Corvette's little sister 2010 Camaro Final
07-23-2008, 05:00 PM
#41
Team Owner
Looks good, I think it will do well against the other retro pony cars.
07-23-2008, 05:04 PM
#42
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Feb 2008
Location: S.F. Bay Area CA.
Posts: 5,188
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
I know, why don't you contact a moderator and have them kill this thread it for us. 
07-23-2008, 05:26 PM
#46
Safety Car
Member Since: Jun 2006
Location: Fort Lauderdale FL
Posts: 3,603
Received 87 Likes
on
37 Posts
2020 C6 of the Year Finalist - Unmodified
It is new models such as the Camaro that will help GM stay around, and that means our Corvette's will be here for us to enjoy. They have got the message and I'll bet we will see some pretty innovative models coming in the next couple years. GM is here to stay, and I'll park one of these new Camaro SS's right next to my two Corvettes as soon as I can get one.
07-23-2008, 05:27 PM
#47
Instructor
Member Since: Jan 2008
Location: Fort Smith, Arkansas
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07-23-2008, 05:39 PM
#49
Pro
Member Since: Jan 2006
Location: Waukegan IL
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
St. Jude Donor '07
I like it. Also like that it has its own unique steering wheel. GM should do the same with corvettes. I own an 05 and I know my steering wheel is bigger than later vette years but I like knowing my steering wheel is not the same as a cobalt and other GM cars out there.
07-23-2008, 05:48 PM
#52
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Apr 2006
Location: The Beautiful Inland Empire WA.
Posts: 5,933
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
7 Posts
The tailights look like they are 1/2 asleep.........utt buggly in my opinion, and the rest of the car just looks "thick", not sleek at all. I wonder what trying to look over the hood would be like as well...not for me.
07-23-2008, 05:48 PM
#53
Instructor
Member Since: May 2008
Location: PNW
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The body is okay I guess, but doesn't do it for me. If they are trying to compete with the Charger the Camaro will win because the Charger is one f'ed up fugly arsed automobile. 
The interior is terrible. The gauges in front of the shifter seem all but useless to me. Who wants to glance all the way down there for engine information?
The interior is terrible. The gauges in front of the shifter seem all but useless to me. Who wants to glance all the way down there for engine information?
07-23-2008, 05:59 PM
#56
Melting Slicks
I think it looks just as good as the new Mustang and new Challenger. They all did a good job of capturing the "retro" in a modern skin. I believe the bulky look to them all is partly due to certain modern requirments / limitations. This is 2008, not 1968.
The Mustang GT loses in my opinion because it has a small V8 and is pretty heavy. The Camaro and Challenger have truly appropriate engines and will surely deliver a low-end thrust that the Mustang cannot. Sorry Ford, 4.6 liters is just not enough for correct musclecar feel, regardless of quarter mile times etc.
It will be interesting to see how the Camaro and Challenger feel and perform. They do look big, but hey, we're all used to our tiny 2-seater C6s, so... any other "musclecar" is going to seem big.... but that's a GOOD thing if you want to carry more than two people and do it safely.
So, between the Camaro and Challenger... I've always had a soft spot for Mopar, especially back in the day, but I'm thinking the Camaro may be less expensive for a similarly packaged vehicle, and that alone may make Camaro the winner.
My wife currently has a Mustang GT but badly wants a new Challenger or Camaro... and because she beats the daylights out of cars in my opinion (lots of stop and go traffic, parking at the mall, etc), I'm going to push her toward the one that is cheaper.
Our 2004 Stang GT..... yeah, it moves if you flat out floor it, but the low-mid torque just isn't there when driving around in a normal legal manner, at least compared to a larger V8 set-up. 281 cubic inches... sorry, just not enough. It's a good little car for scooting around, but it doesn't suck you back into the seat unless you pound on it... not good.
The C6 by comparison can suck you back into the seat any time, almost any rpm, etc. I hope / expect the Camaro to be at least somewhere inbetween, and closer to the Vette. If so, and if it's not overly expensive, I think the Camaro will be the car to have.
The Mustang GT loses in my opinion because it has a small V8 and is pretty heavy. The Camaro and Challenger have truly appropriate engines and will surely deliver a low-end thrust that the Mustang cannot. Sorry Ford, 4.6 liters is just not enough for correct musclecar feel, regardless of quarter mile times etc.
It will be interesting to see how the Camaro and Challenger feel and perform. They do look big, but hey, we're all used to our tiny 2-seater C6s, so... any other "musclecar" is going to seem big.... but that's a GOOD thing if you want to carry more than two people and do it safely.
So, between the Camaro and Challenger... I've always had a soft spot for Mopar, especially back in the day, but I'm thinking the Camaro may be less expensive for a similarly packaged vehicle, and that alone may make Camaro the winner.
My wife currently has a Mustang GT but badly wants a new Challenger or Camaro... and because she beats the daylights out of cars in my opinion (lots of stop and go traffic, parking at the mall, etc), I'm going to push her toward the one that is cheaper.
Our 2004 Stang GT..... yeah, it moves if you flat out floor it, but the low-mid torque just isn't there when driving around in a normal legal manner, at least compared to a larger V8 set-up. 281 cubic inches... sorry, just not enough. It's a good little car for scooting around, but it doesn't suck you back into the seat unless you pound on it... not good.
The C6 by comparison can suck you back into the seat any time, almost any rpm, etc. I hope / expect the Camaro to be at least somewhere inbetween, and closer to the Vette. If so, and if it's not overly expensive, I think the Camaro will be the car to have.
07-23-2008, 06:00 PM
#57
Former Vendor
Member Since: Nov 2007
Location: Port Orange Florida www.atomicautostore.com
Posts: 2,386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for posting....I am very interested in the Z28 version. I hear it may have a LS9 in it..Not sure if its true but would be happy if it were. There are a couple of things I am not in love with but I can always change them later. My second car was a 67 and then a 68, always wanted one since then but never liked any of the models after 69.
07-23-2008, 06:07 PM
#59
Burning Brakes
Former '67 owner . . . the gages in the forward position on the console are part of the retro look. Like or not, that's the way it was in the mid to late 60's when these babies first hit the street.
This model probably has the 300 HP V6. Sport Coupes, if they make one, and Ralley Sports were traditionally not the hot rods, the SS and Z/28 badges indicated muscle.
It looks thick, because Chevy took their styling queue from the 1969 model. They looked thick as well. Everything looked thick in the 60's when compared with today's cars. I'll bet they're trying to get the baby boomers to come take a look. All those guys that "had one" in high school.
Red is not the right color for this car . . . IMHO.
Interior looks pretty good. Remember when there were color coordinated interiors? Cost's too much to do that these days.
I wouldn't be too critical until you see it in the "flesh". Pictures sometimes do not reveal a sense of proportion the way standing next to the car does.
This model probably has the 300 HP V6. Sport Coupes, if they make one, and Ralley Sports were traditionally not the hot rods, the SS and Z/28 badges indicated muscle.
It looks thick, because Chevy took their styling queue from the 1969 model. They looked thick as well. Everything looked thick in the 60's when compared with today's cars. I'll bet they're trying to get the baby boomers to come take a look. All those guys that "had one" in high school.
Red is not the right color for this car . . . IMHO.
Interior looks pretty good. Remember when there were color coordinated interiors? Cost's too much to do that these days.
I wouldn't be too critical until you see it in the "flesh". Pictures sometimes do not reveal a sense of proportion the way standing next to the car does.
07-23-2008, 06:15 PM
#60
Team Owner
I like the outside OK, but not great. The inside sucks pretty bad though. I'd have to go with a Challenger over that. The Challenger interior looks like a serious interior, not some video game thing.