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

[RamJet502]

Originally Posted by 2648562

It's a web video and my speakers suck, so I'm not going to put a lot of stock in it, but I don't like what I'm hearing. It just has a wimpy ZZ4 crate motor sounding idle to it. That's fixable though.

It must be your speakers, it sounds pretty mean for a stock exhaust system.

[TriShield]

Originally Posted by Beau

I disagree completely, and I think that GM would prefer to have my business rather than JUST the same old 10,000 people that caused the other halt in production and poor sales.

In fact GM stated that they wanted to cross a barrier with this one.
I don't care much for 2 valve v8s, you guys like the rumble, but I didn't grow up with that, so I don't enjoy it as much. It sounds good, I just don't like it as much as I like a nice DOHC 6. For instance, I believe my Supra is one of the top 5 cars with the best sound in the world ( single turbo of course, the stock twin makes a different bellow ).

Uh, GM stopped production on this car to divert more resources into building more SUVs at the time. The backlash and subsequent explosion of the Mustang showed they made a grave mistake by letting the car whither without further refinement and a redesign.

Also, if you like the Supra's six then I have no idea why you think the 3.6L will be comparable because it isn't. It's nowhere near as sublime. Good luck on that turbo kit thing, the V8s will be running rings around it and will have had less money invested in the end.

This car is not about righting the wrongs made to the Camaro and Chevrolet fold as a whole, it's about resurrecting and introducing an entirely new generation to the muscle car by making one of the best examples out there.

[YSSMAN]

I can't fault GM on anything, really. I mean, there are some things that are missing (in my opinion):

- Where is the 2.0T base model? I have to admit that this version had me most-excited, not just because it would be cheap, but because it would weigh next to nothing and likely handle better as well. I'll see what the future holds, I'm still under the assumption we'll be getting one.

- No V8 option on the LT model? I would have thought handing out a "base" L76-powered model would have been a good idea... But I guess I was wrong.

===

Nevertheless, I'm looking forward to seeing the car in August on Woodward, and hopefully here in Grand Rapids at the Berger show as well...

[eb110americana]

Originally Posted by Olds88

If all it is that regular gets you less HP then I'm on board. But I fear that regular just isn't an option on this car. I don't think I'm alone in thinking this way either. Lots of customers will walk in see premium and run to Ford or Dodge.

I'm pretty sure you can run regular for a small peak HP loss if you want. Usually it's only boosted engines that can't digest regular nowadays. NA motors can retard the timing sufficiently with sensitive knock sensors before anything happens.

I still think that's a rather foolish way to choose a car though. Assuming you drive 13,000mi per year (and because it's a performance car, many won't drive that much), you average 20 mpg, and the spread between regular and premium is 20 cents, you'd spend an additional $130 per year on gas using premium--or less than $11 per month!

(13,000mi / 20mpg) x $0.20 = $130

Even in the worst case scenario, if you drive 15,000mi per year and somehow average 15 mpg, and the spread between regular and premium has climbed to 40 cents, you'd only spend an additional $400 per year on gas using premium--or about $33.33 per month.

(15,000mi / 15mpg) x $0.40 = $400


I do agree that fuel economy is important though. Let's face it, this is an affordable, youthful car. It's not going to be selling to guys with power ties and executive jets. That 19 gallon gas tank now costs about $90 to fill up in LA, and may very well crest $100 before the car is available for all we know. If you conservatively fill up twice a month, that's $2400 in gas per year--not exactly chump change when it costs 10% of the price of the car in gas to run it each year.

[jbartley]

Originally Posted by I-Love-Pontiac

28 MPG is the figure AFTER being adjusted for the tougher standards. The Camaro 3800 had 31 MPG on the sticker.

So yeah. They should be compared. If GM can get 28 MPG out of a 60 year old engine, they should be able to get AT LEAST the same from a "modern" DOHC VVT V6. But apparently they can't. Freakin losers.

go ahead and remove all the new technology and safety features. i'm sure it'll get better gas mileage then...

[chickenkicker]

I so wish I could afford one of these, if I hadn't gotten hit with all the financial crap I have lately I'd be all over an orange SS.

Originally Posted by 91Saturn

You might not be exactly "alone" in thinking that way, but I'll bet that you're a bit lonely. What is the difference in price between regular and premium where you live? Maybe $0.30 per gallon? How many gallons will your Camaro burn per year? 500, maybe? You're talking about like $150 per year. Not too many folks buying $30,000 cars are going to lose any sleep over $150. If they're that budget-minded, they'd probably be buying the V6 (which does use regular).

Around here premium is $0.20 more than regular so the difference would be only $100 more per year, or ~$8.33 a month which if you an afford the car is nothing. Honestly premium was a bigger deal when gas was cheap than it is now, all the stations around here that used to charge 30-40cents more for premium have lowered the difference to just 20 cents, one is just 17 cents more than regular but it's kind of far. When gas is $4.35 for regular premium is just ~4.5% more, it's really not a big deal. i still put premium in my LT1 and I always will, it will never see a drop of regular.

[sigma]

Originally Posted by jbartley

go ahead and remove all the new technology and safety features. i'm sure it'll get better gas mileage then...

Not to mention the fact that the 3.6LVVT is putting out close to 50% more bHP than the 3800 ever dreamed off on a platform that will actually pass crash testing standards (the 4th gen F-Body's were death traps which was one of the main reasons the insurance on them is so expensive).

[BigAls87Z28]

Actually, 4th gen as well as the third gens were very strong cars. The A pillar was too close to the drivers head due to the rake of the windshield, and would not have passed post 2002 crash tests.
Thats why GM did not invest past 2002.

[1931Chevy]

Not that its in the same class as the Mustang, supposedly, but its V6 is on par with the GT's V8, thats embarrassing. What's even more embarrassing is that the G8 GT would practically walk all over the Charger SRT-8, and the Challenger weighs just as much if not more as the Charger. So considering that the Camaro comes in at under what the G8 weighs, the Camaro should be quicker than the Challenger SRT-8 as well. So nothing like stomping the competition. My only fear would concern the 2010 Mustang, and what Ford has up its sleeve.

well considering that the Mustang is on the end of the current cycle, I wouldnt say its embarrasing my 1990 Chevy 350 engine its at not more than 200hp and the Camaro weight is not to be so proud of it , in LT trim with the v6 and manual it starts at 3741 and in SS mode its at 3913 with Auto vs the G8 that its at 3946.

IF Ford is not able to get the new engines on the 2010 Mustang by the time of the launch it will loose sales, but if the new engine make it at launch in v6 mode the Mustang and Camaro will be on par at 300 but guess wich one will be lighter, and on the v8 it will be the 5.0 400hp but again guess wich one will be lighter considering the current mustang weight in v6 with Manual at 3350 and in v8 with Automatic at 3525 and GT 500 at 3920 so Mustang and Camaro will be a good match this time

[crazyjkz]

Kudos for GM throwing the absolute BEST V6 powerplant that they had in their stable into the new base V6 Camaro. I remember when the early rumors came out nearly a year ago for the upcoming Camaro that the V6 model would use the 3900 and I was cringing reading it along with many other readers. And although the non-DI 3.6HF was predicted as the powerplant for a possible performance V6 model the 3.6HF DI with 300hp is a VERY pleasant surprise as is the lack of a wimpy/outdated 3500/3900 pushrod V6 base model. It seems as though GM is FINALLY beginning to understand what buyers want and expect out of a current V6-powered vehicle as we see the outdated/unrefined 3500/3900 OHV V6's being gradually phased out by the far better 3.6HF non-DI/DI V6s. Now V6 fans like myself can actually consider buying a V6 Camaro with some serious performance guts and not have to worry about being smoked by the 270hp V6 Camrys/Altimas/Accords out there.

With a very impressive 300hp output from the DI VVT 3.6 motor along with the 6 speed-only auto/manual transmissions the V6 Camaro should make for an excellent competitor to high-output DOHC V6 import coupes such as the G35/G37 coupe, Accord V6 coupe, Altima V6 coupe, Hyundai Genesis V6 coupe, etc. whereas an anemic and outdated 3500/3900-equipped V6 Camaro wouldn't stand a chance against those new powerful V6 competitors, not to mention clearly smoking the V6 Mustang(and that includes the upcoming 3.5 Duratec-powered V6 Mustang as well).

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.

[91Saturn]

Originally Posted by crazyjkz

Kudos for GM throwing the absolute BEST V6 powerplant that they had in their stable into the new base V6 Camaro. I remember when the early rumors came out nearly a year ago for the upcoming Camaro that the V6 model would use the 3900 and I was cringing reading it along with many other readers. And although the non-DI 3.6HF was predicted as the powerplant for a possible performance V6 model the 3.6HF DI with 300hp is a VERY pleasant surprise as is the lack of a wimpy/outdated 3500/3900 pushrod V6 base model. It seems as though GM is FINALLY beginning to understand what buyers want and expect out of a current V6-powered vehicle as we see the outdated/unrefined 3500/3900 OHV V6's being gradually phased out by the far better 3.6HF non-DI/DI V6s. Now V6 fans like myself can actually consider buying a V6 Camaro with some serious performance guts and not have to worry about being smoked by the 270hp V6 Camrys/Altimas/Accords out there.

Very well said. GM's use of the 3.6 DI as the base V6 is a stroke of genius. They're putting the car-buying public (not to mention their competitors) on notice that they mean business with this car.

[Col Klink]

Originally Posted by blank disk

Wow, nearly 4000lbs for the SS.

That's gonna hurt a bit.

Looks great.
Kudos GM

Agree on both counts looks great want one -
-but yeah only 26kg lighter than a SS V Commodore -
oh well just send me a Cyber Grey SS
- now whos going to make some blue led lit Camaro sill plates, and move those reversing lights

[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???

[eaton53]

Originally Posted by 91Saturn

Very well said. GM's use of the 3.6 DI as the base V6 is a stroke of genius. They're putting the car-buying public (not to mention their competitors) on notice that they mean business with this car.

They've also finally wised up and made the 3.6 the corporate V6 instead of having multitudes of different engines and not getting economies of scale out of any of them.

[Mikkoo]

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???

Exactly. All of these add'l goodies add weight. I was really pleased to see that the new
Camaro has much more studier looking seats. Not the flimsy ones that my 2000 Z28 had.
Just another example of why the Camaro is not a light weight.