2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS: Is OnStar a Suitable Cell Phone Alternative?

If I remember correctly and if OnStar hasn't changed their pricing tier, I think it was like $15 for 30minutes that expire after 1 year. $15/yr isn't that bad. Plus OnStar is on Verizon's network, so if you are a cheapskate Sprint/T-Mobile user there will likely be places where OnStar calling will work where your Bluetooth calling won't. Also, Verizon has a shared minutes option where you can link your cellphone account with your carphone account (not sure what savings that will net you, though).

Glad I'm not the only one getting random phone calls (usually from a spoofed number) asking for someone who is not me. Not to my car though!

Fortunately, they apparently have stopped calling me. Unfortunately, I had to tell them four times.

BTW, I'm not sure if that top photo is staged or not, but the 1-800 caller ID number is a pretty good sign that the call wasn't worth answering.

OnStar phones can be activated as an add-a-phone on any Verizon shared line (family) plan.

OnStar is a good alternative for those pre-2008 GM models that do not also have Bluetooth (such as my 2007 Aura). I'm not a Verizon customer, so I have to buy "packages" of minutes, which are expensive -- yet I only make a few short calls a week, so I've never come close to running out of minutes.

If the car had built-in Bluetooth, I would absolutely use that. No additional expense, and my Sprint service has been more reliable than OnStar's Verizon service in my area.

Actually, I believe it's $150/yr for 30 minutes. Not $15.

"from the exterior looks of the Camaro, I expect more in terms of the interface"

Exterior design ≠ interior design.

According to OnStar's website, when I log into my account there:
100 minutes, good for 12 months - 39.99
200 minutes, good for 12 months - 69.99
300 minutes, good for 12 months - 114.99
500 minutes, good for 12 months - 174.99
1000 minutes, good for 12 months - 299.99

Here's OnStar's current Hands Free Calling pricing:
100 minutes - good for 12 months - $39.99
200 minutes - good for 12 months - $69.99
300 minutes - good for 12 months - $114.99
500 minutes - good for 12 months - $174.99
1000 minutes - good for 12 months - $299.99

Expensive, but not as much as some are saying.

I use it because my car lacks bluetooth. The sound quality is really good - its great for calling grandma when the whole family is in the car. The voice recognition and dialing and saving of numbers is really good although I always have to ask for help to remember the commands (other than dial). Its quite nice to call and report an accident - I've used that several times (and that is free). And I suppose if I ever have a bad accident it will be great that it calls and reports it by itself.

However... bluetooth is better because its on my same plan, callers dialing my cell will get me automatically in the car (rather than having another number - I never can be bothered to forward my cell to the car), and bluetooth will upload my phone directory.

god that center stack is UGLY.

Does anybody know if the black leather looking material, surrounding the display and the control stack, soft or hard?

My dad regularly uses his Onstar phone in his '01 Impala (had to get the GM analog to digital conversion installed). Like somebody else said, it's handy if you don't have bluetooth already.

Ha! The trunk bit was funny, Ed! Now the whole world knows you're rockin' a BlackBerry Pearl 8100. :o)

So wait...does the car have its own phone number?

The interior is garbage, even by GM standards.

Yes, the car has its own phone number. Kinda gives new meaning to a "car phone", doesn't it?

I'd use it during the free trial, but after that I would only use Bluetooth. I can't see myself ever actually paying for additional minutes when I'm already paying for my cell phone. There are likely some out of service situations where I would regret not having OnStar, but those prices are more then enough to scare my away. I pay enough for my cell service as is. Plus, I like how my Bluetooth automatically downloads all my cell contacts so I can dial by name.

"Does anybody know if the black leather looking material, surrounding the display and the control stack, soft or hard?"

Hard. The dash and other plastics that you wouldnt touch are hard. The armrests are soft touch from what I remember. The quality of the components that your hands or elbows touch is quite good.

The Onstar phone is for occasional/emergency use. Its not supposed to be a replacement for a cell phone.

After all the progress GM has made....this interior is a train wreck. Dunno about build quality or materials, but the design is a joke, just like the last gen camaro/firebird garbage.

I didn't notice it until I saw these close ups, but that center stack is kinda chintzy looking. And the HVAC controls look very busy. But the multi-line LCD screen looks nice and large, displaying time, temp, and signal strength.

ZOMG HARD PLASTICS WTF U MEAN U CANT FONDLES THE DASHBOARD!?!11

I swear to god some of you people are castrated.

No. It isn't a suitable alternative. Not at all.

It's like any permanently-mounted car phone: you can't take it with you into the building, store, home or office.

On-Star hands free calling is nothing more than a 70's "Rockford Files" idea that's been modernized and refined. But at the end of the day it's just a "car phone". I need a portable device.

Sure, you can link your cell phone account to your On-Star car, but only if you use Verizon. Now if the provider choice was up to me, we might be able to talk. But this On-star account linkage still represents an extra cost that Bluetooth makes unecessary.

In general, I resist getting involved with proprietary technology that locks me into one option and excludes competitive choices. It's why I don't have an iPhone -- I don't want to get stuck with no choice but to sign up with AT&T.

Everyone wants to rag on people for ripping on the sh*tty interior quality like it's acceptable. It's not. The Camaro SS is still a good value, but if GM is trying to get new people into their vehicles, then rock hard interiors aren't going to cut it. Yeah, Johnny Mid Life Crisis who had a '99 Z-28 wont care, but someone who is cross shopping a 370Z with its tractor engine and all will care. I rented a Camaro for a week down in Florida and it had all of 500 miles on the ODO. The plastic on the center armrest was just about the only thing that wasn't hard, but the color of the plastic didn't even match the rest of the car. Also, when you grabbed the door to close it there was a creaky noise like the damn thing is held together by two sided tape. My F- Body Trans-Am had a nicer interior plus it had bitchin' T-Tops. My point is, if they can put a really good interior in the Malibu, then why not in the newer Camaro?

@audisport
"Everyone wants to rag on people for ripping on the sh*tty interior quality like it's acceptable. It's not. The Camaro SS is still a good value, but if GM is trying to get new people into their vehicles, then rock hard interiors aren't going to cut it. Yeah, Johnny Mid Life Crisis who had a '99 Z-28 wont care, but someone who is cross shopping a 370Z with its tractor engine and all will care. I rented a Camaro for a week down in Florida and it had all of 500 miles on the ODO. The plastic on the center armrest was just about the only thing that wasn't hard, but the color of the plastic didn't even match the rest of the car. Also, when you grabbed the door to close it there was a creaky noise like the damn thing is held together by two sided tape. My F- Body Trans-Am had a nicer interior plus it had bitchin' T-Tops. My point is, if they can put a really good interior in the Malibu, then why not in the newer Camaro?"

I agree, everyone rags on the Challenger for being boring, but at least it is high quality and you can get a Nav if you want. GM needs a re design of this interior asap if they want to keep sales up.

"After all the progress GM has made....this interior is a train wreck. Dunno about build quality or materials, but the design is a joke, just like the last gen camaro/firebird garbage. "

the marketplace disagrees. HAve you seen a stockpile of these at your local dealers? Didn't think so. Have you been inside the car?

"I agree, everyone rags on the Challenger for being boring, but at least it is high quality and you can get a Nav if you want. GM needs a re design of this interior asap if they want to keep sales up."

Camaro is crushing challenger in sales. The interior is well made and everything feels sturdy. The center stack design isn't even bad. reviewers have said its well laid out and the switchgear is high quality. Why would they rush a redesign?

"Everyone wants to rag on people for ripping on the sh*tty interior quality like it's acceptable. It's not. The Camaro SS is still a good value, but if GM is trying to get new people into their vehicles, then rock hard interiors aren't going to cut it."

When will you people understand that regular people dont care about this? HAve you been in a 135i before? Hard plastics. Move on.

quick question to those who are spoonfed their opinions by IL and C&D: How many non car enthusiasts do you know that spend time talking about how hard plastics are in their cars? I don't know any. Most people I know thinK toyota makes great cars and yet almost every Toyota product is awash in hard plastics- even a $40k Highlander. Its not an issue for most people and that is why the Camaro is selling well. Besides, the Mustang is the only car in this price class that has soft touch dash.

"My F- Body Trans-Am had a nicer interior plus it had bitchin' T-Tops. My point is, if they can put a really good interior in the Malibu, then why not in the newer Camaro?""

OK now you have lost all credibility. Interiors on the F bodies were garbage. The Malibu has hard plastics on the entire lower section of the interior. Materials in the Malibu are about the same as Camaro, only the design is radically different. Nothing in the Camaro LOOKS cheap, you dont know the plastics are hard until you touch them. Most reviews have made this clear.

Most people are buying these things because of the way the look on the outside, not the inside. I'm sure most people don't think about actually living with the thing when they purchase it. The interior is complete mess..Ford's design in the 2010 Mustang may be boring, but at least its logically designed and well assembled. The display on this reminds me of a cheap Jensen or DUAL brand.

"the marketplace disagrees. HAve you seen a stockpile of these at your local dealers? Didn't think so. Have you been inside the car?"

Classic 1487 argument. "It's selling, therefore the flaws don't matter." The Camaro is selling based on its looks. Heck, I saw one the other day and I had to pick my jaw up off the ground! The exterior styling makes up for the mediocre interior materials, but it's a shame that it has to.

"How many non car enthusiasts do you know that spend time talking about how hard plastics are in their cars?"

Insideline is for enthusiasts, and the people commenting at insideline on the Camaro are talking about the interior. Sounds like enthusiasts do actually care about interior quality.

I still simply don't understand why interior pieces you don't actually touch must be soft or the interior is crap. It was earlier demonstrated on the used VW in the fleet that the soft touch stuff isn't exactly durable. To me, durability and solidity are more important. Take my Cobalt and my mom's Mazda3 for example - both have interiors filled with rock-hard plastic. By the standards expressed here, you'd have to believe that both were equally crappy. Not true. While the plastics in the Cobalt are poor all around, the Mazda3 plastics, while hard, are very solid, durable, and nicely textured. Hard/soft is meaningless unless you're resting on it, like an armrest or the side of the center stack.

Back to the subject on hand, first, nice comeback with the trunk comment Ed. I laughed.

My primary gripe with on-star is the button placement on the mirror. Not only does it greatly expand the size of the mirror, blocking forward visibility, but they can be inadvertently pressed very easily. My Cobalt doesn't have On-star, but I was at an autocross event in a borrowed Cobalt SS that had it (side note - racing is even more enjoyable when it isn't your car and tires you're flogging) and I accidentally hit the emergency call button while adjusting the huge mirror out of the way (no need for it while autocrossing). I'm a short way into the lap when the emergency call operator came on asking what my emergency was. I had no idea how to hang up (he disconnected for me). Oddly enough, despite that distraction it was one of my fastest laps of the day. Go figure. Anyway, on-star is great for emergencies, but for routine calls I'd still go for bluetooth. Actually, I prefer to focus on driving, so I'd do the responsible thing and stop driving before talking. Find a new place for the buttons and we're good to go.

Also, I rather like the center stack setup. It is intuitive and not cluttered at all. The HVAC buttons are physically separated from one another being set up in the two cross shapes, so your chances of hitting the wrong one when not looking are reduced. Radio controls are near the radio display (sad that this is even worth praising, but far too many manufacturers are screwing this simple idea up), two simple knobs for radio volume and tuning, two simple knobs for fan speed and temperature. It isn't the layout I've seen, but it is far, far away from being a disaster.

"Insideline is for enthusiasts, and the people commenting at insideline on the Camaro are talking about the interior. Sounds like enthusiasts do actually care about interior quality."

Have you been inside the car? Have you actually read any reviews besides the long term blog updates? I've read most reviews and been in the car. Its not poorly built. EVERYTHING that you touch feels substantial. The knobs, stalks, door pulls, armrests, etc. There is hard plastic on the dash but the interior is not a "complete mess" nor is it low quality. So now you are telling me the people who buy Camaros are too stupid and unsophisticated to understand what "enthusiasts" who post here are complaining about? Spare me. Anyone who is buying this car is enthusiastic about performance and styling and value. What exactly constitutes an "enthusiast" to you?

Stov1:

Maybe you can tell Sabastian and the other "Camaro experts" that the interior has actually gotten a lot of praise for being functional, easy to use and well put together.

"Classic 1487 argument. "It's selling, therefore the flaws don't matter." The Camaro is selling based on its looks. Heck, I saw one the other day and I had to pick my jaw up off the ground! The exterior styling makes up for the mediocre interior materials, but it's a shame that it has to."

You are right, it was a "classic 1487 argument"- it makes sense. People buying this kind of car are NOT concerned about hard plastics on the dash. How ridiculous is it to suggest that this is what an "enthusiast" cares about. This is not a Lexus, this is a Chevy. This vehicle has a starting price $8k less than the cheapest Lexus vehicle and you will have to step up to that price class to find an interior without hard plastics.

135i- hard plastics
Mazda 3- hard plastics
Every toyota product except Avalon- hard plastics
Genesis coupe- hard plastics
Chrysler LX cars- hard plastics
2010 Equinox- hard plastics
Nissan products- hard plastics

Get the picture yet?

There are good and bad examples of hard plastic. I think a lot of it has to do with perception - how tight is the fit of various pieces, will it scratch, are there squeaks etc.

I have not sat in a Camaro since last February when I was at the autoshow. At that time, my first impressions were that the interior was on par with the previous generation Mustang. Note that I didn't purchase the previous generation Mustang because I think the interior is so low rent.

Its just my opinion. I've been in cars with bad hard plastic and good hard plastic and there is definitely a difference. Unfortunately, the Camaro falls into the bad category. Now would this stop me from seriously considering it? No, probably not. I love the look, numbers and price. That being said, the Genesis Coupe has a nicer 'hard plastic' interior, imo, but its numbers aren't as impressive.

Some of you people are insane. If it wasn't for those cloistered, necrophiliac virgins making cars in Germany nobody would give anything remotely close to a sh*t about god blessed HARD SURFACES in a car.

MY GOD people, you are turning into your girlfriends/wives, whining about surfaces in the interior. If it's all bolted together tight, do you really need to fondle it? Does dash stitching get you wet?

Every GM-related thread turns into this same debate, and it's pathetic.

To add to my above comment, I have no problem with GM interiors. I don't mind the one in the Cobalt and I think the Malibu is quite nice.

dougtheeng - absolutely agree on the good hard plastic and bad hard plastic thing. As I said earlier, the last gen Mazda3 was a great example of good hard plastics (can't recall anything about the interior materials on the 2010 model) and the Cobalt is an example of bad hard plastics. I disagree that the Camaro falls into the second category. I didn't care for the texture so much, but the full production model I've sampled had interior plastics that seemed to be very solid, durable, and well-fitted. Perhaps the example you sat in at the autoshow was a pre-production or early production model. The pre-pro cars had simply awful place-holder plastic (remember the Edmunds editor rubbed the finishing off of the model he wasn' supposed to touch? There was a good reason it was roped off - the interior was not at all production intent) and there were some very early build cars that had poor interiors as well until some things were straightened out. I had the same problem with the Malibu - I sat in a pre-pro model, and the interior materials were simply atrocious. It almost turned me off from the car, but after sitting in an actual production model I realized the first one wasn't representative of the real thing.

Wow....I can't believe somebody said the previous generation f-body had a better interior. Wow...just wow!!!

I had a Trans Am WS6 Convertible and my dad still has a 99 Camaro Z28. While they were functional, they were absolutely horrendous in appearance.

The new Camaro is being demonized because they chose to make the interior different than every other cookie-cutter. The materials in the car are perfectly acceptable as are the ergonomics and features. However, the design is daring. They went retro while still being functional. Have any of you people sat in a Honda Civic? Now that is a design disaster......

For some reason...when GM goes daring they get critiqued. I like it...especially in the Orange interior they offer.

Another thing....in-dash navi units are way overpriced and essentially useless. Every smartphone out there has built-in navi applications that can be linked with a car's bluetooth....thus replacing the in-dash navi. Plus, those phone apps do not have expensive DVDs that need updating every few years. Another plus...you can pre-program your destination before you get in the car.

I predict one day every car will have no-cost standard navi-units due to market forces.

"That being said, the Genesis Coupe has a nicer 'hard plastic' interior, imo, but its numbers aren't as impressive."

What was impressive about the Genesis' hard plastic? Please explain that one to me. The Genesis interior was standard issue low end Hyundai. The gauges were pretty nice but aside from that the interior looked like that of a car that costs under $25k. The camaro has a unique interior while the Genesis has a forgettable interior that could have been in any car.

"The new Camaro is being demonized because they chose to make the interior different than every other cookie-cutter. The materials in the car are perfectly acceptable as are the ergonomics and features. "

Proof that there are signs of intelligence here. If you think the interior of the Camry or Corolla represents a benchmark in terms of design the Camaro isn't going to appeal to you. It actually has a real design, one that takes some risks.

"MY GOD people, you are turning into your girlfriends/wives, whining about surfaces in the interior. If it's all bolted together tight, do you really need to fondle it? Does dash stitching get you wet? "

How could anything be more critical than dash plastics? Isn't that the #1 thing checked on the average test drive?

Why are people still arguing about the Camaro's Interior? Ed's post is about On Star, yet people keep changing the subject about how crappy the interior is. Let's move on guys.

For emergencies I can see how On Star is useful, but how reliable and available is their coverage? If On Star service can be reached where my cell phone isn't getting a signal then I'd keep it. I'd hate to be in an accident on a mountain pass, 250 miles from the closest town and not be able to get help (last year my coworker hit a deer while on her way to a ski resort).

As I understand it, On Star is done by satellite, so I suppose it would get coverage in areas that do not have cell-phone service. For that reason alone I'd keep the service, just in case of an emergency on a mountain road outside of cell phone coverage. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

"I didn't care for the texture so much, but the full production model I've sampled had interior plastics that seemed to be very solid, durable, and well-fitted. Perhaps the example you sat in at the autoshow was a pre-production or early production model."

Thats entirely possible, stovt001. I assumed it was production since there were several models and we were allowed to sit inside it.

When I mentioned that my F-Body had a better interior then the '10 Camaro, I assumed everyone would get the sarcasm. My bad people. Obviously, F-Bodies were rattle traps.

I thought this was a post about onstar calling features? The comments have gone a little askew. I have had several vehicles with this service and b/c the service is tied into the car it's really useful if you have no service on your cell phone. I had a 2003 suburban that I could make calls on in the middle of west texas which is practically a miracle. I think several people have said it but it's a nice feature to have for emergencies or if your actual cell phone is out of service.

"Have you been inside the car?"

Yes I have, and I was pretty disappointed in the quality of the materials. I had a Malibu rental a few weeks prior and was rather impressed with a majority of the materials. Sure, it had hard plastics, but at least there wasn't a giant slab of the stuff hanging directly in front of the passenger. I get why they did it. You can't offer a 300hp engine in a $24k car and not expect some area of compromise, but GM is fighting a perception gap and hanging low rent materials in the driver's face will not help them convince customers that "new" GM is different from "old" GM.

"Have you actually read any reviews besides the long term blog updates?"

Yes I have. I've actually read almost every review posted on the Camaro5.com review compilation (Cheers to those guys, by the way, for putting that together. Very helpful.)

"This vehicle has a starting price $8k less than the cheapest Lexus vehicle and you will have to step up to that price class to find an interior without hard plastics."

Straw man argument. (Again, classic 1487) I never said it had to live up to Lexus standards. That would be, as you said, ridiculous.

"The camaro has a unique interior while the Genesis has a forgettable interior that could have been in any car."

If by unique, you mean the ugliest interior of all time, then you are right.

"I get why they did it. You can't offer a 300hp engine in a $24k car and not expect some area of compromise, but GM is fighting a perception gap and hanging low rent materials in the driver's face will not help them convince customers that "new" GM is different from "old" GM. "

I will REPEAT again (maybe it will sink in this time) that other cars in this price range have similar materials. Some that cost even more (looking at you 135i) have hard plastics. You have YET to address this. You keep talking about how GM should do better in order to improve perception but you don't mention other cars in this price range have hard plastics as well. Nothing in the car LOOKS cheap. You will find hard plastics on everyting from the Genesis to the EVO. It comes with vehicles in this price range.

"Straw man argument. (Again, classic 1487) I never said it had to live up to Lexus standards. That would be, as you said, ridiculous. "

I said "lexus standards" because that it what you seem to be looking for. You obviously aren't holding the car to $24k standards because if you were you would admit other cars in this price range have hard plastics. what is ridiculous is pretending there are a plethora of similarly priced sporty cars with Lexus like interiors. You keep posting about how this is a let down from GM but you have yet to offer examples of $25k sports coupes that have soft touch interiors. I look forward to seeing that list.

That would be wicked funny if that voice in the console proceeded to warn you that your car warranty coverage is now expired and to sign up right away with their new service to avoid any lapse in coverage! ;)