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

[wescoent]

Originally Posted by E. Haskell

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%).

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

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.

Depends on the track, depends on the powertrains involved. We're still waiting on official powertrain numbers for the '10 model.

The Mustang race car is virtually identical to the street car, with the exception of the engine. 5.0L, 400hp, versus 4.6L, 300hp on the street.

SRA is lighter and cheaper than IRS. Ride quality from the SRA is inferior, but I thought we were talking about performance, and not coddling your posterior on Woodward Ave? Corvette uses leaf springs, from what I recall.

[SigEpCutlass]

I noticed that the manual trans EPA #'s aren't on the spec sheet. My guess is that GM is still messing with the FDR to increase the HWY MPG's! Come on GM, if the LS3 in a Vette gets 27mpg on the highway with the tougher standards, the Camaro should be able to get about 25!!! Please GM get this right!!!

[mikest00]

Originally Posted by Saturn69

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.

Of course that suspension package is needed. Got to get to that "alternative lifestyle" bar before apple martini hour is over.

[jbartley]

has everyone seen the pics with the led-piping lighting? a la cts? wicked!!

if you look closely at the HVAC controls, it looks like there are two seperate HVAC controls (not only temp, but zone, etc) never seen that on a chevy.

[SHOWMAN]

Originally Posted by SigEpCutlass

I noticed that the manual trans EPA #'s aren't on the spec sheet. My guess is that GM is still messing with the FDR to increase the HWY MPG's! Come on GM, if the LS3 in a Vette gets 27mpg on the highway with the tougher standards, the Camaro should be able to get about 25!!! Please GM get this right!!!

i didnt see that for the V6 either only for the tapshift models huh maybe they are working on things

[syr74]

Originally Posted by E. Haskell

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

I don't understand the continuing fascination with comparing new GM product to lame duck competitors models among GM enthusiasts? The Camaro will never compete head to head with the existing Mustang design since that car will be gone by the end of this calender year making way for an early intro of the heavily revised 2010MY car. Roughly one year after that the Mustang adopts the new 400+hp 5.0L V8 and a six speed manual tranny. This gives the Camaro less than one year of head to head competition against the 4.6L Mustang, which makes any comparison against the same more than a little short sighted. But since that terms also appears to aptly describe GM's strategy for this new car I supposed that means GM enthusiasts are in lock step with their favorite brand?

As for the upcoming 400+hp GT. Specs looks like this....

5.0L DOHC V8 producing 400-425hp and 365-385lb-ft of torque

6-speed manual

as yet unknown specs for revised suspension and brakes (suspension similar to the GT500 goodies with improvements)

base curb weight: ~3550lb (or less)

Care to put any money on who is going to be faster around a road course?

[SHOWMAN]

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.


I think maybe his name says it all. He love's pontiac but i do remember the trans am being a noticable Redneck ride back in the 80's and late 70's. I mean he must not remember Smokey & the Bandit.

[mikest00]

Originally Posted by SHOWMAN

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.


I think maybe his name says it all. He love's pontiac but i do remember the trans am being a noticable Redneck ride back in the 80's and late 70's. I mean he must not remember Smokey & the Bandit.

Exactly. And that thing slapping him in the face when his T-tops where off was his mullet.

[E. Haskell]

Originally Posted by syr74

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?

Why does it matter as long as I'm comparing Ford factory numbers to GM factory numbers?

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.

Are you high? GM rates the G8 GT at 3995lbs. 3946lbs could very well be true depending on the options, the scale, and added fluids.

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.

What real world number am I using for the Mustang? Ford list the base model Mustang GT at something like 3495lbs. Do you think that isn't the base model? Get a clue.

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,

Well what the hell is your point? Using factory numbers or your supposed "real world" numbers, the difference in weight is still about the same.

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.

Whoa, hold your horses. Where did I say 280lbs? Maybe you didn't take the time to read what I wrote. I used the curb weight of the Mustang Bullitt. Go read it again.

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.

Obviously the high points of buying a performance car.

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.

Talk is cheap. Let me know when it gets here. We all know how these 2 years before the fact estimates can be way off.

[dratnol]

Originally Posted by mikest00

Exactly. And that thing slapping him in the face when his T-tops where off was his mullet.

I sure am glad you hold yourself to a higher standard and not call people names (you know, the same thing you were critizing I-Love-Pontiac for).

[E. Haskell]

Originally Posted by syr74

I don't understand the continuing fascination with comparing new GM product to lame duck competitors models among GM enthusiasts?

I still don't understand the continuing fascination with comparing the curb weight of new GM vehicles to vehicles that are 4 years old and based on platforms that date back to '00.

The Camaro will never compete head to head with the existing Mustang design since that car will be gone by the end of this calender year making way for an early intro of the heavily revised 2010MY car.

Well then, stop trying to say the Camaro is heavy. Wait until Ford releases the specs for the 2010MY car and then we'll talk about weight.

As for the upcoming 400+hp GT. Specs looks like this....

5.0L DOHC V8 producing 400-425hp and 365-385lb-ft of torque

6-speed manual

as yet unknown specs for revised suspension and brakes (suspension similar to the GT500 goodies with improvements)

base curb weight: ~3550lb (or less)

Care to put any money on who is going to be faster around a road course?

Don't give me any of this guesstimate sh**. It's pointless.

[wescoent]

Originally Posted by E. Haskell

1) Why does it matter as long as I'm comparing Ford factory numbers to GM factory numbers?

2) Obviously the high points of buying a performance car.

3) Talk is cheap. Let me know when it gets here. We all know how these 2 years before the fact estimates can be way off.

1) Let's stick with factory numbers, I agree. The great equalizer.

2) The Camaro's practicality issues (back seat, trunk) further reinforces in mind that GM is walking down the same deadly path it did in 1993. Cartoonish looks, raw performance, and minimal practical use, which turn off the female buyers the car needs to survive.

3) Talk is cheap. I remain convinced the current Mustang GT will easily hang with the Camaro SS on a curvy roadcourse, in spite of being a nearly 4 year old design, with an inferior suspension.

[mikest00]

Originally Posted by dratnol

I sure am glad you hold yourself to a higher standard and not call people names (you know, the same thing you were critizing I-Love-Pontiac for).

There was name calling in there? Please point it out for me. That was poking fun at the redneck remark. Get it.....mullet...redneck...they kinda go together.......Need a visual? Lighten up...don't be so serious. It's all good.....

[E. Haskell]

Originally Posted by wescoent

Depends on the track, depends on the powertrains involved. We're still waiting on official powertrain numbers for the '10 model.

You said:

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.

You didn't say anything about waiting on future models.

The Mustang race car is virtually identical to the street car, with the exception of the engine. 5.0L, 400hp, versus 4.6L, 300hp on the street.

You don't know what you're talking about.

SRA is lighter and cheaper than IRS. Ride quality from the SRA is inferior, but I thought we were talking about performance, and not coddling your posterior on Woodward Ave? Corvette uses leaf springs, from what I recall.

We are talking performance. Does the Corvette use IRS - yes or no? Do any other performance cars use a live axle? Like I said, maybe Ford has it right and everyone else is wrong?

[E. Haskell]

Originally Posted by wescoent

2) The Camaro's practicality issues (back seat, trunk) further reinforces in mind that GM is walking down the same deadly path it did in 1993. Cartoonish looks, raw performance, and minimal practical use, which turn off the female buyers the car needs to survive.

1. Looks are subjective. 2. You make it sound like the Camaro is a clown car.

3) Talk is cheap. I remain convinced the current Mustang GT will easily hang with the Camaro SS on a curvy roadcourse, in spite of being a nearly 4 year old design, with an inferior suspension.

Don't be silly.