2006 Chevrolet Trailblazer SS: Camaro reborn
Some people lament the death of the Camaro. I don’t, it was a total piece of junk. Sure it was fast but what an unrewarding car to drive. Big, ponderous, made from plastic and what wasn’t plastic was welded together with plastic! Ugly too. In fact the only Camaro I ever drove that was any fun at all was at a driving school, and the only reason it was fun was because they didn’t care what happened to it and neither did I.


For those, however, that truly miss the Camaro and aren’t feeling reassured by the General don’t despair – Chevy still builds one but they keep it very quiet. So quiet in fact, that the car is disguised as a truck.


The Trailblazer SS is a better car than the Camaro ever was even with its body-on-frame construction, live axle at the back and optional AWD. Despite the inherent drawbacks of trying to make a performance car out of a truck, GM’s engineers have done a remarkably good job.


The Trailblazer’s only real drawback, and it’s a big one, is the absolutely dreadful interior. The dashboard looks like micro waved Rubbermade boxes. It is an absolute riot of mismatched shapes and textures. There isn’t a helluva lot of interior space either but there wasn’t much in a Camaro, so we can forgive it that much at least. The leather front seats with ‘SS’ embroidery at least are supremely comfortable and well made.


The interior is made to look that much worse by the handsome and refined exterior. Smooth flanks, bulging fender flares, angry headlights and massive 20-inch wheels make the ‘SS’ look like an autoshow concept truck. I even like the single exhaust outlet – dual exhausts are passé don’t you know. Better still is the sound that comes out of the tailpipe. I don’t know why, but the Trailblazer SS and the SSR retro-pickup for that matter, sound way better than the Corvette. Deep burbling at idle and a monstrous roar at WOT – it’s bloody wonderful.


The SS has bark to match its bite too. The 6.0-litre LS2 V8 churns out 395 horsepower (it probably makes the full 400 like the ‘Vette, but Chevy no doubt wants to save face for its halo sports car) and hooked up to all four wheels via a four-speed auto - it’s a point-and-shoot tactical terror. Despite the hefty weight of the ‘SS’ the LS2 can easily propel it to over 200 km/h and from a dead stop its seems to gather up its skirt and leap off the line. If anything, it could use more precision in the throttle response to avoid snapping the necks of elderly passengers like dried twigs.


Of course the downside to all these antics is a voracious appetite for Saudi-champagne. In a week of driving I fared no better than 17L/100 km and I was even trying at times. Once you realize, however, that the SS isn’t going to challenge a Prius for economy you just give up and give’er all the time.


Lest you think the ‘SS’ is a one trick, drag-strip pony, I’m pleased to inform you that it actually corners too. Throw it into a bend and it wobbles a bit on its stilts, but once those massive tires are hooked up you can pour in the torque and explode past the apex. Discipline is required, however, as the stability control system cannot be fully disabled and ham-fisted inputs just result in brutalized tires. Within its limits it’s a blast.


The only competition on the market for the ‘SS’ is DCX’s new Cherokee SRT-8 and though we haven’t driven it yet we expect it to be sharper and even quicker thanks to its 425-hp 6.1-litre HEMI V8 and the generally competent chassis engineering of the SRT guys.


We’re planning to get both the ‘SS’ and the SRT-8 together at the same time for a sport-SUV grudge match sometime next year. Stay tuned.
MICHAEL LA FAVE – photos and text

Sir,
I read your article on the Trailblazer SS, and to be frank about it, I found it lacking. I am also a journalist, and I follow the auto industry closely, and I find your deficit of knowledge of the Camaro and your critcisms of the car extreme and ill thought out. Why? Plenty of reasons.

First of all, calling the car a "Total piece of junk" without one iota of examples is what I'd expect from some of the more juvenille people I encounter on the various websites I frequent. I have owned various cars from both Ford and GM, and have driven various cars from other makers, and for the time Camaro was in production, I found it a pretty decent and most certainly fun car to drive. The car had a 5 star crash rating, high accident avoidance rating, 100,000 miles between tuneups, a winner of at least 1 J.D. Powers appeal award, and is one of the top 4 recognized automotive names in poll after poll.

Second, your knowledge of the car's construction is also sorely lacking. The fenders and doors are made of impact resistant plastic. The car's construction methods were based on the highly successful Saturn line, which featured a very rigid, steel unibody which gave the car it's strucural intregrity. Unless you know some new miracle assembly process, to say what wasn't plastic was "welded together with plastic" is just plain silly, and doesn't even show the slightest knowledge of the car. Then the question becomes, why do you even mention the Camaro... especially in an article about a 2 plus ton SUV.

My only conclusion is that there is some deep rooted prejudice against this car. Your little stab at the Camaro you say you drove in driver's training school pretty much drives it home. The Camaro has changed and improved over the years like every other car. That is unless you just learned to drive over the past few years and used only the 4th generation of Camaro, at which point I question the amount of experience you have had in testing and writing about automobiles.

To say the Trailblazer is a better car than the Camaro ever was is just plain stupid. Again, you ask why?

The Trailblazer is heavier and taller. Sure great strides have been made in handling in trucks over the years, but the laws of physics and weight still apply. The truck drinks gas by the gallons. The top powered Camaro had a highway rating of 28 mpg with the 6 speed manual transmission. Somethin unavailable in the Trailblazer. It will be intresting throwing the Trailblazer around the track with the ferocity that one can safely throw the Camaro around. Braking? I'd feel much safer in the Camaro with it's antilock brakes than I would in a 2 plus ton truck. Assembly quality? I havent heard of nearly the complaints regarding Camaro's assembly and other problems as I've heard from the Trailblazer. Yet, I wouldn't call the Trailblazer a piece of junk. I'd itemize the things I dislike about it. If I compared it to a sports car weighing 600 plus pounds less, I would deservedly have my sanity (let alone automotive journalist credibility) called into question.

Then we get into the question of value. There wasn't another car on the planet that bosted over 300 horsepower and a full range of standard features at a base price of just $23,000. Not one.

At the Camaro unveiling, there were over 200 people who flew to Detroit on their own dime and paid their own way when there to view the new car's introduction. The group was a wide cross section of people who had other cars from Z06 Corvettes, Mustangs, BMWs, and other foreign brands and makes.

Not sure what a performance car is to you. I'm guessing that you are one of those people who throw all sports cars into one pile, and simply has no ability to tell the relative value or difference in market between a $80,000 Porsche, a dimunitive 2 passenger Miata, or a 5 passenger $40,000 BMW M3 sedan.

Was Camaro a bit too big? Sure. Did GM sit on the car too long without keeping the car modern? Towards the end, you'll get no arguement from me. Would the car make it today's upgraded quality interiors? Probally not. Was it a piece of junk? Hell No!

For the record, I'm not some Southern yahoo stereotype. I live both in Monterey and San Francisco California. California was one of Camaro's biggest markets, which probally throws a few more stereotypes out the window. With the way GM likes to study everything to death (right down to the texture of radio *****, for chrissake!), GM would certainly not be intrested in bringing back Camaro if the previous ones were a "piece of junk" as you put it. There would be no one who'd want it. No one is asking for the Cavalier, Nissan 240, or Ford Escort back. No one is even asking for the return of the Honda Prelude or Toyota Celica, cars far from being complete junk.

There are different markets, and different needs. Camaro (even when killed) was the 2nd best selling sports coupe sold in the United States. If you want to know why, then, it was killed, I'll gladly e-mail you the article I wrote no that subject.

Camaro has a broad fan base. It was an exceptional performance car value. Nothing with 4 seats could keep up with it in either a straight line or in the curves unless you were paying $20,000 more. It was dent and rust resistant, the post 93 versions are holding up exceptionally well as far as typical American cars of the time.

Not bad for a so-called "piece of junk" high performance car whose base level 300 plus horsepower V8 powered Z28 (with the only rear wheel drive 6 speed manual outside the Vette and Viper) sold for less than the price of a Honda Accord.

Respectfully
Guion O. McCoy
Performance Car Writer & Enthusiast