New review on 2010 Camaro SS - Michael Karesh

[SSLarry]

Hope this isn't a repost...

www.ttac.com (www.thetruthaboutcars.com)

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/rev...let-camaro-ss/

The third-generation Camaro, so much swoopier than anything else on the road back in 1982, looked more like a concept car than a production car. The throaty V8, though pitifully weak by today’s standards, at the time was easily capable of getting a 14-year-old’s pulse racing. Some critics dinged the car for its impractical packaging, size, and weight, but I didn’t care. I wanted one, badly. Never did get one. By the time I could afford a Camaro, I agreed with the critics. From frenzied test drives in the Toyota Corolla GT-S and Honda CRX I learned the joys of high-revving multi-valve engines and agile handling. GM recently introduced a fifth-generation Camaro. What has it learned in the last 28 years?

In form and spirit, the 2010 car’s big, bold exterior is very much that of a Camaro. My 14-year-old self would have loved it. I thought my kids would love it, but instead they seemed puzzled that a car with such exaggerated styling could exist outside of a cartoon. Many people do clearly love the look of the new car, and virtually everyone has a strong opinion about it. GM deserves credit for crafting a shape that is at once current and readily identifiable with its ancestors. The lesson not learned: the racier the styling, the shorter the shelf life. Sales have been strong so far, but where will they be in 2012?

Size remains a big issue. Compared to previous generations, the new Camaro is about as long (190.4”), wider (75.5”) and heavier (3,860 lbs.). The original Camaro was based on a compact car platform. The new one is based on GM’s largest car platform. You’d never guess that gas prices reached record highs during the car’s gestation. Another lesson not learned.

Check out the 2010 Camaro’s back seat, preferably from a safe distance, and as with past iterations you’ll wonder where all of those exterior inches went. Adults who don’t regularly practice yoga simply don’t fit beneath the low roof. My skinny nine-year-old son complained about the lack of room and his inability to see out of the small, high-mounted windows. His comment on the car: “Everything is big except what you want to be big, and that’s small.”

Slide between the widely-spaced bolsters of the front seat, though, and you’ll wonder if the Camaro was designed for giants. You sit low behind a hulking instrument panel. Both the deeply dished steering wheel and shifter are super-sized: Camaro drivers best have big, manly hands. The retro-styled interior possesses some interesting elements, but it’s overly plasticky. The silver-painted trim bits are so thick they come across as clunky. The bulging center stack with its pair of oversized round HVAC controls (I’ll avoid references to the female anatomy) appears more 1990s GM than late 1960s. Sometimes there’s a fine line between retro and dated. The most attractive part of the interior: the door sill trim plates. Too bad they’re no longer visible once you clunk the door shut.

The windshield is much more upright than with the third-generation Camaro, and perhaps even the second—a retro touch I can definitely live with. Sitting low and gazing over a long hood as the V8 rumbles provides a badass feeling you just cannot get in a Mustang. Visibility? It’s as bad as everyone says, but still livable.

When paired with the six-speed manual, the 2010 Camaro’s 6.2-liter V8 puts out 426 horsepower at 5,900 rpm. Years ago GM claimed they could get pushrod engines to breathe well at high rpm, and they’re rightly proud of the peak output they’ve been able to wring from this one. But there are downsides to this approach. With only two valves per cylinder, breathing cannot be optimized separately for low and high rpm. So tune for high rpm breathing and the low end suffers. The 6.2’s torque peak is a fairly lofty 4,600 rpm, so there are only 1,300 rpm between the peaks.

Then there’s the way the Camaro’s engine sounds and feels when racing for the redline. Its raucous roar (with stray mechanical undertones) borders on violent, with much of this violence seemingly directed towards the engine’s own internals. Put another way, under hard acceleration at high rpm the big V8 sounds like it wants to tear itself apart. At the other end of the spectrum, the idle is a bit lumpy, which is typical of a cammy old-school V8.

Shift feel is similarly unrefined. Throws are moderate in length, but can feel clunky, and in casual driving it takes conscious effort to shift the car smoothly. Go too easy on the throttle in first and the shifter will take you straight to forth, an old GM trick to bump the EPA rating. The V8 is torquey, but shifting into fourth so early still lugs it. Even if this feature is avoided—and I didn’t encounter it at all the first few days I had the car—the gearing feels too tall. Fuel economy ranged from 13 in hard driving to low 20s on the highway. Figure 16 and change in moderately aggressive driving around town—nearly the same I observed in an Altima Coupe.

Then there’s the chassis, which seems to have received all of the refinement the rest of the car did not. The nicely weighted steering doesn’t communicate much, and the Camaro handles like the large, heavy car that it is. But body roll is restrained without killing the ride quality, and the precision with which the car can be steered with the right foot (a trait shared with the late, lamented Pontiac G8 and the Corvette) should serve as an example for other manufacturers. (Nissan, I’m talking to you.) Add in good balance and very grippy tires, and you’ll rarely come anywhere near the Camaro’s limits on public roads.

In the final analysis, outside of the chassis GM hasn’t learned much in the last 28 years. Some things they didn’t need to learn. The driving position might compromise visibility, but without it the Camaro wouldn’t be a Camaro. And a Camaro should be boldly styled and chock full of big, vocal V8. But the fifth-generation car is at least a half-size too large, a few hundred pounds too heavy, and far too unrefined. Sure, a Camaro should be raw, but not raw all over. Like hair that has been painstakingly styled to appear disheveled, rawness must be carefully distributed. The bits that enhance the driving experience should be retained, even amplified—as raw as it is, the Camaro could feel more visceral. But the other rough edges, that cheapen the car and disrupt the driving experience, should be excised. The good news: the chassis would be the hardest thing to fix with the refresh that needs to happen before the styling goes stale.


=============================

Early Camaros had a common problem with the bolts that retain the rear spoiler coming loose. Other than that owners participating in TrueDelta’s Car Reliability Survey have reported few problems. They’ve been quite reliable for an all-new GM car in its first year.

To participate in the survey, with just about any car:

http://www.truedelta.com/reliability.php




.

[Ringo]

That guy is full of crap. You know what they say about opinions and assh*les. Some automotive journalists are too full of themselves to write anything worth reading. Such is this drek.

[SSLarry]

AGRREED... check the SAME guys other review... you would think it was a different car...

http://www.epinions.com/review/2010_...t_483345534596

2010 Chevrolet Camaro--big, bold, and unapologetic

by mkaresh: Written: Aug 31 '09 - Updated Aug 31 '09

Recommended: Yes

Pros: Styling, power, ride/handling
Cons: Driving position, visibility, cramped rear seat, too large and generally a bit much
The Bottom Line: A lot of car for the money if you're into the look. But not for those into subtle styling, agile handling, or elegant packaging.

I first became fanatical about cars back in the early 1980s, and the Gen 3 1982 Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac Firebird were among the main reasons. I wanted one, badly. They were so swoopy, so outrageously sporty, so far beyond anything else out there, so thoroughly American (I was fervently pro-Detroit back then), and packed full of (Crossfire Injected) V8. Only a few years later did I come to realize that they were too big on the outside, too cramped on the inside, and generally lacking in both agility and refinement.

Fast forward a human generation (two Camaro generations), and GM is once again introducing a thoroughly revised Camaro (no Firebird this time, alas). Once again objects of widespread lust? Absolutely, though I'm not sensing the level of impact the 1982 had. But what has GM learned about making a better pony car in the last 28 years? I took a new 2010 Camaro for a test drive to find out.

Chevrolet Camaro Styling

GM has shown the new Chevrolet Camaro in concept then production form so much in the last few years that the car was in danger of becoming overexposed before it could reach dealers. Still, the car certainly has an impact when seen on the road. GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz has sought to give the designers free reign, and in this case the original concept has been brought to production nearly intact. Huge wheels? Check. Tiny windows? Check. Cartoonish proportions? Check. It's all here.

So why aren't I lusting after this car, when so many other people are? Though my wife would argue otherwise, I fear I've done too much growing up in the past 28 years. These days my automotive turn ons revolve around subtle styling and elegant engineering solutions. The Camaro, by intent, is neither subtle nor elegant. If, on the other hand, you want a bold, undiluted pony car, this is your look.

But it's not just a matter of subtlety. I'm also too young. I lusted after the 1982 cars, which at the time seemed like cars from, well, 2010. They sought to jump forward in time. The 2010 Camaro, in contrast, is retro, if retro done right. It looks backward, to the first generation cars. I'm not old enough to have lusted after those when they were new, so there's no missed ownership experience to recapture.

Inside you'll also find retro, dominated by an organically curved IP and door panels and large, squarish instrument surrounds. The trouble with retro interiors is that car interiors used to be so much simpler, and any interior that attempts to recapture their flavor (e.g. Chrysler LX) risks coming across as dated, cheap, or both. Some people find the Camaro's interior cheap. Others find it acceptable. Few people, even the car's fans, seem to love it.

As seen in the 2010 Buick LaCrosse, GM is capable of outstanding interiors. But in this case there was no doubt a need to conserve costs in order to provide a first-rate engine and chassis at a viable price point. Ford fitted the Mustang with a live rear axle for the same reason. Would you rather have a luxurious interior or an independent rear suspension? Conceptually, any enthusiast would opt for the latter.

Chevrolet Camaro Accommodations

Everything you've read about the Chevrolet Camaro's driving position is true. The seats are low, the instrument panel and door panels are high, and the pillars are THICK. Unless you're very tall (at which point headroom becomes a problem, especially with the optional sunroof), you'll feel a bit (or more than a bit) buried in this car. And that's looking forward over the hood. To the rear--can we have larger mirrors, please? Not good for driver confidence. Want similar handling in a car you can see out of? Find a remaining Pontiac G8 sedan. Of course, you sat low behind a hulking IP in the 1980s cars as well. But the new car goes further.

The front seats are passable, with a modicum of lateral support. The front seats in Hyundai's Genesis Coupe are both more comfortable and provide better lateral support.

The back seats--well, pre-teens who don't need car seats should fit okay. Anyone over 5-6 will find their head uncomfortably pressed against the rear glass.

The Gen 3 cars were hatchbacks. The new Camaro has a trunk. It's a decent-sized trunk for a sports car, but the opening is very small. The rear seat folds in one piece to expand the trunk, but this does nothing to expand the opening.

Chevrolet Camaro Driving Experience

I drove what the dealer had, and what the dealer had was a V6 automatic. Of the four powertrains offered, this would have been my fourth choice. Bear in mind that I almost always enjoy a car more with a manual transmission.

Back in the day the base engine was a 90-horsepower four-cylinder not even worthy of powering...anything, much less a pony car. Well, the base engine in the 2010 is a 3.6-liter DOHC V6 good for 304 horsepower--nearly double the power of the 1982's V8. It's also not far off the V8 in the Mustang or the V6s in the Genesis Coupe and Nissan 370Z.

So is even the V6 thrillingly quick? Almost. It's certainly far from slow. But it can't match the thrust of the above cars because the Camaro is also, like the 1980s car, hundreds of pounds heavier than the competition. Also, while GM's direct-injected V6 puts out respectable power, it lacks the sophisticated rush of sound as it revs to the redline that I personally expect from a DOHC V6. (To be fair, Hyundai's and Nissan's V6s don't come much closer to the mark in this regard.) And it also lacks the low-end grunt of the V8.

Low-end grunt isn't just a factor with the Camaro's traditional forte, the straightline stoplight launch. When I drove the related Pontiac G8 GXP, I loved how effortlessly that car could be steered with the throttle. The V8 Camaro might be the same way. The V6 Camaro--not. There's just not enough twist down low to rotate the rear end with just a slight dip of the right foot.

Pity, because as in the G8 the chassis is far more balanced than in any past Camaro. The new Camaro feels solid and composed in broad sweepers. Nicely weighted steering that requires a suitable (but still moderate) amount of heft helps.

What the new Camaro doesn't feel, partly thanks to its size and the low driving position, but also thanks to GM's traditional pursuit of a big car feel, is agile. The steering doesn't feel quick or sharp, and the car doesn't turn in at your slightest suggestion the way a great sports car does. The revised 2010 Mustang keeps winning the comparison tests, and the reason is always the same: handling. Guess what? Back in the 1980s the Mustang had the same advantage. It was the car for those who thought the Camaro too large, too low, and simply too much.

On the other hand, even with the RS Package's 20-inch wheels (which give the car the look of the V8-powered SS) the ride is surprisingly compliant. The ride of a Z and even of Hyundai's not-quite-a-sports-car Genesis Coupe is decidedly harsher. This is the payoff for the lack of razor-sharp reflexes. Noise levels are moderate, another dramatic change from past Camaros.

There's clearly room to step the handling up a notch. If GM doesn't offer this option, the aftermarket certainly will.

Chevrolet Camaro Price Comparisons and Pricing

The Chevrolet Camaro starts at just $22,995, a very competitive price. Even with the automatic and two packages, the car I drove listed for just a bit over $28,000.

A V6 Mustang lists for about $1,500 less. But it's less powerful, and adjusting for equipment differences nearly eliminates the gap.

Compared to a V6 Hyundai Genesis Coupe, the Camaro lists for about $3,000 less, but adjusting for feature differences cuts the gap to about a grand.

Bottom line is that list prices aren't going to be the deciding factor when choosing among these cars. They're all attractively priced.

Prices change frequently, and differences will vary based on feature level. To quickly generate these and other comparisons with the specific features you want, visit my Web site, TrueDelta.com. (It's the only site that provides true "apples-to-apples" price comparisons.)

TrueDelta's page for the Camaro:

http://www.truedelta.com/models/Camaro.php

Last Words

By the time I was 20 the Gen 3 Camaro had lost its appeal for me. It was simply too large and too crude. The 2010 Camaro, while certainly far more refined than the 1980s car, still isn't about elegance or subtlety or finesse in the slightest. It's not the car for me, especially now that I'm in my 40s.

But I'm well aware that my tastes are not everyone's tastes. With the possible exception of the driving position, I have no doubt that anyone who lusts after a Camaro based on its styling will find that the driving experience measures up. The V8 is most in keeping with the car's character, but the V6 is no slouch. With either engine, the new Camaro is an unapologetically big and bold, intensely American performance coupe for people who are into such things. That's how it looks, and that's how it is.

A Note on Chevrolet Camaro Reliability

I cannot practically cover reliability within the context of this review. However, many people are interested in such information, so I've been collecting my own data. Results are posted to TrueDelta.com, with updates every three months. Unlike other sources, TrueDelta clearly identifies what difference it will make if you buy a Chevrolet Camaro rather than another vehicle by providing "times in the shop" stats.

To report results, TrueDelta needs reliability data on all cars--not just the Camaro--from people like you. To encourage participation, those who help provide the data will receive free access to the site's reliability information. Non-participants pay an access fee.

Details here:

http://www.truedelta.com/reliability.php

Alphabetized links to my other vehicle reviews can be found on my profile page.
Amount Paid (US$): 28,220
Model and Options: V6 Automatic with Convenience and RS Packages

[2010 SSRS]

this guy is a .......

[ketel0ne]

His Angelina Jolie review

"Her hips are big, her lips are big, if you like that kind of thing she is the woman for you."

[Sc0rPs]

Sooo... what he's saying this isn't a family car... and for the rest, each to their own but less credit for him since he contradicts himself.

[ss ZHO]

That was the most negative review of the Camaro ever. The guys is obviously a biased idiot with some hidden agenda of bashing the Camaro.

Sure there were a few things I agreed with, however, in no way was he objective. There are way more +++ than --- in the Camaro (none of which he stated).

[Sc0rPs]

Originally Posted by brycerichert

Because it looks like a cartoon in a way, heavy or hard to see out of?

I meant he contradicts his earlier review of the car. Doesn't change my love for it, first car since my Firebird Formula 20 years ago!

[pincoin]

Who gives a crap what he says anyway?

[GMGP5X]

Originally Posted by pincoin

Who gives a crap what he says anyway?

+1

[MSG']

who is this guy anyway? it's like me writing a review, who the hell am I? ANSWER: NOBODY

[2010-1SS-IBM]

I don't understand reviewers who compare domestic cars to imports. Nissan? Doesn't seem like your usual muscle car competition. Does he ever review Nissan and ding them for not having a big V8, or plenty of torque? I'd guess not.

Another complaint about needing big hands. What's up with that?

And I laughed about the gas prices comment. Last time I checked, gas was relatively cheap ($2.50/gallon for regular, same price as in 2005) and getting cheaper.

[AZCamaroFan]

isn't he wrong about the windshield? it's not more upright than the 3rd gen is it??
other than that, i mean it is true that the car is larger than it should be, and hard to see out of.

[DGthe3]

I don't pay attention to what www.TheLiesAboutDomestics.com has to say.