CarSPIN Forums

Review: 2010 Chevrolet Camaro
by Leftlanenews

A while back, my young son and daughter joined me to see the original Transformers movie in our local multiplex. A Camaro concept nicknamed the ?Bumblebee? was the featured character in the hit of that time. Fast-forward many years to 2009. The kids are through college, have married, and settled down, and are now having families of their own. Low and behold, Chevrolet has, in what seems like the longest automobile launch in history, finally released the production model of the reborn 2010 Camaro.

So it hasn?t been quite that long, but it sure does feel like it.

Was the Camaro, probably the highest-profile new-car launch of 2009, finally worth the wait? Leftlane takes a look.

What is it?
The re-creation of a legend, the Camaro is a totally new-from-the-ground-up premium muscle car that has taken many of the design cues that made it so popular in the past and combined them with the technology from today for a ?best of both worlds? specimen. In the eyes of GM North America?s President, Troy Clarke, it is the re-introduction of the classic American sports car. Ironically, the customers this Camaro is seeking are the ones who were were probably just getting their drivers licenses when the Camaro was finally fazed out in 2002.

It?s still a four-seater - but the two rear seat occupants might have to be kids ? so the Camaro is aimed at young drivers, empty-nesters and that third, currently unused, parking spot in your garage.

Chevrolet believes they are launching the 21st century sports car, a fast, yet efficient and refined one that will attract today?s smarter, well-educated consumers to the brand, and in the process, help to dust up GM overall.

What?s it up against?
In addition to the obvious choice of the Ford Mustang and Dodge Challenger, GM says that the Nissan 370Z, BMW 3-Series, Audi A5, Hyundai Genesis Coupe, Mitsubishi Eclipse, Infiniti G37 coupe and Mazda RX-8 are the Camaro?s targets.

While some competitors are obvious, others appear to be a bit of a stretch to us. We figure most shoppers have made up their minds before they even enter the showroom, but those who are undecided will probably cross-shop Ford and Dodge first.

Any breakthroughs?
The overall plethora of contemporary automotive goodies leaves the sum greater than its parts ? it?s what really makes the Camaro worth a look. With the base price of admission for the V6 model just $22,995, including transportation, you really have a product that should walk itself out the showroom door ? if it drives well. Read on.

How does it look?
The neo-Camaro is like a 1969 model with a chopped top, bulging fenders, big wheels and other contemporary design cues. Based on a modified version of the Australian-built Holden Commodore platform, it reclaims the long hood/short trunk platform that characterized the first couple of generations, but became watered down as the years rolled by.

A pair of single lens headlights nestled in the grille opening flank a large shark-like mouth that has become a Camaro trademark, at least as far as the 1960s era models are concerned. Making a re-appearance are the gills that are on the leading edge of the rear wheel wells, as well as the broad shoulders that when seen in the side view mirrors, reminds us of a Corvette.

If you?re reading this far, you?ve undoubtedly made up your mind. To us, the Camaro is fresher than the revised 2010 Mustang without being quite as retro as the Dodge Challenger. Color us impressed.

And inside?
The interior is where the Camaro seems to have gone soft.

Don?t get us wrong, the seats are great and very supportive. But the dash and gauge binnacles, while having intriguing shapes, don?t have the bling that would be expected in a so-called halo-car. A large expanse of black dashboard greets the front seat passenger when the car is equipped with the black leather-seating package. A nice accent of aluminum or carbon fiber would go far breaking up this monotony of monochrome.

A speedo and tachometer with fuel gauge occupy the two main gauge housings while the center stack is home to the Boston Acoustics audio system that, for once, is not shared with any other GM product (yet). Below the stereo and below the rotary knob climate controls, you?ll find a series of four gauges for voltage, oil pressure, oil temperature and transmission temps ? one of few retro touches inside.

The controls for audio and climate are the weakest links in the interior ? they possess the neither tactile quality nor the design character we?d expect to see out of a car this important for General Motors.

If headroom is a big thing for you, be sure to opt out of a sunroof-equipped model: You?ll gain more than an inch of extra clearance between the top of your keppy and the headliner.

The road sound is well-deadened for a car that is known for its athletic audio track from the equipment under the hood. While both the V6 and V8 package sound spectacular, we prefer the lower growl from the V8 to the higher pitch from the V6. Perhaps that?s a sound the acoustic engineers can program a few points downward ? a big change from the ?60s when cars, regardless of make, sounded, well, authentic.

But does it go?
Two powertrain choices will be available initially in the Camaro.

The base V6 is the 3.6-liter direct injection engine as utilized in other GM products like the Cadillac CTS. With a freshly certified EPA rating of 18 mpg city / 29 mpg highway, it is available with an Aisin six-speed manual transmission or a GM-built six-speed automatic transmission. It boasts 304-horsepower, and 273 lb-ft. of torque, with a 3:27 final drive gear which you?ll find in all but the top level V8/manual combination, where GM installed a unique 3:45 final drive.

Officials at the General are quick to point out that with a 0-60 mph time of 6.1-seconds, the V6 is nearly as potent and peppy as the Ford Mustang GT?s 315-horsepower V8.

The six-speed automatic includes a sport mode that remaps the shift points, as well as a pair of paddle shifters on the steering wheel.

V8s with manual transmissions include the LS3 6.2-liter engine derived from the Corvette. It?s bolted to a sweet Tremec 6060 6-speed manual transmission, which we found to be slick in its own right, but it will offer a Hurst short-throw stick option later on down the line. Output is a formidable 426-horsepower, with 420 lb-ft. of torque if you opt for the stick, and 400-horsepower with 410 lb-ft. of torque for the automatic, which is bolted to an L99 version of the V8.

Expect 16 mpg city / 25 mpg highway for the 4.7 second, 0-60 mph V8 machine. Chevy chalks up the reduced power of the automatic to Active Fuel Management and cam phasing to get into 4-cylinder mode to achieve 24 mpg on the highway.

Just to reiterate: The exhaust note of the Camaro SS is absolutely intoxicating, but power is impressive throughout the range with either motor. The V8 naturally earns extra points for its grunt, but neither will embarrass.

Chevrolet chose a fully independent suspension for the Camaro to put an emphasis on handling. Two levels of suspension, FE2 for V6s and FE3 for V8s, are available. The V8 sits a tad lower than the V6 car, a byproduct of its revised suspension tuning.

The engineers traveled to Germany?s famed Nurburgring race track to dial-in the suspension and, in our brief drives as part of the media launch, we?d say they outdid themselves by managing to keep the ride from beating up passengers on Michigan?s pockmarked back country roads, yet giving the Camaro formidable moves in the twisties. Though we experienced plenty of ka-chung, ka-chung from repaired highway expansion joints, the jarring never reached the cabin. A particularly rough winter wreaked havoc on Michigan?s rough roads, so we?ll wait to fully evaluate the ride-and-handling when we get more opportunity to sample the new Camaro on decent pavement.

Still, as we?ve already reported, an ?80 percent? prototype turned a decent 8:19 lap around the ?ring ? and we?d expect that number to improve with a production car. Variable-ratio rack and pinion steering (thankfully not electrically assisted) showed the Camaro was willing to go to extremes before the Pirelli P-Zeros protested. The Camaro corners flatly, almost feeling like it was sucking down on the road while cornering at speed. For those watching their weight, the Camaro dials in at 3719 pounds for the V6 LT with automatic, to 3902 pounds for the automatic-equipped V8 SS.

For stopping power, single-pot calipers grab the rotors on the V6-equipped car, while four-pot Brembos do the same job, just better, on the V8. Wheel options include 18 and 19-inch sets for the V6, with a 20-inch setup for the RS V6 model, while the V8 is only equipped with 20-inchers. The tires are staggered with 245s on the front and 275s out back. Limited slip differentials are on all cars except for the V6-equipped automatic.

Why you would buy it?
The Bumblebee movie character had you at hello ? or you missed the Camaro on its first go-around.

Why you wouldn?t?
You bleed blue-oval blue or, uh, Dodge SRT-red.

Leftlane?s bottom line:
General Motors, while in the news lately for a lot of the wrong reasons, has truly shown they can still build a car that the American public wants ? high-mpg Malibus and Cobalts notwithstanding (sure, that?s what you really want. Right.). The new halo car will undoubtedly succeed at bringing shoppers into Chevrolet dealerships and, GM hopes, it?ll sell more than just Camaros.

It?s a lofty ambition, to be certain, but whether you choose the six or the eight-cylinder Camaro, you will wind up with a neo-retro sports car that rewards your senses on almost every level.

Quote from: HEMI666 on March 20, 2009, 04:23:10 PM
Officials at the General are quick to point out that with a 0-60 mph time of 6.1-seconds, the V6 is nearly as potent and peppy as the Ford Mustang GT?s 315-horsepower V8.

:lol:

Actually, no.  No it isn't.  It might have nearly as much horsepower but it's 1.2 seconds slower to 60 mph then the Mustang GT.

QuoteExpect 16 mpg city / 25 mpg highway for the 4.7 second, 0-60 mph V8 machine.

That's only 0.2 seconds faster then the Mustang GT with 107 fewer horsies.

Quote from: HEMI666 on March 20, 2009, 04:28:04 PM
:lol:

Actually, no.  No it isn't.  It might have nearly as much horsepower but it's 1.2 seconds slower to 60 mph then the Mustang GT.
That's only 0.2 seconds faster then the Mustang GT with 107 fewer horsies.

What could cause such a drastic difference in performance?

Quote from: HEMI666 on March 20, 2009, 04:28:04 PM
:lol:

Actually, no.  No it isn't.  It might have nearly as much horsepower but it's 1.2 seconds slower to 60 mph then the Mustang GT.
That's only 0.2 seconds faster then the Mustang GT with 107 fewer horsies.

A Mustang sans track pack (an option which will not be available initially) won't be a 4.9 second car.  It'll likely be a 5.2-5.4 second car depending on whether it has the 3.55 rearend or the standard rearend gear.  And the claimed 4.7 second time for the Camaro is no doubt a manufacturer's estimate, and those are conservative about 95% of the time.  I will not be surprised to see the mags getting 4.5 second 0-60s.

Quote from: MX793 on March 20, 2009, 04:52:31 PM
A Mustang sans track pack (an option which will not be available initially) won't be a 4.9 second car.  It'll likely be a 5.2-5.4 second car depending on whether it has the 3.55 rearend or the standard rearend gear.  And the claimed 4.7 second time for the Camaro is no doubt a manufacturer's estimate, and those are conservative about 95% of the time.  I will not be surprised to see the mags getting 4.5 second 0-60s.

The Mustang GT is a 5.0 car without the track pack as evidenced by the 2005-2009 Mustang GT.  Add the 3.73 rear end (don't need the track pack for that)  and the Mustang is a 4.9 second car and the same price as the Camaro SS.

Quote from: HEMI666 on March 20, 2009, 05:14:03 PM
The Mustang GT is a 5.0 car without the track pack as evidenced by the 2005-2009 Mustang GT.  Add the 3.73 rear end (don't need the track pack for that)  and the Mustang is a 4.9 second car and the same price as the Camaro SS.

So basically, a 4.7 second car vs. a 4.9 second car for the same price?

Quote from: Vinsanity on March 20, 2009, 06:02:25 PM
So basically, a 4.7 second car vs. a 4.9 second car for the same price?

My point is that the 4.9 second car has 107 fewer horses.

Quote from: HEMI666 on March 20, 2009, 06:05:02 PM
My point is that the 4.9 second car has 107 fewer horses.

You just keep holding on to that. 

Quote from: HEMI666 on March 20, 2009, 06:05:02 PM
My point is that the 4.9 second car has 107 fewer horses.

Maybe the Camaro should be faster (hopefully mags will prove that), but most people don't shop for cars based on hp numbers.

Quote from: HEMI666 on March 20, 2009, 05:14:03 PM
The Mustang GT is a 5.0 car without the track pack as evidenced by the 2005-2009 Mustang GT.  Add the 3.73 rear end (don't need the track pack for that)  and the Mustang is a 4.9 second car and the same price as the Camaro SS.

Who got 5.0 flat out of an '05-'09?  I've seen the following:

5.2 (C&D, Dec '04)
5.1 (C&D, Jan '05)
5.3 (R&T, Dec '04)
5.1 (MT, ??? '05)
5.9 (Edmunds, though their car was very green and they felt the car was capable of mid 5s)

Quote from: HEMI666 on March 20, 2009, 06:05:02 PM
My point is that the 4.9 second car has 107 fewer horses.

0-60 times are all about the launch.

Want evidence of power?  Look at the trap speed.  Speaking of which.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=144431?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..1.*

There 0-60 time is pretty slow at 5 sec flat, but LOOK at that trap speed, 111 mph.

That puts it alot closer to the 113mph run Edmunds got off from the GT500 or the 114.6 mph run Edmunds got from the GT500KR, than the 102.9mph run Edmunds got from the Mustang GT.

GT500 113mph

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=118839

GT500 KR 114.6

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Followup/articleId=130626

Mustang GT 102.9 mph

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=143486/pageId=162683


The Camaro SS is in a COMPLETELY different league in a straight line contest.  Nearly a full 10mph faster than the Mustang in the 1/4 mile when tested by the same magazine. 

13 flat and 110 in the 1/4 from edmunds
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=144431?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..1.*#30

woah baby!

Oh, and the other major mags have their numbers up.

C&D
0-60 4.8 (4.6 for the 6AT model)
1/4 mile 13.0 @ 111 mph (13.1 @ 109 for the 6AT)
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/corvette_camaro_corner/2010_chevrolet_camaro_ss_v8_short_take_road_test (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/corvette_camaro_corner/2010_chevrolet_camaro_ss_v8_short_take_road_test)

MT
0-60 4.7 (4.6 for 6AT)
1/4 mile 13.0 @ 111 mph
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0903_2010_chevrolet_camaro_test/index.html (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0903_2010_chevrolet_camaro_test/index.html)

Edmunds
0-60 4.7
1/4 mile 13.0 @ 110.9 mph
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=144431?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..1.* (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=144431?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..1.*)
So it's only a few ticks quicker than a track pack Mustang to 60, but it starts stretching it out by the 1/4 mile.  Half a second and 8 or so mph.

Times for the V6 were posted by MT

0-60 5.9
1/4 mile 14.4 @ 98
(and 0.93g on the skidpad!!)

The V6 put up some good numbers, a quantum leap compared to what the V6 camaro used to represent(flamboyant style, 1970's truck performance with the sound effects of a rock polisher).

V6 times are right up there with the Genesis V6, not a good sign for Hyundai.

Quote from: MX793 on March 20, 2009, 06:56:50 PM
Oh, and the other major mags have their numbers up.

C&D
0-60 4.8 (4.6 for the 6AT model)
1/4 mile 13.0 @ 111 mph (13.1 @ 109 for the 6AT)
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/corvette_camaro_corner/2010_chevrolet_camaro_ss_v8_short_take_road_test (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/corvette_camaro_corner/2010_chevrolet_camaro_ss_v8_short_take_road_test)

MT
0-60 4.7 (4.6 for 6AT)
1/4 mile 13.0 @ 111 mph
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0903_2010_chevrolet_camaro_test/index.html (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0903_2010_chevrolet_camaro_test/index.html)

Edmunds
0-60 4.7
1/4 mile 13.0 @ 110.9 mph
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=144431?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..1.* (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=144431?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..1.*)
So it's only a few ticks quicker than a track pack Mustang to 60, but it starts stretching it out by the 1/4 mile.  Half a second and 8 or so mph.

Times for the V6 were posted by MT

0-60 5.9
1/4 mile 14.4 @ 98
(and 0.93g on the skidpad!!)

The Camaro must have traction problems off the line, because those 0-60 mph times are not great for what it is.  The 1/4 mile times and speed are more in line with what I would have expected. 

Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 20, 2009, 07:39:21 PM
The V6 put up some good numbers, a quantum leap compared to what the V6 camaro used to represent(flamboyant style, 1970's truck performance with the sound effects of a rock polisher).

No, especially since the Camaro V6 is cheaper.

Quote from: MX793 on March 20, 2009, 06:40:41 PM
Who got 5.0 flat out of an '05-'09?  I've seen the following:

5.2 (C&D, Dec '04)
5.1 (C&D, Jan '05)
5.3 (R&T, Dec '04)
5.1 (MT, ??? '05)
5.9 (Edmunds, though their car was very green and they felt the car was capable of mid 5s)

What I meant was, the '05-'09 Mustang GT hit 60 mph in 5.1 or 5.2 with taller gearing and less power.  The '08 Bullitt which has the same setup as the '10 Mustang GT hits 60 mph in 4.9.

How about the 30-50 and 50-70 times?  That's what matters for everyday performance, and where an extra 100hp tends to help.

Camaro rocks, but this thread sucks.

Huh - I would've expected upper 12 sec 1/4 mile at least...

Those are awesome numbers for the V6 however.

If GM wasn't going out of business and the interior wasn't so ugly, a Camaro sounds really nice.

Quote from: MX793 on March 20, 2009, 06:40:41 PM
Who got 5.0 flat out of an '05-'09?  I've seen the following:

5.2 (C&D, Dec '04)
5.1 (C&D, Jan '05)
5.3 (R&T, Dec '04)
5.1 (MT, ??? '05)
5.9 (Edmunds, though their car was very green and they felt the car was capable of mid 5s)

Car and Driver got 5 flat in a convertible. 


"Even though our droptop tester had only 300-plus miles on the odo when it went to the test track, at 5.0 seconds to 60 mph, it was quicker than either of the coupes we've tested, which ran 5.2 seconds and 5.1, respectively. The convertible also turned in the best quarter-mile time?13.7 seconds at 103 mph. That's just a 10th quicker than the coupes, and trap speeds were essentially the same..."

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/mustang_shelby_central/ford_mustang_gt_convertible_road_test

Quote from: NomisR on March 21, 2009, 09:51:21 AM
If GM wasn't going out of business and the interior wasn't so ugly, a Camaro sounds really nice.

Honestly, I don't get what people have against the interior of this car.

(http://image.motortrend.com/f/10260214/112_0809_14z+2010_chevrolet_camaro+interior.jpg)

That looks awfully good to me - a very modern and original take on a retro layout.

The shifter knob also comes straight off a Cobalt, except wrapped in leather.

Quote from: sandertheshark on March 22, 2009, 12:27:16 AM
Honestly, I don't get what people have against the interior of this car.

(http://image.motortrend.com/f/10260214/112_0809_14z+2010_chevrolet_camaro+interior.jpg)

That looks awfully good to me - a very modern and original take on a retro layout.

That centre stack looks just plain awful.  The gauges are in a terrible location...and I don't care if that's where they were on the original because it was a bad location then too.  The stereo and climate controls don't look good either.

(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/camarointerior.jpg)

(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/camarointerior2.jpg)

The aux gauges aren't gauges you'd look at with any frequency (most cars these days don't even have readouts for oil temp/pressure or voltage output), so I don't mind that their not in a better location.  But they're pretty much a shameless throwback.  I don't like the location of the steering wheel controls either, they're too low on the spokes.  Looks like they'd be an awkward reach with your thumb unless you completely shifted your grip on the wheel.  And I've never been hugely fond of the stereo, aesthetically speaking.

Then again, while sifting through pictures of the new Mustang I discovered an ergonomic gripe with the arrangement of the steering wheel mounted controls there as well (although this may be a direct carryover from the '05-'09 cars that I just never noticed).  Props to whomever can tell me what the issue is.

But getting back to the Camaro, more disconcerting to me are repeated remarks of the lack of outward visibility.  It's apparently so bad that it makes negotiating a slalom course difficult.  It's one thing if visibility straight back isn't good (after all, in a performance car "what'sa behind you doesn'ta matter"), but when you start compromising your view forward and laterally, that's a problem.

GM wants you to be sitting in a bath tub.

The interior is decent enough. I'd rather GM put the money into the powertrain than a spiffy interior. Buy a Caddy if your main concern is how the interior looks.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on March 22, 2009, 11:50:53 AM
The interior is decent enough. I'd rather GM put the money into the powertrain than a spiffy interior. Buy a Caddy if your main concern is how the interior looks.  :rolleyes:

Well, they are almost the same price ... :mask:

Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on March 22, 2009, 11:50:53 AM
The interior is decent enough. I'd rather GM put the money into the powertrain than a spiffy interior. Buy a Caddy if your main concern is how the interior looks.  :rolleyes:

I agree.  This is a 31k car with 422 hp, thats good enough for me.

Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on March 22, 2009, 11:50:53 AM
The interior is decent enough. I'd rather GM put the money into the powertrain than a spiffy interior. Buy a Caddy if your main concern is how the interior looks.  :rolleyes:

And I have yet to be convinced that the Mustang interior is any better, let alone the Challenger.

One of the reviews I read, I believe it was Jalopnik, mentioned that the interior was cheap.  They also mentioned that the steering wheel was uncomfortable to use and awkward to hold.

Quote from: GoCougs on March 22, 2009, 12:19:26 PM
And I have yet to be convinced that the Mustang interior is any better, let alone the Challenger.

I'm not talking about material quality, I'm talking about the design.

Quote from: CJ on March 22, 2009, 12:22:05 PM
One of the reviews I read, I believe it was Jalopnik, mentioned that the interior was cheap.  They also mentioned that the steering wheel was uncomfortable to use and awkward to hold.

It's a thirty-thousand-dollar car with over four hundred horsepower.  The interior is not going to be decked out with alcantara and brushed aluminum.  Get over it.

Quote from: sandertheshark on March 22, 2009, 12:27:16 AM
Honestly, I don't get what people have against the interior of this car.

(http://image.motortrend.com/f/10260214/112_0809_14z+2010_chevrolet_camaro+interior.jpg)

That looks awfully good to me - a very modern and original take on a retro layout.

It looks a bit retarded, but I can't comment on quality until I see one.

Quote from: sandertheshark on March 22, 2009, 01:14:02 PM
It's a thirty-thousand-dollar car with over four hundred horsepower.  The interior is not going to be decked out with alcantara and brushed aluminum.  Get over it.

This is very true, but it should be compared to its competitors that are of similar price and performance. 

Quote from: Raza  on March 22, 2009, 01:18:08 PM
This is very true, but it should be compared to its competitors that are of similar price and performance. 

I don't think anyone is arguing that the Mustang had a hand up in interior quality, but then the Camaro also seems to have a hand-up in performance, which most people would say is more important in this segment.

Quote from: the Teuton on March 22, 2009, 09:20:04 AM
GM wants you to be sitting in a bath tub.

Do you not know how to adjust the seat or something?

Quote from: 2o6 on March 22, 2009, 01:59:54 PM

Do you not know how to adjust the seat or something?

You think this car is a BMW?  The seat didn't go up and down.

Some cars don't have a height adjustable seat.

Quote from: CJ on March 22, 2009, 02:01:23 PM
Some cars don't have a height adjustable seat.

What? You can find it in a Kia Rio, but not in a Camaro!?

Quote from: the Teuton on March 22, 2009, 02:01:23 PM
You think this car is a BMW?  The seat didn't go up and down.

Are you sure?  The last generation Camaro had height adjustable seats.

Quote from: Raza  on March 22, 2009, 02:48:18 PM
Are you sure?  The last generation Camaro had height adjustable seats.

The car I sat in was a base or LS V6 model, and I couldn't find a height adjuster to save my life in the passenger seat.

Quote from: the Teuton on March 22, 2009, 02:53:42 PM
The car I sat in was a base or LS V6 model, and I couldn't find a height adjuster to save my life in the passenger seat.

Oh, it may not have it for the passenger seat.

But I must ask you this.  How often do you sit in the passenger seat of your own car? 

Quote from: Raza  on March 22, 2009, 03:03:19 PM
Oh, it may not have it for the passenger seat.

But I must ask you this.  How often do you sit in the passenger seat of your own car? 

Almost never.

Only the drivers seat in my Camaro has adjustment for height.

Quote from: the Teuton on March 22, 2009, 03:09:10 PM
Almost never.

And do you really care about the comfort of your passengers?

Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on March 22, 2009, 03:16:38 PM
Only the drivers seat in my Camaro has adjustment for height.

Is your Camaro stick?  I was checking out an SS the other day (I didn't get to drive it), and dry shifting it felt pretty smooth and easy.  Much better than the 'box on like year Mustangs, actually.  Am I right in that assessment?

Yes mine is a 6 speed. I haven't driven a manual 'Stang since the '94 model so I really don't remember how well it shifted. IIRC the SS had a Hurst shifter.

Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on March 22, 2009, 03:45:26 PM
Yes mine is a 6 speed. I haven't driven a manual 'Stang since the '94 model so I really don't remember how well it shifted. IIRC the SS had a Hurst shifter.

Ah. 

What I really wanted to look at was a Trans Am convertible, but they only had on SS coupe (6MT) and one SS t-tops (automatic). 

But when I fired that engine up, boy did it sound nice.  Such a dramatic spark to life...I didn't get to drive it, but I might already be in love with it. 

The sound and the instant throttle responce in my Z28 are addictive. The trottle responce in my T-Bird is horrid! Thats the one thing I hate about that car.

Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on March 22, 2009, 11:50:53 AM
The interior is decent enough. I'd rather GM put the money into the powertrain than a spiffy interior. Buy a Caddy if your main concern is how the interior looks.  :rolleyes:

This is 2009. Excuses like that aren't good enough any more.

Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on March 22, 2009, 03:56:36 PM
The sound and the instant throttle responce in my Z28 are addictive. The trottle responce in my T-Bird is horrid! Thats the one thing I hate about that car.

That's the one thing you hate about the Thunderbird?   :lol: (Sorry!  I just don't see the appeal, honestly)

I remember driving a same year Corvette and being unimpressed by the exhaust note on that car.  What's so different about the less powerful Camaro's exhaust?

Quote from: Raza  on March 22, 2009, 04:07:59 PM
That's the one thing you hate about the Thunderbird?   :lol: (Sorry!  I just don't see the appeal, honestly)

I remember driving a same year Corvette and being unimpressed by the exhaust note on that car.  What's so different about the less powerful Camaro's exhaust?

:lol: There is no way I would have walked into a Ford dealership and spent my hard earned money on that Thunderbird. No way,no how!! My mom leased the car in '04.By '06 she wanted a H3. So I took over the lease on the T-Bird. I told her to buy a Vette when she went to buy the T-Bird but she claimed the "Vettes are too manly for her"  :facepalm:

As far as the exhaust note on the Z28 goes mine is not stock so thats the differance.(I have a Flowmaster cat back system) But thats was my biggest disappointment when I traded my '94 LT1 Z28 in. The '99 was too quiet. My LT1 Z28 had a stock exhaust that sounded 10 times better than my LS1. 

Quote from: 280Z Turbo on March 22, 2009, 04:06:48 PM
This is 2009. Excuses like that aren't good enough any more.

Have you seen the interior of the car in your sig?  :nono: Or how about the one in the $90,000 Viper.  :rolleyes:

Yes it's a 400+ hp car for 31K, great if that's what's the most important.

I'm sure someone could come up with a 500HP car for 25K, would you still want it when you find out that it tips the scales at 5500lbs and isn't any faster than a car with 400hp or even 350hp?

I'd rather have a car with less HP and less weight, speed is easy to obtain(even through factory performance packages). Once a car is heavy it's much harder to fix that. It's one of the main reason the miata is what it is. Mazda decided to put the money into other things and offer a light weight roadster with a unmatched drivers experience, they could have dumped 300HP motor in it and made it a 3700lb 2 seat convertable. It would have been fast, it would have been cheap, it would have lasted 3-4 model years before sales dried up and it got canned.

Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 22, 2009, 04:40:22 PM
Yes it's a 400+ hp car for 31K, great if that's what's the most important.

I'm sure someone could come up with a 500HP car for 25K, would you still want it when you find out that it tips the scales at 5500lbs and isn't any faster than a car with 400hp or even 350hp?

I'd rather have a car with less HP and less weight, speed is easy to obtain(even through factory performance packages). Once a car is heavy it's much harder to fix that. It's one of the main reason the miata is what it is. Mazda decided to put the money into other things and offer a light weight roadster with a unmatched drivers experience, they could have dumped 300HP motor in it and made it a 3700lb 2 seat convertable. It would have been fast, it would have been cheap, it would have lasted 3-4 model years before sales dried up and it got canned.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Both the Mustang and the Camaro have ugly interiors. But the Camaro's is even uglier.

My biggest gripe is the gauges, that's where the crumbs go. :mask:

I just built one on the Chevy website and the gauge pods aren't available on the base SS.

Quote from: Catman on March 22, 2009, 05:33:33 PM
My biggest gripe is the gauges, that's where the crumbs go. :mask:

Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on March 22, 2009, 06:10:19 PM
I just built one on the Chevy website and the gauge pods aren't available on the base SS.

The aux gauges are only on 2LT and 2SS trims.

Quote from: MX793 on March 22, 2009, 06:13:25 PM
The aux gauges are only on 2LT and 2SS trims.

Yep!

Quote from: Raza  link=topic=18095.msg1025274#msg1025274 date=1237759679
I remember driving a same year Corvette and being unimpressed by the exhaust note on that car.  What's so different about the less powerful Camaro's exhaust?

The biggest difference is that the exhaust on the Camaro isn't a true dual exhaust and it is on the Corvette.  The Camaro's exhaust collects into a single pipe and then splits again into dual tailpipes.  The Corvette's is a true dual system like the Mustang's.

Quote from: sandertheshark on March 22, 2009, 01:14:02 PM
It's a thirty-thousand-dollar car with over four hundred horsepower.  The interior is not going to be decked out with alcantara and brushed aluminum.  Get over it.

That doesn't excuse a bad steering wheel if in fact it is bad like Jalopnik says it is.

Quote from: HEMI666 on March 22, 2009, 06:58:18 PM
The biggest difference is that the exhaust on the Camaro isn't a true dual exhaust and it is on the Corvette.  The Camaro's exhaust collects into a single pipe and then splits again into dual tailpipes.  The Corvette's is a true dual system like the Mustang's.

Interesting.  So why does the Camaro sound better?

Quote from: Raza  link=topic=18095.msg1025388#msg1025388 date=1237770172
Interesting.  So why does the Camaro sound better?

Mufflers.  The Corvette's mufflers in the 90s were huge.  The Corvette wasn't supposed to be loud and raucous whereas the Camaro was.  That has sort of changed now with the new Corvette.

Stock:
(http://www.thevettedoctors.com/images/muff.jpg)

Aftermarket:
(http://www.turbochargers.com/store/images/15763_lg.jpg)

Aftermarket:

(http://www.corvettesouth.com/images/323041e.jpg)

:devil:

Are they in the dealerships yet?

I saw another one on the road today.  It looked pretty good.

Quote from: FoMoJo on April 22, 2009, 01:40:58 PM
Are they in the dealerships yet?

I saw another one on the road today.  It looked pretty good.

Yes. People have been takling delivery of them.

And as I posted in another thread, most of them have stick on wheel weights plastered all over the brake calipers.

Quote from: NACar on March 22, 2009, 07:18:24 PM
Aftermarket:

(http://www.corvettesouth.com/images/323041e.jpg)

:devil:

That's what I'm talkin' about. :praise:

Quote from: ChrisV on April 22, 2009, 01:57:26 PM
Yes. People have been takling delivery of them.

And as I posted in another thread, most of them have stick on wheel weights plastered all over the brake calipers.

Why?

So far that seems to be the only one.

Quote from: 68_427 on April 22, 2009, 04:25:20 PM
So far that seems to be the only one.

only one what?

The only Camaro with those brake weights.  I'm on Camaro5 at least 3 times a day and that had never come up before.

Quote from: Raza  on April 22, 2009, 03:08:55 PM
Why?

Changes the resonance of the caliper to hopefully quell vibration.

Quote from: 68_427 on April 22, 2009, 06:20:21 PM
The only Camaro with those brake weights.  I'm on Camaro5 at least 3 times a day and that had never come up before.

Did you read the thread I linked to? MANY owners were taking pictures of those caliper weights, and they took pictures of ones at dealers, too. It was NOT "only one."

Jesus.

Quote from: MX793 on April 22, 2009, 06:53:55 PM
Changes the resonance of the caliper to hopefully quell vibration.

And yet the glue on the stick on wheel weights would melt at temps that the calipers can get up to. And no other car using those Brembos have needed that. So what gives on the Camaros?

Quote from: ChrisV on April 23, 2009, 05:53:41 AM
And yet the glue on the stick on wheel weights would melt at temps that the calipers can get up to. And no other car using those Brembos have needed that. So what gives on the Camaros?

Sounds like a poor design by Brembo. They don't use the same exact system for every car.

Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on March 22, 2009, 06:15:25 PM
Yep!

They shoulda left em off, they were a bad idea in '69 and unthinkable in 2009.

what's the big deal, just take them off...

Quote from: TBR on April 23, 2009, 09:27:52 AM
Sounds like a poor design by Brembo. They don't use the same exact system for every car.

It may not have been Brembo's fault.  The problem may be the mount GM designed to place the calipers on.

Apparently Brembo is redesigning the calipers, so... Seems like an awful kludge to be releasing on customer cars considering how long the car was in development.

Quote from: ChrisV on April 23, 2009, 04:58:18 PM
Apparently Brembo is redesigning the calipers, so... Seems like an awful kludge to be releasing on customer cars considering how long the car was in development.

GM really didn't have much time for testing before this hit the market. From Concept to production in 129 1/2 months doesn't leave much room for dot all the i's and cross all the p's. Yes i know it is supposed to be cross all the t's but apperently gm's finance division found it both cheaper and quicker to cross the p's instead.

Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on April 23, 2009, 05:03:14 PM
GM really didn't have much time for testing before this hit the market. From Concept to production in 129 1/2 months doesn't leave much room for dot all the i's and cross all the p's. Yes i know it is supposed to be cross all the t's but apperently gm's finance division found it both cheaper and quicker to cross the p's instead.

They announced the car way too soon.

Quote from: hotrodalex on April 24, 2009, 07:25:41 PM
They announced the car way too soon.

It was in a movie way too soon too.  I mean, the sequel is debuting just weeks after the car is actually released.

yea seriously. They used the Camaro too much for attention, kills part of the hype.

Camaro Convertible On Track For 2011 


Rumors have been circulating the Web that General Motors? financial condition has indefinitely delayed the open air version of the Chevrolet Camaro, but a new report indicated the Camaro Convertible is alive and well and still on track for a 2011 launch.

The Camaro Convertible?s launch date has been pushed back several times, but Chevrolet has never considered completely cancelling the program. ?The convertible was never canceled,? General Motors spokesman Terry Rhadigan told Automotive News. ?It was retimed. It will be the first quarter of 2011 for the start of production.?

The Camaro Convertible was originally slated to begin production in December 2009. However, further financial woes pushed that date back to May 2010 before being ultimately shifted to February 2011 ? almost a full two years after the coupe started production at GM?s Oshawa, Ontario plant.
When the Camaro Convertible finally does make production, it will be available with V6 and V8 engines.

I saw a new Camaro at the dealership yesterday.  It's got some presence that's for sure, but I much prefer the Challenger I saw at the dealer right next door.

Camaro convertible:  When you like the looks but want some outward visibility.

Quote from: HEMI666 on May 25, 2009, 10:13:54 AM
I saw a new Camaro at the dealership yesterday.  It's got some presence that's for sure, but I much prefer the Challenger I saw at the dealer right next door.

I saw a black Camaro on road a couple of days ago.  Still not pretty, but it's definitely menacing.  Challenger is still better looking.

Quote from: Raza  link=topic=18095.msg1067500#msg1067500 date=1243277564
I saw a black Camaro on road a couple of days ago.  Still not pretty, but it's definitely menacing.  Challenger is still better looking.

I saw a new black Mustang GT on the street right next to a red 2005+ Mustang GT this morning and I am very impressed with how the new car looks.  I'm actually amazed at how they made then new car look smaller even though it's not.

Quote from: HEMI666 on May 25, 2009, 12:55:09 PM
I saw a new black Mustang GT on the street right next to a red 2005+ Mustang GT this morning and I am very impressed with how the new car looks.  I'm actually amazed at how they made then new car look smaller even though it's not.

Not only does it look like a tighter package, somehow the '10 looks like it has a lower aspect ratio (lower and wider) even though the dimensions haven't changed.  My guess is that the vertically narrowed grille and headlights helps with that. 

I really like that car, I just wish they weren't so pricy.

2010 Camaro WT Package Confirmed
The Mustang News Staff Report

Insiders say new package for Camaro loyalists green-lighted!

(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/2010camarowt.jpg)

05-25-09: Confirming earlier rumors of a ?heritage edition? of the new 2010 Camaro that would appeal directly to their largest fan base, deep sources inside GM have signaled that the Camaro WT is indeed headed for production later this summer.

Available on both the V6 and SS models, the WT package will celebrate the look and theme that has appealed to thousands of Camaro owners and fans in modestly priced neighborhoods and trailer park developments. The decision was made after initial market launch of the new 2010 Camaro was not bringing enough brand loyalists into the dealerships.

?It was a controversial subject in our meetings?, says our inside source at GM. ?Do we really go for it and offer straight from the factory the genuine article? Or do we let time and the JC Whitney's of the world take their course. Many people were against the WT package, wanted to keep the new model clean of its past. In the end we need to sell cars and we think the WT edition will speak to the soul of our Camaro buyer base. It was come to Jesus and get honest with ourselves time ?.

Similar to the concept photos shown, the production version of the new WT edition will feature mis-matched body panels in most factory colors. A new matte clear coated "distressed" primer finish unique to the WT package will also be randomly applied to various panels using a new patented paint process at the Ontatio, Canada production facility. Wheels will include a variety of up to 3 different 20? styles randomly installed on the production line as well. Attention was paid to assure that wheel weights were all different to assure a genuine WT driving experience that Camaro loyalists will expect.

?We are able to create these unique cars pretty easily in our plant by simply changing the computer programming on the line. We mix up the wheels, doors, hoods, and other body panels randomly and bolt them on. Every car will be different, further making the WT package more desirable to our customers,? said our inside source. Each WT Camaro will come with a numbered plaque on the console, though GM is not planning to limit production.

(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/2010camarowti.jpg)

Inside, the WT package will feature a unique leatherette upholstery with pre-printed tears and duct tape patches. While the Camaro design team wanted to use genuine duct tape for seating surfaces but they found durability issues that might create warranty hassles. In addition GM worked with 3M to create the new leatherette material which is resistent to minor burns caused by a cigarette cherry for example.

A roll of genuine GM logo duct tape will come in the trunk of every WT Camaro to allow customers to customize their car however. There will also be a selection of ?heritage? graphics packages buyers can have dealer installed to further personalize their Camaro.

Other standard items in the package include the smokers group which replaces cup holders with a large ashtray. Inside the console storage compartment is a cooler that can hold a six pack of 12oz cans. An enlarged locking glove box with thick foam floor will now accommodate most handguns and an extra ammunition clip without rattling around.

?This is the ****ing ****?, said Toby Van Sander, a long time Camaro owner and enthusiast we spoke to in Tennessee. ?It?s a ****ing badd-ass ride man! Chevy rules and Ford sucks! Found On The Road Dead, yep this new Camaro is gonna kick some serious Mustang ass! Whoo hoo!" The sentiment seems to be unanimous across the group of Camaro owners and enthusiasts who are stoked that Chevrolet has creating this special edition just for them.

The package price is pretty steep at $1885, but that is the price of individuality. GM says it expects most buyers will pair the WT package with the V6 Camaro to save on both the purchase price and insurance costs. Inside market research showed that most potential buyers are sensitive to vehicle and insurance prices due to challenged driving records, child-support, court ordered debt repayments, and other legal encumbrances.

Asked if he was going to buy one Van Sander said, ?**** an A! I sure as ****ing plan to as soon as I can afford one. ? Taking on a more serious tone he finished with a smirk. ?That car is gonna take a lot of ****ing gas station robberies??just kidding.? Our calls to Ford Motor Company asking how they planned to respond to this new competitive threat to the 2010 Mustang were not answered.

(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/2010camarowt2.jpg)

:lol:

I think a Harleyquin style Camaro would be super cool.

I don't see anything special about this WT

Quote from: NACar on May 25, 2009, 01:22:41 PM
My sister owns a 4th gen just like that.

:rockon:

I wish

Does is come with a free Iron Maiden CD?

Quote from: 68_427 on May 26, 2009, 08:30:59 PM
Does is come with a free Iron Maiden CD?

cassette.

Dead cattle optional?

(http://subrevolt.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/TopGear_Cow-on-Roof.jpg)

Saw my first Camaro on the road this weekend - a red RS. Gotta a real good luck. What a phenomenal styled car - surprisingly the best view is from the rear.

Also saw my first Challenger up close - the Camaro has got that thing on styling by a million miles. It's not even close.

Quote from: GoCougs on May 26, 2009, 11:25:29 PM


Also saw my first Challenger up close - the Camaro has got that thing on styling by a million miles. It's not even close.

Pssssshaw like hell it does! I suppose you would rather rump Rosie O'Donnell in the sack than Heidi Klum in her heyday?

Heidi Klum is still very sack-able.  Whachu talkin' 'bout, Willis?

Quote from: the Teuton on May 26, 2009, 11:42:25 PM
Heidi Klum is still very sack-able.  Whachu talkin' 'bout, Willis?

Did I say she was ugly? All I said was her heyday. Go back to you Subar O's, troll.

Quote from: Minpin on May 26, 2009, 11:44:02 PM
Did I say she was ugly? All I said was her heyday. Go back to you Subar O's, troll.

I'll rape your wife and eat your children, Texas Toast.

Sigh - Minpin screed blights yet another thread...

Sigh-yet another thread where GoCougs doesn't allow anyone to disagree with him....

challenger looks great to me, but just feels like the car for the old guy who wants old but new. The Camaro looks more modern for my tastes.

I've seen a handful out my way -- GM country -- including one this morning that was a sparkly pale blue colour.  They're attractive enough but lack the stance and composure of a serious ass-hauling street-fighter.

Quote from: HEMI666 on May 25, 2009, 01:15:51 PM
2010 Camaro WT Package Confirmed
The Mustang News Staff Report

Insiders say new package for Camaro loyalists green-lighted!

(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/2010camarowt.jpg)

:clap:

You Mustang guys are in no position to talk!  :nono:
(http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb199/TWOBIGHEDZ/100_5097.jpg)

Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on May 27, 2009, 03:45:05 PM
You Mustang guys are in no position to talk!  :nono:

The difference is that the Camaro/Firebird have always had that trailer park white trash stigma. 

Quote from: HEMI666 on May 27, 2009, 03:49:53 PM
The difference is that the Camaro/Firebird have always had that trailer park white trash stigma. 

What, and Mustang hasn't?  Good grief.

Quote from: HEMI666 on May 27, 2009, 03:49:53 PM
The difference is that the Camaro/Firebird have always had that trailer park white trash stigma. 

Newsflash! They both have that stigma, troll. Not that it matters, why should you care what other people think about your car as long as you are happy. That is, if you are a real car guy...

The new Camaro is kind of like a really good country music CD the sense that certain stigmas can get in the way of appreciating something good.

Car and Driver thought they were sitting in a bath tub, too.  And I finally saw a new 'Stang on the road today...not bad.

Quote from: Vinsanity on May 27, 2009, 03:54:23 PM
The new Camaro is kind of like a really good country music CD the sense that certain stigmas can get in the way of appreciating something good.

True. The trailer park,mullet,Guido jokes are soooooooo old! Why are people stuck in the 80s when comes to these cars? Hell,even Hyundai has done a 180 since back then.

Quote from: the Teuton on May 27, 2009, 03:56:25 PM
And I finally saw a new 'Stang on the road today...not bad.

I saw a black GT vert. Looks better in person,but not a head turner like the other 2 pony cars.

Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on May 27, 2009, 03:59:26 PM
True. The trailer park,mullet,Guido jokes are soooooooo old! Why are people stuck in the 80s when comes to these cars? Hell,even Hyundai has done a 180 since back then.

My wife doesn't even appreciate cars or even care aboutt hem and she calls the Camaro a Gino car.  It's a prevalent stigma.  Warranted or not, that's the stigma, just like the Mustang's stigma is that of the secretary car.

Quote from: HEMI666 on May 27, 2009, 04:29:42 PM
My wife doesn't even appreciate cars or even care aboutt hem and she calls the Camaro a Gino car.  It's a prevalent stigma.  Warranted or not, that's the stigma, just like the Mustang's stigma is that of the secretary car.

Not a single person I know think of the Mustang as a Secretary's car. It is not 1964.

I personally regard the V6 Mustang as a secretary car, but I doubt the general public does. I'd venture to guess that the car's perception is closer to that of a "meathead" car.

Quote from: Vinsanity on May 27, 2009, 04:54:33 PM
I personally regard the V6 Mustang as a secretary car, but I doubt the general public does. I'd venture to guess that the car's perception is closer to that of a "meathead" car.

I don't know about where you live, but up here I would say it's considered the gentleman's muscle car.  The old Fox body Mustang would fit the "meathead" car stigma though, but the new one doesn't.  The V6 Mustang is definitely considered a girl's car though.

Quote from: HEMI666 on May 27, 2009, 05:43:34 PM
  The V6 Mustang is definitely considered a girl's car though.

Thats true!

Quote from: HEMI666 on May 27, 2009, 05:43:34 PM
I don't know about where you live, but up here I would say it's considered the gentleman's muscle car.  The old Fox body Mustang would fit the "meathead" car stigma though, but the new one doesn't.  The V6 Mustang is definitely considered a girl's car though.

I know this isn't representative of all tuner Mustangs, but I see enough ones similar to this that it leaves me with the distinct "meathead" impression

(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2007/10/ugliestmustangever.jpg)

http://www.autoblog.com/tag/UgliestMustangEver/ (http://www.autoblog.com/tag/UgliestMustangEver/)

The Mustang is much less redneck than a Camaro.

All Ford products are.

Quote from: Vinsanity on May 27, 2009, 09:03:15 PM
I know this isn't representative of all tuner Mustangs, but I see enough ones similar to this that it leaves me with the distinct "meathead" impression

(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2007/10/ugliestmustangever.jpg)

http://www.autoblog.com/tag/UgliestMustangEver/ (http://www.autoblog.com/tag/UgliestMustangEver/)

:rolleyes: Gimme a break.  Nobody has ever seen a Mustang similar to that.  Nobody.  You're totally grasping at straws there. 

Actually everyone has Hemi, it's called the Batmobile.  :rolleyes: :lol:

yea around here it's littered with V6 mustangs driven by people who think they are fast, minorities that drive them in horrible conditions or chicks. There are a few nice ones driven around. For me if it's not a NEW GT model or a Saleen or any other kind of tuner company mustang it's usually crap. There is one 2000ish Cobra R in good condition around my area, but that's about it. However, there just arn't many nice camaros around here, if they are nice ones they are classic ones, not many good ones though. There used to be, but now it seems like all the SS models are shipped out of state or something, lol. I see more nice Mustangs than I do nice camaros, but there just aren't many camaros around here anymore. But the new camaro should be a nice relief of that  :devil:

Quote from: HEMI666 on May 28, 2009, 12:55:25 AM
:rolleyes: Gimme a break.  Nobody has ever seen a Mustang similar to that.  Nobody.  You're totally grasping at straws there. 

Not completely ruined to that extent, but there are a bunch of them around with one or two Pep Boys "mods" that take cues from that lil beauty. I'll keep an eye out for them next time I roll though Santa Ana or the 909

I don't think Saleen and Roush Mustangs are much better.

Quote from: TBR on May 28, 2009, 11:09:06 AM
I don't think Saleen and Roush Mustangs are much better.

Roush goes a little over the top, but the Saleen is beautiful.


(http://www.maxi-tuning.ru/wallpaper/Saleen-S302-Extreme/13487/main.jpg)

(http://www.musclecars.at/wp-content/uploads/2007/blackjack_large.jpg)

Quote from: TBR on May 28, 2009, 11:09:06 AM
I don't think Saleen and Roush Mustangs are much better.

Saleen makes my favorite tuner Mustang, the Parnelli Jones and Dan Gurney editions:

(http://www.mustangevolution.com/mustang-pictures/media/2613/large/1_saleen-parnelli-jones-17.jpg)

(http://www.mustang-club.com/clubcars_dew98/cb_2008_Dan_Gurney_Saleen_01.JPG)

Quote from: 280Z Turbo on May 27, 2009, 09:03:38 PM
The Mustang is much less redneck than a Camaro.
Silverado.
All Ford products are.

A Mustang is just as redneck as a Camaro. And a F-150 is just as redneck as a Silverado.

Or I should say that they can all be "redneck" if a redneck is driving one. Same could be said about Dodge as well.  I've seen just as many white trash, inbreeded southerners in a Ford as I've seen in a Chevy.
A 1969 Camaro is one of the best looking Muscle cars of all time in my book. I'd have one in a second if I could. And I'm about as anti Redneck a person as you can find.

In the end no car makes you gay, hot, redneck or a girl. Well, the new Beetle would make a guy look kind of strange. But other than that..........





And looking at all the tuner Mustangs makes me like the stock GT that much more. I'm a fan of less show myself.

I kind of dig the Dan Gurney edition, but I'm not a fan of the paint stuff.  I don't mind subtle bodywork, but weird paint schemes--even race inspired--are too much for me for a road car.

Quote from: HEMI666 on May 28, 2009, 01:13:12 PM
Roush goes a little over the top, but the Saleen is beautiful.


(http://www.maxi-tuning.ru/wallpaper/Saleen-S302-Extreme/13487/main.jpg)

(http://www.musclecars.at/wp-content/uploads/2007/blackjack_large.jpg)

Lose the silly fake hood scoop and I'm right with you. 

Quote from: Raza  on May 28, 2009, 10:38:56 PM
Lose the silly fake hood scoop and I'm right with you. 

Not fake.

Quote from: sandertheshark on May 28, 2009, 11:38:07 PM
Not fake.

Which Saleen is that? I can't match it up with any of the ones on their website. They all look the same, but with odd name combinations.

Quote from: Minpin on May 28, 2009, 11:48:00 PM
Which Saleen is that? I can't match it up with any of the ones on their website. They all look the same, but with odd name combinations.

Either a 289E or BJ from a couple years ago, I think.

Quote from: Minpin on May 28, 2009, 11:48:00 PM
Which Saleen is that? I can't match it up with any of the ones on their website. They all look the same, but with odd name combinations.

Well, the first one is a 2008 Saleen S302 Extreme

(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/12/abbestof2008_18.jpg)

(http://pictures.dealer.com/frontierfordusa/45b789244046381e00bbbd0e823383bd.jpg)



and the second one is a Roush Stage 3 Black Jack (in honour of Jack Roush) and the scoop is functional

(http://www.musclecars.at/wp-content/uploads/2007/blackjack_large.jpg)

blah, who cares about saleens and roush, Griggs is where it's at XD And it's a tuner mustang, should be showing pics like these

http://www.mustang50magazine.com/techarticles/m5lp_0707_s197_ford_mustang_suspension/photo_03.html :rockon:

Quote from: Raza  on May 28, 2009, 10:37:58 PM
I kind of dig the Dan Gurney edition, but I'm not a fan of the paint stuff.  I don't mind subtle bodywork, but weird paint schemes--even race inspired--are too much for me for a road car.

They aren't wierd race paint schemes. They are factory BOSS 302 paint schemes for the factory road cars.

1969:

(http://www.shnack.com/photopost/data/535/medium/69boss302.jpg)

1970:

(http://www.peedemusclecars.com/70_boss_mustang/70__boss_302_001.jpg)

They aren't even CLOSE to "weird." Especially for road cars.  :nutty:

Quote from: ChrisV on May 29, 2009, 07:10:19 AM
They aren't wierd race paint schemes. They are factory BOSS 302 paint schemes for the factory road cars.

1969:

(http://www.shnack.com/photopost/data/535/medium/69boss302.jpg)

1970:

(http://www.peedemusclecars.com/70_boss_mustang/70__boss_302_001.jpg)

They aren't even CLOSE to "weird." Especially for road cars.  :nutty:

I don't like those much either.   :lol:

Just too loud for a road car for me.  I like them; just not on my car.  I saw a couple of Mustang PJs around here, and they're striking.  I just don't think I'd want that attention.

Quote from: sandertheshark on May 28, 2009, 11:38:07 PM
Not fake.

Oh, I still don't like the scoop.  I'd much rather have vents like the ones on the silver one Hemi posted.

Wow, you ARE bland if those are to weird or wild for you... I had a '70 BOSS 302 like I pictured.

I've driven these on the street:

(http://home.comcast.net/~cvetters3/datsun04.jpg)

(http://home.comcast.net/~cvetters3/tfront1.jpg)

(http://home.comcast.net/~cvetters3/rx7f.jpg)

I like the racing stripes on the RX-7, but you can keep the rest. :lol:

Although I do like that last Bug you posted.

I'm just not that big on visual modification.  I could do with some wheels, but other than that, I'm usually quite happy with how a car looks before I buy it. 

Quote from: Raza  on May 29, 2009, 08:08:32 AM
I like the racing stripes on the RX-7, but you can keep the rest. :lol:

Although I do like that last Bug you posted.

I'm just not that big on visual modification.  I could do with some wheels, but other than that, I'm usually quite happy with how a car looks before I buy it. 

Yeah, I dislike most mass produced compromises in stock form, especially when they look like a couple hundred thousand other boring, bland stock versions of the same car. A stock, mass produced vehicle is almost always only a starting point, not an ending point, unless there are very few of whatever car i'm looking at on the road AND it has everything I'd want already. Very few cars are like that from the factory, and all of them are rare classics or the rarest exotics.

I'm all about customs and visual modification. I want the car to reflect me, not every boring cube-dweller in the country. What can I say, it's the artist in me coming out.

Quote from: ChrisV on May 29, 2009, 08:21:45 AM
I want the car to reflect me, not every boring cube-dweller in the country. What can I say, it's the artist in me coming out.

Heck yeah.  I'd like to get some white racing stripes if my next car is blue :devil:

Quote from: ChrisV on May 29, 2009, 08:21:45 AM
Yeah, I dislike most mass produced compromises in stock form, especially when they look like a couple hundred thousand other boring, bland stock versions of the same car. A stock, mass produced vehicle is almost always only a starting point, not an ending point, unless there are very few of whatever car i'm looking at on the road AND it has everything I'd want already. Very few cars are like that from the factory, and all of them are rare classics or the rarest exotics.

I'm all about customs and visual modification. I want the car to reflect me, not every boring cube-dweller in the country. What can I say, it's the artist in me coming out.

That's cool and all, but it's not for me.  I don't really want to draw attention to myself.  My car is as much a reflection of me as my watch is; I try and find something stylish that performs well and that I enjoy, but I don't try to customize it after the fact.  I keep my car clean and care for it deeply.  That's the reflection of me.  I don't even know what color paint or pattern represents me.

I can't live in a tract house, either. And I think only two rooms in my house have white walls, and one of those is getting changed soon. And the house is customized, as well, with custom decks, custom railings on the porch, and an entire new custom master bedroom suite added on. And while I tend to wear jeans a lot, most of my shirts are, if not custom, then handmade in tiny batches by small companies or unique vintage stuff that's not available anymore, like a small collection of silk Hawaiian shirts made by a small company in Hawaii, and a couple vintage broadcloth Hawaiian shirts from the '60s.

Quote from: ChrisV on May 29, 2009, 10:46:53 AM
I can't live in a tract house, either. And I think only two rooms in my house have white walls, and one of those is getting changed soon. And the house is customized, as well, with custom decks, custom railings on the porch, and an entire new custom master bedroom suite added on. And while I tend to wear jeans a lot, most of my shirts are, if not custom, then handmade in tiny batches by small companies or unique vintage stuff that's not available anymore, like a small collection of silk Hawaiian shirts made by a small company in Hawaii, and a couple vintage broadcloth Hawaiian shirts from the '60s.

I guess we're just different then.  I wear mostly jeans and polos, designer of course, with some designer t-shirts; sometimes I feel a bit silly with that stuff if they have too many graphics on them.  I don't have a house, but if I did, it would likely be minimalist in furniture layout and simple in color scheme.  Although I must have some art.  I like art.  Walls are good for putting TVs and paintings against, I don't much care what color they are.   :lol:

Maybe I'm just a bit more reserved.  I don't want to wear my feelings on a billboard (I don't have bumper stickers either).  I was the only kid in school that didn't have keychains and patches sewn on to my school bag and stuff like that.  Hell, all through college I never even put a poster on my wall.  I'm more open on the forums than I am in real life, that's for sure.

When finances allow, my SVT Focus is getting custom paint.  I'll keep the silver on the bottom half, black on the top half, with an orange pinstripe dividing the two colours.......or silver on the top and black on the bottom.  I haven't decided which yet.

Quote from: HEMI666 on May 29, 2009, 11:08:31 PM
When finances allow, my SVT Focus is getting custom paint.  I'll keep the silver on the bottom half, black on the top half, with an orange pinstripe dividing the two colours.......or silver on the top and black on the bottom.  I haven't decided which yet.

Noes!

It would look cool with Shelby Blue racing stripes, though, like that GT500.

Eh?

(http://image24.webshots.com/25/6/37/79/287363779AyhxQN_ph.jpg)

Quote from: HEMI666 on May 29, 2009, 11:08:31 PM
When finances allow, my SVT Focus is getting custom paint.  I'll keep the silver on the bottom half, black on the top half, with an orange pinstripe dividing the two colours.......or silver on the top and black on the bottom.  I haven't decided which yet.

I'm picturing it and cringing, honestly.

Quote from: Raza  link=topic=18095.msg1070964#msg1070964 date=1243688289
I'm picturing it and cringing, honestly.

Yeah........... :mask: :nono:

Quote from: Raza  link=topic=18095.msg1070964#msg1070964 date=1243688289
I'm picturing it and cringing, honestly.

Same.

Quote from: HEMI666 on May 29, 2009, 11:08:31 PM
When finances allow, my SVT Focus is getting custom paint.  I'll keep the silver on the bottom half, black on the top half, with an orange pinstripe dividing the two colours.......or silver on the top and black on the bottom.  I haven't decided which yet.

Black bottom, silver top would look better, but sorry Hemi, I think both combinations would look ugly.

Only because you've never seen it done.  It actually looks really sharp in person.

Quote from: HEMI666 on May 30, 2009, 11:33:59 AM
Only because you've never seen it done.  It actually looks really sharp in person.

I'm trying to picture It. I've seen a similar paintjob on a PT cruiser and it had moon wheels.



I don't know, Hemi.

Quote from: Raza  on May 30, 2009, 06:58:09 AM
I'm picturing it and cringing, honestly.

I've seen it done on cars like the HHR or PT Cruiser and at least on those, it looks pretty sharp.  Not sure how well it will translate to the shape of the Focus hatch.

Silver top, black bottom was a factory option on 3rd generation celicas. But the body style kinda could pull it off IMO, not sure about a focus, but f' it man whatever you like you should do it.

Quote from: sandertheshark on March 22, 2009, 12:27:16 AM
Honestly, I don't get what people have against the interior of this car.

(http://image.motortrend.com/f/10260214/112_0809_14z+2010_chevrolet_camaro+interior.jpg)

Have you been in one in person? I was a couple weeks ago, and it's garbage. The materials are cheap, the assembly is poor. It's a gigantic expanse of hard black plastic all across the dash, on the doors, down the center console. It's really pretty bad. I wasn't sure about the overall design from the auto show concepts, but the quality of the concept models was much higher, much better materials were used in the concept models. In production, it's a complete disaster. The new Mustang interior embarrasses the living hell out the the Camaro's interior. And even the Mustang's interior isn't all that great.

That looks awfully good to me - a very modern and original take on a retro layout.

Black and silver... I've had two cars like that:

hemi...

Quote from: ChrisV on May 31, 2009, 08:19:58 AM
hemi...

Oh shit, that's hideous.  Forget that idea.

Quote from: ChrisV on May 31, 2009, 08:19:58 AM
hemi...

It's the visual equivalent of drinking orange juice immediately after brushing your teeth.

Yuck.

Quote from: Raza  link=topic=18095.msg1071512#msg1071512 date=1243780636
It's the visual equivalent of drinking orange juice immediately after brushing your teeth.

Yuck.

I guess the shape of the Focus can't pull it off.  Oh well, I'll think of something else.

Quote from: HEMI666 on May 31, 2009, 08:52:13 AM
I guess the shape of the Focus can't pull it off.  Oh well, I'll think of something else.

Electric blue!

Quote from: CALL_911 on May 31, 2009, 09:29:03 AM
Electric blue!

Yep! With white rally stripes,just like the GT500 in his sig.

Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on May 31, 2009, 12:20:24 PM
Yep! With white rally stripes,just like the GT500 in his sig.

Racing stripes look like shit on the Focus.

(http://www.customgaugefaces.com/images/Stripes%20Small.jpg)

Quote from: CALL_911 on May 31, 2009, 09:29:03 AM
Electric blue!

The Sonic Blue SVT Focus was my first choice but I couldn't find one.  I would like a custom paint job though, and not a standard Ford colour.

Quote from: HEMI666 on May 31, 2009, 11:06:28 PM
Racing stripes look like shit on the Focus.

+1,000! Never mind!

i'd just paint it a nice deep red myself. I just can't bring myself for stripes on most cars.

The newer models aren't too bad with stripes

(http://liveimages.carsales.com.au/dealer/carpoint/14831320.jpg)
(http://liveimages.carsales.com.au/dealer/carpoint/13523323.jpg)

I think stripes look fantastic on the European model, but on mine they look terrible.

Quote from: omicron on June 01, 2009, 08:22:53 AM
The newer models aren't too bad with stripes

(http://liveimages.carsales.com.au/dealer/carpoint/14831320.jpg)
(http://liveimages.carsales.com.au/dealer/carpoint/13523323.jpg)

Thats hot!

Quote from: Sigma Projects on June 01, 2009, 05:05:45 AM
i'd just paint it a nice deep red myself. I just can't bring myself for stripes on most cars.

That would look good.

How about black 17" alloys instead of custom paint?

Quote from: Raza  link=topic=18095.msg1072695#msg1072695 date=1243889958
How about black 17" alloys instead of custom paint?

I'm going to get the stock 17" wheels powder coated Gun Metal Grey.  It's only $50 a wheel.

Quote from: HEMI666 on June 01, 2009, 03:00:40 PM
I'm going to get the stock 17" wheels powder coated Gun Metal Grey.  It's only $50 a wheel.

Really?  How does the powder coating look?

I want the wheels I have currently in black, that sounds like a cost effective way of getting it. 

Wait, can't powder coating weaken the wheels?

Hey, I have an idea: Let's increase unsprung weight and rotational inertia while simultaneously emptying our wallet and making the car look ugly, all for no tangible benefit whatsoever!
Ricers :clap:

Quote from: NACar on June 01, 2009, 03:05:50 PM
Hey, I have an idea: Let's increase unsprung weight and rotational inertia while simultaneously emptying our wallet and making the car look ugly, all for no tangible benefit whatsoever!
Ricers :clap:

FWIW I'm pretty sure the stock SVT wheels are already 17".

Quote from: R-inge on June 01, 2009, 03:12:57 PM
FWIW I'm pretty sure the stock SVT wheels are already 17".

I know, but paint adds weight.  :evildude:

Quote from: NACar on June 01, 2009, 03:14:00 PM
I know, but paint adds weight.  :evildude:

lol

As far as powdercoating... you are heat cycling the metal, but I am not a metallurgist and I have no idea what the threshold is for screwing up the strength of the wheel.  A lot of it might depend on if they are forged or not.

Quote from: Raza  link=topic=18095.msg1072700#msg1072700 date=1243890116
Really?  How does the powder coating look?

I want the wheels I have currently in black, that sounds like a cost effective way of getting it. 

Wait, can't powder coating weaken the wheels?

No, I already asked the same question.  My wheels are powder coated from the factory.  They said they would remove the current finish and then put the new powder coat on with a guarantee that the integrity of the wheels will stay intact.

Quote from: NACar on June 01, 2009, 03:05:50 PM
Hey, I have an idea: Let's increase unsprung weight and rotational inertia while simultaneously emptying our wallet and making the car look ugly, all for no tangible benefit whatsoever!
Ricers :clap:

What? Who ARE you responding to?

BTW, if you do a plus size, you can often reduce overall weight as the tire gets lighter as the wheel gets larger.

Quote from: R-inge on June 01, 2009, 03:12:57 PM
FWIW I'm pretty sure the stock SVT wheels are already 17".

They are.

Quote from: ChrisV on June 02, 2009, 10:17:49 AM
What? Who ARE you responding to?

BTW, if you do a plus size, you can often reduce overall weight as the tire gets lighter as the wheel gets larger.

That might depend on how heavy the  new wheel is.  If it's a nice forged unit, sure. 

Quote from: R-inge on June 02, 2009, 10:31:31 AM
That might depend on how heavy the  new wheel is.  If it's a nice forged unit, sure. 

Even cast ones can end up weighing less. The tire is a large amount of the weight, and more importantly, that weight is carried the farthest out for both rotational mass and gyroscopic inertial mass.

Quote from: ChrisV on June 02, 2009, 02:31:10 PM
Even cast ones can end up weighing less. The tire is a large amount of the weight, and more importantly, that weight is carried the farthest out for both rotational mass and gyroscopic inertial mass.

Interesting.  I always figured the wheel made up most of the weight, but I guess not!

Quote from: ChrisV on June 02, 2009, 10:17:49 AM
What? Who ARE you responding to?

BTW, if you do a plus size, you can often reduce overall weight as the tire gets lighter as the wheel gets larger.

That's debateable.  While I'm sure it's possible to plus size and actually reduce unsprung weight and rotational inertia, more times than not you're going to increase one or both of those quantities.  I'm looking at the spec sheet for a Bridgestone Turanza and a 215/65R17 weighs 23 lbs while a 215/55R18 weighs 27.  On top of that, an 18 inch version of a given wheel will generally weigh 0.5-1.0 lbs heavier, much of that being gained out in the "hoop" part of the wheel, at the outside.

Quote from: MX793 on June 02, 2009, 05:25:59 PM
That's debateable.  While I'm sure it's possible to plus size and actually reduce unsprung weight and rotational inertia, more times than not you're going to increase one or both of those quantities.  I'm looking at the spec sheet for a Bridgestone Turanza and a 215/65R17 weighs 23 lbs while a 215/55R18 weighs 27.  On top of that, an 18 inch version of a given wheel will generally weigh 0.5-1.0 lbs heavier, much of that being gained out in the "hoop" part of the wheel, at the outside.

How can the 18" tire weigh more when the only difference between them is the 18" tire is actually shorter in diameter and has less sidewall.

215/65R17 = 28" diameter, 5.5" sidewall

215/55R18 = 27.3" diameter, 4.65" sidewall

Quote from: HEMI666 on June 02, 2009, 05:55:47 PM
How can the 18" tire weigh more when the only difference between them is the 18" tire is actually shorter in diameter and has less sidewall.

215/65R17 = 28" diameter, 5.5" sidewall

215/55R18 = 27.3" diameter, 4.65" sidewall

Lower profiles tend to have thicker sidewalls to better protect the rim over sharp bumps.  It's why low-pro tires tend to have a harsher ride.

I would think lower profile tires are harsh not really due to the thicker side walls but due to the lack of actual compression length in the tire itself. I'm also sure running larger rims and low pros cause your wheels to go out of alignment faster.

Quote from: Sigma Projects on June 03, 2009, 12:35:14 AM
I would think lower profile tires are harsh not really due to the thicker side walls but due to the lack of actual compression length in the tire itself.

this.

my cast 19" wheels and tires are barely heavier than teh stock 16" wheels and tires. Definitely not enough to be noticeable on a 4000+ lb car, both for unsprung weight and in rotational inertia.

When talking about a smaller plus size jump, I've found that the weight can actually go down with the shorter sidewall tire. I've also found that the taller sidewall tire often has the thicker sidewalls in order to support the taller sidwall without flexing as much (the short sidewalls dont' flex much just by virtue of being shorter, kind of like how a worn down eraser wont' bend as much as the same diameter eraser that is still full length)

QuoteI'm also sure running larger rims and low pros cause your wheels to go out of alignment faster.

Sometimes, but usually not. Wider tires, however, will be more likely to tramline and follow ruts/unevenness in the roadway, making it feel like the car is ouot of alignment.

A quick review from last month's Wheels (minus the numbers you already know):

Were this a normal year, the new Chevy Camaro would be proof positive that GM has its mojo back. The Camaro delivers on the promise of its competent and refined Zeta platform, GM?s punchy V6 and V8 engines, and Korean-born designer Sang Yup Lee?s show-car styling. But 2009 is anything but a normal year. As the global economic meltdown threatens to tip what was once the world?s mightiest car company into bankruptcy, the Camaro is the right car at the wrong time.

Right now, GM needs the Chevy Cruze ? the 1.4-litre turbo-powered four-door sedan based on the new Global Delta architecture ? and the much-hyped Chevy Volt hybrid more than it needs the Camaro. And not because either will be hugely popular or profitable, but because these cars are precisely what the politicians in Washington want to see GM building. To the po-faced apparatchiks on Capitol Hill, the Camaro is the sort of automotive frivolity on which GM shouldn?t be wasting taxpayer?s money.

Enthusiasts, however, should rejoice. Because the new Camaro is good. Very good. It might be the last to America?s 21st century pony car party ? Ford?s McQueen-cool Mustang, comprehensively freshened for 2009, was originally launched in 2004, while Dodge?s lovingly detailed homage to the 1970 Challenger appeared last year. But the Chev is easily the most sophisticated and mature of the three.

*snip*

Ah yes, the drags. With the exception of the Trans-Am racers of the late ?60s, Camaros have been pretty much crap at corners. The new Camaro changes all that. It?s quick and composed though the twisties, no matter the road surface. Default handling mode ? at least in the Pirelli P Zero-shod V6 and V8 versions we drove ? is mild understeer at the limit, but the Camaro changes direction with alacrity and is unfazed by mid-corner lumps and bumps. Although V6 and V8 versions differ in their suspension settings ? the V6s get FE2 suspension, while the heavier V8s get FE3 suspension with stiffer spring and anti-roll bar rates ? both perform remarkably similarly when pushed hard. With less weight over the front wheels, the V6s are crisper on turn-in, though the V8s punch harder out of the corners. Both cars offer a ton of mid-corner grip.

The new Camaro is the best reinvention yet of the pony car. It captures the spirit of a uniquely American automotive genre (although we kept the notion of American muscle alive in Oz long after soaring insurance premiums killed it off in the US, the Aussie interpretation had moved to sedans rather than coupes by the 1980s) but wraps it up in genuine 21st century handling and refinement.

But having finally figured out how to build a truly world-class American performance coupe, GM?s financial crisis means it may never be able to do it again ? there?s currently no plan to replace the Zeta architecture. Worse, although a right-hand-drive version of the Camaro was in the product plan from the outset, GM?s cash crunch means it?s been put on indefinite hold. ?The car is fully engineered and ready to go,? says Gene Stefanyshyn. ?There?s just no money to build it.? He is optimistic ? ?we might still do it? ? but that?s the pony car enthusiast talking. Realistically, it?s not likely to happen.

Talk about a cruel irony: Australia made it possible for GM to build one of its most exciting and compelling sports coupes ever, and now us Aussies may never get the chance to drive it.

http://www.wheelsmag.com.au/Road_Tests/Chevy+Camaro+is+out+of+time.html?open&template=domWheels&fullarticle=yes (http://www.wheelsmag.com.au/Road_Tests/Chevy+Camaro+is+out+of+time.html?open&template=domWheels&fullarticle=yes)

Camaro outsells Mustang in June. (http://www.camaroblog.com/blog/1021901_june-2009-chevrolet-camaro-sales-figures-released)

9,320 Camaro vs. 7,632 Mustang, despite GM supply constraints.

Quote from: omicron on June 01, 2009, 08:22:53 AM
The newer models aren't too bad with stripes

(http://liveimages.carsales.com.au/dealer/carpoint/14831320.jpg)
(http://liveimages.carsales.com.au/dealer/carpoint/13523323.jpg)

Nice, but I prefer these:

(http://imagenes.topspeed.com/auto/ford/ford-focus-st500-ar47197/IMG/crop/200711/ford-focus-st500_1600x0w.jpg)

The original front end is very sharp, I agree.

So is this:

(http://www.desktopcar.net/wallpaper/26534-2/Ford_Focus_RS_04.jpg)

Chevrolet stops shipment of manually equipped Camaro SS models for gearbox issue
07/14/2009, 9:44 AM By Drew Johnson

The 2010 Chevrolet Camaro is already in short supply, but those wanting a manually equipped SS model will have to wait even longer. Chevrolet has officially stopped shipment on manual Camaro SS models due to a problem with the car?s six-speed gearbox.

General Motors has yet to reveal what the actual problem is, but the issue is reportedly linked to the gearbox?s output shaft. We asked Adam Denison, head of Camaro PR, about the problem, and this is what he had to say:

?Our engineering team is reviewing data related to the performance of the manual transmission on the Camaro SS and has temporarily stopped shipment of this model. This only impacts Camaro SS models with manual transmission. Camaro SS with automatic transmission, and Camaro LS and LT models are not affected and will continue to be shipped to dealers. We?re working closely with our dealer network to minimize any inconveniences this may cause for the customers.?

Hopefully GM can come up with a solution rather quickly for the problem, but it remains to be seen if the defect will give the best-selling pony car a black eye. The Camaro is GM?s hottest selling model and has already been involved in one recall. And with the 2010 Ford Mustang and new Dodge Challenger on the block, pony car buyers have plenty of alternatives.

:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

Does "SS" stand for:
(A)  Simply Substandard
(B)  Somewhat Sloppy
(C)  Strikingly Slipshod
(D)  Severely Stinking
(E)  Supremely Shitty
(F)  All of the Above :ohyeah:

P. T. Barnum was right ;)

Quote from: Nethead on July 14, 2009, 08:46:55 AM
Chevrolet stops shipment of manually equipped Camaro SS models for gearbox issue
07/14/2009, 9:44 AM By Drew Johnson

The 2010 Chevrolet Camaro is already in short supply, but those wanting a manually equipped SS model will have to wait even longer. Chevrolet has officially stopped shipment on manual Camaro SS models due to a problem with the car?s six-speed gearbox.

General Motors has yet to reveal what the actual problem is, but the issue is reportedly linked to the gearbox?s output shaft. We asked Adam Denison, head of Camaro PR, about the problem, and this is what he had to say:

?Our engineering team is reviewing data related to the performance of the manual transmission on the Camaro SS and has temporarily stopped shipment of this model. This only impacts Camaro SS models with manual transmission. Camaro SS with automatic transmission, and Camaro LS and LT models are not affected and will continue to be shipped to dealers. We?re working closely with our dealer network to minimize any inconveniences this may cause for the customers.?

Hopefully GM can come up with a solution rather quickly for the problem, but it remains to be seen if the defect will give the best-selling pony car a black eye. The Camaro is GM?s hottest selling model and has already been involved in one recall. And with the 2010 Ford Mustang and new Dodge Challenger on the block, pony car buyers have plenty of alternatives.

:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

Does "SS" stand for:
(A)  Simply Substandard
(B)  Somewhat Sloppy
(C)  Strikingly Slipshod
(D)  Severely Stinking
(E)  Supremely Shitty
(F)  All of the Above :ohyeah:

P. T. Barnum was right ;)

How did I know that you would show up in this thread?  And isn't this once again a supplier issue?  If thats the case, GM must be doing one of these:  :rage: :banghead:

Quote from: Nethead on July 14, 2009, 08:46:55 AM


Does "SS" stand for:
(A)  Simply Substandard
(B)  Somewhat Sloppy
(C)  Strikingly Slipshod
(D)  Severely Stinking
(E)  Supremely Shitty
(F)  All of the Above :ohyeah:

P. T. Barnum was right ;)

I'm sorry, but I don't care if people like this car or not, you have to admit this is funny shit right here. :lol: :lol:

Doesn't Ford use that Tremec in the GT500?  They should count their lucky stars it wasn't their outsourced gearbox that started crapping out.

Quote from: HEMI666 on July 18, 2009, 11:23:20 AM
I'm sorry, but I don't care if people like this car or not, you have to admit this is funny shit right here. :lol: :lol:

I don't find those funny anymore, no matter what brand it is.

Quote from: MX793 on July 18, 2009, 11:58:14 AM
Doesn't Ford use that Tremec in the GT500?  They should count their lucky stars it wasn't their outsourced gearbox that started crapping out.

I believe you are correct.

Quote from: MX793 on July 18, 2009, 11:58:14 AM
Doesn't Ford use that Tremec in the GT500?  They should count their lucky stars it wasn't their outsourced gearbox that started crapping out.

Yep, every modern GT500 has been built exclusively with Tremec 6060s--the first Tremec 6060 user, in fact.  Some of the earliest pre-production GT500 test mules (there were 28 GT500 test mules) may have used the Tremec T56.  No issues to date, and that may be around 20,000 units by now...

Automobile Magazine (September): Camaro SS vs. Mustang GT.

Much better acceleration and much better brakes put the Camaro SS out in front of the Mustang GT (w/Track Pack, BTW) on their chosen road course; albeit not by much: 1:40.0 vs. 1:40.7.

Quote from: GoCougs on July 24, 2009, 06:22:35 PM
Automobile Magazine (September): Camaro SS vs. Mustang GT.

Much better acceleration and much better brakes put the Camaro SS out in front of the Mustang GT (w/Track Pack, BTW) on their chosen road course; albeit not by much: 1:40.0 vs. 1:40.7.

111 additional horsepower and the Camaro managed to win by 0.7 seconds?  Awesome!

Quote from: HEMI666 on July 18, 2009, 11:23:20 AM
I'm sorry, but I don't care if people like this car or not, you have to admit this is funny shit right here. :lol: :lol:

Ford stands for Found On Roadside Dead. Hardy-har-har...pull my finger. :rolleyes:

Quote from: HEMI666 on July 24, 2009, 07:22:11 PM
111 additional horsepower and the Camaro managed to win by 0.7 seconds?  Awesome!

And don't forget it outsold the Mustang in June as well...

I've seen a number on the road and at the dealer, but hadn't seen one in action for any length of time. On the way home from work I had the good fortune to shadow for about 10 miles a blue one with gray aluminum wheels. I have concluded that this is the best effort by Detroit since the '86 Taurus; better than the C5, S197 Mustang, G8, current Malibu, et al. I think that it is that good, and primarily owing not to the SS but the awesomeness of the V6 model.

Quote from: GoCougs on July 24, 2009, 08:17:21 PM
I've seen a number on the road and at the dealer, but hadn't seen one in action for any length of time. On the way home from work I had the good fortune to shadow for about 10 miles a blue one with gray aluminum wheels. I have concluded that this is the best effort by Detroit since the '86 Taurus; better than the C5, S197 Mustang, G8, current Malibu, et al. I think that it is that good, and primarily owing not to the SS but the awesomeness of the V6 model.

The V6 is the clear value, performance-wise for the money. 

Quote from: 280Z Turbo on July 24, 2009, 07:42:50 PM
Ford stands for Found On Roadside Dead. Hardy-har-har...pull my finger. :rolleyes:
[/quote

Fix
Or
Repair
Daily

Quote from: CALL_911 on July 25, 2009, 08:07:11 AM

Quote from: 280Z Turbo on July 24, 2009, 07:42:50 PM
Ford stands for Found On Roadside Dead. Hardy-har-har...pull my finger. :rolleyes:
[/quote

Fix
Or
Repair
Daily

Fucked
On
Race
Day

Quote from: GoCougs on July 24, 2009, 08:17:21 PM
I've seen a number on the road and at the dealer, but hadn't seen one in action for any length of time. On the way home from work I had the good fortune to shadow for about 10 miles a blue one with gray aluminum wheels. I have concluded that this is the best effort by Detroit since the '86 Taurus; better than the C5, S197 Mustang, G8, current Malibu, et al. I think that it is that good, and primarily owing not to the SS but the awesomeness of the V6 model.

That's why this Camaro might be a success, and why Ford needs to up its game in regards to powerplants in the Mustang.  When your competitor's base model V6 has about as much power as your topline V8 in a segment where power plays, you need to rethink your strategy.  Either go extremely lightweight or increase power. 

Quote from: Raza  on July 25, 2009, 09:34:01 AM
That's why this Camaro might be a success, and why Ford needs to up its game in regards to powerplants in the Mustang.  When your competitor's base model V6 has about as much power as your topline V8 in a segment where power plays, you need to rethink your strategy.  Either go extremely lightweight or increase power. 

When Hyundai comes out with a V8 (on their first go at making a V8) that makes significantly more power than any naturally aspirated motor that Ford offers, it's time to step up and get working on a better V8.

They also need to up the ante on their V6 Mustang.  The V6 Camaro blows that one right out of the water and isn't even that much more expensive when similarly equipped.  In fact, the V6 Mustang can get downright expensive.  I've been keeping an eye on local dealer inventories and I've seen only 1 V6 Stang listed for under 30K (and that was a stripper base model that was 23K).  In fact, that stripped V6 is the only Mustang I've seen under 30K locally.  I haven't seen a V8 for anything less than 33K.

Quote from: MX793 on July 25, 2009, 10:07:43 AM
In fact, that stripped V6 is the only Mustang I've seen under 30K locally.  I haven't seen a V8 for anything less than 33K.

WOW!

Quote from: Raza  on July 25, 2009, 09:34:01 AM
That's why this Camaro might be a success, and why Ford needs to up its game in regards to powerplants in the Mustang.  When your competitor's base model V6 has about as much power as your topline V8 in a segment where power plays, you need to rethink your strategy.  Either go extremely lightweight or increase power. 

It's not necessarily power; the V6 Camaro gets the same look (optional wheels, dual exhaust) plus a 6sp MT/AT like the SS.

One can spot a V6 Mustang, with it's lame grill, grandma single exhaust, and junky wheels from 200 yards.

Quote from: Raza  link=topic=18095.msg1121700#msg1121700 date=1248536041
That's why this Camaro might be a success, and why Ford needs to up its game in regards to powerplants in the Mustang.  When your competitor's base model V6 has about as much power as your topline V8 in a segment where power plays, you need to rethink your strategy.  Either go extremely lightweight or increase power. 

I think it says a lot about the Mustang that a car with 111 more horsepower only beat it by 0.7 of a second on a road course.  The Mustang is 300 lbs lighter and with the 400 hp 5.0L V8 coming out next year, the driver of the Camaro will be seeing nothing but those 6 vertical bars.

Quote from: GoCougs on July 24, 2009, 08:17:21 PM
I've seen a number on the road and at the dealer, but hadn't seen one in action for any length of time. On the way home from work I had the good fortune to shadow for about 10 miles a blue one with gray aluminum wheels. I have concluded that this is the best effort by Detroit since the '86 Taurus; better than the C5, S197 Mustang, G8, current Malibu, et al. I think that it is that good, and primarily owing not to the SS but the awesomeness of the V6 model.

It's a good car Cougs, but I don't think it's as good as you seem to think it is.  Besides having 111 more horsepower and a slightly quicker acceleration time, name something the Camaro actually does better then the Mustang.  In the last C&D comparo I read, they had the exact same braking distances.  In every comparo I've read then Mustang had better steering, better handling, better ride, better cornering, better back seat, better trunk and trunk access, and got better fuel economy.

Quote from: HEMI666 on July 25, 2009, 02:48:59 PM
  Besides having 111 more horsepower and a slightly quicker acceleration time, name something the Camaro actually does better then the Mustang.

The camaro is 12 SECONDS ahead of the 'Stang by 140mph! All that while having the same EPA rating (16/24) and braking (162 ft.,C&D 7/09) as the Mustang with the Track Pack ($1500).

Quote from: HEMI666 on July 25, 2009, 02:48:59 PM
It's a good car Cougs, but I don't think it's as good as you seem to think it is.  Besides having 111 more horsepower and a slightly quicker acceleration time, name something the Camaro actually does better then the Mustang.  In the last C&D comparo I read, they had the exact same braking distances.  In every comparo I've read then Mustang had better steering, better handling, better ride, better cornering, better back seat, better trunk and trunk access, and got better fuel economy.

Sorry, dude, I don't see how there can be a case against the Camaro as the better car; infinitely so when it comes to the comparison between the V6 versions. Until Ford addresses the live axle, 5sp MT/AT, and power deficit in both the GT and V6, the Mustang IMO will play second fiddle.

I have to mention this:  In the new issue of Automobile, they race both around the track.  The Camaro laps in 1:40.0.  The Mustang, 100 hp down, does the same thing in 1:40.7.

Quote from: HEMI666 on July 25, 2009, 02:48:59 PM
It's a good car Cougs, but I don't think it's as good as you seem to think it is.  Besides having 111 more horsepower and a slightly quicker acceleration time, name something the Camaro actually does better then the Mustang.  In the last C&D comparo I read, they had the exact same braking distances.  In every comparo I've read then Mustang had better steering, better handling, better ride, better cornering, better back seat, better trunk and trunk access, and got better fuel economy.

Neither car is absolutely better, so it comes down to preference. I'll take the Camaro.

Quote from: hotrodalex on July 25, 2009, 07:47:28 PM
Neither car is absolutely better, so it comes down to preference. I'll take the Camaro.

I'm short, so it's a tossup between the 'Stang and the Genesis for me.

Quote from: GoCougs on July 25, 2009, 02:39:24 PM
It's not necessarily power; the V6 Camaro gets the same look (optional wheels, dual exhaust) plus a 6sp MT/AT like the SS.

One can spot a V6 Mustang, with it's lame grill, grandma single exhaust, and junky wheels from 200 yards.

That's also a factor.  The V6 Camaro doesn't feel like a rolling penalty box. 

Quote from: the Teuton on July 25, 2009, 07:49:30 PM
I'm short, so it's a tossup between the 'Stang and the Genesis for me.

I think I'm about the same height as you, maybe an inch or so taller.  The Camaro isn't as bad as people say, or even as I reported before.  Perspective does change things.  Compared to my Jetta, which I drive everyday, the Camaro has horrible visibility, but then a week later I drove the 370Z and it was day and night between the two.  There is no visibility in the 370.  The windows are just for show; you drive by ear.  The Camaro's not that bad.

Quote from: the Teuton on July 25, 2009, 07:43:40 PM
I have to mention this:  In the new issue of Automobile, they race both around the track.  The Camaro laps in 1:40.0.  The Mustang, 100 hp down, does the same thing in 1:40.7.

I just read that.  I was impressed by that gap; it's somewhat large, but if you factor in the power difference (and peak lateral g of the Mustang was higher than the Camaro's) it says a lot about the Mustang.  I can't wait to get my hands on one.

Quote from: GoCougs on July 25, 2009, 07:19:05 PM
Sorry, dude, I don't see how there can be a case against the Camaro as the better car;

That's because you're becoming the Nethead of the Camaro world.  You refuse to accept what comparos are saying because you don't want to believe it.  The Mustang's live axle provides a smoother ride, higher lateral g's, and better cornering then the Camaro's IRS setup.

Quoteinfinitely so when it comes to the comparison between the V6 versions.

I don't care about the V6 versions...and yes I do understand those are the volume sellers.

QuoteUntil Ford addresses the live axle, 5sp MT/AT, and power deficit in both the GT and V6, the Mustang IMO will play second fiddle.

The power deficit is getting fixed for 2011 and the 5 speed will hopefully be fixed at the same time.  As for the live axle
problem", see comments above.

Quote from: HEMI666 on July 26, 2009, 11:22:06 AM
That's because you're becoming the Nethead of the Camaro world.  You refuse to accept what comparos are saying because you don't want to believe it.  The Mustang's live axle provides a smoother ride, higher lateral g's, and better cornering then the Camaro's IRS setup.
I don't care about the V6 versions...and yes I do understand those are the volume sellers.
The power deficit is getting fixed for 2011 and the 5 speed will hopefully be fixed at the same time.  As for the live axle
problem", see comments above.

Not at all; Nethead is delusional screed not based in reality, and solely predicated on hating the Camaro; as such, if you are so inclined to mag race, the Camaro has won the lion's share of comparisons.

Ford fanboys have been crowing about world class power being around the corner for years, and still nothing. Even if we do see 400 hp, and even if the dowdy 5sp transmissions go bye-bye, IMO a live axle is not proper in semi-performance car built in 2011; budget-minded like the Mustang or not.

You just have to accept the fact that I have judged, and it needs neither warrant nor sanction from anyone.

Quote from: GoCougs on July 26, 2009, 11:41:00 AM
Not at all; Nethead is delusional screed not based in reality, and solely predicated on hating the Camaro; as such, if you are so inclined to mag race, the Camaro has won the lion's share of comparisons.

Sure.  And virtually all of those comparos state that it was a photo finish.  Those same reviews state the Mustang is better in the handling department, and I'm chalking some of those wins up to the "newness" of the Camaro.  Just like the Z06 before it.

QuoteFord fanboys have been crowing about world class power being around the corner for years, and still nothing. Even if we do see 400 hp, and even if the dowdy 5sp transmissions go bye-bye, IMO a live axle is not proper in semi-performance car built in 2011; budget-minded like the Mustang or not.

It might not be proper but it does a better job then the Camaro's IRS.

QuoteYou just have to accept the fact that I have judged, and it needs neither warrant nor sanction from anyone.

When you are basing your judgement on bullshit, it needs to be called out.

Quote from: Raza  link=topic=18095.msg1122121#msg1122121 date=1248620737
I just read that.  I was impressed by that gap; it's somewhat large, but if you factor in the power difference (and peak lateral g of the Mustang was higher than the Camaro's) it says a lot about the Mustang.  I can't wait to get my hands on one.

0.7 seconds is probably about 1/2 a car length.  That's not much on a lap that's over a minute and a half.  Wait until next summer/fall when the Mustang gets 400 hp and will still have that 300 lbs weight advantage.

Quote from: GoCougs on July 25, 2009, 02:39:24 PM
It's not necessarily power; the V6 Camaro gets the same look (optional wheels, dual exhaust) plus a 6sp MT/AT like the SS.

One can spot a V6 Mustang, with it's lame grill, grandma single exhaust, and junky wheels from 200 yards.

I don't think the V6 looks lame at all.  In fact it's the first V6 Mustang that I actually like.

(http://www.lnkr.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/mustang-red-front1.jpg)

(http://www.stangbangers.com/2010_MustangV6_Pic01.jpg)

(http://www.yosax.com/car_images/2010-ford-mustang-1.jpg)

Quote from: HEMI666 on July 26, 2009, 12:03:25 PM
Sure.  And virtually all of those comparos state that it was a photo finish.  Those same reviews state the Mustang is better in the handling department, and I'm chalking some of those wins up to the "newness" of the Camaro.  Just like the Z06 before it.
It might not be proper but it does a better job then the Camaro's IRS.
When you are basing your judgement on bullshit, it needs to be called out.

You issue the mag-racing campro throw-down only to then concede, and then blame "newness." Unbelievable.

Quote from: GoCougs on July 26, 2009, 12:19:16 PM
You issue the mag-racing campro throw-down only to then concede, and then blame "newness." Unbelievable.

There is no reason the Camaro should have won the comparos when every magazine states the Mustang is better in all the important areas like handling, steering, seats, and ride.  The Camaro excells in straight line acceleration.  The Z06 got the same treatment by all the magazines when it came out.  It was given the top spot in all the comparos despite the other cars being better handlers, easier to drive at the limit, better steering, and better seats.  After a year or so, the Z06 stopped finishing first even when compared against the same cars it beat in prior comparos.

Quote from: HEMI666 on July 26, 2009, 12:07:45 PM
0.7 seconds is probably about 1/2 a car length.  That's not much on a lap that's over a minute and a half.  Wait until next summer/fall when the Mustang gets 400 hp and will still have that 300 lbs weight advantage.

:wtf: :facepalm:

.7 seconds would be a half a car length only if they were both going 7.6 mph. .7 seconds at any sort of track speed is MUCH more than a half a car length.

Quote from: MrH on July 26, 2009, 12:26:31 PM
:wtf: :facepalm:

.7 seconds would be a half a car length only if they were both going 7.6 mph. .7 seconds at any sort of track speed is MUCH more than a half a car length.

Yeah you're right, but let's be realistic here, 0.7 seconds is less time then it takes to type the word "one".

Quote from: HEMI666 on July 26, 2009, 12:30:03 PM
Yeah you're right, but let's be realistic here, 0.7 seconds is less time then it takes to type the word "one".

Geeze you're a slow typer. :lol:

You Mustang fanboys and your unashamed hyperbole.

In that Automobile write-up, the average track speed was ~80 mph; 0.7 seconds at 80 mph is ~82 ft, or more than five car lengths...

Quote from: the Teuton on July 25, 2009, 07:43:40 PM
I have to mention this:  In the new issue of Automobile, they race both around the track.  The Camaro laps in 1:40.0.  The Mustang, 100 hp down, does the same thing in 1:40.7.

I wonder what the lap times would be for a BASE 'Stang GT. They always test the Track Pack versions. I'm sure the Camaro would be even faster (around a track) with $1500 worth of tire/suspension upgrades. Since 1993 the Mustang has always needed some kind of upgrade to run with the Camaro. From superchargers to Track Packs, the Mustang always needs some type of (factory or aftermarket) modification. So in the end I say even a Track Pack Mustang can't beat the SS around a track.  :evildude:

Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on July 26, 2009, 01:59:51 PM
I wonder what the lap times would be for a BASE 'Stang GT. They always test the Track Pack versions. I'm sure the Camaro would be even faster (around a track) with $1500 worth of tire/suspension upgrades. Since 1993 the Mustang has always needed some kind of upgrade to run with the Camaro. From superchargers to Track Packs, the Mustang always needs some type of (factory or aftermarket) modification. So in the end I say even a Track Pack Mustang can't beat the SS around a track.  :evildude:

And imagine what'll happen should Chevy offers a Track Pack-equivalent for the Camaro...

The Camaro was slower around the 'Ring than the Cobalt SS by something like 12 seconds.  It appears that Chevy didn't design it to be the ultimate track beast.

Quote from: the Teuton on July 26, 2009, 03:25:15 PM
The Camaro was slower around the 'Ring than the Cobalt SS by something like 12 seconds.  It appears that Chevy didn't design it to be the ultimate track beast.

A light FWD car vs a Heavy RWD car. Totally unfair comparison.



Besides, the Cobalt SS is just downright fast. It bests a lot of cars around the Nurburgring.

Quote from: GoCougs on July 26, 2009, 03:14:40 PM
And imagine what'll happen should Chevy offers a Track Pack-equivalent for the Camaro...

From the sounds of it you wouldn't want a Camaro with stiffer suspension then it's already got.

Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on July 26, 2009, 01:59:51 PM
I wonder what the lap times would be for a BASE 'Stang GT. They always test the Track Pack versions. I'm sure the Camaro would be even faster (around a track) with $1500 worth of tire/suspension upgrades. Since 1993 the Mustang has always needed some kind of upgrade to run with the Camaro. From superchargers to Track Packs, the Mustang always needs some type of (factory or aftermarket) modification. So in the end I say even a Track Pack Mustang can't beat the SS around a track.  :evildude:

Shame on Chevy for not offering more then one suspension setup for the Camaro.

Quote from: HEMI666 on July 26, 2009, 12:30:03 PM
Yeah you're right, but let's be realistic here, 0.7 seconds is less time then it takes to type the word "one".

.7 seconds is not a smashing difference, but if the race was 20 laps it would make a WORLD of a difference. I mean F1 guys complain about .5 second advantages and this is F1 guys. In sprint sure it's .7 seconds, in a multi lap race that means the person with the faster lap time has more time to correct himself after a miss hap and more than likely will start to put minutes in front of the drivers behind him.

Quote from: the Teuton on July 26, 2009, 03:25:15 PM
The Camaro was slower around the 'Ring than the Cobalt SS by something like 12 seconds.  It appears that Chevy didn't design it to be the ultimate track beast.

The Cobalt SS had an 8:22 run, the Camaro SS had an 8:20 run

Quote from: HEMI666 on July 26, 2009, 04:42:35 PM
Shame on Chevy for not offering more then one suspension setup for the Camaro.

Probably not, just as the majority of new Mustang buyers similarly will sidestep the excessively geared and stiff Track Pack.

Quote from: HEMI666 on July 26, 2009, 04:42:35 PM
Shame on Chevy for not offering more then one suspension setup for the Camaro.

Hold yer horses; it took Ford six years to offer the Track Pack.

Quote from: GoCougs on July 26, 2009, 08:44:49 PM
Probably not, just as the majority of new Mustang buyers similarly will sidestep the excessively geared and stiff Track Pack.

Excessively geared and stiff?  Now you're just making shit up.  In all the comparos I've read, the Track Pack is praised for it's poise and ability to soak up bumps and rough pavement better then the Camaro.  Nowhere have I read that gearing is a problem.

QuoteHold yer horses; it took Ford six years to offer the Track Pack.

And this matters how?

Quote from: HEMI666 on July 26, 2009, 04:42:35 PM
Shame on Chevy for not offering more then one suspension setup for the Camaro.

:rolleyes:

Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on July 26, 2009, 09:31:56 PM
:rolleyes:

Why roll your eyes at that?  Ford offers a more comfort oriented suspension setup as well as the handling oriented Track Pack.  Chevy offers just the stiff riding performance one, and for some reason you guys now want a non-Track Pack equipped Mustang be compared to the SS.  I think it's quite fair to compare the Track Pack Mustangs to the SS since it makes their MSRP's virtually the same.

Quote from: HEMI666 on July 26, 2009, 09:37:50 PM
Why roll your eyes at that?  Ford offers a more comfort oriented suspension setup as well as the handling oriented Track Pack.  Chevy offers just the stiff riding performance one, and for some reason you guys now want a non-Track Pack equipped Mustang be compared to the SS.  I think it's quite fair to compare the Track Pack Mustangs to the SS since it makes their MSRP's virtually the same.

If the base suspension is more comfort oriented why is the Track Pack only availible on the premium model? The base model is more likely to be raced so it should recieve the TP also. I think most of the buyers of the Premium model would want the comfy setup. Just my .02.

I'm trying to Google how many GTs where sold with the TP.

Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on July 26, 2009, 01:59:51 PM
From superchargers to Track Packs, the Mustang always needs some type of (factory or aftermarket) modification.

Conversley, GM has always needed a liter more of displacement to make up for their lack of head flow and run with a mustang.  So the SS with nearly two more liters of engine is barely faster than a lowly 3V mustang with a stick axle around a track.  Hardly a strong bragging point.

At the end of the day a GT500 can be pulled out and simply own the SS in every way.

Quote from: SVT32V on July 27, 2009, 03:39:25 PM
Conversley, GM has always needed a liter more of displacement to make up for their lack of head flow and run with a mustang.  So the SS with nearly two more liters of engine is barely faster than a lowly 3V mustang with a stick axle around a track.  Hardly a strong bragging point.

At the end of the day a GT500 can be pulled out and simply own the SS in every way.

Not true on either point.

The Camaro SS is significantly faster than the GT (but yes, GM does need a lot more displacement) in a straight line.

There is no owning whatsoever by the GT500; and it's actually a pretty dismal affair IMO considering the price premium:

2010 GT 500 test results, June '09 here (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/09q2/2010_ford_mustang_shelby_gt500-short_take_road_test):
Zero to 60 mph: 4.6 sec
Standing ?-mile: 12.9 sec @ 113 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 182 ft
Roadholding, 200-ft-dia skidpad: 0.89 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 14/22 mpg

BASE MSRP:
$48,175

2010 Camaro SS test results, June '09 here (http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/114d79cf1e48eb897dd0ee650bbb926b.pdf) and here (http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/22f9526cf9203591194d6e040c16c364.pdf):
Zero to 60 mph: 4.8 sec
Standing ?-mile: 13.0 sec @ 111 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 162 ft
Roadholding, 200-ft-dia skidpad: 0.85 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 16/24 mpg

BASE MSRP:
$30,995

Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on July 26, 2009, 10:41:14 PM
I'm trying to Google how many GTs where sold with the TP.

Probably none since I'm not sure it's even available to the public yet.

Quote from: GoCougs on July 27, 2009, 04:09:59 PM
Not true on either point.

The Camaro SS is significantly faster than the GT (but yes, GM does need a lot more displacement) in a straight line.

There is no owning whatsoever by the GT500; and it's actually a pretty dismal affair IMO considering the price premium:

2010 GT 500 test results, June '09 here (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/09q2/2010_ford_mustang_shelby_gt500-short_take_road_test):
Zero to 60 mph: 4.6 sec
Standing ?-mile: 12.9 sec @ 113 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 182 ft
Roadholding, 200-ft-dia skidpad: 0.89 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 14/22 mpg

BASE MSRP:
$48,175

2010 Camaro SS test results, June '09 here (http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/114d79cf1e48eb897dd0ee650bbb926b.pdf) and here (http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/22f9526cf9203591194d6e040c16c364.pdf):
Zero to 60 mph: 4.8 sec
Standing ?-mile: 13.0 sec @ 111 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 162 ft
Roadholding, 200-ft-dia skidpad: 0.85 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 16/24 mpg

BASE MSRP:
$30,995

I love how you insist on using the slowest numbers you can find for the GT500.  Motor Trend posted a 4.3 second to 60 mph run going on to a 12.6 1/4 mile time at 115 mph.  The GT500 is undertired and nobody will dispute that.  I have seen as low as 12.24 in the 1/4 mile for the GT500, but since I've only seen that produced once, I'll go with the number I posted which I've seen replicated a few times now.

Quote from: GoCougs on July 26, 2009, 08:44:49 PM
Hold yer horses; it took Ford six years to offer the Track Pack.

It took Chevy 7 years to offer a Camaro.  What's your point?

Quote from: HEMI666 on July 27, 2009, 05:52:39 PM
I love how you insist on using the slowest numbers you can find for the GT500.  Motor Trend posted a 4.3 second to 60 mph run going on to a 12.6 1/4 mile time at 115 mph.  The GT500 is undertired and nobody will dispute that.  I have seen as low as 12.24 in the 1/4 mile for the GT500, but since I've only seen that produced once, I'll go with the number I posted which I've seen replicated a few times now.

What can I say: they were both in the same issue.

The only thing I remember M/T stating was that they couldn't get the GT500 to perform, and got similar numbers to C&D IIRC. (I'll let you do the research.)

Much as the previous GT500, you'll only see materially better numbers in fanboy magazines. It's a high/upper 12 second car; quicker than the Camaro SS, but don't get a perfect launch or botch a shift and it'll lose.

Quote from: HEMI666 on July 27, 2009, 05:54:40 PM
It took Chevy 7 years to offer a Camaro.  What's your point?

I don't remember.

Quote from: GoCougs on July 27, 2009, 06:11:41 PM
What can I say: they were both in the same issue.

The only thing I remember M/T stating was that they couldn't get the GT500 to perform, and got similar numbers to C&D IIRC. (I'll let you do the research.)

Much as the previous GT500, you'll only see materially better numbers in fanboy magazines. It's a high/upper 12 second car, barely edging out the Camaro SS.

So Motor Trend is Fan boy magazine now?  Interesting.

As I've stated before, MM&FF also got the F-body twins to run the 1/4 mile faster then any other magazine, so maybe they just have better drivers...oh that's right, they do.  Their drivers all race professionally.

Quote from: HEMI666 on July 27, 2009, 06:18:09 PM
So Motor Trend is Fan boy magazine now?  Interesting.

As I've stated before, MM&FF also got the F-body twins to run the 1/4 mile faster then any other magazine, so maybe they just have better drivers...oh that's right, they do.  Their drivers all race professionally.

Show me a 4.3/12.6 2010 GT500 in M/T then; maybe I've missed it.

So then presumably we can similarly take .3 - .5 tenths off the Camaro's 1/4 time? (Be careful with that one.)

Quote from: HEMI666 on July 27, 2009, 06:18:09 PM
So Motor Trend is Fan boy magazine now?  Interesting.

As I've stated before, MM&FF also got the F-body twins to run the 1/4 mile faster then any other magazine, so maybe they just have better drivers...oh that's right, they do.  Their drivers all race professionally.

They also do things like ice manifolds and reduce tire pressure.

Quote from: SVT32V on July 27, 2009, 03:39:25 PM
Conversley, GM has always needed a liter more of displacement to make up for their lack of head flow and run with a mustang.  So the SS with nearly two more liters of engine is barely faster than a lowly 3V mustang with a stick axle around a track.  Hardly a strong bragging point.

At the end of the day a GT500 can be pulled out and simply own the SS in every way.

Why do you Mustang guys bring up the GT500 in every thread? We've already discussed that at it price point it gets owned by the Corvette. We are comparing 30k pony cars not 50k limited edition pony cars! :banghead:

Quote from: MX793 on July 27, 2009, 05:51:37 PM
Probably none since I'm not sure it's even available to the public yet.

Is this the 21st century version of a ringer.  :mask:

Quote from: HEMI666 on July 27, 2009, 05:52:39 PM
I love how you insist on using the slowest numbers you can find for the GT500.  Motor Trend posted a 4.3 second to 60 mph run going on to a 12.6 1/4 mile time at 115 mph.  The GT500 is undertired and nobody will dispute that.  I have seen as low as 12.24 in the 1/4 mile for the GT500, but since I've only seen that produced once, I'll go with the number I posted which I've seen replicated a few times now.

Here's a direct comparison GT500 vs Camaro.  1/4 ET's times make it a drivers race, but eventually the 114hp difference finally makes some difference in the trap speed.  Still the trap speed difference is smaller than the SS vs GT gap.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0907_2010_ford_shelby_gt500_chevrolet_camaro_comparison/index.html

GT500 12.8 @ 115.3
Camaro SS 12.9 @ 110.7


Also it's clear that the GT500 goes for sharper handling while the Camaro goes for more comfort and safe understeer.  Also the live rear axle is still a problem in the Mustang.

"If you're not careful, the GT500's live rear axle hops and bangs and thumps, spitting the car sideways as the tires struggle for grip.

It's a core element of modern Mustang mythology that the GT500's S197 platform has a live rear axle because it delivers better traction on the drag strip. (And it is mythology -- several folks who worked at Ford have since revealed the S197 was originally planned to have an independent rear end, and that the drag race traction story was PR spin designed to deflect media criticism of the car's stone-age rear suspension). But even if the GT500 was fitted with Pirelli PZeros like the Camaro, we're not convinced it could match the Chevy's off-the-line grip."

"The GT500 is a much more lively ride off the track, with lots more sharp vertical motions through the suspension, and an unmistakable two-step from the live rear axle through anything other than super-smooth turns"

"Out on real world roads, the Camaro is easily the smoother, more refined, more mature car of the two; more deliberate in its moves, and more measured in its responses."



On the flip side the Mustang does have better steering and more performance oriented suspension tuning, while the Camaro is softer and more dialed for understeer.

"Whereas the GT500 can be hurled into a turn, and you can use the responsive steering and engine to sort out the geometry from there, the Camaro demands carefully judged entry speeds and track position. You get one shot at the optimum line, as the car's trajectory is pretty much non-adjustable from the moment you pull the steering wheel off-center. Try anything other than lifting off the gas -- which destroys mid-corner speed -- and the front end simply runs wide."

Ultimately they picked the GT500 as the ultimate pony car, but I think the Camaro is impressive considering its mission for comfort.  I think if you matched the front half of the Mustang with the back half of the Camaro and added the Supercharged LSx engine, you'd have the ultimate muscle car.  But I guess they call that the CTS-V.

Also to add fire to the pushrods vs OHC debate.  The LS3 was the much smoother and more refined engine of the two.

"the 6.2-liter LS3 is smoother and more refined all the way to its 6200-rpm redline"
"The LS3 is a sweetheart, as rich and smooth as molten chocolate right through the rev range."

Quote from: 565 on July 28, 2009, 01:46:40 AM
"It's a core element of modern Mustang mythology that the GT500's S197 platform has a live rear axle because it delivers better traction on the drag strip. (And it is mythology -- several folks who worked at Ford have since revealed the S197 was originally planned to have an independent rear end, and that the drag race traction story was PR spin designed to deflect media criticism of the car's stone-age rear suspension). But even if the GT500 was fitted with Pirelli PZeros like the Camaro, we're not convinced it could match the Chevy's off-the-line grip."

Well, duh! Only the most ardent of Mustang fanyboys would buy such an utterly BS story.

Live axle = cheaper. End of story.

Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on July 28, 2009, 12:04:18 AM
Why do you Mustang guys bring up the GT500 in every thread? We've already discussed that at it price point it gets owned by the Corvette. We are comparing 30k pony cars not 50k limited edition pony cars! :banghead:

Why do you bow tie boys bring up a $50+ two-seat sprots car when we are talking about 4 seat pony cars.

Last time I checked it was called a Mustang GT500, much like camaro SS.

Of course the $46K GT500 is made in the 8000-10000 units per year range, hardly limited edition. iIn fact that is often more than the number of trans ams or z-28 sold per year of the F-body.

When was it decreed in this thread that we could not talk about pony cars costing more than $30K?

Quote from: 565 on July 28, 2009, 01:46:40 AM
HBut even if the GT500 was fitted with Pirelli PZeros like the Camaro, we're not convinced it could match the Chevy's off-the-line grip[/b]."


Nor do we know how the camaro suspension/tires would react to having 120 more hp on tap.

Quote from: SVT32V on July 28, 2009, 12:22:36 PM

Quote from: 565 on July 28, 2009, 01:46:40 AM
HBut even if the GT500 was fitted with Pirelli PZeros like the Camaro, we're not convinced it could match the Chevy's off-the-line grip[/b]."


Nor do we know how the camaro suspension/tires would react to having 120 more hp on tap.

With 120 more hp on the same suspension/tire setup, I don't think it'll be any slower than the Mustang considering they're pretty even to begin with.

Quote from: 565 on July 28, 2009, 01:46:40 AM
Here's a direct comparison GT500 vs Camaro.  1/4 ET's times make it a drivers race, but eventually the 114hp difference finally makes some difference in the trap speed.  Still the trap speed difference is smaller than the SS vs GT gap.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0907_2010_ford_shelby_gt500_chevrolet_camaro_comparison/index.html

GT500 12.8 @ 115.3
Camaro SS 12.9 @ 110.7

Well those trap speeds show more of the story then the ET does.  The GT500 obviously has traction issues off the line since it is undertired (as stated by numerous sources).

QuoteAlso it's clear that the GT500 goes for sharper handling while the Camaro goes for more comfort and safe understeer.  Also the live rear axle is still a problem in the Mustang.

"If you're not careful, the GT500's live rear axle hops and bangs and thumps, spitting the car sideways as the tires struggle for grip.

It's a core element of modern Mustang mythology that the GT500's S197 platform has a live rear axle because it delivers better traction on the drag strip. (And it is mythology -- several folks who worked at Ford have since revealed the S197 was originally planned to have an independent rear end, and that the drag race traction story was PR spin designed to deflect media criticism of the car's stone-age rear suspension). But even if the GT500 was fitted with Pirelli PZeros like the Camaro, we're not convinced it could match the Chevy's off-the-line grip."

"The GT500 is a much more lively ride off the track, with lots more sharp vertical motions through the suspension, and an unmistakable two-step from the live rear axle through anything other than super-smooth turns."

"Out on real world roads, the Camaro is easily the smoother, more refined, more mature car of the two; more deliberate in its moves, and more measured in its responses."



On the flip side the Mustang does have better steering and more performance oriented suspension tuning, while the Camaro is softer and more dialed for understeer.

"Whereas the GT500 can be hurled into a turn, and you can use the responsive steering and engine to sort out the geometry from there, the Camaro demands carefully judged entry speeds and track position. You get one shot at the optimum line, as the car's trajectory is pretty much non-adjustable from the moment you pull the steering wheel off-center. Try anything other than lifting off the gas -- which destroys mid-corner speed -- and the front end simply runs wide."

Ultimately they picked the GT500 as the ultimate pony car, but I think the Camaro is impressive considering its mission for comfort.  I think if you matched the front half of the Mustang with the back half of the Camaro and added the Supercharged LSx engine, you'd have the ultimate muscle car.  But I guess they call that the CTS-V.

QuoteAlso to add fire to the pushrods vs OHC debate.  The LS3 was the much smoother and more refined engine of the two.

"the 6.2-liter LS3 is smoother and more refined all the way to its 6200-rpm redline"
"The LS3 is a sweetheart, as rich and smooth as molten chocolate right through the rev range."

I won't get into the pushrod vs. OHC thing since I am a big fan of the Chevy LSX engines. 

Quote from: HEMI666 on July 28, 2009, 01:06:56 PM
Well those trap speeds show more of the story then the ET does.  The GT500 obviously has traction issues off the line since it is undertired (as stated by numerous sources).

I won't get into the pushrod vs. OHC thing since I am a big fan of the Chevy LSX engines. 

Hey - I thought you were crowing about "good" drivers getting low 12s?

It is much harder to get a live axle to be both a handler and a launcher than it is for IRS.

The purpose was to show that the Camaro SS is 97% the car that the GT500 is for significantly less $$$.

Quote from: GoCougs on July 28, 2009, 01:55:59 PM
Hey - I thought you were crowing about "good" drivers getting low 12s?

It's very difficult car to launch.  Once mastered it will get into the low 12s.

Quote from: NomisR on July 28, 2009, 12:58:38 PM
With 120 more hp on the same suspension/tire setup, I don't think it'll be any slower than the Mustang considering they're pretty even to begin with.

Not really, it could be harder to launch with that much more power without spinning. Very easily the IRS could start hopping as the last generation of CST-V was known to do.

Launching a car with 120 more hp and more torque will prove a lot more difficult.

Quote from: GoCougs on July 28, 2009, 01:55:59 PM
Hey - I thought you were crowing about "good" drivers getting low 12s?

It is much harder to get a live axle to be both a handler and a launcher than it is for IRS.

The purpose was to show that the Camaro SS is 97% the car that the GT500 is for significantly less $$$.

97% of that car when it is down 120 hp and 5 mph through the traps, on a normal highway roll race the ss will be left so fast that his jock will be at his ankles.

Quote from: HEMI666 on July 28, 2009, 02:06:16 PM
It's very difficult car to launch.  Once mastered it will get into the low 12s.

Not without deflating tires, loosening sway bars and other things fanboy magazines are apt to do.

Quote from: GoCougs on July 28, 2009, 02:45:02 PM
Not without deflating tires, loosening sway bars and other things fanboy magazines are apt to do.

MM&FF got the GT500 into the high 11s after doing everything you mentioned plus icing the intake.  Bone stock with no "modifications" made, the car did 12.24.

Man this feels weird. I remember 10 years ago it was backwards in regards to Price/Performance. Camaro/Trans Ams were the beasts to unleash but cost more and sold less, now it seems the other way around.

Quote from: SVT32V on July 28, 2009, 02:38:48 PM
97% of that car when it is down 120 hp and 5 mph through the traps, on a normal highway roll race the ss will be left so fast that his jock will be at his ankles.

The GT500 should pull but not near the rate you imply save that every single GT500 tested has been a dud.

Either way, I think it's easy to argue that the GT500 remains somewhat of a disappointment when it comes to performance numbers.

Quote from: HEMI666 on July 28, 2009, 03:19:47 PM
MM&FF got the GT500 into the high 11s after doing everything you mentioned plus icing the intake.  Bone stock with no "modifications" made, the car did 12.24.

Then you argue they'd get the Camaro SS down to 12.3 - 12.4 then...

Quote from: GoCougs on July 29, 2009, 09:06:59 AM
The GT500 should pull but not near the rate you imply save that every single GT500 tested has been a dud.

As the video illustrates:
http://www.motortrend.com/av/features/112_0907_chevrolet_camaro_ford_shelby_gt500_drag_race_video/index.html (http://www.motortrend.com/av/features/112_0907_chevrolet_camaro_ford_shelby_gt500_drag_race_video/index.html)

The GT500 pulls away handily once it gets some traction. As it should, considering it's price and horsepower disparity. That having been said, I do hope Ford does something soon about the regular GT's horsepower disadvantage. They're just too pricey for 315 HP.

Quote from: GoCougs on July 29, 2009, 09:06:59 AMEither way, I think it's easy to argue that the GT500 remains somewhat of a disappointment when it comes to performance numbers.

Agreed, but mostly because of poor traction.

Quote from: Cobra93 on July 29, 2009, 09:57:16 AM
As the video illustrates:
http://www.motortrend.com/av/features/112_0907_chevrolet_camaro_ford_shelby_gt500_drag_race_video/index.html (http://www.motortrend.com/av/features/112_0907_chevrolet_camaro_ford_shelby_gt500_drag_race_video/index.html)

The GT500 pulls away handily once it gets some traction. As it should, considering it's price and horsepower disparity. That having been said, I do hope Ford does something soon about the regular GT's horsepower disadvantage. They're just too pricey for 315 HP.

Agreed, but mostly because of poor traction.

Actually I didn't take that close a look at that video until now.

What jumped out at me was the HORRENDOUS wheep hop from the GT500 while doing the burn out.  Sure MT mentioned it over and over again, but it really needed to be seen to be believed.  It looked as if the wheels were as oval as the badge.  By comparison the Camaro's wheels stayed super smooth and steady during the burn out.  There seems to be some serious setup and geometry problems with that GT500's back end.  As durable as a live rear axle setup is, such biblical amounts of axle hop must take a toll on durability.

Quote from: 565 on July 29, 2009, 10:14:14 AM
Actually I didn't take that close a look at that video until now.

What jumped out at me was the HORRENDOUS wheep hop from the GT500 while doing the burn out.  Sure MT mentioned it over and over again, but it really needed to be seen to be believed.  It looked as if the wheels were as oval as the badge.  By comparison the Camaro's wheels stayed super smooth and steady during the burn out.  There seems to be some serious setup and geometry problems with that GT500's back end.  As durable as a live rear axle setup is, such biblical amounts of axle hop must take a toll on durability.

Yeah, it's not a smooth leaver, by any means. :(

Quote from: SVT32V on July 28, 2009, 12:18:46 PM
Why do you bow tie boys bring up a $50+ two-seat sprots car when we are talking about 4 seat pony cars.

Last time I checked it was called a Mustang GT500, much like camaro SS.

Of course the $46K GT500 is made in the 8000-10000 units per year range, hardly limited edition. iIn fact that is often more than the number of trans ams or z-28 sold per year of the F-body.

Then it should be compared to a Z28 or other edition that competes with it. The SS competes with the GT. Chevy hasn't offered a higher performance model yet, so you can't bring the GT500 into it.

Quote from: Cobra93 on July 29, 2009, 09:57:16 AM
Agreed, but mostly because of poor traction.

Wow, that rear suspension is just a mess.

Quote from: GoCougs on July 29, 2009, 11:32:15 AM
Wow, that rear suspension is just a mess.

It's ironic that, according to all the tests, it actually handles pretty well. The supposed justification for the live rear axle (drag racing) is what it does worst. My '05 GT wheel hops on hard launches also.  :huh:

Quote from: Cobra93 on July 29, 2009, 12:09:00 PM
My '05 GT wheel hops on hard launches also.  :huh:

My '96 did too until I swapped out the springs.  After that I got nice long smooth wheelspin.

Quote from: hotrodalex on July 29, 2009, 10:39:42 AM
Then it should be compared to a Z28 or other edition that competes with it. The SS competes with the GT. Chevy hasn't offered a higher performance model yet, so you can't bring the GT500 into it.

Don't waste your breath! This just proves my point! You have to buy a 45k Mustang to outrun a 30k Camaro SS. and no matter what they say,at that price point I would buy the Vette.

Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on July 29, 2009, 03:40:29 PM
Don't waste your breath! This just proves my point! You have to buy a 45k Mustang to outrun a 30k Camaro SS. and no matter what they say,at that price point I would buy the Vette.

Local dealerships are getting as much for a Camaro SS as they are for base Vettes right now.  So, I guess you would skip the Camaro too huh?

Quote from: HEMI666 on July 29, 2009, 03:45:11 PM
Local dealerships are getting as much for a Camaro SS as they are for base Vettes right now.  So, I guess you would skip the Camaro too huh?

That must be in Canadian dollars. But in any case there is no way in hell I'd buy the Camaro over the Vette if they were going for the same price!  :nutty: 

Anyone else see that for $1000 you can have GM give your Camaro the Transformers makeover?  You get the whole Bumblebee treatment:

Includes unique Transformers Rally Stripe in Black, Autobot shield wheel center caps, Transformers sill plates, Autobot shield embroidery on center console armrest and Autobot shield exterior badging.

Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on July 29, 2009, 03:47:41 PM
That must be in Canadian dollars. But in any case there is no way in hell I'd buy the Camaro over the Vette if they were going for the same price!  :nutty: 

What does Canadian dollars have to do with anything?  I'm sure Camaros are going for Vette money in most places right now.

Quote from: HEMI666 on July 29, 2009, 03:49:25 PM
What does Canadian dollars have to do with anything?  I'm sure Camaros are going for Vette money in most places right now.

No they're not. I just looked at one (SS automatic,35k) here in Cleveland thats going for list price. I haven't heard of any dealer mark-ups in my area.

No dealer mark ups here either. But if there were, I would definitely get the 'Vette instead. It's simply a class above the Camaro (which, for a much higher MSRP, it should be)

Quote from: hotrodalex on July 29, 2009, 03:55:17 PM
No dealer mark ups here either. But if there were, I would definitely get the 'Vette instead. It's simply a class above the Camaro (which, for a much higher MSRP, it should be)

At least you can see out of it though.

Quote from: HEMI666 on July 29, 2009, 03:48:29 PM
Anyone else see that for $1000 you can have GM give your Camaro the Transformers makeover?  You get the whole Bumblebee treatment:

Includes unique Transformers Rally Stripe in Black, Autobot shield wheel center caps, Transformers sill plates, Autobot shield embroidery on center console armrest and Autobot shield exterior badging.

Yeah, I saw that.  I'll never do that.

No dealer is getting Corvette money for Camaro V8s.

Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on July 29, 2009, 03:40:29 PM
Don't waste your breath! This just proves my point! You have to buy a 45k Mustang to outrun a 30k Camaro SS. and no matter what they say,at that price point I would buy the Vette.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

Quote from: hotrodalex on July 29, 2009, 10:39:42 AM
Then it should be compared to a Z28 or other edition that competes with it. The SS competes with the GT. Chevy hasn't offered a higher performance model yet, so you can't bring the GT500 into it.

It is not Fords problem that GM is too busy suckling at the govt teat and cannot produce a Z28.

Why not just limit it to sub $30K pony cars, then the SS is out of the picture.  Your arbitrary decision on what is comparable is just that arbitrary.

Quote from: R-inge on July 30, 2009, 08:21:27 AM
Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

Of course the SS optioned like the $45K mustang will not be a lot closer in price to the GT500.

And at the end of the day the GT500 will still own the SS, end of story.

Quote from: R-inge on July 30, 2009, 08:21:27 AM
Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

No kidding - the C6 owns on a GT500 in every way.

Quote from: GoCougs on July 30, 2009, 11:06:55 AM
No kidding - the C6 owns on a GT500 in every way.

It's good to know that you're a Vette fan. Here's what some guy on the C&D forums had to say about the C6:  :lol:

"The Corvette lost out because it is a leaf-sprung, pushrod-powered, fiberglass-clad throwback.
It's flexy, loud, sloppy, and cheap, despite having the best overall acceleration numbers."

Quote from: SVT32V on July 30, 2009, 10:47:47 AM
It is not Fords problem that GM is too busy suckling at the govt teat and cannot produce a Z28.

Why not just limit it to sub $30K pony cars, then the SS is out of the picture.  Your arbitrary decision on what is comparable is just that arbitrary.

It took a few years for Ford to release the GT500, give GM some time.

I like how the Mustang fanboys are trying to justify comparing an SS with a car that costs 50% more. :nutty:

And no, a .1 sec difference in the quarter mile is not "owning" the SS either.

I can't wait for the Z28 to come along to shut Mustang fanboys up. But they will still complain about something to make the Mustang seem better. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Cobra93 on July 30, 2009, 12:00:12 PM
It's good to know that you're a Vette fan. Here's what some guy on the C&D forums had to say about the C6:  :lol:

"The Corvette lost out because it is a leaf-sprung, pushrod-powered, fiberglass-clad throwback.
It's flexy, loud, sloppy, and cheap, despite having the best overall acceleration numbers."

Hey - that's no fair (ChrisV already gave me heck over there)!

Though I was indeed trolling a bit, the C&D article pretty much said those same things to a lesser degree, at least about the chassis.

Neither car is perfect; both are extreme compromise vehicles.

Quote from: SVT32V on July 30, 2009, 10:49:57 AM
Of course the SS optioned like the $45K mustang will not be a lot closer in price to the GT500.

And at the end of the day the GT500 will still own the SS, end of story.

:whatshesaid:

Quote from: thecarnut on July 30, 2009, 12:03:56 PM
I like how the Mustang fanboys are trying to justify comparing an SS with a car that costs 50% more. :nutty:

And no, a .1 sec difference in the quarter mile is not "owning" the SS either.

+1

Quote from: GoCougs on July 30, 2009, 11:06:55 AM
No kidding - the C6 owns on a GT500 in every way.

Well, Duuuuuuuuh!  I frickin' hope so. 

Quote from: HEMI666 on July 30, 2009, 10:27:56 PM
Well, Duuuuuuuuh!  I frickin' hope so. 

If you had to make the payments, wich one would YOU buy? C6 or GT500.

Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on July 30, 2009, 11:19:41 PM
If you had to make the payments, wich one would YOU buy? C6 or GT500.

That's tough since the Vette is $12,000 more then the GT500 in Canada. 

The top dog Mustang is one badass car with badass looks, and could make a good DD.  The Vette is a hardcore sports car.  Two very different machines.  The GT500 would be much better as a DD, better for long trips, and if forced my kids could ride in the back.  The Vette on the other hand is a much better performer, has killer looks, and would be a blast on the twisty two laners around here.  In the end it would come down to price.  If they were the same price, I would go for the Vetter, but since the Vette is $12,000 more then the GT500 here, I would go with the GT500.

From GM.com
Vette Z51 = $52,705 (no options other then Z51)

From Ford.com
GT500 = $47,700 (no options other then HID headlamps)



From GM.ca
Vette Z51 = $70,130 (no options other then Z51)

From Ford.ca
GT500 = $57,299 (no options other then HID headlamps)

Why does Canada seem like the place of eternal damnation when it comes to new cars?

I'd say screw it and get a used JDM GT-R for less than that, but that's just me.

Quote from: SVT32V on July 30, 2009, 10:47:47 AM
It is not Fords problem that GM is too busy suckling at the govt teat and cannot produce a Z28.

Why not just limit it to sub $30K pony cars, then the SS is out of the picture.  Your arbitrary decision on what is comparable is just that arbitrary.

Okay, then we will do $25k pony cars, then the GT is out of the picture. Camaro wins. That's why you compare by equivalent models - the cars that the companies make to match up with the others'.

V6 vs V6
GT vs SS

That's all you have. There is no Camaro competition for the GT500. A big reason for that is the Corvette, which is right around that price range (and also happens to kick the GT500's booty)

Quote from: hotrodalex on August 03, 2009, 10:47:22 AM
Okay, then we will do $25k pony cars, then the GT is out of the picture. Camaro wins. That's why you compare by equivalent models - the cars that the companies make to match up with the others'.

V6 vs V6
GT vs SS

That's all you have. There is no Camaro competition for the GT500. A big reason for that is the Corvette, which is right around that price range (and also happens to kick the GT500's booty)

How about $28 K pony cars, Mustang GT vs V6 camaro. 

We can play this game for a long time.

Quote from: SVT32V on August 03, 2009, 11:18:21 AM
How about $28 K pony cars, Mustang GT vs V6 camaro. 

We can play this game for a long time.

If you want to compare apples to oranges, sure that's fine.  But that would make you look like a blue-oval troll.

Quote from: thecarnut on July 30, 2009, 12:03:56 PM
It took a few years for Ford to release the GT500, give GM some time.

I like how the Mustang fanboys are trying to justify comparing an SS with a car that costs 50% more. :nutty:

And no, a .1 sec difference in the quarter mile is not "owning" the SS either.

I can't wait for the Z28 to come along to shut Mustang fanboys up. But they will still complain about something to make the Mustang seem better. :rolleyes:

By then the Coyote 5.0 will be in the GT and the SS will lose at that point.

This is silly and ridiculous, a well optioned SS is not going to go for that much less than a GT500.

As it stands:

Mustag V6<Camaro V6<Mustang GT<Camaro SS<Mustang GT500

End of story until a Z28 comes out if Obama lets GM make such a car, since he is in control.

You GM boys shouldn't get your butt so hurt by the fact that a GT500 is faster, it is more expensive in the pony car class and it is better.

Really, the SS is at best even with a 7 year old terminator cobra and more likely slower. Great it took GM 8 yrs to finally make a camaro that can't outrun a 7 yr old cobra.

Quote from: SVT32V on August 03, 2009, 11:25:18 AM
By then the Coyote 5.0 will be in the GT and the SS will lose at that point.

This is silly and ridiculous, a well optioned SS is not going to go for that much less than a GT500.

As it stands:

Mustag V6<Camaro V6<Mustang GT<Camaro SS<Mustang GT500

End of story until a Z28 comes out if Obama lets GM make such a car, since he is in control.

You GM boys shouldn't get your butt so hurt by the fact that a GT500 is faster, it is more expensive in the pony car class and it is better.

Really, the SS is at best even with a 7 year old terminator cobra and more likely slower. Great it took GM 8 yrs to finally make a camaro that can't outrun a 7 yr old cobra.

Wow.

The SS doesn't even compare with the Cobra. It competes with the GT, and only costs $3k more and still comes with more options than the GT does.

And how is it getting butthurt to say that the SS doesn't compete with the GT500? You guys are the ones who are trying desperately to say that the Mustang is better than the Camaro by using a car that costs $15k more.

Quote from: SVT32V on August 03, 2009, 11:25:18 AM
By then the Coyote 5.0 will be in the GT and the SS will lose at that point.

This is silly and ridiculous, a well optioned SS is not going to go for that much less than a GT500.

As it stands:

Mustag V6<Camaro V6<Mustang GT<Camaro SS<Mustang GT500

End of story until a Z28 comes out if Obama lets GM make such a car, since he is in control.

You GM boys shouldn't get your butt so hurt by the fact that a GT500 is faster, it is more expensive in the pony car class and it is better.

Really, the SS is at best even with a 7 year old terminator cobra and more likely slower. Great it took GM 8 yrs to finally make a camaro that can't outrun a 7 yr old cobra.

Are you kidding?

Quote from: hotrodalex on August 03, 2009, 10:47:22 AM
Okay, then we will do $25k pony cars, then the GT is out of the picture. Camaro wins. That's why you compare by equivalent models - the cars that the companies make to match up with the others'.

V6 vs V6
GT vs SS

That's all you have. There is no Camaro competition for the GT500. A big reason for that is the Corvette, which is right around that price range (and also happens to kick the GT500's booty)

Finally some sense, lol.

I don't get the whole "a fully equipped SS is the same price as a GT500" I mean what? Loading up on all the nonsensical crap? Like special ground effects, paint matched engine cover, polished aluminum over painted aluminum? The only thing I'd want extra on the Camaro would be the RS package, which is 1200. Other than that, 90% of the option are aesthetics stuff, I mean Transformer package? I hope none of you were including that in the cost. I don't know how it is in other states or countries for that matter, just how it is in my area (Southern California) where other than dealer markup+tax Camaro 1SS goes for 31K. And since I like to change things myself over time, I'd just buy a stripper model as long as there isn't something major, like certain brakes or gear ratios or whatever isn't easy change later on.

If you can afford the GT500 then yea, as far as a Pony car (still confused how any 4000lb car is a pony car :huh:) it's great, but it's in a separate class IMO.  Just because you can pile on enough options on a 31K car to make it as expensive as a GT500 doesn't mean it's in the same class. That's like saying you could pile on enough crap on to a Civic and then say it's crap because it's close to the price of a GT. If you could get a GT500 around 35K as a stripper that would be awesome, but last I remember you can't. I also don't agree comparing a Corvette to the GT500. But because of the price I don't see how I'd get a GT500 and I think GM knows not to really price a Camaro that close to a Corvette, so we probably won't see a Camaro like that, maybe they will, but kinda just sounds like unneeded overlap.

Quote from: SVT32V on August 03, 2009, 11:25:18 AM
  Great it took GM 8 yrs to finally make a camaro that can't outrun a 7 yr old cobra.

:wtf:  You have the nerve to say this after the F bodies kicked the Mustangs ass for damn near a decade? Fanboyism at its best!  :facepalm:

Camaro outsells Mustang second month in a row: 7,632 vs. 6,686. (http://www.autoblog.com/2009/08/03/is-this-a-trend-camaro-beats-mustang-in-sales-for-second-straig/) Also note the Oshawa plant was on a one week vacation in July, restricting production (and deliveries/sales).

Apparently there are still 10,000 backlogged Camaro orders; the lion's share of which are the SS, thus much of what is selling now is the V6. We'll what will happens once Chevy gets these orders filled as I'm sure there are some potential customers who don't want to wait three months for an SS nor settle for a V6.

FWIW, the Oshawa plant is producing at capacity of about 2,200 a week, so this is about as good as it will get in terms of sales numbers for the Camaro.

At the Ford dealer, there was a Mustang GT 5-speed with the Premium Package on the lot for $35k. 

It looked like a good deal to me.

The cheapest Camaro at the Chevy dealer I've seen so far is almost $27 for an RS V6.

Spotted in Melbourne's suburbs on the weekend:

(http://liveimages.editorial.carsales.com.au/carpoint/general/editorial/ge5362315435389916903.jpg)
(http://liveimages.editorial.carsales.com.au/carpoint/general/editorial/ge5313208148842925574.jpg)

http://www.carpoint.com.au/news/2009/sports/chevrolet/camaro/droptop-camaro-spied-in-melbourne-16078 (http://www.carpoint.com.au/news/2009/sports/chevrolet/camaro/droptop-camaro-spied-in-melbourne-16078)

Do you have to put those stupid stickers on if you are driving a North American car in Oz?

Quote from: HEMI666 on August 04, 2009, 08:56:15 AM
Do you have to put those stupid stickers on if you are driving a North American car in Oz?

LHD cars are only legal if they are more than....20 (25?) years old, so I assume any modern test cars have to have special exemptions and identification. Obviously, it is because LHD cars spontaneously explode after three kilometres, so passing motorists must be alerted to this fun diversion.

Quote from: SVT32V on August 03, 2009, 11:18:21 AM
How about $28 K pony cars, Mustang GT vs V6 camaro. 

We can play this game for a long time.

I'd probably take the Camaro at that point.  It would be much better equipped, slower, sure, but the driving experiences are so similar, you'd be hard pressed to choose one over the other just on that.  They're close enough that value would win the day. 

Of the two ponies I've driven, the Mustang GT 5MT and Camaro V6 6AT, the Camaro is the one I'd take home.

Quote from: Raza  link=topic=18095.msg1130443#msg1130443 date=1249403740
I'd probably take the Camaro at that point.  It would be much better equipped, slower, sure, but the driving experiences are so similar, you'd be hard pressed to choose one over the other just on that.  They're close enough that value would win the day.  

Of the two ponies I've driven, the Mustang GT 5MT and Camaro V6 6AT, the Camaro is the one I'd take home.

Wow - interesting. I can't say I'd make that choice myself even though I greatly favor the Camaro's styling and general approach to All Things.

Quote from: GoCougs on August 03, 2009, 08:52:16 PM
Camaro outsells Mustang second month in a row: 7,632 vs. 6,686. (http://www.autoblog.com/2009/08/03/is-this-a-trend-camaro-beats-mustang-in-sales-for-second-straig/) Also note the Oshawa plant was on a one week vacation in July, restricting production (and deliveries/sales).

Apparently there are still 10,000 backlogged Camaro orders; the lion's share of which are the SS, thus much of what is selling now is the V6. We'll what will happens once Chevy gets these orders filled as I'm sure there are some potential customers who don't want to wait three months for an SS nor settle for a V6.

FWIW, the Oshawa plant is producing at capacity of about 2,200 a week, so this is about as good as it will get in terms of sales numbers for the Camaro.

GM is on the brink of complete failure and they send workers on vacation?

Was it a factory mandated "vacation" or one the workers demanded?

Quote from: GoCougs on August 03, 2009, 08:52:16 PM
Camaro outsells Mustang second month in a row: 7,632 vs. 6,686. (http://www.autoblog.com/2009/08/03/is-this-a-trend-camaro-beats-mustang-in-sales-for-second-straig/) Also note the Oshawa plant was on a one week vacation in July, restricting production (and deliveries/sales).

Apparently there are still 10,000 backlogged Camaro orders; the lion's share of which are the SS, thus much of what is selling now is the V6. We'll what will happens once Chevy gets these orders filled as I'm sure there are some potential customers who don't want to wait three months for an SS nor settle for a V6.

FWIW, the Oshawa plant is producing at capacity of about 2,200 a week, so this is about as good as it will get in terms of sales numbers for the Camaro.

Mustang sales drop 946 units from June to July, Camaro sales drop over 2000 units from June to July...'Wonder what'll happen when the "pent-up demand" peters out?

Quote from: Submariner on August 04, 2009, 11:05:35 AM
GM is on the brink of complete failure and they send workers on vacation?

Was it a factory mandated "vacation" or one the workers demanded?

I'm not sure of the why, but it's not uncommon for plants to have week-long shutdowns as some of the maintenance/calibration/etc. of equipment cannot be performed between the few hours between shifts (i.e., needs days).

Quote from: Raza  link=topic=18095.msg1130443#msg1130443 date=1249403740
I'd probably take the Camaro at that point.  It would be much better equipped, slower, sure, but the driving experiences are so similar, you'd be hard pressed to choose one over the other just on that.  They're close enough that value would win the day. 

Of the two ponies I've driven, the Mustang GT 5MT and Camaro V6 6AT, the Camaro is the one I'd take home.

I find that very interesting since you said the Mustang was more fun and handled better.  Especially since those are the things that seem to matter to you.

Quote from: Nethead on August 04, 2009, 11:53:23 AM
Mustang sales drop 946 units from June to July, Camaro sales drop over 2000 units from June to July...

Uh, I guess you missed that thing about the week long work closure, and plant capacity being about 2,000 units per week...

Quote from: Nethead on August 04, 2009, 11:53:23 AM
Mustang sales drop 946 units from June to July, Camaro sales drop over 2000 units from June to July...'Wonder what'll happen when the "pent-up demand" peters out?

(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h308/Standman38637/playingfield.jpg)

OOPS! Looks like someone just leveled the playing field.  :lol:

Quote from: Raza  on August 04, 2009, 10:35:40 AM
I'd probably take the Camaro at that point.  It would be much better equipped, slower, sure, but the driving experiences are so similar, you'd be hard pressed to choose one over the other just on that.  They're close enough that value would win the day. 

Of the two ponies I've driven, the Mustang GT 5MT and Camaro V6 6AT, the Camaro is the one I'd take home.

You would take a slushbox, that is sad. The gauges in the center console would ruin the camaro for me, but when all is said and done Ford needs more power in the GT or lower price (no matter the interior upgrades with the '10).  Plus giving up a second in the 0-60 times is pretty enormous. 

But sales ultimately are the sign of success and the Mustang has been selling well for years. Current sales are close to the newly released camaro with its yrs of pent up demand so perhaps Ford has no impetus to change.

Quote from: GoCougs on August 04, 2009, 12:00:23 PM
Uh, I guess you missed that thing about the week long work closure, and plant capacity being about 2,000 units per week...

GoCougs:  If this were the case, how did they sell 9,000 Camaros in the previous month--rebadging Tahoes to Camaros to make up the difference???  

Don't spend a lot of time coming up with yet another marosexual excuse--overall, the Camaro didn't drop much differently than other GM vehicles in July compared to June so the drop may not reflect anything other than disdain for GM vehicles in general instead of disdain for Camaros in particular--although those with underspec'd transmission output shafts, frayed battery cables, fractured fascias, "lead contaminated" brake calipers, and all those other items listed in the "WTF, Chevy?" thread may feel differently...

Quote from: omicron on August 04, 2009, 02:54:12 AM
Spotted in Melbourne's suburbs on the weekend:

(http://liveimages.editorial.carsales.com.au/carpoint/general/editorial/ge5362315435389916903.jpg)
(http://liveimages.editorial.carsales.com.au/carpoint/general/editorial/ge5313208148842925574.jpg)

http://www.carpoint.com.au/news/2009/sports/chevrolet/camaro/droptop-camaro-spied-in-melbourne-16078 (http://www.carpoint.com.au/news/2009/sports/chevrolet/camaro/droptop-camaro-spied-in-melbourne-16078)

Aha! So my dad may have truely seen a new Camaro convertible!

Quote from: SVT32V on August 04, 2009, 12:20:11 PM
The gauges in the center console would ruin the camaro for me,

Why? They finish out the center console, IMO.

Quote from: Nethead on August 04, 2009, 12:41:50 PM
GoCougs:  If this were the case, how did they sell 9,000 Camaros in the previous month--rebadging Tahoes to Camaros to make up the difference???   

Don't spend a lot of time coming up with yet another marosexual excuse--overall, the Camaro didn't drop much differently than other GM vehicles in July compared to June so the drop may not reflect anything other than disdain for GM vehicles in general instead of disdain for Camaros in particular--although those with underspec'd transmission output shafts, frayed battery cables, fractured fascias, "lead contaminated" brake calipers, and all those other items listed in the "WTF, Chevy?" thread may feel differently...

:nutty:

Cougs' said that if the plant was closed for a week, they would produce 2,000 less cars that month.

Quote from: omicron on August 04, 2009, 02:54:12 AM
Spotted in Melbourne's suburbs on the weekend:

(http://liveimages.editorial.carsales.com.au/carpoint/general/editorial/ge5362315435389916903.jpg)
(http://liveimages.editorial.carsales.com.au/carpoint/general/editorial/ge5313208148842925574.jpg)

http://www.carpoint.com.au/news/2009/sports/chevrolet/camaro/droptop-camaro-spied-in-melbourne-16078 (http://www.carpoint.com.au/news/2009/sports/chevrolet/camaro/droptop-camaro-spied-in-melbourne-16078)

:wub:

What's with the LHD stickers? Why is the driver advertising it?

He's not advertising, he's warning. Didn't you read the post on the last page about LHD-caused explosions and such?

Quote from: 93JC on August 04, 2009, 11:44:04 PM
He's not advertising, he's warning. Didn't you read the post on the last page about LHD-caused explosions and such?

I award you five richly-deserved reading comprehension points!

Quote from: Laconian on August 04, 2009, 09:38:31 PM
What's with the LHD stickers? Why is the driver advertising it?

But none for you. :nono:

Quote from: hotrodalex on August 04, 2009, 09:06:26 PM
Cougs' said that if the plant was closed for a week, they would produce 2,000 less cars that month.

hotrodalex:  You listenin' to GoCougs again? :facepalm:  Let's play "GoCougs Facts":  Lessee, didn't Camaro production start in March?  OK, that's one month, and April/May/June/July add four more.  There are four-and-a-third weeks in a month (this is NOT a "GoCougs Fact"--this is actually true!) and GoCougs alleges Oshawa can produce about 2200 Camaros/week, four or maybe five of them correctly on a good month.

So we got five months times 4.333 weeks-per-month times 2200 Camaros produced per week-- less that infamous week in July which means we gotta subtract 2200 from the total--which gives us 5(4.333 X 2200) - 2200, or 47663 - 2200 = 45463 Camaros potentially produced using "GoCougs Facts".  

www.camaroblog.com says 22510 Camaros have been sold through July 31st.   So where's the production shortage that's diminishing Camaro sales?  It would take Oshawa less than eleven weeks to produce that many Camaros--twelve if you count that week in July that the marosexuals are making such a fuss about.  Twelve weeks.  Hmmmm.  Maybe, since this is 2009, March, April, May, June, and July had fewer weeks than they do in more normal years (I can believe that--if the same workers that have produced such quality Camaros thus far also produce all our calendars...)

Now, let's be ABSOLUTELY, TOTALLY fair and omit March as a production month--probably a good idea since all those Camaros have been recalled numerous times to be re-produced with better grade duct tape, bubble gum, band-aids, and baling wire:

Now we got four months times 4.333 weeks-per-month times 2200 Camaros produced per week--less that infamous week in July which means we gotta subtract 2200 from the total--which gives us 4(4.333 X 2200) - 2200, or 38130.4 - 2200 = 35930.4 Camaros potentially produced using "GoCougs Facts" plus a generous fudge factor of discounting a full month of production.  Is that better?  But still only 22510 Camaros were sold through July 31st--actually, 22510.4 since Chevy sent that .4 Camaro to some dealership somewhere, no doubt--so WHERE IS THIS MYTHICAL PRODUCTION SHORTFALL THAT'S HOLDING BACK THE SALES OF THE NEW CAMARO???

hotDude, you gotta quit gettin' sucked into believin' ANY "GoCougs Facts"--that's like the ol' bullshit that givin' tax breaks to the rich will trickle down to jobs for everyone else!    Yeah, it is partially true--that trickle-down money goes to build factories in cheap-labor Asia to give jobs to Taiwanese, Koreans, Chinese, Indonesians, Vietnamese, yada yada yada--that "everyone else" means everyone else who's willing to work six days a week for $160.00 a month (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_13/b3977049.htm)...

Wow - that is simply awesome.

Imagine the screed next month, if/when the Camaro outsells the Mustang for a third straight month.

Quote from: GoCougs on August 06, 2009, 08:23:55 AM
Wow - that is simply awesome.

Imagine the screed next month, if/when the Camaro outsells the Mustang for a third straight month.

Perhaps Nethead the Mustang fanatic/apologist will have an epic meltdown on the boards?  :lol:

Quote from: Nethead on August 06, 2009, 07:10:49 AM
GoCougs alleges Oshawa can produce about 2200 Camaros/week, four or maybe five of them correctly on a good month.

Okay I find most of the Camaro bashing annoying, but that was pretty good. :lol:

Anyway, Camaro's usually sell within about 3 days of getting onto the lot. Seems like they are doing pretty well.

I don't care what the numbers are right now, or even 6 months from now.  It's what the numbers look like in a year when the novelty wears off and the pent up demand has subsided.  That's when the numbers will be more indicative.  My guess is that they will be good, but they will be #2 to the Mustang.

that's probably true that the Mustang will be top seller again. But at the moment I still think that the V6 Camaro (even if it's not actually better) looks better on paper when people go looking for a car and people jump to buy it over a V6 Slowstang. Plus aren't we in a bad time for people to buy sports cars, I figure when things get better (whenever that is) sports car sales will go up for both, hopefully keeping a healthy rivalry, just like it should have always been. If it's just pure sales over  Chevy V8 vs Ford V8 I'm sure it gets more dicey, but I would never think of buying a V6 stang, but a V6 camaro doesn't seem bad.

I'm with Hemi, the sales are high right now because of the novelty. I think the Mustang will outsell it again after the novelty wears out. Don't ask me why, it's just a gut feeling.

Quote from: Sigma Projects on August 06, 2009, 05:19:46 PM
that's probably true that the Mustang will be top seller again. But at the moment I still think that the V6 Camaro (even if it's not actually better) looks better on paper when people go looking for a car and people jump to buy it over a V6 Slowstang. Plus aren't we in a bad time for people to buy sports cars, I figure when things get better (whenever that is) sports car sales will go up for both, hopefully keeping a healthy rivalry, just like it should have always been. If it's just pure sales over  Chevy V8 vs Ford V8 I'm sure it gets more dicey, but I would never think of buying a V6 stang, but a V6 camaro doesn't seem bad.

I wouldn't consider a V6 pony car at all.  It's V8 or nothing for me.

Quote from: HEMI666 on August 06, 2009, 05:24:39 PM
I wouldn't consider a V6 pony car at all.  It's V8 or nothing for me.

I'd be inclined to agree with you, but the V6 Camaro is a hell of a deal if you stick to the LS trim level, even compared to the bargain-masters Hyundai with their GenCoupe.

Quote from: CALL_911 on August 06, 2009, 05:21:16 PM
I'm with Hemi, the sales are high right now because of the novelty. I think the Mustang will outsell it again after the novelty wears out. Don't ask me why, it's just a gut feeling.

Not if people can get over their V8 fixation.  The Camaro's a better value than the Mustang, and that can win out.

Quote from: HEMI666 on August 04, 2009, 11:59:39 AM
I find that very interesting since you said the Mustang was more fun and handled better.  Especially since those are the things that seem to matter to you.

Yeah, I'd have to drive both cars again (the Mustang for longer and the Camaro on public roads) before making a final decision, but the extra 7 grand in my pocket says the Mustang's not good enough.

Quote from: HEMI666 on August 06, 2009, 05:24:39 PM
I wouldn't consider a V6 pony car at all.  It's V8 or nothing for me.

I'm not gonna lie, the V6 Camaro is compelling. That 3.6 is a wonderful motor.

Quote from: CALL_911 on August 06, 2009, 07:33:23 PM
I'm not gonna lie, the V6 Camaro is compelling. That 3.6 is a wonderful motor.

But it's got nothing on the Ecob00st Mustang.

Quote from: NACar on August 06, 2009, 07:34:41 PM
But it's got nothing on the Ecob00st Mustang.

Which isn't out yet.

yea just feels that until Ford releases the new something for the base model mustang whether it's a ecoboost motor or duratec motor the V6 Camaro at the bottom just is very attractive. The sound it makes is great and the motor responds well to mods. Intake plus exhaust was netting I think ~30 hp, putting it around 300whp. Iono that's pretty sweet for a base model, I don't think I've ever seen a base camaro or mustang able to get response like that.

Camaro traditional values remain true this year as in yesteryear.  From the NHTSA via www.leftlanenews.com:

NHTSA: Four stars for Chevy Camaro
08/06/2009, 4:53 PM By Andrew Ganz

Chevrolet?s new Camaro might be a star on the street, but it only received four out of five available stars in the United States government?s frontal impact test. The Camaro received five stars in the side impact test, however.

According to Safercar.gov, the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration?s new car crash assessment program, the Camaro received four stars for both the driver and the front passenger. In an era where most new cars receive the five star rating from the government for both the driver and the passenger, the Camaro is somewhat of a disappointment (the understatement of the decade).

The front seat passengers did receive the full five star rating for the side impact test, aided by the standard side and side curtain airbags and the Camaro was also rated five stars in the rollover assessment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GoCougs will point out that today's crash dummies aren't built like they used to be, and the lot of them are limp-wristed wusses that even C3PO could pound to a pulp with just a spatula or a vacuum cleaner attachment...

Besides, gettin' five stars in two out of three categories is good enough for government work.

Quote from: CALL_911 on August 06, 2009, 09:40:04 PM
Which isn't out yet.

Gotta go with CALL_911 on this one!   :ohyeah:

Camaro tradional values remain true this year as in yesteryear.  From the NHTSA via www.leftlanenews.com:

NHTSA: Four stars for Chevy Camaro
08/06/2009, 4:53 PM By Andrew Ganz

Chevrolet?s new Camaro might be a star on the street, but it only received four out of five available stars in the United States government?s frontal impact test. The Camaro received five stars in the side impact test, however.

According to Safercar.gov, the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration?s new car crash assessment program, the Camaro received four stars for both the driver and the front passenger. In an era where most new cars receive the five star rating from the government for both the driver and the passenger, the Camaro is somewhat of a disappointment.

The front seat passengers did receive the full five star rating for the side impact test, aided by the standard side and side curtain airbags and the Camaro was also rated five stars in the rollover assessment.

An NHTSA spokesman elaborated " The Camaro would have achieved the five star frontal impact rating had it not been for some lead weights detaching from brake calipers, causing massive head trauma to the simulated passengers".

Quote from: Sigma Projects on August 07, 2009, 05:06:41 AM
yea just feels that until Ford releases the new something for the base model mustang whether it's a ecoboost motor or duratec motor the V6 Camaro at the bottom just is very attractive. The sound it makes is great and the motor responds well to mods. Intake plus exhaust was netting I think ~30 hp, putting it around 300whp. Iono that's pretty sweet for a base model, I don't think I've ever seen a base camaro or mustang able to get response like that.

IMO Ford has power train issues across the board beyond just that abominable V6; still slugging it out with 5sp trannies and a V8 that barely out muscles the base Camaro's V6.

Quote from: GoCougs on August 07, 2009, 09:06:54 AM
IMO Ford Chevy has power train Quality Control issues across the board beyond just that abominable V6 imitation Mustang; still slugging it out with 5sp broken trannies and a V8 that barely out muscles the base Camaro's V6 Mustang's 315 HP 281 cubic inch base V8.  Of course, Ford offers the GT500, the car that rules the Challenger and the Camaro SS--even when the Camaro SS is not broken.

[/size]
Even GoCougs can get a sentence correct once it has been adequately edited!

Sorry, but a 107 hp advantage is clearly more than "barely" out-muscling.

Quote from: Vinsanity on August 07, 2009, 11:22:36 AM
Sorry, but a 107 hp advantage is clearly more than "barely" out-muscling.

It's only evident at very illegal speeds.  It barely out accelerates the Mustang to 70 mph.  Beyond that, the Camaro walks away.  Getting all that mass moving is the hard part for the Camaro.

Quote from: GoCougs on August 06, 2009, 08:23:55 AM
Wow - that is simply awesome.

Imagine the screed next month, if/when the Camaro outsells the Mustang for a third straight month.

GoCougs:  Hey, it's entirely possible!  Think how much Camaro sales would jump if Chevrolet switched from selling a few Camaros from the showroom floor to selling them by the thousands directly from the Service Department's repair bays!!!  Why, that alone probably accounts for that huge production-numbers-versus-actual-sales disparity I discovered with very simple math applied to the always-humorous "GoCougs Facts"!!!

Yep, start selling 'em directly from the service bays--streamline the operation to "cut out the middle man"--that initial drive off the lot followed later that day by the tow job back to the Service Department--and double (or even triple!) the sales!  That's probably what happened to the 2200 Camaros per week that Oshawa builds (CAUTION:  That was a "GoCougs Fact"--accept it at your own risk.) yet only resulted in 22510 sales from March through July 31st, give or take a marosexual week.  The rest of them are in service bays being inspected to be sure they have all those "features" found in the "WTF, Chevy?" thread.

Is it merely chance that "Bumblebee" is lemon yellow...or is it the fickle finger of Fate?

I'd be alert to when that "pent-up demand" crowd starts reaching for the pitchforks and torches, Igor, and starts marching on Washington demanding that the 2010 Camaro be included in the vehicles eligible for trade-in under the "Cash for Clunkers" incentives--it could get ugly...

Quote from: HEMI666 on August 07, 2009, 11:30:05 AM
It's only evident at very illegal speeds.  It barely out accelerates the Mustang to 70 mph.  Beyond that, the Camaro walks away.  Getting all that mass moving is the hard part for the Camaro.

I suspect it's largely due to the gearing as well...the Camaro SS gets the same mpg as the Mustang GT

Quote from: Nethead on August 07, 2009, 11:35:11 AM
I'd be alert to when that "pent-up demand" crowd starts reaching for the pitchforks and torches, Igor, and starts marching on Washington demanding that the 2010 Camaro be included in the vehicles eligible for trade-in under the "Cash for Clunkers" incentives--it could get ugly...

It already is...

Quote from: Vinsanity on August 07, 2009, 11:54:14 AM
I suspect it's largely due to the gearing as well...the Camaro SS gets the same mpg as the Mustang GT

For highway mileage yes, but not under full throttle acceleration runs.  Motor Trend returned much better fuel mileage int he Mustang then in the Camaro and most of their driving is under full throttle.

Quote from: Vinsanity on August 07, 2009, 11:22:36 AM
Sorry, but a 107 hp advantage is clearly more than "barely" out-muscling.

Vinsanity:  Read that Car & Driver comparo again.  'See how those who had the three vehicles (the Challenger was there, too) together for a head-to-head felt about it.

Some refresher quotes:

2010 Ford Mustang GT - Comparison Test

Highs: Lighter and tighter in every way, good visibility, fab 1-2-3 turn signals, the king of V-8 roars.

Lows: Only a five-speed, capless fuel filler frequently spills, smallest fuel tank.

The Verdict: Yeah, we?re shocked, too, but this Mustang rocks.

Introduction

Third: 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T

Second: 2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS

First: 2010 Ford Mustang GT

First place: All-beef sliders.

The panel was shocked, shaken, and staunchly unanimous: This Mustang rules.

Why the low expectations? Look at the stats. Just 315 horsepower. Simple struts up front and a log axle out back. A five-speed pitted against two bolt-action sixes.

But look at the facts: At 3580 pounds, the Mustang is lightest by 300. A lively throttle reels in 60 mph nearly as quickly as the Camaro (the Mustang did have 6700 break-in miles, which may have helped), and the car pulls the highest skidpad g (0.92) by a wide margin. The Ford stops in the same distance as the megabraked Camaro (162 feet--and did it without lead weights stuck on the calipers ), and it returned the best fuel economy (17 mpg) despite having the shortest gear ratios of the three cars.

The above is a short refresher from the article on the Mustang--there were articles on the other Camaro & Challenger, as I'm sure you recall.

Quote from: Nethead on August 07, 2009, 02:33:18 PM
Vinsanity:  Read that Car & Driver comparo again.  'See how those who had the three vehicles (the Challenger was there, too) together for a head-to-head felt about it.

Some refresher quotes:

2010 Ford Mustang GT - Comparison Test

Highs: Lighter and tighter in every way, good visibility, fab 1-2-3 turn signals, the king of V-8 roars.

Lows: Only a five-speed, capless fuel filler frequently spills, smallest fuel tank.

The Verdict: Yeah, we?re shocked, too, but this Mustang rocks.

Introduction

Third: 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T

Second: 2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS

First: 2010 Ford Mustang GT

First place: All-beef sliders.

The panel was shocked, shaken, and staunchly unanimous: This Mustang rules.

Why the low expectations? Look at the stats. Just 315 horsepower. Simple struts up front and a log axle out back. A five-speed pitted against two bolt-action sixes.

But look at the facts: At 3580 pounds, the Mustang is lightest by 300. A lively throttle reels in 60 mph nearly as quickly as the Camaro (the Mustang did have 6700 break-in miles, which may have helped), and the car pulls the highest skidpad g (0.92) by a wide margin. The Ford stops in the same distance as the megabraked Camaro (162 feet--and did it without lead weights stuck on the calipers ), and it returned the best fuel economy (17 mpg) despite having the shortest gear ratios of the three cars.

The above is a short refresher from the article on the Mustang--there were articles on the other Camaro & Challenger, as I'm sure you recall.

That review you quoted didn't mention whether or not the Mustang had the Track Pack. (I'm assuming it did?)

Quote from: Cobra93 on August 07, 2009, 08:56:24 AM
Camaro tradional values remain true this year as in yesteryear.  From the NHTSA via www.leftlanenews.com:

NHTSA: Four stars for Chevy Camaro
08/06/2009, 4:53 PM By Andrew Ganz

Chevrolet?s new Camaro might be a star on the street, but it only received four out of five available stars in the United States government?s frontal impact test. The Camaro received five stars in the side impact test, however.

According to Safercar.gov, the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration?s new car crash assessment program, the Camaro received four stars for both the driver and the front passenger. In an era where most new cars receive the five star rating from the government for both the driver and the passenger, the Camaro is somewhat of a disappointment.

The front seat passengers did receive the full five star rating for the side impact test, aided by the standard side and side curtain airbags and the Camaro was also rated five stars in the rollover assessment.

An NHTSA spokesman elaborated " The Camaro would have achieved the five star frontal impact rating had it not been for some lead weights detaching from brake calipers, causing massive head trauma to the simulated passengers".

You sneak that last part in?  :devil:

Quote from: The Pirate on August 07, 2009, 09:21:38 PM
You sneak that last part in?  :devil:

You're very observant. :praise:

Quote from: The Pirate on August 07, 2009, 09:21:38 PM
You sneak that last part in?  :devil:

Nah.  That was Cobra93--you know what a felon  he  is!

Quote from: HEMI666 on August 07, 2009, 11:30:05 AM
It's only evident at very illegal speeds.  It barely out accelerates the Mustang to 70 mph.  Beyond that, the Camaro walks away.  Getting all that mass moving is the hard part for the Camaro.

I can't believe you posted that.

Quote from: GoCougs on August 10, 2009, 08:46:19 AM
I can't believe you posted that.

I don't follow. 

Quote from: HEMI666 on August 10, 2009, 08:55:52 AM
I don't follow. 

The GT500 is FAR worse the sinner.

Quote from: GoCougs on August 10, 2009, 09:38:21 AM
The GT500 is FAR worse the sinner.

The GT500's problem isn't getting all that mass moving, it's hooking up.  The GT500 weighs almost exactly the same as the Camaro and has an additional 115 horsepower.  If you can find enough traction, the GT500 has no problem moving all that mass.  It's getting the damn thing to hook up that's the problem.

Camaro outsells Mustang for third straight month (http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/01/broken-record-camaro-outsells-mustang-for-third-straight-month/).

August sales numbers: 8,690 vs. 6,289.

Quote from: GoCougs on September 02, 2009, 12:10:49 PM
Camaro outsells Mustang for third straight month (http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/01/broken-record-camaro-outsells-mustang-for-third-straight-month/).

August sales numbers: 8,690 vs. 6,289.

Whoopee.  Let's see what it's doing in a year after the novelty has worn off.

even when the novelty runs out, still a great thing for GM. Doing loads better than when they did the GTO. I'm sure A LOT will change once the Mustang gets the new engines.

From the latest Road & Track...

At the end of the trail it was the Mustang that emerged victorious, both subjectively and by the numbers. The Mustang GT remained my favorite, and Andy switched his allegiance to that car as well, while Shaun chose it second, after the Camaro. Why the Mustang?

Well, it feels (and is) lightest, smallest and most agile of the group, and is most in touch with its roots. Despite having a live rear axle and "only" a 5-speed, it is most balanced, generates the most grip and gets the best fuel mileage ? and it's plenty quick. For me, it also had the best seats and pedal layout, and it felt sporty, flingable and fun. With a great exhaust note...

Shaun ? significantly, the youngest of our crew ? liked the Camaro SS best. The looks grew on him, so he was able to focus on that magnificent 6.2-liter Corvette LS3 engine, which is the V-8 that just keeps on giving. It has tractor-like torque, but revs with a smooth, heady shriek that raises the hair on the back of your head and flings the car down the road faster than anything here.

The third-place Challenger R/T is, you might say, the most adult of the Pony cars here. Solid, refined and comfortable, it has the nicest highway ride, the most rear seat room and the biggest trunk. We all agreed it might be our first choice for a coast-to-coast road trip. It has the softest handling and brakes of the group, but it's still very competent and has an engine that belies any family sedan illusions. A great all-rounder, but one civilized step removed from the venerable Pony car ethic.

But these cars are all so much fun to drive ? and it's so good to see them all back ? that you hate to quibble over such things, and I suspect most buyers will have picked out a favorite before they ever sit in a car. Emotion, history and a personal sense of style weigh heavily here.

A guy at a gas station in Austin, Nevada, walked up and said, "Okay, which one should I buy?"

"Just pick the one you like to look at," I replied. "After that, you can't go wrong."


In My Opinion
The Challenger is the best-looking steed, great for motoring across vast expanses of the West in low-rpm comfort. But when the trail starts to twist and turn, I want to be in the Track Pack Mustang. Live rear axle be damned, the GT dashes out of corners with verve, feeling much more agile than the big Mopar. The Camaro is similarly lively, but I'm put off by its deep cockpit and retro 1970s gauges that are just plain ugly.
? Andrew Bornhop, Managing Editor

I think all these cars suffer to some extent from giantism. Compared with their svelte and trim 1960s namesakes, they all have high waistlines, minimal window glass and thick roof pillars. And they're all much heavier, which negates much of the wonderful horsepower they generate. But the smallest, lightest and nimblest ? and closest to the original pony car formula ? for me is the Mustang GT. It's the funnest of the bunch, with the best steering response, grip and feedback.
? Peter Egan, Editor-At-Large

It's hard not to love the classic lines of the Challenger. Of the three ponies in the stable, it's the one I'd most like to be seen riding, but when it comes to the enjoyment of traversing mountain switchbacks it's my last choice. The Camaro SS is easily my pick for a ride any day of the week, as it best blends ride comfort, styling and performance.
? Shaun Bailey, Detroit Editor

I saw my first official SS out on the road today; black with black wheels.

It's not only the best pony car, it's one of the best vehicles coming out of Detroit.

Quote from: GoCougs on September 10, 2009, 11:40:56 PM
I saw my first official SS out on the road today; black with black wheels.

It's not only the best pony car, it's one of the best vehicles coming out of Detroit.

What does that make the Mustang then?  What with it winning all these comparison test lately and all?

Quote from: HEMI666 on September 11, 2009, 08:02:53 AM
What does that make the Mustang then?  What with it winning all these comparison test lately and all?

"Winning?" In that R&T the Camaro posted a 12.9 sec 1/4 mile, and the Mustang a 13.8 sec 1/4 mile; you realize this is ~10 car lengths, correct?

The Camaro will be the superior pony car if and until Ford gets with the power train program. Racking up points because of trunk space or steering feel just isn't cutting it in my book.

Quote from: GoCougs on September 11, 2009, 09:17:40 AM
"Winning?" In that R&T the Camaro posted a 12.9 sec 1/4 mile, and the Mustang a 13.8 sec 1/4 mile; you realize this is ~10 car lengths, correct?

The Camaro will be the superior pony car if and until Ford gets with the power train program. Racking up points because of trunk space or steering feel just isn't cutting it in my book.

So when are you planning on getting one? I saw a yellow SS the other day. Didn't like the color, but the car looked good.

Is it pronounced CamArrow or CamAhhrow?

Quote from: GoCougs on September 11, 2009, 09:17:40 AM
"Winning?" In that R&T the Camaro posted a 12.9 sec 1/4 mile, and the Mustang a 13.8 sec 1/4 mile; you realize this is ~10 car lengths, correct?

The Camaro will be the superior pony car if and until Ford gets with the power train program. Racking up points because of trunk space or steering feel just isn't cutting it in my book.

Yeah...winning.  As in it finished first.  It won because it's the smallest, lightest, best handling, most grip, best steering, best ride, and has teh best seats.  It trails in acceleration, but it wins at everything else.

Quote from: Galaxy on September 11, 2009, 11:22:01 AM
Is it pronounced CamArrow or CamAhhrow?

Usually the former, but I bet on Top Gear it sounds like like the latter.

Quote from: HEMI666 on September 11, 2009, 11:37:31 AM
Yeah...winning.  As in it finished first.  It won because it's the smallest, lightest, best handling, most grip, best steering, best ride, and has teh best seats.  It trails in acceleration, but it wins at everything else.

It kind of depends on what you think is most desire-able in a car.  I'm with you, FWIW, in terms of liking the Mustang more despite a power-train which lags badly behind the Chevy, but for some people that's what it's all about.

The problem I see with the Mustang is that if you compare it with a proper sports car it ends up not comparing as well.  So really it's winning these comparos by being a better sports car, but in a proper sports car comparo it would lose (and usually has in the past).  They need that new V8 motor, el quicko.

Quote from: Cobra93 on September 11, 2009, 11:11:05 AM
So when are you planning on getting one? I saw a yellow SS the other day. Didn't like the color, but the car looked good.

I'm still torn with the whole bailout thing plus I had some financial setbacks earlier this year.

The backlog on the SS is still immense, too. I'd really want to buy a car off the lot and not wait months for it to come in. If anything I'd wait till next year.

And Galaxy, it's pronounced "kum - air - o."

Quote from: HEMI666 on September 11, 2009, 11:37:31 AM
Yeah...winning.  As in it finished first.  It won because it's the smallest, lightest, best handling, most grip, best steering, best ride, and has teh best seats.  It trails in acceleration, but it wins at everything else.

"Ride?" Might want to check that.

Guess which car "wins" if you subtract exterior styling, interior styling, seats, ergonomics and (LOL) luggage space?

Quote from: GoCougs on September 11, 2009, 12:08:03 PM
"Ride?" Might want to check that.

Guess which car "wins" if you subtract exterior styling, interior styling, seats, ergonomics and (LOL) luggage space?

Seats are pretty damn important. :nutty:

Cougs, I'm usually with you on cheerleading for the Camaro, among other things, but now you're just picking and choosing the things that make the Camaro look better (to you, at least). My preference for the Camaro is based mostly on the engine, exterior styling, and suspension design (in that order), but seats and steering feel are quite important in a car built for driving enjoyment.

I'm proud to say I got my first major speeding ticket in a Camaro SS. :praise:

Quote from: CALL_911 on September 11, 2009, 01:18:14 PM
I'm proud to say I got my first major speeding ticket in a Camaro SS. :praise:

Skylark  :(

Quote from: HEMI666 on September 11, 2009, 12:14:52 PM
Seats are pretty damn important. :nutty:

Better seats by whose opinion?  I've sat in the new Stang and I wasn't blown away by the seats.  In fact, I thought they were pretty disappointing in the lateral support department.  The bolsters weren't any bigger/deeper than what you'd find in a regular mainstreamer.  I'd expect some deeper bolstering in what is supposed to be a performance car.

Quote from: MX793 on September 11, 2009, 01:22:26 PM
Better seats by whose opinion?  I've sat in the new Stang and I wasn't blown away by the seats.  In fact, I thought they were pretty disappointing in the lateral support department.  The bolsters weren't any bigger/deeper than what you'd find in a regular mainstreamer.  I'd expect some deeper bolstering in what is supposed to be a performance car.

According to every single comparo.  Every single one.  The Camaro's seats can't be that great then if they aren't as good as the Stangs and you weren't impressed by those ones.

Quote from: HEMI666 on September 11, 2009, 01:40:54 PM
According to every single comparo.  Every single one.  The Camaro's seats can't be that great then if they aren't as good as the Stangs and you weren't impressed by those ones.

So they may be good in comparison to the Camaro, but that doesn't necessarily make them good in a more broad sense.

Quote from: Vinsanity on September 11, 2009, 12:25:18 PM
Cougs, I'm usually with you on cheerleading for the Camaro, among other things, but now you're just picking and choosing the things that make the Camaro look better (to you, at least). My preference for the Camaro is based mostly on the engine, exterior styling, and suspension design (in that order), but seats and steering feel are quite important in a car built for driving enjoyment.

I'm not necessarily cheer leading, I'm just pointing out in the minority of comparisons in which the Mustang GT "wins" it's because of subjective categories as trunk, seats, styling, etc. It's a very fair critique in this class. If we're talking CamCords or the like, maybe not so much.

Further, pony cars have never really been about seats or steering; true every segment from subcompacts to full-size trucks have made large strides in refinement but in this class it's very much about legacy, styling, price and then brute performance (acceleration) - in other words, no one ever bought a Camaro over a Mustang (or vice versa) because of seats or steering.

Quote from: GoCougs on September 11, 2009, 02:42:52 PM
I'm not necessarily cheer leading, I'm just pointing out in the minority of comparisons in which the Mustang GT "wins" it's because of subjective categories as trunk, seats, styling, etc.

Quotebut in this class it's very much about legacy, styling, price and then brute performance (acceleration) - in other words, no one ever bought a Camaro over a Mustang (or vice versa) because of seats or steering.

?

Quote from: HEMI666 on September 11, 2009, 11:37:31 AM
Yeah...winning.  As in it finished first.  It won because it's the smallest, lightest, best handling, most grip, best steering, best ride, and has teh best seats.  It trails in acceleration, but it wins at everything else.

All of that comes from the Track Pack. And we all know the deal with that. Lets test GTs that the actual public can buy.  :mask:

Quote from: Galaxy on September 11, 2009, 11:22:01 AM
Is it pronounced CamArrow or CamAhhrow?

"Kuh mare O"

I sat in one yesterday.  Never in my life have I ever had a hard time seeing out of the windshield.  It's like a mail slot.  I don't know that I would actually feel comfortable driving the Camaro fast on a twisty two laner because of the poor sightlines.  Let me rephrase that....shit awful sightlines.

Quote from: HEMI666 on September 13, 2009, 01:07:49 PM
I sat in one yesterday.  Never in my life have I ever had a hard time seeing out of the windshield.  It's like a mail slot.  I don't know that I would actually feel comfortable driving the Camaro fast on a twisty two laner because of the poor sightlines.  Let me rephrase that....shit awful sightlines.

I wouldn't have expected anything less from you.

Quote from: HEMI666 on September 13, 2009, 01:07:49 PM
I sat in one yesterday.  Never in my life have I ever had a hard time seeing out of the windshield.  It's like a mail slot.  I don't know that I would actually feel comfortable driving the Camaro fast on a twisty two laner because of the poor sightlines.  Let me rephrase that....shit awful sightlines.

First time I sat in it, I thought the same thing.

You'd be surprised how quickly you get used to that. I thought nothing of it after the first 2 hours driving it.

Driving an HHR after driving a PT Cruiser is the same way. The GM has no visibility by comparison.

After mountain biking for an hour, the Swift felt like a Lamborghini. If someone thinks the Mustang bus driver position is the epitome of all automotivedom, then a real sports car like a Camaro might feel a bit claustrophobic.

Quote from: CALL_911 on September 13, 2009, 01:12:38 PM
First time I sat in it, I thought the same thing.

You'd be surprised how quickly you get used to that. I thought nothing of it after the first 2 hours driving it.

Not being able to see doesn't really seem like something you'd get "used" to. An annoying blinker placement, yes, not being able to see, no.  :lol:

The cowl is very high and you can't see where the front end is.  It's a very claustophobic cabin.

Quote from: HEMI666 on September 13, 2009, 02:52:58 PM
The cowl is very high and you can't see where the front end is.  It's a very claustophobic cabin.

It's not as bad as two seat coupes.  But yes, the cabin does not have good visibility. 

Quote from: HEMI666 on September 13, 2009, 01:07:49 PM
Never in my life have I ever had a hard time seeing out of the windshield.

Really? Never?

(http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/stockphotos/0000/6583/6583t.jpg)

Are you allowed to post pictures of Ron's children so blatantly?

Quote from: HEMI666 on September 13, 2009, 02:52:58 PM
The cowl is very high and you can't see where the front end is.  It's a very claustophobic cabin.

As are most sports cars...

Quote from: R-inge on September 13, 2009, 08:23:16 PM
As are most sports cars...

Except for Mustangs because they are based on a pickup truck chassis...

I got to sit in one this weekend.  I loved it.  I wish it had removable roof panels... oh well

Yeah, IMO seeing out of the front is as bad as the Chrysler LX cars, but the rear & 3/4 view is much much better than the 370Z.  The A pillars and placement aren't as bad as a Civic, either, so I could deal.  The seats felt great and loved the driving position

and it has a telescoping wheel!!!  (I knew it but it felt so good after sitting in so many other sporty cars without one!)

Quote from: Minpin on September 13, 2009, 02:37:33 PM
Not being able to see doesn't really seem like something you'd get "used" to. An annoying blinker placement, yes, not being able to see, no.  :lol:

I get your point, but it's not that you can't see, it's that coming from, say, a Focus, you can't see quite as much. It's something I got over in no time.

The comparison to the LX cars is an apt and fair one. The only PITA aspect I found is that it can actually be hard to see a stop light.

Did any of you notice the tiny sun visors?

Quote from: CALL_911 on September 13, 2009, 10:06:16 PM
Did any of you notice the tiny sun visors?

They have to be that small.  If they were any bigger they would block out the entire windshield.

Quote from: R-inge on September 13, 2009, 08:23:16 PM
As are most sports cars...

No.  Sorry.  I've sat in a lot of sports cars and none of them have a cowl this high.  Someone mentioned the LX cars and I wold have to agree.  It's just as bad, maybe a little worse, but the kicker is that the top of the windshield is a lot lower then the top of the LX windshield.

Quote from: HEMI666 on September 13, 2009, 10:24:46 PM
They have to be that small.  If they were any bigger they would block out the entire windshield.

I know, I just found them cool.

bah. You want visibility? Drive this:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Amc_pacer_x.jpg/800px-Amc_pacer_x.jpg)

If regular, everyday people can get used to, and regularly drive: pickups with caps/loaded beds, panel vans/delivery vans/ambulances, etc, then you can get used to seeing out of a slightly lower roofline on a sporty coupe.

Seriously, it's not that hard. :rolleyes:

Quote from: ChrisV on September 14, 2009, 01:33:30 PM
bah. You want visibility? Drive this:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Amc_pacer_x.jpg/800px-Amc_pacer_x.jpg)

If regular, everyday people can get used to, and regularly drive: pickups with caps/loaded beds, panel vans/delivery vans/ambulances, etc, then you can get used to seeing out of a slightly lower roofline on a sporty coupe.

Seriously, it's not that hard. :rolleyes:

Have you even sat in the new Camaro?  Cause i'm not complaining about the rearward visibility.  I'm talking about seeing out through the mail slot windshield that's squished between the huge fucking cowl and low roofline.

Quote from: Galaxy on September 11, 2009, 11:22:01 AM
Is it pronounced CamArrow?

Quote from: GoCougs on September 11, 2009, 11:51:27 AM
And Galaxy, it's pronounced "kum - air - o."

Quote from: Raza  on September 11, 2009, 07:14:26 PM
"Kuh mare O"

Stop! Stop!

:cry:

My poor ears.

Report: Chevrolet Camaro Z28 back on
09/22/2009, 10:08 AMBY DREW JOHNSON

 


Performance models were the first to face the chopping block when General Motors? finances hit the skids, but at least one performance variant could be rising from the dead. GM?s once lame duck Chevrolet Camaro Z28 is said to be production bound, with the high-performance model in the final stages of development.

According to Edmunds, Ed Welburn ? GM?s design chief ? has confirmed that the long-rumored Chevrolet Camaro Z28 model is heading to production. Welburn says the body work for the Z28 is complete ? including a revised hood to conceal the taller supercharged engine ? with final work on the car?s drivetrain being completed now.

Welburn failed to give any specific details, but the Z28 model will be powered by the same supercharged 6.2L V8 found in the Cadillac CTS-V. In Cadillac-guise that engine produces 556 horsepower, and we?d expect to see at least that level of performance from the Z28.

The Z28 package will also include the aforementioned unique body work, as well as Z28-specific wheels. Six-speed manual and automatic gearboxes are expected to be offered. However, the Z28 model isn?t expected to surface until at least late 2010.

Sounds like visibility will get even worse with the revised hood.

Quote from: HEMI666 on September 22, 2009, 11:18:17 AM
Sounds like visibility will get even worse with the revised hood.

I was thinking the same thing.

Maybe we're just not supposed to be able to see out of them.

If it doesn't gain much weight... :evildude: :rockon: :devil: :cheers: :popcorn: :winkguy:

Wow - with an extra 400 lbs (vs. the SS) and more frontal area the CTS-V runs a mid-12 sec 1/4 mile - the Z-28 should hit the upper 11s.

Quote from: the Teuton on September 22, 2009, 11:21:15 AM
I was thinking the same thing.

Maybe we're just not supposed to be able to see out of them.

If you want visibility, be a pansy and buy a lesser car.

Seriously though I saw a black SS in the streets yesterday, and it's a pretty nice looking car. The super high shoulder is a big downer though. Windows couldn't have been more than 8-10" in height tops.

Quote from: GoCougs on September 22, 2009, 11:47:45 AM
Wow - with an extra 400 lbs (vs. the SS) and more frontal area the CTS-V runs a mid-12 sec 1/4 mile - the Z-28 should hit the upper 11s.

The Z28 should probably tip the scales somewhere around 4000 lbs with the supercharger, intercooler, and all the associated crap that goes with it.

Can't wait to see that Z/28, though in the original scheme of things, the Z/28 was the road race, 302 powered version while the SS was the one that could get optioned up with the big block and drag race versions.

Quote from: R-inge on September 13, 2009, 08:23:16 PM
As are most sports cars...

None, actually. 

Quote from: HEMI666 on September 22, 2009, 12:23:11 PM
The Z28 should probably tip the scales somewhere around 4000 lbs with the supercharger, intercooler, and all the associated crap that goes with it.

Suddenly a CTS-V seems that much more compelling...

I agree that the Z-28 won't come without a crippling weight penalty.

Awesome, it should be great. I already love the SS, that'll be even better.

Thing is, wasn't the SS>the Z28, originally?

Quote from: CALL_911 on September 22, 2009, 02:06:38 PM
Awesome, it should be great. I already love the SS, that'll be even better.

Thing is, wasn't the SS>the Z28, originally?

I guess it depends what ">" means. The first gen SS could be had in all sorts of forms; small block and big block, A/T and M/T, and could be combined with other options and packages (AC, radio, and the RS package for example)

The first gen Z-28 could only be had with the 302 V8, M/T and "heavy duty" suspension, and existed in a standalone package with only limited performance options available (i.e., couldn't add SS, RS, AC or other frills).

Price-wise their wasn't much of a difference.

I prefer the first gen Z/28 though the SS was far more livable day-to-day.

Quote from: GoCougs on September 22, 2009, 02:38:01 PM
I guess it depends what ">" means. The first gen SS could be had in all sorts of forms; small block and big block, A/T and M/T, and could be combined with other options and packages (AC, radio, and the RS package for example)

The first gen Z-28 could only be had with the 302 V8, M/T and "heavy duty" suspension, and existed in a standalone package with only limited performance options available (i.e., couldn't add SS, RS, AC or other frills).

Price-wise their wasn't much of a difference.

there. God that one bugs me.

Quote from: Raza  on September 22, 2009, 12:53:02 PM
None, actually. 

Some at least ar.

Gonna leave the "e" off like I'm a pirate. ar.

Sweet Jesus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpwBEL0TwOM&

I hope they give the Z28 the full 638 hp or close to it.  I mean no one is going to cross shop the Camaro and ZR1 anyway.

Quote from: 565 on September 22, 2009, 08:03:40 PM
I hope they give the Z28 the full 638 hp or close to it.  I mean no one is going to cross shop the Camaro and ZR1 anyway.

All reports indicate that the Z28 will be getting the LSA (the 556 hp motor from the Caddy CTS-V), not the LS9.  The LS9 more exotic (and expensive) than the LSA.  LS9 has a dry sump oiling system, titanium con-rods and intake valves, sodium filled exhaust valves, and forged pistons (among other higher end bits of hardware).  The LSA uses more traditional (less expensive) con-rod and valve materials, as well as cast pistons and a wet sump oiling system.

Quote from: MX793 on September 22, 2009, 08:23:57 PM
All reports indicate that the Z28 will be getting the LSA (the 556 hp motor from the Caddy CTS-V), not the LS9.  The LS9 more exotic (and expensive) than the LSA.  LS9 has a dry sump oiling system, titanium con-rods and intake valves, sodium filled exhaust valves, and forged pistons (among other higher end bits of hardware).  The LSA uses more traditional (less expensive) con-rod and valve materials, as well as cast pistons and a wet sump oiling system.

Oh noes, a Z28 with only 556 hp. What is this, 1979 all over again?  :facepalm:

Quote from: HotRodPilot on September 22, 2009, 05:29:49 PM
Sweet Jesus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpwBEL0TwOM&

Pretty cool fan vid...

Wow - I'm not sure that a 638 hp Z/28 is such a good idea - could the chassis even handle that? If it wasn't designed from the ground up for that kind of power, it'll need a heavily reworked chassis a la Z06/ZR1 WRT base C6; and I don't think such an expensive Camaro would do so well in the marketplace...

I bet it gets no more than 600 hp unless the Shelby-SVT peeps go all out on the Mustang. Heck, I bet they settle at "530" or so just so they can claim the CTS-V is more for the money. But I wouldn't be surprised at all if GM really tunes it to 600+ hp.

Quote from: R-inge on September 22, 2009, 04:09:11 PM
Some at least ar.

Gonna leave the "e" off like I'm a pirate. ar.

Not when you put the top down.  ;)

Quote from: ChrisV on September 14, 2009, 01:33:30 PM
bah. You want visibility? Drive this:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Amc_pacer_x.jpg/800px-Amc_pacer_x.jpg)

I love Pacer visibility!

:wub:

Pacer Levi's Editions rock. Denim seats hold up to a lot of abuse.

Quote from: GoCougs on September 22, 2009, 08:41:55 PM
Pretty cool fan vid...

Wow - I'm not sure that a 638 hp Z/28 is such a good idea - could the chassis even handle that? If it wasn't designed from the ground up for that kind of power, it'll need a heavily reworked chassis a la Z06/ZR1 WRT base C6; and I don't think such an expensive Camaro would do so well in the marketplace...

Way back when, I recall reading an interview with a Holden engineer regarding the ultimate limits of the Zeta chassis, but I'll be damned if I can find it or if I can recall the general figures thrown about.

So, really, this post has no point. Carry on, then.

Quote from: the Teuton on September 23, 2009, 08:29:29 AM
Pacer Levi's Editions rock. Denim seats hold up to a lot of abuse.

Problem: I'd always have to wear pleated khakis, because one should never commit the ultimate faux-pas of being caught in the same outfit as one's car.

Further problem: I'm not a fan of pleated khakis.

Quote from: omicron on September 23, 2009, 08:34:08 AM
Problem: I'd always have to wear pleated khakis, because one should never commit the ultimate faux-pas of being caught in the same outfit as one's car.

Further problem: I'm not a fan of pleated khakis.

Solution: Seat covers for when you want to dress casually.

Wow you guys complain a lot. We get that you don't lisle the car as much as the mustang. Don't gotta bitch about everything.

Try driving a rat rod if you don't like the camaros visibity.

Quote from: omicron on September 23, 2009, 08:34:08 AM
Problem: I'd always have to wear pleated khakis, because one should never commit the ultimate faux-pas of being caught in the same outfit as one's car.

Further problem: I'm not a fan of pleated khakis.

You absolutely cannot wear pleats unless you're over 50.

Quote from: MX793 on September 22, 2009, 08:23:57 PM
All reports indicate that the Z28 will be getting the LSA (the 556 hp motor from the Caddy CTS-V), not the LS9.  The LS9 more exotic (and expensive) than the LSA.  LS9 has a dry sump oiling system, titanium con-rods and intake valves, sodium filled exhaust valves, and forged pistons (among other higher end bits of hardware).  The LSA uses more traditional (less expensive) con-rod and valve materials, as well as cast pistons and a wet sump oiling system.

Glad this is going to be built, unfortunate about the cast pistons and weak con-rods. 
This is going to limit modability this engine is not going to take much more boost. That is sad, this could have been the GM supra, just add more boost without worry make huge hp.

Quote from: SVT32V on September 23, 2009, 11:12:04 AM
Glad this is going to be built, unfortunate about the cast pistons and weak con-rods. 
This is going to limit modability this engine is not going to take much more boost. That is sad, this could have been the GM supra, just add more boost without worry make huge hp.

A titanium rod will be lighter, yes, but not necessarily stronger - for example you'll not likely find titanium rods in your average bracket racer making 750 - 1000 hp+...

Quote from: SVT32V on September 23, 2009, 11:12:04 AM
Glad this is going to be built, unfortunate about the cast pistons and weak con-rods. 
This is going to limit modability this engine is not going to take much more boost. That is sad, this could have been the GM supra, just add more boost without worry make huge hp.

Ironically enough the 2JZ-GTE uses forged rods and cast pistons, just like the LSA.

Quote from: omicron on September 23, 2009, 08:28:16 AM
I love Pacer visibility!

:wub:

I know a guy in Denver who put an AMC 401 into one of those.  Pretty cool car.

Quote from: 565 on September 23, 2009, 11:36:22 AM
Ironically enough the 2JZ-GTE uses forged rods and cast pistons, just like the LSA.

The supra did have fancy oil squirters to cool the pistons though, keeping the piston cool is key for getting rid of hot spots that cause detonation.  Ultimately it is the detonation that holes a piston and blows a motor.  Forged is just stronger when detonation happens.  The cooling or forged are two ways at getting at the same problem.

In any case, forged con-rods and pistons are the way to go.

I am sure there is at least 100 hp more built into the engine. However, the cast pistons will leave little room for a less than perfect tune

Quote from: R-inge on September 23, 2009, 12:58:05 PM
I know a guy in Denver who put an AMC 401 into one of those.  Pretty cool car.

Probably not a terribly hard mod to make since the Pacer came with the 304 ci V8 (same family/block as the 401) from the factory.

Quote from: MX793 on September 23, 2009, 03:29:01 PM
Probably not a terribly hard mod to make since the Pacer came with the 304 ci V8 (same family/block as the 401) from the factory.

Ah, I didn't know that.  I thought they just came with a six-banger.

Quote from: SVT32V on September 23, 2009, 11:12:04 AM
Glad this is going to be built, unfortunate about the cast pistons and weak con-rods. 
This is going to limit modability this engine is not going to take much more boost. That is sad, this could have been the GM supra, just add more boost without worry make huge hp.

how weak are the con-rods? I mean said "less expensive" than the LS9, every con-rod is less expensive than those titanium ones, lol.

By Galaxy in another thread:

"The October issue of Road & Track has finally reached old Europe. It was interesting to read the Pony Express story by Peter Egan. Granted he wrote more about the historical Pony Express and the American west then about the Mustang, Challenger and the Camaro but that sort of writing adds flavour to a comparison. It was also nice to see Road & Track print a story which was longer then two pages."

The link:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=10&article_id=8313

The important details are summarized in "The Official Mustang Thread". :tounge:

Such as (for BlowCoug's benefit):

0 - 60 mph:
Mustang, 5.3 sec
Camaro, 4.6
Challenger, 5.8

60 - 0, 80 - 0:
Mustang, 115', 202'
Camaro, 121', 212'
Challenger, 136', 246'

Out of a perfect score of 400:
Mustang got 383.9
Camaro got 372.7
Challenger got 357.9

Performance Categories:
Mustang GT won five (194.0 pts), Camaro SS won two (192.4 pts), Challenger didn't win any (no cigar)
Subjective Categories:
Mustang GT won seven (189.9 pts), Camaro SS won two (180.3 pts), Challenger won four(185.3 pts)
Price Category:
Camaro SS 1st, Mustang GT 2nd, Challenger 3rd

Other Vital Statistics:

Weight: Mustang GT, 3755 lbs; Camaro SS, 4045 lbs; Challenger, 4305 lbs.
Compression Ratio: Mustang GT, 9.8:1; Camaro SS, 10.7:1; Challenger, 10.5:1.
Max torque @: Mustang GT, 4250 RPM; Camaro SS, 4600 RPM; Challenger, 4300 RPM.
Fuel required: Mustang GT, regular, 20.0 MPG; Camaro SS, premium, 17.8 MPG; Challenger, premium, 17.4 MPG.
Lateral acceleration: Mustang GT, 0.93 G; Camaro SS, 0.89 G; Challenger, 0.83G.
Slalom speed: Mustang GT, 69.1 MPH; Camaro SS, 66.4 MPH; Challenger, 62.7 MPH.
Brake swept area: Mustang GT, 250 sq. in.; Camaro SS, 341 sq. in.; Challenger, 267 sq. in.

Note how the vehicle with the least brake swept area handily outbraked the other two  :clap: 
Again, it's about the whole vehicle, gentlemen, the whole vehicle.

From www.jalopnik.com:

GM Issues Service Bulletin To Repair Camaro Spoiler, Other Stuff

The General's issued a technical service bulletin for the Chevy Camaro's HVAC system, adding LOCTITE to the rear spoiler and inspecting/repairing the engine harness to make sure the heater hoses don't, you know, rub through over ten years of use.

We saw the rear spoiler issue first-hand ? one of the nuts inside the spoiler popped out and made a whole messload of racket when lifting the trunk to the fully open position. Damn Canadian Auto Workers ? always socializing our muscle cars with their shoddy workmanship and, ketchup-flavored potato chips. Full TSB above and below.[via Camaro5, where one member has already broken his new Camaro's right rear axle twice]

http://jalopnik.com/5370364//gallery/?selectedImage=1

just so you know Nethead, the pad area means nothing in terms of stopping power only in terms of brake fade. How far out the brakes are from the center helps, but surface area is more about a wear thing, just like tire surface area is to grip. I'm sure the brakes alone not taking into consideration weight the camaro's brakes are probably better equipped for brake fade. But I do wish the camaro was lighter...

Wow, the Camaro utterly owned the Mustang in sales this month making it four in a row, and the largest margin yet:

September '09 sales figures:

Camaro: 7,961
Mustang: 4,917

Quote from: GoCougs on October 02, 2009, 08:42:47 AM
Wow, the Camaro utterly owned the Mustang in sales this month making it four in a row, and the largest margin yet:

September '09 sales figures:

Camaro: 7,961
Mustang: 4,917

Like I said before, let's see what they are next summer after the novelty and newness has worn off the Camaro and the Mustang has the new engines.

Quote from: Nethead on September 30, 2009, 09:44:10 AM
From www.jalopnik.com:

GM Issues Service Bulletin To Repair Camaro Spoiler, Other Stuff

The General's issued a technical service bulletin for the Chevy Camaro's HVAC system, adding LOCTITE to the rear spoiler and inspecting/repairing the engine harness to make sure the heater hoses don't, you know, rub through over ten years of use.

We saw the rear spoiler issue first-hand — one of the nuts inside the spoiler popped out and made a whole messload of racket when lifting the trunk to the fully open position. Damn Canadian Auto Workers — always socializing our muscle cars with their shoddy workmanship and, ketchup-flavored potato chips. Full TSB above and below.[via Camaro5, where one member has already broken his new Camaro's right rear axle twice]

http://jalopnik.com/5370364//gallery/?selectedImage=1

To be fair, a TSB is like the factory version of a Haynes manual. if you buy a Haynes manual, it shows you how to fix most any problem your car may have. Does that mean that your car is going to have all the problems that the manual has repairs for? No. it just says, "if you have such and such problem with your car, here's how to fix it."

Since all cars are mechanical, and all mechanical things have the possibility of breaking or getting damaged, then it's a good thing to make sure that you have possible repairs in place for every part of a machine. It doens't mean that the fix is necessary or even common, or will even happen ever.

Quote from: HEMI666 on October 02, 2009, 09:04:03 AM
Like I said before, let's see what they are next summer after the novelty and newness has worn off the Camaro and the Mustang has the new engines.

Not so sure about the novelty angle - the Mustang is a six year old design - 2010 was time for an all-new Mustang...

Quote from: GoCougs on October 02, 2009, 12:40:22 PM
Not so sure about the novelty angle - the Mustang is a six year old design - 2010 was time for an all-new Mustang...

The Mustang is based on a 6 year old design.  The body and interior are all fresh designs.  If you are talking about the architecture and not the styling, then I would say that 6 year old design must be one hell of a design because the Mustang is better then the Camaro in every way but acceleration.  I would also imagine that a lot of people are holding off on buying the 2010 Mustang when they know the Mustang will have 400 hp in the spring.

Quote from: ChrisV on October 02, 2009, 09:43:21 AM
To be fair, a TSB is like the factory version of a Haynes manual. if you buy a Haynes manual, it shows you how to fix most any problem your car may have. Does that mean that your car is going to have all the problems that the manual has repairs for? No. it just says, "if you have such and such problem with your car, here's how to fix it."

Since all cars are mechanical, and all mechanical things have the possibility of breaking or getting damaged, then it's a good thing to make sure that you have possible repairs in place for every part of a machine. It doens't mean that the fix is necessary or even common, or will even happen ever.

Exactly.  :clap:

Woah, just saw a TV ad specifically for the V6 Camaro.  When was the last time you ever saw Ford flaunt the V6 Mustang (oh wait, they don't because it sucks).  When was the last time you saw a commercial flaunting the base model of any car, for that matter?

Quote from: MX793 on October 04, 2009, 12:53:54 PM
Woah, just saw a TV ad specifically for the V6 Camaro.  When was the last time you ever saw Ford flaunt the V6 Mustang (oh wait, they don't because it sucks).  When was the last time you saw a commercial flaunting the base model of any car, for that matter?

It's why the Camaro has been such a success thus far IMO - the vast majority of what has been sold have been the V6 model which isn't a POS as it has been in previous Camaro generations nor like the V6 versions of the current Mustang and Challenger - neither in looks nor performance.

Camaro enthusiasts (i.e., SS buyers) have been a relatively minor factor in sales figures thus far owing to the significant back log.

I wish they made those sweet, black steelie wheels from the V6 an option for the V8. :(

Quote from: giant_mtb on October 04, 2009, 01:15:03 PM
I wish they made those sweet, black steelie wheels from the V6 an option for the V8. :(

20 inch steel wheels weigh like 140 lbs a piece

Quote from: GoCougs on October 04, 2009, 01:09:40 PM
It's why the Camaro has been such a success thus far IMO - the vast majority of what has been sold have been the V6 model which isn't a POS as it has been in previous Camaro generations nor like the V6 versions of the current Mustang and Challenger - neither in looks nor performance.

Camaro enthusiasts (i.e., SS buyers) have been a relatively minor factor in sales figures thus far owing to the significant back log.

We recently reported on the breakdown of the colors of Camros produced so far. We now report on the % of the various Camaro models produced. The following stats account for 36,812 of the over 50,000 total Camaros produced so far (as of 9/26/09). The Camaro 2SS has been the overwhelming majority of Camaros produced.

2SS (23,160 units) ? 62.91%
1SS ( 2,362 units) ? 6.42%
2LT (6,388 units) ? 17.35%
1LT (4,124 units) ? 11.20%
1LS (778 units) ? 2.11%
Grand Total: 36,812 units

http://www.camaro5.com/?p=2408

Wow, all I want is a 1LS, but that may be impossible to find.

Quote from: HotRodPilot on October 04, 2009, 01:55:57 PM
We recently reported on the breakdown of the colors of Camros produced so far. We now report on the % of the various Camaro models produced. The following stats account for 36,812 of the over 50,000 total Camaros produced so far (as of 9/26/09). The Camaro 2SS has been the overwhelming majority of Camaros produced.

2SS (23,160 units) ? 62.91%
1SS ( 2,362 units) ? 6.42%
2LT (6,388 units) ? 17.35%
1LT (4,124 units) ? 11.20%
1LS (778 units) ? 2.11%
Grand Total: 36,812 units

http://www.camaro5.com/?p=2408

Many of those were likely pre-orders, and I suspect the vast majority of people looking to pre-order the car sight-unseen were Camaro enthusiasts who were hankering for a loaded up SS model.

Quote from: giant_mtb on October 04, 2009, 01:15:03 PM
I wish they made those sweet, black steelie wheels from the V6 an option for the V8. :(

+1

I really like those wheels.

Quote from: HotRodPilot on October 04, 2009, 01:55:57 PM
We recently reported on the breakdown of the colors of Camros produced so far. We now report on the % of the various Camaro models produced. The following stats account for 36,812 of the over 50,000 total Camaros produced so far (as of 9/26/09). The Camaro 2SS has been the overwhelming majority of Camaros produced.

2SS (23,160 units) — 62.91%
1SS ( 2,362 units) — 6.42%
2LT (6,388 units) — 17.35%
1LT (4,124 units) — 11.20%
1LS (778 units) — 2.11%
Grand Total: 36,812 units

http://www.camaro5.com/?p=2408

Good evening, profit figures. Some tea?

Quote from: GoCougs on October 04, 2009, 01:09:40 PM
It's why the Camaro has been such a success thus far IMO - the vast majority of what has been sold have been the V6 model which isn't a POS as it has been in previous Camaro generations nor like the V6 versions of the current Mustang and Challenger - neither in looks nor performance.

Camaro enthusiasts (i.e., SS buyers) have been a relatively minor factor in sales figures thus far owing to the significant back log.

The V6 is a revelation; the very idea that a V6 muscle car need not be a penalty box should be shocking its competitors.  When I mentioned that to the Ford dealer, he didn't believe me.  Then he went on to say the Mustang V6 had around 250-275HP, and I said it was closer to 200.  I made him look it up. 

Quote from: HotRodPilot on October 04, 2009, 01:55:57 PM
We recently reported on the breakdown of the colors of Camros produced so far. We now report on the % of the various Camaro models produced. The following stats account for 36,812 of the over 50,000 total Camaros produced so far (as of 9/26/09). The Camaro 2SS has been the overwhelming majority of Camaros produced.

2SS (23,160 units) ? 62.91%
1SS ( 2,362 units) ? 6.42%
2LT (6,388 units) ? 17.35%
1LT (4,124 units) ? 11.20%
1LS (778 units) ? 2.11%
Grand Total: 36,812 units

http://www.camaro5.com/?p=2408

Those sound like order numbers.

(http://www.carpw.com/pictures/chevrolet/SS_Conc_2003_1.jpg)



I would have liked to have seen this as the new Camaro. Yes, yes I know it has four doors but we are living in the age of four door coup?s. Or call it something else.

Camaroanara?

Quote from: NACar on October 05, 2009, 04:03:37 PM
Camaroanara?

What ever works for you.

that was such an rx-8 ripoff

Quote from: Galaxy on October 05, 2009, 04:00:56 PM
(http://www.carpw.com/pictures/chevrolet/SS_Conc_2003_1.jpg)



I would have liked to have seen this as the new Camaro. Yes, yes I know it has four doors but we are living in the age of four door coup?s. Or call it something else.

Chevelle!

personally this was my favorite view
(http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2000-2003/2003-Chevy-SS-Concept-Car-rear-angle-1280x960.jpg)

the url says it all

http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2009/10/camaro-and-challenger-coupe-visibility-comparison.html

camaro doesn't seem too bad.

Quote from: Sigma Projects on October 10, 2009, 04:32:05 PM
camaro doesn't seem too bad.

Oh, but it is!

The Mustang is great, though. I just drove one today, and it was just peachy.

Quote from: Sigma Projects on October 10, 2009, 04:32:05 PM
camaro doesn't seem too bad.

+1

Quote from: Sigma Projects on October 10, 2009, 04:32:05 PM
camaro doesn't seem too bad.

It is.  But since everything I say here is discounted because of my love for the Mustang, I suggest you go sit in one.  The rearview mirror feels like it's mere inches off the dash.

Quote from: HEMI666 on October 11, 2009, 09:00:55 AM
It is.  But since everything I say here is discounted because of my love for the Mustang, I suggest you go sit in one.  The rearview mirror feels like it's mere inches off the dash.

Yeah. When I mounted my GPS on the windshield, it felt like it took up a good amount of space.

Still, I got used to it rather quickly. The visibility (or lack thereof) really isn't so bad once you've been driving the thing for more than like a day.

Quote from: HEMI666 on October 11, 2009, 09:00:55 AM
It is.  But since everything I say here is discounted because of my love for the Mustang, I suggest you go sit in one.  The rearview mirror feels like it's mere inches off the dash.

You telling people not to buy a Camaro is like me telling someone not to buy a Mitsubishi.

October 2009 sales numbers:

Camaro: 8,082
Mustang: 4,789

IMO the whole notion of a fad WRT the Camaro's sales success is put to bed. The Camaro is maintaining its 50%+ lead six months after introduction (to factory capacity more or less) even with Ford's much more aggressive incentive program.

Quote from: GoCougs on November 03, 2009, 12:46:10 PM
October 2009 sales numbers:

Camaro: 8,082
Mustang: 4,789

IMO the whole notion of a fad WRT the Camaro's sales success is put to bed. The Camaro is maintaining its 50%+ lead six months after introduction (to factory capacity more or less) even with Ford's much more aggressive incentive program.

We'll see next summer.  If the sales trend continues past next summer, then I will accept the Camaro sales success as more then a fad, but it's still too early to declare that yet, especially when everyone looking to buy a Mustang knows the better engines are coming in the spring.

Quote from: HEMI666 on November 03, 2009, 12:50:56 PM
We'll see next summer.  If the sales trend continues past next summer, then I will accept the Camaro sales success as more then a fad, but it's still too early to declare that yet, especially when everyone looking to buy a Mustang knows the better engines are coming in the spring.

Most buying a new Mustang are unaware of upcoming engine changes; certainly not anything remotely close to the 50%+ more people buying Camaros.

The Mustang's sales performance isn't due to engines; it's due to the fact that it is a six year old design.

Quote from: GoCougs on November 03, 2009, 01:12:25 PM
Most buying a new Mustang are unaware of upcoming engine changes; certainly not anything remotely close to the 50%+ more people buying Camaros.

The Mustang's sales performance isn't due to engines; it's due to the fact that it is a six year old design.

It's been 6 years already?  Well, it looked dated after year 1 though..

Quote from: NomisR on November 03, 2009, 01:15:28 PM
It's been 6 years already?  Well, it looked dated after year 1 though..

Chevy will have the same problem as Ford does now in about 2014; what the heck do you follow it up with?

Just as with the Mustang, there really is no other desirable generation of the Camaro upon which to leverage for an all-new design.

Quote from: GoCougs on November 03, 2009, 01:58:34 PM
Chevy will have the same problem as Ford does now in about 2014; what the heck do you follow it up with?

Just as with the Mustang, there really is no other desirable generation of the Camaro upon which to leverage for an all-new design.

When the '05 Mustang came out, my first thought was, "Damn.  How the hell do they redesign this?".  Personally I think the evolutionary design change it went through this year was very well done (except the black plastic on the bottom of the back bumper), but what do they do next?  It may have to be pretty damn radical.

Quote from: GoCougs on November 03, 2009, 01:58:34 PM
Chevy will have the same problem as Ford does now in about 2014; what the heck do you follow it up with?

Just as with the Mustang, there really is no other desirable generation of the Camaro upon which to leverage for an all-new design.

The last 3 F-body generations have lasted about a decade each. So maybe by the time 2019 rolls around, it might be fashionable to recall the wedgy T-top IROC Camaros and Vanilla Ice Fox-body 5.0's.

Quote from: Vinsanity on November 03, 2009, 02:50:08 PM
The last 3 F-body generations have lasted about a decade each. So maybe by the time 2019 rolls around, it might be fashionable to recall the wedgy T-top IROC Camaros and Vanilla Ice Fox-body 5.0's.

PLEASE NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Quote from: HEMI666 on November 03, 2009, 03:04:53 PM
PLEASE NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

I still like the way IROCs look.  :huh:

Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on November 03, 2009, 06:12:01 PM
I still like the way IROCs look.  :huh:

+1

Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on November 03, 2009, 06:12:01 PM
I still like the way IROCs look.  :huh:

Believe it or not, but so do I.  I could never imagine GM redesigning this car to look like the IROC though.

Both Ford and GM are sure to be hard at work as to what the replacement cars will be. One thing for sure, my hunch is that the whole cheap V8 idea will be dead what with the unthinkable levels of government and environmental sway the last couple of years (with much more to come); the idea of a $28-30k Mustang GT or Camaro SS is dead in the next generations.

My bet is that the cars will either morph into something like the Genesis Coupe and stay higher volume performance bargains, or stay V8s and morph into a much lower volume, higher end product

I see the vert and Z28 have been okayed again. I won't hold my breath.

Finally got to really check one out up close.  Sat in a 1SS at the local dealership.  Wow.  Truly terrible visibility.  The "it's like looking out the gunslits of a pillbox" analogy is a good one.  I can forgive limited rear and rear-quarter visibility in a sport coupe, but even the front 160 degrees (80 from center each way) was also poor.  There was a Malibu parked at least 10 feet in front of the car I was sitting in.  Even sitting up until my head was pressed to the roof (which wasn't far, even without a sunroof I had maybe an inch of clearance, and I'm only 5'10") I could just see the very top of the front license plate frame.  And only in the region to the left of the hood bulge.  Sitting normally, I could barely see the Chevy bowtie in the middle of the Malibu's grille.  There was a reception desk at least 6 feet from the side of the car and I couldn't see where the desk met the floor.  At the same time, the roof is so low and so far out in front of the driver that you'd have a heck of a time seeing overhead traffic lights unless you were stopped back a ways.  The roof is so chopped, I had to really duck my head down to get in and out of the car to keep from bashing my head into the upper part of the door frame.  I had to stifle a laugh as the salesman was saying something like "Just sitting in this car you can tell it's a serious performance machine.  Notice how the view out is very forward biased with limited side and rear visibility?  It's just like a racing car!  You're not sitting in a cabin, you're sitting in a cockpit.".  Yeah, sure, except I suspect many racing cars and all fighter jet cockpits offer better forward visibility.

On the plus side, the pedals aren't quite as widely spaced as I was expecting, though more widely spaced than I'd like.  Clutch effort seemed about the same as the Gen Coupe I drove.  I ran the shifter through the gates and the throws were short and relatively low effort.  I'm not sure if the V6's clutch and gearbox are comparable.  The cloth buckets were comfortable and felt pretty supportive.  Was not impressed with the interior, overall.  The gauges were nice to look at, but the radio is pretty ugly and the rest of the dash is just a huge expanse of unbroken black, rhino-skin textured plastic.  At least it looked like it was made from a higher grade of plastic than the Fischer-Price stuff they used to use back in the late 90s and early 00s.  Lightyears better than the last Camaro.  Aesthetically, I'd put it ahead of the base Mustang's interior, but behind the Gen Coupe and Mustang Premium.  The steering wheel also wasn't that comfortable to hold on to (I blame the super thick horizontal spokes that are narrow at the top).

To top it all off, when I mentioned I was also considering the Genesis coupe, the salesperson went on about "What do you know about the quality of components on that car?  Foreign engineering, cheap foreign molds and cheap foreign alloys...blah blah blah... do you feel confident that you can trust that?".  I really had to hold my tongue to keep from pointing out that the Camaro was neither engineered nor made in the USA.  For that matter, the designer was a Korean immigrant.

This was, on paper, a strong contender as my next car.  The horrid outward visibility really knocked it down on the list.

PEOPLE DON'T NEED TO SEE WHEN THEY DRIVE. THE COMPUTERS DRIVE 4 THEM. CRUISE CONTROL ADAPTS NOW, DON'CHA'NO?!  AND IT BREAKS FOR U TOO, IN CASE YOU SUCK AT SEEING SHIT HAPPEN IN FRONT OF YOU.


;)

Quote from: giant_mtb on November 07, 2009, 02:35:21 PM
PEOPLE DON'T NEED TO SEE WHEN THEY DRIVE. THE COMPUTERS DRIVE 4 THEM. CRUISE CONTROL ADAPTS NOW, DON'CHA'NO?!  AND IT BREAKS FOR U TOO, IN CASE YOU SUCK AT SEEING SHIT HAPPEN IN FRONT OF YOU.


;)

:lol:

Quote from: HotRodPilot on October 10, 2009, 05:12:40 AM
the url says it all

http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2009/10/camaro-and-challenger-coupe-visibility-comparison.html

:huh:

(http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x253/calfan5/Nostalgia%20Nationals%2009/NN09032.jpg)

2 out of 3 Chevrolet Camaro buyers opting for a V8
11/18/2009, 10:29 AMBY DREW JOHNSON


Historically, the six-cylinder version of the Chevrolet Camaro has outsold eight-cylinder models by a margin of about 2-to-1. However, with the revival of the Camaro nameplate for the 2010 model year, General Motors is seeing far greater demand for V8 models.

According to Edmunds? calculations, about 31,500 of the Camaro?s 47,200 sales have been for the V8-powered SS model, marking a 66 percent V8 take rate. Although that trend is likely tied to the Camaro being all-new for 2010, it?s still an extremely high percentage. The last time the Camaro was all-new ? in 1993 ? only 46 percent of buyers opted for the V8-powered Z28 model.

The news is also quite shocking considering the performance of the current Camaro V6 model. Whereas the 1993 Camaro V6 only managed an asthmatic 160 horsepower, the 2010 model makes a generous 304 horsepower. Moreover, the V6 Camaro even returns 29mpg on the highway.

Although the lopsided sales rate is sure to ding GM?s CAFE ratings ? as the SS model only averages 19mpg ? the Detroit automaker is perfectly happy with the results. The V6 model is only marginally cheaper to produce than its SS-counterpart, leaving GM with a healthy profit margin on V8 models. The base model V6 Camaro lists from $23,530, with a steep jump to $31,595 for the cheapest SS model.

That article says to me that when the pent up demand for this car wane, sales should drop to about 4000 units a month if V6 sales numbers don't change.

It's because it looks so damn awesome that the typical Joe-Mullet Camaro lover immediately dismisses the idea of ever owning one, never realizing that he can, in fact, afford a V6 model.

Quote from: HEMI666 on November 18, 2009, 05:18:38 PM
That article says to me that when the pent up demand for this car wane, sales should drop to about 4000 units a month if V6 sales numbers don't change.

Things you are neglecting:

1.) The Camaro, SS or otherwise, is selling without incentives in and amongst an atrociously bad economy and credit market;

2.) Presumably using the 46% threshold from 1993, the 2010 Camaro's average of 8,800/mo would "drop" to total sales of 5,378/mo (4,789 Mustangs were sold in October '09), not 4,000/mo.

Quote from: GoCougs on November 18, 2009, 06:36:35 PM
Things you are neglecting:

1.) The Camaro, SS or otherwise, is selling without incentives in and amongst an atrociously bad economy and credit market;

2.) Presumably using the 46% threshold from 1993, the 2010 Camaro's average of 8,800/mo would "drop" to total sales of 5,378/mo (4,789 Mustangs were sold in October '09), not 4,000/mo.

The V6 outsells the V8 2:1 for the Mustang and for all previous iterations of the Camaro and Firebird.  V6 sales are 1/3 of the total sales right now.  If V6 sales don't change at 2650 units last month, then V8 sales (under regular sales trends) should be equal to half that which is 1325 units a month, for a total of 3975 units a month.  The sales of the V8 is all due to pent up demand.  Wait until sales start dying down and the novelty wears off.

November 2009 sales numbers:

Camaro: 6,687
Mustang: 3,627

Camaro's largest sales advantage to date at + 84%.

Quote from: NACar on November 18, 2009, 05:25:28 PM
It's because it looks so damn awesome that the typical Joe-Mullet Camaro lover immediately dismisses the idea of ever owning one, never realizing that he can, in fact, afford a V6 model.

"Only fags and homos drive V6 Camaros!"

Quote from: GoCougs on December 01, 2009, 01:06:26 PM
November 2009 sales numbers:

Camaro: 6,687
Mustang: 3,627

Camaro's largest sales advantage to date at + 84%.

And the sales drop off for the Camaro has begun.  The Mustang sales are not surprising since it was about 2 months ago when the rumours really started heating up about the new powerplants.  Like I said, let's see what the sales look like next summer.

I don't like very much about the Camaro at all.  The exterior is OK but the interior is rubbish, both in design and materials.

Quote from: Catman on December 01, 2009, 04:46:10 PM
I don't like very much about the Camaro at all.  The exterior is OK but the interior is rubbish, both in design and materials.

+1

I really liked the Camaro till I went and sat in one at the auto show. It's ridiculous trying to see out of that thing, and the gauges and dash were fugly and the wheel and shifter felt very cheap.

The Challenger was far superior and the Mustang was also very nice.

Quote from: thecarnut on December 01, 2009, 04:49:51 PM
+1

I really liked the Camaro till I went and sat in one at the auto show. It's ridiculous trying to see out of that thing, and the gauges and dash were fugly and the wheel and shifter felt very cheap.

The Challenger was far superior and the Mustang was also very nice.

Yeah I agree.  The Mustang isn't premium inside by any means but it's nice for the price you pay and looks pretty good.  I'd be happy with it.

Quote from: HEMI666 on December 01, 2009, 04:29:29 PM
And the sales drop off for the Camaro has begun.  The Mustang sales are not surprising since it was about 2 months ago when the rumours really started heating up about the new powerplants.  Like I said, let's see what the sales look like next summer.

Oh, good heavens.

Purposefully left out of my post was that November 2009 was the Mustang's second worse sales month in its entire 45 year history. (The previous second worst record (http://www.mustangblog.com/blog/1018310_january-2009-mustang-sales-figures-released-new-monthly-low) was 3,667 units this past January.) Yes, you read that correctly. Second worst month of all time.

I would not be surprised if an ambitious person could show November as one of the Camaro's largest monthly sales advantage of all time. At this pace there's a chance the Camaro could outsell the Mustang for all of 2009 despite not going on sale until April plus being hampered by supply issues for the first few months.

And with this you retort by stating, "the sales drop off" has begun? C'mon. You gotta see reality for what it is. This mythical waiting-for-new-engines excuse just doesn't wash; your theory would only hold water if the MY2011 Mustang was an all-new car. Simply put, the car is shop worn.

Quote from: GoCougs on December 01, 2009, 05:03:56 PM
Oh, good heavens.

Purposefully left out of my post was that November 2009 was the Mustang's second worse sales month in its entire 45 year history. (The previous second worst record (http://www.mustangblog.com/blog/1018310_january-2009-mustang-sales-figures-released-new-monthly-low) was 3,667 units this past January.) Yes, you read that correctly. Second worst month of all time.

I would not be surprised if an ambitious person could show November as one of the Camaro's largest monthly sales advantage of all time. At this pace there's a chance the Camaro could outsell the Mustang for all of 2009 despite not going on sale until April plus being hampered by supply issues for the first few months.

And with this you retort by stating, "the sales drop off" has begun? C'mon. You gotta see reality for what it is. This mythical waiting-for-new-engines excuse just doesn't wash; your theory would only hold water if the MY2011 Mustang was an all-new car. Simply put, the car is shop worn.

I'm going to quote ChrisV right now:
"You really don't know shit?  And I say that in the nicest possible way."

Quote from: HEMI666 on December 01, 2009, 05:14:02 PM
I'm going to quote ChrisV right now:
"You really don't know shit?  And I say that in the nicest possible way."

That's your response to cold, hard facts? Why, because I ambushed you? I agree that was a bit underhanded but you'd have to agree you had it coming. You're putting buttons out there just asking for them to be pushed. Either way, facts are facts.

Mustang had its second worst sales month of all time in November, and the Camaro outsold it by 84%. Did this happen at the end of the '68 MY, or the '73 MY, or the '78 MY, or the '93 MY, when the Mustang was on a generation change? No, it didn't.

The expectation that this happened only because of new engines coming down the pike is historically completely unrealistic as it never happened when an entirely new Mustang was coming down the pike (meaning, an-all new Mustang would be a FAR greater reason to delay buying, and it never resulted in such a dismal sales month).

Quote from: GoCougs on December 01, 2009, 05:32:56 PM
That's your response to cold, hard facts? Why, because I ambushed you? I agree that was a bit underhanded but you'd have to agree you had it coming. You're putting buttons out there just asking for them to be pushed. Either way, facts are facts.

Mustang had its second worst sales month of all time in November, and the Camaro outsold it by 84%. Did this happen at the end of the '68 MY, or the '73 MY, or the '78 MY, or the '93 MY, when the Mustang was on a generation change? No, it didn't.

The expectation that this happened only because of new engines coming down the pike is historically completely unrealistic as it never happened when an entirely new Mustang was coming down the pike (meaning, an-all new Mustang would be a FAR greater reason to delay buying, and it never resulted in such a dismal sales month).

Hey retard, have you been reading my posts at all?  Did I ever say it was due strictly to new engines coming out?  No, I did not.  It also has to do with the massive hype and buildup over the past 85 years for the 2010 Camaro.  Once that hype has died down and the new engines come out...next spring to summer...the sales numbers are going to be completely fucking different.  And in case you can't count asshat, the Camaro's sales have dropped 25% month over month.  The sales decline has begun for your beloved Camaro.  Let's look at the sales figures next summer when the hype has died down and the Mustang's new engines are out.  The Mustang's platform may be 5 years old, but it was updated enough that it is a substantially better car then your brand new Camaro.  The one and only thing the Camaro has over the Mustang is horsepower.  That's it.  The 5 year old, long in tooth Mustang, is faster through the slalom, outbrakes it, pulls more g's in the corners, uses less fuel (despite one less gear), rides better, has better steering, better seats, better shifter, and you can see out of the damn thing.  Exterior and Interior styling comes down to personal taste, but there's no denying the Mustang is the better car.

Sorry, my last little batch of Internetry is absolutely 100% unassailable. Also, your facts are yet again plainly wrong. Month-to-month (October to November), Camaro sales fell ~17%. In supremely ironic note, Mustang sales fell ~50% more to down ~23% from October.

Plus most anyone knows that the week of a holiday (Thanksgiving, Xmas, New Years) big ticket item sales (cars, houses, boats, etc.) slow to a trickle so in effect there were only three complete sales weeks in November.

Unlike you I couldn't care less who sells more; I'm not vested in either. I'd never buy a car from a de facto nationalized automaker, and the car itself doesn't fit my lifestyle one iota. I just think it's kinda funny the apologism and jihadism you and Nethead deploy in the face of the better car and the better seller.

You stick your buttons out there and I will push them.

Quote from: GoCougs on December 01, 2009, 10:13:21 PM
Sorry, my last little batch of Internetry is absolutely 100% unassailable. Also, your facts are yet again plainly wrong. Month-to-month (October to November), Camaro sales fell ~17%. In supremely ironic note, Mustang sales fell ~50% more to down ~23% from October.

Plus most anyone knows that the week of a holiday (Thanksgiving, Xmas, New Years) big ticket item sales (cars, houses, boats, etc.) slow to a trickle so in effect there were only three complete sales weeks in November.

Unlike you I couldn't care less who sells more; I'm not vested in either. I'd never buy a car from a de facto nationalized automaker, and the car itself doesn't fit my lifestyle one iota. I just think it's kinda funny the apologism and jihadism you and Nethead deploy in the face of the better car and the better seller.

You stick your buttons out there and I will push them.

Better seller does not equal better car.

Quote from: HEMI666 on December 01, 2009, 10:35:00 PM
Better seller does not equal better car.

Um, the implication was never there. Better car and better seller does not imply that the two are interdependent.

Quote from: GoCougs on December 01, 2009, 10:39:23 PM
Um, the implication was never there. Better car and better seller does not imply that the two are interdependent.

It's still not the better car, and virtually all comparisons tests have proven it.

Thought i should add the V6 camaro is in this months C&D 10 best/worst list... too bad its for absolute worst top gear acceleration

Quote from: r0tor on December 02, 2009, 07:29:12 AM
Thought i should add the V6 camaro is in this months C&D 10 best/worst list... too bad its for absolute worst top gear acceleration

probably on a manual

top gear acceleration w/ a manual is an oxymoron

You want acceleration?  shift

Quote from: HotRodPilot on December 02, 2009, 07:30:55 AM
probably on a manual

top gear acceleration w/ a manual is an oxymoron

You want acceleration?  shift

I'm fairly certain they tested the top gear acceleration of a manual equipped Honda Fit this year....

Seriously, it's not that hard to downshift. I'm sure I could roll with my car from 40 mph to 115 in fifth gear, and it would take a lot longer than 35 seconds, but what would be the point of it?

Quote from: r0tor on December 02, 2009, 07:35:21 AM
I'm fairly certain they tested the top gear acceleration of a manual equipped Honda Fit this year....

Congrats to Honda for making their engine spin at 3k RPM on the highway and missing out on some miles per gallon for the people that are too lazy to shift when they want to accelerate

Quote from: HotRodPilot on December 02, 2009, 07:37:03 AM
Congrats to Honda for making their engine spin at 3k RPM on the highway and missing out on some miles per gallon for the people that are too lazy to shift when they want to accelerate

peak efficiency of an engine is not always the lowest rpms that you can operate at

Quote from: r0tor on December 02, 2009, 07:41:26 AM
peak efficiency of an engine is not always the lowest rpms that you can operate at

:orly:

:popcorn:

read about Brake SPecific Fuel Consumption curves... this is a failry decent one... 2nd hit off of google

http://autospeed.com/cms/title_Brake-Specific-Fuel-Consumption/A_110216/article.html


for the record, the camaro V6 50-70mph top gear acceleration takes something over 14 seconds and 2x longer then the manual equipped Genesis coupe they tested it against.

After reading the article, just reinforces that you want to be at lower RPM to avoid costly pumping losses.  I wasn't wrong

Quote from: HotRodPilot on December 02, 2009, 07:37:03 AM
Congrats to Honda for making their engine spin at 3k RPM on the highway and missing out on some miles per gallon for the people that are too lazy to shift when they want to accelerate

Quote from: r0tor on December 02, 2009, 07:49:37 AM
read about Brake SPecific Fuel Consumption curves... this is a failry decent one... 2nd hit off of google

http://autospeed.com/cms/title_Brake-Specific-Fuel-Consumption/A_110216/article.html


for the record, the camaro V6 50-70mph top gear acceleration takes something over 14 seconds and 2x longer then the manual equipped Genesis coupe they tested it against.

Peak efficiency however doesn't always equate to absolute best MPG...

HotRodPilot has it right I think for cruising speed at light throttle (i.e., well under peak power) as pumping losses increase with RPM, meaning lower RPM = better MPG.

As to the top gear acceleration spec, it's absolutely ridiculous given that an AT will be profoundly faster than a MT.

Quote from: HotRodPilot on December 02, 2009, 08:02:46 AM
After reading the article, just reinforces that you want to be at lower RPM to avoid costly pumping losses.  I wasn't wrong

:facepalm:


(http://us1.webpublications.com.au/static/images/articles/i1102/110216_6lo.jpg)

Peak efficiency is at 3000 rpms on this honda 4 banger

Quote from: GoCougs on December 02, 2009, 08:22:54 AM
Peak efficiency however doesn't always equate to absolute best MPG...

double  :facepalm:

I think this pic is appropriate:

(http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss335/47acp/ThreadDelivers.jpg)

YTD sales...
Camaro 54,100
Mustang 60,096

Camaro sales have been spiking because it's a heavily hyped, waited for car, and all new after a fairly long hiatus. Doesn't hurt that it looks quite good.

Mustangs sales are good overall, but are dropping recently as anyone what actually knows and wants to buy a Mustang has heard for a while that next year's models ar going to be significantly upgraded in hp and other features, a fact borne out by the recent reveal of the V6 Mustang package. Even the Camaro5 boards, happy for Camaro sales, are specualting that it's because of the knowledge that the '11 Mustang will be a heavy hitter in the hp arena, with less weight.

Quote from: r0tor on December 02, 2009, 08:49:41 AM
double  :facepalm:

r0tor there buddy, that was a graph of efficiency, not MPG.

A Civic at 70 mph will get better MPG at 2,000 rpm than it will at 3,000 rpm because pumping losses will be less per unit of road HP at such light throttle.

The BSFC curve shows fuel consumption per unit of power netted by the engine.  Cruising at a steady pace at 65mph requires a steady amount of power to be produced to overcome drag/friction/ect.  Manufacturers choose top gear gearing almost overwhelmingly by making the EPA testing speds occur in the engines most efficient rpm range.  Its what a damn CVT tranny does while your cruising. 

A Honda will certainly not get better MPG at 70mph if it was geared to be at that speed at 2,000rpm rather then 3,000 rpm.  Thats what the damn graph shows - per measure of power, how much fuel you need.  At 70mph you need a fixed amount of power to be produced.  The most fuel efficient way to get that amount is if your in the engine uses the least amount of fuel needed to produce that amount of power.  

On a honda 4 banger thats at 3000 or so rpm and not 2000.  On a GM poop-rod engine the ideal rpm is much lower then the Honda.  One chart there shows the Mazda R26B quad rotor engine from the LeMans winning 787B being around 6,000 rpm.


The low rpm sweet spot of the V6 in the camaro hampers the car because its cruising at a rpm where the engine doesn't produce squat for power even if you floor the thing.

Quote from: ChrisV on December 02, 2009, 09:24:08 AM
YTD sales...
Camaro 54,100
Mustang 60,096

Camaro sales have been spiking because it's a heavily hyped, waited for car, and all new after a fairly long hiatus. Doesn't hurt that it looks quite good.

Mustangs sales are good overall, but are dropping recently as anyone what actually knows and wants to buy a Mustang has heard for a while that next year's models ar going to be significantly upgraded in hp and other features, a fact borne out by the recent reveal of the V6 Mustang package. Even the Camaro5 boards, happy for Camaro sales, are specualting that it's because of the knowledge that the '11 Mustang will be a heavy hitter in the hp arena, with less weight.

So, just to re-cap, your theory is that the Camaro is stealing buyers, and people are waiting for mid-model upgrades.

The former carries no weight in context. This nullifies the OMG MORE POWER NEXT YEAR theory in that people who are actually waiting don't go out and buy a Camaro this year. They, um, wait.

The latter carries very little weight. Sales don't drop 50%+ because people are waiting for new engines; they don't even do that when waiting for a new generation. Also remember incentives to clear out '10 inventory would mask any material affect of the OMG MUST WAIT mentality, as extremely small as it may be.

And you were just arguing that the massive performance increase in V6 Mustang will scare away people and those looking for ho-hum appliance transportation (i.e., fleet buyers) because of increased insurance premiums.

In short, the theory may prove true, but there is absolutely zero historical precedent for such a thing. IMO you're connecting dots and inventing scenarios for your own end.

Quote from: r0tor on December 02, 2009, 08:48:58 AM
:facepalm:


(http://us1.webpublications.com.au/static/images/articles/i1102/110216_6lo.jpg)

Peak efficiency is at 3000 rpms on this honda 4 banger

Quote from: r0tor on December 02, 2009, 11:07:59 AM
The BSFC curve shows fuel consumption per unit of power netted by the engine.  Cruising at a steady pace at 65mph requires a steady amount of power to be produced to overcome drag/friction/ect.  Manufacturers choose top gear gearing almost overwhelmingly by making the EPA testing speds occur in the engines most efficient rpm range.  Its what a damn CVT tranny does while your cruising. 

A Honda will certainly not get better MPG at 70mph if it was geared to be at that speed at 2,000rpm rather then 3,000 rpm.  Thats what the damn graph shows - per measure of power, how much fuel you need.  At 70mph you need a fixed amount of power to be produced.  The most fuel efficient way to get that amount is if your in the engine uses the least amount of fuel needed to produce that amount of power. 

On a honda 4 banger thats at 3000 or so rpm and not 2000.  On a GM poop-rod engine the ideal rpm is much lower then the Honda.  One chart there shows the Mazda R26B quad rotor engine from the LeMans winning 787B being around 6,000 rpm.


The low rpm sweet spot of the V6 in the camaro hampers the car because its cruising at a rpm where the engine doesn't produce squat for power even if you floor the thing.

As you can plainly see, and as I had noted earlier, the lower the load the lower the peak efficiency (least BSFC) RPM;

100% load: ~3,250 RPM
50% load: ~3,000 RPM
25% load: ~2,800 RPM

A Civic doesn't need 25% power to maintain highway speed. Thus, the 15% load curve will shift to the right (= lower RPM), and the 10% load curve will shift further right yet.

As to gearing, specifically using the GM pooprod engine, they were using 0.50:1 Tremec top gear in just about everything, irrespective of final gear ratio or tire size.

oh ok... lets make random assumptions based off of a random 4 banger honda chart

actually my cruising load in the RX8 is typically ~25% cruising.  That means its using 25% of the max available airflow at the maf for that given rpm.  Considering the RX8 probably only makes 100hp at 3250rpms, I'd say 25 hp is realistic as well

Quote from: ChrisV on December 02, 2009, 09:24:08 AM
YTD sales...
Camaro 54,100
Mustang 60,096

Camaro sales have been spiking because it's a heavily hyped, waited for car, and all new after a fairly long hiatus. Doesn't hurt that it looks quite good.

Mustangs sales are good overall, but are dropping recently as anyone what actually knows and wants to buy a Mustang has heard for a while that next year's models ar going to be significantly upgraded in hp and other features, a fact borne out by the recent reveal of the V6 Mustang package. Even the Camaro5 boards, happy for Camaro sales, are specualting that it's because of the knowledge that the '11 Mustang will be a heavy hitter in the hp arena, with less weight.

What month did the Camaro go on sale?

Quote from: Raza  link=topic=18095.msg1215752#msg1215752 date=1259791385
What month did the Camaro go on sale?

I think the Mustang had a two month jump on sales.

These last couple of pages:

GIANT :facepalm:

Quote from: MrH on December 02, 2009, 05:34:18 PM
These last couple of pages:

GIANT :facepalm:

Indeed.


Can more than one car exist? Please?

I just did a #2 and it spanned the bowl, rim to rim.  It also broke in half under its own weight.

Quote from: Catman on December 02, 2009, 06:41:44 PM
I just did a #2 and it spanned the bowl, rim to rim.  It also broke in half under its own weight.

Nice

Quote from: Catman on December 02, 2009, 06:41:44 PM
I just did a #2 and it spanned the bowl, rim to rim.  It also broke in half under its own weight.

(http://planetsmilies.net/vomit-smiley-31.gif)

Quote from: r0tor on December 02, 2009, 01:58:27 PM
oh ok... lets make random assumptions based off of a random 4 banger honda chart

actually my cruising load in the RX8 is typically ~25% cruising.  That means its using 25% of the max available airflow at the maf for that given rpm.  Considering the RX8 probably only makes 100hp at 3250rpms, I'd say 25 hp is realistic as well

Do rotaries operate at 100% volumetric efficiency? Probably not is my guess.

My 99% hunch is the % is based on full scale load, as % quoted in full scale is industry standard for most any accuracy, measurement, whatever. Meaning, 25% load at ~2,800 RPM is 25% of the motor peak power, not 25% of the motor power available at ~2,800 rpm.

 :facepalm: Engine load is calculated as pretty much current air flow divided by max theoretical airflow at STP... thats by standard SAE convention.

Quote from: r0tor on December 04, 2009, 08:31:02 AM
:facepalm: Engine load is calculated as pretty much current air flow divided by max theoretical airflow at STP... thats by standard SAE convention.

Cougs doesn't know shit.  Then again I didn't know that either, but I'm arguing about it. :ohyeah:

Quote from: Catman on December 02, 2009, 06:41:44 PM
I just did a #2 and it spanned the bowl, rim to rim.  It also broke in half under its own weight.

:lol:

Quote from: r0tor on December 04, 2009, 08:31:02 AM
:facepalm: Engine load is calculated as pretty much current air flow divided by max theoretical airflow at STP... thats by standard SAE convention.

Unlike 99.876% of people on the intertards, I can admit when I may be incorrect, and I think that I am here, as at 100% peak power obviously the engine can do that at lower RPMs.

Why would the "green" edition cars that try to eke out more MPG receive lower ratio gearing than the other models (like Cobalt XFE and Elantra Blue)?

QuoteAll 2010 Elantras get engine updates that include lower friction internal components, calibration updates and a smart alternator management system to reduce the parasitic losses. The Blue adds a five-speed manual gearbox with revised ratios to reduce engine speeds on the highway.

http://green.autoblog.com/2009/09/21/2010-hyundai-elantra-blue-improves-fuel-efficiency/

Quote from: HotRodPilot on December 04, 2009, 10:10:35 PM
Why would the "green" edition cars that try to eke out more MPG receive lower ratio gearing than the other models (like Cobalt XFE and Elantra Blue)?

http://green.autoblog.com/2009/09/21/2010-hyundai-elantra-blue-improves-fuel-efficiency/

Still waiting for some help on this one....

The article says that the ratios are taller up top.  "The Blue adds a five-speed manual gearbox with revised ratios to reduce engine speeds on the highway. "

I couldn't find where it says any ratios are shorter, where do you see that?

Quote from: HotRodPilot on December 04, 2009, 10:10:35 PM
Why would the "green" edition cars that try to eke out more MPG receive lower ratio gearing than the other models (like Cobalt XFE and Elantra Blue)?

http://green.autoblog.com/2009/09/21/2010-hyundai-elantra-blue-improves-fuel-efficiency/

from hyundai's website...

QuoteThe Hyundai Elantra also offers a choice of transmissions. A precise five-speed manual comes standard or an available four-speed automatic that utilizes intelligent gear ratios for improved fuel economy at freeway speeds.

the manual gets 1 mpg better highway well because its a manual and the car is lighter....

Quote from: r0tor on December 16, 2009, 01:30:20 PM
from hyundai's website...

the manual gets 1 mpg better highway well because its a manual and the car is lighter....

From the link I gave you...

Quote

To make the Elantra Blue, engineers added a "smart" alternator management system, lower friction engine components, revised transmission gear ratios, engine calibration changes and a shift indicator to last year's Elantra GLS manual. This new high mileage Elantra will be indentified with unique "Blue" badging.

They changed the ratios from the '09 GLS manual and instead of calling it the '10 GLS manual, called it the '10 Blue model

Quote from: R-inge on December 16, 2009, 01:18:27 PM
The article says that the ratios are taller up top.  "The Blue adds a five-speed manual gearbox with revised ratios to reduce engine speeds on the highway. "

I couldn't find where it says any ratios are shorter, where do you see that?

a .45/1 ratio is a lower number than .60/1 ratio (I pulled the numbers out of my ass, but you get a lower number when you get "taller" gears)

Quote from: HotRodPilot on December 16, 2009, 01:52:34 PM


They changed the ratios from the '09 GLS manual and instead of calling it the '10 GLS manual, called it the '10 Blue model

The base model is the "Blue" model, it is only a manual tranny, and hyundai's website makes no mention of any special gearing (actually goes out of its way to mention the automatic's gearing) and in fact the blue model makes the same city mpg as the other models and only 1 mpg better on the highway which is common for any manual model over its automatic counterpart.

So i'm not seeing any miracles from gearing here...

Quote from: r0tor on December 17, 2009, 06:06:13 AM
mpg better on the highway which is common for any manual model over its automatic counterpart.

You're wrong


As for the rest of your post, I can't help that you're choosing to ignore the Hyundai press release that I linked to, and using the lack of information that Hyundai has on their website.  I'd post the press release for the Cobalt XFE, but you'd probably ignore that too, for the lack of information that Chevy posts on it's website.  

The bottom line is that a Honda Fit will get better highway mileage with taller gearing.  The article you posted even said that in high RPM light load conditions the engine is very inefficient because the engine works on trying to suck air past the throttle plate.  At low RPM high load conditions the engine will get better MPG (such as with the taller gearing on the Camaro V6)

I think it's very dumb for people to even look at top gear acceleration in a manual trans.  I want barely any acceleration possible on top gear for max MPG on the highway.  If I want to accelerate then I'll shift to a lower gear, which I guess some can't fathom.

Quote from: HotRodPilot on December 17, 2009, 01:05:10 PM
You're wrong

If he made that statement a couple years ago, he would have been right.  The reason?  You had 5 and 6 speed manuals and 4 or 5 speed autos.  Now the autos have as many or more gears then the manuals, allowing for better fuel economy.

Quote from: HotRodPilot on December 16, 2009, 01:55:11 PM
a .45/1 ratio is a lower number than .60/1 ratio (I pulled the numbers out of my ass, but you get a lower number when you get "taller" gears)

If you pulled the numbers out of your ass then why would you claim that the gear ratios are shorter when they are in fact taller (at least in overdrive, according to the press copy)?

Anyway, in your example a .45/1 would be a taller overdrive than .60/1.

Quote from: R-inge on December 17, 2009, 03:41:40 PM
If you pulled the numbers out of your ass then why would you claim that the gear ratios are shorter when they are in fact taller (at least in overdrive, according to the press copy)?

Anyway, in your example a .45/1 would be a taller overdrive than .60/1.

I said LOWER ratio gears

I made up the numbers for this example

.45/1 is lower than .60/1

Well whatever, use the same vocabulary the rest of us use if you want to be understood.

Wouldn't .45:1 be considered a higher gear ratio than .6:1??????????????????????

:huh:

Are we talking about a Hyundai Elantra?


More this:
(http://www.davidsautorepair.us/images/photoalbum/3/chevrolet_camaro_convertible1.jpg)

Quote from: HotRodPilot on December 17, 2009, 01:05:10 PM

The bottom line is that a Honda Fit will get better highway mileage with taller gearing.  The article you posted even said that in high RPM light load conditions the engine is very inefficient because the engine works on trying to suck air past the throttle plate.  At low RPM high load conditions the engine will get better MPG (such as with the taller gearing on the Camaro V6)

steady state cruising requires the same amount of power if your pulling 4,000 rpms or 2,000 rpms and your not going to change the engine load while cruising any significant amount by using a taller gear.  Now while accelerating, feel free to bog the shit out of the engine to bet better fuel economy

Dont blame me that hyundais press release doesn't match the info on their website or the fact their stripper model gets a whopping 1mpg better fuel economy.  I also check the cobalt xfe and for 2010 all models sans SS are now "xfe" and they all get the same mileage.  The original XFE changed the top gear by a whopping 10%... so if it was turning 3000 rpms before, its now turning 2700... big whoppity shit

Quote from: giant_mtb on December 17, 2009, 04:11:55 PM
Wouldn't .45:1 be considered a higher gear ratio than .6:1??????????????????????

:huh:

25 girls/ 1 guy is a high ratio of girls to each guy

15 girls/1 guy is a lower ratio of girls to each guy

Quote from: r0tor on December 17, 2009, 04:31:08 PM
steady state cruising requires the same amount of power if your pulling 4,000 rpms or 2,000 rpms and your not going to change the engine load while cruising any significant amount by using a taller gear.  Now while accelerating, feel free to bog the shit out of the engine to bet better fuel economy

The throttle plate will be more closed at 4,000 RPM at 60mph with shorter gearing causing more pumping losses.  The throttle plate will be more open at 2,000 RPM with taller gearing, with less pumping losses.

If you drive down the highway in 5th gear instead of 6th, you will be using less throttle (throttle plate closed more) at a higher RPM.  If you shift up into 6th, you'll have to use more throttle (opening up the plate) and your RPM will drop.  And your MPG will improve.  If Honda gave the Fit (which only has a 5th gear) a 6th gear ratio taller than the 5th, the Fit could hit the highway at 60mph at less RPM with a more open throttle plate and more MPG.

Quote
Dont blame me that hyundais press release doesn't match the info on their website the website doesn't have as much info as a lengthy press release and I couldn't bebothered to read it or the fact their stripper model gets a whopping 1mpg better fuel economy which is just due to gearing as the regular model has all of the other fuel saving features.

QuoteI also check the cobalt xfe and for 2010 all models sans SS are now "xfe" and they all get the same mileage.  The original XFE changed the top gear by a whopping 10%... so if it was turning 3000 rpms before, its now turning 2700... big whoppity shit

Big whoppity shit enough to get 3mpg more on the highway

Quote from: giant_mtb on December 17, 2009, 04:11:55 PM
Wouldn't .45:1 be considered a higher gear ratio than .6:1??????????????????????

:huh:

Yes.

Quote from: HotRodPilot on December 17, 2009, 06:36:25 PM
25 girls/ 1 guy is a high ratio of girls to each guy

15 girls/1 guy is a lower ratio of girls to each guy

That's not how gear ratio speak works, man.  I'm sorry, it just doesn't.  Here's Wiki's article on gear ratios with an example of a car's gear ratios (a Corvette's).

Gear           Ratio
1st gear   2.97:1
2nd gear   2.07:1
3rd gear   1.43:1
4th gear   1.00:1
5th gear   0.84:1
6th gear   0.56:1

Contrary to what you may want to think, 6th gear is considered a high (tall) ratio.

:huh:

What the heck is going on here?

At most you should mention the Mustang in this thread.

Quote from: GoCougs on December 17, 2009, 10:12:36 PM
What the heck is going on here?

At most you should mention the Mustang in this thread.

Okay.  If you insist.

Leaked: 2011 Ford Mustang GT features 412 horsepower 5.0 V8
BY MARK KLEIS
 
In the days of the digital age information security has to be taken very seriously ? unfortunately for Ford someone with a Facebook account didn?t take the embargo very seriously. A confirmed leak has occurred, exposing the already heavily-rumored return of the 5.0-liter V8 to the Mustang line starting next year.

The number leaked suggests 412 horsepower for the mid-level variant of Ford?s Pony car, up from 315 hp in the current Mustang GT. The substantial increase in power was anticipated due to the recent release by Ford of their new V6 Mustang numbers ? a near-GT boost to 305 hp, and an impressive 30 miles per gallon to go along with it.

The rest of the muscle car segment already features a 400+ horsepower option, with the Camaro SS weighing in at 422 hp from their 6.2-liter V8, and the Dodge Challenger?s 6.1-liter Hemi with 425 hp.

The 2011 Mustang GT will be in the same neighborhood in power as its current counterparts, but with a several-hundred pound weight advantage, expect the Mustang to become the new leader of the pack.

Uh, in the context of this dust-up about gears and ratios, like the Mustang's last-in-class 5sp AT/MT...

Now if they could just find a way to keep that pickup truck rear axle from banging and hopping around, they'd have a decent car. :lol:

Quote from: GoCougs on December 17, 2009, 10:34:49 PM
Uh, in the context of this dust-up about gears and ratios, like the Mustang's last-in-class 5sp AT/MT...

6 speeds for both with the new engines in the spring.  :praise:

Quote from: 280Z Turbo on December 17, 2009, 10:35:21 PM
Now if they could just find a way to keep that pickup truck rear axle from banging and hopping around, they'd have a decent car. :lol:

:rolleyes:

Already done.  The Camaro with it's IRS has more difficult time.

There's an entire thread dedicated to Mustang apologism, and this ain't it.

Quote from: HEMI666 on December 17, 2009, 11:02:07 PM
:rolleyes:

Already done.  The Camaro with it's IRS has more difficult time.

Hey, what's your rear suspension camber curve look like?

Oh wait, you're stuck with wheels on a stick.

Quote from: 280Z Turbo on December 17, 2009, 11:19:16 PM
Hey, what's your rear suspension camber curve look like?

Oh wait, you're stuck with wheels on a stick.

Seriously, you know he and Nethead grenade threads with their Mustang jihadic apologism.

Quote from: 280Z Turbo on December 17, 2009, 11:19:16 PM
Hey, what's your rear suspension camber curve look like?

Oh wait, you're stuck with wheels on a stick.

Whatever man.  Read any review or comparison.  The Mustang handles extremely well and much better then the Camaro.

With such fierce competition heating up, I think Hyundai should consider throwing in the Tau.

Quote from: the Teuton on December 18, 2009, 08:15:15 AM
With such fierce competition heating up, I think Hyundai should consider throwing in the Tau.

:lol:

On a more serious note, the Tau doesn't fit.  That's why it was never in the car to begin with.

Really? Maybe they could go with a power bulge like what BMW does.

I want the Genesis to succeed, but the pony car game just upped the ante a bit.

Quote from: the Teuton on December 18, 2009, 09:24:34 AM
Really? Maybe they could go with a power bulge like what BMW does.

I want the Genesis to succeed, but the pony car game just upped the ante a bit.

Unfortunately the Genesis Coupe was behind the 8 ball as soon as it was released.  Now it's just sucking wind.