Edmunds Full-Test & Video - All-New LS3 Chevrolet Camaro SS
03-20-2009 | 09:17 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,398
From: Fairfax Station, VA. Formally Long Island :(
Edmunds Full-Test & Video - All-New LS3 Chevrolet Camaro SS
By Daniel Pund, Senior Editor, Detroit
Date posted: 03-18-2009
426 horsepower (400 with automatic) - 0-60 mph in 4.7 seconds - 3,857-pound curb weight - 16/24 mpg EPA fuel economy
The last thing General Motors needs right now is to appear as if it's stuck in the past, creating gas-guzzling cars that are out of step with what the federal government thinks is the future.
So even when Chevrolet steps into the way-back machine to unveil the 426-horspower retro-inflected 2010 Chevy Camaro SS, it's careful to mention that this muscle/pony car is the "sports car for the 21st century" and emphasizes the Camaro's fuel economy ratings more than its 0-60-mph performance.
So we did what had to be done. We dropped an asphalt-melting burnout in the parking lot of a former seminary that was of such destructive length that the guys hired by Chevy to prep and clean the Camaros had time to wander over and say, "Stop. You're done."
Had a Dairy Queen been available we would have laid a patch in front of that, too. Look, man. We've been waiting for years for the arrival of this car; there will be time to talk about balance and the quality of the interior materials later.
That rite of Camaro passage accomplished, we strapped on our Racelogic VBOX III GPS-based testing equipment to get the measure of the new Camaro's less juvenile performance characteristics.
Our test vehicle is the hottest available setup for the 2010 Chevy Camaro, an SS manual. When you choose the Tremec TR6060 six-speed manual as your gearbox of choice you get an LS3 6.2-liter V8 in the deal. That's the same motor that powers the base Corvette.
In the Camaro it makes 426 hp at 5,900 rpm and 420 pound-feet of torque at 4,600 rpm. Order the six-speed automatic and Chevy will fill your engine bay with a 400-hp, lower-revving, lower-compression L99 6.2-liter V8 that comes with cylinder deactivation. It'll deliver 25 mpg on the highway. But the manual will do 24 mpg highway and costs $995 less than the automatic model, so we'll take the extra power, thank you very much.
The SS manual also comes with a 3.45 rear end (compared to the 3.27 in all other Camaros). The combination is good for drama-free 0-60-mph sprints of 5 seconds (or 4.7 seconds with a 1-foot rollout like on a drag strip). Easy. Get the 275/40ZR20 Pirelli P Zero summer tires slipping a little at launch, modulate the throttle, and off the Camaro goes, pouring its bass-heavy exhaust note down the road. It reaches the quarter-mile mark in 13 seconds at 110.9 mph.
Predictably, one of the Camaro's obvious rivals, the big-'n-brawny Dodge Challenger R/T can't keep pace. It takes 5.5 seconds for the Mopar to reach 60 mph (5.3 with 1 foot of rollout) and 13.9 seconds to reach the quarter-mile, at which point it's steaming along at 103.2 mph. In fact, the Camaro SS is slightly quicker in both measures than the similarly powered Challenger SRT8. The 2010 Mustang makes up for much of its 111-hp power deficit with about a 500-pound weight advantage on the hefty Camaro. The Mustang with a Track Pack will do zero to 60 mph in 5.2 seconds (4.9 with rollout) and get through the quarter-mile in 13.5 seconds at 102.9 mph. The Camaro is quicker through the quarter by half-a-second than the Nissan 370Z, which Chevy also considers a Camaro competitor.
The 2010 Chevy Camaro SS manual is the one Camaro that comes with a launch control system. It's foolproof and easy to initiate (punch Competition mode on the traction/stability control system, mat the accelerator and sidestep the clutch) but we found that we were quicker just shutting off all traction and stability control systems and doing it ourselves.
For all the company's insistence that the Camaro is a fully modern sport coupe, the Camaro SS feels remarkably like, well, a Camaro. This isn't some Honda S2000 hardtop, pal.
Mash the throttle and the Camaro's peaked nose rises and the exhaust goes full-volume WAAAAUUUGH simultaneously in a way any muscle/pony car fan will recognize. To call it punchy is an understatement. The Tremec transmission (a version of which is bolted into virtually every rear-wheel-drive American performance car) doesn't respond to wrist flicks. Hell no. You employ a full-power yank or shove that requires the use of your entire right arm.
The only thing tempering the hell-raising fun is the Camaro's weight, both perceived and actual. The car feels dense and a little larger than it is. This is, in part, because of the car's styling. Short side glass, a small, high-mounted backlight and a steeply raked windshield give the Camaro the chunk-of-badass look from the outside. Sitting inside the thing, though, is like walking around with your shoulders shrugged and a baseball cap slammed down low on your head. This has the effect of diminishing the sensation of speed, even as it climbs quickly to extralegal levels.
Possibly you expected that a V8 Camaro would accelerate hard. Thanks to a shortened and reworked version of the Pontiac G8's Australian-bred platform and independent rear suspension, the 2010 Camaro can also go around turns.
First, some numbers. The 2010 Chevy Camaro SS rides on summer performance tires measuring 245/45ZR20 up front and 275/40ZR20 out back. Live where it snows? Factor a set of winter tires into your budget. And all SS versions come with what Chevy calls the FE3 suspension tuning, which has stiffer springs and fatter antiroll bars than the FE2 setup of the V6 Camaros.
At the track, all that hardware translates to a maximum 68.6-mph speed through our slalom and 0.88g on the skid pad. Here the lack of visibility was a hindrance through the slalom as well. It's difficult to see where the corners of this car are while you're driving. For most sane people, this sensation makes one overestimate the size of the car in order to ensure a safe distance from other cars or objects.
The Challenger isn't much through the slalom. That broad-of-beam brute feels composed through the cones but can muster only 64.7 mph (standard all-season tires hurt the Dodge here). The lighter and narrower Mustang is in a virtual dead heat with the Camaro at 68.4 mph and offers more outright grip on the skid pad at 0.91g. The small, nimble 370Z whoops all comers with a 72-mph run through the cones.
Thanks to the SS-standard summer-only Pirellis and 14-inch brake discs grabbed by four-piston Brembo calipers, the Camaro halts from 60 mph in 109 feet, nearly matching the impressive performance of the 2010 Mustang GT of 107 feet and embarrassing the Challenger R/T (128 feet). The Nissan 370Z splits the difference between the Mustang and Camaro at 108 feet.
The 2010 Chevy Camaro SS has forced us to modify our driving technique on back roads. It used to be that we'd employ the ol' squirt-and-halt method with muscle cars. You know, punch the throttle at the exit of a turn, slam a couple of gears and then slow way down for an upcoming turn and wait through the turn until we could lay on the power again.
Now, we still do the squirt portion just because it feels so righteous. But despite its weight, the Camaro SS can be made to flow smoothly from one corner to the next in the manner of a proper sports car.
It takes some faith, though. The steering wheel, which is so overly styled as to be terribly uncomfortable, is a little bigger than we'd like — another attribute that makes the Camaro seem larger than it is. And the heftiness of the package gave us pause entering corners with any real speed. But trust in the force, young man, and you'll discover that the steering, with a quick 16:1 ratio and 2.5 turns lock-to-lock, is a hell of a lot trustier than the big, dumb wheel would suggest.
And — will wonders never cease? — the front end takes one helluva bite into the pavement. The Camaro tracks faithfully through without the squirreliness (yes, we made that up) of the stick-axle Mustang or the floppiness of the Challenger. All SS Camaros come standard with a limited-slip differential that helps at the corner's exit when you inevitably unleash the torque again.
Date posted: 03-18-2009
426 horsepower (400 with automatic) - 0-60 mph in 4.7 seconds - 3,857-pound curb weight - 16/24 mpg EPA fuel economy
The last thing General Motors needs right now is to appear as if it's stuck in the past, creating gas-guzzling cars that are out of step with what the federal government thinks is the future.
So even when Chevrolet steps into the way-back machine to unveil the 426-horspower retro-inflected 2010 Chevy Camaro SS, it's careful to mention that this muscle/pony car is the "sports car for the 21st century" and emphasizes the Camaro's fuel economy ratings more than its 0-60-mph performance.
So we did what had to be done. We dropped an asphalt-melting burnout in the parking lot of a former seminary that was of such destructive length that the guys hired by Chevy to prep and clean the Camaros had time to wander over and say, "Stop. You're done."
Had a Dairy Queen been available we would have laid a patch in front of that, too. Look, man. We've been waiting for years for the arrival of this car; there will be time to talk about balance and the quality of the interior materials later.
That rite of Camaro passage accomplished, we strapped on our Racelogic VBOX III GPS-based testing equipment to get the measure of the new Camaro's less juvenile performance characteristics.
Our test vehicle is the hottest available setup for the 2010 Chevy Camaro, an SS manual. When you choose the Tremec TR6060 six-speed manual as your gearbox of choice you get an LS3 6.2-liter V8 in the deal. That's the same motor that powers the base Corvette.
In the Camaro it makes 426 hp at 5,900 rpm and 420 pound-feet of torque at 4,600 rpm. Order the six-speed automatic and Chevy will fill your engine bay with a 400-hp, lower-revving, lower-compression L99 6.2-liter V8 that comes with cylinder deactivation. It'll deliver 25 mpg on the highway. But the manual will do 24 mpg highway and costs $995 less than the automatic model, so we'll take the extra power, thank you very much.
The SS manual also comes with a 3.45 rear end (compared to the 3.27 in all other Camaros). The combination is good for drama-free 0-60-mph sprints of 5 seconds (or 4.7 seconds with a 1-foot rollout like on a drag strip). Easy. Get the 275/40ZR20 Pirelli P Zero summer tires slipping a little at launch, modulate the throttle, and off the Camaro goes, pouring its bass-heavy exhaust note down the road. It reaches the quarter-mile mark in 13 seconds at 110.9 mph.
Predictably, one of the Camaro's obvious rivals, the big-'n-brawny Dodge Challenger R/T can't keep pace. It takes 5.5 seconds for the Mopar to reach 60 mph (5.3 with 1 foot of rollout) and 13.9 seconds to reach the quarter-mile, at which point it's steaming along at 103.2 mph. In fact, the Camaro SS is slightly quicker in both measures than the similarly powered Challenger SRT8. The 2010 Mustang makes up for much of its 111-hp power deficit with about a 500-pound weight advantage on the hefty Camaro. The Mustang with a Track Pack will do zero to 60 mph in 5.2 seconds (4.9 with rollout) and get through the quarter-mile in 13.5 seconds at 102.9 mph. The Camaro is quicker through the quarter by half-a-second than the Nissan 370Z, which Chevy also considers a Camaro competitor.
The 2010 Chevy Camaro SS manual is the one Camaro that comes with a launch control system. It's foolproof and easy to initiate (punch Competition mode on the traction/stability control system, mat the accelerator and sidestep the clutch) but we found that we were quicker just shutting off all traction and stability control systems and doing it ourselves.
For all the company's insistence that the Camaro is a fully modern sport coupe, the Camaro SS feels remarkably like, well, a Camaro. This isn't some Honda S2000 hardtop, pal.
Mash the throttle and the Camaro's peaked nose rises and the exhaust goes full-volume WAAAAUUUGH simultaneously in a way any muscle/pony car fan will recognize. To call it punchy is an understatement. The Tremec transmission (a version of which is bolted into virtually every rear-wheel-drive American performance car) doesn't respond to wrist flicks. Hell no. You employ a full-power yank or shove that requires the use of your entire right arm.
The only thing tempering the hell-raising fun is the Camaro's weight, both perceived and actual. The car feels dense and a little larger than it is. This is, in part, because of the car's styling. Short side glass, a small, high-mounted backlight and a steeply raked windshield give the Camaro the chunk-of-badass look from the outside. Sitting inside the thing, though, is like walking around with your shoulders shrugged and a baseball cap slammed down low on your head. This has the effect of diminishing the sensation of speed, even as it climbs quickly to extralegal levels.
Possibly you expected that a V8 Camaro would accelerate hard. Thanks to a shortened and reworked version of the Pontiac G8's Australian-bred platform and independent rear suspension, the 2010 Camaro can also go around turns.
First, some numbers. The 2010 Chevy Camaro SS rides on summer performance tires measuring 245/45ZR20 up front and 275/40ZR20 out back. Live where it snows? Factor a set of winter tires into your budget. And all SS versions come with what Chevy calls the FE3 suspension tuning, which has stiffer springs and fatter antiroll bars than the FE2 setup of the V6 Camaros.
At the track, all that hardware translates to a maximum 68.6-mph speed through our slalom and 0.88g on the skid pad. Here the lack of visibility was a hindrance through the slalom as well. It's difficult to see where the corners of this car are while you're driving. For most sane people, this sensation makes one overestimate the size of the car in order to ensure a safe distance from other cars or objects.
The Challenger isn't much through the slalom. That broad-of-beam brute feels composed through the cones but can muster only 64.7 mph (standard all-season tires hurt the Dodge here). The lighter and narrower Mustang is in a virtual dead heat with the Camaro at 68.4 mph and offers more outright grip on the skid pad at 0.91g. The small, nimble 370Z whoops all comers with a 72-mph run through the cones.
Thanks to the SS-standard summer-only Pirellis and 14-inch brake discs grabbed by four-piston Brembo calipers, the Camaro halts from 60 mph in 109 feet, nearly matching the impressive performance of the 2010 Mustang GT of 107 feet and embarrassing the Challenger R/T (128 feet). The Nissan 370Z splits the difference between the Mustang and Camaro at 108 feet.
The 2010 Chevy Camaro SS has forced us to modify our driving technique on back roads. It used to be that we'd employ the ol' squirt-and-halt method with muscle cars. You know, punch the throttle at the exit of a turn, slam a couple of gears and then slow way down for an upcoming turn and wait through the turn until we could lay on the power again.
Now, we still do the squirt portion just because it feels so righteous. But despite its weight, the Camaro SS can be made to flow smoothly from one corner to the next in the manner of a proper sports car.
It takes some faith, though. The steering wheel, which is so overly styled as to be terribly uncomfortable, is a little bigger than we'd like — another attribute that makes the Camaro seem larger than it is. And the heftiness of the package gave us pause entering corners with any real speed. But trust in the force, young man, and you'll discover that the steering, with a quick 16:1 ratio and 2.5 turns lock-to-lock, is a hell of a lot trustier than the big, dumb wheel would suggest.
And — will wonders never cease? — the front end takes one helluva bite into the pavement. The Camaro tracks faithfully through without the squirreliness (yes, we made that up) of the stick-axle Mustang or the floppiness of the Challenger. All SS Camaros come standard with a limited-slip differential that helps at the corner's exit when you inevitably unleash the torque again.
03-20-2009 | 09:17 PM
#2
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,398
From: Fairfax Station, VA. Formally Long Island :(
The combination of short-sidewall 20-inch tires and stiff damping can make for a busy ride on Michigan's lumpy, undulating roads. It's not harsh, but the Camaro can get to bobbling over choppy pavement.
You can go ahead and forget about heel-toe downshifting, though. The gas and throttle pedals are way too far apart for that.
The pedal spacing is one of a few ergonomic missteps inside the car. The other truly bothersome one is that the dead pedal, which should be mounted on the same plane as the gas pedal, is set way too far forward.
We'd probably swap out the shift ****, too, which is in the shape of a fat Star Brite mint set on its edge. Swapping out the gauges would be a little more difficult. We like the look of the retro-style squared binnacles, but the gauge faces are crowded with candy-colored numbers, making them difficult to read at a quick glance. Other quibbles? Sure, we've got some. Like sun visors that are so small as to be utterly useless at blocking the sun. And the fabric dash trim that looks exactly like the material used on countless office cubicle walls and pushpin boards.
Maybe the "Driving Enthusiasts" that Chevy says it's targeting with the SS don't obsess over interior material quality or that the opening for the trunk is laughably small. "Driving Enthusiast" is Chevy-speak for traditional Camaro guys. But the so-called "Life Enthusiasts" (?) that Chevy wants to check out the V6 models might be a bit more finicky. But then, scads of people bought Mustangs even when that car's interior was made of synthetic cheese, so....
From a performance-for-the-dollar perspective, the Camaro SS rates right up there with the best. It starts at $30,995 for the 1SS version that has cloth seats. Add the RS package with its dark-finish wheels and HID headlamps for $1,200 and you're still sitting at just $32,195. Add a sunroof (but only if you're of average height or less) and the Boston Acoustics upgraded stereo and you're still at only $33,590.
We might forgo the leather-covered heated seats that came with our 2SS test car. Step up to the 2SS model, which starts at $34,180, and you also get other upgrades such as a four-pack of console-mounted auxiliary gauges (which are cool), a USB port for the audio system, steering-wheel-mounted audio controls, Bluetooth connectivity and OnStar with turn-by-turn navigation. That's in line with the 2010 Mustang GT we tested most recently. Loaded up with comfort and convenience items as well as the Track Pack performance package, the Mustang totaled $34,775. Well-equipped Challenger R/Ts and 370Zs will cost closer to $40,000.
The 2010 Chevy Camaro SS might be a throwback. It might not be the future of GM or the automotive landscape in general. But this thoroughly updated and relatively efficient Camaro will be in our short-term future. We're going to buy one just as soon as we can find one with the right specifications at a local dealer.
Then we will blaze the tires with total impunity.
What Works: The engine, the transmission, the steering, the look. Outruns its rivals and out-slaloms a BMW M3.
What Needs Work: Some interior materials remain questionable, steering wheel is too big and overstyled.
Bottom Line: A performance car bargain and a righteous pony car.
Senior Road Test Editor Josh Jacquot Says:
Here's my thing with the Camaro: I have bad memories of it from my youth. And tainting a car in your formative years is a sure way to make one a hater for life.
You see, I grew up in a small plains town in the West (which just happened to be at 5,000 feet). It was the early '90s and I was in high school when turbocharged cars like the Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX and Eagle Talon TSi hit the market. Their all-weather usability made them popular there. And I had a friend with one. So I spent many a Friday night out hunting Camaros. Specifically, third-generation Camaros. They were easy prey for the all-wheel-drive Talon at this altitude. And they were abundant. Many an IROC Z learned the painful lesson of boosted, all-wheel-drive power from the smug punks in the Talon.
Hell, I even perfected my best line on recently defeated Camaro drivers at stoplights:
Smug punk: "Hey buddy, where's the handle?"
Camaro driver: "Huh, what handle?"
Smug punk: "You know, the handle."
Camaro driver: Puzzled look. Shrugged shoulders. No response.
Smug punk: "To flush that piece of ****."
And away we would go in a cloud of clutch smoke and hubris. Anyway, those weren't my best days. But the point is that I've been underwhelmed with the Camaro since then. And for good reason. Its 5.0-liter V8, the only one available with a manual transmission, made barely more power than the Talon back then. It absolutely sucked.
Then I moved to California. A few years into my career as an auto writer, I saw a Hugger Orange fourth-generation Camaro. And everything changed. Well, OK, not everything. But I couldn't deny that I had a weak spot. After all, the fourth-generation car made real power and offered a six-speed manual. It was cheap. And it came in orange.
Yesterday I drove the fifth-generation Camaro. Tested it, in fact. It absolutely hauls. Does powerslides, too. It has good brakes. And no live axle out back. It's the best value of the current pony cars. There's nothing this cheap that will run with it. And it comes in Inferno Orange Metallic.
Seems like it's time the smug punk rethinks his ethos.
0 - 30 (sec): 2.3
0 - 45 (sec): 3.4
0 - 60 (sec): 5.0
0 - 75 (sec): 6.7
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 13.0 @ 110.9
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 4.7
30 - 0 (ft): 27
60 - 0 (ft): 109
Braking Rating (Excellent, Good, Average, Poor or Very Poor): Very good
Slalom (mph): 68.6
Skid Pad Lateral acceleration (g): 0.88
Handling Rating (Excellent, Good, Average, Poor or Very Poor): Very good
Acceleration Comments: Launch control is fun but easy to beat with a little care. Best launch from about 3,000 rpm: Get the clutch out fast then pedal it. This is an easy car to launch and it bangs gears like a serious pony car should -- good rubber in second and sometimes third. Fun and fast. Burnouts are easy.
Handling Comments: Camaro is a large car and the driver feels it in the slalom. Its limits are respectable for this segment. Problem is, it's difficult to place because of its small glass area. Like driving a tank, it's hard to tell where its edges are. Still, after time behind the wheel, most drivers will find those edges comfortably. Steering response is slower off center than Mustang, but it goes through the cones at about the same rate.
Braking Comments: Pedal has good feel and based on the caliber of the brake system I'd say these brakes are less likely to fade than those of other pony cars. No fade in this test.
Video: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...deoId=20270519
You can go ahead and forget about heel-toe downshifting, though. The gas and throttle pedals are way too far apart for that.
The pedal spacing is one of a few ergonomic missteps inside the car. The other truly bothersome one is that the dead pedal, which should be mounted on the same plane as the gas pedal, is set way too far forward.
We'd probably swap out the shift ****, too, which is in the shape of a fat Star Brite mint set on its edge. Swapping out the gauges would be a little more difficult. We like the look of the retro-style squared binnacles, but the gauge faces are crowded with candy-colored numbers, making them difficult to read at a quick glance. Other quibbles? Sure, we've got some. Like sun visors that are so small as to be utterly useless at blocking the sun. And the fabric dash trim that looks exactly like the material used on countless office cubicle walls and pushpin boards.
Maybe the "Driving Enthusiasts" that Chevy says it's targeting with the SS don't obsess over interior material quality or that the opening for the trunk is laughably small. "Driving Enthusiast" is Chevy-speak for traditional Camaro guys. But the so-called "Life Enthusiasts" (?) that Chevy wants to check out the V6 models might be a bit more finicky. But then, scads of people bought Mustangs even when that car's interior was made of synthetic cheese, so....
From a performance-for-the-dollar perspective, the Camaro SS rates right up there with the best. It starts at $30,995 for the 1SS version that has cloth seats. Add the RS package with its dark-finish wheels and HID headlamps for $1,200 and you're still sitting at just $32,195. Add a sunroof (but only if you're of average height or less) and the Boston Acoustics upgraded stereo and you're still at only $33,590.
We might forgo the leather-covered heated seats that came with our 2SS test car. Step up to the 2SS model, which starts at $34,180, and you also get other upgrades such as a four-pack of console-mounted auxiliary gauges (which are cool), a USB port for the audio system, steering-wheel-mounted audio controls, Bluetooth connectivity and OnStar with turn-by-turn navigation. That's in line with the 2010 Mustang GT we tested most recently. Loaded up with comfort and convenience items as well as the Track Pack performance package, the Mustang totaled $34,775. Well-equipped Challenger R/Ts and 370Zs will cost closer to $40,000.
The 2010 Chevy Camaro SS might be a throwback. It might not be the future of GM or the automotive landscape in general. But this thoroughly updated and relatively efficient Camaro will be in our short-term future. We're going to buy one just as soon as we can find one with the right specifications at a local dealer.
Then we will blaze the tires with total impunity.
What Works: The engine, the transmission, the steering, the look. Outruns its rivals and out-slaloms a BMW M3.
What Needs Work: Some interior materials remain questionable, steering wheel is too big and overstyled.
Bottom Line: A performance car bargain and a righteous pony car.
Senior Road Test Editor Josh Jacquot Says:
Here's my thing with the Camaro: I have bad memories of it from my youth. And tainting a car in your formative years is a sure way to make one a hater for life.
You see, I grew up in a small plains town in the West (which just happened to be at 5,000 feet). It was the early '90s and I was in high school when turbocharged cars like the Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX and Eagle Talon TSi hit the market. Their all-weather usability made them popular there. And I had a friend with one. So I spent many a Friday night out hunting Camaros. Specifically, third-generation Camaros. They were easy prey for the all-wheel-drive Talon at this altitude. And they were abundant. Many an IROC Z learned the painful lesson of boosted, all-wheel-drive power from the smug punks in the Talon.
Hell, I even perfected my best line on recently defeated Camaro drivers at stoplights:
Smug punk: "Hey buddy, where's the handle?"
Camaro driver: "Huh, what handle?"
Smug punk: "You know, the handle."
Camaro driver: Puzzled look. Shrugged shoulders. No response.
Smug punk: "To flush that piece of ****."
And away we would go in a cloud of clutch smoke and hubris. Anyway, those weren't my best days. But the point is that I've been underwhelmed with the Camaro since then. And for good reason. Its 5.0-liter V8, the only one available with a manual transmission, made barely more power than the Talon back then. It absolutely sucked.
Then I moved to California. A few years into my career as an auto writer, I saw a Hugger Orange fourth-generation Camaro. And everything changed. Well, OK, not everything. But I couldn't deny that I had a weak spot. After all, the fourth-generation car made real power and offered a six-speed manual. It was cheap. And it came in orange.
Yesterday I drove the fifth-generation Camaro. Tested it, in fact. It absolutely hauls. Does powerslides, too. It has good brakes. And no live axle out back. It's the best value of the current pony cars. There's nothing this cheap that will run with it. And it comes in Inferno Orange Metallic.
Seems like it's time the smug punk rethinks his ethos.
0 - 30 (sec): 2.3
0 - 45 (sec): 3.4
0 - 60 (sec): 5.0
0 - 75 (sec): 6.7
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 13.0 @ 110.9
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 4.7
30 - 0 (ft): 27
60 - 0 (ft): 109
Braking Rating (Excellent, Good, Average, Poor or Very Poor): Very good
Slalom (mph): 68.6
Skid Pad Lateral acceleration (g): 0.88
Handling Rating (Excellent, Good, Average, Poor or Very Poor): Very good
Acceleration Comments: Launch control is fun but easy to beat with a little care. Best launch from about 3,000 rpm: Get the clutch out fast then pedal it. This is an easy car to launch and it bangs gears like a serious pony car should -- good rubber in second and sometimes third. Fun and fast. Burnouts are easy.
Handling Comments: Camaro is a large car and the driver feels it in the slalom. Its limits are respectable for this segment. Problem is, it's difficult to place because of its small glass area. Like driving a tank, it's hard to tell where its edges are. Still, after time behind the wheel, most drivers will find those edges comfortably. Steering response is slower off center than Mustang, but it goes through the cones at about the same rate.
Braking Comments: Pedal has good feel and based on the caliber of the brake system I'd say these brakes are less likely to fade than those of other pony cars. No fade in this test.
Video: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...deoId=20270519
03-20-2009 | 11:29 PM
#4
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,463
From: SoCal
That's a good review. It hit upon the good points and the low ones too. They seemed to like the car overall.
Their times seem to be in line with what Chevy claimed. I'm glad the trap is still near 111mph as it means the power it there and so traction/launch will be the only issue in getting a 12 sec slip.
From the video the car looks solid but seems like it will be a bit upset with the change of direction cone test and the skidpad. From the outside there seems to be a fair amount of body roll as physics and the limits of adhesion battle at the edge.
Their times seem to be in line with what Chevy claimed. I'm glad the trap is still near 111mph as it means the power it there and so traction/launch will be the only issue in getting a 12 sec slip.
From the video the car looks solid but seems like it will be a bit upset with the change of direction cone test and the skidpad. From the outside there seems to be a fair amount of body roll as physics and the limits of adhesion battle at the edge.
03-20-2009 | 11:30 PM
#5
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,650
From: Indianapolis, IN
I'm betting other publications will better these numbers, but they are good. Slalom speed is pretty impressive; I was hoping for a bit more on the skidpad.
My biggest concern is about the "shrugged shoulders" driving feel, which is exactly what I feared. The new styling is hot, but the greenhouse could have been less squashed by an inch or two without sacrificing the looks. In fact, I think it would look better.
I sat in a Challenger and, thanks to its big-*** size, did not feel so cramped. Of course, that car isn't even in the Camaro's ballpark in terms of performance (unless you pony up for the SRT8 of course). The Mustang does not seem to suffer (at least, not as much) from this scrunched, cramped feeling. I did find it funny reading the recent Autoblog review of the 2010 Mustang, in which the reviewer thought the car felt "big" around him, including the interior.
A car the size of the Camaro should not seem cramped. My smaller 4th gen seems airy by comparison.
We'll see how it goes. A convertible, of course, allows infinite headroom and peripheral visibility...
But a Mustang with the Camaro's powertrain would be sooooo, so hot.
My biggest concern is about the "shrugged shoulders" driving feel, which is exactly what I feared. The new styling is hot, but the greenhouse could have been less squashed by an inch or two without sacrificing the looks. In fact, I think it would look better.
I sat in a Challenger and, thanks to its big-*** size, did not feel so cramped. Of course, that car isn't even in the Camaro's ballpark in terms of performance (unless you pony up for the SRT8 of course). The Mustang does not seem to suffer (at least, not as much) from this scrunched, cramped feeling. I did find it funny reading the recent Autoblog review of the 2010 Mustang, in which the reviewer thought the car felt "big" around him, including the interior.
A car the size of the Camaro should not seem cramped. My smaller 4th gen seems airy by comparison.
We'll see how it goes. A convertible, of course, allows infinite headroom and peripheral visibility...
But a Mustang with the Camaro's powertrain would be sooooo, so hot.
Last edited by 96_Camaro_B4C; 03-21-2009 at 12:03 AM.
03-21-2009 | 06:24 AM
#8
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
I enjoyed the review and concur on all points.
Considering the Camaro is essentially a 'VE Monaro in disguise' (no it doesn't yet exist) the criticisms are also spot on. There is no excuse for the oversized and unusual feeling steering wheel (similar to the VE's) and the pedal positioning has always been poor on manual Holden V8s.
More to the point, this car will attract a lot of non-GM enthusiasts. The V6 version is on par with the 370Z in terms of performance and the V8 is in a different league altogether. As the writer hints, the V8 will out do the M3 on most counts for far less money.
For the pony car enthusiast, Camaro appears to be the preferred choice, at least among the scribes, if initial reviews are any guide.
Positives galore and a far cry from the doom and gloom we've been accustomed to reading lately.
Personally, it's just a shame I won't be able to see one in the flesh let alone sample one... unless I take a trip to the good ol' USA.
Considering the Camaro is essentially a 'VE Monaro in disguise' (no it doesn't yet exist) the criticisms are also spot on. There is no excuse for the oversized and unusual feeling steering wheel (similar to the VE's) and the pedal positioning has always been poor on manual Holden V8s.
More to the point, this car will attract a lot of non-GM enthusiasts. The V6 version is on par with the 370Z in terms of performance and the V8 is in a different league altogether. As the writer hints, the V8 will out do the M3 on most counts for far less money.
For the pony car enthusiast, Camaro appears to be the preferred choice, at least among the scribes, if initial reviews are any guide.
Positives galore and a far cry from the doom and gloom we've been accustomed to reading lately.
Personally, it's just a shame I won't be able to see one in the flesh let alone sample one... unless I take a trip to the good ol' USA.
03-21-2009 | 11:51 AM
#9
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,049
From: Confederate States of America
The V6 Camaro is not in the same territory as the 370Z, 370Z is more on par with the V8 Auto in the 1/4. 370 Z has been clocked under 5 seconds to 60 and a low 13 1/4 mile. Camaro V6 is at best 14.2 1/4 mile. Let's not get carried away.
03-21-2009 | 12:05 PM
#10
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,650
From: Indianapolis, IN
Predictably, one of the Camaro's obvious rivals, the big-'n-brawny Dodge Challenger R/T can't keep pace. It takes 5.5 seconds for the Mopar to reach 60 mph (5.3 with 1 foot of rollout) and 13.9 seconds to reach the quarter-mile, at which point it's steaming along at 103.2 mph. In fact, the Camaro SS is slightly quicker in both measures than the similarly powered Challenger SRT8. The 2010 Mustang makes up for much of its 111-hp power deficit with about a 500-pound weight advantage on the hefty Camaro. The Mustang with a Track Pack will do zero to 60 mph in 5.2 seconds (4.9 with rollout) and get through the quarter-mile in 13.5 seconds at 102.9 mph. The Camaro is quicker through the quarter by half-a-second than the Nissan 370Z, which Chevy also considers a Camaro competitor.
R&T's test of the 2010 GT with the Track Pack had the curb weight at 3570 or 3590 (the "test weight" with driver was 37xx). I don't know what their rules are compared to the OEM practices in terms of how much fuel is in the tank and so forth, so we'll see.
If the 3857 lbs is just a weight quoted from Chevy with no fuel in the tank of or something, that will suck. But if Edmunds weighed the car similarly to how R&T does, then the Camaro is more like 250-300 lbs heavier.
So less than or around 10% heavier, but about 33% more power.
03-21-2009 | 04:40 PM
#13
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,802
From: Annapolis MD
I enjoyed the review and concur on all points.
Considering the Camaro is essentially a 'VE Monaro in disguise' (no it doesn't yet exist) the criticisms are also spot on. There is no excuse for the oversized and unusual feeling steering wheel (similar to the VE's) and the pedal positioning has always been poor on manual Holden V8s.
More to the point, this car will attract a lot of non-GM enthusiasts. The V6 version is on par with the 370Z in terms of performance and the V8 is in a different league altogether. As the writer hints, the V8 will out do the M3 on most counts for far less money.
For the pony car enthusiast, Camaro appears to be the preferred choice, at least among the scribes, if initial reviews are any guide.
Positives galore and a far cry from the doom and gloom we've been accustomed to reading lately.
Personally, it's just a shame I won't be able to see one in the flesh let alone sample one... unless I take a trip to the good ol' USA.
Considering the Camaro is essentially a 'VE Monaro in disguise' (no it doesn't yet exist) the criticisms are also spot on. There is no excuse for the oversized and unusual feeling steering wheel (similar to the VE's) and the pedal positioning has always been poor on manual Holden V8s.
More to the point, this car will attract a lot of non-GM enthusiasts. The V6 version is on par with the 370Z in terms of performance and the V8 is in a different league altogether. As the writer hints, the V8 will out do the M3 on most counts for far less money.
For the pony car enthusiast, Camaro appears to be the preferred choice, at least among the scribes, if initial reviews are any guide.
Positives galore and a far cry from the doom and gloom we've been accustomed to reading lately.
Personally, it's just a shame I won't be able to see one in the flesh let alone sample one... unless I take a trip to the good ol' USA.
Anyway Impressive performance, gas millege and looks. Great review with no excuses, and comming from a writer who admitted he was biased against the car going in. What I LOVE is that it betters the M3
I hope things change and you guys get the car down under as well.
03-21-2009 | 08:34 PM
#14
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,650
From: Indianapolis, IN
On a bumpy / uneven road, I'm sure the Camaro will do even better than the Mustang (as that is really about the only place the solid axle will hurt the Stang).
03-21-2009 | 10:03 PM
#15
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
I based my comments on the fact that the 350Z was a mid 14s runner down here, no quicker. I expected the 370Z to be marginally quicker but I had no idea the 370Z is that quick!!!
In fact, I had no idea the 370Z is quicker than the Mustang GT! How is that so when the Mustang and Nissan weigh almost the same yet V8 has more torque than the V6? 
But point taken and I notice the 370Z has much higher terminal speed. Maybe the impending new 5.0L mill will redress the performance issue.I guess if you just like cruising and care little about ultimate performance, there is really little difference between a V6 and V8 these days. Having made that point, I would have many regrets if I opted instead for the V6, I'm sure... but that's just me!