Production 2010 Chevy Camaro Revealed
#62
TECH Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
#64
Pontiacerator
iTrader: (12)
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.
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.
#65
12 Second Club
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
#66
TECH Senior Member
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?
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.
#67
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (4)
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 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.
#68
TECH Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#69
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.
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.
#71
But in time I believe it will prove itself to be a success.
#72
TECH Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
www.chevrolet.com/camaro
Production car specs, colors, everything is now available on Chevrolet's site.
Production car specs, colors, everything is now available on Chevrolet's site.
#75
11 Second Club
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: anozirA
Posts: 1,597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
#77
TECH Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We'll see if it really works.
#78
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Shreveport,Louisiana
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#79
TECH Senior Member
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.
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.
#80
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.