2010 Camaro Revealed

[GoCougs]

No, you're right.  But with all the hype around the Camaro and the big power it will be putting down, and that it's the only true competitor for the Mustang, Ford will have to bump power in a big way.  BTW the GT500 only has 110 more horsepower then the Cobra did.

The Mustang was way down on power the last 10 years the two faced off against each other ('93 - '02), yet the Mustang easily won the sales contest. I think a modest bump (240 hp V6 and 330 hp V8) would suffice.

[SJ_GTI]

Saw this posted on another site:

Detailed Camaro Specs

Highlights

Camaro SS w/ 6MT and LS3 (ie: no AFM)
6.2L V8
422 HP
23 MPG (hwy)
L/W/H: 190.4/75.5/54.2
Weight: 3860 (52/48)

Camara LT w/ 6MT and V6
3.6L V6
300 HP
26 MPG (hwy)
L/W/H: 190.4/75.5/54.2
Weight: 3741 (52/48)

I think I am digging the idea of a Camaro LTV6 w/ manual transmission. I love the way it looks, personally. The exterior and interior both look great to me.

[SJ_GTI]

BTW it does seem heavy, but at the end of the day this car looks more like a bargain 6-series rather then a bargain 3-series.

650i 6MT Specs:
4.8L V8
360 HP
22 MPG (hwy)
L/W/H: 190.2/73.0/54.1
Weight: 3814 (53/47)

Very, very close. I'd imagine most folks here were hoping for a 3-series sized Camaro, but it is what it is.

[FlatBlackCaddy]

23MPG isn't bad but we all know this things will pull down 30-35 real world.

[SJ_GTI]

23MPG isn't bad but we all know this things will pull down 30-35 real world.

I agree. At this point the "official" EPA figures seem to be for people who drive like morons. I don't hypermile (people that drive with me often comment on how I drive aggressively), but I routinely get 26-28 MPG in my GTI with about 90% city driving (ie: it takes me 40 minutes to drive 10 miles). On the highway I can easily get 33-34 MPG (by sticking to 65 MPH instead of going 80 MPH). I think the EPA lists the GTI at something like 22/29. My previous car I routinely averaged 25 MPG, and that should have gotten, according to EPA, something like 21/28.

So given my history I generally look at the highway figures and assume I can probably come close to that figure as my "average."

[Vinsanity]

Using the high-spec V6 might prove to be a good idea, assuming it's priced under the Mustang GT and Challenger R/T, but I really hope they tune the exhaust to sound alot more aggressive. As it stands, the 3.6 V6 sounds very unimpressive; imagine a continuous, ongoing "meh" sound coming from under the hood.

If I were in the market, I'd forego all the hype and get a 6.0L Pontiac G8.

[hotrodalex]

Using the high-spec V6 might prove to be a good idea, assuming it's priced under the Mustang GT and Challenger R/T, but I really hope they tune the exhaust to sound alot more aggressive. As it stands, the 3.6 V6 sounds very unimpressive; imagine a continuous, ongoing "meh" sound coming from under the hood.

If I were in the market, I'd forego all the hype and get a 6.0L Pontiac G8.

BMW can tune their 6 cyl engines to have a nice exhaust growl, I don't see why GM couldn't.

[GoCougs]

23MPG isn't bad but we all know this things will pull down 30-35 real world.

I'd expect about GTO/G8 - best mid 20s MT and low 20s AT.

3800 lbs and 400+ hp is going to suck gas. Still not bad.

[FlatBlackCaddy]

BMW can tune their 6 cyl engines to have a nice exhaust growl, I don't see why GM couldn't.

BMW can do alot of things that chevy can't seem to do.

[SVT32V]

The Mustang was way down on power the last 10 years the two faced off against each other ('93 - '02), yet the Mustang easily won the sales contest.

While the Mustang owned '82 through '92.

Of course the '03-'04 cobra kicked the camaro in the ass on its way out, the terminator cobras are/were undisputedly significantly faster than the last F-bodies. 

For the record, the cobra also jumped on paper by 70 hp from the previous model, while unofficially based on dyno numbers it was 100 hp.  The terminator cobras were definitely underated.  The Mach1 was at least even with an LS1.

As a sidenote, '96/'97 cobras were defintely faster out of the box than the LT1 F-bods, it took the addition of the LS1 in '98 before it was back on top.

The GT500 still owns the Challenger/Camaro as it stands and has quite bit more hp than either.

It is a little disingenous to say Ford has not been playing hard ball in this segment (only a bit of time in the 90s they were not hp competitive), especially in this environment when the Mustang is one of their better selling vehicles.  In perspective it sells more than the Nissan FM platform combined. This is not a market they want to give up or give competitors an advantage, even with their discount price advantage.

The camaro/challenger is good competition, and good for the Mustang, otherwise Ford would have no impetus to retire the 300 hp 3V 4.6 and release a higher hp engine.

[MX793]

BMW can tune their 6 cyl engines to have a nice exhaust growl, I don't see why GM couldn't.

Inline 6 vs V6.  Different sound by nature of layout.  That's not to say you can't make a V6 sound good, though it seems all of the best sounding examples I've ever heard are usually smaller displacement units like the 2.5L from the SVT Contour or the 2.4L Dino engine that Ferrari and Lancia used to use. 

And IIRC, GM's DOHC V6 has some sort of NVH issue that is inherent to its design.

[GoCougs]

While the Mustang owned '82 through '92.

It was a better handling car, had its biggest engine available with a MT, and was all-around a more reliable, better built car, but for most years the 5.7L IROCs and Z-28s were more powerful and quicker at the strip.

Of course the '03-'04 cobra kicked the camaro in the ass on its way out, the terminator cobras are/were undisputedly significantly faster than the last F-bodies. 

For the record, the cobra also jumped on paper by 70 hp from the previous model, while unofficially based on dyno numbers it was 100 hp.  The terminator cobras were definitely underated. 

True, but the F-body ended production in '02, so the comparison is kinda meh.

The Mach1 was at least even with an LS1.

In terms of power and acceleration, it wasn't. The LS1 F-bodies were off-the-floor solid 13 second performers (especially so the SS/SLP models), whilst the Mach1s struggled to dip into the 13s.

As a sidenote, '96/'97 cobras were defintely faster out of the box than the LT1 F-bods, it took the addition of the LS1 in '98 before it was back on top.

That's not my recollection - the 4.6L N/A Cobras were low 14 second performers (especially for those unfortunate SOBs that ended up with the underpowered SNAFU Cobras), the last LT1s (especially the 320 hp SS) were mid/upper 13 second performers.

The GT500 still owns the Challenger/Camaro as it stands and has quite bit more hp than either.

More HP, but it disappointed with its low 13 second performance. The Challenger SRT8 has shown to also be a low 13 second performer even with its weazy, high-geared AT. The Camaro with the 6.2L will be an upper 12 second performer. Until the comparisons are in IMO at best the GT500 runs mid pack.

It is a little disingenous to say Ford has not been playing hard ball in this segment (only a bit of time in the 90s they were not hp competitive), especially in this environment when the Mustang is one of their better selling vehicles.  In perspective it sells more than the Nissan FM platform combined. This is not a market they want to give up or give competitors an advantage, even with their discount price advantage.

In terms of selling Mustangs, Ford has indeed been playing hardball. In terms of performance and specifications, not so much: literally a decade ago the F-body was available with more power, 6sp MT, and at least equivalent acceleration to the present-day GT.

The camaro/challenger is good competition, and good for the Mustang, otherwise Ford would have no impetus to retire the 300 hp 3V 4.6 and release a higher hp engine.

True, but Ford's history of lackluster engine development tells us that the Mustang will be playing third fiddle. It's not that big of a deal, as my hunch is that both the Camaro and Challenger will be lower volume/upmarket relative to the Mustang.

It sounds like I'm being harsh on the Mustang, but I'm really not trying to be; it's just how I see it. To add some gas on the fire, with very few exceptions virtually every year the two were produced simultaneously ('67 - '02) the Camaro has been the more powerful, faster accelerating car.

[Raza]

Completely disagree. I think it looks great. I'd love one in Bumblebee pearl yellow.



Do Want!

The car should have stayed in that shit movie. 

I just don't like it in any color.  Even black.  And if the car doesn't look good in black, in what will it look good?

That said, the 3 series coupe has finally started to look good to me.  It was the gray M3 on Top Gear.  I saw that from the side and thought "hey, that doesn't look that bad".  Sure, the details on the M3 make it ugly, but the 335i coupe (in white, for some reason, especially) looks pretty good to me. 

So maybe in 3 years, when the Camaro finally comes out, I'll think it doesn't look that bad.  For now, I kind of want an Aztek.

[Raza]

Inline 6 vs V6.  Different sound by nature of layout.  That's not to say you can't make a V6 sound good, though it seems all of the best sounding examples I've ever heard are usually smaller displacement units like the 2.5L from the SVT Contour or the 2.4L Dino engine that Ferrari and Lancia used to use. 

And IIRC, GM's DOHC V6 has some sort of NVH issue that is inherent to its design.

There are plenty of nice sounding V6s.  The 3.2L in my old E sounded great, as does the VQ in the 350Z, as well as others, I'm sure. 

[CJ]

I know the Honda 3.0 V6 sounds good. 

[Vinsanity]

I know the Honda 3.0 V6 sounds good. 

another "meh". In the TL, it sounds like someone in the next room is playing a racing game.

[CALL_911]

The NSX sounds epic.

[Cookie Monster]

Wow, that is so ugly.

[Tave]

Why did GM market the car in Transformers if it wasn't going to release the model until three decades later?

Worst product placement EVA

[SVT666]

It was a better handling car, had its biggest engine available with a MT, and was all-around a more reliable, better built car, but for most years the 5.7L IROCs and Z-28s were more powerful and quicker at the strip.

Wrong.  They were a dead heat and the IROC cost twice as much and only came with an auto.

In terms of power and acceleration, it wasn't. The LS1 F-bodies were off-the-floor solid 13 second performers (especially so the SS/SLP models), whilst the Mach1s struggled to dip into the 13s.

Mach 1s were high 13 second cars and SLP doesn't count since they are the equivalent of Saleen.

More HP, but it disappointed with its low 13 second performance. The Challenger SRT8 has shown to also be a low 13 second performer even with its weazy, high-geared AT. The Camaro with the 6.2L will be an upper 12 second performer. Until the comparisons are in IMO at best the GT500 runs mid pack.

Those initial low 13 second passes have never been duplicated since.  Every test since has got the car in the 12s, including an MM&FF test where they ran it balls out to a low 12 second pass.

[CMan]

...

I hate the Camaro's interior. It looks like it was designed by Rubbermaid in the 1970's.

The more I look at this car, the LESS I like it. And it's almost always the opposite with me.

Revised ranking after sleeping on it;

Challenger>Mustang>Camaro

[2o6]

I am loving this car, and usually I don't pay too much attention to large, power coupes.

[GoCougs]

Wrong.  They were a dead heat and the IROC cost twice as much and only came with an auto.

The dead heat was between the 5.0L 5sp IROC and Mustang GT; the 5.7L AT IROC was always a bit faster (albeit slim); and although the IROC generally did cost more, it never cost twice as much - at least in the US.

Mach 1s were high 13 second cars and SLP doesn't count since they are the equivalent of Saleen.

But that it was I said. Mach1s at best upper 13s, and standard LS1s mid 13s. SLP SSs were only icing in the equation.

Those initial low 13 second passes have never been duplicated since.  Every test since has got the car in the 12s, including an MM&FF test where they ran it balls out to a low 12 second pass.

FWIW the best I ever saw was 13.0 s; but even so comparing the GT500 lacks a bit of validity anywho - the SS is a competitor to the GT, not the GT500. If and until a suitable GT500 contender is on the way (ZL-1, Z-28?), suitable comparisons IMO will have to wait till then.

[280Z Turbo]

...

I hate the Camaro's interior. It looks like it was designed by Rubbermaid in the 1970's.

The more I look at this car, the LESS I like it. And it's almost always the opposite with me.

Revised ranking after sleeping on it;

Challenger>Mustang>Camaro

I'd have to reverse that.

I saw a Challenger in person last night and it was very oddly proportioned. The trunklid was up past my belly button, and I'm not short.

[nickdrinkwater]

I thought they already revealed this thing about a year ago?

Anyway, when is it actually on sale?

[ChrisV]

This is the one problem with the Internet. It's almost always taken this long to get cars to market. But before the advent of internet scoop sites and forums, the general public really didn't get to know about the upcoming cars until they arrived. Now, in the age of instant information and instant gratification, car enthusiasts know about this stuff almost before the designers create them, and get way too impatient waiting for them to go through the normal development process.

[ChrisV]

And I saw a challenger on teh road the other day and it looked spectacular, too. And the sound was spot on (I heard it before I saw it).

man, I want a Mustang, Challenger, and Camaro in a collection (as well as the SCCA Trans Am versions of each from '69-70)

[Raza]

This is the one problem with the Internet. It's almost always taken this long to get cars to market. But before the advent of internet scoop sites and forums, the general public really didn't get to know about the upcoming cars until they arrived. Now, in the age of instant information and instant gratification, car enthusiasts know about this stuff almost before the designers create them, and get way too impatient waiting for them to go through the normal development process.

They also revealed the concept just after the end of the second World War.  The internet isn't incredibly new.  They should have waited for the concept and promises until it was further along in the production stage if they didn't want it to look old before the first car hit the streets.  But, they needed to put it in that two hour long GM commercial.

[ChrisV]

They also revealed the concept just after the end of the second World War.

Hyperbole like this makes you're argument weaker. 

The internet isn't incredibly new. 

not to a kid like you, no. but to an actual adult, yes, it is. In the grand sceme of the automobile, it's a very recent blip on the radar.

They should have waited for the concept and promises until it was further along in the production stage if they didn't want it to look old before the first car hit the streets.

And again, with the rise of scoop sites, that's not possible for anyone.

But, they needed to put it in that two hour long GM commercial.

Why not? it was a great opportunity. And I OWN that movie. I like it. It wasn't supposed to be "War and Peace." It wasn't supposed to be anything other than escapist entertainment. And it was based on a children's advertisement for cheesy toys. But you think it was supposed to be deep and spiritual? Give me a fucking break.

[Tave]

WHATEVER his opinion about the movie, GM shouldn't have jumped the gun by product placing a product THAT DIDN'T EXIST. Hell, nick thought it was already on the streets.