First 2011 Camaro Convertible Review (by Motor Trend)!

[calbert1999]

Originally Posted by eggydoo

Why would you? you live way up north!



I've owned two convertibles in my life time and it is nice to drive around with the top down.
For me though, it gets old...and I stopped using it.
But when I first bought a convertible..top was always down..except when it rained. I didn't care if it was 20º outside..top was down and had heater on full blast

Detroit is further north than where I live so, let's not get into the ignorant Canadian weather debate.
The analogy of a car with no roof is like a house without proper support beams. Once you cut the roof off the vehicle you simply lose a very large portion of the stability. Why would someone pay for that?
The article clearly shows that the vehicle without the roof now weighs in more than the coupe because they have to put numerous support braces all over the vehicle to compensate for the lack of a missing roof.
So personally for me, I could never "understand" why someone would pay for a less performing "muscle" car.
If we were commenting on a vert BMW, or Mercedes, then I would understand, but not on a Vette or Camaro. But, then again, it's obvious vert lovers aren't purchasing the vehicle for performance.

[ToddB]

I hope they fix the leaks before I get mine. Me and my wife had a bad accident last July on our Harley.I broke my neck and I am still recovering. my wife is OK. We sold what was left of our Harley and purchased a convertible so this will be just our summer ride but we do take some long trips (5000 miles plus) so I hope we don't get wet.

[Xello]

If I had the money for a second Camaro it would be a convertible. Mainly for the top-down driving experience and all the looks I would be getting (just like when I first got my coupe in 2009). Of course once the Z28 comes out then that would end up being my second Camaro instead.

[Camaroman_99]

Very nice! I like it

[Mikamaro]

How can half a car looks and be better then a coupe?... ya right!
Motor trend are always promoting the new as the best or better...I'm tired of reading their B.S!

[BOOGIE]

If you are good looking get the Camaro Convertible if you are ugly get the coupe if you are very ugly get a coupe and get the windows tinted I need the coupe with duble tinted windows!!

[FirstandFifthGen]

Now you tell me...to late, I'm not canceling my vert.

[BOOGIE]

LOL Me me neither

[Drago77]

Originally Posted by calbert1999

Detroit is further north than where I live so, let's not get into the ignorant Canadian weather debate.
The analogy of a car with no roof is like a house without proper support beams. Once you cut the roof off the vehicle you simply lose a very large portion of the stability. Why would someone pay for that?
The article clearly shows that the vehicle without the roof now weighs in more than the coupe because they have to put numerous support braces all over the vehicle to compensate for the lack of a missing roof.
So personally for me, I could never "understand" why someone would pay for a less performing "muscle" car.
If we were commenting on a vert BMW, or Mercedes, then I would understand, but not on a Vette or Camaro. But, then again, it's obvious vert lovers aren't purchasing the vehicle for performance.

I can't speak for everyone else, but personally- yes, I do understand im paying more for a less performing version of the same car. I've given up the competition (not that I was ever a contender ) for the "fastest car in the world." Inevitably, no matter what you do, someones gonna be faster. I've graduated to the stage of looks and comfort weighing in just as important as performance. Therefor, I don't mind losing a few HP or milliseconds through corners when I know I can cruise S Florida in a bad ass car with the top down all night, and when the time is right,still smoke the rice-burner off the light!

Personal preference. Doesn't necessarily mean one taste is better than the other... (although I see far more coupe .owners bashing the verts than the other way around... interesting ...)

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Drago77

Personal preference. Doesn't necessarily mean one taste is better than the other... (although I see far more coupe .owners bashing the verts than the other way around... interesting ...)

And I hope nobody forgets that!!!

Some people must be upset their baby can't go topless...

[RLHMARINES]

It's interesting to see from motor trends early tester how the camaro and the mustang convertibles stack up to each other. I know these are not test's that were done on the same track or on the same day but it's arguable that the camaro test had a much worse test day due to the so-cal rainy weather during this article. Just take it for what it's worth until a side by side test between the two comes out.

2011 Camaro SS convertible 6 spd man:
0-60 mph 4.9 sec, 1/4 13.2 sec@109.2 mph

2011 Mustang GT convertible 6 spd man:
0-60 mph 5.3/5.0 sec w/1 foot roll out, 1/4 13.5 sec@105.4 mph

2011 Mustang GT convertible 6 spd man:
0-60 mph 4.7 sec, 1/4 13.2 sec@108 mph


2011 Chevrolet Camaro SS Convertible manual

POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS
DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT Front engine, RWD
ENGINE TYPE 90-deg V-8, aluminum block/heads
VALVETRAIN OHV, 2 valves/cyl
DISPLACEMENT 376.1 cu in/6162 cc
COMPRESSION RATIO 10.7:1
POWER (SAE NET) 426 hp @ 5900 rpm*
TORQUE (SAE NET) 420 lb-ft @ 4600 rpm*
REDLINE 6500 rpm
WEIGHT TO POWER 9.7 lb/hp
TRANSMISSION 6-speed manual
AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE RATIO 3.45:1/1.97:1
SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar
STEERING RATIO 16.1:1
TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK 2.5
BRAKES, F;R 14.0-in vented disc; 14.4-in vented disc, ABS
WHEELS, F;R 8.0 x 20-in; 9.0 x 20-in, cast aluminum
TIRES, F;R 245/40ZR20 103Y; 275/40ZR20 106Y Pirelli PZero
DIMENSIONS
WHEELBASE 112.3 in
TRACK, F/R 63.7/63.7 in
LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 190.4 x 75.5 x 54.7 in
TURNING CIRCLE 37.7 ft
CURB WEIGHT 4116 lb
WEIGHT DIST, F/R 51/49%
SEATING CAPACITY 4
HEADROOM, F/R 37.8/35.7 in
LEGROOM, F/R 42.4/30.0 in
SHOULDER ROOM, F/R 56.8/42.4 in
CARGO VOLUME (TOP UP/DN) 10.2/7.9 cu ft


TEST DATA
ACCELERATION TO MPH
0-30 2.0 sec
0-40 2.8
0-50 3.7
0-60 4.9
0-70 6
0-80 7.7
0-90 9.3
0-100 11.2
PASSING, 45-65 MPH 2.2
QUARTER MILE 13.2 sec @ 109.2 mph
BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 107 ft
LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.89 g (avg)
MT FIGURE EIGHT 25.9 sec @ 0.61 g (avg)
TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH 1300 rpm


CONSUMER INFO
BASE PRICE $37,500
PRICE AS TESTED $42,280
STABILITY/TRACTION CONTROL Yes/yes
AIRBAGS Dual front, front side
BASIC WARRANTY 3 yrs/36,000 miles
POWERTRAIN WARRANTY 5 yrs/100,000 miles
ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE 5 yrs/100,000 miles
FUEL CAPACITY 18.8 gal
EPA CITY/HWY ECON 16/24 mpg
ENERGY CONS., CITY/HWY 211/140 kW-hrs/100 miles
CO2 EMISSIONS 1.03 lb/mile
RECOMMENDED FUEL Unleaded premium
*SAE CERTIFIED


Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz1ArmaiPAa

Compared to the 2011 Mustang GT convertible 5.0 manual by Inside Lines from Edmunds:

Vehicle: 2011 Ford Mustang GT Convertible
Odometer: 1,689.2
Date: 10/16/10
Driver: Chris Walton
Price: $41,705


Specifications:
Drive Type: Rear-wheel drive
Transmission Type: Six-speed manual
Engine Type: 5.0-liter DOHC four valves per cylinder, variable intake, V8
Displacement (cc/cu-in): 4,995/302
Redline (rpm): 7,000
Horsepower (hp @ rpm): 412 @ 6,500
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm): 390 @ 4,250
Brake Type (front): 14-inch ventilated discs with four-piston fixed calipers
Brake Type (rear): 11.8-inch ventilated disc with 2-piston sliding calipers
Steering System: Electric-assist power steering
Suspension Type (front): MacPherson strut, stabilizer bar
Suspension Type (rear): Solid live axle, limited slip
Tire Size (front): P255/40R19 96W
Tire Size (rear): P255/40R19 96W
Tire Brand: Goodyear
Tire Model: Eagle F1 Supercar
Tire Type: Summer Performance
Wheel size: 19-by-9.0 inches front and rear
Wheel material (front/rear): Aluminum
As tested Curb Weight (lb): 3,726


Test Results:
0-30 (sec): 2.3
0-45 (sec): 3.7
0-60 (sec): 5.3
0-75 (sec): 7.5
1/4-Mile (sec @ mph): 13.5 @ 105.4
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 5.0
30-0 (ft): 29
60-0 (ft): 116
Slalom (mph): 68.0 ( 65.5 w/traction control on)
Skid Pad Lateral acceleration (g): 0.88 (0.88 w/traction control on)
Db @ Idle: 51
Db @ Full Throttle: 89.7
Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 74.3



Compared to the 2011 Mustang GT convertible 5.0 manual by Car & Driver:

VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door convertible
PRICE AS TESTED: $41,765 (base price: $35,495)
ENGINE TYPE: DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection
Displacement: 302 cu in, 4951 cc
Power (SAE net): 412 bhp @ 6500 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 390 lb-ft @ 4250 rpm
TRANSMISSION: 6-speed manual
DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 107.1 in Length: 188.1 in
Width: 73.9 in Height: 55.8 in
Curb weight: 3754 lb


C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.7 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 11.4 sec
Zero to 140 mph: 24.6 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 5.0 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.2 sec @ 108 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 147 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 162 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.88 g
FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 17/26 mpg
C/D observed: 15 mpg

These times are almost identical to each other and really shows how the low end torque and grip from the camaro's chassis setup helps it even with a 300-400 lb. penalty in weight compared to the mustangs posted curb weight.

Great job as usual Camaro Team!!!