uhmmmm...'scuse me - have you looked at what other performance cars get for fuel economy?????

By the way-- V6 will probably end up at 27............

 

Apples to oranges -- the U. S. Government changed the way EPA calculates Fuel economy in the 2008 model year -- much more conservative now.....meaning lower numbers.

 

So there I was today, at work, trying to escape away to my computer to see if anything had leaked before the unveiling. Thanks to this site, the specs had been posted and I was having my own OMG! moments on the sly viewing the specs in-between meetings. I wanted badly to watch the webcast, but I also need a paycheck to afford the new Camaro...so I attended my scheduled meetings instead.

...And the new Camaro is nothing short of absolutely amazing. In my opinion, we got darn near everything we asked for. It's beautiful! It retains the long hood/short deck of all its predecessors. It combines cues from all model years, many from the 1st and 3rd gens, with a design that speaks to modern contemporary vehicles and those of legends past.

It will be fast...It pushes more HP out of a smaller displacement V6 than ever before and retains MPG -- under the new standards -- in the mid-high 20's despite a quarter ton increase in weight. The V8 promises 400hp and MPG still in the 20's.

It will be safe...The hood and bumper height, as well as the tall doors meet new frontal, pedestrian, and side-impact standards and protect the occupant with 6 airbags. In my opinion, the body styling beautifully hides all these requirements, i.e. it doesn't LOOK like it was stretched, stuffed or pulled to meet the numbers.

And it will be modern...Integrated keyfob, multifunction display between the gages, text display on the radio, steering wheel controls and I'm sure there will be lots of niceties available like remote start, OnStar, and perhaps auto-dimming rear view mirrors? I'd also hope for heated seats, but that's because I'm a pansy on cold mornings. Plus, it utilizes a 6-speed AUTO transmission. I'm slightly disappointed it's not a DSG/SMG style trans, but if it can handle the torque and spit out better MPG, I'm happy.

Needless to say, I'm happy. If it feels and functions as good as it looks, I think GM will have a very right and tasty little machine on its hands. The economy is tough, and we know it. The Camaro once again takes supercar fun and puts it on an affordable level--just like its maker intended 41 years, a couple recessions, and two gas-crunches ago. The Muscle Car Lives.

 

The mileage was lower than I expected but then I looked up what the Mustang GT and Challenger SRT-8 got. The Mustang GT is the same as the SS with 122 less hp and the Challenger with only 3 more hp is down 5 mpg.

 

I'm still about as torn between what vehicle to get as I was before. Used 02-04 Z06 or Camaro SS. I was really hoping to be wowed by the weight and MPG ratings while fully expecting 3800+ and low mid 20s highway. Even though I know they're lower than previous rating standards the newer MPG standards still just bum me out... So anyway I got what I expected but I'm somehow still disappointed...

I guess I need to sit in/test drive the Camaro to see if the total package just really wows me. Of course the sub 3200lb, sub-$30k, 405 hp, sexy Z06 asskicker continues to call my name everytime I close my eyes (along w/ visions of that video of the electron blue Z06 w/ full exhaust walking Ferraris, Lambos, and Porsches on the highway dancing through my head...) Dangit.

 

Not to quote myself or anything but looks like the calculator was dead on:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=129496

So the auto Camaro is basicly as quick as an early C5 LS1 auto Vette 13.3`s, in the 4th gen auto at 13.5 for the early LS1 years and 13.3-13.4 for 01-02....Of course an Ls3 auto Vette runs 12.4`s......

My main question is what the heck is the difference between the L99 and the LS3? are the heads different? what makes them make less power?

 

Those tires are probably directional anyway. PITA to rotate side to side.

 

I believe the AFM requires a different cam.

 

Still excited about the car just wish HUD would have been an option in the first year

 

I expected much more from this overly hyped and much ballyhooed car....My bone stock Y2K Z28 on street tires ran 12.90s at 109 mph and got 28-29 mpg on the highway...now it is a heads/cam and bolt ons car and make 452 RWHP and still gets 27 MPG on the highway .... needless to say I was kind of disapointed in the ET, MPH, and MPG numbers that were posted for the 5th gen car... I thought that GM was going to engineer some better performance and fuel economy for this car...with no improvment in ET and MPH and less fuel economy than the 4th gen car I was big time disapointed to say the least...you are probably a short production run for this car with the new CAFE law looming in the next couple of years...if ya want one ya better get one before thay stop building it..with the price of gas now higher than giraffe ***** it may not be around very long..
__________________

 

You guys are freaking about the MPG on this thing.. they said they are still working on it and those ratings are with the auto trans, says right next to it on the spec sheet. go more, unreal.

 

Also add the fact that GM claimed 0-60 in 5.5 seconds on the 2002 z28, 5.3 in the SS. 14.0 @ 103 mph in the Z28 and 13.7 @ 105 mph in the SS. GM gives the times out conservatively. You could look at the Z06 as well Im pretty sure, I don't plan on looking it up. The car is going to perform beyond what they say, relax.

 

Where does it say that it won't be?

 

Not sure if that means later in 2010, or 2011.

 

The Civic doesn't get the 5-star front-side impact rating. Guess what most collisions are.

My guess is that Camaro will get that rating.

They are. I saw them in person yesterday, and they are Pirelli P-Zeros with "Outside" labels on them.

That's because he purposefully did not specify.