• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

2013 Camaro V6 rental

Zap

Elite Member
I mentioned this in another thread, so here are some pics and info.

Vehicle is a 2013 Camaro with V6. It is rated 30MPG and 323BHP. It is pretty sharp looking. IIRC it had around 1300 miles on it when we rented it for a week. Cost was around $29/day from Enterprise. It was offered as a cheap step-up because they ran out of the normal cars. We had a reservation and it was either rent us the car we reserved and tell the next guy in line that they only had better cars, or entice us to upgrade and then rent out the car we would have gotten to the next guy in line. They also offered a 2012 Mustang V6 convertible for the same price, but someone else jumped at that and snagged it while we were thinking it over. We had the car for 8 days near the beginning of September.

The Camaro was reasonably entertaining to drive. Power was good and the automatic transmission with manual flappy pedal mode was alright. From memory, I think tires were something like 235/55-18. They were wide and sticky and huge, yet not very low profile. It was possible to make them squeak a bit from a standstill with traction control off, but otherwise I could not light up the tires like I could BITD with my 1986 Mustang GT (200BHP, 225/60-15 tires, manual transmission). Thus, driving it is kind of tame. It stayed very planted at all times, whether due to weight, wide tires or the IRS, I do not know.

It felt huge yet cramped at the same time. Anyone who describes it as sitting in a bunker is just about spot-on. Sometimes I had to just drive on faith as I couldn't see where I was going. One example of that was a turn that I had to make often (near parent's place) where I had to do a right turn onto a downhill street. I could NOT see anything over the hood or out the passenger window. I just had to go slow and assume that there was nothing stationary in the middle of the street that I could run over. I did not have this problem with several other cars which I have driven on the same roads.

Engine sounds were actually reasonably nice and sporty. Sound system was average, but had all the modern niceties such as USB input, smartphone Pandora support, etc. Seats were comfortable. Never tried the rear seats. Trunk was actually decent sized, but the opening left much to be desired. See the last image below. Our largest bag could barely be squeezed through the opening, and had to be literally forced and scraped in.

The best part about driving this was cruising on the freeway. It was comfortable and composed, and had enough power on tap to make passing a breeze. We did a couple of hour-long freeway jaunts up and down I-15 in such comfort.

IMG_0875.jpg


IMG_0874.jpg


IMG_0876.jpg


IMG_0877.jpg


IMG_0878.jpg
 
There's just so much priority on flash over practicality. The car's huge, but the thick pillars and tiny (height-wise) windows make visibility pretty bad. I would also just find it awkward to get around in because of how high up the window openings are (drive-throughs would become your mortal enemy).

The trunk, I just don't get at all. How much harder would it have been to design the opening so that you could get something in there? I've never seen taillights cut into the opening so much, and there's no reason for it. Looks like you could fit a couple sets of golf clubs in there...if you could fold them in half to get them in and out.

GM needs to keep their engine, transmission, and electrical designers and fire everyone else...in my opinion.

What size wheels has that thing got? 17's? I never noticed how huge the sidewall had to be to fill those wheelwells.
 
You know, that's the first time I have seen the trunk opening on a new Camaro. It's just about a deal breaker right there.
 
There's just so much priority on flash over practicality. The car's huge, but the thick pillars and tiny (height-wise) windows make visibility pretty bad. I would also just find it awkward to get around in because of how high up the window openings are (drive-throughs would become your mortal enemy).

The trunk, I just don't get at all. How much harder would it have been to design the opening so that you could get something in there? I've never seen taillights cut into the opening so much, and there's no reason for it. Looks like you could fit a couple sets of golf clubs in there...if you could fold them in half to get them in and out.

GM needs to keep their engine, transmission, and electrical designers and fire everyone else...in my opinion.

What size wheels has that thing got? 17's? I never noticed how huge the sidewall had to be to fill those wheelwells.

You can get the clubs in there with some maneuvering:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBmrXqMBGf0
 
It was possible to make them squeak a bit from a standstill with traction control off, but otherwise I could not light up the tires like I could BITD with my 1986 Mustang GT (200BHP, 225/60-15 tires, manual transmission). Thus, driving it is kind of tame. It stayed very planted at all times, whether due to weight, wide tires or the IRS, I do not know.

GM's use of "Torque Management" is what makes it a dog off the line. It can be removed with a custom tune I would imagine.
 
That trunk is hilarious. Not because of it's size, sporty cars are obviously nor practical, but because of the deceptively large trunk lid compared to the actual opening.
 
I mentioned this in another thread, so here are some pics and info.

Vehicle is a 2013 Camaro with V6. It is rated 30MPG and 323BHP. It is pretty sharp looking. IIRC it had around 1300 miles on it when we rented it for a week. Cost was around $29/day from Enterprise. It was offered as a cheap step-up because they ran out of the normal cars. We had a reservation and it was either rent us the car we reserved and tell the next guy in line that they only had better cars, or entice us to upgrade and then rent out the car we would have gotten to the next guy in line. They also offered a 2012 Mustang V6 convertible for the same price, but someone else jumped at that and snagged it while we were thinking it over. We had the car for 8 days near the beginning of September.

The Camaro was reasonably entertaining to drive. Power was good and the automatic transmission with manual flappy pedal mode was alright. From memory, I think tires were something like 235/55-18. They were wide and sticky and huge, yet not very low profile. It was possible to make them squeak a bit from a standstill with traction control off, but otherwise I could not light up the tires like I could BITD with my 1986 Mustang GT (200BHP, 225/60-15 tires, manual transmission). Thus, driving it is kind of tame. It stayed very planted at all times, whether due to weight, wide tires or the IRS, I do not know.

It felt huge yet cramped at the same time. Anyone who describes it as sitting in a bunker is just about spot-on. Sometimes I had to just drive on faith as I couldn't see where I was going. One example of that was a turn that I had to make often (near parent's place) where I had to do a right turn onto a downhill street. I could NOT see anything over the hood or out the passenger window. I just had to go slow and assume that there was nothing stationary in the middle of the street that I could run over. I did not have this problem with several other cars which I have driven on the same roads.

Engine sounds were actually reasonably nice and sporty. Sound system was average, but had all the modern niceties such as USB input, smartphone Pandora support, etc. Seats were comfortable. Never tried the rear seats. Trunk was actually decent sized, but the opening left much to be desired. See the last image below. Our largest bag could barely be squeezed through the opening, and had to be literally forced and scraped in.

The best part about driving this was cruising on the freeway. It was comfortable and composed, and had enough power on tap to make passing a breeze. We did a couple of hour-long freeway jaunts up and down I-15 in such comfort.
You pretty much summed up what an American "muscle" car is. Thanks :thumbsup:
 
I drove my brothers V6 Camaro rental back in I believe 2010? It was horrible. It was like driving a Camry with a Camaro shell. Horrible.
 
That trunk and interior is epic fail. Rest of the car is decent. Retro looks are cool. Blind spots are huge. Rag top is too sweet. Upon my return to Cali, that will be my ride, Z28 tho.
 
i remember when the camaro first came out. went to check it out at a chevy dealership. of course i was treated like crap because i look pretty young and some douchebag followed us everywehre.

that said we finally sat in one and it feels like you are driving a tank because the dash and door sills are so high so i wasnt sure how easy it would be to drive in real life. that and its actually a really huge car exterior wise and tiny interior wise. very style over substance but then again its a coupe and thats what it is (ever sat in a bmw 6 series? car is 193 inches long yet you can barely fit 4 midgets in it). the really high window / door sills seemed really bad though.
 
At first, I didn't think 2 sets of golf clubs would fit in the trunk. That YouTube video says you can do it.
 
Well, it is a sports car of sorts. It's designed for performance not practicality. I find this to be the case with a lot of cars like this. My dad's Audi A6 has a tiny trunk compared to my Civic and my mom's old Lexus ES300.
 
Yes, it is a sports car. But if I can't fit 2 golf bags in there, it does me no good. I usually go to the course with a friend, so it is 2 bags. Sometimes, we meet at the course, then I need room for only 1 bag. Any car, needs to have some usable luggage space.
 
Back
Top