Automotive News, Media & Press Television | Magazines | Industry News

Production 2010 Chevy Camaro Revealed

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 07-20-2008, 01:01 PM
  #61  
11 Second Club
iTrader: (12)
 
01FbTaWs6's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 1,142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

i really like it. Would def. look SICK dropped on slicks and skinnys
Old 07-20-2008, 02:04 PM
  #62  
TECH Veteran
 
TriShield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by WECIV
We need a turbo I4 or something with better MPG for mass sales.
Four cylinder, 3,700lbs+ is a recipe for epic fail. It also doesn't belong in the Camaro.

The Camaro has never been a car that's about fuel economy or four cylinder engines and people will never associate it with such. They won't sell any of them with a four cylinder engine and I doubt it would use any less fuel in the real world than the V6.

GM already makes quite a few four cylinder performance cars. The Solstice, the Sky (both of which aren't selling well), the Cobalt SS and now the HHR SS. Those cars are all designed to be four cylinder performers and don't carry an iconic name that will be tarnished by it.

The best four cylinder cars are always the ones that are designed to be four cylinder cars from the onset, like the Evo, STi, WRX, all of which four cylinder buyers would get instead anyway.
Old 07-20-2008, 02:04 PM
  #63  
TECH Veteran
 
TriShield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

I also hope we see some stripes. The car looks naked without them.
Old 07-20-2008, 03:24 PM
  #64  
Pontiacerator
iTrader: (12)
 
RevGTO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Wichita KS / Rancho San Diego
Posts: 6,158
Received 210 Likes on 177 Posts

Default

I don't see why so many guys are shocked and dismayed by the weight. It was completely predictable. The new crash standards have forced mfr's to turn their products into porkers. Our old f-bodies weighed 3400-3600 lbs. and were cancelled because that platform could not meet the new standards. It was easy to see a 300 lb. increase was coming in the new vehicle. The GTO and G8 were evidence enough.

Looks like V6 fuel economy will be be close to the LS1 f-bodies and the V8 about like the LS2 GTO. There are some good reasons for sticking with our LS1's.

The do-gooders in Washington clamped tighter fuel economy requirements on the mfrs while mandating increased safety standards that kill it.
Old 07-20-2008, 08:37 PM
  #65  
ZV8
12 Second Club
iTrader: (2)
 
ZV8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

They need to put some R&D into finding out how to make a lighter car and still meet the safty requirements, lighter cars = lots more MPG and way faster obviously, why don't they get that? How hard is it to make a car lighter? Just look at the regular C6 its like 3200lbs and no fancy carbon fiber or what not. solstic weights about 2800lbs, 2 seaters yea but look at the cobalt, How are those cars light weight and able to meet safety regulations but the camaro has to be 800lbs more to be as safe?
Old 07-20-2008, 08:52 PM
  #66  
TECH Senior Member
 
JD_AMG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: St.Charles MO
Posts: 5,801
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 15 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by ZV8
They need to put some R&D into finding out how to make a lighter car and still meet the safty requirements, lighter cars = lots more MPG and way faster obviously, why don't they get that? How hard is it to make a car lighter? Just look at the regular C6 its like 3200lbs and no fancy carbon fiber or what not. solstic weights about 2800lbs, 2 seaters yea but look at the cobalt, How are those cars light weight and able to meet safety regulations but the camaro has to be 800lbs more to be as safe?
Its not just about meeting the regulations, its more about cost.
The Camaro is built off the same chassis the G8 sedan is on, and naturally its going to be a larger and heavier. If GM could afford to build the camaro own its own chassis the car could be smaller and lighter.
Old 07-20-2008, 08:54 PM
  #67  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (4)
 
ULTIMATEORANGESS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: eatontown,nj
Posts: 10,976
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 15 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by ZV8
They need to put some R&D into finding out how to make a lighter car and still meet the safty requirements, lighter cars = lots more MPG and way faster obviously, why don't they get that? How hard is it to make a car lighter? Just look at the regular C6 its like 3200lbs and no fancy carbon fiber or what not. solstic weights about 2800lbs, 2 seaters yea but look at the cobalt, How are those cars light weight and able to meet safety regulations but the camaro has to be 800lbs more to be as safe?
while youre correct in saying lighter= better MPG and accelleration it also= more money to use lightweight parts. all those cars you mentioned are much smaller than a camaro. the only car you mentioned thatll be faster is a C6 which is more expensive.


while i am also disappointed with the weight of this car GM probably did their best trying to keep its weight to a minimum. we want big brakes and IRS and we want it to handle right? well, that adds weight. hopefully if this car is successful GM will offer a lightweight stripper version but even then i doubt itll be under 3600 lbs.
Old 07-20-2008, 10:24 PM
  #68  
TECH Veteran
 
TriShield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by ULTIMATEORANGESS
while youre correct in saying lighter= better MPG and accelleration it also= more money to use lightweight parts. all those cars you mentioned are much smaller than a camaro. the only car you mentioned thatll be faster is a C6 which is more expensive.
That R&D is passed directly onto consumers too.

Look at expensive German cars. They use lightweight materials like magnesium, aluminum and titanium instead of steel but they are still heavy and the cost of that engineering and material (as well as the brand "premium") is all paid for when you pay over $40 large for a little 3-Series. And $60k for their V8 or twin-turbo 5-Series which is similar in size and weight to the Camaro. We can all complain about it but none of us are willing to pay for it.

The Corvette costs what it does because it's a unique car engineered with all of those things in mind that has it's own plant and people are willing to pay the premium for it.

Everyone here that's an F-body fan is going to moan when the new SS costs around $30k. Imagine how bad it would be if it started at a few thousand less than the Corvette. Then given that what would you choose if you loved performance? The Corvette of course.
Old 07-20-2008, 11:09 PM
  #69  
12 Second Club
 
shaun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

looks much better than i thought it would. i like that they kept the bigger wheels size.
im digin the interior and over all i like it.
i have a dodge dealer right across from my house and they have a srt8 challenger in the show room. its silver with black carbon fiber stripes and black inside and the interior sucks it looks just like the usual over cheap chrysler inside it looks just like a charger interior. i was going to buy a 300c srt8 then i seen the interior and walked away from it.
much better interior in the camaro. thats what you look at when you drive the car so it should look nice.
Old 07-21-2008, 09:45 AM
  #70  
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (3)
 
BanditTA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NY
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Good video linked off of the original link

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232/site...92008|&par=jpk
Old 07-21-2008, 11:09 AM
  #71  
10 Second Club
iTrader: (16)
 
LS1LT1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 9,331
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Thumbs up

Originally Posted by BanditTA
Good video linked off of the original link

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232/site...92008|&par=jpk
I think the car could be a hit...the only hindrance to that (currently) is the general state of the economy/fuel prices, not the actual car itself.
But in time I believe it will prove itself to be a success.
Old 07-21-2008, 01:55 PM
  #72  
TECH Veteran
 
TriShield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

www.chevrolet.com/camaro

Production car specs, colors, everything is now available on Chevrolet's site.
Old 07-21-2008, 04:13 PM
  #73  
TECH Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
jattgunman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cali
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

3900lbs without a driver or passenger is pretty heavy..But the car looks awesome..and should be fast and more fun overall and comfortable than my 01 ss
Old 07-21-2008, 04:37 PM
  #74  
TECH Addict
iTrader: (5)
 
2000Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Miami, Fl. - Hurricane Highway
Posts: 2,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Whats witht he LS LT names, that sounds like your picking options for a Silverado.
-Joel
Old 07-21-2008, 06:01 PM
  #75  
11 Second Club
iTrader: (11)
 
Gaunt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: anozirA
Posts: 1,597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by ULTIMATEORANGESS
while youre correct in saying lighter= better MPG and accelleration it also= more money to use lightweight parts. all those cars you mentioned are much smaller than a camaro. the only car you mentioned thatll be faster is a C6 which is more expensive.


while i am also disappointed with the weight of this car GM probably did their best trying to keep its weight to a minimum. we want big brakes and IRS and we want it to handle right? well, that adds weight. hopefully if this car is successful GM will offer a lightweight stripper version but even then i doubt itll be under 3600 lbs.
Whoever said they wanted IRS needs to be shot in the face.
Old 07-21-2008, 07:44 PM
  #76  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (4)
 
ULTIMATEORANGESS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: eatontown,nj
Posts: 10,976
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 15 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Gaunt
Whoever said they wanted IRS needs to be shot in the face.
LOL. ill wait till i drive one but my GTO hops bad at times but it rides alot better than my SS. im hoping its strong and hop can be eliminated with a set of DRs as long as stock power isnt greatly exceeded.
Old 07-21-2008, 09:36 PM
  #77  
TECH Veteran
 
TriShield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by ULTIMATEORANGESS
LOL. ill wait till i drive one but my GTO hops bad at times but it rides alot better than my SS. im hoping its strong and hop can be eliminated with a set of DRs as long as stock power isnt greatly exceeded.
Mine does too, but unlike our GTOs the Camaro uses asymmetrical or staggered half-shafts in the rear suspension to eliminate wheelhop, just like the new LSA CTS-V and LS9 Corvette ZR1.

We'll see if it really works.
Old 07-21-2008, 10:13 PM
  #78  
Banned
 
Z ROADSTER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Shreveport,Louisiana
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by LS1LT1
I think the car could be a hit...the only hindrance to that (currently) is the general state of the economy/fuel prices, not the actual car itself.
But in time I believe it will prove itself to be a success.
Ever the optimist , are you a GM employee ?

Just kiddin .
Old 07-21-2008, 10:27 PM
  #79  
TECH Senior Member
 
JD_AMG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: St.Charles MO
Posts: 5,801
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 15 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Gaunt
Whoever said they wanted IRS needs to be shot in the face.
Who ever wants truck suspension on their performance car is a moron.
Cars are made to do more than just go in a strait line, and IRS is a FAR superior setup for ride and handling, god forbid it might not grab traction off the line as well.
Old 07-21-2008, 11:21 PM
  #80  
10 Second Club
iTrader: (16)
 
LS1LT1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 9,331
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Lightbulb

Originally Posted by 2000Hawk
Whats witht he LS LT names, that sounds like your picking options for a Silverado.
That 'LT' designation actually does have some historic significance in a Camaro, during the '70s/early '80s there was a Type LT model.
And I even like that LS nomenclature as well for it reminds one of LS1, LS2, LS6, LSA etc even though it's not a V8 model LOL.


Quick Reply: Production 2010 Chevy Camaro Revealed



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:44 AM.