hawk584

iTrader: (1)

do any of the the SRT8 actually beat anything?

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

AronZ28

iTrader: (2)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and agree with the douchebag journalist. I can't stand the interior on the new Camaro. Hate the gun slit windows, hate the lack of headroom, hate the 90's rave club blue/green mood lighting, hate the gauges, hate the weird steering wheel that I can't get a comfortable grip on. I just don't like the clausterphobic feeling I get in there, and you can't see out either. They did get the seats right, so I'll give them kudos for that.

I'd buy the Challenger. Looks the coolest, and I really like all the extra room you get. Its kind of a boat, but then again I yearn for the days of the Coupe Deville, Riveria, Grand Prix, 69 Charger, etc.

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

I've spent a lot of time in a Challenger (my friend's mid 12 second R/T) and they are quite roomy inside and do ride real nice too. But they're just SO damn heavy, making them slower and less fuel efficient even when making more power than the competition.

T-hawk

iTrader: (9)

If the Camaro wasn't pig heavy, it wouldn't need any upgrades to run with the Mustang.

Subjective items like interior and exterior styling not taken into account, how does anyone expect a Camaro to be a balanced performance car if it weighs close to 2 tons. Adding more power to an already heavy car isn't going to make it a better performance car than the current Mustang. Sure, it might make it quicker in a straight line, but in the end, its still not going to out handle or out stop a lighter car that has a performance suspension under it too. While there are heavier cars that will out perform a new Camaro, they all cost a LOT more (CTS-V comes to mind) and in general are not the same "type" of car (pony/muscle car to be specific).

Unfortunately, GM has little it can do inexpensively to fix the weight problem with the current car. The platform is just too heavy. Unless the next platform that is used is significantly lighter (like 500 lbs lighter), then the Mustang is going to keep the edge in overall performance. GM has done this with the Vette... I don't get why they didn't do it with the Camaro.

I like Camaro's and I think the new one is a good car. I've owned 16 f-body's in my lifetime, so I am a big fan, but I won't own one of the new ones because its just too heavy to ever be the type of car I expect a Camaro to be. While the '11 Mustang isn't exactly a featherweight, I do think Ford has a better handle on this type of car right now. Other than the butt ugly rear end on the new Mustang, its a great car. I hope the future holds a better car from GM.

Just my opinion.

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

You basically answered your own question, the Corvette MSRPs for $49k and has only two seats...the Camaro SS MSRPs for only $31k and has rear seats.
Saving weight costs money.

ThisBlood147

Agreed. Too many people keep forgetting that GM has the Corvette: a production car in a model segment for which Ford currently has no entry. If you want a light weight super sporty LSX car, the Vette is there. If you go through all the motions to make a smaller, lightweight Camaro (keeping in mind that the current base Vette weighs in around 3300 lbs nowadays)....you'd probably end up with a price tag that is damn close to that of its 2 seater sibling. And at that point, who would opt for the Camaro when just a couple grand more would net you a much quicker Corvette?

Irunelevens

Vette's weigh ~3,200lbs actually, but I get your point.

deelong4002

iTrader: (8)

I'd be curious how much more the corvette actually COSTS GM. I bet its not as much as we might think, and since it has a niche market, without any close competitor (viper is much more expensive), i bet they can price at damn near monopoly prices. On the other hand, there are alot more exotic materials in even a base vette. But the new camaro platform, which i am not that familar with yet, isnt exactly a 4th gen type platform so i bet its pricey as well. I wouldnt be suprised if the corvette only costs $2k more to produce.

mannyman84

iTrader: (2)

LMAO....thats a good question, they cant even beat my stock *** ls1

Blakbird24

iTrader: (24)

GM has already determined that the next Camaro will be on a smaller platform. It will share it's underpinnings with the upcoming Cadillac ATS. This should be good for a 3500-3600lb final weight. The platform that camaro sits on now is shared with the CTS, which was designed from the onset as a bigger car. GM is taking the CTS up to fill the spot where the STS is now. That's why the new CTS is only very slightly smaller than the current STS. Next year the XTS replaces the DTS, and the next gen CTS will be even larger than the current, in order to replace the STS. Then later that year, the ATS will debut as the smaller car, a true replacement for the gen 1 CTS.

It's easy to see at this point how GM is setting up their production plan. Cadillac is leading the way in the design and development of all the platforms for GM. The XTS platform can be used for other large cars like a Buick Lucerne and Chevy Impala (a real full size, not like the FWD car they have now), the CTS platform can be used for a Lacrosse and some chevy that's about the size of the current Impala, and the ATS platform can be used for the Regal and Camaro. This type of design should promote Cadillac quality to all their cars and the opportunity for some great technology to trickle down to Buick and Chevy.

kain01

Thanks for posting this I was just looking for that info last night to link to it.

assasinator

when the camaro weighs the same as a stang , it will be one of the fastest cars of all time. IF, and only IF it still has 6.0 - 6.2 liters. if Chevy is forced to go smaller with its engine line , it cant compete. i would fully expect an advanced powertrain. in that case.

look there's nothing in the world forcing chevy to stick with large LS motors. the 4.2 inline dohc six is a great example of what chevy can do if they choose to. more power than an LT-1. a 4.5 - 5.0 liter V-8 based on the 3.6 DI would compete directly with the 5.0 coyote.



give it bore centers for more than 5 liters. if i wanted to beat a coyote. i would exceed the cubic inch limits of the ford. give it 38-41mm intake valves and more low lift flow. out torque the ford. let hp fall where it may.

IMO chevy has gotten away from what made it. think back to 1969. the ford has a BOSS 302 with way more hp than a chevy. but it couldnt compete on torque tracks. off the corner the 302 chevy left the mustang. TORQUE. the intake port size of 6.0-7.0 LS motors FORCES chevy to build large inch motors to have any low end.

it has served chevy until now. the philosophies have reversed. Ford has low end. huge torque for 5 liters. (390)! only 30 lb-ft less than 60+ inches more chevy.


its a mistake for chevy to continue getting away from what made it king of the tracks. TORQUE. new mileage standards are targeting chevy and dodge. ignore it again and die.

NightmareTA

iTrader: (20)

I have test driven all 3 of the new muscle cars out....a 6 speed challenger RT, 6 speed camaro SS, and a 2009 mustang GT. After being in all 3, I bought a 2008 leftover shelby GT mustang. The power is the lowest of the 3, but in all honesty, I was IMPRESSED with the stang. Handling is significantly better, and that 4.6 even is a torquey motor down low thanks to the VVT. It rides smoother, has awesome options but not overkill (love the Ipod compatability and sound system), blindspots are not anywhere near as bad as the other two. . . .I have always been a GM guy (have an LS powered 3rd gen) but Ford nailed it on the head with the new stang, and especially when the 2011 model comes out, they will be a TOUGH competition. I really do hope the camaro can compete! I guess well see when the time comes.

Marc 85Z28

iTrader: (8)

Nothing forcing them? Why go to a heavier, larger, more costly, more complex engine if not necessary. They're is NOTHING wrong with their current engine architecture.

Chevy's lost? Maybe you are! Chevy's 302 proved time and time again both on the track and the street that it was superior in every way. They weren't down on torque.

You're looking at this wrong. The engine displacement dictated the larger port, not the other way around.

Again, wrong. The Chevy engine makes more peak torque, more average torque, and more low end torque than the 5.0. It's stronger everywhere in the RPM band, and that's comparing the best dyno we've seen from the 5.0 - which is highly suspect to begin with.

TT632

iTrader: (3)

True! not to mention the LS motor is smaller (dimensionally), lighter, and the Camaro gets similar mileage as the Ford!

JD_AMG

Uhhh, fastest car of all time??? 420hp and 3700lbs will be no where near "fastest of all time"...
Per GM's rules the Corvette will always be faster than the Camaro.

Could you explain to me why GM should go with smaller displacement? What advantages would that have?
Getting the most displacement out of the same size block has nothing but benifits. The LS series engines are physically smaller, lighter, and more powerful that what Ford has to offer all while getting better gas mileage.

Don't fool yourself, the engines are no where near their potential GM like always has them very detuned. Reguardless displacement is irrelevant in a comparison like this because it shows no real world stats that actually matter like weight and size.

New gas mileage standards are targeting everyone, GM's performance cars have some of the best (if not the best) gas mileage of any performance car in their class (or anywhere).
Find me a 400hp car that gets 19/28mpg. Don't even bother looking at Ford...

assasinator

ummmm, read what i SAID. the 302 chevy was superior in TA racing.

nothing wrong with the current LS family? nothing. there's nothing wrong with the new CAFE and 6.2 liters? nothing? how about cant possibly get better gas mileage in the future. take away cubic inches and HEMI/LS engines are weak.


one dimensional thought is why chevy went bankrupt. maybe chevy needs to keep making large inch motors and die like it deserves. im frustrated with the hp king mindset when so much is at stake.

As a union man, i hate the think union families are relying on GM to get its head out of its *** and make cars that will survive. 6-7 liters isnt gonna get it.

you and others like you think $4.00 a gallon fuel costs need 6.0-7.0 liters and 24mpg. we are headed to 3.00 a gallon this very day. people besides knuckle draggers look at EPA mileage rating and say "no thanks". both the ford, chevy, and dodge muscle cars had better get with it.




i never said the LS isnt superior in making power. who cares when chevy cant sell them on percieved inefficiency. how much power does a 4.8 vortec make? hardly any is the answer.

im dropping it. there's no way to get through that GM doesnt need big inch motors. cadillac 4.6 is a great motor. i drive two of them.

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

I don't necessarily disagree with much of what you're saying but umm, trying to claim that there is NO WAY that the LSx (or even the Hemi) motors can deliver even better fuel economy in the future is completely untrue.
Two words for you: Direct Injection.
Not only can the implementation of DI potentially increase a Camaro's/Corvette's fuel economy but it can also increase their power outputs even further.

Marc 85Z28

iTrader: (8)

Fords 5.4L 2v engines peaked around 260hp
Their 5.4L and 3v and 4v peaked around 300-310hp
GMs SMALLER 5.3L peaked at 320hp

The only time Ford built a stronger comparable displacement engine was with, surprise, a blower on top.