C&D: Camaro LT vs. Genesis Coupe 3.8

[GoCougs]

1: Camaro

Highs: Supurb ride-and-handling trade-off, styling that guarantees smiles.
Lows: Ugly dash graining, impossible to heel-and-toe, needs to lose weight.
Verdict: The first V-6 pony car we'd marry in a minute.
Performance: 0-60 in 5.9 sec, 1/4 mile in 14.5 sec @ 99 mph, 157 mph top speed.

2: Genesis

Highs: Tenacious grip, race-car brakes, fast-revving V6.
Lows: Can't be shifted smoothly, bucking-bronco ride.
Verdict: A playful pony car that needs one more generation of refinement.
Performance: 0-60 in 5.5 sec, 1/4 mile in 14.2 sec @ 100 mph, 152 mph top speed.

************************************************************************************************

Camaro won by a point (203 vs 202), but pulled it out with a four point lead in the goofy subjective categories - the Genesis won the vehicle and chassis categories by three points total, and tied for power train.

C&D really liked the Camaro (obviously - it won). They had a few gripes about the interior, but they were minor (spokes too thick(?), dash texture, short roof). It was also noted that there are 14,000 pre-orders for the Camaro. Naysayers will have to wait for another day - the new Camaro is a major player, mega retro interior and all (and look at that top speed - handily outdoes the Mustang GT).

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

  At least GM wasn't scared to put the Camaro (the V6 that makes almost as much power as the OTHER companys V8) up againt the lil Korea! 

[GoCougs]

At least GM wasn't scared to put the Camaro (the V6 that makes almost as much power as the OTHER companys V8) up againt the lil Korea! 

In the same issue, they have a blurb about both the Camaro SS and new Mustang GT500. The Camaro SS did 0-60 in 4.8 sec, 1/4 mile at 13.0 sec @ 111 mph, a 0.92g skid pad and 70-0 braking of 161 ft.

The GT500, with multiple drivers, including a Ford SVT driver when C&D griped about doing no better, could muster only 0-60 in 4.6 sec and 1/4 mile at 12.9 sec @ 113 mph. Further it had 0.89g skid pad and 70-0 braking of 182 ft.

(D'oh!)

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

In the same issue, they have a blurb about both the Camaro SS and new Mustang GT500. The Camaro SS did 0-60 in 4.8 sec, 1/4 mile at 13.0 sec @ 111 mph, a 0.92g skid pad and 70-0 braking of 161 ft.

The GT500, with multiple drivers, including a Ford SVT driver when C&D griped about doing no better, could muster only 0-60 in 4.6 sec and 1/4 mile at 12.9 sec @ 113 mph. Further it had 0.89g skid pad and 70-0 braking of 182 ft.

(D'oh!)

But the 'Stang fanbois say the GT500 is the king so in turn Muatangs are top dog! 

[565]

Interesting Motor trend did the same comparo, opposite results.  I guess it is that close.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0907_2010_chevrolet_camaro_v6_vs_2010_hyundai_genesis_coupe_3_8_track/index.html

[GoCougs]

But the 'Stang fanbois say the GT500 is the king so in turn Muatangs are top dog! 

They're going to have to work on that. C&D said nothing about traction or any other issues. That's just the best they could ring out.

[MX793]

Interesting Motor trend did the same comparo, opposite results.  I guess it is that close.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0907_2010_chevrolet_camaro_v6_vs_2010_hyundai_genesis_coupe_3_8_track/index.html

As Coug's noted, the Camaro only won by 1 point in C&D's comparo, and that was earned in their BS "Gotta Have It" category.  Largely, I suspect, because the Camaro drew bigger crowds in public.  In all of the categories actually pertinant to the vehicle (powertrain, chassis, fun to drive), the Genesis came out the victor and minus the "Gotta Have It" category, the Genesis won by 3 points.

[ifcar]

I find it interesting it would win fun-to-drive if they couldn't make it shift smoothly. Something like that could make a car downright unpleasant to drive regardless of its positive characteristics.

[MX793]

I find it interesting it would win fun-to-drive if they couldn't make it shift smoothly. Something like that could make a car downright unpleasant to drive regardless of its positive characteristics.

Livelier handling than the Camaro may have made up for the drivetrain lash to some degree.

[ifcar]

Livelier handling than the Camaro may have made up for the drivetrain lash to some degree.

Fun to drive just doesn't work that way for me. Either a car is enjoyable or it isn't. If it doesn't shift smoothly, it's not enjoyable.

As I understand it, the point of the C/D "fun-to-drive" category is to break away from the point system of the rest of the ranking to make that sort of judgment. Though it's possible that they either do see driving enjoyment as adding up the various factors, I think it's more likely they're just not used to numerically rating cars that way.

[Rich]

What cars have you found fun to drive, iffy?  If you could rank them that'd be cool too

[MX793]

Fun to drive just doesn't work that way for me. Either a car is enjoyable or it isn't. If it doesn't shift smoothly, it's not enjoyable.

As I understand it, the point of the C/D "fun-to-drive" category is to break away from the point system of the rest of the ranking to make that sort of judgment. Though it's possible that they either do see driving enjoyment as adding up the various factors, I think it's more likely they're just not used to numerically rating cars that way.

The shifting issue may have only been when driving it at the limit.  The rough shifting is caused by soft motor mounts which result in a lot of drivetrain lash when shifting at WOT.  It's not necessarily something you'd experience in normal driving.  Might not even be too bad in moderately spirited driving.

Also, according to MT, the Camaro's steering is pretty numb.  Not just on center, but everywhere.  Plus, the pedal placement is such that you can't really heel-and-toe unless you have jumbo feet.

[SVT666]

I find it interesting it would win fun-to-drive if they couldn't make it shift smoothly. Something like that could make a car downright unpleasant to drive regardless of its positive characteristics.

The ride is also so rough that the 3.8 Track eliminates itself from most people's shopping lists up here where frost heaves are fairly common.  The salesman that went along on my test drive called to ask what I liked and what I didn't like.  I told him the inability to shift smoothly, but most of all, the ride is way too rough.  He told me those were most people complaints after they drive it.

[SVT666]

The shifting issue may have only been when driving it at the limit.  The rough shifting is caused by soft motor mounts which result in a lot of drivetrain lash when shifting at WOT.  It's not necessarily something you'd experience in normal driving.  Might not even be too bad in moderately spirited driving.

No, the shifts aren't smooth at any time.

[MX793]

No, the shifts aren't smooth at any time.

That's a shame.

[SVT666]

But the 'Stang fanbois say the GT500 is the king so in turn Muatangs are top dog! 

Actually, Motor Trend says it too:  "So until and unless Chevy crashes this party with an LSA-powered Z/28 or Fiat shoves a Ferrari 12 into the Challenger, it looks like Shelby's GT500 has earned its crown as king of the pony/musclecar hill fair-'n'-square."

[SVT666]

They're going to have to work on that. C&D said nothing about traction or any other issues. That's just the best they could ring out.

Motor Trend does.

[Raza]

No, the shifts aren't smooth at any time.

I had trouble with the clutch on the 2.0T; I attributed any harshness to that, but it might have been drivetrain lash.

[SVT666]

I had trouble with the clutch on the 2.0T; I attributed any harshness to that, but it might have been drivetrain lash.

I had the same trouble with the clutch in the 2.0T, but the real problem was with the 6 spd paddle shifters in the 3.8 I drove.  If you left it in automatic mode, the shifts were seamless, but if you did the shifting yourself, they were jerky and harsh.

[MX793]

I had the same trouble with the clutch in the 2.0T, but the real problem was with the 6 spd paddle shifters in the 3.8 I drove.  If you left it in automatic mode, the shifts were seamless, but if you did the shifting yourself, they were jerky and harsh.

The driver has limited control over shift smoothness with paddle shifters.  I'm not sure it's a valid to compare jerky shifts with the automatic to difficulty executing smooth shifts in the manual.

[SVT666]

The driver has limited control over shift smoothness with paddle shifters.  I'm not sure it's a valid to compare jerky shifts with the automatic to difficulty executing smooth shifts in the manual.

If you're just cruising along at a constant speed and you shift up to 6th gear with the paddle shifter and it slams it in gear, then yes it's a fair criticism.

[MX793]

If you're just cruising along at a constant speed and you shift up to 6th gear with the paddle shifter and it slams it in gear, then yes it's a fair criticism.

Harsh shifting is fair criticism, but a harsh shifting automatic isn't necessarily the same criticism as a manual that is difficult to execute smooth shifts with.  There are some cars with clunky automatics but buttery smooth manuals, and some with clunky manuals but smooth autos (Caddy CTS comes to mind).

[S204STi]

But the 'Stang fanbois say the GT500 is the king so in turn Muatangs are top dog! 

No no no, see, there is a Mustang somewhere in the world that has better numbers (nevermind that's is a track car with drag slicks and a heavily breathed-on motor) so therefore the Mustang is top dog.

[TBR]

The ride is also so rough that the 3.8 Track eliminates itself from most people's shopping lists up here where frost heaves are fairly common.  The salesman that went along on my test drive called to ask what I liked and what I didn't like.  I told him the inability to shift smoothly, but most of all, the ride is way too rough.  He told me those were most people complaints after they drive it.

It is the track model, of course it's going to have a stiff suspension. People like you, who expect perfection out of every car that isn't one of their favorites, would be complaining if it wasn't the case.

[Sigma Projects]

MT figure 8 must suck... cuz the camaro did the figure 8 a hair faster than the genesis even though the genesis could handle on the lateral more than the camaro can. They should just stick to slalom numbers.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

No no no, see, there is a Mustang somewhere in the world that has better numbers (nevermind that's is a track car with drag slicks and a heavily breathed-on motor) so therefore the Mustang is top dog.

Of course there is. 

[S204STi]

MT figure 8 must suck... cuz the camaro did the figure 8 a hair faster than the genesis even though the genesis could handle on the lateral more than the camaro can. They should just stick to slalom numbers.

The whole point of the figure eight is that slalom numbers don't give you the full picture of how a car handles, and how that skidpad number translates to actual speed on a course.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

Actually, Motor Trend says it too:  "So until and unless Chevy crashes this party with an LSA-powered Z/28 or Fiat shoves a Ferrari 12 into the Challenger, it looks like Shelby's GT500 has earned its crown as king of the pony/musclecar hill fair-'n'-square."

And on any given day a well driven SS will give your GT500 a run (and also stop almost 20 feet shorter) for the money! For 15k less. 

[CALL_911]

And on any given day a well driven SS will give your GT500 a run (and also stop almost 20 feet shorter) for the money! For 15k less. 

The Camaro is definitely my favorite out of the American pony car trifecta.

[the Teuton]

The Camaro is definitely my favorite out of the American pony car trifecta.

I am at odds with them right now.  The Camaro has zero visibility and the tactile quality of a 1980s Cavalier, the Challenger is really badass, but it's huge, and the Mustang has the wrong rear axle and is overpriced.

I think I'd go for the Mustang out of the three, but a turbo Genesis Coupe is still looking like the best option at the moment...or a used G35.