Production 2010 Chevy Camaro Revealed!

Camaro > *

Knowing that it's been engineered by Holden, it will be freakin' amazing. I also love the interior.. which is a first for an American car.
 
I got to be honest, I'd take the V6 version.
 
I'm talking about how it looks, rather than what it actually weighs. It just looks a bit too chunky for me, a bit 'thick' on the body sides.
That makes sense. The looks are loosely based on the 1969 model, and this Camaro weighs half a ton more than that car did. The weight shows. I still love it, but I bet I could get a '69 in good shape for a lot less :p.

Anyway, 3,900lbs? Damnit. Damnit damnit damnit :wall:.
 
I thought the Mustang was big, but this is just ridiculous. They could have made it smaller and lighter. No ones going to use the backseats on a coupe anyways, so why make it so big and heavy?
 
What the hell is it with all these new muscle cars coming out and appearing to be massively bigger than the originals but in fact aren't, but still gain a shit ton of weight?

And why do they need to have 18's+ just to look decent?

The V6 cars will be available in two basic trim levels: the base LS steel-wheel car and the relatively well-equipped LT. The engine can be bolted to either an Aisin six-speed manual transmission or a Hydra-matic 6L50 six-speed automatic. Both carry 3.27:1 rear gears. Dodge offers only a four-speed automatic with its V6.

Hmm I bet some 3.77's or 4.11's would work wonders with that v6.
 
happy they seemed to get rid of the fly-eyes that they had on some of the test cars.
 
Overall, I am generally unimpressed by the new camaro, but the new Challenger...

Dodge_Challenger_2008_92528_20080620.jpg


Mmmm, that's good.
 
What the hell is it with all these new muscle cars coming out and appearing to be massively bigger than the originals but in fact aren't, but still gain a shit ton of weight?

You already know and it's been mentioned in the thread.
 
I thought the Mustang was big, but this is just ridiculous. They could have made it smaller and lighter. No ones going to use the backseats on a coupe anyways, so why make it so big and heavy?

*raises hand*

Ahem, my father drives a Monaro - he uses the rear seats all the time. Heaps of space in the back too, awesome bucket seats back there.
 
I thought the Mustang was big, but this is just ridiculous. They could have made it smaller and lighter. No ones going to use the backseats on a coupe anyways, so why make it so big and heavy?
Well they did start developing it years ago, when gas prices weren't as much of a concern as they are now. Not that that's an excuse. They said they wanted to move it upmarket, and it is loosely based on a sedan chassis but for fucks sake, the G8 with its iron V8 isn't much heavier. Anyway, I agree with you and I wish they would've gone back to basics in more areas than just looks. Ford has made clear that they want to lighten their cars, both for gas mileage and performance. GM would do well to follow the same path. If only fucking Congress (and the EU) would lay off with all the vehicle legislation.

Once I got a ride in one, my fantasy was shattered, the car was awful to be in.
Clearly they must not have been driving fast enough. Or your expectations were too high ;).
 
First vert photos I've seen so far. All of the photos should be released by Monday(when the sites were supposed to release the photos).

http://img133.imageshack.**/img133/8060/112080919zchevroletcamahn6.jpg
http://img374.imageshack.**/img374/3301/112080920zchevroletcamamb3.jpg
 
Folding hard tops are always worth the weight and lost trunk space IMO.
 
Clearly they must not have been driving fast enough. Or your expectations were too high ;).

He probably got a ride in an unloved 1980 model with it's mind boggling 7.7 0-60 time and suspension that only knows how to lose grip in any direction but forward! :lol:
 
I'm not too keen on all these new "old" cars from america but if i had to choose, i'd take the Challenger. However, of all the classic american muscle, i think the Corvette is the best looking today.
 
Top