Camaro LS manual & 2SS RS manual

[Jamo]

I hit the 2SS RS manual on the second dealer. The first offered to let me drive a SS automatic, but I wasn't interested. I did drive his Cobalt SS, however.

I had already driven the LS last friday, and loved it. I particularly love the wheels only on the LS. They are reminescent of the '60's rally wheels, though not exactly. The color of that wheel and Cyber Grey Metallic w/silver center stripes would be hard to beat. Maybe the Aqua Blue. Or Light Metallic Silver.

The V-8, and the V-6 for that matter, drive more like an original Camaro than the intermediate years models do. It's something about the shape of the hood and the suspension and weight, though I'd of preferred a slightly higher fender profile. Hard to put your finger on, but you know it's a Camaro. I felt plenty of acceleration and power with the V-6 and the shifting action was great.

The 18" Rims on the V-6 are better over rail road tracks than the V-8 was. Lighter engine and bigger tires. I don't know the effect on handling from a testdrive, but my Camaro probably would not be on the race track anyway. I don't hardly know what understear feels like.

The SS was a definate thrill and one of automobiledoms greatest pleasures. When all the rationalle has been sifted and the V-6 makes so much more sense and is such a great car, still, nothing matches that V-8 power and feel. It drives just like a '60s muscle car, only better. A great pleasure.

I'll be getting the V-6 LS, either Aqua Blue or Metallic Grey. Or Silver. The pricing structure is tilted in its favor. You get so much with that car. Did you know that you get a [i]free limited slip differential[i] with the manual transmission! That's what I'm talk'n about! That was my number ONE complaint with General Motors for the last 30 years and now they've done something about it. And you get all that stabilization and anti skid for the winter that you used to have to pay a fortune for in the Corvette. Standard! For free!

It drives great, just like pony car. I think that first Z-28 made 300 hp from a 327. This makes 306 and is the latest thing in every way. You cannot really use 426 horsepower below 110 mph, except in a drag race. It's the torque, and torque is multiplied by the gearing.

Then the upgraded radios on the more expensive models aren't appealing to me. The rear seat is too small. The interior is very nice, the base upholstery is very nice, the leather is very nice. No gripes about the interior from me. Well, the ignition should have been on the dash instead of the steering column like it was on the '67s, and the parking brake lever is awkwardly placed on the passenger's side of the console and it's overly intrusive, which is all bad, but that's it.

The large number of styling alternatives is straight out of Harley Davisdon's playbook. There are so many different combinations. I don't care so much for the Hockey Stick Decals or the high spoiler, but to each his own. There was a black w/silver Hockey Stick and the $4,500 21" dark wheels that was really, really wild, but you'd have to speak spanish, though I do. All the wheels look great, I think I've seen them all, but the LS's look best.

The optional additional fascia and speed skirt is not color matched? THat is a bummer.

The dealers were mentioning some Market Price Adjustments of various thousands of dollars, but I'm not buy'n it. THere were several Camaros at every dealer and most of them were not spoken for. In the spring I'll get mine for invoice + $400, or less. Count on it. And maybe the Chicago Auto Show $500 rebate, if they're doing that.

I GOT to get me one of those!

[AirCleaner]

What did you think of that dashboard ?

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by AirCleaner

What did you think of that dashboard ?

Apart from the radio, I liked it. Pretty cute. I would have gone farther with it in terms of the radio dials are kind of puny and the ignition location, like I said, but the odo and tach look like the old ones and are nice. So are the gauges.

I'm niot much of a GPS Nav or GM's Navistar, or what ever it is, but ther were some things you could do with that system, too. It had a lot of tricks with the mpg, miles left in tank, individual tire pressure, nice stuff.

Personally, my ideal interior would be more retro, with parchment vinyl upholstry.

[Tone]

Originally Posted by Jamo

It drives great, just like pony car. I think that first Z-28 made 300 hp from a 327. This makes 306 and is the latest thing in every way. You cannot really use 426 horsepower below 110 mph, except in a drag race. It's the torque, and torque is multiplied by the gearing.

Actually, the first Z/28s used a 302 (327 block with 283 crank, I believe) rated at 290 gross hp. Apparently they were underrated ... but then net horsepower would have been lower.

Tests of the v6 are showing 14 second quarters, with 0 - 60 in less than 6 seconds. That would have given a lot of old-school muscle/pony cars a serious run for their money.

Going back to the original car -- it needed steep gears for strong acceleration (low-end torque wasn't the 302's forte) -- IIRC, it was a high 14 second car with stock 3:73s, meaning the new v6 would actually be quicker in a sprint (and get vastly better MPG)!

[JBsZ06]

My first car was a 69 firebird with a 350 V8 and I'm not quite sure it was as fast todays V6 camaro with either the automatic or the stick shift.

The V6 with 304 hp in my CTS which is a little heavier than the camaro V6 and the CTS is more than fast enough.....(and almost twice the price) Can't go wrong with the V6 camaro although I personally would drop the cash for the SS for 31 grand...

No other options necessary IMO

Good luck deciding...and all I can say is the base V6 304 hp Camaro for 23 or 24 grand is a smokin deal.. almost as good a deal as the 31 grand Camaro SS with 426hp..

Pick your poison and enjoy.

JB

[Jamo]

Just for comparison's sake:

302 ci = 4.9L 1967 Z-28
220 ci = 3.6L 2010 LS

396 ci = 6.5L 1969 SS
378 ci = 6.2L 2010 SS

[red_rider]

Originally Posted by Jamo

Just for comparison's sake:

302 ci = 4.9L 1967 Z-28
220 ci = 3.6L 2010 LS

Displacement comparisons mean much less when one of the engines is xohc and one isn't, because adding xohc is essentially like adding displacement, from a power/weight perspective. The real valuable comparison should be with hp and mpg if nothing else.

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by red_rider

...adding xohc is essentially like adding displacement, from a power/weight perspective. ....

How's that?

[JBsZ06]

that 69 302 didn't make the horsepower or torque of todays 3.6 liter V6 with direct injection..

The hp rating back then were gross rating...not net ratings like today.

Both great powerplants ..both great cars..

My personal favorite right now is the L99 with 400hp and a six speed automatic trans..

Nice combo although the LS3 with 426 hp and a stick shift would be a blast too..

Can't go wrong with the 304 hp 3.6 liter motor for the money but the v8 would get my vote if it were my money...

[red_rider]

Originally Posted by Jamo

How's that?

Mainly the heavier heads and other parts that go along with it. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean anything bad about the 3.6 or whatnot.

[solman98]

I'd have to agree, if I was looking into a Camaro I'd look for the V6 manual. The V8's would be nice, but not needed in my daily commute.

[Eric77TA]

Originally Posted by JBsZ06

My first car was a 69 firebird with a 350 V8 and I'm not quite sure it was as fast todays V6 camaro with either the automatic or the stick shift.

I highly doubt it. The top 1969 Firebird engine, the 400 Ram Air IV (355 horse, 430 tq.) ran 0-60 in 6.3 and the 1/4 in 14.1 sec @ 101 mph. Very close to the Camaro V6 times.

The 350 2bbl was rated at 265 horses and 355 pound feet and the relatively rare 350 4bbl HO at 320/380. So even the top 350 would have been down 35 horses and 50 lb ft. vs. a Ram Air IV. So if the Ram Air IV is right with the Camaro, I'd guess the V6 will walk the 350s.

Other than the HOs, moost Pontiac 350s aren't the best performance motors (at least stock). My first car was a 1971 LeMans with a 350 and it was torquey, but not especially fast.

[JBsZ06]

Originally Posted by Eric77TA

I highly doubt it. The top 1969 Firebird engine, the 400 Ram Air IV (355 horse, 430 tq.) ran 0-60 in 6.3 and the 1/4 in 14.1 sec @ 101 mph. Very close to the Camaro V6 times.

The 350 2bbl was rated at 265 horses and 355 pound feet and the relatively rare 350 4bbl HO at 320/380. So even the top 350 would have been down 35 horses and 50 lb ft. vs. a Ram Air IV. So if the Ram Air IV is right with the Camaro, I'd guess the V6 will walk the 350s.

Other than the HOs, moost Pontiac 350s aren't the best performance motors (at least stock). My first car was a 1971 LeMans with a 350 and it was torquey, but not especially fast.

My point was the 3.6 liter 300 hp v6 camaro is every bit the performance car of the late 60's ...

I had a worked 350 firebird convertible and it was a great ride. There is no question the new v6 camaro would equal or surpass the performance of those vehicles...

HTH

JB

[Jamo]

It would be nice if you could take off the Cat-cons and pull out the air bags and buzzers. Better throttle response and some weight savings, and much less annoying.

By the way, are the two Camaro engines aluminium with aluminium heads?