2010 camaro

Winters98GT

Whoop...whoop-whoop-whoop-whoop...GANGNAM STYLE!!!

Founding Member

Nov 29, 1999

5,520

1,291

224

H Town

Oct 1, 2008

#1

• Oct 1, 2008

• #1

Lets get a discussion going about it...... Of course, let's try to be objective and not turn this into a "mustangworld" thread....

From the very little I have seen, the car looks to be a serious player. The LS3 with bolt ons and cam generally goes 440-500rwhp. 6lbs of boost or so is about 100-125 hp more. That's a ton of power with an m6 or m12(not sure what they are going with on the 6 speed).

The car doesn't strike me as that great looks wise, however, tonight is the first time I have really seen it. What do you guys think about it? The gto never really sold that many, so do you think GM has refined the car?

 

EPIK

Member

Jul 3, 2004

796

1

16

LEFT COAST

Oct 1, 2008

#2

• Oct 1, 2008

• #2

I dont like the looks of the car & it looks extremely heavy as well.... The drivetrain is sweet though.... Cant go wrong with an LSX & a 6 speed....

The main thing that bothers me is the rear of the roofline & the front grille...

 

mazen189

Member

Jul 31, 2007

424

0

16

I.E. southern california

Oct 1, 2008

#3

• Oct 1, 2008

• #3

yeah, that front of the car does not look too good. The beast within that thing is insane, definately walk on us little bolted GT's.

as far as sales, the GTO did kinda tank in that field. And it would not be suprising to see with the Camero, plus with this 9/11 economic crisis in hand. I find it doubtful.

 

CobraRed_96_GT

Active Member

May 20, 2006

1,421

4

39

UCSD/La Jolla

Oct 1, 2008

#4

• Oct 1, 2008

• #4

Supposed to be NuremburgRing tuned suspension like they do with the vette - so even with the weight it should handle. I don't have too many complaints about the car

 

1990Coupe

Founding Member

Mar 11, 2002

1,462

132

114

Toms River NJ

Oct 1, 2008

#5

• Oct 1, 2008

• #5

The GTO sales didn't tank

They set out to make x amount of GTO's ever year, and they sold there complete stock every year. Doesn't sound like they had a sales issue with it

 

Winters98GT

Whoop...whoop-whoop-whoop-whoop...GANGNAM STYLE!!!

Founding Member

Nov 29, 1999

5,520

1,291

224

H Town

Oct 1, 2008

#6

• Oct 1, 2008

• #6

1990Coupe said:

The GTO sales didn't tank

They set out to make x amount of GTO's ever year, and they sold there complete stock every year. Doesn't sound like they had a sales issue with it

Click to expand...

thanks for your correction, but your wrong. The GTO had serious problems getting off the dealers lots. Do a little research on the deals that were made for car lots to get rid of them. GM planned on making 18,000-19000 in 2004, but poor interest in sales led to them only producting 15,000, and they only sold 13000 of the 15000 produced.

Gotta love the hijackers that are ignorant. Back to the original thread.

 

scupking

Active Member

Sep 18, 2005

1,186

1

36

Enfield, CT

Oct 1, 2008

#7

• Oct 1, 2008

• #7

I think the new camaro looks good. I wouldn't mind haveing one or a new challenger. It will sell better then the GTO. The GTO looked more like a grand AM then a muscle car. I think as long as we can be pushing 300+ rwhp with our stangs we can keep it close with the challenger and the camaro seeing as they weigh so much.

 

Winters98GT

Whoop...whoop-whoop-whoop-whoop...GANGNAM STYLE!!!

Founding Member

Nov 29, 1999

5,520

1,291

224

H Town

Oct 1, 2008

#8

• Oct 1, 2008

• #8

scupking said:

I think the new camaro looks good. I wouldn't mind haveing one or a new challenger. It will sell better then the GTO. The GTO looked more like a grand AM then a muscle car. I think as long as we can be pushing 300+ rwhp with our stangs we can keep it close with the challenger and the camaro seeing as they weigh so much.

Click to expand...

what is the 2010 camaro supposed to weigh in at?

 

1990Coupe

Founding Member

Mar 11, 2002

1,462

132

114

Toms River NJ

Oct 1, 2008

#9

• Oct 1, 2008

• #9

Winters98GT said:

thanks for your correction, but your wrong. The GTO had serious problems getting off the dealers lots. Do a little research on the deals that were made for car lots to get rid of them. GM planned on making 18,000-19000 in 2004, but poor interest in sales led to them only producting 15,000, and they only sold 13000 of the 15000 produced.

Gotta love the hijackers that are ignorant. Back to the original thread.

Click to expand...

Excuse me? i'm not Ignorant - I'm a regular contributor to this site a fairly daily basis..


Sorry if i was off, i was just getting that information second hand from another stangnet member who owns a GTO.


my apologies

Next time, don't be so quick to dog another stangnet member

 

Winters98GT

Whoop...whoop-whoop-whoop-whoop...GANGNAM STYLE!!!

Founding Member

Nov 29, 1999

5,520

1,291

224

H Town

Oct 1, 2008

#10

• Oct 1, 2008

• #10

1990Coupe said:

Excuse me? i'm not Ignorant - I'm a regular contributor to this site a fairly daily basis..


Sorry if i was off, i was just getting that information second hand from another stangnet member who owns a GTO.


my apologies

Next time, don't be so quick to dog another stangnet member

Click to expand...

Take a bit of your own medicine, you laughed at somebody else for accurately stating info about the gto. You "contributed" nothing to the original post, except to insert a "rolling laugh" in this thread.

 

scupking

Active Member

Sep 18, 2005

1,186

1

36

Enfield, CT

Oct 1, 2008

#11

• Oct 1, 2008

• #11

Winters98GT said:

what is the 2010 camaro supposed to weigh in at?

Click to expand...

I think close to the same as the challengers 4,100lbs (may not be exact numbers).

 

1990Coupe

Founding Member

Mar 11, 2002

1,462

132

114

Toms River NJ

Oct 1, 2008

#12

• Oct 1, 2008

• #12

Winters98GT said:

Take a bit of your own medicine, you laughed at somebody else for accurately stating info about the gto. You "contributed" nothing to the original post, except to insert a "rolling laugh" in this thread.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't consider "poor sales" accurate. I did do some research, the 2006 GTO had a strong selling year. 2005 was also positive. Seems like the 04's didn't "take off" because of the lower power numbers.

Anyways - i think the mustang will still dominate the Camaro in sales. Like it always has. I hope!

 

C

CENTENNIALSTANG

Member

Apr 15, 2005

0

0

16

Houston

Oct 1, 2008

#13

• Oct 1, 2008

• #13

You guys really think American consumers will buy that gas hogg.

 

Winters98GT

Whoop...whoop-whoop-whoop-whoop...GANGNAM STYLE!!!

Founding Member

Nov 29, 1999

5,520

1,291

224

H Town

Oct 1, 2008

#14

• Oct 1, 2008

• #14

1990Coupe said:

I wouldn't consider "poor sales" accurate. I did do some research, the 2006 GTO had a strong selling year. 2005 was also positive. Seems like the 04's didn't "take off" because of the lower power numbers.

Anyways - i think the mustang will still dominate the Camaro in sales. Like it always has. I hope!

Click to expand...

the final production numbers in 2005 was 11,069. down 4000 from 04, and 2006 was right at 14,000, which was also down from 2004. Total production was 40,808, much, much lower than GM hoped for.

 

1990Coupe

Founding Member

Mar 11, 2002

1,462

132

114

Toms River NJ

Oct 1, 2008

#15

• Oct 1, 2008

• #15

CENTENNIALSTANG said:

You guys really think American consumers will buy that gas hogg.

Click to expand...

I thought it was supposed to be decent on gas? as in 27mpg highway I'm not sure though.

 

Wolvrin704

Member

Apr 17, 2007

120

0

17

Milford, OH

Oct 1, 2008

#16

• Oct 1, 2008

• #16

A few thoughts.

First there is allot of interest in the car out there. I wouldn't be suprised if it outsells the Mustang the first year or two.

Secondly, not sure about the final outcome on the weight but as I recall its supposed to be lighter than the Challenger, I'm thinking around 3800 lbs. Regardless its going to have around 420 hp for the big beast and 300 for the V6. Those of us still stock could have some close calls with a V6!

Third, the front end reminds me of a Cadillac. I find it ugly. But the back end reminds me of the 67-69 Camaro and is pure sex. Not that I'm a Camaro fan, never have been but I always liked the 67-69 Camaro.

Lastly, the V6 should be good on gas as its a direct injection. And last I heard the V8 is supposed to shut down some cylinders while just cruising. Can't remember for sure. But then again the point of having a V8 is point it straight and try to put the pedal through the floor.

 

H

HOOCBB

New Member

Jun 5, 2008

90

3

0

Oct 1, 2008

#17

• Oct 1, 2008

• #17

scupking said:

I think the new camaro looks good. I wouldn't mind haveing one or a new challenger. It will sell better then the GTO. The GTO looked more like a grand AM then a muscle car. I think as long as we can be pushing 300+ rwhp with our stangs we can keep it close with the challenger and the camaro seeing as they weigh so much.

Click to expand...

The somewhat bland design was the point...if you remember the 64 GTO was a very bland car. It was a plain jane midsized coupe with a big engine shoehorned into the engine bay. (I say shoehorned, but truth be known you could stand in the engine bay with the engine installed) The car blended into society as just another midsized car. It wasn't until the first true body redesign in 68 that it took a more indentifiable look.

To go back on topic...I haven't seen the new Camaro in person yet, only pics. From the pics, the front end is kinda eh and the rear end is ok. GM and Dodge both saw how the retro styling of the Mustang worked (for most) and decided to run with the idea for the return of their own cars. It's not a bad idea, but they are 4-5 years late with it.

 

mazen189

Member

Jul 31, 2007

424

0

16

I.E. southern california

Oct 1, 2008

#18

• Oct 1, 2008

• #18

Im sorry, was i completely wrong about their sales tanking?
or , am i better off saying, they were just not good.

 

BurningRubber

10 Year Member

Dec 6, 2004

1,865

24

58

Oct 1, 2008

#19

• Oct 1, 2008

• #19

Heres my take.

The styling seems to be really subjective to everyone. Myself, I think it's pretty damn good. Not as good as the Challenger, and I can't comment on the '10 Mustang yet.

The drivetrain makes the car worth it even if it looks like a box of ****. 400hp from the factory, with an engine that will respond as well, if not better than the legendary LS1 mated to a six speed!!! SIGN ME UP!

If they keep the weight reasonable, as in safely under 4k it should handle well enough.


Either way, Ford better step up or history will repeat itself and we will be finishing last on the drag strip once again. Hopefully the new 'Stang will keep up the tradition of being a better handler aswell, but you never know.

GM can produce a wicked car, as can Ford. The difference? GM actually does it.

 

H

HOOCBB

New Member

Jun 5, 2008

90

3

0

Oct 1, 2008

#20

• Oct 1, 2008

• #20

BurningRubber said:

GM can produce a wicked car, as can Ford. The difference? GM actually does it.

Click to expand...

GM is also not scared to use new technology, even if they haven't converted to an OHC performance engine. Example, "Displacement on Demand" (DOD) or "Variable Displacement"...whatever GM calls it...Ford has not introduced this technology in ANY vehicle that I know of, yet GM and Dodge have both been using a derivative (sp?) for several years. Dodge uses it on most Hemis (maybe a few other engines as well) and GM uses it on most V8 engines (maybe others as well)

I like the idea of dropping cylinders for economy, but does the technology have any adverse effects on cylinder wear?

So why doesn't Ford do something like that? They could potentially increase the HP output of the performance engines, but still meet or exceed CAFE mileage standards.