2010 Camaro: Overhyped?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
31,869
Location
CA
Quote:
This might be a record for an ostensibly interesting long-term car: with just 5,317 miles on the clock, our long-term Camaro SS was the last car standing when my low-ranking [censored] got the sign-out sheet yesterday. Actually, that's a lie. The Civic GX was available too. But a 426-horsepower muscle car slumming it with a natural-gas Honda? How the mighty have fallen!

Here's your explanation. Quite simply, the Camaro may be fun to look at, but there's no joy in the drive. It's [censored] fast, but the combination of too-tall gearing and oddly soft low-rpm response (a non-issue in the similarly engined Corvette) makes that speed less accessible than it should be in a muscle car. The interior reeks of cheapness with the exception of the comfy seats, the well-padded armrests and the precision feel of the center-stack knobs. The steering's all light and loose on-center like a big sedan's -- it's as if they just dropped in the G8's steering rack without recalibrating it for Camaro duty. We've already touched on the mystifying steering-wheel design and the miserable visibility.

Add it all up, and what you've got is a car that elicits exasperated sighs from its drivers, never mind the admiring glances from passers-by. I like the concept of the Camaro and the fact that GM actually built it, but next time I have that choice on the sign-out sheet, I just might go with the GX.

Josh Sadlier, Associate Editor @ 5,317 miles


http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/20...home-about.html


For some reason, I am not surprised at his comments. I'd take a 135i over this overweight beast any day.
 
GM overhyping something??? Now that's a shocker
lol.gif
 
I'm sure some will be confused.

Normally a cheap interior is fine in a "sports car" but since anyone under 30 has no fond memories of Camaros, seem to prefer forced induction small cars with manual gearboxes, and loathe GM... well this isn't a sports car at all. It's for the middle aged man who somehow didn't know about the retro Mustangs for sale for the last five years. So an interior that doesn't compare well to his last Camry/Accord/Sonata probably wasn't a good idea. Of course, that probably doesn't matter since releasing a V8 gas guzzler in the middle of a recession sparked by 4.50 dollar a gallon gas was probably a fail from the beginning.

Which is a shame, a 3.6 DI engine in a sporty (manual) sedan would have been a hoot.

At least they had Transformers.
 
Originally Posted By: bepperb
I'm sure some will be confused.

Normally a cheap interior is fine in a "sports car" but since anyone under 30 has no fond memories of Camaros, seem to prefer forced induction small cars with manual gearboxes, and loathe GM... well this isn't a sports car at all. It's for the middle aged man who somehow didn't know about the retro Mustangs for sale for the last five years. So an interior that doesn't compare well to his last Camry/Accord/Sonata probably wasn't a good idea. Of course, that probably doesn't matter since releasing a V8 gas guzzler in the middle of a recession sparked by 4.50 dollar a gallon gas was probably a fail from the beginning.

Which is a shame, a 3.6 DI engine in a sporty (manual) sedan would have been a hoot.

At least they had Transformers.


EPIC post!!!
grin2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: bepperb
I'm sure some will be confused.

Normally a cheap interior is fine in a "sports car" but since anyone under 30 has no fond memories of Camaros, seem to prefer forced induction small cars with manual gearboxes, and loathe GM... well this isn't a sports car at all. It's for the middle aged man who somehow didn't know about the retro Mustangs for sale for the last five years. So an interior that doesn't compare well to his last Camry/Accord/Sonata probably wasn't a good idea. Of course, that probably doesn't matter since releasing a V8 gas guzzler in the middle of a recession sparked by 4.50 dollar a gallon gas was probably a fail from the beginning.

Which is a shame, a 3.6 DI engine in a sporty (manual) sedan would have been a hoot.

At least they had Transformers.


can't you get a cts with a manual.
 
That's a good call. I'm not sure about the manual, but otherwise I really liked the CTS at the last auto show, which is the closest I've been to driving one. The only problem I see with that is that it's close to 40,000.
 
The Camaro is impressive on paper, but doesnt do much for me in person. Now, if they would have made the Trans Am that several have sketched then I would have been sold.
 
The thing doesn't even look appealing, even after allowing for the inevitable clash from trying to merge two different styling genres. And I'm a guy who absolutely lusted after a 67-69 as a teen. It looks even worse than the retro Charger, and that's saying a lot. The Mustang is the only one that looks reasonably "right".
 
My Ford blood may show a bit, but IMO the Camaro has always been a poor answer to the Mustang.

The original still wins in the looks and driving dynamics dept....especially in Cobra trim vs SS trim.....No question which I'd rather own.

My biggest problem with the new Camaro is that hideous dash....Who approved that ugly add on looking piece of junk? And gauges down at knee level completely out of view???
 
Originally Posted By: dwcopple
overhyped is the understatement of the year.

Overhyped by who? It's GM's job to hype up their cars...
I haven't been in a new Camaro but I think its primary objectives have been met well, it looks and sounds mean and goes like stink in a straight line. That's all that muscle cars are supposed to do I thought?
GM is selling them as fast as they can make them so the car can't be that bad...
 
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
It's GM's job to hype up their cars...
I haven't been in a new Camaro but I think its primary objectives have been met well, it looks and sounds mean and goes like stink in a straight line.


The new Camaro is pretty quick...by 2003's standards.
 
I think the Camaro is an alright car. In fact, the base model V6 on steel wheels is actually pretty good looking. Unfortunately, you can't just get a basic model with a V8.

The thing is, I'd much rather have a Mustang or German car first. I detailed a 2010 Camaro, and while it was nice looking and definitely a head turner, it's just not high on my future shopping list.
 
look up the quality check comparo vs. the new stang and the new challenger. It failed over 60% of the test.
 
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
It's GM's job to hype up their cars...
I haven't been in a new Camaro but I think its primary objectives have been met well, it looks and sounds mean and goes like stink in a straight line.


The new Camaro is pretty quick...by 2003's standards.

Low 14's for the V6 sounds like 2003 Mustang GT numbers to me... Low 13's for the V8 is fast enough for most people I'd think.

Also the market the Camaro is made for will never buy a Hyundai anything, better car or not. Personally I'd rather have a Genesis but its not in the V8 muscle car class, therefore most Camaro buyers don't care if its a "better overall car"... An Accord V6 is a "better overall car" than 99% of the vehicles on the road but its not what 99% of people want or need...

I just get tired of mindless GM bashing, the Camaro is an undeniable hit for them based on sales, regardless of what critics say about the dash board, or plastic on the doors... Korea, Japan, or Europe(well maybe Mercedes) don't do muscle cars so comparing anything they make to a Camaro is pretty difficult IMHO.
 
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
It's GM's job to hype up their cars...
I haven't been in a new Camaro but I think its primary objectives have been met well, it looks and sounds mean and goes like stink in a straight line.


The new Camaro is pretty quick...by 2003's standards.

Low 14's for the V6 sounds like 2003 Mustang GT numbers to me... Low 13's for the V8 is fast enough for most people I'd think.


Except mid-high 13s are what the SSs are running for the most part. I saw yet another pair of SSs at the dragstrip last Wed. One had a tune and catback, went consistent 13.7s @ 104. Saw another new SS that had a cam, LTs, tune, exhaust, etc go 13.7 @ 111 several times.

2003 Mach 1s were going low 13s @ 104-105 mph way back then, some even went 12s bone stock. LS1s were doing similar. Excuse if I'm not impressed by a brand new, large displacement, 425 HP pony car that can't outperform a 2003 Mach 1 or 1998 LS1.

Like I said, the new SS was fast by 2003's standards, but a lame duck for a dedicated performance car by 2010's standards. The [censored] things barely outrun 3V GTs, and that basic setup has been out since 2005, and they weren't all that impressive way back in 2005 either.

The new Camaro is a pig, and it shows out in the real world.
 
The only camaro's I have ever liked were the 1st and 4th gens. I own a 4th gen (drag car primarily). Very solid platform, cheap to get into the 11's 12's and they can be made to handle and brake quite easily. My car runs in the 9's and I have spent quite a bit more than some, but I love the car and for an american it's build quality is fairly good. Still a head turner almost 14 years later.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top