Camaro "How its Made" TV show Observations

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
The Caprice Police Car is a Commodore as well, but it is only for fleet sales.



Well....
smile.gif
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Too bad it's a hideously-ugly abortion on the level of a puce Aztek with orange polka dots and a lavender green shag carpet interior with lime green seats.


The tone of your posts suggest you're a 20 something hamburger flipper. I've not seen one intelligent post out of you in the years I've been on here.
 
Originally Posted By: horse123
A 4 cylinder "muscle car" makes you look like even more of a moron going through his mid life crisis but can't afford a real car.

All the manufacturers should build little sports cars instead of having a 4 cylinder option in a muscle car.

It'd be like Ferrari releasing a $40,000 sports car with an I4... you just don't do it. It's not OK.


Have: 2012 Impreza 2.0i

The irony is priceless
 
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
The Caprice Police Car is a Commodore as well, but it is only for fleet sales.



Well....
smile.gif
wink.gif



Depends on the fleet and the dealer I guess. I don't think you can get one with a TR-6060, mag-ride suspension, and Brembos. Still a sweet car. First one I saw was in the COTA parking lot at the V8 Supercar race. All the Aussies there thought my friend and I were weird for staring at a Commodore.
 
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal

I like the new Camaros, but I would only get a V8.


That's the only way a muscle car should be equipped.


A Camaro is not now, nor has it ever been, a muscle car.
It's a pony car.

A muscle car is typically a FAMILY SEDAN that has had a large engine option shoveled into it.

You know, a Dodge Charger, with the 6.2 liter option.
Or a Buick Skylark with the 455 CI Buick engine, with Stage II heads.

Those are muscle cars.

Camaro, Mustang, and Challenger are all Pony cars.

BC.
 
Originally Posted By: Bladecutter
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal

I like the new Camaros, but I would only get a V8.


That's the only way a muscle car should be equipped.


A Camaro is not now, nor has it ever been, a muscle car.
It's a pony car.

A muscle car is typically a FAMILY SEDAN that has had a large engine option shoveled into it.

You know, a Dodge Charger, with the 6.2 liter option.
Or a Buick Skylark with the 455 CI Buick engine, with Stage II heads.

Those are muscle cars.

Camaro, Mustang, and Challenger are all Pony cars.

BC.


Technically yes you are correct. However the only way to go with a pony car is a V8 with a proper 3 pedal manual behind it. Obviously such a setup with the 707hp H E double toothpick cat from Dodge would not be very fun.

Technically only Chrysler/Dodge and GM have proper muscle cars. CTS-V, Charger R/T and SRT, 300C, and SS sports sedan. The SHO is missing 2 cylinders and the engine is pointed the wrong way. The Falcon would fit the bill, but Americans have no interest in a RWD V8 performance sedan per Ford.
 
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
Originally Posted By: Bladecutter
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal

I like the new Camaros, but I would only get a V8.


That's the only way a muscle car should be equipped.


A Camaro is not now, nor has it ever been, a muscle car.
It's a pony car.

A muscle car is typically a FAMILY SEDAN that has had a large engine option shoveled into it.

You know, a Dodge Charger, with the 6.2 liter option.
Or a Buick Skylark with the 455 CI Buick engine, with Stage II heads.

Those are muscle cars.

Camaro, Mustang, and Challenger are all Pony cars.

BC.


Technically yes you are correct. However the only way to go with a pony car is a V8 with a proper 3 pedal manual behind it. Obviously such a setup with the 707hp H E double toothpick cat from Dodge would not be very fun.

Technically only Chrysler/Dodge and GM have proper muscle cars. CTS-V, Charger R/T and SRT, 300C, and SS sports sedan. The SHO is missing 2 cylinders and the engine is pointed the wrong way. The Falcon would fit the bill, but Americans have no interest in a RWD V8 performance sedan per Ford.


I would consider the M5 and its Mercedes AMG sibling to be muscle cars as well FWIW. Large, 4-door sedans with big power.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
I would consider the M5 and its Mercedes AMG sibling to be muscle cars as well FWIW. Large, 4-door sedans with big power.


O yes the Germans know how to make a proper muscle sedan. The first time I heard a S63 get on it I swore it was a Camaro or Mustang until I saw this big 4 door sedan spit fire as it past me. The Japanese, Lexus especially, know how to build a nice performance RWD sedan also.
 
Originally Posted By: userfriendly
If someone wants V6 power in a performance car, why not the Cadillac ATS-V or ATS-4 instead of a Camaro?
Which is faster at the track, V6 Camaro or Cadillac?

Can't speak for the caddy but the V6 Camaro will run 14.5's at mission, 15.0 - 15.1's in Edmonton at 2200 feet, factory stock.
 
Originally Posted By: userfriendly
Is this an "American Muscle Car"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=relQZqunfyo


Yes, I would say that it still is. Though of course it is targeted at the M5/AMG crowd.

Great video BTW! Though I found a couple of contradictory statements:

1. "Cadillac having their own engines" (as demonstrated in the ATS-V)
2. "This car has the same basic motor as in the Z06"

Jay was going on about Cadillac having their own engines "back in the day" and folks getting upset when they shared engines with the other brands. I don't think there is anything wrong with the engine sharing, a broader base means more real life durability testing.

I also thought it interesting that it has a great deal of aluminum on it, including the doors, and that the next version will have an aluminum body.

I'm a big fan of the CTS-V BTW.
 
Originally Posted By: CONMCK
Originally Posted By: userfriendly
If someone wants V6 power in a performance car, why not the Cadillac ATS-V or ATS-4 instead of a Camaro?
Which is faster at the track, V6 Camaro or Cadillac?

Can't speak for the caddy but the V6 Camaro will run 14.5's at mission, 15.0 - 15.1's in Edmonton at 2200 feet, factory stock.

Motor Trend and Road and Track just tested a 2016 V-6 Camaro both magazines ran 13.80's at sea level.
Not too shabby.
Motor Trend tested the ATS-V 12.3 at 114 mph in the 1/4 mile. Even Better.
smile.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
.... Americans have no interest in a RWD V8 performance sedan per Ford.


V12 V8 V6 I4 Americans don't seem interested in RWD cars, period. Ford's right.
 
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
.... Americans have no interest in a RWD V8 performance sedan per Ford.


V12 V8 V6 I4 Americans don't seem interested in RWD cars, period. Ford's right.


AFAIK the Charger is doing well.
 
Originally Posted By: Bladecutter
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal

I like the new Camaros, but I would only get a V8.


That's the only way a muscle car should be equipped.


A Camaro is not now, nor has it ever been, a muscle car.
It's a pony car.

A muscle car is typically a FAMILY SEDAN that has had a large engine option shoveled into it.

You know, a Dodge Charger, with the 6.2 liter option.
Or a Buick Skylark with the 455 CI Buick engine, with Stage II heads.

Those are muscle cars.

Camaro, Mustang, and Challenger are all Pony cars.

BC.


Muscle vs Pony: sort of an arbitrary distinction really, maybe those terms should just belong to an historical period that ended in the early 70's. And how about the fastback Mustang Steve McQueen drove in the movie Bullet - you'd have to call that a muscle car not a pony car (and of course the 68 Charger from the same movie was a muscle car).
 
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Originally Posted By: CONMCK
Originally Posted By: userfriendly
If someone wants V6 power in a performance car, why not the Cadillac ATS-V or ATS-4 instead of a Camaro?
Which is faster at the track, V6 Camaro or Cadillac?

Can't speak for the caddy but the V6 Camaro will run 14.5's at mission, 15.0 - 15.1's in Edmonton at 2200 feet, factory stock.

Motor Trend and Road and Track just tested a 2016 V-6 Camaro both magazines ran 13.80's at sea level.
Not too shabby.
Motor Trend tested the ATS-V 12.3 at 114 mph in the 1/4 mile. Even Better.
smile.gif



They always seem to run quicker in a magazine than real life. mind you the ET #'s above was mid summer air, not ideal to achieve the quickest ET.
 
Without the Density Altitude there is no way to compare 1/4 mile times.

FWIW all the rags tested my sig car at around 13 to 13.1. They claim they "correct" their times...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom