General Motors???? what else can be said. It took them 40+} years to get the Corvette close to being a sports car but them people bought them.
2010 Camaro: Overhyped?
- Thread starter The Critic
- Start date
- Status
It took the japanese builders 40 years to build a car that didnt rust away within ten years as well. Ever wonder what happened to all those Honda Civics from the early seventies? They dissapeared in a cloud of rusty dust at the end of their lives.
Lots of GM bashing just to bash.
In response to one of the posts above, I would own a Camaro any day over a small enonomy car with a 4 banger and a turbo.
The interior is not that bad at all. I've sat in one and driven one. It's on par with other cars in it's class, no worse than the Mustang and better than others.
Some people are forgetting what these cars are about. Mustangs and Camaros have always had average interiors at best. They're about cheap speed and a good platform for future mods.
The only gripe I have with the new Camaro is it's weight. There's no excuse for a sports or muscle car to weigh that much.
What I don't understand is the Camaro is slow but look at the specs at the same MSRP:
Camaro SS runs the 1/4 in 13.0@ 111, comes with 14" Brembos, and stops quicker than the Mustang.
Mustang does the 1/4 in 13.9 @ 102.
I usually agree with the people that are going against the Camaro but which one looks like '03 performance, a 13.9 car or a 13.0 car? 9mph trap speed difference is huge.
In response to one of the posts above, I would own a Camaro any day over a small enonomy car with a 4 banger and a turbo.
The interior is not that bad at all. I've sat in one and driven one. It's on par with other cars in it's class, no worse than the Mustang and better than others.
Some people are forgetting what these cars are about. Mustangs and Camaros have always had average interiors at best. They're about cheap speed and a good platform for future mods.
The only gripe I have with the new Camaro is it's weight. There's no excuse for a sports or muscle car to weigh that much.
What I don't understand is the Camaro is slow but look at the specs at the same MSRP:
Camaro SS runs the 1/4 in 13.0@ 111, comes with 14" Brembos, and stops quicker than the Mustang.
Mustang does the 1/4 in 13.9 @ 102.
I usually agree with the people that are going against the Camaro but which one looks like '03 performance, a 13.9 car or a 13.0 car? 9mph trap speed difference is huge.
Hey, I'll admit it....I'm a Ford guy. Who happens to currently own a 06 GTO and a 09 Chevy 2.2 econo box(Trying to buy a couple of GM's before they became GMCompany)...anyway. I dont bash GM to bash GM. In fact I like the look of the new Camaro quite a bit, from the outside. But give a Mustang guy a chance to dog on the Camaro a bit and he's gonna take it. It's been going on for years.
I mean cmon, the Mustang put the Camaro out of business once, it's only a matter of time until it does again.....J/K
I mean cmon, the Mustang put the Camaro out of business once, it's only a matter of time until it does again.....J/K
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
amaro SS runs the 1/4 in 13.0@ 111, comes with 14" Brembos, and stops quicker than the Mustang.
Mustang does the 1/4 in 13.9 @ 102.
I usually agree with the people that are going against the Camaro but which one looks like '03 performance, a 13.9 car or a 13.0 car? 9mph trap speed difference is huge.
I'm not sure where you are getting your figures, but here you go:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comp...stang_gt_page_4
According to this, the Camaro is 6 tenths and 6 mph quicker.
No breaking advantage for the Camaro: http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_s...e040c16c364.pdf
The Mustang does handle better though.
What I can't figure out is how the Mustangs at my track run pretty close to their magazine times, yet the new Camaros are always over half of a second 6-7 mph off of the mag times. I'm beginning to wonder if GM is sending out ringers to the mags or duds to the public. It would be one thing if I've just seen a handful of new Camaros race, but now it's been probably 2 dozen, with and without mods. None of them seem to have major traction problems either.
amaro SS runs the 1/4 in 13.0@ 111, comes with 14" Brembos, and stops quicker than the Mustang.
Mustang does the 1/4 in 13.9 @ 102.
I usually agree with the people that are going against the Camaro but which one looks like '03 performance, a 13.9 car or a 13.0 car? 9mph trap speed difference is huge.
I'm not sure where you are getting your figures, but here you go:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comp...stang_gt_page_4
According to this, the Camaro is 6 tenths and 6 mph quicker.
No breaking advantage for the Camaro: http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_s...e040c16c364.pdf
The Mustang does handle better though.
What I can't figure out is how the Mustangs at my track run pretty close to their magazine times, yet the new Camaros are always over half of a second 6-7 mph off of the mag times. I'm beginning to wonder if GM is sending out ringers to the mags or duds to the public. It would be one thing if I've just seen a handful of new Camaros race, but now it's been probably 2 dozen, with and without mods. None of them seem to have major traction problems either.
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
amaro SS runs the 1/4 in 13.0@ 111, comes with 14" Brembos, and stops quicker than the Mustang.
Mustang does the 1/4 in 13.9 @ 102.
I usually agree with the people that are going against the Camaro but which one looks like '03 performance, a 13.9 car or a 13.0 car? 9mph trap speed difference is huge.
I'm not sure where you are getting your figures, but here you go:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comp...stang_gt_page_4
According to this, the Camaro is 6 tenths and 6 mph quicker.
No breaking advantage for the Camaro: http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_s...e040c16c364.pdf
The Mustang does handle better though.
What I can't figure out is how the Mustangs at my track run pretty close to their magazine times, yet the new Camaros are always over half of a second 6-7 mph off of the mag times. I'm beginning to wonder if GM is sending out ringers to the mags or duds to the public. It would be one thing if I've just seen a handful of new Camaros race, but now it's been probably 2 dozen, with and without mods. None of them seem to have major traction problems either.
I have the link saved on the home computer, I believe it was Popular Mechanics.
I hope GM is not sending ringers for the mag tests but it's been done plenty in the past. I personally haven't been to the track in a year. What would you say the average is for the new Camaros vs Mustangs? I can understand the ET being off from the mags but there's not much to explain the 6-7mph you're seeing other than ringers.
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
amaro SS runs the 1/4 in 13.0@ 111, comes with 14" Brembos, and stops quicker than the Mustang.
Mustang does the 1/4 in 13.9 @ 102.
I usually agree with the people that are going against the Camaro but which one looks like '03 performance, a 13.9 car or a 13.0 car? 9mph trap speed difference is huge.
I'm not sure where you are getting your figures, but here you go:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comp...stang_gt_page_4
According to this, the Camaro is 6 tenths and 6 mph quicker.
No breaking advantage for the Camaro: http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_s...e040c16c364.pdf
The Mustang does handle better though.
What I can't figure out is how the Mustangs at my track run pretty close to their magazine times, yet the new Camaros are always over half of a second 6-7 mph off of the mag times. I'm beginning to wonder if GM is sending out ringers to the mags or duds to the public. It would be one thing if I've just seen a handful of new Camaros race, but now it's been probably 2 dozen, with and without mods. None of them seem to have major traction problems either.
I have the link saved on the home computer, I believe it was Popular Mechanics.
I hope GM is not sending ringers for the mag tests but it's been done plenty in the past. I personally haven't been to the track in a year. What would you say the average is for the new Camaros vs Mustangs? I can understand the ET being off from the mags but there's not much to explain the 6-7mph you're seeing other than ringers.
I kinda like the new Camaro. Why does it have to be an either/or with foreigns and domestics. I've owned 1 German car, 2 Swedish cars, 1 American car, and 3 Japanese.
Honestly, right now the car I see on the road that I've been really thinking would be nice to drive back and forth on the commute is a nice 3.9l Impala.
Quick, someone get me one of those peace prize thingies!
Honestly, right now the car I see on the road that I've been really thinking would be nice to drive back and forth on the commute is a nice 3.9l Impala.
Quick, someone get me one of those peace prize thingies!
I don't mind them. I'm a Mustang fan though. My problem with the Camaro is that it's heavy. In many tests, the Camaro is only marginally quicker than the Mustang, but has like 110 more hp.
Originally Posted By: panthermike
I don't mind them. I'm a Mustang fan though. My problem with the Camaro is that it's heavy. In many tests, the Camaro is only marginally quicker than the Mustang, but has like 110 more hp.
You hit the nail on the head. It's a 4-door family sedan, with 2 doors and half the back seat removed. It's not even an F-body. I'm normally a GM guy through and through, and I have a '02 Z-28, but right now I'd choose the Mustang over the new Camaro.
I don't mind them. I'm a Mustang fan though. My problem with the Camaro is that it's heavy. In many tests, the Camaro is only marginally quicker than the Mustang, but has like 110 more hp.
You hit the nail on the head. It's a 4-door family sedan, with 2 doors and half the back seat removed. It's not even an F-body. I'm normally a GM guy through and through, and I have a '02 Z-28, but right now I'd choose the Mustang over the new Camaro.
Originally Posted By: ArrestMeRedZ
panthermike said:
The lack of backseat room was really surprising. When it was parked next to my TL, it made my TL look tiny yet you can't begin to compare interior room between the two.
For the hp it should be faster if it weren't a fat pig but it's still quicker than the Mustang. It seems as though no one cares about that anymore because it has a lot more hp and is only a little faster it's invalid. I haven't been to a track in a while now, I would love to see what the new Mustangs and Camaros are running in real life but going by the mags the Camaro is significantly quicker and faster.
Each car has it's strong points. I would almost take the Mustang if I were going road racing or auto-x due to the weight advantage. But don't forget, some of that advantage is made up for by the huge 14" Brembos of the Camaro.
For the hp it should be faster if it weren't a fat pig but it's still quicker than the Mustang. It seems as though no one cares about that anymore because it has a lot more hp and is only a little faster it's invalid. I haven't been to a track in a while now, I would love to see what the new Mustangs and Camaros are running in real life but going by the mags the Camaro is significantly quicker and faster.
Each car has it's strong points. I would almost take the Mustang if I were going road racing or auto-x due to the weight advantage. But don't forget, some of that advantage is made up for by the huge 14" Brembos of the Camaro.
I'll take the Mustang please....
Originally Posted By: bepperb
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.
Manual is actually standard on the CTS - dealers just don't order them often based on demand.
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.
Manual is actually standard on the CTS - dealers just don't order them often based on demand.
Originally Posted By: Jason2007
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.
OH YEAH!! I saw those drawings and the TA would have looked much better!
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.
OH YEAH!! I saw those drawings and the TA would have looked much better!
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.
Yeah well when the base V6 camaro nearly matches the V8 Mustang (see Car & Driver) that is fast....in 2010 standards.
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.
Yeah well when the base V6 camaro nearly matches the V8 Mustang (see Car & Driver) that is fast....in 2010 standards.
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
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.
Most of the performance is lost with the PCM torque Management programing. You know - floor it and there is a 1 second delay. That kills it fast.
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.
Most of the performance is lost with the PCM torque Management programing. You know - floor it and there is a 1 second delay. That kills it fast.
I like both the new Camaro and Mustang. But the 2010 Mustang looks like it got hit on the sides of the face and sat on by Professor Klump's family. If I were in the market for a new vehicle I'd pick a new hemi Charger.
THe Base Mustange is well priced but upgrade toa gt(a V* should be standard!) and the price goes up an average of near 10k... I am sorry that is not worth it. Same with the Camaro..A few years and the used market will be flooded with this stuff
I would drive a Mustang.
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
The interior is not that bad at all. I've sat in one and driven one. It's on par with other cars in it's class, no worse than the Mustang and better than others.
I think it is notably worse than the 2010 Mustang interior, which is leaps and bounds better than the 05-09 interior.
The interior is not that bad at all. I've sat in one and driven one. It's on par with other cars in it's class, no worse than the Mustang and better than others.
I think it is notably worse than the 2010 Mustang interior, which is leaps and bounds better than the 05-09 interior.
- Status
Similar threads
