MT runs piece on production 5thgen

[Scotsman]

Enjoy! Some good things said in here. I think you'll be pleased.

First Look: 2010 Chevrolet Camaro
Game On: Watch out, Mustang and Challenger. Chevy has taken the off the gloves for the all-new Camaro

By Edward Loh
Photography by Wesley Allison


"We stopped bringing Mustangs on our development rides because they were so far behind us in our rearview mirror," says Al Oppenheiser, GM's North American rear-drive vehicle chief engineer and effectively the new Camaro's father. "It wasn't even worth taking them anymore," he continues, with the faintest of smirks.

You needn't be a Blue Oval booster or a soldier in the General's army to know that them's fightin' words. What's more, Oppenheiser says his team brought along (and kept) the Dodge Charger, Nissan 350Z, and stretch targets like the Infiniti G37.

"We've actually challenged ourselves to go upscale in sticker price and performance, to go after anything that could be called this segment-Mustang, Charger, Challenger. We're shooting for targets a lot higher in terms of sticker price," he says.


Are these bold pronouncements a calculated marketing strategy or merely prewar chest pounding? Well, we've a had a good look at the new Camaro and can tell you that when they start hitting the streets in early 2009, it's going to be game on at stoplights across America.

Unlike the excruciating trickle of the Challenger (Dodge first shipped only 6400 top-range SRT8 models equipped with six-speed automatics), V-6 and V-8 Camaros will be available at launch, each with six-speed manual or six-speed automatic. Base V-6 Camaros will come in two main trim levels, LS and LT (further divided into 1LT and highest spec 2LT). V-8 Camaros will be badged SS and receive most of the kit of a fully loaded 2LT as standard. Whether V-6 or V-8, all Camaros can look like the yellow RS here-badged with a red RS and treated with details like a rear decklid spoiler (V-6 only) and special-sized/finished wheels.


Key to the success of Camaro is the balance between performance and fuel-economy. Which is why the first juicy detail to emerge is that base Camaros will not, as some have speculated, be powered by the 3.5-liter, pushrod V-6 Chevy uses in the Impala. Entry-level Camaros will use the same spark-ignition, direct-injection 3.6-liter V-6 that powers the Cadillac CTS. With variable valve timing, double overhead camshafts, and four valves per cylinder, this high-feature V-6 is arguably more significant and undeniably higher tech than the Camaro's V-8. GM knows, while the SS will make headlines, a powerful but miserly V-6 will do more to keep the lights on and the Camaro program running strong.

When we spoke, Oppenheiser and his team had just completed the 80-percent powertrain calibration testing and were mum on not only the final horsepower and torque numbers, but the exact gearing as well. He did say to expect V-6 output north of 300 horsepower and 270-pound-feet on regular unleaded.

As for headline-maker, SS-designated Camaros will get not one, but two nearly identical, aluminum-intensive 6.2-liter V-8 engines derived from the Corvette's small-block. For the automatics, the L99 V-8 should make about 395 horsepower and 395 pound-feet of torque. Manual transmission SS models will receive an LS3 V-8 with an estimated output of 420 horsepower and 408 pound-feet of torque on premium.

What about the rumors of a turbo four-cylinder? Oppenheiser says GM would like to sell Camaros globally, and since much of the world taxes engine displacement, a powerful ECOTEC four-cylinder -- already seen in cars like the Pontiac Solstice GXP -- makes a lot of sense. But other than saying they've been studying it, he won't confirm its arrival.


The other big news is that unlike the current Mustang, the fifth-gen Camaro will use independent rear suspension for the first time in the marque's history. Up front are traditional struts, but at the rear is a high-performance (and costly) multilink arrangement -- another benefit of using the rear-drive Zeta architecture that underpins GM's Australian market Holden Monaro and our Pontiac G8.

Two chassis packages are offered -- FE2 for the V-6 and FE3 for V-8. Major differences between these packages include the brakes: 12.6-inch cast-iron front and 12.4-inch aluminum rear discs, with single-piston caliper for FE2, 14- and 14.4-inch aluminum discs (front and rear) with four-pot calipers for FE3. Suspension tweaks account for the roughly 200-pound weight difference between the base and SS models. Oppenheiser says they've targeted 3700 pounds for the V-6, so the roughly 3900-pound SS gets higher spring rates and larger anti-roll bars. With suspension bits and engineering expertise borrowed from the CTS team, the Camaro should have noteworthy handling. Oppenheiser wouldn't provide any hard numbers or lap times around GM's Lutz-ring (or any other 'Ring, for that matter), so you'll just have to reread paragraph one for assurances as to what the Camaro can run with -- and away from.


With a 112.3-inch wheelbase and an overall length of 189.6 inches, the Oshawa, Canada-built Camaro is nearly four inches shorter between the wheels and just over eight inches shorter overall when compared with the Challenger. Though only about an inch and a half longer than the Mustang, the Camaro's wheelbase is over five inches longer. The Chevy is also wider and lower than both -- more than two inches wider than the Ford and over three inches lower than the Dodge.

Given this lower/wider formula, it's no surprise that, visually, the Camaro remains true to its 1960s-era forebear and to the 2006 concept. In fact, the 2010 Camaro retains so much of the original concept -- including the Coke-bottle curves and deeply offset hips -- it takes a practiced eye to point out the differences, like the hidden B-pillar, non-perforating rear-fender vents, and "reverse Mohawk" roof. The absence of staggered wheels is another tell; V-6 Camaros get standard 18x7.5-inch wheels, with available 19s and 20s. SS models will have Dubs; 20x8.0 inch up front, 20x9.0-inch wheels in back.

On the inside, the Camaro takes many of the concept's signature retro futuristic cues and wraps them in a cozy cabin that screams musclecar all the way.

"Personally, when I get into a Camaro, I feel as enveloped as I do when I get into a Corvette," says Oppenheiser.He should, as the seating position is a low, arm-out-the-window affair. The view forward is dominated by a short windshield and long hood. Out back, the beefy C-pillar does no favors for rear blindspot visibility.

Behind a three-spoke wheel are two circular gauges set in squared-off housings -- another clear nod to heritage-with an information panel in the middle. At left is the 160-mph speedo with a temperature gauge just below. In the right housing nests an 8000-rpm tachometer over a fuel gauge. Maximum engine speed is 7000 rpm for V-6 models; SS redline hits at 6600 rpm.


Our particular show car puts the leather-wrapped knob of an Aisin AY6 six-speed manual in hand. The pattern is a standard double-H for the forward gears; reverse is hard left and forward. V-6 autos get a Hydra-Matic 6L50 six-speed. SS models get 6L80 six-speed autos and the Tremec TR6060 manual found in the Corvette and G8 GXP.Just ahead of the gearbox are four auxiliary meters, but only if you opt for a loaded V-6 or SS (otherwise you get a storage cubby). At top left is the fun one, a torque meter showing 0-370 pound-feet. To the right sits a battery-voltage indicator. In the bottom row, oil temperature and pressure. Directly above is the HVAC system consisting of two large multifunction knobs: fan speed control on the left, temperature on the right, both inset with a cross configuration of buttons. Overall, it's a clean and well-executed cabin; more custom cut than the Challenger's and more upmarket than the Mustang's.


Is all this enough to take out the original retro musclecar and the Challenger from Dodge? Says Oppenheiser, "[Dodge] wanted to be first to the street in this pony war you guys are creating, and I think they're suffering from it." As for the Mustang, he's equally blunt. "We understand their strategy-a Mustang for every buyer. We're not taking that strategy. We've had their whole range on certain rides with us and evaluated all of them. I'm not worried." Fighting words, indeed.

Topless Camaro coming Spring 2010

Top up, it retains a side profile impressively close to the coupe's. Top down, those muscular flanks seem even wider and sexier. How is that possible? You'll find out in the winter of 2009, as production begins on the Camaro convertible. Powertrains and trim levels should remain similar to the coupe's, but expect at least a couple of surprises when it goes on sale in spring 2010.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ook/index.html

[Fandango]

Yeah, now that's what I'm taking about. Finally some love from Motor Trend.

[Congoman775]

dont worry ford, we'll bring the lube!

[stovt001]

Cool article. A couple things worry me though - no lip spoiler on the SS? Maybe it gets a slightly different one? I can only hope so. Also, with all this talk of pushing it upmarket, I hope the pricing still stays Mustang competitive. I know, I know, it will flop if it isn't, but things like these still worry me. Otherwise, lots of encouraging words in this article. Woohoo.

[fad1]

Yes, MT usually didnt respect the Camaro until now. I just loved the part about how they dont even try to compare the Mustang to the Camaro.

[carsismeZ06]

Upsclae in sticker price? PISS!

[Cubanaso]

Wow, alot I like and alot I don't.

Mind you, I don't know the official price but if it's not competitive then this will be a mistake. Has GM forgotten what these cars stood for since their inception? Affordable performance car for the common person and if that formula is broken with the Camaro I think it will be a stupid move on their part. I keep hearing upscale, upmarket, premium, etc etc and I can't help but worry that GM is about to make a mistake. BUT...I'll hold off the disappointment button until I hear more.

Also, 3700 pounds for the V6!!!!!!!!!!!!

3900 pounds for he V8!!!!!!!!

GM!!! GM!!!!!! What happened to "oh the weight, don't worry about that..." The worry was justified and I'm sorry but this is my biggest disappointment. People, that's only 100 pounds off of the heavy G8 GT. It's even heavier than the GTO with about the same HP.

So far, this is the biggest disappointment by far! Weight hurts handling, performance, and fuel economy so this seems like a poor job of keeping the weight low. Geeezzzz, all this premium, upscale, etc etc talk...I'd trade in the interior for the crappy 80's interior to save 300-400 pounds off this car.

If the Vette is rated at 16/26 coming in at 3,100 pounds how in the world can a 3,900 pound car get anything even close to that. Heck, even the V6 coming in at 3700 (compared to the CTS coming in at 3875) will have poor fuel economy considering the CTS gets only 16/25 which is nothing to wright home about.

I'm very disappointed in the weight!

I thought the Mustang coming in at 3500 pounds was too heavy, with these numbers it's actually the nimble one in the group while the GT500 is a FAT HOG like the SRT8 also. Instead of breaking from the ever fatter approach (which is counter to the problems we are facing with gas, weight is the #1 reason for poor gas) GM simply dropped the ball on this one.

Sorry folks, I love the car and I don't want to rain on your joy but it just does not make sense to me.

My hope, is that this information is wrong but I'll hold off coming to conclusions till it's official. If it' true, GM...what in the world were you thinking!

[carsismeZ06]

Originally Posted by Cubanaso

Wow, alot I like and alot I don't.

Mind you, I don't know the official price but if it's not competitive then this will be a mistake. Has GM forgotten what these cars stood for since their inception? Affordable performance car for the common person and if that formula is broken with the Camaro I think it will be a stupid move on their part. I keep hearing he upscale, upmarket, premium, etc etc and I can't help but worry that GM is about to make a mistake. BUT...I'll hold off the disappointment button until I hear more.

Also, 3700 pounds for the V6!!!!!!!!!!!!

3900 pounds for he V8!!!!!!!!

GM!!! GM!!!!!! What happened to "oh the weight, don't worry about that..." The worry was justified and I'm sorry but this is my biggest disappointment. People, that's only 100 pounds off of the heavy G8 GT. It's even heavier than the GTO with about the same HP.

So far, this is the biggest disappointment by far! Weight hurts handling, performance, and fuel economy so this seems like a poor job of keeping the weight low. Geeezzzz, all this premium, upscale, etc etc talk...I'd trade in the interior for the crappy 80's interior to save 300-400 pounds off this car.

If the Vette is rated at 16/26 coming in at 3,100 pounds how in the world can a 3,900 pound car get anything even close to that. Heck, even the V6 coming in at 3700 (compared to the CTS coming in at 3875) will have poor fuel economy considering the CTS gets only 16/25 which is nothing to right home about.

I'm very disappointed in the weight!

I thought the Mustang coming in at 3500 pounds was too heavy, with these numbers it's actually the nimble one in the group while the GT500 is a FAT HOG like the SRT8 also. Instead of breaking from the ever fatter approach (which is counter to the problems we are facing with gas, weight is the #1 reason for poor gas) GM simply dropped the ball on this one.

Sorry folks, I love the car and I don't want to rain on your joy but it just does not make sense to me.

My hope, is that this information is wrong but I'll hold off coming to conclusions till it's official. If it' true, GM...what in the world were you thinking!

I'm definetly getting the Camaro RS now...

[2KZ28_For_Now]

Monday.

"Ye have little (or no) faith."

The rags will print what sells. It doesn't matter to them if they are 'close' or not.

Don't be a Lemming.

[Cubanaso]

2KZ28, lol....I know, my hope is that it is wrong and I'll be the first to say WAIT TILL MONDAY BEFORE YOU PRESS THE FREAKOUT BUTTON! LOL, I never mean to be alarming...just honest how I feel about the data while always saying, it's not yet official.

[CatiaJockey]

Cubanaso: "So far, this is the biggest disappointment by far! Weight hurts handling, performance, and fuel economy so this seems like a poor job of keeping the weight low."
If you want quality and safety it cost you in weight. I would rather have a heavy safe and quality vechile than a light weight piece of s*it. I've heard so many complain about the weight, but no one has a solution that wouldn't drive the price out of our budget range. If you ain't part of the solution then you're part of the problem, no solution, no complaints!!

[Cubanaso]

If this is right, I'll play your game Catia....(in fun, relax and don't get to mad at me fore being honest).

Here is an example because it's close to my heart/ownership. The RX8 is not a large car nor is it a small car, the backseat is actually pretty good compared to most 2+2's (other than the GTO which beats it hands down but no longer is sold).

My RX8 is a 2+2 and comes in at 2950-3050 depending on options, my version is the 2950 pound version. It has 4-5 star crash rating all around, has duel front, side, and curtain over protection. So, it is light and protects its passengers (while having little doorlits as I call them). So, this is one example and remember it comes in at 25K. No, its not as fast as the lovely new Camaro will be and the Camaro is larger overall (while the backseat is still a question). BUT...it's more than possible if you make weight a priority when you are building the car.

With that said, it's unique rotary engine is a gas hog and makes only 232HP while there is talk of the future DI rotary helping things out. Remember, EPA says it gets 16/22 so the new Camaro will be better than that I hope.

It's possible friend, and cost feasible if done right. It takes effort and not a lazy approach to keeping weight down. I know it wont be Vette light, as it shouldn't at it's price point and with 2 seats in the back, but 800 pounds more than the Vette (IF, IF, IF, IF this information is right) is excessive.

The target should have been at least 3500 V6 and 3700 V8, so it's about 200 pounds too heavy in both regards. That would have been a realistic goal to reach for while I personally would have wanted even lighter.

Also, I'm not an engineer nor work for GM so my solutions would be basic. It can be done...if you care enough about it and pay attention to each area of the car being built. Saving even 5% in weight in every area will yield a big difference in a 3000+ pound car.

Relax...I'm stating my opinion, I love the look and I really like GM but if this is true I'm sorry but I am disappointed in the weight...I'd hate to be a fan boy or a YES MAN. Not saying you are, but I know for sure I am not and I think it better fits GM to have an honest opinion.

BUT FOLKS!!!! LET'S WEIGHT TILL MONDAY WHICH I'LL BE AT WORK CRYING THAT I CAN'T LISTEN IN!!!

[swazworth]

When we spoke, Oppenheiser and his team had just completed the 80-percent powertrain calibration testing and were mum on not only the final horsepower and torque numbers, but the exact gearing as well. He did say to expect V-6 output north of 300 horsepower and 270-pound-feet on regular unleaded.

that is the most important line (at least to me) in this article. it means that this interview didn't take place yesterday, the day before, hell even a week before. so i'm not going to freak out about anything. tho i will agree i think 3900 is a little bit fatter, than i was hoping for. 3700 for the v8 is what i was hoping for. but remember nothing is to be trusted untill monday. unless it was scott that told you.

[Cubanaso]

^Exactly friend, take it from the resident alarmist (LOL)....


....WAIT TILL MONDAY FOLKS BEFORE REACHING FOR THE FREAKOUT/DISAPOINTMENT BUTTON!!!!!

WAIT TILL MONDAY!!!!