So what do you think ?
07-21-2008, 03:35 PM
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 173
Right there at the end I was like "all right, we're going to see some close up interior shots" and then... lights out. Seriously no one will watch that twice. But this was supposed to be a combo-deal --- the video along with all the specs officially released today. The live-unveil was probably the least interesting of today's offerings, but taken with the rest, ok. Looking forward to see all the other info that isn't out yet.. HUD, list of standard stuff, more interior photos. List of combos you can order. This business of, we'll give you this little bit today, this little more tomorrow, these other specs next week, etc etc. was ok for a while, now my patience is gone.
07-21-2008, 03:35 PM
#18
Disciple
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Clinton, NJ/ Syracuse, NY
Posts: 41
I had no problems with actually seeing the webcast. As for the car itself:
-No real info on options, although it certainly seems a HUD and HID's will be offered and those were my big two.
-A little disappointed that there are only summer tires on the SS, but then, my Trans Am was a daily driver and I'm not planning on an SS being one so I just need to adjust my own mindset.
-I'm disappointed in the mileage estimate for the SS. I'd expected better than 23 hwy, but then, I think my old '99 T/A WS6 was rated at 20mpg hwy so it's a pretty good increase. I was hoping for something that really blew me away (like 28
-LOVE the color selections!! It's going to be REALLY hard choice, although the Cyber Gray Metallic, Rally Yellow, Imperial Blue Metallic and Red Jewel Tintcoat are my favorites so far.
Overall it was a little anti-climatic though because the pictures leaked last week - GM needs to do better with embargoing information. Still - we all got the car we saw in concept form, so I CAN'T complain!! Thanks GM!!
-No real info on options, although it certainly seems a HUD and HID's will be offered and those were my big two.
-A little disappointed that there are only summer tires on the SS, but then, my Trans Am was a daily driver and I'm not planning on an SS being one so I just need to adjust my own mindset.
-I'm disappointed in the mileage estimate for the SS. I'd expected better than 23 hwy, but then, I think my old '99 T/A WS6 was rated at 20mpg hwy so it's a pretty good increase. I was hoping for something that really blew me away (like 28
-LOVE the color selections!! It's going to be REALLY hard choice, although the Cyber Gray Metallic, Rally Yellow, Imperial Blue Metallic and Red Jewel Tintcoat are my favorites so far.
Overall it was a little anti-climatic though because the pictures leaked last week - GM needs to do better with embargoing information. Still - we all got the car we saw in concept form, so I CAN'T complain!! Thanks GM!!
As far as protecting information goes I think GM does everything they can. They understand the importance of confidentiality but they can't control everybody.
Great point about the production vs. concept. When is the last time a concept got the kind of reaction the Camaro did and then stayed true to form for production?
Last edited by PorcaroZ28; 07-21-2008 at 03:37 PM.
07-21-2008, 03:37 PM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 162
These pathetic 23mpg and 26mpg ratings are from GM though, NOT the EPA yet. You would think GM would want to post the best possible numbers they could at this point.
I think the bottom line is weight kills MPG and this is the proof.
I think the bottom line is weight kills MPG and this is the proof.
07-21-2008, 03:42 PM
#21
Disciple
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Clinton, NJ/ Syracuse, NY
Posts: 41
I understand your point but why would GM want to artificially inflate their numbers? I think that would be a very bad public relations move. I am confused how many people are translating 23 mpg with 400+hp and 26mpg with 300 hp as subpar. Compare it to the Mustang and Challenger and see which you would rather own.
07-21-2008, 03:45 PM
#23
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 18
ok so I'll be the first to admit I haven't followed every single leaked photo or piece of info.
Likes:
Overall good looking car
sunroof is apparently an option, doesn't make up for loosing my T-tops but it's better than nothing
clean looking design,
300hp v6 with a 6 speed (should have a little better fuel econ than the auto quoted in the stats book)
independent rear suspension
dislikes:
weight
smaller brakes on the v6 (shoulda stuck with the 4th gen approach on that)
those little guages in the console, (seriously they are useless)
not exactly fond of the speedo and tach boxes either, there is a reason they quit making cars with tunnel guages, just give me a decent LCD and let's move on
as you can tell I'm likely to be a v6 buyer, with 300hp on tap even if the car is somewhat heavy that will be plenty for me especially if I am commuting from the burbs every day in this thing
Now to see how it drives and handles, I was very fond of the G8 GT I drove and hope the camaro is a little better. The interior and feel will likely make or break this car for me, personally I think GM was on the right track with many things on the 4th gen but just needed to go that extra mile with better interior materials and space utilization, for the size of a 4th gen I have always thought there was alot of wasted space.
oah and the webcast really seemed like it was put together at the last minute, nothing personal but the guy doing the unveiling was not the guy for the job, I think however that is more a knock on GM management than the car. I just hope they get the PR side together, more of us are seeing cars as just a way to get from point a to b, to sell cars like this we need to be reminded why we spend our hard earned cash on gas to go enjoy some twisties.
I sincerely hope we can look back on this one day and say it was really part of an overall change in strategy that changed GM for the better, for that though we'll have to wait and see.
Likes:
Overall good looking car
sunroof is apparently an option, doesn't make up for loosing my T-tops but it's better than nothing
clean looking design,
300hp v6 with a 6 speed (should have a little better fuel econ than the auto quoted in the stats book)
independent rear suspension
dislikes:
weight
smaller brakes on the v6 (shoulda stuck with the 4th gen approach on that)
those little guages in the console, (seriously they are useless)
not exactly fond of the speedo and tach boxes either, there is a reason they quit making cars with tunnel guages, just give me a decent LCD and let's move on
as you can tell I'm likely to be a v6 buyer, with 300hp on tap even if the car is somewhat heavy that will be plenty for me especially if I am commuting from the burbs every day in this thing
Now to see how it drives and handles, I was very fond of the G8 GT I drove and hope the camaro is a little better. The interior and feel will likely make or break this car for me, personally I think GM was on the right track with many things on the 4th gen but just needed to go that extra mile with better interior materials and space utilization, for the size of a 4th gen I have always thought there was alot of wasted space.
oah and the webcast really seemed like it was put together at the last minute, nothing personal but the guy doing the unveiling was not the guy for the job, I think however that is more a knock on GM management than the car. I just hope they get the PR side together, more of us are seeing cars as just a way to get from point a to b, to sell cars like this we need to be reminded why we spend our hard earned cash on gas to go enjoy some twisties.
I sincerely hope we can look back on this one day and say it was really part of an overall change in strategy that changed GM for the better, for that though we'll have to wait and see.
07-21-2008, 03:46 PM
#24
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 619
Just remember that in 99 the fuel economy ratings were calculated differently. However the new ratings did not have a large affect on GM compared to other manufacturers because they have always been conservative in their estimates. Forget comparing it to cars of the past-comparing the performance and fuel economy against competitors is where the new Camaro really shines.
As far as protecting information goes I think GM does everything they can. They understand the importance of confidentiality but they can't control everybody.
Great point about the production vs. concept. When is the last time a concept got the kind of reaction the Camaro did and then stayed true to form for production?
As far as protecting information goes I think GM does everything they can. They understand the importance of confidentiality but they can't control everybody.
Great point about the production vs. concept. When is the last time a concept got the kind of reaction the Camaro did and then stayed true to form for production?
07-21-2008, 03:48 PM
#25
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 162
I understand your point but why would GM want to artificially inflate their numbers? I think that would be a very bad public relations move. I am confused how many people are translating 23 mpg with 400+hp and 26mpg with 300 hp as subpar. Compare it to the Mustang and Challenger and see which you would rather own.
Considering the HP to weight ratio is about the same I think that's a fair comparison.
It's been 6 years of new engines and technology. Gas is at $4+/gal.
You can't come out with a new car that gets less MPG then the old one or it could be DOA.
I hope not, but that's the reality of right now's economy.
07-21-2008, 03:50 PM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 619
I understand your point but why would GM want to artificially inflate their numbers? I think that would be a very bad public relations move. I am confused how many people are translating 23 mpg with 400+hp and 26mpg with 300 hp as subpar. Compare it to the Mustang and Challenger and see which you would rather own.
And the manual has some pretty horrible (gas saving) gearing to boot.
07-21-2008, 03:59 PM
#27
Disciple
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Clinton, NJ/ Syracuse, NY
Posts: 41
Because in reality we are all comparing it to the 4th gen that got 27hwy.
Considering the HP to weight ratio is about the same I think that's a fair comparison.
It's been 6 years of new engines and technology. Gas is at $4+/gal.
You can't come out with a new car that gets less MPG then the old one or it could be DOA.
I hope not, but that's the reality of right now's economy.
Considering the HP to weight ratio is about the same I think that's a fair comparison.
It's been 6 years of new engines and technology. Gas is at $4+/gal.
You can't come out with a new car that gets less MPG then the old one or it could be DOA.
I hope not, but that's the reality of right now's economy.
In all seriousness I understand that gas prices are a major concern right now. And it certainly is a fair comparison to the 4th Gen but once again compare it to its competition which is a more equal playing field. 6 years of new engines and technology have produced a 300hp V6 and a 420hp V8.
07-21-2008, 04:05 PM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 1,958
Because in reality we are all comparing it to the 4th gen that got 27hwy.
Considering the HP to weight ratio is about the same I think that's a fair comparison.
It's been 6 years of new engines and technology. Gas is at $4+/gal.
You can't come out with a new car that gets less MPG then the old one or it could be DOA.
I hope not, but that's the reality of right now's economy.
Considering the HP to weight ratio is about the same I think that's a fair comparison.
It's been 6 years of new engines and technology. Gas is at $4+/gal.
You can't come out with a new car that gets less MPG then the old one or it could be DOA.
I hope not, but that's the reality of right now's economy.
07-21-2008, 04:06 PM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: May 2000
Location: nj
Posts: 215
[QUOTE=PorcaroZ28;5489612]So you would rather have 320hp and 27 mpg instead of 420hp and 23mpg? I'll take the extra 100hp out of the showroom and somehow deal with it.../QUOTE]
Actually the 320 on an lS1 SS or Z28 was actually 345.
those were underated. Proven.
Actually the 320 on an lS1 SS or Z28 was actually 345.
those were underated. Proven.
07-21-2008, 04:14 PM
#30
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 269