The center stack looks like a (Star Wars) Stormtrooper's helmet.....

Yeah... the lower portion of the mask section...

Oh well!

Well, the auto has better drive ratios than the manual on the V8, but the manual does have more power. I would expect the manual to be faster once you get over 60 or so, though. As for the V6... the DI RWD CTS weighs about 100lbs more and has posted sub-6 second 0-60 runs. I'd expect the Camaro to do the same. The Camaro's coefficient of drag is .35 though, not very good. Perhaps that slows it down somewhat? The GTO auto is also faster to 60 than the manual and many times the auto will win in a the 1/4 mile, just at a lower speed.

The CTS in the recent C&D comparo (a lighter strippy at that) ran 0-60 in 6.1 seconds with the manual. C&D admitted that the faster CTS they originally tested was a pre-production model.

(Edit: For the record, C&D recorded 0-60 times of 6.9 seconds in a Mustang Coupe V6 with the 5-speed automatic.)

Edited July 23, 200817 yr by The O.C.

With the economic present, & likely near future, I'll bet dollar to donuts it's a lot more than you think.

Or did you think suc... people are buying kias for their unique amenities?

The great majority of features on most modern cars just add: cost (purchase), cost (repair), annoyance (in cases of refused repair), weight & complexity. And laziness.

Look at the numbers buying priuses on gut reaction.... economics is the directive here (that, and a vain desire to be viewed as 'green').

+1

Chris

A sweet, pale yellow, retro-style, would be much more palatable than the sour, bright yellows of recent years. I cannot wait to see this car in Aqua Blue and Techno Gray.

The interior looks tacky with the grey switch gear and all -- a little cheap looking and a little reminescent of $50 boomboxes. I think the G8 interior looks much better...

3700 lbs + LS3 turns me on though, although I think the G8 is a much better looking car (especially if they can get rid of those Pontiac nostrils and make it more like a Commodore VE.

I am loving this thing. I might be happy with just a six speed RS with a V6. I don't need a 400hp V8, 300hp would be enough for me.

Three quick points:

1. smk/nos: I will gladdly give up .3 sec in the 0-60

sprint to have a REAL manual*

* in fact that is a challenge to learn that clutch &

shifter so damn well you beat the auto!

I couldn't agree more. I love driving a stick, not an auto-stick-thing. The engineers admitted that they geared the 6SA in the Camaro for that 0-60 sprint. The only thing that hurts the 6SM is the 1-2 shift.

Camaro Colors

You can scroll to the bottom and click the different thumbnails. Most of the colors you are hoping for are there.

Colors are not completely accurate. Just poor Photoshops of the silver concept Camaro.

The CTS in the recent C&D comparo (a lighter strippy at that) ran 0-60 in 6.1 seconds with the manual. C&D admitted that the faster CTS they originally tested was a pre-production model.

(Edit: For the record, C&D recorded 0-60 times of 6.9 seconds in a Mustang Coupe V6 with the 5-speed automatic.)

Times have been posted on the Camaro, though Scott Settlemire said the times aren't accurate. I'd count on them dropping .1-.3 seconds.. all of them:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=129496

I am loving this thing. I might be happy with just a six speed RS with a V6. I don't need a 400hp V8, 300hp would be enough for me.

6SM RS/SS for me all the way. I've already read up a $h! ton on this car. I can't wait!

What happened to the turbo 4?

While 26MPG is pretty good for a heavy 6 cyl car that makes 300hp... i need something higher then that if im going to buy it.

Scott Settlemire said the 3.6 with 300 HP will probably end up with 27 MPG hwy.

Which is good and a true modern muscle car. Yes V6 and all.

Edited July 24, 200817 yr by gm4life

Oh, I forgot to mention... there was a Camaro chat between an engineer on the team and members of cz28.com and one member asked why it's only got 23 MPG when he can get over 30 with his LS1. The engineer said that 23 MPG is in SAE terms and "if you can get 30+ in your LS1, you can do even better with this car."

Colors are not completely accurate. Just poor Photoshops of the silver concept Camaro.

Yeah, but it's all we got. Plus, the colors have names and a lot of them already exist. So, while it's not accurate in the picutures, we already know what they look like in real life.

Oh, I forgot to mention... there was a Camaro chat between an engineer on the team and members of cz28.com and one member asked why it's only got 23 MPG when he can get over 30 with his LS1. The engineer said that 23 MPG is in SAE terms and "if you can get 30+ in your LS1, you can do even better with this car."

That's good to hear. Ask if the same (bump in real world milage) applies to the V6 too.

I couldn't agree more. I love driving a stick, not an auto-stick-thing. The engineers admitted that they geared the 6SA in the Camaro for that 0-60 sprint. The only thing that hurts the 6SM is the 1-2 shift.

Colors are not completely accurate. Just poor Photoshops of the silver concept Camaro.

Times have been posted on the Camaro, though Scott Settlemire said the times aren't accurate. I'd count on them dropping .1-.3 seconds.. all of them:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=129496

6SM RS/SS for me all the way. I've already read up a $h! ton on this car. I can't wait!

Any thoughts on price for the V6?

I suppose in a world where a yuppie nerd driving a FWD,

4-cylinder Acura calls it either a 'sports-sedan' or, worse

a 'luxury car' I can let a V6 Camaro with 300-horses be

called a 'muscle car', prior ot this instance the only other

cars that were true muscle cars but lacked a 7th and 8th

cylinder were the GN(x), T-Type and it's rare cousin the

'89 TTA, but the Euro-mustang for instance... NOT a

muscle car. It was a pretty cool low-buck GT car but it

was NOT a muscle car.

I suppose in a world where a yuppie nerd driving a FWD,

4-cylinder Acura calls it either a 'sports-sedan' or, worse

a 'luxury car' I can let a V6 Camaro with 300-horses be

called a 'muscle car', prior ot this instance the only other

cars that were true muscle cars but lacked a 7th and 8th

cylinder were the GN(x), T-Type and it's rare cousin the

'89 TTA, but the Euro-mustang for instance... NOT a

muscle car. It was a pretty cool low-buck GT car but it

was NOT a muscle car.

'muscle car' is a dated term, anyway. Back in the day (40 years ago), Camaros were considered 'pony cars', and mid-size cars like the GTO were 'muscle cars'. Anyway, that's neither here nor there, which is why I prefer the general term 'performance car' to describe performance cars today, rather than worry whether they fit the 'sports car', 'sports sedan', 'muscle car', etc classification.

I understand, I just like the term. It means a car with more than enough power to me.

I understand, I just like the term. It means a car with more than enough power to me.

A lot of cars can fit the muscle car description but won't get the tag because they're "not American."

I dunno... wouldn't a final year of the last generation cut through the air much better than this and be much lighter, while having a great engine with astounding aftermarket support?

:duck:

All true.

But the fourth gen. doesn't measure up in many other ways.

beautiful inside and out...except for that steering wheel.

Ummm t-tops?

Nope.

The entire bodyside is a one piece stamping and is structural, T-tops are not possible on this car.

Oh, and kudos to GM for ignoring the goddamned cd. number!

I'm glad to see form above function in that regard for a change - very glad.

Style lives!

'bout freakin time someone did that, jellybeans suck.

Nope.

The entire bodyside is a one piece stamping and is structural, T-tops are not possible on this car.

I'm sorry.. I should've said, "Removable roof panels?"

I'm sorry.. I should've said, "Removable roof panels?"

I guess they could do that, but it would look kinda odd.

Seems that they are sticking with the sunroof option instead - and with that, you lose the "reverse mohawk" shaping of the roof panel.

A lot of cars can fit the muscle car description but won't get the tag because they're "not American."

No only American cars can be called Muscle cars.

I guess they could do that, but it would look kinda odd.

Seems that they are sticking with the sunroof option instead - and with that, you lose the "reverse mohawk" shaping of the roof panel.

I wouldn't want removable panels..too much work. Hopefully, the sunroof will be a power sliding one and not a silly pop up..

I wouldn't want removable panels..too much work. Hopefully, the sunroof will be a power sliding one and not a silly pop up..

Isn't that the difference between a sunroof and a moonroof? Moonroofs just pop up?

Camino: agreed. This thing looks more sinister than any hemi-powered ANYTHING in all history! (xcept a tank )

moonroof: glass panel pop-up and usually slides back as well

sunroof: solid, non-translucent (usually metal) panel that opens in various ways

Isn't that the difference between a sunroof and a moonroof? Moonroofs just pop up?

I thought a moonroof is glass and a sunroof is metal, but the terms go back and forth and no one really seems to know exactly what they're talking about. Anyways, I highly doubt the sun/moonroof will only pop up, when was the last time GM offered that? I hope they can integrate it into the roof rather than having it slide above the roof (looks dumb like that).

A sweet, pale yellow, retro-style, would be much more palatable than the sour, bright yellows of recent years. I cannot wait to see this car in Aqua Blue and Techno Gray.

I liked both the blue and the grey also.

Chris

Personally I don't care for gray on a Camaro, I would prefer the Aqua Blue, White or actually the red yellow and silver are growing on me.

There is no question on how my Camaro will appear: Gloss Black with Gold hockey stick stripes.

the pictures of that black one have me wondering where i can find something to clean up the mess.

This thing looks more sinister than any hemi-powered ANYTHING in all history! (xcept a tank )

Dude, I actually agree with Sixty8 on the Hemi-powered comment. I love the 'Cuda, but the Camaro looks so much more sinister.

I think they're both badass.

phfft this one has my vote for understated beast hehe

Dude, I actually agree with Sixty8 on the Hemi-powered comment. I love the 'Cuda, but the Camaro looks so much more sinister.

Dude, ya gotta go REREAD the comment he posted that I replied to.

Jungle Jim's Vega was a "LITTTTLLLLE BIT" more "sinister" looking than a new off the lot Camaro is going to be.

Sorry, but it ain't even CLOSE.

*super LOL*

"Hey Jim, ya wanna race that new stock Camaro coming out in 2009?"

"No way dude, that thing is TOO SINISTER!"

LOL!

Earth to eyeballs, come in eyeballs....

"Yeah, that is THE MOST "sinister" car EVAH!!!!!!!!!!

OK, I will have to agree too.

OK, I will have to agree too.

Looks right out of a heavy metal video.

$4.00+ gallon gas makes me think I'd be happy as pigs in $hit

if I could spend $23,000 & buy a power option delete Camaro

with a 2.4 ecotech, wide-spread-gear 5-speed & highway

geared rear end for a killer combo of "MPG & cool factor" 5th

generation Camaro style.

[let the roasting begin]

Just remmeber I've owned dozens of V8s, so sellig out it's not.

why would you want a gutless Camaro? I can't stand hot looking cars that are slow. A 2.4L NA would be straining against the weight. I have a 2900lb Cobalt 2.4L automatic--and it bores me to death.

At least wish for a Turbo 2.0L Ecotec!! They get better MPG then the 2.4L NA.

Have your cake and eat it too!!

very pleased with the news. I must say the production interior is much better then the concepts. I would really like one......probably a V6 for a daily driver

Edited July 26, 200817 yr by avro206

Love 'em or hate 'em the '70 'Cuda and Challenger were nothing

more than blatant styling rip-offs of the '69 Camaro & Firebird TA

from every angle. The hooded nose, recessed headlights, rear

1/4 kickup, greenhouse!!! the Cuda and Challenger of 1969 have

ZERO in common with the '70s, the lack of continuity was Mopar's

fault, they just gave up and decided to blatantly copy the F-body's

winning styling DNA.

Does this mean the '70-'72 E-body Mopars suck? Hardly.

But they are VERY low on the originality scale, ad without the HEMI

and legendary 440 they'd be worth pennies on the dollar right now.

Love 'em or hate 'em the '70 'Cuda and Challenger were nothing

more than blatant styling rip-offs of the '69 Camaro & Firebird TA

from every angle. The hooded nose, recessed headlights, rear

1/4 kickup, greenhouse!!! the Cuda and Challenger of 1969 have

ZERO in common with the '70s, the lack of continuity was Mopar's

fault, they just gave up and decided to blatantly copy the F-body's

winning styling DNA.

There was no '69 Challenger...Dodge had the Dart, but no 'pony car' in the late '60s. The '70 E-body Cuda looks much better than the Valiant-based A-body '67-69, IMHO. There are some similarities in design between the '70-74 E-bodies and the '69 GM F-bodies, but the E-body Cuda and Challenger are bigger, wider cars. The '70-71 Challenger is still one of my favorite designs of that era. Since the Challenger was an all-new model, there was no previous version to base the styling on.

As far as 'lack of continuity' as 'Mopars fault', well, GM did the same thing--the '70 1/2 F-bodies have nothing stylistically similar to the '67-69. Sometimes radical change works well between generations of a model.

Edited July 26, 200817 yr by moltar

Don't forget that the 'Cuda and Challenger were not clones. Even the wheelbase is different.

Don't forget that the 'Cuda and Challenger were not clones. Even the wheelbase is different.

Yes, I don't think they had any sheetmetal in common. Shared the E-body platform, but had a lot of differences. From what I've read, the E-body platform (as far as suspension, etc) had a lot in common with the B-bodies (Charger, Road Runner, Coronet, etc).

Love 'em or hate 'em the '70 'Cuda and Challenger were nothing

more than blatant styling rip-offs of the '69 Camaro & Firebird TA

from every angle. The hooded nose, recessed headlights, rear

1/4 kickup, greenhouse!!! the Cuda and Challenger of 1969 have

ZERO in common with the '70s, the lack of continuity was Mopar's

fault, they just gave up and decided to blatantly copy the F-body's

winning styling DNA.

Does this mean the '70-'72 E-body Mopars suck? Hardly.

But they are VERY low on the originality scale, ad without the HEMI

and legendary 440 they'd be worth pennies on the dollar right now.

Hmmm, kinda like how the 67 F-bodies had cues (in greenhouse) one could figure akin to the notchback 64-67 Mustang?

Every single era seems to be walk by one particular styling language, with slight variation as to not get sued by competitors. Like the 60s Coke bottle thing; 80s formal rooflines, sharply wedged fastbacks, and blacked-out pillars; today's fascination with having either a BMW-esque or Mercedes-style greenhouse, etc, etc, etc...

Personally I don't care for gray on a Camaro, I would prefer the Aqua Blue, White or actually the red yellow and silver are growing on me.

...your making me feel like an old man, dude. I just LOVE that car in grey.

But to each his own.

Chris

I think they're both badass.

I would agree.

Chris

I would agree.

Chris

I would agree there both badass but the Chevy is even more so than the Mopar. Then again I am a gm4life so go figure.