2010 Camaro

[Top Speed]

Good point. Traction seems to be an issue. Low 12s should be a breeze with that power to weight ratio

True. My main turn-off to the GT500 is the weight, just like with the Camaro. If both of these cars weighed about 500 lbs lighter, I think I'd be a happier current Muscle Car enthusiast.

I have seen 2 09 GT 500s run 12.2 with just a tire on the back Not a slick either just a drag radial. I am sure with a nitto on the back it wouldn't be a problem for a 2010 GT500. alot of them are dynoing 500 to 511 to the wheels bone stock. That should be good for 11s with a drag radial.

That's awesome, especially considering their 2-ton curb weight.

 

[Teleplayer]

I spent quite a bit of time looking at both cars. In the end there were several factors that made me pick the 2010 Mustang. First, Chevy dealers acted like they were doing you a favor by letting you put down $2000 non refundable, on a full price (or more car) that wouldn't be there for 3-4 months. Some dealers didn't even have allocation and would take money to put you on list, and then would order when they did have allocation (once you moved up their internal list). I went to a few dealers and I just didn't feel comfortable in the transaction...all the GM crap didn't help. Was that dealer even going to be there in 3 months? I felt like saying, "hey, isn't your company is hurting?...show some sign you actually want me to buy a car, and didn't I see this thing in a movie like 3 years ago". I had owned a Mustang before and enjoyed it, so I had some bias going in...but if the Camaro was "the car" I was going to get it.

Now not reading numbers in the brochure...just going by feel, the two cars were super comparable. The interior is great, they both drive well and feel powerful. The Camaro maybe edges out on the new wow factor but when I took my 2010 Mustang to the track it got a lot of attention too.

So, I hit the Ford dealer....and dang they actually want to sell a car. And wow, it is a huge amount cheaper (about $5260 for comparable Camaro I was looking at). And can you believe it, they actually have them on the lot.

So in the end, availability, price, company, dealership on a tested a tweaked Mustang helped win my vote. Don't get me wrong, I really like the Camaro, heck I almost bought one but for me Mustang was the right choice and I am loving it.

:Word:
I had exactly the same experience. The Chevy dealers wouldn't even let you drive the car. Why would I buy a car that I can't test drive first? It's a lot of hype, this new Camaro. Some aspects of the car are great, but GM wants you to bow down to them to buy one. I've found that many of the Camaro owners are most influenced by what other people will think of their car. They want others to gawk at it and give thumbs up all the time. So it's sort of an attention thing, they need attention. I just wanted a car I could be happy with that looked good. And Ford actually wants to sell them, what a concept.

 

[fladriver]

The Pony car/muscle car wars are back and I think it is great. Reminds me of the good old days when I was a kid in my new 1967 and 1969 SS Chevelle ( I just turned sixty).

It is really great to have GM back in the game with a car that actually looks good and has some retro flavor. I think GM did a nice job with the Camaro and it is a lot of car for the money at MSRP.

I saw one post in this thread talking about how bad the old muscle cars were and he was right. I loved both my SS Chevelles and they were fun in a straight line race but God help you if you had to turn or stop one of them. The brakes on both the 1967 and 1969 were horrible. Still they were a lot of fun and when you rolled down the highway in a SS you were at the top of the food chain, especially in my 69 with 375 hp.

Guys enjoy this while you can, I hope all three Ford, GM and Chrysler continue with their muscle cars a little while longer. I hope Ford ups the "anty" with a new 400 hp Mustang and we start seeing some good aftermarket bolt ons for the camaro.

I am enjoying the heck out of it and I hope all of you are as well.

Steve

 

[xseler8]

Everyone should buy what they like. Every muscle car is awesome.
My beef is with GM. I bought an 06 2 tone SSR with an LS2 6sp. This Roadster is a show stopper. BUT.. impossible to get parts. Service has been horrible. The clutch is no good and the replacement was no better. And so on. And I'm not alone. Almost every SSR owner has the same complaint. This is my 1st and last GM. Customer service is pathetic. Camaro owners beware. Corvette & certain Caddies have a parts issue also. If GM folds they have it coming to them.
My 02 Mustang is the best ride I ever had. Only service it ever gets is for routine maintenance or performance mods. It never gave me any grief. I still love it. I'd buy a 2010 Mustang in a heartbeat. Ford did a nice job.

 

[SS02]

:Word:
I had exactly the same experience. The Chevy dealers wouldn't even let you drive the car. Why would I buy a car that I can't test drive first? It's a lot of hype, this new Camaro. Some aspects of the car are great, but GM wants you to bow down to them to buy one. I've found that many of the Camaro owners are most influenced by what other people will think of their car. They want others to gawk at it and give thumbs up all the time. So it's sort of an attention thing, they need attention. I just wanted a car I could be happy with that looked good. And Ford actually wants to sell them, what a concept.

You do remember the 05 Mustang right? lol.... It had the same trouble and ppl always want other ppl to checkout their ride !! Why do you think GM has anything to do with the Markups a CAR DEALER puts on a car. If you go to any Brand website - GM-Ford-Dodge, they have this thing called MSRP..- (Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price) which means this is what the camaro or whatever should cost. GM cannot control a Markup on Camaros !!! Lets not even talk about the 07 Shelby GT500s when they hit the market...IS that FORDs fault? Hell no it aint, its greedy ass dealers !!!

Your statement im sorry can go to any car loving enthusiest in regards to the Look at me factor. Why the hell do you think the aftermarket in these cars is so high.

 

[SS02]

Top Speed, I have no idea about LS1.com and their issues, but LS1tech.com is the largest F-Body site out there and very well respected. Not sure about the site your referring to though.

If I took your words out of context my apologies. Really im not here to stir the pot, I like to talk cars and Mustang and Camaros have always been good conversation....for me anyway lol. All im saying is be open minded, when I post something its not to smear, its just mainly room for discussion.

 

[Top Speed]

I spent quite a bit of time looking at both cars. In the end there were several factors that made me pick the 2010 Mustang. First, Chevy dealers acted like they were doing you a favor by letting you put down $2000 non refundable, on a full price (or more car) that wouldn't be there for 3-4 months. Some dealers didn't even have allocation and would take money to put you on list, and then would order when they did have allocation (once you moved up their internal list). I went to a few dealers and I just didn't feel comfortable in the transaction...all the GM crap didn't help. Was that dealer even going to be there in 3 months? I felt like saying, "hey, isn't your company is hurting?...show some sign you actually want me to buy a car, and didn't I see this thing in a movie like 3 years ago". I had owned a Mustang before and enjoyed it, so I had some bias going in...but if the Camaro was "the car" I was going to get it.

Now not reading numbers in the brochure...just going by feel, the two cars were super comparable. The interior is great, they both drive well and feel powerful. The Camaro maybe edges out on the new wow factor but when I took my 2010 Mustang to the track it got a lot of attention too.

So, I hit the Ford dealer....and dang they actually want to sell a car. And wow, it is a huge amount cheaper (about $5260 for comparable Camaro I was looking at). And can you believe it, they actually have them on the lot.

So in the end, availability, price, company, dealership on a tested a tweaked Mustang helped win my vote. Don't get me wrong, I really like the Camaro, heck I almost bought one but for me Mustang was the right choice and I am loving it.

That is a BEAUTIFUL Mustang. Same exact color I'm looking at!

Anyway, how can one of these dealers take a non-refundable $2000 deposit? You don't get a car, they legally can't keep your money, or am I missing something? I wouldn't blame you at all for not feeling comfortable with that transaction.

I've been out to look at the new Camaro, and I've been offered a test-drive, but only if I agreed to put down a deposit. First off, I'm not some punk kid out for a joyride. I'm 35 years old. Don't treat me like I'm some infant. I'm not putting a deposit down or buying a car that I've never driven. I don't take my test-drive on the way home.

I go to the Ford/Subaru dealership. I had my STi in for service. While being serviced, I decided to roam the showroom and came across a very nice 2010 Mustang GT with the works. A salesman walks up to me and I tell him I have my car in for routine service and I'm just killing time. He nodded and walked away.

As I'm killing time I decided to roam the lot, and found a few nice 2010 GTs sitting outside. The salesman approached me again and offered me a test drive. I declined, "No, I'm just browsing." We got to talking about the different options and transmissions, and I made the comment, "Gotta have the manual in a Muscle Car. They shouldn't even offer automatics." A few minutes later he disappeared again. I just continued roaming the lot.

The salesman must have seen me still killing time, so he came out with a set of keys to a 2010 GT. He pulled it out, drove it up next to me, and says to me, "If you're gonna kill some time, make it worth your while." He stepped out of the car, and got in the passenger seat.

Very cool. At the end of the drive, he took the keys, gave me his card, and told me, "Just give me a call when you're ready to order one."

There ya go; one of the big secrets why Ford sells 3x's the number of Mustangs as GM does/did of F-Bodies.

 

[Top Speed]

Top Speed, I have no idea about LS1.com and their issues, but LS1tech.com is the largest F-Body site out there and very well respected. Not sure about the site your referring to though.

If I took your words out of context my apologies. Really im not here to stir the pot, I like to talk cars and Mustang and Camaros have always been good conversation....for me anyway lol. All im saying is be open minded, when I post something its not to smear, its just mainly room for discussion.

Hey, no hard feelings here, bro. And yeah, LS1Tech is much more respected than LS1.com.

I enjoy talking about Camaros and Mustangs. Hell, I gotta enjoy talking about Camaros; I own one!

 

[Bad92GT]

What I find HILARIOUS is that you bag on slow sn95 mustangs when in reality and numbers wise, the new camaro's are flat out slow. I've had LT1's and LS cars. They are quick no doubt, and the new zr1 vette continues to impress me. But I find it laughing in someones face, fall on the ground rolling that it takes 426 horsepower to get that boat to roll out a 12.0 flat. My "slow" little pathetic 5.0 SN95 can run 12's all day long SUB 300 horsepower. It's been proven, all day long, continuously again and again. Go to a track, they are everywhere, as i'm sure you know unless your pretty much blind. Between my HCI and Sniper kit, the car will be putting out damn near 500 horses, and will be knocking on the door of 10's, if not there. I just can't help but wonder where your basing your arguement off that its such a superior car, when it fact it's sub-perior to a 5.0, one of the oldest modern hotrods in the world. There is a fellow on here running 12's with factory parts, intake, heads, and cam, worked over of course, but factory 25 year old technology still.

Now, understand this is not a ignorant hate speech, nor is it a "mustang superiority" speech. I've had a new 3v, there alright. I sold it 3 months later if it tells you how much I like it. Now I drive my 5.0 everyday. Good cars, not my style, and to unmuscley (if thats a word to begin with). Take it for what it's worth.

 

[Top Speed]

What I find HILARIOUS is that you bag on slow sn95 mustangs when in reality and numbers wise, the new camaro's are flat out slow. I've had LT1's and LS cars. They are quick no doubt, and the new zr1 vette continues to impress me. But I find it laughing in someones face, fall on the ground rolling that it takes 426 horsepower to get that boat to roll out a 12.0 flat. My "slow" little pathetic 5.0 SN95 can run 12's all day long SUB 300 horsepower. It's been proven, all day long, continuously again and again. Go to a track, they are everywhere, as i'm sure you know unless your pretty much blind. Between my HCI and Sniper kit, the car will be putting out damn near 500 horses, and will be knocking on the door of 10's, if not there. I just can't help but wonder where your basing your arguement off that its such a superior car, when it fact it's sub-perior to a 5.0, one of the oldest modern hotrods in the world. There is a fellow on here running 12's with factory parts, intake, heads, and cam, worked over of course, but factory 25 year old technology still.

Now, understand this is not a ignorant hate speech, nor is it a "mustang superiority" speech. I've had a new 3v, there alright. I sold it 3 months later if it tells you how much I like it. Now I drive my 5.0 everyday. Good cars, not my style, and to unmuscley (if thats a word to begin with). Take it for what it's worth.

I'd hate to interrupt your rant, but it's taking more than 426 hp to run the 12 second 1/4 mile in that video. A 4000 lb, 426 hp car is not going to turn a 12.0, I don't care how good the traction is.

I see a lot of magazines posting traps for the new Camaro SS at 110-112 mph, yet every video I've seen of one at the track has them trapping between 105-107 mph. 111 mph out of a 4000 lb car with 426 hp just doesn't add up. Not only that, and now I'd hate to bench-race, but the Roush 427R Mustangs are trapping around 108-109 mph, and that's with 435 hp. They weigh approximately 300-400 lbs less than the Camaro. The only way a 426 hp Camaro is going to run faster than that lighter Roush car is if the LS3 in that Camaro is making a bit more than the advertised 426 hp.

People can talk about how pathetic the SN95s and Fox-Bodies are, or whatever, but look at the weight of them. If I'm not mistaken, those Fox-Bodies only weighed around 3000-3100 lbs. It's not hard to warm up a 302ci and run some very fast times in those cars. You can get 375-400 hp out of a 302ci pretty easily without sacrificing reliability of the engine, and you're going to be deep in the 12s. At 375-400 hp, that 302ci isn't even sweating.

 

[Bad92GT]

Well he said something about a 426 Exhaust and intake camaro running 12.0's. I don't find it fast at all. I get a bit heated when someone attempts to tell one of the most economically minded and best suited for the job hotrod daily drivers that they are slow, when in fact what he defends can't get out of its own way.

 

[Top Speed]

Well he said something about a 426 Exhaust and intake camaro running 12.0's. I don't find it fast at all. I get a bit heated when someone attempts to tell one of the most economically minded and best suited for the job hotrod daily drivers that they are slow, when in fact what he defends can't get out of its own way.

Well if he has an exhaust on that car that knocked a second off of a 1/4 time, I want that exhaust, or if an exhaust will knock a second off of a new Camaro's 1/4 time, I guess I'll just have to suck it up and figure out a way to pull 500 lbs out of that car. Then, I'll just have to learn to like it the looks of it.

If you're getting that heated over a statement that someone said over the internet about a car being slow, you need to chill, man. It's no secret to anyone that the SN95s were dog-slow. Sorry, dude, but facts are facts. Claiming an SN95 Mustang was fast is like claiming a Mustang II was the best Mustang to ever come out of a Ford factory.

 

[Bad92GT]

A NPI 4.6 is dog slow. I've had them. But to lump in a 5.0 car with that, thats not the case. My stock geared 95 with just LT's and exhaust stayed side by side with a shelby GT. Not a gt500 of course. The whole "slow" arguement is false. Always has been, always will be. I know of a couple other 94/95's running high 12's stock motored.

 

[whitesqual]

Well if he has an exhaust on that car that knocked a second off of a 1/4 time, I want that exhaust, or if an exhaust will knock a second off of a new Camaro's 1/4 time, I guess I'll just have to suck it up and figure out a way to pull 500 lbs out of that car. Then, I'll just have to learn to like it the looks of it.

If you're getting that heated over a statement that someone said over the internet about a car being slow, you need to chill, man. It's no secret to anyone that the SN95s were dog-slow. Sorry, dude, but facts are facts. Claiming an SN95 Mustang was fast is like claiming a Mustang II was the best Mustang to ever come out of a Ford factory.

soooo, if sn95's stock at 14.9 are dog slow, then stock 94-95 z28's at 14.2 are what???? dog slow too?

I say that neither were dog slow, and both have alot of potential. I think that was bad93gt's point.

 

[Sa-When]

those Fox-Bodies only weighed around 3000-3100 lbs. It's not hard to warm up a 302ci and run some very fast times in those cars.

Man come on. My 90coupe car weighs in at 3320, my 91 Gt weighs in at 3450 Both cars full interior, Now my 90 LX vert weighs in at 3000 with K-members, no air, no power steering stock block AFR heads ported cobra intake and 56mm turbo run mid 11s on DRs. Here are some pics..

View attachment 248100

View attachment 248101

View attachment 248102

 

[SS02]

A NPI 4.6 is dog slow. I've had them. But to lump in a 5.0 car with that, thats not the case. My stock geared 95 with just LT's and exhaust stayed side by side with a shelby GT. Not a gt500 of course. The whole "slow" arguement is false. Always has been, always will be. I know of a couple other 94/95's running high 12's stock motored.

WOW....... your saying a 225 hp, 3400lb 94 mustang is running 12s bone stock. I guess us LS1 guys are missing out big time !!! Are u serious bud? Then you say your stock geared 95 with Full exhaust stays side by side with a 325hp Shelby GT !! Listen everyone loves the 5.0, but those things bone stock were slow man. Fun as hell to drive and modify, and after modifing they were a flat at blast !!! my buddy had a 89 hatch with a 347 in it....BAD BITCH !!!

I call alot of false statements on your glory of the 5.0 though. I had a 2000 GT minor mods , my buddy had a Nice Notch with full exhaust and some other things and I still pulled it. Maybe it was a drivers race.....which I would point to if you beat a Shelby GT in your 95. Sorry, no disrespect but comeon.

 

[SS02]

I know some will argue the LS1 Running low 13s....although the Mustang God himself Evan Smith ran a 12.87 bone stock in a 99 SS...anywho, what your claiming about running 12s bone stock in a 94 is like me claiming running low 11s in the LS1..... PPl argue 3-4 tenths with LS1 times.... your talking nearly 2 seconds on your times. Anyway im not trying to rag on you but I just cant seem to place the logic in your claim.

 

[Top Speed]

those Fox-Bodies only weighed around 3000-3100 lbs. It's not hard to warm up a 302ci and run some very fast times in those cars.

Man come on. My 90coupe car weighs in at 3320, my 91 Gt weighs in at 3450 Both cars full interior, Now my 90 LX vert weighs in at 3000 with K-members, no air, no power steering stock block AFR heads ported cobra intake and 56mm turbo run mid 11s on DRs. Here are some pics..

View attachment 248077

View attachment 248078

View attachment 248079

Dude, a Notchback Fox weighs about 3000-3100 lbs. A buddy of mine had one. Unless the scale at Cecil County Dragway was lying, that's what it weighed, period. Cosmetically, all he did was put a set of Weld Draglites on it; no removed interior, no removed a/c, etc. The only thing I believe he removed was the spare tire/jack.

 

[Top Speed]

I know some will argue the LS1 Running low 13s....although the Mustang God himself Evan Smith ran a 12.87 bone stock in a 99 SS...anywho, what your claiming about running 12s bone stock in a 94 is like me claiming running low 11s in the LS1..... PPl argue 3-4 tenths with LS1 times.... your talking nearly 2 seconds on your times. Anyway im not trying to rag on you but I just cant seem to place the logic in your claim.

You totally missed his point, bro. He never claimed a BONE STOCK '94 Mustang ran a high 12. What he did claim was that a stock motored '94 GT would run high 12s. This is possible with some good bolt-ons and a set of steep gears.

You keep mentioning Evan Smith. Besides the SS that Evan Smith drove, how many others have actually run 12.80s? I can't think of any, and if they are out there, I surely haven't heard of them.

 

[SS02]

^^^ Agreed with the 12.80 comment...... Still from what I take from his comment is hes stating the 5.0 isnt slow stock. I mean we can make any engine faster by bolting on stuff and a H/C/I Swap, steeper gears and such. I think im right on this one, and if im not then sorry for the misinterpretation.

Also....I still dont see a 94 breaking the 12s with just gears and Boltons. Just my 2 cents.