OFFICIAL 2010 CAMARO STATS & SPECS released! 300hp / 422hp!

[mucker15]

Originally Posted by SHOWMAN

same here i just got a 06 Nissan frontier and when it's paid off ill be heading to the dealership to check one of these things out first hand. What model u think ur going to get ???

Got to be the SS want it in Black to match my 69 and the Trailblazer, Dont get the negativity on here, the mpg is pretty good for a monster like that.

[mucker15]

And I wouldn't take the 26mpg highway estimate too literally either considering that 2008 CTS owners with the SAME V6 powertrain and transmissions have been averaging close to 30mpg out in the real world, and the 2008 CTS 3.6DI is actually heavier than the V6 Camaro. [/quote]

My Trailblazer SS 2wd gets better MPG than was on the window sticker gets around 19 on the hwy, not that thats great but its a 400 hp heavy truck.

[wescoent]

Originally Posted by E. Haskell

Mustang Bullitt = ~3600lbs - 315hp/325lb-ft

Comparing the Mustang GT and Camaro SS....the Camaro has a stronger 6spd transmission, independent rear suspension, 122 more HP, bigger wheels (20" vs 17"), bigger tires (245 vs 235), bigger rotors (14" roters vs 12"), bigger calipers (4 piston vs 2 piston) and a bigger fuel tank (16 vs 19 gallon). ALL that stuff adds weight. It's also a much newer car with a new platform. Isn't the Mustang's D2C platform based on a platform that dates back to the '00 Lincoln LS???

Mustang GT coupe manual weighs 3400 lbs... in case you were wondering.

The lighter weight means it doesn't need fat tires, big horsepower, big brakes, and a bigger fuel tank. Less mass to move around, the smaller the instruments you need to make it stop and go.

As for the IRS... what can I say? Didn't seem to bother the road-racing Mustangs that handily beat M3's and 911's.

[5.3Avalanche]

Sweet, Heads up display!

[Saturn69]

Originally Posted by Olds88

Premium fuel. The Challenger R/T and Mustang GT burn regular.

I hope that premium recommended means premium purely optional, because if not, Dodge won my vote for a sale.

Why? With a 19 gallon tank at $3.84 for mid-grade (regular, not E10) it will cost $72.96 to fill. With premium at $3.99 it will cost $75.81 to fill. That's a difference of $2.85. These are Iowa prices, btw. If that's a problem, you probably shouldn't be looking at this car, and with the Challenger you'll be filling up more often since it averages 15.5 mpg to the Camaro's 21mpg. I think it's stupid to refuse to buy the Camaro because of an insiginificant price difference between regular and premium gas. On average, it's $1 more per 10 gallons. If money is that tight, you might want to consider a used car.

[kain01]

Before we start complaining about fuel effeciency, let's compare the three ponies shall we?

Chevrolet Camaro = V6 300 HP est 26 hwy/V8 422 HP est 23 hwy
Dodge Challenger = V6 (using charger's v6 numbers because they should be close) 17/24 epa/V8 425 HP 13/18 epa
Ford Mustang = V6 210 HP:17/26 epa/V8 300 HP 15/23 epa
Saleen S281 3V = V8 335 HP 12/18

So let's see, 100 more horses in the v6 and v8 compared to the mustang, but the same fuel numbers. Same HP numbers basically as the charger, but better fuel economy. Gee, wonder who wins this race. On a side note, anybody notice the l99 (400)/ls3 (422) on the SS? Why two engines? And where is the Z28 or the ZL1 since the SS only has 422 horses? Where's the LSA supercharged engine to spank the shelby?

[Saturn69]

Originally Posted by Olds88

I know the seat was meant to be small, but a similar sized car, the Challenger, offers better interior room. Its not a dealbreaker for me (The Avalanche has more interior room than just about anything) but it'd be nice to have the seat usable and not decorative. Its not moaning. I want to buy the GM, but GM's making it hard not to buy the Dodge, even if the Dodge isn't as quality of a product.

Well, if GM had skimped and built the Camaro on a full-size sedan platform, it would have a huge back seat, too. That's not what the Camaro has ever been about. It isn't a family car, per se. The Challenger isn't similar in size to the Camaro. The Camaro is 190" long, the Challenger is 197.7; the Camaro has a wheelbase of 112 inches to the Challengers 116. Close, but again, the Camaro is a coupe, the Challenger is a two-door sedan.

[SHOWMAN]

Originally Posted by kain01

Before we start complaining about fuel effeciency, let's compare the three ponies shall we?

Chevrolet Camaro = V6 300 HP est 26 hwy/V8 422 HP est 23 hwy
Dodge Challenger = V6 (using charger's v6 numbers because they should be close) 17/24 epa/V8 425 HP 13/18 epa
Ford Mustang = V6 210 HP:17/26 epa/V8 300 HP 15/23 epa
Saleen S281 3V = V8 335 HP 12/18

So let's see, 100 more horses in the v6 and v8 compared to the mustang, but the same fuel numbers. Same HP numbers basically as the charger, but better fuel economy. Gee, wonder who wins this race. On a side note, anybody notice the l99 (400)/ls3 (422) on the SS? Why two engines? And where is the Z28 or the ZL1 since the SS only has 422 horses? Where's the LSA supercharged engine to spank the shelby?

Im thinking a new ZL1 with the brute V8. I was wondering they are trying to keep this thing compatiable with the mustang and challenger so i dont think the prices will be that bad on the SS. It may be less than 35,000. So they can slip it right between the mustang challenger.

[SHOWMAN]

Originally Posted by mucker15

And I wouldn't take the 26mpg highway estimate too literally either considering that 2008 CTS owners with the SAME V6 powertrain and transmissions have been averaging close to 30mpg out in the real world, and the 2008 CTS 3.6DI is actually heavier than the V6 Camaro.

My Trailblazer SS 2wd gets better MPG than was on the window sticker gets around 19 on the hwy, not that thats great but its a 400 hp heavy truck.[/quote]

...............................yeh u know ur just helping my idea and case for that LT model rights lol

[Saturn69]

Originally Posted by blkwrxsti

BTW - the mustang returns 15/23 with a manual and a 4.6 while the challengers numbers aren't out yet. The G8 was embarrassing Charger SRT-8's (13/18 on premium), so I really don't expect a lighter Camaro SS with ~ 40 more hp to be compared to the lowly R/T. Gone are the days when people drove around in V-8 powered muscle cars because they sound cool. You're either happy with a V-6 (I doubt if it's much slower than a GT or an R/T), or you got to have the top of the line and gas isn't a problem because you only drive it 5,000 miles a year anyway.

Way to go GM!

The 2008 Challenger is rated at 13C/18H, same as a Charger SRT/8...which it basically is.

[mikest00]

Replying to I-Love-Pontiac continuous negative hate towards anyone who would even consider a Camaro.


Originally Posted by I-Love-Pontiac
You're right. And aside from GM fans and rednecks (which overlap for the most part) no one is interested in this car. GM needs to start doing things to bring in NEW customers. I don't get why that's so difficult for people to understand.

Originally Posted by New_Mexico_Sunset_on_Rt66

That's what happens when a generation of American males has been emasculated and brought up to believe that shaving your chest hair, shaving your pubes and getting pedicures is socially acceptable. Go find your balls and slap them on! This is a car for men, not boys.

Hahahahahahahaha! Perfectly put!!

Originally Posted by I-Love-Pontiac
Yay! More Horsepower! JUST WHAT WE NEEDED!

Originally Posted by Saturn69

If you're concerned with fuel economy, perhaps a hi-performance pony car isn't what you should be looking for. May I recommend a Prius Sport?

We can even put a spoiler on it for him!

[EllwynX]

Originally Posted by fenderbender

And by hood scoop I mean the air induction on the front. What happened to that?

That little scoop, from what I understand, is an SS only thing.

[E. Haskell]

Originally Posted by wescoent

Mustang GT coupe manual weighs 3400 lbs... in case you were wondering.

It's actually 3500lbs - only 360 lighter than a Camaro SS. Also note that the Camaro has better weight balance (52%/48% vs 54%/46%).

The lighter weight means it doesn't need fat tires, big horsepower, big brakes, and a bigger fuel tank. Less mass to move around, the smaller the instruments you need to make it stop and go.

Well since the Mustang doesn't need all that stuff - care to put any money on which car will get around the track faster?

As for the IRS... what can I say? Didn't seem to bother the road-racing Mustangs that handily beat M3's and 911's.

Surely you aren't comparing race cars to street cars. But who knows, maybe Ford has it right with a live axle and ALL other automakers are in the wrong for not seeing the benefits of the live axle.

[Saturn69]

Originally Posted by MaxLegroom

There is actually something of the sort. There is a Prius Touring that includes 16" wheels, and, if I recall correctly, a sport suspension of some sort. Failing that, there's a T(u)RD suspension kit for the Prius. After all, in your quest to save gas, you'll want to take corners a bit faster, believe me. Why accelerate more often than you have to?

Prius Touring, that's it. I thought it was 'Sport', which is kind of an oxymoron on a Prius. Did not know there was a TRD suspension package. That makes me giggle. You know how rice that is? To put a TRD package on a Prius? Oh my. I didn't know librarians drove that fast.

[syr74]

Originally Posted by E. Haskell

Does anyone honestly expect a BRAND NEW car with 422hp/408lb-ft and a price tag near $30k to weigh much less than 3860lbs?!?!? The car isn't priced at $70k so they can't use carbon fiber everywhere. GM is good, but they aren't exactly magical.

Lets check out the curb weights of some other cars:

EVO X MR = ~3600lbs - 291hp
G37 = ~3700lbs - 330hp/270lb-ft
M3 = ~3700lbs - 414hp/295lb-ft
335i = ~3600lbs - 300hp/300lb-ft
Genesis = ~3550lbs - ~300hp
Mustang Bullitt = ~3600lbs - 315hp/325lb-ft

Comparing the Mustang GT and Camaro SS....the Camaro has a stronger 6spd transmission, independent rear suspension, 122 more HP, bigger wheels (20" vs 17"), bigger tires (245 vs 235), bigger rotors (14" roters vs 12"), bigger calipers (4 piston vs 2 piston) and a bigger fuel tank (16 vs 19 gallon). ALL that stuff adds weight. It's also a much newer car with a new platform. Isn't the Mustang's D2C platform based on a platform that dates back to the '00 Lincoln LS???

Please, are you seriously comparing real world curb weights to factory released numbers, the latter of which which are almost always a little optimistic at least? And in this case we know from the relatively large difference between GM's G8 GT weight estimates and real world weight results for G8 GT sedans that GM is more than just a little optimistic when it comes to their large rwd cars. GM claims 3846lb for the G8 GT but, when rolled across a scale, the real number is typically around 100lb higher at least.

Even more, the real world number you are using for the Mustang is representative of a loaded coupe while the GM derived number you are using for the Camaro is based on an absolutely base offering with as few options as possible. The typical base Mustang coupe is about a 3500-3550lb (Ford claims 3483lb to start) car while the typical base Camaro coupe is more like going to be a 3900-3950lb car, and that with me giving GM more credit than the G8 GT indicates they deserve.....we wont know for certain until the first Camaro crosses the scales of a major auto rag. Still, it's no lightweight with the actual weight difference likely being close to 400lb or more rather than the 280lb you would like to suggest. And when you take into consideration the fact that the Camaro has a smaller back seat and a smaller trunk than the Mustang the Chevy's weight isn't overly impressive.

The 2011 Mustang GT gets the new 400+hp DOHC 5.0L V8, a six speed manual, standard 18" wheels, and improved brakes....all of which are going to add about 50lb to the mix which will still makes for a greater disparity in weight than you presented above.