2010 Camaro VS 1967-Motortrend
09-16-2008, 01:17 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Jacksonville Florida
Posts: 881
2010 Camaro VS 1967-Motortrend
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...350/index.html
We've driven the base, V-6-powered 2010 Camaro, and we're impressed. Actually, we're more than impressed. At first acquaintance, the entry-level version of Chevy's 21st century ponycar looks and feels a winner. It's smooth, quick, and accomplished on the road, with great steering, nice chassis balance, and good grip, even on the standard 18-in. wheel/tire combo. We can't wait to drive the V-8.
But with the hassle of high gas prices, the looming threat of the new 35-mpg CAFE laws, the worrying knocks from the engine room of the American auto industry -- all the stuff that has the doomsayer enthusiasts pining for the good old days -- this new Camaro got us thinking: Who needs a V-8?
CLICK TO VIEW GALLERY
We haven't had the chance to track test a new Camaro yet, of course, but this is what we do know about the numbers: More than 300 hp under the hood; a 0-60-mph time of at least 6.1 sec or better; EPA fuel consumption numbers of 18/26 mpg; a price tag of around $24,000. Independent suspension all round. Disc brakes all round. Alloy wheels. Available six-speed manual or automatic transmissions.
This is the base model, remember.
Let's rewind four decades, back to those good old days and the original 1967 Camaro. Back then the base model boasted -- if that's the right word -- a 140-hp straight-six under the hood, three-on-the-tree manual transmission, live rear axle, drum brakes all round, steel wheels with dog-dish hubcaps, and taxi-cab interior trim. Not so much a ponycar as a motorized mule, really.
CLICK TO VIEW GALLERY
Four decades ago, Camaro fun actually started with the V-8s, the 327, and the SS-350. There were a number of different output and transmission combinations available, but in late 1966, we tested a coupe fitted with the 210-hp 327 driving through a two-speed (count 'em) Powerglide automatic, and a 295-hp SS-350 coupe with a four-speed stick. The numbers are revealing.
The 327 auto wheezed to 60 mph in 10.7 sec and ran the quarter in 18.2 sec at 77 mph. Just for perspective, the 8974-lb Ford F-450 King Ranch dualie we tested during the 2008 Truck of the Year judging last year was two tenths of a second faster to 60 mph and a half second quicker over the quarter mile. How'd the hot-shot SS-350 go? Zip to 60 mph in 8.0 sec, with the quarter mile coming up in 15.4 sec at 90 mph. Gas mileage? We estimated in the 12-13-mpg range.
By The Numbers: 2010 Chevrolet Camaro V-6 vs 1967 Chevrolet Camaro SS-350
text size
Okay, but a fully loaded SS-350 cost just a few bucks over $3400 back in 1967. The 2010 V-6 is likely to sticker at $24,000 or so. But here's where it gets interesting. The V-6 promises to be 25% quicker to 60 mph than the SS-350 (and probably seven to 10% faster over the quarter mile, according to our projections) while using 25 to 50% less gas. Yet in terms of the hours we average wage slaves will have to work to be able to buy one (according to U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics), it's only going to cost about eight percent more.
Don't get us wrong -- we still want a new Camaro with a six-speed stick and a 400-plus-hp LS3 under the hood. Or, better yet, the 556-hp supercharged LSA, which, based on the Caddy CTS-V test numbers we've just run, should be good for a 4.0-sec 0-60-mph time and a quarter mile in the low 12s. (A 21st century ZL-1, anyone? C'mon GM, build it. The parts are all there.)
But if your budget can only stretch to the V-6, you can quite rightly ask: "Who needs a V-8?"
CLICK TO VIEW GALLERY
CLICK TO VIEW GALLERY
.hdr { FONT: bold 12px verdana,arial,helvetica; COLOR: #ffffff; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #343434}.hdr1 { FONT: bold 9px verdana,arial,helvetica; COLOR: #000000; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #aba9a9}.hdr2 { FONT: 9px verdana,arial,helvetica; COLOR: #000000; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #dddddd}.hdr3 { FONT: 9px verdana,arial,helvetica; COLOR: #000000; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff}#ctl00_PlaceHolderAdColumnTop_ctl02_ctl00 { VISIBILITY: hidden} 2010 CAMARO V-6 1967 CAMARO SS-350 Price $24,000 (est) 3411.0 Engine 3.6L/310hp(est)/270-lb-ft (est) V-6 5.7L/295hp/380-lb-ft V-8 Trans 6-sp man 4-sp man Curb weight 3750 lb (mfr) 3141 lb Wheelbase 112.3 in 108.1 in LxWxH 190.4 x 75.5 x 54.2 in 184.6 x 72.5 x 51.0 in 0-60MPH 6.1 sec (mfr) 8.0 sec Quarter mile 14.5 sec @ 97 mph (est) 15.4 sec @ 90 mph
We've driven the base, V-6-powered 2010 Camaro, and we're impressed. Actually, we're more than impressed. At first acquaintance, the entry-level version of Chevy's 21st century ponycar looks and feels a winner. It's smooth, quick, and accomplished on the road, with great steering, nice chassis balance, and good grip, even on the standard 18-in. wheel/tire combo. We can't wait to drive the V-8.
But with the hassle of high gas prices, the looming threat of the new 35-mpg CAFE laws, the worrying knocks from the engine room of the American auto industry -- all the stuff that has the doomsayer enthusiasts pining for the good old days -- this new Camaro got us thinking: Who needs a V-8?
CLICK TO VIEW GALLERYWe haven't had the chance to track test a new Camaro yet, of course, but this is what we do know about the numbers: More than 300 hp under the hood; a 0-60-mph time of at least 6.1 sec or better; EPA fuel consumption numbers of 18/26 mpg; a price tag of around $24,000. Independent suspension all round. Disc brakes all round. Alloy wheels. Available six-speed manual or automatic transmissions.
This is the base model, remember.
Let's rewind four decades, back to those good old days and the original 1967 Camaro. Back then the base model boasted -- if that's the right word -- a 140-hp straight-six under the hood, three-on-the-tree manual transmission, live rear axle, drum brakes all round, steel wheels with dog-dish hubcaps, and taxi-cab interior trim. Not so much a ponycar as a motorized mule, really.
CLICK TO VIEW GALLERYFour decades ago, Camaro fun actually started with the V-8s, the 327, and the SS-350. There were a number of different output and transmission combinations available, but in late 1966, we tested a coupe fitted with the 210-hp 327 driving through a two-speed (count 'em) Powerglide automatic, and a 295-hp SS-350 coupe with a four-speed stick. The numbers are revealing.
The 327 auto wheezed to 60 mph in 10.7 sec and ran the quarter in 18.2 sec at 77 mph. Just for perspective, the 8974-lb Ford F-450 King Ranch dualie we tested during the 2008 Truck of the Year judging last year was two tenths of a second faster to 60 mph and a half second quicker over the quarter mile. How'd the hot-shot SS-350 go? Zip to 60 mph in 8.0 sec, with the quarter mile coming up in 15.4 sec at 90 mph. Gas mileage? We estimated in the 12-13-mpg range.
By The Numbers: 2010 Chevrolet Camaro V-6 vs 1967 Chevrolet Camaro SS-350
text size
Okay, but a fully loaded SS-350 cost just a few bucks over $3400 back in 1967. The 2010 V-6 is likely to sticker at $24,000 or so. But here's where it gets interesting. The V-6 promises to be 25% quicker to 60 mph than the SS-350 (and probably seven to 10% faster over the quarter mile, according to our projections) while using 25 to 50% less gas. Yet in terms of the hours we average wage slaves will have to work to be able to buy one (according to U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics), it's only going to cost about eight percent more.
Don't get us wrong -- we still want a new Camaro with a six-speed stick and a 400-plus-hp LS3 under the hood. Or, better yet, the 556-hp supercharged LSA, which, based on the Caddy CTS-V test numbers we've just run, should be good for a 4.0-sec 0-60-mph time and a quarter mile in the low 12s. (A 21st century ZL-1, anyone? C'mon GM, build it. The parts are all there.)
But if your budget can only stretch to the V-6, you can quite rightly ask: "Who needs a V-8?"
CLICK TO VIEW GALLERY CLICK TO VIEW GALLERY.hdr { FONT: bold 12px verdana,arial,helvetica; COLOR: #ffffff; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #343434}.hdr1 { FONT: bold 9px verdana,arial,helvetica; COLOR: #000000; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #aba9a9}.hdr2 { FONT: 9px verdana,arial,helvetica; COLOR: #000000; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #dddddd}.hdr3 { FONT: 9px verdana,arial,helvetica; COLOR: #000000; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff}#ctl00_PlaceHolderAdColumnTop_ctl02_ctl00 { VISIBILITY: hidden} 2010 CAMARO V-6 1967 CAMARO SS-350 Price $24,000 (est) 3411.0 Engine 3.6L/310hp(est)/270-lb-ft (est) V-6 5.7L/295hp/380-lb-ft V-8 Trans 6-sp man 4-sp man Curb weight 3750 lb (mfr) 3141 lb Wheelbase 112.3 in 108.1 in LxWxH 190.4 x 75.5 x 54.2 in 184.6 x 72.5 x 51.0 in 0-60MPH 6.1 sec (mfr) 8.0 sec Quarter mile 14.5 sec @ 97 mph (est) 15.4 sec @ 90 mph
09-16-2008, 02:54 PM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 1,958
Oh, no. Just ask people on this board. An SS350 could go 0-60 in 5 seconds and run the 1/4 in the 13s with some headers and a spark advance 
Seriously, though. Nice reminder of where we've come from and where we are now. Although they make it sound like aluminum wheels are standard on the 2010 which they aren't if it's not an RS. And in that case I think it will be more than the $24,000 they quote.
Seriously, though. Nice reminder of where we've come from and where we are now. Although they make it sound like aluminum wheels are standard on the 2010 which they aren't if it's not an RS. And in that case I think it will be more than the $24,000 they quote.
09-16-2008, 03:29 PM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
More proof that we're living in the real golden age of automobiles.
The changes in horsepower ratings back in the early 70s means that today's 300 horsepower V6s is rated at more horsepower than the first Z28's 290. If you go by that engine's actual gross horsepower of about 340, the V6 likely puts out thye same horsepower by that measurement. Yet, the fuel economy the original Z28 got on the freeway likely is lower than what the new V6 gets in the city.
If the horsepower and fuel economy numbers of the new V6 against the original Z28 isn't impressive enough, consider that that same base V6 in the 2010 Camaro gets from 0-60 mph in 6 seconds or less..... the original Z28 took 7.4 seconds to 60 and just over 15 in the quarter. The Camaro SS350 did 0-60 in 8 seconds and the quarter in 16.
The 427 Yenkos and ZL1s did low 5s to 60 and the quarter a sliver below 12 with 430 gross horsepower. The 2010 Camaro SS will likely get twice the fuel economy, more horsepower when measured with the same method, and will smoke the ZL1 and Yenkos by at least a second to 60 and reach the quarter 1/2 second at the very minimum (most likely also 1 full second) than those extremely rare and expensive (when new).
We've come a long way.
The changes in horsepower ratings back in the early 70s means that today's 300 horsepower V6s is rated at more horsepower than the first Z28's 290. If you go by that engine's actual gross horsepower of about 340, the V6 likely puts out thye same horsepower by that measurement. Yet, the fuel economy the original Z28 got on the freeway likely is lower than what the new V6 gets in the city.
If the horsepower and fuel economy numbers of the new V6 against the original Z28 isn't impressive enough, consider that that same base V6 in the 2010 Camaro gets from 0-60 mph in 6 seconds or less..... the original Z28 took 7.4 seconds to 60 and just over 15 in the quarter. The Camaro SS350 did 0-60 in 8 seconds and the quarter in 16.
The 427 Yenkos and ZL1s did low 5s to 60 and the quarter a sliver below 12 with 430 gross horsepower. The 2010 Camaro SS will likely get twice the fuel economy, more horsepower when measured with the same method, and will smoke the ZL1 and Yenkos by at least a second to 60 and reach the quarter 1/2 second at the very minimum (most likely also 1 full second) than those extremely rare and expensive (when new).
We've come a long way.
09-16-2008, 06:23 PM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 287
I can give you some gas mileage numbers from my '69 Z/28 when it was running on '69/'70 gasoline, 4-8mpg city (depending how much your foot was in it), 12-14mpg highway if you were really nice, all of that was with the 3.73 rear, those with 4.10/4.56 rears got less.
Clyde
Clyde
09-16-2008, 07:45 PM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Burbs
Posts: 873
My dad averaged.. 8-10mpg in the 302.. but I would never trade it for a V6 
SS and a V8 all the way for me but its great to see the bread and butter car's are going to have not only zip but tons of features and look awesome too and help to make the business case a strong one!
SS and a V8 all the way for me but its great to see the bread and butter car's are going to have not only zip but tons of features and look awesome too and help to make the business case a strong one!
09-17-2008, 04:59 AM
#7
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Jacksonville Florida
Posts: 881
I'm just amazed that we ever thought cars were fast 40 years ago.
Hell, the average 4 door family sedan of today will spank plenty of classic musclecars. What kind of world are we living in?
Hell, the average 4 door family sedan of today will spank plenty of classic musclecars. What kind of world are we living in?
09-17-2008, 05:27 AM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 619
09-17-2008, 10:55 AM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 9,710
They were fast... 40 years ago.
That's correct. As another poster said though, its all relative. 
09-17-2008, 12:20 PM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 206
...
Don't get us wrong -- we still want a new Camaro with a six-speed stick and a 400-plus-hp LS3 under the hood. Or, better yet, the 556-hp supercharged LSA, which, based on the Caddy CTS-V test numbers we've just run, should be good for a 4.0-sec 0-60-mph time and a quarter mile in the low 12s. (A 21st century ZL-1, anyone? C'mon GM, build it. The parts are all there.)...
Don't get us wrong -- we still want a new Camaro with a six-speed stick and a 400-plus-hp LS3 under the hood. Or, better yet, the 556-hp supercharged LSA, which, based on the Caddy CTS-V test numbers we've just run, should be good for a 4.0-sec 0-60-mph time and a quarter mile in the low 12s. (A 21st century ZL-1, anyone? C'mon GM, build it. The parts are all there.)...
Stick an LSA in and call it whatever you want.
The parts are all there already. All it would need is a little tuning and presto! Instant best, hottest, coolest musclecar ever built.
Pretty please?
09-17-2008, 06:43 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SeVa
Posts: 2,977
The changes in horsepower ratings back in the early 70s means that today's 300 horsepower V6s is rated at more horsepower than the first Z28's 290. If you go by that engine's actual gross horsepower of about 340, the V6 likely puts out thye same horsepower by that measurement. Yet, the fuel economy the original Z28 got on the freeway likely is lower than what the new V6 gets in the city.
09-19-2008, 12:48 AM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 26
More proof that we're living in the real golden age of automobiles.
The changes in horsepower ratings back in the early 70s means that today's 300 horsepower V6s is rated at more horsepower than the first Z28's 290. If you go by that engine's actual gross horsepower of about 340, the V6 likely puts out thye same horsepower by that measurement. Yet, the fuel economy the original Z28 got on the freeway likely is lower than what the new V6 gets in the city.
If the horsepower and fuel economy numbers of the new V6 against the original Z28 isn't impressive enough, consider that that same base V6 in the 2010 Camaro gets from 0-60 mph in 6 seconds or less..... the original Z28 took 7.4 seconds to 60 and just over 15 in the quarter. The Camaro SS350 did 0-60 in 8 seconds and the quarter in 16.
The 427 Yenkos and ZL1s did low 5s to 60 and the quarter a sliver below 12 with 430 gross horsepower. The 2010 Camaro SS will likely get twice the fuel economy, more horsepower when measured with the same method, and will smoke the ZL1 and Yenkos by at least a second to 60 and reach the quarter 1/2 second at the very minimum (most likely also 1 full second) than those extremely rare and expensive (when new).
We've come a long way.
The changes in horsepower ratings back in the early 70s means that today's 300 horsepower V6s is rated at more horsepower than the first Z28's 290. If you go by that engine's actual gross horsepower of about 340, the V6 likely puts out thye same horsepower by that measurement. Yet, the fuel economy the original Z28 got on the freeway likely is lower than what the new V6 gets in the city.
If the horsepower and fuel economy numbers of the new V6 against the original Z28 isn't impressive enough, consider that that same base V6 in the 2010 Camaro gets from 0-60 mph in 6 seconds or less..... the original Z28 took 7.4 seconds to 60 and just over 15 in the quarter. The Camaro SS350 did 0-60 in 8 seconds and the quarter in 16.
The 427 Yenkos and ZL1s did low 5s to 60 and the quarter a sliver below 12 with 430 gross horsepower. The 2010 Camaro SS will likely get twice the fuel economy, more horsepower when measured with the same method, and will smoke the ZL1 and Yenkos by at least a second to 60 and reach the quarter 1/2 second at the very minimum (most likely also 1 full second) than those extremely rare and expensive (when new).
We've come a long way.
09-19-2008, 07:59 AM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 163
A 1967 camaro 6cyl had 140hp,
25 years later a 1992 6cyl camaro had 140HP.
Progess? About time.....
And an SS350 weaksauce give me a break. At least use a 396 car. At least that compares a top of the line vs a top of the line.
Our I have a 69 SS350 they can borrow. Complete with a 454 and overdrive.
I like to have an actual economist tell me how much more/less the new one costs when you take in to account inflation/wages etc when the actual pprice is released.
25 years later a 1992 6cyl camaro had 140HP.
Progess? About time.....
And an SS350 weaksauce give me a break. At least use a 396 car. At least that compares a top of the line vs a top of the line.
Our I have a 69 SS350 they can borrow. Complete with a 454 and overdrive.
I like to have an actual economist tell me how much more/less the new one costs when you take in to account inflation/wages etc when the actual pprice is released.
Last edited by Aaron91RS; 09-19-2008 at 09:25 AM.
09-19-2008, 11:40 AM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 1,958
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator, the 1967 at $3400 would be $22,302.17 in today's dollars. So, the new car is quite a bit more expensive even adjusting for inflation.