2010 Chevrolet Camaro revealed!

[smk4565]

It is nearly 400 pounds heavier than a Mustang. The GM weight problem continues.

Looks better than a Mustang and has better engines, of course the extra power will go to moving the extra 400 pounds.

[Northstar]

It is nearly 400 pounds heavier than a Mustang. The GM weight problem continues.

Looks better than a Mustang and has better engines, of course the extra power will go to moving the extra 400 pounds.

The Camaro won't compete with the current Mustang for long. Probably less than a year. I doubt the NG Mustang is much lighter than the Camaro. Camaro is also wider and longer than the Mustang.

[bowtie_dude]

Just tell me I can get a decently equipped V6 for under $25k.

[Camino LS6]

Pricing info shouldn't be too long in coming out now.

[gmcbob]

This is a really nice car guys (for the price). I'd be willing to bet that the V6 version will give a $39,000 G37 a good run for it's money, not only in straight line performance, but probably on a track too. All the while looking totally muscular and clearly American doing it (which is just really cool IMO). The current V6 Mustang can't run with a $35k + V6 performance car - but this Camaro will - with a fully modern suspension, taut body panels, etc, etc...that in and of itself is a huge accomplishment for GM. I'm very excited about this car.

For whatever reason, I'm glad to see that GM's "base model" V6 is actually going to be a truly stout performer. I'm on the edge of my seat for the first road test from the major mags to come out. I'm thinking the V6 will run to 60 in the mid 5s and I'm hoping the V8 will get there in the mid to low 4s with a mid to low 12 second 1/4 mile. Although I have a feeling that some of the best times we'll see might be more like 12.8 or so, which will still be really sweet.

[smk4565]

This is a really nice car guys (for the price). I'd be willing to bet that the V6 version will give a $39,000 G37 a good run for it's money, not only in straight line performance, but probably on a track too. All the while looking totally muscular and clearly American doing it (which is just really cool IMO). The current V6 Mustang can't run with a $35k + V6 performance car - but this Camaro will - with a fully modern suspension, taut body panels, etc, etc...that in and of itself is a huge accomplishment for GM. I'm very excited about this car.

For whatever reason, I'm glad to see that GM's "base model" V6 is actually going to be a truly stout performer. I'm on the edge of my seat for the first road test from the major mags to come out. I'm thinking the V6 will run to 60 in the mid 5s and I'm hoping the V8 will get there in the mid to low 4s with a mid to low 12 second 1/4 mile. Although I have a feeling that some of the best times we'll see might be more like 12.8 or so, which will still be really sweet.

A G37 is 150 pounds lighter with 26 more horsepower. The Camaro V6 won't run with it. This thing is near CTS weight, 0-60 is going to be closer to 6 seconds with the V6, probably 4.7-4.9 for the manual and automatic V8s. If it is priced in the mid to high 20s, it is still very good performance per dollar and it is a very good looking car, I am not loving the interior though.

[Robert Hall]

The Camaro won't compete with the current Mustang for long. Probably less than a year. I doubt the NG Mustang is much lighter than the Camaro. Camaro is also wider and longer than the Mustang.

The NG Mustang is just a refresh of the current model, so I wouldn't expect it to gain weight.

[Northstar]

The NG Mustang is just a refresh of the current model, so I wouldn't expect it to gain weight.

I would still expect them to make some changes to go along with any new crash regs that have come along, and they'll probably add some content as well. I guess I didn't realize it was just a new body/interior though... so that means no IRS or other upgrades to the suspension?

[6t5frlane]

Whats with that Fugly steering wheel, and what are those two " orbs " sticking out below the radio. I hope it looks better in person

[Robert Hall]

I would still expect them to make some changes to go along with any new crash regs that have come along, and they'll probably add some content as well. I guess I didn't realize it was just a new body/interior though... so that means no IRS or other upgrades to the suspension?

I doubt if it will get IRS.. yes, this is a change similar to '99, but with interior changes as well.

[jbartley]

love the blue LED pipe lighting, just like the CTS. bonus points GM.

[Sixty8panther]

RS with no hideaway headlights? LAME!

[Sixty8panther]

I don't thinking anything about the Camaro, regardless of trim level, says "sleeper" It screams performance.

Yeah, true. Like so many other words/expressions these

days the term "sleeper" has ben preverted & watered

down. A real "sleeper" is a Chevette riding on reasonably

sized white walls with a rosary hanging from the rear

view mirror, faded beige paint & a fruity "I love Bingo"

decal on the rear window.

but it blows the doors off your '03 Viper, and then later

when you both arrive at the carshow the hood opens

and you see a twin-turbo pontiac 455.

[cletus8269]

my idea of a sleeper

oddly enough there was another 70 or 71 nova in hotrod about a year ago just like this that was a creamish looking color rust and all.

[Sixty8panther]

1100 horsepower under what is basically some math teacher's 1972 Chevy 2-door sedan?

OK, that's a sleeper.

[Sixty8panther]

The Camaro won't compete with the current Mustang for long. Probably less than a year. I doubt the NG Mustang is much lighter than the Camaro. Camaro is also wider and longer than the Mustang.

Another reason why modern cars suck...

Here's what we've accomplished since the late 1960s/early 1970s:

take 3800 lbs. car

remove 1800 lbs. of metal

add 1800 lbs. of plastic, rubber, computer chip & sound insulation

end result =

Can I have my metal back? You can keep the 12

speaker radio, 5 airbags & 300 lbs. of computer

hardware that makes my piston squish, fuel squirt,

my valve open & close, intake read the o2 levels,

sensor read my tire pressure etc...?

Oooookay, well then how about getting rid of some

of the toys.... power window/lock/mirrow delete?

WTF do you mean I HAVE to get a moon-roof, 18"

rims, extra thick floor mats, trunklid spoiler, FOUR

catalitic converters, heated washer fliuid & a 10"

in-dash navigation/dvd/computer if I want the (GT)

package & fog-lights?

[Robert Hall]

Can't think of anything that fits the sleeper definition today, as far as production cars. You can't get a base trim level Cobalt with the SS drivetrain, for example, or a V6-trim Mustang with the Shelby GT500 drivetrain.

One thing I think that would make a nice sleeper (aftermarket) by mixing and matching modern car parts would be a current Crown Vic/Grand Marquis/Town Car with a Shelby GT500 engine, etc....

[Sixty8panther]

You mean make a REAL Mercury Marauder?

Instead of that "Grand Marquis GT" from a few years back...?

[Camino LS6]

For the uninitiated, the GTO is something of a sleeper.

[Robert Hall]

For the uninitiated, the GTO is something of a sleeper.

Too flashy to really be a sleeper, though..

[Robert Hall]

Another reason why modern cars suck...

Here's what we've accomplished since the late 1960s/early 1970s:

take 3800 lbs. car

remove 1800 lbs. of metal

add 1800 lbs. of plastic, rubber, computer chip & sound insulation

end result =

Can I have my metal back? You can keep the 12

speaker radio, 5 airbags & 300 lbs. of computer

hardware that makes my piston squish, fuel squirt,

my valve open & close, intake read the o2 levels,

sensor read my tire pressure etc...?

Oooookay, well then how about getting rid of some

of the toys.... power window/lock/mirrow delete?

WTF do you mean I HAVE to get a moon-roof, 18"

rims, extra thick floor mats, trunklid spoiler, FOUR

catalitic converters, heated washer fliuid & a 10"

in-dash navigation/dvd/computer if I want the (GT)

package & fog-lights?

How many buyers REALLY want stripped down cars today, though? Not many, I think..

[Sixty8panther]

It's a reoccurring topic around here... and several members agree.... not to mentions the

"strippers" article in R&T a few months back, and potential Scion owners who were led to

believe that was EXACTLY what the Scion brand was going to be about.

Body in white/gray steel wheels, crank windows, radio delete etc. that was the original

Scion lineup "concept", a cheap little econobox, a la carte

[Satty]

How many Civic does Honda sell? How many of those are radio-less, AC-less DX models?

[Sixty8panther]

How many times i recent history has a manufacturer REALLY tried it?

The PT Cruiser and Explorer were all "long shots" before they made

a killing for Chrysler & Ford.

[balthazar]

With the economic present, & likely near future, I'll bet dollar to donuts it's a lot more than you think.

Or did you think suc... people are buying kias for their unique amenities?

The great majority of features on most modern cars just add: cost (purchase), cost (repair), annoyance (in cases of refused repair), weight & complexity. And laziness.

Look at the numbers buying priuses on gut reaction.... economics is the directive here (that, and a vain desire to be viewed as 'green').

[Robert Hall]

How many Civic does Honda sell? How many of those are radio-less, AC-less DX models?

53k Civics in May...Probably very few fit that description.

[Satty]

I've never seen a Civic DX. They only exist so Honda can say the Civic starts at just over $15,000 and maybe pick up a few sales in areas that dont get extremely hot. We've seen the results of the economy, new car sales tanked across the board. People are probably keeping what they have or buying used.

[LosAngeles]

Have you forgotten about SAFETY features? Not a single one I can think of comes very light.

Those old aircraft carriers might have been solid hunks of metal, but they weren't exactly safer. Steering wheel aimed squarely at your chest, and the door could still cave right in, as could the floor and roof.

Not everyone is this excellent driver you the reader might think you are. Not to mention 15 years were spent pointing these same average motorists to trucks and SUVs. Cars had to be made a little more idiotproof as a result.

[Robert Hall]

Have you forgotten about SAFETY features? Not a single one I can think of comes very light.

Those old aircraft carriers might have been solid hunks of metal, but they weren't exactly safer. Steering wheel aimed squarely at your chest, and the door could still cave right in, as could the floor and roof.

Not everyone is this excellent driver you the reader might think you are. Not to mention 15 years were spent pointing these same average motorists to trucks and SUVs. Cars had to be made a little more idiotproof as a result.

I have no problem with the safety features in today's cars... crumple zones, airbags, seat belts, ABS, etc....the better, IMHO. And I like loaded w/ options models rather than stripped down ones....the downside is the weight goes up..

[Sixty8panther]

The only one that is a REAL concern is the steering wheel, and last time

I checked collapsible steering wheels add like 0.5 lbs. to the car's LBS.

I can do without the rest, esp. ugly bulky B-pillars & computer control.

[gm4life]

My Torrent and Impala are each strippers as I had no money for a stripped LS trim back in 2001 after just doing a home remodel. I wasn't expecting the Olds to $h! out. As for the Torrent it was in my price range and had cruise, cd, cloth, pwr w/l/m, the bigger chrome wheels (a must to match my Bonneville) and because I liked them. I don't consider my Torrent stripped when you list all the features but when consider what options it has just cruise and chrome wheels is light on the option boxes that were checked. As for my Impala it was close to stripped too with a tape deck and cruise no cd or keyless to features I would never now not buy a car with from the current generation of autos. If I was looking at an older model for some reason aka a Turbo 3.8 Buick, or 80's Monte Carlo SS, or 88-91 Bonneville SSE, or 92-93 Fleetwood/Touring Sedan/Deville Spring Edition I wouldn't care so much but on the SSE or Caddy's it prolly would be standard.

[LosAngeles]

The only one that is a REAL concern is the steering wheel, and last time

I checked collapsible steering wheels add like 0.5 lbs. to the car's LBS.

I can do without the rest, esp. ugly bulky B-pillars & computer control.

While I do agree that cars are a bit too computerized these days, there wouldn't be anywhere near the power, torque or fuel economy without them. Modern cars are generally not as charming, but they are technically superior.

[smk4565]

A G37 is 150 pounds lighter with 26 more horsepower. The Camaro V6 won't run with it. This thing is near CTS weight, 0-60 is going to be closer to 6 seconds with the V6, probably 4.7-4.9 for the manual and automatic V8s. If it is priced in the mid to high 20s, it is still very good performance per dollar and it is a very good looking car, I am not loving the interior though.

Wow, I am good.

According to Chevy, The V6 Camaro with auto or manual goes 0-60 in 6.1 seconds.

Camaro SS is 0-60 in 4.9 seconds with the manual and 4.6 seconds with the automatic. Seems odd that the auto is faster, I wonder if that is a typo.

Nurburgring in 8 minutes and 20 seconds for the SS, which is a good time.

Gas mileage and interior aren't great, but this car could be a hit if priced right, $24-31,000 I think will be good.

[NOS2006]

I'm upset it does the 'ring only 2 seconds quicker than the SS Turbo, but after an exhaust and intake, I'm sure it'll free up a few ponies to a nice round 450+

[NOS2006]

Ummm t-tops?

[Northstar]

Wow, I am good.

According to Chevy, The V6 Camaro with auto or manual goes 0-60 in 6.1 seconds.

Camaro SS is 0-60 in 4.9 seconds with the manual and 4.6 seconds with the automatic. Seems odd that the auto is faster, I wonder if that is a typo.

Nurburgring in 8 minutes and 20 seconds for the SS, which is a good time.

Gas mileage and interior aren't great, but this car could be a hit if priced right, $24-31,000 I think will be good.

Well, the auto has better drive ratios than the manual on the V8, but the manual does have more power. I would expect the manual to be faster once you get over 60 or so, though. As for the V6... the DI RWD CTS weighs about 100lbs more and has posted sub-6 second 0-60 runs. I'd expect the Camaro to do the same. The Camaro's coefficient of drag is .35 though, not very good. Perhaps that slows it down somewhat? The GTO auto is also faster to 60 than the manual and many times the auto will win in a the 1/4 mile, just at a lower speed.

The Nurburgring time is better than a Boxster S or last-gen M3, pretty impressive.

[gm4life]

For its price point yes very impressive. It will kick cars that cost twice as much a$$es!

[MyerShift]

It's a reoccurring topic around here... and several members agree.... not to mentions the

"strippers" article in R&T a few months back, and potential Scion owners who were led to

believe that was EXACTLY what the Scion brand was going to be about.

Body in white/gray steel wheels, crank windows, radio delete etc. that was the original

Scion lineup "concept", a cheap little econobox, a la carte

I feel that more stripper cars are needed.

Reduced weight being the main advantage. Except for the part where they'd be available, there'd be less cost and complexity to the vehicles.

Imagine Volkswagen's line up with some strippers in there PLUS a stripper Polo. It could do wonders. People's Car and all.

Back to Camaro, yee ha!

I feel that GM and Chrysler have done the best jobs resurrecting their muscle cars.

[Intrepidation]

I feel obligated to post some photos from Autoblog, including the SS

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

What happened to the turbo 4?

While 26MPG is pretty good for a heavy 6 cyl car that makes 300hp... i need something higher then that if im going to buy it.

Edited July 23, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Drew Dowdell]

I dunno... wouldn't a final year of the last generation cut through the air much better than this and be much lighter, while having a great engine with astounding aftermarket support?

:duck:

[Sixty8panther]

Three quick points:

1. smk/nos: I will gladdly give up .3 sec in the 0-60

sprint to have a REAL manual*

* in fact that is a challenge to learn that clutch &

shifter so damn well you beat the auto!

2. So weight savings blah-blah-blah... need a b-pillar

yadda-yadda & now they put in curtain airbags?

I guess GM is still afraid of Nader, huh?

3. I still have a love/hate thing going for this car

due to it's ONE and only flaw, that damn ugly

B-pillar & all that black RTV that makes a fat

border on the glass of all modern cars that have

glued in windows. Cheap, ugly & a major

detraction... very much a:

"dries up a wet dream" scenario for myself.

Kind of like the Patriot's perfect season and

then dropping the ball in the super bowl. Or,

if you will, a tacky, pastel colored "I love my

kittens" themed frame aroud Van Ghoghs'

"Stary Night" complete w/ kitten paw prints.

......

all that having been said this car is hotter than

a black top parking lot in Phoenix on the the

4th of July. The production car addresses some

of the slightly awkward angles in the concept's

headlight-grille area while retaining all the DNA

that made it a true CAMARO.

Long live the Camaro!

GM: My sawzall is on order, do the right thing

and make me a hybrid of the ragtop & sedan.

Please.

Yes I'll pay extra.

[Robert Hall]

I dunno... wouldn't a final year of the last generation cut through the air much better than this and be much lighter, while having a great engine with astounding aftermarket support?

Meh...old, flexible platform w/ live rear axle, nasty interior, wierd exterior, etc.

[LosAngeles]

Meh...old, flexible platform w/ live rear axle, nasty interior, weird exterior, etc.

Exactly, that look and that tech has seen better days.

[pow]

I'm in love with the pale yellow one they revealed in CA.

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/New-Pro...MARO_172937.htm

[Robert Hall]

Has the color palette been revealed yet? Besides the bright Starburst fruit chew colors, I'd love to see some more subtle color schemes... I'd like to see a dark metallic blue, a titanium gray, Enclave bronze, the CTS dark red, and that sharp, bright metallic lime-ish green that was on the Avalanche a few years ago (I don't recall the name, but it was a great color..reminded me of an old Hot Wheels Spectraflame color..I think there was a darker version also)

Edited July 23, 2008 by moltar

[drew770]

Nice car but I am bored with the Camaro and it is not out yet. It was shown to early and it was in a summer blockbuster that millions saw. So I am over it.

But I have to say, I appauld GM for thinking out of the box with the interior. I am glad that simply didn't slap the Camaro with part bin crap and call it day.

[AAS]

Has the color palette been revealed yet? Besides the bright Starburst fruit chew colors, I'd love to see some more subtle color schemes... I'd like to see a dark metallic blue, a titanium gray, Enclave bronze, the CTS dark red, and that sharp, bright metallic lime-ish green that was on the Avalanche a few years ago (I don't recall the name, but it was a great color..reminded me of an old Hot Wheels Spectraflame color..I think there was a darker version also)

Camaro Colors

You can scroll to the bottom and click the different thumbnails. Most of the colors you are hoping for are there.

[Robert Hall]

Camaro Colors

You can scroll to the bottom and click the different thumbnails. Most of the colors you are hoping for are there.

Ah, nice... I haven't taken the time to explore the Chevy site yet. I like both the blues and the gray.

[The O.C.]

Agreed!

The radio and HVAC controls could be toned down a bit. Maybe it would look better if they weren't protruding so much... Otherwise, I really like the interior!

The center stack looks like a (Star Wars) Stormtrooper's helmet.....