Personally, I think it doesnt flow at all, I think they could of done a WAY better job on it.peyotesands said:I actually think the SSR looks nice. One of GMs better efforts, however, the price tag is typical GM gayness.
jadesville said:Personally, I think it doesnt flow at all, I think they could of done a WAY better job on it.
ryanrule said:that car is NOT the new camaro. it was jsut a render from some kid that was based off a FERRARI body. thats why it looks so good.
You mean the RS headlight covers. The Z/28 option did not have covered headlights in 67-69, you had to add the RS (Rally Sport) option for the covered headlamps. Know your enemy.....if they want that to be successful they'll have to lose those gawd awful headlights.. Z-28 covers will help it.
Boy, you need to get out a bit more....My stepdad's 2001 C5 M6 convertible makes 350 h.p., runs low 13's, and on the freeway with the A/C cranking the onboard computer reads a steady 31-32 mpg with the cruise set on 80 mph. Ford's performance engines have lagged WAY WAY behind GM's in the area of fuel efficiency vs. horsepower, especially since the introduction of the LT1 in 1993. The LT1, LS1 and LS4 were/are all extremely good on gas, especially when you factor the big horsepower they make. We all know from experience that the Ford modular V8 is a gas hog for the power it makes, especially the 4-valve Cobra mills, both n/a and s/c versions just gobble the gas. Here's a snippet from an article on the new C6:what does 375hp equate in MPG? 12-15? Mustang will have nothing to fear and the Camaro will once again DIE. There is such a thing as too much HP.
When you use technology to reduce friction, improve air flow, and improve fuel atomization, it all adds up to increased efficiency, allowing you to add horsepower without sacrificing mileage. I give alot of respect to GM's engineers for the work they've done with the OHV V-8, it's flat amazing what they can get out of them naturally aspirated, while retaining good mileage and clean EPA standards, despite the huge displacement and big torque.Under that long hood is a new 6.0-liter all-aluminum V8 engine that makes 400 horsepower and 400 foot-pounds of torque, each of them peaking 400 rpm sooner on the tachometer so you don't have to rev the engine so high and so hard to go really, really fast. And the engine burns cleaner than before with better fuel mileage. Chevrolet says that their 400-horsepower baby will get an honest, repeatable, normal 30 miles per gallon in sixth gear at highway cruising speeds as a result of aerodynamic and rolling resistance improvements as well as reduced engine internal friction.
My favorite Camaro was the 70 1/2 Z/28 RS split-bumper. I'll take a silver one with black stripes, and an LT-1 4-speed please!
jgum said:Have to tell you guys, I like this version a whole lot better!
peyotesands said:what does 375hp equate in MPG? 12-15? Mustang will have nothing to fear and the Camaro will once again DIE. There is such a thing as too much HP.
SVTdriver said:Have you seen the HR (I think that is the name) concept. Looks like a retro version of the old suburban. Maybe Bob Lutz is having second thoughts on his stance against retro designs.
Z28x said:Hmm... I never thought about that, did some one slip the HHR under the Lutz radar? I agree with Lutz on the non-retro, but what the next GTO and next Camaro need is a modern design with past styling ques. The best example of what I mean is the 1994 Mustang. It was a fresh design that didn't copy any other Stang, yet is had styling traits like tail lights and side scoops that let you know it was a Mustang. I think the C5 and C6 followed this formula well too.
SVTdriver said:I don't know if they slipped it in under the radar or not. But personally, it and the SSR are vying for the ugliest car I've ever seen award. Currently held by the Aztec.
Z28x said:I mean is the 1994 Mustang. It was a fresh design that didn't copy any other Stang, yet is had styling traits like tail lights and side scoops that let you know it was a Mustang.
mattkimsey said:The sad thing is GM could stick the 10 yr. old Lt1 in the new f-body and still make about the same power as the new Mustang.
RRRush said:Ask yourself this, would you buy a 300HP AWD 6 speed 5.0L 3v Mustang. Interesting ehhh?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?