Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
Roto-Fab
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > General Camaro Forums > Camaro Price | Ordering | Tracking | Dealers Discussions > Guides, Manuals, Bulletins, Documentation Archive


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-23-2008, 12:56 AM   #239
gladiatoro
 
gladiatoro's Avatar
 
Drives: 1981 Z28 Camaro
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Kelowna B.C Canada
Posts: 307
4.9 S 0 to 60 for the SS hmmm that's funny the Mustang GT does that too with a 100 ponies less lol...must be the obese weight of the maro sorry I am just not impressed with 3900 pounds + for the SS
gladiatoro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2008, 01:05 AM   #240
Supermans
Camaro & Stang Enthusiast
 
Supermans's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 Mustang 5.0 in Kona Blue
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Miami
Posts: 4,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladiatoro View Post
4.9 S 0 to 60 for the SS hmmm that's funny the Mustang GT does that too with a 100 ponies less lol...must be the obese weight of the maro sorry I am just not impressed with 3900 pounds + for the SS
I hear ya. However the V8 automatic was clocked at 4.6, so there is still hope
Supermans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2008, 01:13 AM   #241
Georgianne
 
Georgianne's Avatar
 
Drives: chevys
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Gaithersburg
Posts: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by fbodfather View Post
You're so right -- esp. the YELLOW and the ORANGE and the VICTORY RED and the WHITE..........and let's not forget the SILVER -- dear GOD would someone PLEASE turn on a light in here!!!!

(j/k) -- but please watch your language........
white and silver are not colors they are non-color! Red Yellow Orange are BRIGHT not light. Ralleye green is light, Robins egg blue is considered light.
Light is now on.
And yes please watch the language it is getting rough in a couple of threads.
Georgianne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2008, 05:08 AM   #242
fastball
Banned
 
Drives: 2017 Camaro 2SS 6MT
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 4,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by fbodfather View Post
sorry all -- I could only get to page 6 -- and it's 1:17am -- will try to get to the rest later this week!

Keep the faith!

(and sorry if I sound a bit 'flip' with some of you -- but I'm quite tired after a long week thusfar!)

(but I STILL can't get the smile off my face after yesterday's event at Royal Oak!)

Scott, nothing personal here, but I think I speak for many when I say the California presentation Sheryl put on was far more interesting and informative than the 2 Ed's dissertation on how great Chevy is as a brand. It's almost as if they forgot there was a real Camaro in the room.

To be honest, I was expecting a little more pomp and cirmcumstance.....

A full scale presentation at the Cobo. Two big video screens showing the history of the Camaro before the unveiling, put to some great classic rock tunes.

And the car, being driven by any one of you (Bob Lutz gets to drive too many of the unveiled cars, you guys deserve a little spotlight), comes crashing through a sheet of glass and on to the stage.

Instead we get some hum drum garage (yes, I know the garage has history, but it looked like my Grandparent's garage) and the 2 Eds with lots of blah blah blah not related to the Camaro.

Come on. I know you guys can do alot better.
fastball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2008, 10:05 AM   #243
GTAHVIT
Blessed
 
GTAHVIT's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 Sonic RS MT
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Saint Augustine FL
Posts: 28,444
^ I think a lot of us agree it wasn't as flashy as we'd hoped.

But Fbodfather already stated that they didn't have the budget to put on a big show. Which is understandable given everthing GM is doing to realign with the auto market. I don't think they are happy with the show either. I'm sure they all wanted the Concept reveal for the production car.

Just my thoughs. I'm prepared to cut them some slack. Times are changin'. Good news is GM's stock is up.
GTAHVIT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2008, 12:11 PM   #244
EllwynX


 
EllwynX's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro SS
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Southern NJ
Posts: 2,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgianne View Post
white and silver are not colors they are non-color!
'Non-color' would be transparent or translucent.

By your reasoning, Black is also a 'non-color'. And, as I explained once before, Black would be the only TRUE 'non-color' since it doesn't reflect ANY of the various spectrums(colors) of light.

White and Silver are colors. Always have been, always will be.
EllwynX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2008, 01:10 PM   #245
96CAMaro
 
96CAMaro's Avatar
 
Drives: '02 Impreza 2.5RS
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPODFAN11 View Post
from Autoblog:

Curb weight (lb / kg):
3750 / 1705 – LT w/ automatic
3741 / 1700 – LT w/ manual
3769 / 1713 – LS w/ automatic
3780 / 1718 – LS w/ manual
3913 / 1779 – SS w/ automatic
3860 / 1755 – SS w/ manual

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/07/21/2...ls-and-images/
These numbers, after nearly a day of thinkin', are beginning to bother me. What ever happened to calling Jenny Craig? And to top that off, we still have the price to worry about. I'm not trying to start any crap or anything.

Anyone else think that the top of the line Camaro is going to weigh in at more than the GT500 or Challenger?
96CAMaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2008, 01:11 PM   #246
2K05GT
Muscle Car Fanatic
 
Drives: 2017 Shelby GT350
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxmonkeyracing View Post
I will see your bet and raise you 1 second quicker. I have yet to see a 3500 lb mustang GT stock surpass 13.9 on a cold day in feb. so I believe there is no worry in a mustang beating a v-8 camaro. . .with same driver skill of course. don't compare a crappy driver to a great driver. . .that isn't fair. lol.
No one ever said that the current Mustang could beat a Camaro, No Way No how (except the driver issue)
The only way the Mustang will beat a stock 2010 Camaro, the Mustang will need multipe Mods. thats the only way.

This has been hammered out over and over again, The Stock Automatic runs 13.8 @ 102 the Stock Manual runs 13.6 @ 104 these are average times with average drivers... Check out times here ....
http://www.dragtimes.com/results.php...arch+DragTimes

Mustang 0-60/ 1/4 mile times...

1991 Ford Mustang GT 7.3 15.6
1992 Ford Mustang LX 5.0 6.2 14.8
1993 Ford Mustang Cobra 5.9 14.5
1993 Ford Mustang GT (auto) 8.0 16.1
1994 Ford Mustang Cobra 5.4 14.0
1994 Ford Mustang GT 6.7 15.1
1995 Ford Mustang 3.8 9.9 17.3
1995 Ford Mustang Cobra R 5.2 13.8
1996 Ford Mustang Cobra 5.4 14.0
1998 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 5.4 14.0
1999 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 5.4 13.9
1999 Ford Mustang Conv. V6 8.6 16.5
1999 Ford Mustang GT 5.5 14.1
2001 Ford Mustang Roush St3 4.3 12.9
2001 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 4.8 13.5
2003 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 4.5 12.9
2004 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 4.5 12.9
2004 Ford Mustang GT 6.3 14.8
2005 Ford Mustang LX 4.0l 6.9 15.3 (C&D Feb 05)
2005 Ford Mustang GT 4.6L V8 5.1 13.5 (MT Jan 05)
2005 Ford Mustang GT Conv. 5.2 13.8 (MT Apr 05)


I have plenty of time slips when I was stock running 13.7's with my Auto tranny and a best of 13.62. intake and tune put me in the 13.3 range. but not to harp on it since this is the Camaros day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 96CAMaro View Post
These numbers, after nearly a day of thinkin', are beginning to bother me. What ever happened to calling Jenny Craig? And to top that off, we still have the price to worry about. I'm not trying to start any crap or anything.

Anyone else think that the top of the line Camaro is going to weigh in at more than the GT500 or Challenger?
This was my thought too, it weights 100 pounds more than a GTO !!!! Yet they say the 2010 Camaro is the same size as the current Mustang. WOW
__________________
2017 Shelby GT350, Ruby Red, H6088
2017 Camaro SS, Hyper Blue Metallic
2016 Taurus SHO, Tuxedo Black
2005 Mustang GT, Mineral Grey - Sold

Last edited by 2K05GT; 07-23-2008 at 01:27 PM.
2K05GT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2008, 01:56 PM   #247
greenrail
Comic Curmudgeon
 
greenrail's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS-2010 VW CC Sport
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Near Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,395
Last night my wife and I sat down and went through the Camaro Website. God Bless her heart. A couple of things changed. Going with the Six Speed Manual - SS and Red Tint Coat, Imperial Blue or Cyber Gray Metallic.

I had to agree with her. (As if that was real difficult!)

Anyway, I showed her the Ignition video. OMG, talk about a head turner!

Considering what GM is going though right now, the way this all shook out is very understandable. Now, all I have to do is remain patient and get in line with the rest of the world.

Scott, Cheryl and John - Keep on keeping on! This is going to be a great ride!
greenrail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2008, 02:14 PM   #248
Craig
 
Drives: '01 Z28
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladiatoro View Post
4.9 S 0 to 60 for the SS hmmm that's funny the Mustang GT does that too with a 100 ponies less lol...must be the obese weight of the maro sorry I am just not impressed with 3900 pounds + for the SS
I would not consider performance numbers (estimates really) from Edmunds to be the gospel. We have yet to see any real numbers on this car yet and won't for some time.

I'll venture that any stock Mustang GT owner who expects to run door-to-door with a new SS is in for a big disappointment.
Craig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2008, 03:10 PM   #249
pruettfan
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro SS / 2011 Z28
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 333
First, Thanks to all of the folks at GM for doing such a great job on the Camaro. I want to respond to some of the comments on weight. There is essentially no way to build this car significantly lighter at a reasonable cost given the safety restrictions. I would point to the BMW M3 as an example. BMW spent a great deal of time and money to reduce weight on the M3 and they came up with a 3700+ pound car. Every manufactuer has battled the weight problem that has become a symptom of the additional demands of consumers for things such as power windows etc and the governments demands for safety. Spend some time looking at the weight of other cars in the class and you will discover that GM is in the mid range for the most part. We would all love a car that weighs 400 lbs less but if GM was able to do this many of us would not be able to afford it.

As far as gas mileage Fbodfather points out that the calculations have changed for MPG so lets all wait and see some real world results before we get too excited.
pruettfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2008, 04:16 PM   #250
greenrail
Comic Curmudgeon
 
greenrail's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS-2010 VW CC Sport
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Near Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,395
Mileage Ratings

Quote:
Originally Posted by pruettfan View Post
First, Thanks to all of the folks at GM for doing such a great job on the Camaro. I want to respond to some of the comments on weight. There is essentially no way to build this car significantly lighter at a reasonable cost given the safety restrictions. I would point to the BMW M3 as an example. BMW spent a great deal of time and money to reduce weight on the M3 and they came up with a 3700+ pound car. Every manufactuer has battled the weight problem that has become a symptom of the additional demands of consumers for things such as power windows etc and the governments demands for safety. Spend some time looking at the weight of other cars in the class and you will discover that GM is in the mid range for the most part. We would all love a car that weighs 400 lbs less but if GM was able to do this many of us would not be able to afford it.

As far as gas mileage Fbodfather points out that the calculations have changed for MPG so lets all wait and see some real world results before we get too excited.

I would suggest you go to www.fueleconomy.gov and check out the old and new fuel economy ratings for the last Generation of Camaros. It isn't that difficult. That should give you a pretty fair comparison as to how the new figures are calculated versus the old method.

Geez, all this whining about weight, performance, colors, and no one has seen a proper road test, vehicle in person, or all of the final details.

Good heavens Fbodfather, I don't know how you can remain as calm as you have during all of this.
greenrail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2008, 04:28 PM   #251
joes3rdcamaro82/91/2010
Z28 Hold Out!
 
joes3rdcamaro82/91/2010's Avatar
 
Drives: 2000 Monte Carlo SS
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wichita, Ks.
Posts: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2K05GT View Post
No one ever said that the current Mustang could beat a Camaro, No Way No how (except the driver issue)
The only way the Mustang will beat a stock 2010 Camaro, the Mustang will need multipe Mods. thats the only way.

This has been hammered out over and over again, The Stock Automatic runs 13.8 @ 102 the Stock Manual runs 13.6 @ 104 these are average times with average drivers... Check out times here ....
http://www.dragtimes.com/results.php...arch+DragTimes

Mustang 0-60/ 1/4 mile times...

1991 Ford Mustang GT 7.3 15.6
1992 Ford Mustang LX 5.0 6.2 14.8
1993 Ford Mustang Cobra 5.9 14.5
1993 Ford Mustang GT (auto) 8.0 16.1
1994 Ford Mustang Cobra 5.4 14.0
1994 Ford Mustang GT 6.7 15.1
1995 Ford Mustang 3.8 9.9 17.3
1995 Ford Mustang Cobra R 5.2 13.8
1996 Ford Mustang Cobra 5.4 14.0
1998 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 5.4 14.0
1999 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 5.4 13.9
1999 Ford Mustang Conv. V6 8.6 16.5
1999 Ford Mustang GT 5.5 14.1
2001 Ford Mustang Roush St3 4.3 12.9
2001 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 4.8 13.5
2003 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 4.5 12.9
2004 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 4.5 12.9
2004 Ford Mustang GT 6.3 14.8
2005 Ford Mustang LX 4.0l 6.9 15.3 (C&D Feb 05)
2005 Ford Mustang GT 4.6L V8 5.1 13.5 (MT Jan 05)
2005 Ford Mustang GT Conv. 5.2 13.8 (MT Apr 05)


I have plenty of time slips when I was stock running 13.7's with my Auto tranny and a best of 13.62. intake and tune put me in the 13.3 range. but not to harp on it since this is the Camaros day.



This was my thought too, it weights 100 pounds more than a GTO !!!! Yet they say the 2010 Camaro is the same size as the current Mustang. WOW
Good post! That is disturbing to me!
joes3rdcamaro82/91/2010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2008, 04:28 PM   #252
liberty
Garage Queens - Not
 
liberty's Avatar
 
Drives: '78 Camaro Z28, '80 Camaro Z28
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig View Post
I would not consider performance numbers (estimates really) from Edmunds to be the gospel. We have yet to see any real numbers on this car yet and won't for some time.
The news article was from Edmunds, the performance numbers were from
Al Oppenheiser, chief engineer for GM's North American rear-wheel-drive platform.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=129496
liberty is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Camaro Product Manager - interview Moose 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 11 04-04-2012 06:10 PM
GM memo to dealers Moose 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 41 02-04-2010 07:33 PM
Official Camaro Convertible CONCEPT Press Release Tran Camaro Convertible Forum 12 11-18-2009 07:05 PM
Official 2010 Camaro convertible concept pics!! Tran Camaro Photos | Spyshots | Video | Media Gallery 107 07-21-2009 11:12 AM
Camaro (concept) Press Release!! Pencil.Fight 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 4 07-21-2008 03:33 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.