2010 Camaro

Discussion in '2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-' started by SS02, Jun 28, 2009.

  1. Top Speed

    Top Speed New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kearneysville, WV
    Awesome ET for a stock LT1. The fastest LT1 I've ever seen that was near stock was a 1993 Z28 M6 that this guy in Milwaukee had. I wasn't friends with him, but we rolled in the same circles. I saw him run a 13.6x @ 105 mph with a Flowmaster exhaust and K&N air filter. Everybody used to call his car "The Freak."
     
    #21
  2. SS02

    SS02 New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Fort Worth, Texas
    lol.....my posts eh
     
    #22
  3. SS02

    SS02 New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Fort Worth, Texas
  4. rpburnette

    rpburnette Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Tampa, FL

    There were a lot of people that liked the Camaro when it first showed up and some that didn't.

    You must not have been reading the 2V section on this forum. There was post after post about the 4x4 look. Most people were not getting lowering springs for performance, they were getting them to get rid of the 4x4 look.

    Anyway, I hope that all three can stay around. Each car provides something the other two don't which is good b/c we are all different. One thing that I am worried about and I have said this previously, they all better get the cost down or they will all go away. I personally can't believe a Mustang GT costs low to mid 30's. The Mustang and Camaro were suppose to be the working mans sports/muscle car.
     
    #24
  5. Top Speed

    Top Speed New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kearneysville, WV
    Well, I've only been a member on this forum for maybe a week, if that, so, no, I haven't seen the posts about the last generation Mustangs looking like a 4x4.

    These "Muscle Cars" are no longer "Muscle Cars," but marketing ploys; halo cars. The Camaro, Challenger, and Shelby GT-500 are so heavy that they shouldn't even be considered Muscle Cars. For the amount of horsepower that all of these cars are shelling out, they are all flat-out SLOW.

    These companies claim that with today's safety standards the costs of providing a high horsepower engine with a low weight is too expensive, yet Nissan somehow managed to shave 200 lbs from the 350Z with the introduction of the 370Z, plus boost the horsepower from around 300 to 330+ hp. Someone help me out here, because something just doesn't add up. :shrug:

    As for the Camaro and Mustang being the "working man's Muscle Cars," I still believe they are...if you even want to call the Camaro a Muscle Car anymore. With the Camaro, you get 426 hp for $30k, while with the Challenger you'll get 375k for about $30k. The SRT-8 Challenger comes in at nearly 40k, and has 425 hp; one hp shy of the much cheaper Camaro.

    A new Mustang GT (Standard) stickers for $29k. After negotations, you should be able to drive one home for around $27k.

    My biggest turn-off to the Mustang is its lack of hp. Sure, 315 hp is healthy, but in a 3500 lb car it's not exactly ground-breaking. Many foreign competitors are making just as much hp out of V6s, or more; Nissan/Infiniti, for example. Then there is Hyundai who has a V6 making 304 hp...HYUNDAI! GM is making 306 hp with its V6 out of the Cadillac CTS. Where is Ford's "powerhouse?" Sure, Ford has some awesome diesels, but what about their gas-powered vehicles? They have ONE supercharged V8 making 540 hp and you have to spend $46k+ to get it.

    Well, whatever the case, horses can be gained, and other than the "lack" of them in the Mustang, I love everything else about the car, and maybe that's why it's been successful for 45 years running...
     
    #25
  6. allcarfan

    allcarfan The Answer Man
    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2001
    Messages:
    3,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Location:
    North Atlanta
    "muscle cars"

    have always been heavy and slow, with lots of HP. Do you think the muscle cars of the 60s all ran 11s and pulled 1g on the skid pad and braked with precision? No.

    Most of them were 13-14 second cars with GOBS of HP, weighed a ton, had drum brakes, tremendous body roll.
     
    #26
  7. fox1x

    fox1x New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    164
    Showcase:
    4
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Northwest Ohio
    Originally posted by Top Speed:
    I Bought my 2007 MGT in August of 2006. It stickered for $27,500 and I was able to get it for $23k. Mustangs have always been a tremendous value. As I posted in the previous post (with the link); there's dealerships selling new MGT's for $19,xxx. Mustangs will always be the better value. Even in the last years of the Camaro/Firebird; the Mustang still outsold the GM couterparts by a 3 to 1 ratio.
     
    #27
  8. Top Speed

    Top Speed New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kearneysville, WV
    While I'll agree that most of them ran in the 13s-14s and didn't handle for squat, they were not always extremely heavy. An early 70s Nova SS weighed about 3400 lbs, if that. A 1962 Nova SS weighed around 2900 lbs. An early 70s Impala SS weighed about 4200 lbs; pretty light for such a boat. A 1969 Chevelle SS weighed about 3500 lbs, while the 1970 model was the heaviest, at around 3700 lbs, and it had a 454 in it. Even look at the Fox-Body Mustangs. They weighed about 3100 lbs.

    What good is a Muscle Car if it has 450 hp and weighs 4000 lbs if a Honda Civic with a motor-swap and 275 hp will eat its lunch? Kinda makes me want a Honda Civic...Ok, not really, but you get the point.

    Remember the latest Mercury Marauder? I'll bet those owners were ****ed to find out a V6 Honda Accord was faster than their "Muscle Car."
     
    #28
  9. Top Speed

    Top Speed New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kearneysville, WV
    So what do you think I could get a new GT for; "Standard" package?
     
    #29
  10. allcarfan

    allcarfan The Answer Man
    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2001
    Messages:
    3,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Location:
    North Atlanta
    What you must remember also is that MOST (not including the fox.....not sure how that got thrown in there) of the cars you mentioned had:

    No AC
    No Power Brakes
    14 or 15" wheels
    very basic suspension
    100lbs less of wire and electronics

    If you want to add the above options to cars of today, the weight would be about the same. Times change, what can I say?

    Who cares what a car weighs....its about how it performs.
     
    #30
  11. SS02

    SS02 New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Fort Worth, Texas
    As reported by USA Today:
    Such a hot model is rare in today's global auto sales slump, and GM thinks Camaro may catch Ford's Mustang in monthly sales when it has enough available. GM sold 5,463 Camaros in May, the first month of the sporty car's revival, compared with the 8,812 Mustangs sold by Ford. Chrysler sold 2,695 of the rival Dodge Challenger it brought a year ago.

    GM spokesman Terry Rhadigan says Camaro will be "right with Mustang on sales" by the end of June.

    As reported by GMhightechperformance:

    Besides being a far superior automobile to the 2010 Mustang in every single way, the new Camaro has just beat it in
    something else; Sales. In the month of June, GM has reported 9,320 Camaros went out the door, while Ford reports selling just 7,632 Mustangs. Let's not even talk about the 2010 Challenger, which sold a measly 1,369 cars.
     
    #31
  12. Wolvrin704

    Wolvrin704 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Location:
    Milford, OH
    Thats certainly debateable.

    I think what you're seeing is new model sales. Once the Camaro has been out for awhile and especially once the 5.0 engine comes out the Mustang will be back on top or worst even, not to mention a redesign coming I've heard in 2014 which again will generate new sales.
     
    #32
  13. Top Speed

    Top Speed New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kearneysville, WV
    Who cares what a car weighs? You will, as soon as you find yourself going towards a corner a little bit quicker than you anticipated.

    As for no a/c and what-not, there were plenty of classic Muscle Cars that had power brakes and a/c.

    Maybe these automakers wouldn't be hurting so much if they quit spending money on crap that not everyone wants. We've basically had technologies we don't want forced down our throats.

    Call me old-fashioned, but all I need are power windows and an a/c. I couldn't care less about Blue-tooth, a 1000 watt Monsoon stereo, NAV system, or any of that other crap.

    Please tell me you don't actually take anything for granted that those idiots say. GM High Tech Performance is nothing more than glossy toilet paper. They're on the twig and berries of what ever the newest thing is. They were all over the LT1 when it came out, then it suddenly sucked when the LS1 came out, and lemme guess...now the LS1 sucks and the LS3 is the greatest thing to ever, right?

    There's a reason the Mustang's been successful for 45 years and the Camaro hasn't. Ok, maybe the Camaro will beat the Mustang in sales this year, and possibly next year, but 3 years from now, nobody will care about it. It'll just be a stale design that had taken its course.

    Every time the Camaro is redesigned it sells well for 1 or 2 years, and then...nothing.

    Don't get me wrong, I love Camaros, but I wouldn't even consider that new...thing...a Camaro. That right there is a desecration and an abomination to the Camaro nameplate. :notnice:
     
    #33
  14. Fast05

    Fast05 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2005
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Corpus Christi, TX
    And how many millions of dollars did GM have to spend on marketing for the new camaro? I'm sure it trumps the money Ford spent on the Mustang. Also keep in mind there are more Camaros at dealerships than there are Mustangs. Ford only produced about 45,000 2009 Mustangs and shut down production early to start on the 2010s. In the meantime the new ones have literally been trickling onto dealership lots. Whereas GM spent a ton of money putting the car in 2 movies and countless ads, built up inventory and then made a "splash." I've now seen about twice the number of camaros than new mustangs on the road down here.

    Question is, will the hype survive the test of time? Or the car for that matter? It's a brand new model (as anyone here knows who bought an 05 mustang, they can have problems) it took them years to finally get it to market and now GM is bankrupt, and my tax paying dollars now pay for your camaro when it breaks down.
    :notnice:
     
    #34
  15. allcarfan

    allcarfan The Answer Man
    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2001
    Messages:
    3,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Location:
    North Atlanta
    Um....maybe you should reread my post you quoted and look at the last line?

    And, if you are going to say something, try not to contradict yourself....

    Top Speed: When I found out the camaro weighed 4000lbs, I nearly lost my lunch

    Top Speed: The stang, camaro, and challenger or so heavy, they shouldnt be classified as muscle cars.


    Obviously "weight" was a factor in those things you said....no?
     
    #35
  16. Top Speed

    Top Speed New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kearneysville, WV
    Actually, maybe you should re-read my post, because you got it totally wrong. I said nothing about the Mustang GT. What I commented on was the weight of the Shelby GT-500.

    Given that this is the internet and things come out as more defensive than they really are, no matter how I type this, this is going to sound rude, but it is not meant to be.

    If you are going to call me on something, that's fine, and I have no problem discussing or debating it, but at least call me on something that I actually said.
     
    #36
  17. SS02

    SS02 New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Fort Worth, Texas
    As reported by USA Today:
    Such a hot model is rare in today's global auto sales slump, and GM thinks Camaro may catch Ford's Mustang in monthly sales when it has enough available. GM sold 5,463 Camaros in May, the first month of the sporty car's revival, compared with the 8,812 Mustangs sold by Ford. Chrysler sold 2,695 of the rival Dodge Challenger it brought a year ago.

    The Camaro cant reach the supply and demand either, I know guys waiting 2 months before they get their ride !!!
     
    #37
  18. white-04

    white-04 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Owings, MD
    I'll start off by saying I'm not a chevy/camaro hater. I really like the Corvette.

    I've seen the Camaro several times in person, and feel its too tall, just like the Challenger. The side panels are just huge. The front end of the Camaro is too tall too, looks like it belongs on a 80s monte carlo ss. I like the style, but don't think they executed as well as they could have. I'm guessing they were limited somewhat since they didn't build this from the frame up like the Mustang.

    The weight is the other issue. I'd prefer something a little more nimble.
     
    #38
  19. Fast05

    Fast05 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2005
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Corpus Christi, TX
    They're just having a hard time keeping up with all the old people with wet dreams from the 60s. Once the hype is over this car will most likely see the same fate the last Camaro and GTO did. Most of the general public does not care about 1/4 mile times. It wouldn't surprise me if it sold well ---- for the first year or so. GM just wanted to get this car out before they went under....and now we're all part owners as tax payers. Maybe we should give them insight.....like an interior that doesn't look like my friend's pontiac g5 on the inside.
     
    #39
  20. SS02

    SS02 New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Fort Worth, Texas
    ^^^^^2/3 of all sales are V6...I agree most dont care about 1/4 Mile times, but the V6 Camaro looks a whole hell of alot better than the V6 Stang....and its equipped with a 304hp engine that runs the 1/4 along side of the SN-95 V8 Stangs :)

    The V6 always leads in sales, and I think the Camaro will continue to sell at a high rate. Time will tell
     
    #40

Share This Page