Article Comments - 2010 Chevrolet Camaro V6 Prototype First Drive

14 messages, Last post on May 23, 2009 at 6:13 AM

You are in the Chevrolet Camaro Forum. Your Host is claires

What is this discussion about? Chevrolet Camaro, Coupe

First Drive: 2010 Chevrolet Camaro V6 Prototype - First Impressions: If all the pieces come together as expected, this could be the first small-engine pony car we would consider driving — ever. (more)

Outline

Messages Page 2 of 2: 1; 2; Prev; Next; Last

#4 of 14 Re: 2010 Chevy Camaro V6 [greenpony] by m1miata Sep 07, 2008 (8:05 pm)
Replying to: greenpony (Sep 02, 2008 7:18 pm) What aging Mustang do you have? I test drove the 2004 GT, and while it was not outstanding HP, it was a fine sounding engine, and enough torque. The old Stang looked trimmer, and was indeed more narrow. No need for this chin high belt line with new cars and 18 to 22" rim -- simply ridiculous and costly. The interior of the '04, IMHO, looks nicer than the odd, wanna be retro and plastic at the same time, new Stang. I personally will be waiting to see what the new PRHT MX-5 looks like for 2009. Rumor of a nicer looking front. Even the Miata is gaining in belt line height, though not like the SUV looking so called sporty / sports cars these days. Could be the last low and wide looking, though in fact more narrow, Camaro was the 2002. Though about getting one in the late 90's age group, as they have a better front. Either the SS or the Z28 would be nice. Decent gas mileage from the V6 or V8 with the stick. The 2002 look is OK, except the nose is a bit like a Chrysler. I owned a Stealth at one time. Now that is a beauty. It had plenty of glass area, and you could hang an elbow out!
#5 of 14 One more thing to add by m1miata Sep 07, 2008 (8:19 pm)
This article makes out like it would be the first good V6 available for the Camaro. I have to disagree. While the old pushrod 3800V6 was perhaps less than glamorous, it pumped out 200HP, which for its time was not so bad at all. The MPG was excellent at around 31 with a stick. Ya know 225# torque was pretty fair as well. Had it been a BMW they would have loved it And the old V8 did OK gas mileage wise. Only thing I disliked is not being able to see that mile long hood out front - not that I can see any of my half mile hood on the Accord I have
#6 of 14 ugliest most powerful GM stickshift car by elias Dec 19, 2008 (5:42 pm)
greenpone, which do you think is butt uglier, the 2010 camaro or the 2006 GTO? also, please name the one or two colors that makes them the ugliest!? and yes Mr. M1ata, that 3800 V6 camaro with stickshift was nice! ps - I got a constant 28 mpg with an 89 V8 camaro 5-spd stickshift model driving from boston to SF, this was before 10% ethanol in gas.
#7 of 14 Headroom by nkeen Jan 22, 2009 (5:53 pm)
I was looking at the interior dimensions for the Camaro -- front headroom only 37.4". This is considerably less than the Mustang, Corvette, or Challenger. On the face of it, this looks like a major problem for any of us with a long torso. Unless I reclined the seat to an unacceptable angle, I think my head would be crammed against the roof (I'm 6'1" tall). I'd be interested in any feedback from testers regarding this dimension. Surely GM wouldn't make this mistake with an otherwise great design......would they?
#8 of 14 WRONG CAR AT THE WRONG TIME by bpf Mar 10, 2009 (7:02 pm)
......is the interior serious? How long have they been working on this POS?? Like 12 years now? I'm sure we'll see lots of these new Camaros driven by 50 something woman in pink curlers wearing tight denim shorts showing off their fish belly white legs laced with purple and blue varicose veins in the parking lot at the local Walmart. I wouldn't bother putting too much development in this car since people who drive cars like these don't know quality if it jumped up and bit them in the ass.
#9 of 14 What were(n't) they thinking? by juxto Mar 10, 2009 (10:30 pm)
I was interested in a new camaro until I saw the saving gm episode on tv and did about an hours research on my own. Cameraman pointed out a very loud turn signal. GM rep says "it won't be like that tomorrow". They had at least 6 or 7 of these running since 2006 and nobody used the turn signal before? So I then looked at the options packages and a few other items... I now understand the saying that the camel was a horse designed by a committee. They spent so much time working on this and when they went to production the car was going to be too heavy. Solution - make the hood out of aluminum. The engine compartment too full - put the battery in the trunk. (Lots of room in the trunk because they don't give you a spare ((20 lbs)), but you can buy one for $150). If you get the 6 cylinder and want a spoiler you should expect to pay about $1200 for it cause you have to buy a package. If you want an 8 cylinder and don't want a spoiler... too bad because it comes standard on the 8 cylinder. But at least on the 8 cylinder they give you two different sized tires (front and back) to make sure you don't rotate them. Tires? Try finding the sizes they have on this car, then take a look at the cost of the tires... what were they thinking? The V-8: one engine with two mods. Get the regular one with a stick, but if you want an automatic you have to have Variable Cylinder Management but they had to alter the pistons in the engine to accommodate VCM so they call the engine a different name. If you want one it can take a long time because the allocation is based on how many cars the dealer sold and how many mustangs were registered in that chevy dealers area... Certainly wouldn't want to have more camaros than mustangs and certainly wouldn't want to just sell every one of these things you could. The list goes on and on. It makes it a whole lot easier to see why GM is in trouble. There should be some real nice end of year bonuses coming out of this think tank! Replies to this message: greeneyespsu (May 23, 2009 6:13 am)
#10 of 14 Amber Turn Signals by mycatcroaked Mar 11, 2009 (8:23 am)
While the article chastises the rear amber signals used on the mule in Australia, I for one love them. I wish they were standard on every vehicle in the US. It seems that German and Asian cars only delete them because of the US for some reason. They look brighter, are more distinct and are definitely sportier. What's not to like? I'm particularly distressed when some US cars have them and some don't. Some model years have them and some don't. Pontiac used to come out with a model - like an early '80s Grand Am with red rear lenses, later adding amber and touting them as a "new sporty look." HA! Why not install them from day one? The choice for rear amber lenses should not be for safety - not asthetics. I for one won't buy cars without them.
#11 of 14 by wildbill1978 Mar 11, 2009 (12:12 pm)
My question isn't about the car, but why this article is on the front page of Inside Line if the article was written almost 7 months ago? I thought the article was familiar as I was reading it, and then once I saw the date of the article I realized why. Replies to this message: claires (Mar 13, 2009 12:34 am)
#12 of 14 Re: [wildbill1978] by claires HOST Mar 13, 2009 (12:34 am)
Replying to: wildbill1978 (Mar 11, 2009 12:12 pm) It isn't. This discussion was begun in August, 2008 and the link just leads directly to the article so that you don't have to page through. Here's the front page of Inside Line.
#13 of 14 Re: 2010 Chevy Camaro V6 [ninco] by sean35 Mar 23, 2009 (2:32 pm)
Replying to: ninco (Aug 29, 2008 10:48 am) Ninco, You really cannot compare these 2 cars. An RX-8 is a much different car. It is much smaller than the Camaro. If the Camaro has more power, is faster, and priced similarly to the RX-8, what difference does it make if it is heavy? Also, if you look at the Challenger R/T in Edmund's recent comparision or any tests of the Challenger, that also is a heavy car, even more heavy than the Camaro. Also, the RX-8 is relatively light for its size.