It's quite the looker - it really grabs your attention.
(http://www.gmhpclub.com/2010CamaroConv.jpg)
(http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/vehicle-pictures/2010/chevrolet/camaro/6060-048-rear-3-4-480.jpg)
hmmm.... I feel sorry for the person who was driving it
Why? Looks, performance or bankrupt company?
i picked up a tottald one the other day both pepole died but i didnt get pix.they hit a gaurd rail doing 120mph ...or so the fhp said..it was torn to shreds
Ouch!
They are god aweful ugly, over weight, over rated and just plain stupid. GM took their best looking Camaro (69 Camaro) and slaughtered the design. Why can't GM figure it out? Ford made a perfect retro rod as did Dodge (Other than the fact that it too is extremely overweight). The new interpretation is a silly looking car.
Cliffs Notes: I dislike them alot.
Because they werent following in ford or dodges foot steps and going for the full retro look, the took the old styling and reinvented it rather then redid it like the other two...
When these first came out I thought the same thing... but now I applaude them for trying something different... I think it works...
Dont get me wrong I am not a chevy fan by anymeans... BUT after seeing two of these in town now.. a black one and a yellow one with black stripes... I really like them, and wouldnt mind owning one someday....
I've seen quite a few over the past couple months.
Not impressed. (I never expected to be though)
I like the 2010 Mustang alot better personally.
I think they look a lot better in person than in the pics - certainly nicer than the 2010 Mustang GT I drove recently.
Same here, I've seen them around here a lot, and I personally don't like them. I feel they were over-advertised and hyped up to be something they aren't.
Hey at least they got the price point right this time...I think you can get a V6 version for pretty reasonable. Which is smart because that's where their sales will be. I'm still on the fence about them. I saw probably a dozen or more on Hot Rod power tour and still can't decide about them. I did see a V6 stick model running high 14's/low 15's on the dragstrip one day, which is impressive.
Wow. That's a pretty passionate dislike. We've all got our tastes, though. And of the three retro pony cars, I personally think this is the best execution of them. I'm really not a fan of doing a full replica, like the Challenger. They didn't even try to make it a modern car. They just smoothed it out a bit.
Saw one 1-2 weeks ago on the highway, first glance it looks good. Keep in mind that it still looks better than 95% of the cars on the road! There are too many boring SUV's and Civics/Accords flying around here. Then there are beat up 80's vehicles, Prius, and trucks. Besides those, there is little around here with all the yuppies in Portland, OR. Even some of the trucks have better styling than the majority on the road. If you're going to have a boring car, at least have a good reason for it.
I saw my first one about three days ago, a black SS model. I was impressed. I was expecting a land yacht like the Challenger (which would dwarf one of our cars), but GM seems to have been a bit more restrained, size wise. I know it's heavier than a Mustang, but at least it isn't huge.
That said, I do like the looks of the Mustang more. The Camaro seems to "whiz-bang" for me, trying to be more youthful than its target audience, while the Mustang shows class over flash. All the Mustang needs to be perfect are the 3.7 and 5.0 engines that are apparently coming.
...and that said, I still prefer the Fox Birdcats to all of 'em ;) Gimme the body of an 87/88 Cougar or 84-86 T-Bird with the drivetrain and interior refinement of the more modern cars and I'd die happy...
whats with all of the smiling chevy cars anyways? can they not build a car that doesnt look like the rest of their model line up?
A happy car makes a happy driver? :dunno:
Personally i think the '10 stang and the new challenger look much,nuch better than the camaro. I've seen several around here and after the suprise of seeing the first one, it got ugly quick. What a disgusting looking car.
I still dont car for the look of the rear if the latest mustang but the front has grown on me. Specially the gt500's.
Meh I'll keep my 21 year old 5.0 HO T-bird;) When I need a new daily driver to replace the 95 T-bird I'm getting a '03-'04 Mercury Marauder. In black. :D
Speaking of smiling cars, WTF is up with Mazda's latest look? And worse still, Acura?
New Camaro (in red) is at the local dealership. Looked good at first, but I'm not sure I'd get one. Same dealership had the new Challenger in orange, and I wasn't a fan of that one neither, until I saw an all black one. The new Mustang I saw at another dealership, in light blue with black striping. That looked really good as well, but the appeal has already started to wear off (just like the 05-09's). Nope, a new car for me would have to still be either a Marauder (thunderjet302 and I seem to think alike, lol) or newer Chrysler 300...also in black.
i saw a new camaro a few days ago, and while it looked better in person than in the pictures, i still wasnt impressed with the car overall. i dont like the front end or rear end styling of the car, and i certainly dont like the chopped top look. had they made the greenhouse a bit taller, say about 1 1/2", the car would have looked much better.
Seen a few on the road. They're nice. Nicer than the body style they replaced. The old body style was made very plain by Chevy and was done quite well by Pontiac. It's a shame we won't be able to see a Pontiac version of this new one. Maybe they could have done something that got them out of the ugly styling rut they'd been in for abut 5 years or so....
I'm going to have to agree with Cougar5.0. They are a very nice looking car. I'm sorry I can't become interested in mustangs, for one everyone has them and secondly there are too many guys going through a mid life crisis buying them. Mustangs don't change enough, look how long the fox platform was around.
I don't like the new challenger because for one its $40,000. Back in the day Dodge was always the cheapest brand, they thought just because it looked okay people would shell out butt loads of money for it. There are three at the local dealership that have been sitting there for 6 months. I've only seen two on road with normal plates, the rest have been dealer plates.
Now the Camaro. It certainly looks good. The base price is only 2,000 more than a mustang and it is certainly worth the extra money. The camaro has more hp, more torque, and just better looking. The ford v8 version wouldn't touch the ss, only a shelby would, simply because ford did not design and put it together. And I have to disagree with Turbo88, the front end of the camaro looks nothing like any of the other cars, the malibu for example is completely different.
Considering Ford had 5 model years of sales where the Camaro wasn't even competition and the fact that about 600,000 Mustangs were sold in that time frame -- I'm talking the S197 platform only -- I think the Ford bank accounts would disagree. Besides, the new motor is slotted for the next model year. Ford & Chevy have played horsepower leapfrog for years...Besides that over 400 pounds (closer to 500 FWIW) heavier needs some more grunt to get it going.
The front end IS distinctly a Chevrolet design....
I know mustang's sell, but its because they are cheap. I'm not trying to start an arguement here, i just think the new camaro looks miles better than the mustang. I mean year the new one is different, but one can still see the resemblance to the 05 versions, I mean I personally don'l like mustangs simply because everyone drives one and packs of them try to invade local crusie nights which are designed for antique and classic cars.
Whats the big deal is its a chevy front end? The mustang front end is distinctly a ford design. I think were picking the car apart too much without realizing why were saying applies to any manufacturer.
By that same token then the Camaro is cheap if one were to go by your statement above ;)
That's why my local club makes it's own meets.
No biggie for me really. He said they all seem to smile. You stated:
MALIBU
(http://www.cargurus.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/2008_chevrolet_malibu1.jpg)
CAMARO
(http://jalopnik.com/assets/resources/2008/07/2010-Chevy-Camaro-Production.jpg)
No resemblance at all.... ;)
That made no sense at all. He was talking about performance, not sales. And arguing future tech doesn't make a lot of sense either, since you can't go to a dealer today and get a Mustang with the Coyote. And that's exactly what the Dodge and Ford fans were saying to the people who were arguing for the Camaro before it went on sale. In fact, they were saying "I'll believe it when I see it.", as though the Camaro wasn't going to be built in the first place.
You're both right on the styling, though. The Camaro is the only Chevrolet out there that has that front end styling. The rest of the brand, Corvette aside, has the corporate look.... kind of like Mercury, Ford, Mazda, every other car maker on earth does. Right now Ford is going with the razorface look, other than the Mustang. That sounds pretty similar.
I'm not about to argue about which one is better looking, though. It's impossible to take that beyond personal preference.
What I really want to know is.... why hasn't one of you guys gotten riled up about Ford building a TT Ethanol injected 5.0L OHC V8? ;) Of all of the boards I posted that on, I thought this one would have been the first to produce the droolers. In stead we get an argument on how ugly or good looking a Chevy is? What is this, the twilight zone? :toilet:
*sigh*
He factored price into it as well. And I was responding to this:
It sounds as if he's referring to the total package concept; as in performance for value; not just one facet. THe years where the Camaro weren't even available is a direct disagreement as to how I interpreted his statement. Can you understand that now!?
Considering it was 3 years late I AM surprised it even showed up to the party.
Nobody's arguing anything. It's pretty much well known that the Coyote is coming, and that -- if they are able -- GM will counter with something else and vice versa. That's what I was getting at. Did you read the entire statement or just the parts that got under your Go-Go GM skin?
I should add to that and say they've been trying to one-up each other on
all fronts -- healthy capitalistic competition -- at least until we see what the U.S government has to say about it anyhow....
You'll like this:
I'll believe it when I see it. THAT one is a way off IMHO...
Wow, based on what? the new camaro doesnt out perform the mustang in leaps and bounds so to say a mustang wouldn't touch the ss is un warranted. They are close enough to be a drivers race in most cases on the street. They are fairly close and imo, would rather own the slightly slower stang over the ugmo camaro any day. I would never buy one car over another just because it was faster or made more hp either, That is just silly. I wouldn't buy a new car like that unless i could clear it with cash anyway and im certainly not in a point in my life where im able to do so and if i were, i probably wouldn't pull the trigger on a car made by a company soon to be owned by the government. I can't stang GM cars and probably, god willing will never own one again. The camaro never "felt" right to me like a stang does.
Well I'm not arguing this anymore. I think this whole convo is a little biased. People who drive mustangs are obviously going to think they are better, regardless. And visa vera.
Well of course it's gonna be biased, it's a Ford/Mercury car based forum. People that are into Fords are generally not into GM cars. It's like an un-written law. I personally don't like any late(er) GM/Cheby just for the fact that I haven't had good luck with the few that I've owned. I'm not gonna lie and say I hate every single car or truck they have ever produced, but their newer shiznit just sucks. And as far as the new Camaro, it's all personal preferance.
Funny, I posted this because the car caught my eye - I was surprised it looked as good as it did. I would never actually consider buying a GM car either, though this is the first car that's actually looked even remotely interesting other than the WS6/Firehawks. A guy on my daughters basketball team actually had a 2010 Camaro on order, so I will get to check it out this summer as he told me to stop by and check it out when he found out I was into performance cars.
I think it's cool that the big 3 all now have retro "robo-cars" - a little competition never hurt anybody. Better than looking at generic corporate girly-looking cars all day!
Hey, I never said the mustang was better, heck i can't honestly say MY mustang is better but i'd rather own my stang' than one of those new SS cars because I LIKE it better.
Actually, I didn't think you were arguing at all. My reply wasn't meant to be taken as such either(although someone else couldn't grasp that -- not the first time -- eh no biggie).
Those are your observations/opinions and you outlined them well. Nothing wrong with that. I was merely trying to point out that the Mustang had a few uncontested years where they were the only game in town and one could say that is in part to getting the formula right. The same could be said if it were the Camaro that had the uninterrupted run instead of the Mustang.
I didn't read it like that at all. It sounded, to me, like he was talking about performance in that statement. I see your point now, but reading that reply before sounded like you were answering something he didn't ask.
If you mean late to the retro-pony car party, yes. But the retro Mustang came out in '05. If you're talking about how long it took to get the Camaro on the streets, three years isn't a long time to go from concept to production. They just overhyped it by making a press release about every nut and bolt on the car. If we didn't hear anything about the development of this car, it would still be very fresh. That's something GM can't wrap their heads around, but I know why they were doing it lately. It's been a matter of keeping investors interested, and giving buyers a sense of hope that the company isn't just rolling over and dying... like Chrysler spent the last two years doing. It's good and bad. We all know that GM is putting a lot of effort into improving their product, but those products are old news when they do end up in showrooms.
No doubt, argue isn't the right word. I typically say that when people take opposite positions on a subject, beyond discussion. I actually see the Coyote as Ford's counter to the LS3, since it has quite an advantage over the N/A 4.6L.
I do come off as a Go-Go GM guy lately, I know. I've been in their corner since they started their drain spiral. But I'm a Go-Go Good Car guy. I get just as excited about the new Scirocco (that we can't buy) as I do about the new Camaro. I think I actually post just as much Ford support on this board as I do GM, but as someone said, it's a Ford/Mercury board. Singing the praises of a Ford doesn't stand out here at all, where doing the same for a GM makes that comment stick out like a sore thumb. It's a casualty of being on an Enthusiast board for a specific car and liking something from everyone.
I do prefer the Camaro, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't jump at the chance to try any of the three out. If someone handed me the keys to a 2010 Mustang, I'd be at a full run for the driver's side before they finished asking.
Sonofa! ;) Point taken. The article was simply about patents, which doesn't mean production at all. The way I see this, they're looking into the Ethanol Injection more than anything else. But talking about that one-upmanship between the two, that whole package looks like Ford's answer to the LS9. Hey, stranger things have happened (Ford GT).
I know I can be a bit of a punk sometimes. Being cooped up in a house with the kids all day and only getting past my driveway about once a week is definitely something I will never get used to. I needed to get out of here yesterday, which was a particularly frustrating one. Sorry about bringing it over here.
I rather like the looks of the challenger. My freinds family are all GM guys, and he bought a 03 ford f-250 6.0. They all talked shiznit on it, and every single one of them said, "Wow they even circled the problem" when they looked at the grill. Yet every single one of them wanted to ride around in it and watch him beat on it. Its just healthy competition, and exactally how I feel about all new cars. They have civic's with more power out of an inline 4 then our v-8s have. Well some of our v-8s anyways.
We have alot of super duty's and a couple of chevy equivilents at work. Everyone under 6 feet tall likes the chevy's better. I hate them because they are all coloum shift and every time I hit a bump on the road my knee hits it from OD into N. I think most chevy's cost more overall then a similarly equipped and targeted ford. I drive these cars because there cheap. If I could find a bunch of old camaro's for the same price, I might end up with one of those down the road.
As far as the whole retro look goes, I really feel that most, if not all of them, were made specifically for the 40+ groups who used to drive the cars around. I think its more of a way to try to make money then make a good performance car.
In today's car industry; that's an eternity. Especially considering the fact that GM said it was going to happen in each of those years and then retracted that and said "next year."
It seems NONE of the domestic manufacturers has gotten a strong foothold in the subcompact market. Dodge came close with the Neon SRT-4, but the fact they are no longer making it points to the fact that they were close, but missed the mark.
V8Demon,
Your right. Arguing is not the right word, I just was afraid it would turn into one. I've seen it happen a few times and just didn't want to cause problems. Just a little cautious. :)
Until they can make them more affordable its going to be tough for them to take off. The younger crowd doesn't have the 30+ thousand some of those cars cost.
The new SS Turbo Cobalt turned out to be quite the giant killer, and the LNF is one of the most stout little motors GM has built in... maybe ever. I'm glad they're not selling all of Opel, just a majority stake. They're getting a lot out of that Brand for other world markets.
That's part of it. The other part of it is that gas is too cheap for small cars to catch on. Europeans get on just fine with "premium" small cars, but in America people only buy small cars because they can only afford to fuel small cars. Americans also have collective ADHD when it comes to fuel prices. Last year everyone was snapping up fuel efficient cars, even paying full retail for used hybrids, but then fuel got cheap and everybody forgot about the crisis and resumed their wasteful ways. Now fuel is climbing again and everyone's whining again. Maybe after a decade or so of this bullshiznit people will finally accept that cheap fuel is not their God-given right.
The Mini, though, is proof that Americans WILL pay a premium for a small car if it's a
good car. Small cars that look cheap and feel cheap are going to have to be cheap. Small cars that look and feel like quality can and will command higher prices. That's the problem GM had with the Saturn Astra. In Europe it was and is selling well because Europeans will pay for content in a small car. GM was convinced Americans would not do likewise, so they de-contented the car to the point nobody would pay that much when they can get a better equipped Civic.
...and it's not that Americans never got a foothold in the compact market. You can't cross the street without being run over by a Cavalier, Sunfire, Cobalt, Saturn, Focus or Neon. They sold millions of the things.
The problem is that they haven't figured out how to make money selling small cars. Selling millions doesn't help the bottom line if you can't make money on each one. For the Big 3, small cars used to be a loss leader: First time customer buys Focus, then moves up into Fusion, then Taurus, then gets buried in a Lincoln. This went horribly wrong when the first time customer bought his Focus (or other entry level shiznitbox) and hated it so much that they vowed never to buy from than manufacturer again.
Problem with the Cobalt is......well; it's still a Cobalt which is essentially an evolution of the Cavalier. As capable as it is there is still a bit of a stigma attached to it (the SRT-4 had it too) that isn't attached to the EVO or WRX...
What's interesting is how much a gallon of gas has increased in the US in the past 6 months while the price of a barrel of oil hasn't gone up in a manner commiserate with the gas price. Oil's gone up, but not nearly as much. The profit margin has grown considerably.
A never-ending trend by the US domestic manufacturers to "dumb down" a smart, sensible, and athletic vehicle to slash prices and then wonder why it won't sell in the US because it's now essentially a shiznitbox compared to the version the rest of the world gets.
They sold millions of the FWD Impalas too. Doesn't mean there isn't a better alternative or room for improvement. I for one wouldn't touch the US spec version of any of those cars...
No doubt, but they do still sell a lot of them. I see more corollas on the streets than my eyes can bare, but for every one of those there are two Cobalts, or Focus's, or Neon/SX2.0's (they stopped calling them Neons up here when they did the last redesign, before the giant flop of a Calibre came along).
And to Carmen, it's not just the Domestics who have a hard time selling compacts in North America for a profit. Even Toyota and Honda see very little in the way of profit from their Yaris's or Fits. That's why they have vehicles like the Ridgeline, Tundra, Highlander, Pilot (bigger than a Grand Cherokee), etc., all over the continent, and filling up their ad budgets. They wanted, and needed, to sell us trucks and big SUV's just as much as any home grown manufacturer did come the middle of the Ot's.
It's too bad that people only notice how py the base models of the Domestic compacts are. When I rented a base Focus and a base Lancer back to back a few years ago (home getting married) the Mitsu felt like the floppiest, cheapest piece I'd ever driven new. I even enjoyed the few days in a Sebring a bit better. It was floppier, but at least it had some level of comfort and power there to excuse the limp noodle feel to the car. The Lancer was just cheap in every sense of the word. None of them could touch the VW Beetle I'd rented a year earlier. But then, the VW costs a bit more, doesn't it? They seem to have sold very well too, considering how little they've changed. It started the retro movement, and it's still surviving on that original sketch, which was shown to us in 1998! I'd put that up there with the Mini, or even above, in the point TC was making about premium compacts.