itself it isn't much. But when you put all those little things together, it adds up. And when 2 cars cost the same but one has a bunch of little features that the other one doesn't have, it sways people.

Again, it doesn't give you any information you can't already access with a glance. it's purely convenience. Little things do add up, but HUD is pure novelty. Things people consider more than HUD: Safety, Reliability, looks, ergonomics, performance, material quality and every tech feature that isn't duplicated (heated/cooled seats, heated steering wheel, audio system, bliss etc.). Quite literally, it's got to be among the last items anyone cares about when purchasing a $35k vehicle as it's not really giving you anything you don't already have.

Could it be easier on the track, I can see that...sure. Once you are familiar with your car and the track however, it's not going to make any difference.

 

[4V Mayhem]

Every single review points out the poor visibility. Some people ignore it, but it's undeniable. It's one of the first things most people notice when they get in the car, and it's the first major compromise they have to decide to live with. When you start adding compromise, you're in trouble. I expect sales this year to continue their downward spiral.

I'm just saying that the visibility issue is in comparison to other vehicles and not in comparison to how much you actually need to see. I've mentioned that before on here. It has way less visibility. But it obviously passed enough testing that it was allowed to be produced and is deemed safe enough to operate on the roads. That to me says that it is a perceived issue and not an actual issue. Compared to a motorcycle a Mustang has terrible visibility. But does that mean the Mustang has terrible visibility or does it mean the visibility is comparably terrible? LOL. Catch my drift? And the Camaro sells well enough. Look at the Challenger. They sell worst than any car on the planet, lol. Exaggeration of course. But they still sell enough. I doubt visibility is the reason for the Camaro's sales.

It would be nice, but not if it meant paying extra.

Rest assured if it does make it in the Mustangs then you will be paying for it.

Again, it doesn't give you any information you can't already access with a glance. it's purely convenience. Little things do add up, but HUD is pure novelty. Things people consider more than HUD: Safety, Reliability, looks, ergonomics, performance, material quality and every tech feature that isn't duplicated (heated/cooled seats, heated steering wheel, audio system, bliss etc.). Quite literally, it's got to be among the last items anyone cares about when purchasing a $35k vehicle as it's not really giving you anything you don't already have.

Could it be easier on the track, I can see that...sure. Once you are familiar with your car and the track however, it's not going to make any difference.

I've had it on other vehicles and I wish it was on the Mustangs. I and it seems someone else have said the same things. You don't wanna admit it because it gives you something to criticize. But I am willing to bet that if it was offered or if it was standard on the Mustangs then you wouldn't be opposed to it. That quick glance makes a big difference and allows you to exert more energy to driving and remaining alert on the road.

 

[martinjlm]

I completely understand. Every option has a value. I've yet to meet anyone (maybe you're the exception) that made a vehicle decision based on HUD. Hell, it's not even a major factor in most magazine publications reviews...and it's all because the information is available elsewhere.

When HUD starts displaying real-time safety information (which is now starting to be seen on higher end vehicles), then it will start to really become a must have. Until then, I pity those who have to replace their windshields out of their own pocketbook with a factory HUD.

No, I didn’t make a vehicle decision based on HUD. It was a factor, but not a litmus test. If all else was equal and the difference was HUD vs no HUD, then no-brainer. Or if, for example, it was a difference between HUD but smaller trunk vs no HUD and larger trunk, I’d go HUD and smaller trunk. HUD vs 1” larger display screen...HUD still wins. HUD vs more power / more torque, HUD loses.

 

[millhouse]

I'm just saying that the visibility issue is in comparison to other vehicles and not in comparison to how much you actually need to see. I've mentioned that before on here. It has way less visibility. But it obviously passed enough testing that it was allowed to be produced and is deemed safe enough to operate on the roads. That to me says that it is a perceived issue and not an actual issue. Compared to a motorcycle a Mustang has terrible visibility. But does that mean the Mustang has terrible visibility or does it mean the visibility is comparably terrible? LOL. Catch my drift? And the Camaro sells well enough. Look at the Challenger. They sell worst than any car on the planet, lol. Exaggeration of course. But they still sell enough. I doubt visibility is the reason for the Camaro's sales.

The camaro has the worst visibility in it's class...by a far margin. There is no sugar coating it. I would prefer to have my work-space in a corner office with windows, not in a coffin. They both have the same amount of egress options. This isn't about safety, it's about how the interior makes you feel. Many people sit in it and don't even take it for a test drive as it's far too claustrophobic.

Rest assured if it does make it in the Mustangs then you will be paying for it.

I've had it on other vehicles and I wish it was on the Mustangs. I and it seems someone else have said the same things. You don't wanna admit it because it gives you something to criticize. But I am willing to bet that if it was offered or if it was standard on the Mustangs then you wouldn't be opposed to it. That quick glance makes a big difference and allows you to exert more energy to driving and remaining alert on the road.

I'm sorry, moving my eyeballs takes no energy. I've driven GM vehicles with heads up display and really don't care for it. It's a bit of light that's always in my periphery. I can tell how fast I'm going without constantly looking at the speedometer, and can feel what RPM I'm at. You don't honestly think that it's safer because your speedometer and tach are 6 inches higher in your field of view do you?

No, I didn’t make a vehicle decision based on HUD. It was a factor, but not a litmus test. If all else was equal and the difference was HUD vs no HUD, then no-brainer. Or if, for example, it was a difference between HUD but smaller trunk vs no HUD and larger trunk, I’d go HUD and smaller trunk. HUD vs 1” larger display screen...HUD still wins. HUD vs more power / more torque, HUD loses.

I'd venture to say you're in a bit of a minority in that regard. I know many who have passed on the camaro because they can't fit their clubs in the trunk without folding the seats down and taking out their drivers. How are you with HUD VS blutooth? HUD against heated seats and steering wheel (I lived in Michigan, so don't lie lol). HUD against auto climate control? I'm curious if you'd take the HUD over Fords new digital dash too?

 

[4V Mayhem]

No, I didn’t make a vehicle decision based on HUD. It was a factor, but not a litmus test. If all else was equal and the difference was HUD vs no HUD, then no-brainer. Or if, for example, it was a difference between HUD but smaller trunk vs no HUD and larger trunk, I’d go HUD and smaller trunk. HUD vs 1” larger display screen...HUD still wins. HUD vs more power / more torque, HUD loses.

I'm willing to bet that if it came in the Mustang and not in the Camaro then a lot of these guys would be saying the exact opposite about it, lol!! Just kidding!!

The camaro has the worst visibility in it's class...by a far margin. There is no sugar coating it. I would prefer to have my work-space in a corner office with windows, not in a coffin. They both have the same amount of egress options. This isn't about safety, it's about how the interior makes you feel. Many people sit in it and don't even take it for a test drive as it's far too claustrophobic.

And again, it has the worst visibility in comparison to other vehicles. Looking at exactly how much you need to see to operate the vehicle safely and effectively, then the visibility is not an issue. If you needed $99 to buy something and 5 people gave you 120 bucks while 1 person gave you 105 bucks, well how much did you need? One person gave much less but it was still more than you actually needed. THAT is my point. Arguing that it has the worst visibility when it still offers more than you need is a pointless argument.

I'm sorry, moving my eyeballs takes no energy. I've driven GM vehicles with heads up display and really don't care for it. It's a bit of light that's always in my periphery. I can tell how fast I'm going without constantly looking at the speedometer, and can feel what RPM I'm at. You don't honestly think that it's safer because your speedometer and tach are 6 inches higher in your field of view do you?

Take your car racing. That little split second that you're diverting more of your attention and mental energy is just enough to send you into a wall. The info is right on the screen and allows you to see it without taking your eyes off the road at all.

I'd venture to say you're in a bit of a minority in that regard. I know many who have passed on the camaro because they can't fit their clubs in the trunk without folding the seats down and taking out their drivers. How are you with HUD VS blutooth? HUD against heated seats and steering wheel (I lived in Michigan, so don't lie lol). HUD against auto climate control? I'm curious if you'd take the HUD over Fords new digital dash too?

You know many people who wanted to buy a Camaro and didn't because they couldn't fit their golf clubs in the trunk? Wow! Just messing with you. But seriously, the vast majority of people don't even consider trunk space when buying these cars. If you were buying one of these as your only vehicle then yea I could see it being an issue. But most people have this as a second car. Or have it as a primary car but have a second car. So golf clubs or anything else not fitting in the trunk isn't an issue that would make or break...

Going back to your argument about visibility and using it here in reference to trunk space, lol. The Challenger has much more storage space than either of these cars. One could say that the Camaro and Mustang has the worst storage space in their class. But for the majority of people out there, it is enough space. Get my point? You can't argue the benefits of excess in one case and then play it off elsewhere. If visibility and space is that much of a deal, then the Mustang offers much less than the Challenger does. So why aren't people just buying the car that offers the most of everything? Don't answer that...

 

[bluebeastsrt]

Christ oh mighty. Are the Camaro guys still trying to say the Interior of the Camaro isn’t terrible? The interior is the main reason that car isn’t selling well. You spend 100% of the time. your driving inside the car. And You shouldn’t have to get used to poor visibility. I got rid of my 11 SS. Because I hated being inside it that much! The “I adjust my mirrors and I’m fine with it”, talk. Is just silly talk. You guys are arguing about how important HUD is? But can’t admit. Seeing out of the car is more important! F#$k HUD. Give me a car, I can change lanes with confidence. That’s whats important. I’ve owned just about every generation Camaro there is. And the 5th/6th gen is the only one. I couldn’t live with. I’m not a Camaro hater like some on here. And I also get some people really love Camaros. But damn the interior sucking ass shouldn’t be defended. It needs to be changed before the Camaro goes the way of the dinosaurs. Again. GM gave the Camaro5 folks exactly what they asked for. Look how that worked out. They better start listening to the buying public. And the magazine reviews that praise the performance of the car. But almost universally trash the interior and sight lines.

Sponsored