I know what you guys are expecting. You're expecting me to rip the Camaro a new one simply because I love Mustangs. This review is as completely honest about this car as I can be. I will compare a few things to the 2010 Mustang GT because it is the direct competitor and I have driven it as well. The car I drove is a 2010 Camaro 2SS with an automatic (no manuals available) that stickered for a hair over $40,000. Nobody should complain about the Mustang's $34,000 price tag when the competition costs this much.
Exterior:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I do like the styling of the new Camaro. I didn't like it as first, but it has grown on me. My only complaint is how the back of the door is the cut line between the front half and the rear. It almost looks like they took two cars and stuck them together, but luckily the two cars were designed by the same guy. The lines just don't flow. Having said that, the car looks downright badass in some colours, however it looks kinda "meh" in others.
Interior:
Unfortunately it does look terrible. The plastics aren't as bad as some magazines would have you believe, but they aren't quite as good as the Mustangs. The guage pod, when it's lit up, looks like Bumblebees eyes, which is not a good thing and are hard to read at a glance with the needles being as short as they are. The gear shift knob is huge, but it's easily reached. The seats are deep, well bolstered, but not as comfortable as the Mustangs. Ingress is easy. Egress is a royal pain the ass. The doors are so long and the seats are so low, that I felt like an 80 year old man trying to get out. But when you're in, it's comfortable and feels good.
Sightlines:
One word: Shit. Forget shoulder checks. Forget seeing cars coming from the right at an intersection. The only good viewing for the driver is out the driver's door window and directly in front. I stopped at a 4-way stop and literally had to lean forward and hunker down as low as I could to see under the rearview mirror that completely blocks the entire middle of the windshield except for the bottom 6". The passenger side A-pillar and mirror block a lot as well. Shoulder checks are literally, impossible. This is a perfect example of why most manufacturers don't build production cars that look exactly like the concept car.
Performance:
It was wet, so it was difficult to get the power down without spinning. The paddle shifters blow. The delay is at least half a second before a shift occurs and when the revs climb as fast as they do, you have to hit the paddle a good 1000 rpm before you want it to shift. The power? The power is....un-fucking-believable, and it comes on fast and it comes on hard and doesn't stop until redline. The only reason it stops there is because of the fuel shutoff. Otherwise it feels like it would keep going to 10,000 rpm. Simply astonishing. My only two complaints are that GM dialed in way too much power at throttle tip-in and spinning the tires is hard not to do, and the transmission programming is crap because not only are the shifts afterthoughts but when you are at a standstill and you put the shifter into D, it slams into gear like a 1981 F-150. Did I mention the power? The only car I've ever driven that was faster was my modified Mustang, but it weighed 700 lbs less and didn't have the finesse of this car. Did I just say finesse? Yes I did. The handling is really good. Compared to most cars the Camaro turns in sharply, has little body roll, and handles bumps very well. The steering is the letdown here. It's very isolated with very little feedback. The good thing about this car is despite being very heavy, it doesn't feel like it. Though it does feel big, and it feels like it could kill you if you misstep in a corner. It's quite touchy (in the wet). The Mustang (Track Pack) I drove had very similar ride qualities and the handling was sharper and more confident, but the steering was 1000% better.
Verdict:
POWER!!!! If that's what you're after, this is the car for you. It is a formidable corner carver (in the dry) and would probably be an absolute hoot on a track. However, if you don't want driving to be a chore (especially in the city), then get something else.
Would I like one? Sure, but even if I was single there is no way this would be my only car. You can get away with that with the Mustang, but not this car. Driving it every day would eventually grow tiresome and become somewhat tedious. As a weekend toy, sure I would get one....but not for $40K. I would rather get a GT500 for a couple grand more.
*breathes a sigh of relief*
Good to see you liked the car.
Let's wait for Nethead's head to explode.
My head asplode.
What's funny is that the design team wanted the roofline lower. :nutty:
Too bad it was raining.
Does the car have stability control? Would it interfere at all with the shifting because of the wet roads? I'm wondering if that had any effect on the shifting delays?
Aren't torque converter automatics generally slow on user inputs, though?
Quote from: 2o6 on January 31, 2010, 03:02:54 PM
Aren't torque converter automatics generally slow on user inputs, though?
Yes.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on January 31, 2010, 02:35:58 PM
What's funny is that the design team wanted the roofline lower. :nutty:
A lower roof would have been totally doable if they lowered the beltline and the firewall along with it.
I just added something to my Verdict.
I agree with not wanting to drive this car everyday. In your opinion 666 wich would you buy? A '05 Vette (25-30k Z51 and nav) or the 2010 SS.
Good review. Shame the car's so huge. They need to scale it down by 80% and give it a lower shoulder line. It would be a 100% winner for me then.
I think it's fucking gorgeous, but that acute visibility is just...unreal. Why would they design it like that??? :cry:
Quote from: sportyaccordy on January 31, 2010, 07:18:44 PM
Good review. Shame the car's so huge. They need to scale it down by 80% and give it a lower shoulder line. It would be a 100% winner for me then.
LOL, you think every car is too large.
Quote from: Catman on January 31, 2010, 07:50:59 PM
LOL, you think every car is too large.
I think Accords are too large.
Quote from: Catman on January 31, 2010, 07:50:59 PM
LOL, you think every car is too large.
Yeah, it's kinda funny.
20% smaller would make the Camaro 152" long.
A Yaris is 150" long.
Quote from: Catman on January 31, 2010, 07:50:59 PM
LOL, you think every car is too large.
That's because any car that is longer or heavier than a 1992 Accord is too big or too heavy.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on January 31, 2010, 07:18:44 PM
Good review. Shame the car's so huge. They need to scale it down by 80% and give it a lower shoulder line. It would be a 100% winner for me then.
Awwwwww yeeeeaaasaaaahhhh
(http://i50.tinypic.com/1z5ofv8.jpg)
I tried. lol
Quote from: 68_427 on January 31, 2010, 07:58:23 PM
Awwwwww yeeeeaaasaaaahhhh
(http://i50.tinypic.com/1z5ofv8.jpg)
I tried. lol
Oddly enough, I like that.
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on January 31, 2010, 07:01:24 PM
I agree with not wanting to drive this car everyday. In your opinion 666 wich would you buy? A '05 Vette (25-30k Z51 and nav) or the 2010 SS.
The Vette without question, only because if you're going to buy a weekend car, then get the car that's best at being a weekend car.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on January 31, 2010, 07:18:44 PM
Good review. Shame the car's so huge. They need to scale it down by 80% and give it a lower shoulder line. It would be a 100% winner for me then.
It's not as big as you think. It's 190" long which is only 2" longer then a Mustang, but it's also 2" wider, and 300 lbs heavier. It feels like it's 12" wider and longer then a Mustang, but what surprised me was that it didn't feel much heavier. It feels longer because the wheelbase is 10" longer I believe. It felt a little heavier, but not 300 lbs heavier.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 31, 2010, 08:02:16 PM
Oddly enough, I like that.
Is it really that odd? You like everything.
Quote from: Minpin on January 31, 2010, 08:29:53 PM
Is it really that odd? You like everything.
The proportions remind me of this:
(http://www.fastestlaps.com/photos/_Nissan_Skyline_2000_GT-R4942bd701b1d8.jpg)
Quote from: SVT666 on January 31, 2010, 08:03:30 PM
The Vette without question, only because if you're going to buy a weekend car, then get the car that's best at being a weekend car.
:ohyeah: And the targa top is another plus. I'm really leaning towards a Vette because of that and the option of navigation. A drop top Camaro might sway me, but who wants to sit around for another 50 years waiting on it to hit the showrooms.
You know what I'd have?
(http://www.myteamcar.com/images/24_hot-cars/2010_dodge_challenger_conve.jpg)
I love the Mustang, I hate the Camaro, but the Challenger just got everything right. It looks absolutely killer and I love the sound it makes.
Quote from: CJ on January 31, 2010, 09:28:57 PM
You know what I'd have?
(http://www.myteamcar.com/images/24_hot-cars/2010_dodge_challenger_conve.jpg)
I love the Mustang, I hate the Camaro, but the Challenger just got everything right. It looks absolutely killer and I love the sound it makes.
Did you drive the Challenger?
Quote from: 2o6 on January 31, 2010, 09:37:04 PM
Did you drive the Challenger?
No, but I have driven a 2005 Mustang GT (Beav's, actually). I've also driven a Magnum.
Quote from: CJ on January 31, 2010, 09:28:57 PM
You know what I'd have?
I love the Mustang, I hate the Camaro, but the Challenger just got everything right. It looks absolutely killer and I love the sound it makes.
The challenger is my favorite as well. It's far, far from perfect but it's the best looking imo. I actually can't see out of the damn camaro, barely can see in the stang and same with this thing. But it just looks so good from the outside. Sure it's the slowest of the bunch and probably the worst handling but I'll take it anyway :praise:
They just got it right. And, as you said, it's far from perfect. To me, those imperfections make it different than the others. Not necessarily better, but different. It's got something they don't. Hard to put my finger on what that something is.
Quote from: CJ on January 31, 2010, 11:19:51 PM
They just got it right. And, as you said, it's far from perfect. To me, those imperfections make it different than the others. Not necessarily better, but different. It's got something they don't. Hard to put my finger on what that something is.
Gravity.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on January 31, 2010, 07:52:15 PM
I think Accords are too large.
Actually I do too. My car could lose about 3" between the nose and tail.
Is the back seat very roomy? I just don't understand what all the extra metal is for. It's as long as (and as heavy as) an E39 5 series.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 01, 2010, 07:10:46 AM
Actually I do too. My car could lose about 3" between the nose and tail.
Is the back seat very roomy? I just don't understand what all the extra metal is for. It's as long as (and as heavy as) an E39 5 series.
:wtf:
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 01, 2010, 07:10:46 AM
Actually I do too. My car could lose about 3" between the nose and tail.
Is the back seat very roomy? I just don't understand what all the extra metal is for. It's as long as (and as heavy as) an E39 5 series.
You're a funny guy sporty.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 01, 2010, 07:10:46 AM
Actually I do too. My car could lose about 3" between the nose and tail.
Is the back seat very roomy? I just don't understand what all the extra metal is for. It's as long as (and as heavy as) an E39 5 series.
Crash protection. Crumple space. So when you tap a pole at 2MPH it doesn't leave a nasty dent and cost $3000 to fix.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 01, 2010, 07:10:46 AM
Actually I do too. My car could lose about 3" between the nose and tail.
You know, Honda makes this car called the Civic...
Quote from: 2o6 on February 01, 2010, 02:01:17 PM
Crash protection. Crumple space. So when you tap a pole at 2MPH it doesn't leave a nasty dent and cost $3000 to fix.
New bumpers are even more expensive to replace thanks to all the systems inside them. And with cars like the V8 M3 with roughly the same interior space and equally large engines/drivetrains but much smaller footprints + curb weights I just wonder what all the extra metal is for.
Quote from: ifcar on February 01, 2010, 02:16:17 PM
You know, Honda makes this car called the Civic...
Is a new civic 4dr actually smaller and/or lighter than sporty's accord?
Quote from: SVT32V on February 01, 2010, 04:11:21 PM
Is a new civic 4dr actually smaller and/or lighter than sporty's accord?
Then buy a fit.
Quote from: SVT32V on February 01, 2010, 04:11:21 PM
Is a new civic 4dr actually smaller and/or lighter than sporty's accord?
It's actually much smaller outside, but the same size in the cabin and trunk. Just as fast with the R18 and pretty quick with the K20. Only downside is the awful dash. I actually really like the new Civic.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 01, 2010, 04:17:11 PM
It's actually much smaller outside, but the same size in the cabin and trunk. Just as fast with the R18 and pretty quick with the K20. Only downside is the awful dash. I actually really like the new Civic.
95 4dr accord Length (185.6 in), width (70.1 in), ht (55.1 in) weight (2855 lbs)
2010 4dr civiv L(177.3),W( 69.0), ht ( 56.5), weight (2760 lbs)
the new civic is quite a bit shorter, but is taller and nearly weighs the same.
The si should be a good bit faster, it is lighter and has more hp.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 01, 2010, 04:12:08 PM
Then buy a fit.
nah, they burn themselves up :lol:
not as bad as owning a toyota suddenly accelerating on its way moving forward but still.
If the current Civic weren't boring as hell (sans the Si), it would be a buy. It's a very good "small" car.
Quote from: the Teuton on February 01, 2010, 07:28:46 PM
If the current Civic weren't boring EXPENSIVEas hell (sans the Si), it would be a buy. It's a very good "small" car.
Truth: Iffy speaks it.
As much as I like the Civic's design, the duel a-piller seems a bit dumb. You get no more space, the dash top is really long, and the hood is small. Over half the engine is inaccessible.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 01, 2010, 07:36:12 PM
As much as I like the Civic's design, the duel a-piller seems a bit dumb. You get no more space, the dash top is really long, and the hood is small. Over half the engine is inaccessible.
The car has excellent visibility, the gauges are incredibly easy to read, and most owners will never do anything more than change the oil or replace washer fluid anyway. What's your point?
Quote from: the Teuton on February 01, 2010, 07:39:40 PM
The car has excellent visibility, the gauges are incredibly easy to read, and most owners will never do anything more than change the oil or replace washer fluid anyway. What's your point?
It looks hard to work on.
I'm not saying that everything be simple to use and easy to work on, but geesh.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 01, 2010, 07:41:09 PM
It looks hard to work on.
I'm not saying that everything be simple to use and easy to work on, but geesh.
Yeah, the next Elantra will probably be a better car than this Civic. Honda's lineup is a little whack right now.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 01, 2010, 07:41:09 PM
It looks hard to work on.
I'm not saying that everything be simple to use and easy to work on, but geesh.
Actually it's a pretty good design to work on. Better than my car actually.
Honda's change to putting the intake manifold in front was smart as hell. If I need to make idle set adjustments or anything I have to lean over the whole engine bay to get to it. Now Honda has everything intake manifold related right up front, and they can push the cabin/firewall a little further forward without making the car longer (hence the minivan nose and double A pillar). Given these constraints I think they came up with a pretty good design; however, I still think that digital speedo has to go. I read somewhere and agree with this: with analog gauges, once you have a feel for the scale of the gauge you don't need to stop and read it to see how fast you're going. With the numbers you always have to read it. Not a huge distraction but definitely an unnecessary one.
*EDIT* I was wrong about the Civic... all its competitors have similar lengths, smaller wheelbases and much larger cabins. Plus they are generally cheaper. Honda may want to go back to the drawing board with this one.
:facepalm: @ Toyota still using a FOUR SPEED AUTO in the Corolla. If they will buy crap keep making it
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 01, 2010, 09:01:44 PM
Actually it's a pretty good design to work on. Better than my car actually.
Honda's change to putting the intake manifold in front was smart as hell. If I need to make idle set adjustments or anything I have to lean over the whole engine bay to get to it. Now Honda has everything intake manifold related right up front, and they can push the cabin/firewall a little further forward without making the car longer (hence the minivan nose and double A pillar). Given these constraints I think they came up with a pretty good design; however, I still think that digital speedo has to go. I read somewhere and agree with this: with analog gauges, once you have a feel for the scale of the gauge you don't need to stop and read it to see how fast you're going. With the numbers you always have to read it. Not a huge distraction but definitely an unnecessary one.
*EDIT* I was wrong about the Civic... all its competitors have similar lengths, smaller wheelbases and much larger cabins. Plus they are generally cheaper. Honda may want to go back to the drawing board with this one.
:facepalm: @ Toyota still using a FOUR SPEED AUTO in the Corolla. If they will buy crap keep making it
To be fair, the Civic is one of the oldest cars in it's class.
And personally, I prefer digital speedos.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 01, 2010, 09:01:44 PM
Actually it's a pretty good design to work on. Better than my car actually.
Honda's change to putting the intake manifold in front was smart as hell. If I need to make idle set adjustments or anything I have to lean over the whole engine bay to get to it. Now Honda has everything intake manifold related right up front, and they can push the cabin/firewall a little further forward without making the car longer (hence the minivan nose and double A pillar). Given these constraints I think they came up with a pretty good design; however, I still think that digital speedo has to go. I read somewhere and agree with this: with analog gauges, once you have a feel for the scale of the gauge you don't need to stop and read it to see how fast you're going. With the numbers you always have to read it. Not a huge distraction but definitely an unnecessary one.
*EDIT* I was wrong about the Civic... all its competitors have similar lengths, smaller wheelbases and much larger cabins. Plus they are generally cheaper. Honda may want to go back to the drawing board with this one.
:facepalm: @ Toyota still using a FOUR SPEED AUTO in the Corolla. If they will buy crap keep making it
The Civic feels larger inside than all but the Elantra. With the floor being flat, it's no contest.
How did this thread turn into a conversation about the Civic?
:hesaid:
Quote from: SVT666 on February 01, 2010, 09:24:04 PM
How did this thread turn into a conversation about the Civic?
That's what I was thinking.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 01, 2010, 09:24:04 PM
How did this thread turn into a conversation about the Civic?
The Civic is a better car than the Camaro.
Quote from: the Teuton on February 01, 2010, 10:25:01 PM
The Civic is a better car than the Camaro.
The Civic is a better appliance than the Camaro. The Camaro has so much power that I can overlook some of the problems with it. I can't overlook the sightlines though....no pun intended. That much power with those horrid sightlines = disaster.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 01, 2010, 11:16:51 PM
The Civic is a better appliance than the Camaro. The Camaro has so much power that I can overlook some of the problems with it. I can't overlook the sightlines though....no pun intended. That much power with those horrid sightlines = disaster.
If you can't use a car, what good is the car?
Give me a 430 hp GTO, and then we'll talk. The only things that car had going against it were a 1990s design and bland styling.
Quote from: the Teuton on February 01, 2010, 07:39:40 PM
The car has excellent visibility,
lol whatever. The A pillars are so angled that you could lose a car behind it. It's angled just like the old F-bodys and no one ever said they had good visibility
(http://simplicity.elitecaraudio.org/mcivic13.JPG)
Quote from: the Teuton on February 01, 2010, 09:20:13 PM
The Civic feels larger inside than all but the Elantra.
And the Forte, Sentra, and Versa.
Quote from: ifcar on February 02, 2010, 03:56:34 AM
And the Forte, Sentra, and Versa.
I hate the Versa with a passion.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 02, 2010, 06:20:08 AM
I hate the Versa with a passion.
It has long been established and is frequently reaffirmed that you have nothing of value to say about pretty much anything automotive. :huh:
Quote from: ifcar on February 02, 2010, 06:30:36 AM
It has long been established and is frequently reaffirmed that you have nothing of value to say about pretty much anything automotive. :huh:
I hate it because it's exceptionally bland and ugly.
However, at 10K, a Versa 1.6 seems very attractive.
The Versa competes more with the cars a rung down.
I'd still rock one, though. It's huge inside for such a small car.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 02, 2010, 06:36:14 AM
I hate it because it's exceptionally bland and ugly.
However, at 10K, a Versa 1.6 seems very attractive.
My dealer sells Versa 1.8S manuals for just $200 more than the 1.6.
http://www.herbgordonnissan.com/VehicleId-239002/new-cars.aspx
http://www.herbgordonnissan.com/VehicleId-251339/new-cars.aspx
Quote from: the Teuton on February 02, 2010, 06:37:43 AM
The Versa competes more with the cars a rung down.
It matches the Sentra's size and refinement at a lower price. Just because Nissan positioned it strangely within its own lineup doesn't change what it competes against.
Quote from: ifcar on February 02, 2010, 06:40:26 AM
It matches the Sentra's size and refinement at a lower price. Just because Nissan positioned it strangely within its own lineup doesn't change what it competes against.
I'm just saying that I would probably cross shop it with the smaller feeling Accent, Aveo, etc.
The Versa really sucks. Outside of having a family like the Klumps I can't see any reason not to get the Fit instead.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 02, 2010, 08:19:48 AM
The Versa really sucks. Outside of having a family like the Klumps I can't see any reason not to get the Fit instead.
Quietness? Ride comfort? Interior quality? $4,000 price difference?
Quote from: the Teuton on February 01, 2010, 11:22:23 PM
If you can't use a car, what good is the car?
Give me a 430 hp GTO, and then we'll talk. The only things that car had going against it were a 1990s design and bland styling.
If given the choice you would take a Civic over the Camaro? Well I guess you can't see over the steering wheel so that makes sense. I would take the Camaro, but I would definitely take a 2006 GTO over the Camaro in a heartbeat.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 02, 2010, 09:34:48 AM
If given the choice you would take a Civic over the Camaro? Well I guess you can't see over the steering wheel so that makes sense. I would take the Camaro, but I would definitely take a 2006 GTO over the Camaro in a heartbeat.
Order:
GTO
Civic Si
boring-ass Civic
Camaro
Quote from: the Teuton on February 02, 2010, 09:37:49 AM
Order:
GTO
Civic Si
boring-ass Civic
Camaro
My order:
GTO
Camaro
Civic Si
But if we included some other cars, my list would be completely different.
Mmm, GTO. :wub: I'd honestly be happy with an LS1 version, and that's good, 'cause they are getting pretty affordable. Just need to see if there's a way to transport skis and bikes (there's probably a hitch available for it, and 1 1/4 is just fine for a bike rack), and I might buy one in a few years.
Quote from: The Pirate on February 02, 2010, 09:50:25 AM
Mmm, GTO. :wub: I'd honestly be happy with an LS1 version, and that's good, 'cause they are getting pretty affordable. Just need to see if there's a way to transport skis and bikes (there's probably a hitch available for it, and 1 1/4 is just fine for a bike rack), and I might buy one in a few years.
Even the LS2 is becoming affordable. I've seen some for $15K.
Quote from: ifcar on February 02, 2010, 06:30:36 AM
It has long been established and is frequently reaffirmed that you have nothing of value to say about pretty much anything automotive. :huh:
+1.
You just said you hate it with a passion, then you said you find it very attractive. You can't even form subjective opinions about cars. You need to take a remedial English class on how to express yourself.
Quote from: MrH on February 02, 2010, 10:29:35 AM
+1.
You just said you hate it with a passion, then you said you find it very attractive. You can't even form subjective opinions about cars. You need to take a remedial English class on how to express yourself.
I ain't spoken no good english rite now.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 02, 2010, 06:36:14 AM
I hate it because it's exceptionally bland and ugly.
However, at 10K, a Versa 1.6 seems very attractive.
it's an inexpensive transportation appliance. it's almost supposed to be bland and ugly.
Quote from: MrH on February 02, 2010, 10:29:35 AM
+1.
You just said you hate it with a passion, then you said you find it very attractive. You can't even form subjective opinions about cars. You need to take a remedial English class on how to express yourself.
Way to read things literally. I'm not, nor do I pretend to be an English major.
It's getting real tired you trolling my posts.
Quote from: Vinsanity on February 02, 2010, 11:43:30 AM
it's an inexpensive transportation appliance. it's almost supposed to be bland and ugly.
I suppose. It's just so awkward (Sedan).
Quote from: 2o6 on February 02, 2010, 12:51:48 PM
Way to read things literally. I'm not, nor do I pretend to be an English major.
How am I supposed to read it? Figuratively? Point proven.
I'm not trolling your posts. Just bring something of use to the table instead of wasting space.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 02, 2010, 06:36:14 AM
I hate it because it's exceptionally bland and ugly.
However, at 10K, a Versa 1.6 seems very attractive.
How do interpret me mentioning price and engine size in relation to style? I was talking about value.
If you really hated it with a passion, it wouldn't be attractive at any price point. Just like how I don't think a Sebring is remotely appealing in any way.
Quote from: MrH on February 02, 2010, 01:11:37 PM
If you really hated it with a passion, it wouldn't be attractive at any price point. Just like how I don't think a Sebring is remotely appealing in any way.
I'd buy a Sebring at, say, $8,000 new.
Quote from: ifcar on February 02, 2010, 01:13:39 PM
I'd buy a Sebring at, say, $8,000 new.
I don't think I would. My current Protege5 is worth less than $8k. I'd take that over it.
I think the best thing about the current Sebring is the warranty.
Quote from: MrH on February 02, 2010, 01:15:15 PM
I don't think I would. My current Protege5 is worth less than $8k. I'd take that over it.
Yeah, but a new car with a factory warranty has its appeal. The Sebring certainly isn't a bad car by the standard of a used economy car.
ug.... lol just caught up on this topic only to see versa, sebring, civic... wtf at least some one mentioned GTO.
I'd take a GTO hell I'd take a Camaro V6 over all those stupid cars (civic isn't stupid, just slightly mentally retarded) let alone a SS.
If I grouped all the cars I might consider for my next car, the order I would consider them in would be:
1. 2011 Mustang GT
2. 2010 Mustang GT
3. 2010 Dodge Challenger R/T
4. 2009 Infiniti G37 Coupe
5. 2008 BMW 335i Coupe
6. 2009 Pontiac G8 GXP
7. 2009 Pontiac G8 GT
8. 2010 Camaro SS
It's a car that I would be driving every day, and the last thing I want is my daily driver to be a chore to drive, and the Camaro is a chore...no matter how addictive it is.
I know you don't like the Camaro, but sad seeing the infiniti and bimmer above the G8s :(
Quote from: Sigma Projects on February 04, 2010, 03:39:47 PM
I know you don't like the Camaro, but sad seeing the infiniti and bimmer above the G8s :(
Did you read my review? I like the Camaro, and if I was looking for a weekend only car it would be much much higher on the list. Unfortunately as a daily driver it would suck.
The Infiniti and Bimmer are both coupes, and the G8 has a strange driving position. The relationship between the pedals, steering wheel, and seat aren't quite natural enough for me. My legs are bent more then I like and my arms are straighter then I like. It's not make or break, but it does put it further down the list.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 04, 2010, 03:37:26 PM
If I grouped all the cars I might consider for my next car, the order I would consider them in would be:
1. 2011 Mustang GT
2. 2010 Mustang GT
3. 2010 Dodge Challenger R/T
4. 2009 Infiniti G37 Coupe
5. 2008 BMW 335i Coupe
6. 2009 Pontiac G8 GXP
7. 2009 Pontiac G8 GT
8. 2010 Camaro SS
It's a car that I would be driving every day, and the last thing I want is my daily driver to be a chore to drive, and the Camaro is a chore...no matter how addictive it is.
Lotus Elise > all cars on your list
[/thread]
Quote from: NomisR on February 04, 2010, 04:27:04 PM
Lotus Elise > all cars on your list
[/thread]
Mods, please lock this thread. It is now over.
SVT, I actually forgot you wrote the review :tounge: it was more of a joke/love for the V8s that I was asking :lol:
Quote from: Sigma Projects on February 04, 2010, 04:53:01 PM
SVT, I actually forgot you wrote the review :tounge: it was more of a joke/love for the V8s that I was asking :lol:
Well, the other reason the G8 GT is so low is that it only comes with a slushbox and the GXP will probably be next to impossible to find at a reasonable price
and with a manual.
but if you could get a GXP the way you want it?
Quote from: Sigma Projects on February 04, 2010, 05:15:08 PM
but if you could get a GXP the way you want it?
It would bump off the BMW and the Infiniti. The seating position is easier to deal with if I can get a manual and 400+ hp. It would be next to impossible to find one with low mileage for a decent price though. The G8 GT stays where it is no matter what due to the automatic.
too bad that when I start seeing them more on the streets (saw one black and one blue one on the weekend) they've already been axed :(
Quote from: NomisR on February 04, 2010, 04:27:04 PM
Lotus Elise > all cars on your list
[/thread]
You may be a thin, Asian fellow, but as a 5'7" not-so-Asian fellow, I have to say that not being the most flexible person on Earth, getting in and out of an Elise isn't quite as easy as the same process in an Challenger.
Quote from: the Teuton on February 04, 2010, 10:28:35 PM
You may be a thin, Asian fellow, but as a 5'7" not-so-Asian fellow, I have to say that not being the most flexible person on Earth, getting in and out of an Elise isn't quite as easy as the same process in an Challenger.
Bullshit. Clarkson fits, you fit.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=21193.msg1261165#msg1261165 date=1265395281
Bullshit. Clarkson fits, you fit.
He never said anything about not fitting. He said it's a PITA getting in and out, whereas a Challenger is quite easy. He's right.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 05, 2010, 12:06:56 PM
He never said anything about not fitting. He said it's a PITA getting in and out, whereas a Challenger is quite easy. He's right.
Again, bullshit. Getting into and out of an Elise is easy, once you get your technique down. That takes all of ten minutes.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=21193.msg1261348#msg1261348 date=1265412705
Again, bullshit. Getting into and out of an Elise is easy, once you get your technique down. That takes all of ten minutes.
Get off your high horse Raza. I felt like an 80 year old man trying to get out of the Camaro, so I can only imagine what an Elise would be like.
Quote from: the Teuton on February 04, 2010, 10:28:35 PM
You may be a thin, Asian fellow, but as a 5'7" not-so-Asian fellow, I have to say that not being the most flexible person on Earth, getting in and out of an Elise isn't quite as easy as the same process in an Challenger.
I'm bigger than you and I can get out just fine. It helps with your agility.. it really does, no jokes!
Quote from: SVT666 on February 05, 2010, 04:43:55 PM
Get off your high horse Raza. I felt like an 80 year old man trying to get out of the Camaro, so I can only imagine what an Elise would be like.
Are you actually an 80 year old man?
I know a few people that work at GM.
From what they have hinted at GM is going to revamp the camaro.
Rumors are that it will go on the smaller version of the ATS platform. Small displacement higher revving v8's and advanced turbo 6's will be the options. DSG will be offered and they are looking to put interior features and material/design above current cadillacs. Also they are targeting a 3200 lb curb weight in top spec trim(V8, leather, gadgets, DSG).
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa228/will_e_777/simpsons_flying_pig.jpg)
The car is a barge though, for what it is.
Quote from: NomisR on February 05, 2010, 04:46:45 PM
I'm bigger than you and I can get out just fine. It helps with your agility.. it really does, no jokes!
I got into and out of an Elise twice. Sitting in the car is as comfortable as it can be. No complaints there.
But swinging your leg(s) in before your body is a bit awkward. It's not an easy car to get into.
Oh you babies.
Quote from: the Teuton on February 06, 2010, 10:53:50 AM
I got into and out of an Elise twice. Sitting in the car is as comfortable as it can be. No complaints there.
But swinging your leg(s) in before your body is a bit awkward. It's not an easy car to get into.
You're 5'7"! Do you have the joints of an 80 year old?
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on February 06, 2010, 01:05:11 PM
You're 5'7"! Do you have the joints of an 80 year old?
When you have the opportunity to sit in an Elise, make sure you tape your ingress and egress and then send it to me. That's all I'm going to say.
Quote from: the Teuton on February 06, 2010, 01:15:28 PM
When you have the opportunity to sit in an Elise, make sure you tape your ingress and egress and then send it to me. That's all I'm going to say.
I almost got to ride in one at the track. :(
I talked to a 60 year old guy with an Exige up in Columbus. If he can do it, everyone here can as well.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 06, 2010, 01:23:05 PM
I talked to a 60 year old guy with an Exige up in Columbus. If he can do it, everyone here can as well.
To do it is one thing; to do it without feeling like an idiot is something entirely different.
Quote from: the Teuton on February 06, 2010, 01:27:04 PM
To do it is one thing; to do it without feeling like an idiot is something entirely different.
You're getting into one of the coolest sports cars on the planet. I don't care what I look like when I get in/out, it will all balance out after I'm in the car.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 06, 2010, 01:23:05 PM
I talked to a 60 year old guy with an Exige up in Columbus. If he can do it, everyone here can as well.
Just cause something is physically possible doesn't mean it's ideal.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 06, 2010, 10:47:48 AM
The car is a barge though, for what it is.
Really? Don't you consider the ideal length to be 188"? The Camaro is 190" long. It's wide and it's heavy, but I don't think length is an issue.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 07, 2010, 12:16:38 AM
Really? Don't you consider the ideal length to be 188"? The Camaro is 190" long. It's wide and it's heavy, but I don't think length is an issue.
M3 is also a 4 passenger coupe... better headroom/shoulder width dimensions... bigger trunk... I can't find the interior volume but I'm sure the M3 is bigger inside overall. M3 motor also def has bigger heads & a bigger intake manifold so I imagine the engines are the same size or damn close. BMW also weighs 150# less.
What's the purpose of all the Camaro's extra metal? They could have had a much more efficient design.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 07, 2010, 08:01:48 AM
M3 is also a 4 passenger coupe... better headroom/shoulder width dimensions... bigger trunk... I can't find the interior volume but I'm sure the M3 is bigger inside overall. M3 motor also def has bigger heads & a bigger intake manifold so I imagine the engines are the same size or damn close. BMW also weighs 150# less.
What's the purpose of all the Camaro's extra metal? They could have had a much more efficient design.
Camaro is also built on a (slightly) downsized full-size sedan platform while the M3 is based on a compact car's (or at least a small midsize) platform. Obviously, basing a smaller car on a larger platform is going to result in certain inefficiencies (I suspect all of the structural members in the Camaro are well beefier than they need to be) while a smaller car that was built on a platform that was designed to support a smaller car is going to be more optimized.
And while the Bimmer's motor is likely taller and possibly wider, the Chevy's is likely longer.
Quote from: MX793 on February 07, 2010, 08:09:29 AM
Camaro is also built on a (slightly) downsized full-size sedan platform while the M3 is based on a compact car's (or at least a small midsize) platform. Obviously, basing a smaller car on a larger platform is going to result in certain inefficiencies (I suspect all of the structural members in the Camaro are well beefier than they need to be) while a smaller car that was built on a platform that was designed to support a smaller car is going to be more optimized.
And while the Bimmer's motor is likely taller and possibly wider, the Chevy's is likely longer.
That's all good and well, but ultimately the Camaro is an inferior, inefficient design. Yes the Camaro is like 1/2 the price, but I don't think there's anything extravagant about the M3's chassis. They could have maybe gone with the little Solstice chassis.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 07, 2010, 05:28:35 PM
That's all good and well, but ultimately the Camaro is an inferior, inefficient design. Yes the Camaro is like 1/2 the price, but I don't think there's anything extravagant about the M3's chassis. They could have maybe gone with the little Solstice chassis.
The Solstice's (GM Kappa) used a truncated Corvette floorpan. I don't think a stretched corvette floor would have provided them with much more room. The Kappa platform was a partsbin car, many of the basic platform design elements were found elsewhere.
It also was expensive.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 07, 2010, 06:09:24 PM
The Solstice's (GM Kappa) used a truncated Corvette floorpan. I don't think a stretched corvette floor would have provided them with much more room. The Kappa platform was a partsbin car, many of the basic platform design elements were found elsewhere.
It also was expensive.
The Camaro, with it's dedicated platform (or w/e) is still not as roomy inside as the 3. The G35/37 coupe is based on a "stretched" 350Z platform. If they had stretched the C6 platform they would have had an awesome car that def would have been a little more space efficient.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 07, 2010, 06:21:14 PM
The Camaro, with it's dedicated platform (or w/e) is still not as roomy inside as the 3. The G35/37 coupe is based on a "stretched" 350Z platform. If they had stretched the C6 platform they would have had an awesome car that def would have been a little more space efficient.
The 350Z is actually a shortened Fuga/M and shares it's basic platform with the Skyline Sedan/G. (As well as the FX and EX, all cars ride on the FM platform)
It also suffers from some of the same problems as the Camaro, too heavy, not that efficient. Granted, Nissan's FM platform is smaller and lighter than GM's Zeta, but the point still stands.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 07, 2010, 05:28:35 PM
That's all good and well, but ultimately the Camaro is an inferior, inefficient design. Yes the Camaro is like 1/2 the price, but I don't think there's anything extravagant about the M3's chassis. They could have maybe gone with the little Solstice chassis.
I doubt GM would've reached their targeted price point if they did that. The hydroformed body panels in the Solstice are expensive; it would've been even more expensive if they made them the size needed to make the Camaro.
And also: the Solstice has ergonomic issues if I remember right (it's been awhile since I've driven one).
The Corvette has a huge-ass transmission tunnel. The platform could have been stretched, but the back seat would've been more Porsche 911 than G37.
Quote from: the Teuton on February 07, 2010, 07:07:52 PM
The Corvette has a huge-ass transmission tunnel. The platform could have been stretched, but the back seat would've been more Porsche 911 than G37.
We're getting into some heavy Monday night quarterbacking, but I'm sure they could modify the C6 chassis to accommodate an engine mounted tranny.
My overall point still being that the design was pretty inefficient.
The Camaro is a weak effort in my opinion, but it doesn't make the car any less thrilling.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 07, 2010, 08:00:06 PM
The Camaro is a weak effort in my opinion, but it doesn't make the car any less thrilling.
When you have Lutz promising everything under the sun at affordable prices, things are bound to be cut. I still say Saab should have made a Sonnet using the platform.
Quote from: the Teuton on February 07, 2010, 08:01:21 PM
When you have Lutz promising everything under the sun at affordable prices, things are bound to be cut. I still say Saab should have made a Sonnet using the platform.
WHY DIDN'T YOU SAY SO!?
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on February 07, 2010, 08:11:37 PM
WHY DIDN'T YOU SAY SO!?
I said it about a month ago. They could have done so much more with that platform instead of wasting it on two of the same car that cannibalized the sales of one another.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 07, 2010, 07:51:43 PM
We're getting into some heavy Monday night quarterbacking, but I'm sure they could modify the C6 chassis to accommodate an engine mounted tranny.
My overall point still being that the design was pretty inefficient.
It's still too expensive.
Quote from: Schadenfreude on February 07, 2010, 07:06:14 PM
And also: the Solstice has ergonomic issues if I remember right (it's been awhile since I've driven one).
I didn't fit at all.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 07, 2010, 05:28:35 PM
That's all good and well, but ultimately the Camaro is an inferior, inefficient design. Yes the Camaro is like 1/2 the price, but I don't think there's anything extravagant about the M3's chassis. They could have maybe gone with the little Solstice chassis.
They killed that platform due to the cost of the hydroformed rails. Those things were expensive as shit to make.
Quote from: MrH on February 08, 2010, 10:33:26 AM
They killed that platform due to the cost of the hydroformed rails. Those things were expensive as shit to make.
Do they need to be hydroformed?
Quote from: the Teuton on February 06, 2010, 10:53:50 AM
I got into and out of an Elise twice. Sitting in the car is as comfortable as it can be. No complaints there.
But swinging your leg(s) in before your body is a bit awkward. It's not an easy car to get into.
Getting in is easy.. just sit on the door sill and slump into the seat and proceed to slide into the seat. Getting out takes some upper body strength.
Quote from: the Teuton on February 06, 2010, 01:15:28 PM
When you have the opportunity to sit in an Elise, make sure you tape your ingress and egress and then send it to me. That's all I'm going to say.
Bitch, bitch, bitch...that's all you fucking do.
Quote from: Raza on February 08, 2010, 01:44:47 PM
Bitch, bitch, bitch...that's all you fucking do.
Your mother is a wallaby and your father smells of elderberries!
Quote from: Raza on February 08, 2010, 01:44:47 PM
Bitch, bitch, bitch...that's all you fucking do.
The irony!!!
We do all know that the 190.4" Camaro rides on the same platform as the 203.1" Caprice, which is a far bigger difference than that between a 180" 335i coup? and a 189.8" 650i? The Camaro is the smallest variant of the Zeta platform, in other words, and strictly speaking is probably a size smaller than it would logically be.
Quote from: CJ on January 31, 2010, 09:28:57 PM
(http://www.myteamcar.com/images/24_hot-cars/2010_dodge_challenger_conve.jpg)
Saw one of those the other day, I was sorely disappointed. They just looked kinda stupid on the road. Way too big. I guess that's what happens when you take it out of it's natural habitat, but still, I was looking forward to this car and it let me down.
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on February 10, 2010, 11:17:19 AM
Saw one of those the other day, I was sorely disappointed. They just looked kinda stupid on the road. Way too big. I guess that's what happens when you take it out of it's natural habitat, but still, I was looking forward to this car and it let me down.
It's not the Challenger is too big, it's all your stupid microcars that are the problem. Get rid of those and the Challenger would look just fine. :devil:
Quote from: ifcar on February 10, 2010, 11:28:07 AM
It's not the Challenger is too big, it's all your stupid microcars that are the problem. Get rid of those and the Challenger would look just fine. :devil:
:hesaid:
Nah, I don't think the Challenger looks all that hot in the flesh, even in and amongst the juggernauts roaming US highways and byways, but then again I was never a fan of the original E-body (Barracuda/Challenger) from yesteryear.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 10, 2010, 01:08:17 PM
Nah, I don't think the Challenger looks all that hot in the flesh, even in and amongst the juggernauts roaming US highways and byways, but then again I was never a fan of the original E-body (Barracuda/Challenger) from yesteryear.
I think the Challenger looks too fat and slab sided.
Quote from: ifcar on February 10, 2010, 11:28:07 AM
It's not the Challenger is too big, it's all your stupid microcars that are the problem. Get rid of those and the Challenger would look just fine. :devil:
Maybe. It looks like a big block of plastic next to your typical Focuses and Golfs. It was on the highway that I saw it, BTW.
It looks badass in person. I want one in a bad way even though it's very heavy and handles like crap.
The Challenger is a barge. They should have brought back the Daytona... IROC
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3648/3381196742_f8d80b7b98.jpg)
LOOK AT THAT SNOUT!!
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 10, 2010, 04:28:29 PM
The Challenger is a barge. They should have brought back the Daytona... IROC
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3648/3381196742_f8d80b7b98.jpg)
LOOK AT THAT SNOUT!!
Are you serious?
that hood is way too long for a lil 4 banger. Anything that has a cheesy IROC decal on the doors should have a big rumbly V8 especially with a hood that long
The Challenger looks sweet, but it had to be in SRT8 form. R/T is okay, but not ideal.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 11, 2010, 04:07:29 PM
The Challenger looks sweet, but it had to be in SRT8 form. R/T is okay, but not ideal.
I would get an R/T and then get aftermarket springs and anti-roll bars. The SRT-8 is going to be a collector's item and I will never be able to afford one.
Well, I've just handed a bright yellow Camaro SS back to Avis at PHX, with more than few tears of sadness.
A full report will be forthcoming, but suffice to say that I just loved this car........... it's not perfect, but I reckon I could live with one as my only car (as a single bloke, that is easy to say!)...... yes, visibility is not brilliant but my proportions and seating position obviously helped me out as I did not have undue problems.
Quote from: Colin on February 11, 2010, 06:25:36 PM
Well, I've just handed a bright yellow Camaro SS back to Avis at PHX, with more than few tears of sadness.
A full report will be forthcoming, but suffice to say that I just loved this car........... it's not perfect, but I reckon I could live with one as my only car (as a single bloke, that is easy to say!)...... yes, visibility is not brilliant but my proportions and seating position obviously helped me out as I did not have undue problems.
Do they offer it in Europe alongside the Corvette?
Quote from: Vinsanity on February 10, 2010, 09:47:01 PM
that hood is way too long for a lil 4 banger. Anything that has a cheesy IROC decal on the doors should have a big rumbly V8 especially with a hood that long
Couldn't that thing mop the floor with a stock Foxbody 5.0?
And I don't know what lies beyond the engine in the nose...
(http://ic2.pbase.com/u24/rmscott/large/14066869.93BlueRTsfrontleftMoparNatsEM1.jpg)
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 11, 2010, 09:09:56 PM
Couldn't that thing mop the floor with a stock Foxbody 5.0?
And I don't know what lies beyond the engine in the nose...
(http://ic2.pbase.com/u24/rmscott/large/14066869.93BlueRTsfrontleftMoparNatsEM1.jpg)
NO.
It was a K-car based, FWD hatchback.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 11, 2010, 09:11:04 PM
NO.
It was a K-car based, FWD hatchback.
So? A Daytona IROC R/T could probably take a Fox-body Mustang. I wouldn't say it would "mop the floor", but they were quite quick.
Quote from: ifcar on February 11, 2010, 06:29:00 PM
Do they offer it in Europe alongside the Corvette?
No..... and to be honest, I don't think it would sell any more than a handful if they did.
A few people have done personal imports on Mustangs, and an even smaller number have brought in the Challenger. Even after the cost of shipping and UK import taxes, it is still a reasonable deal, but the running costs and the practicalities of cars like these in a CO2 obsessed world where gas is ?1.10 a litre (that's not far short of $7 a US gallon!), parking spaces are limited and small mean that only the real muscle car afficianados would be interested...... Shame!
Quote from: Colin on February 11, 2010, 11:14:05 PM
No..... and to be honest, I don't think it would sell any more than a handful if they did.
A few people have done personal imports on Mustangs, and an even smaller number have brought in the Challenger. Even after the cost of shipping and UK import taxes, it is still a reasonable deal, but the running costs and the practicalities of cars like these in a CO2 obsessed world where gas is ?1.10 a litre (that's not far short of $7 a US gallon!), parking spaces are limited and small mean that only the real muscle car afficianados would be interested...... Shame!
I've always wondered, though, what is the relative cost of living in Europe? Sure, $7/gallon is a lot, but if your wage is proportional to your expenditures in the same way it is in the US for the most part, it really isn't.
Quote from: the Teuton on February 11, 2010, 11:21:49 PM
I've always wondered, though, what is the relative cost of living in Europe? Sure, $7/gallon is a lot, but if your wage is proportional to your expenditures in the same way it is in the US for the most part, it really isn't.
It's EXPENSIVE! The French are getting really fucked by the Euro. The cost of everything is so much higher than when it was denoted in Francs. I keep asking people, "cui bono?" but nobody knows. Nobody seems to be happy with it!
Quote from: Laconian on February 11, 2010, 11:33:29 PM
It's EXPENSIVE! The French are getting really fucked by the Euro. The cost of everything is so much higher than when it was denoted in Francs. I keep asking people, "cui bono?" but nobody knows. Nobody seems to be happy with it!
So it's expensive for them too? How is anyone happy over there? How can anyone afford to live there?
Quote from: the Teuton on February 11, 2010, 11:21:49 PM
I've always wondered, though, what is the relative cost of living in Europe? Sure, $7/gallon is a lot, but if your wage is proportional to your expenditures in the same way it is in the US for the most part, it really isn't.
Trust me, our wages are not index linked to gas prices!
It is a complex calculation to compare not just salaries but all taxes and the cost of living between countries..... but I think it is generally true to say that salaries in Western Europe are comparable or lower for equivalent professional jobs than they are in the US, and our tax rates are higher. We do get some of that back as generally our social welfare provisions are a bit less ungenerous.... You might think that the US is expensive (and housing in cities like New York and Los Angeles certainly is), but things like food, cars, etc are far cheaper in the US. Healthcare costs, though...... I think that is where Europe scores.
Any of you who have been to Europe recently will doubtless have come home shocked at how costly everything seems when you convert it into dollars............. let me tell you that as the Euro gained and gained against the Pound, starting at 1.70 to the pound in 2002 and reaching near parity in early 2009, the Euro Zone has become terrifyingly expensive for the Brits as well. Why do you think I am on vacation in the SW of the USA? (well, climate at this time of the year was also a factor, of course!).
I have decided I am going to test drive one. I am also going to test drive a Corvette. I will then compare the two (and I have my suspicions of what I will think)
(Know a guy at a local Chevy dealer that will set me up.)
It's about time. For someone who keeps telling the world the Camaro is easy to see out of and drives better then a Mustang, you should drive one. You should drive a Mustang while you're at it.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 26, 2010, 06:06:36 PM
It's about time. For someone who keeps telling the world the Camaro is easy to see out of and drives better then a Mustang, you should drive one. You should drive a Mustang while you're at it.
I wonder what car he would troll against then...
Post has been reported.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 26, 2010, 08:33:40 PM
Post has been reported.
Post reported for you being a douche.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 26, 2010, 02:17:28 PM
I have decided I am going to test drive one. I am also going to test drive a Corvette. I will then compare the two (and I have my suspicions of what I will think)
(Know a guy at a local Chevy dealer that will set me up.)
You should totally test drive an EVO X as well. I love car shopping because it gives me an excuse to test drive all the random cars I've been curious about.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 26, 2010, 02:17:28 PM
I have decided I am going to test drive one. I am also going to test drive a Corvette. I will then compare the two (and I have my suspicions of what I will think)
(Know a guy at a local Chevy dealer that will set me up.)
Since you are such a strong proponent of the camaro you should put your money where your internetry is and buy an SS.
Quote from: CJ on March 26, 2010, 08:46:14 PM
Post reported for you being a douche.
Post reported for posting a useless post.
:popcorn:
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on March 27, 2010, 11:54:42 AM
:cheers:
So you and your buddy there are just going to drink beer in front of me, and hog all the popcorn? Ugh. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on March 27, 2010, 11:57:26 AM
So you and your buddy there are just going to drink beer in front of me, and hog all the popcorn? Ugh. :rolleyes:
Yep! And drink up all the Jack! :partyon: :lol:
Quote from: SVT666 on March 26, 2010, 06:06:36 PM
It's about time. For someone who keeps telling the world the Camaro is easy to see out of and drives better then a Mustang, you should drive one. You should drive a Mustang while you're at it.
Cougs thinks it's easy to see out of a Camaro? I thought he was just a douche, not a liar
LOL - Romper Room and Straw Man Cometh. Nice work guys.
Anywho, I gots stymied for the test drive. Apparently, now they have a policy that unless you're ready to write a check there are no Camaro test drives. Reasoning is that their inventory is too small and the interest too high which was putting too many miles on their Camaros. Turns out they've always had this policy for the Corvette. I think that's been their policy all along, and this "contact" was just talking big about letting me take either for a spin.
As to testing driving other cars just for the heck of it we'll see. This place was really close and I thought I had a good line on getting an easy test drive. Oh, well. Some other time.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 27, 2010, 02:20:51 PM
LOL - Romper Room and Straw Man Cometh. Nice work guys.
Anywho, I gots stymied for the test drive. Apparently, now they have a policy that unless you're ready to write a check there are no Camaro test drives. Reasoning is that their inventory is too small and the interest too high which was putting too many miles on their Camaros. Turns out they've always had this policy for the Corvette. I think that's been their policy all along, and this "contact" was just talking big about letting me take either for a spin.
As to testing driving other cars just for the heck of it we'll see. This place was really close and I thought I had a good line on getting an easy test drive. Oh, well. Some other time.
Sounds like the dealers in your area need to get a reality check. This is a Camaro, not a Ferrari.
That would piss me off to no end. For me, a car that doesn't get test driven doesn't get bought. I don't remember anything similar when I test drove vettes. I guess they didn't have that no test drives policy on used vettes, but even then a salesmen offered a test drive in the then new C6 for comparison purposes.
Maybe Camaros are still rare in your area. The local dealership around here has a ton of them piled up and some salesman suggests I take a look at a Camaro and take it for a spin everytime I take the vette in for an oil change (my ramps aren't low profile enough, and I don't feel like buying new ones for a once in a year event)
Quote from: 565 on March 27, 2010, 02:54:39 PM
Sounds like the dealers in your area need to get a reality check. This is a Camaro, not a Ferrari.
That would piss me off to no end. For me, a car that doesn't get test driven doesn't get bought. I don't remember anything similar when I test drove vettes. I guess they didn't have that no test drives policy on used vettes, but even then a salesmen offered a test drive in the then new C6 for comparison purposes.
Maybe Camaros are still rare in your area. The local dealership around here has a ton of them piled up and some salesman suggests I take a look at a Camaro and take it for a spin everytime I take the vette in for an oil change (my ramps aren't low profile enough, and I don't feel like buying new ones for a once in a year event)
Dealers where I am are the same way about many cars (though not the Camaro, surprisingly). I had two Hyundai dealerships tell me that I couldn't test drive a Genesis without making a commitment to buy first.
Cougs, go to Good Chevrolet. They've got about 10 Camaros on their used lot you can take for a spin. That's where I got my test drive.
Quote from: MX793 on March 27, 2010, 03:15:42 PM
Dealers where I am are the same way about many cars (though not the Camaro, surprisingly). I had two Hyundai dealerships tell me that I couldn't test drive a Genesis without making a commitment to buy first.
Making commitment to buy before test driving is the ultimate paradox. Why would I bother wasting my time test driving if I'm already sure I'm going to buy the car?
Honestly if some dealer said that to me I'd definitely tell them I'm definitely going to buy it, then test drive the FUCK out of the car, and then tell them to fuck off.
Quote from: 565 on March 27, 2010, 03:18:56 PM
Making commitment to buy before test driving is the ultimate paradox. Why would I bother wasting my time test driving if I'm already sure I'm going to buy the car?
Honestly if some dealer said that to me I'd definitely tell them I'm definitely going to buy it, then test drive the FUCK out of the car, and then tell them to fuck off.
I agree. The first dealership said something to the effect of "we only let people who are serious about buying this car test drive it", at which point I walked and will never go back (to that dealership or any other owned by the same parent company since I've been treated poorly at a couple of their dealerships). I was very tempted to say "what a coincidence, I only buy cars from dealerships that are serious about selling me one", but I held my tongue. With a bit of arm-twisting, I did get the second dealership to let me take it on the road, but they only let me take it a mile up the highway and back (which really wasn't enough to get much of a measure of the car).
Chevy dealer seemed pretty willing to let me drive a Camaro, but between the piss-poor visibility I found in the car I sat in in the showroom and a salesman I didn't particularly care for, I opted to just walk away. Maybe when the temperature gets above freezing again, I'll venture back and see about driving one.
Quote from: 565 on March 27, 2010, 02:54:39 PM
Sounds like the dealers in your area need to get a reality check. This is a Camaro, not a Ferrari.
That would piss me off to no end. For me, a car that doesn't get test driven doesn't get bought. I don't remember anything similar when I test drove vettes. I guess they didn't have that no test drives policy on used vettes, but even then a salesmen offered a test drive in the then new C6 for comparison purposes.
Maybe Camaros are still rare in your area. The local dealership around here has a ton of them piled up and some salesman suggests I take a look at a Camaro and take it for a spin everytime I take the vette in for an oil change (my ramps aren't low profile enough, and I don't feel like buying new ones for a once in a year event)
Or, maybe I just looked real shady...
These guys had only four on the lot (all new), and only 1 V8 6sp (small dealership).
Again, this was through a guy I kinda new who invited for me to test drive both, so it was a known fact I wasn't buying.
I got the same treatment from the dealer in Utica, NY. I sent an e-mail the the Chevrolet dealer in Boise about what happened in NY and that they wouldn't make a sale unless I could test drive it, and the Boise dealer had no problem with me test driving one.
I felt bad for the nicer dealers (Boise Mazda) that let me take take the car out for as long as I wanted with no pressure, but I needed to know if I enjoyed driving the car or not
Quote from: GoCougs on March 27, 2010, 02:20:51 PM
LOL - Romper Room and Straw Man Cometh. Nice work guys.
Anywho, I gots stymied for the test drive. Apparently, now they have a policy that unless you're ready to write a check there are no Camaro test drives. Reasoning is that their inventory is too small and the interest too high which was putting too many miles on their Camaros. Turns out they've always had this policy for the Corvette. I think that's been their policy all along, and this "contact" was just talking big about letting me take either for a spin.
As to testing driving other cars just for the heck of it we'll see. This place was really close and I thought I had a good line on getting an easy test drive. Oh, well. Some other time.
Too bad you're not around here. I picked up lunch around a local super dealer, and they had a half dozen visible (4 SSs, at least) from across the street; where they usually don't put large quantities of stock (they're kept on the other side).
Quote from: MX793 on March 27, 2010, 03:15:42 PM
Dealers where I am are the same way about many cars (though not the Camaro, surprisingly). I had two Hyundai dealerships tell me that I couldn't test drive a Genesis without making a commitment to buy first.
Any time I get that, I counter with something a bit more eloquent than "fuck you", but the effect is about the same. A simple "I'm not putting any money anywhere or signing anything without a test drive" and turning around gets their attention. I once had a dealership pull out an STI from the showroom to give me a test drive.