Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
hyperv6

Drove a 2010 Camaro SS today

44 posts in this topic

I got the chance to drive a MFG Camaro today at work. GM has in a Camaro SS with the RS trim automatic with the Brembo brakes.

This by far was the best Camaro I have ever driven. The steering was spot on and had good feel. The engine has good low end torque and was much faster than it felt.

The exhaust had a great sound from inside but not over bearing to make it distracting inside on a long trip.

The Ride was very smooth and not a creak rattle or hollow sound of the old cars to be found. This car may not have ultra high limits but it is a real world car that makes driving fun.

Seeing out my be an issue for some owning an HHR it seemed like it was more open to me but to many others it may take some getting used to. The mirrors are a big help and useful.

Seats are fine for every day but not for ultra performance. It would be nice to see an option on the seats for those who want more.

I had it on a section of freeway and opened it up once I got a gap. It hit 55 to over 100 MPH fast but just did not feel like it. The ride and handling is like my HHR and makes it feel slow on back roads even if you are fast. This is not the normal GM lets put big tires on it and big bars and call it a handling package. It reminds me of a Euro type set up where it is tuned for all types of roads not just smooth fresh paved roads. Like I said it may give a little on the extreem limits but it pays back in better real world driving.

Is there room for improvement yes. There always is. You do feel the weight in this car but the brakes are fast and strong. The car performs well but just does not have that light toss able feel.

If they can give us this power in a Alpha and cut the weight they will have a world class car. That is not to say what they have now is bad.

Now if they could only make it sound like the ZR-1 we had there today..... God that thing was awsome. I thought the Z06 was good. No I did not get to drive that one......!

I will not give GM an A plus on this car there are still some things that could be better. I will give it an A as they did very well with what they had to work with in some very trying times. This car is nothing to be ashamed of and should hold up better in time than the 3rd or 4th gens.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not drive the Camaro, but I did see the car person. I give the cabin a B-. It's not blatantly cheap like the classic F-bodies or 1990s GMs. But it is a vast expanse of plastics and not all of a matte sheen. Some parts of the dash has the dreaded "armorall" sheen which is so typical of GMs in the 90s but which the General has done a good job of shedding in recent years. The grey plastics and fat black bezel of the stereo and HVAC, while unique to the Camaro, looks cheaper and less refined than the corporate standard issue stuff in the Malibu, the Kappas, etc. The Shift knob has a shiny patina which look like it has been well used although this is a brand new vehicle. Driving position is barely OK but not great for me; it will be a problem for anyone of a smaller stature. I like to drive with very little seat back recline and with comfortably bent arms and knees. With the steering pulled as far forward as possible, I find myself pushing the seat further forward than I like.

The car also has some dubious decorative elements. The chrome surrounds of the tail lights actually looks (cheap) and makes the production car less pretty than concept car without it. I am not sure I buy the non-functional features like the fake hood scoop or the three vertical indentations ahead of the rear wheel well either. The 20" wheel looks heavy and somewhat contrary to my preference for the the biggest contact patch but only as much wheel size as it takes to clear the calipers (my all time favourite has always been the 225/45 and 255/40 R17 sizes) But overall, it is not a bad looking car if you are into the modernized-retro look and don't mind a few gimmicky bits here and there.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will not give GM an A plus on this car there are still some things that could be better. I will give it an A as they did very well with what they had to work with in some very trying times. This car is nothing to be ashamed of and should hold up better in time than the 3rd or 4th gens.

I drove one last week. I'd give it a B-. It was nice enough - strong brakes and motor - but certainly nothing I'd drop $35+K on. The interior is weird and claustrophobic and the car itself is just plain too big and heavy. It's mass plays with my kinesthetic senses, making it not that fun to drive. After I got out of it, I really had no more desire to drive it. That's too bad, because after getting out of cars from the HHR SS to the M3, I couldn't wait to drive them again.

I'll wait for the 6th gen.

Edited by Chazman
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No surprise coming from Chazman. I'd be willing to bet the Challenger and Mustang both have "claustrophobic" interiors as well. The Dodge has a very similar greenhouse to the Camaro, and the Mustang also has giant sail panels with tiny quarter glasses. That said, I love all 3 modern-day pony cars, and would be proud to drive any of them, from a V6 Dodge automatic to a Camaro SS 6-speed manual.

How much does a new M3 weigh? How much does it cost? How quick is it in the 1/4 mile?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No surprise coming from Chazman. I'd be willing to bet the Challenger and Mustang both have "claustrophobic" interiors as well. The Dodge has a very similar greenhouse to the Camaro, and the Mustang also has giant sail panels with tiny quarter glasses. That said, I love all 3 modern-day pony cars, and would be proud to drive any of them, from a V6 Dodge automatic to a Camaro SS 6-speed manual.

How much does a new M3 weigh? How much does it cost? How quick is it in the 1/4 mile?

No need to bet - just go check them out. Neither the Mustang nor the Challenger have "claustrophobic" interiors.

As for the M3:

1) ~ 3700 pounds , give or take, depending on options.

2) $57,850 coupe/$54,850 sedan.

3) 12's

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No surprise coming from Chazman. I'd be willing to bet the Challenger and Mustang both have "claustrophobic" interiors as well. The Dodge has a very similar greenhouse to the Camaro, and the Mustang also has giant sail panels with tiny quarter glasses. That said, I love all 3 modern-day pony cars, and would be proud to drive any of them, from a V6 Dodge automatic to a Camaro SS 6-speed manual.

How much does a new M3 weigh? How much does it cost? How quick is it in the 1/4 mile?

The Challenger a little bit, but not anywhere near the degree of the Camaro.

The Mustang? Not at all.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As others have mentioned, its the interior and the heavy car feeling that dimmed my enthusiasm for this car. I felt it could have been a little more responsive to steering input but that it has a lot of weight to make feel tossable like say a Corvette manages to. I was pretty sure it had the sitting in a bathtub feeling going in, its always been that way as opposed the the Stang.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if they wanted too they could have made the Camaro a little more tossable but I am sure it would have added to the price.

The Camaro is not that "claustrophobic" . It does have a large blind spot that many other cars do not have today but it is worth it for styling and the mirrors are proper to deal with it.

The Challanger has just a large blind spots with the Mustang not that much better. Just the price for style.

The interiro on the Camaro is not as bad now that I have spent some time with it. The shock value has worn off and the better feeling materials make it more accpetable.

It also is true to itself and does not suffer the cheap feel or look of being borrowed from a large sedan like the Challanger.

The Challanger is like the Challanger in the past. It is larger and cost more than the other Pony cars. It held true to it's original role for better or worse. Chysler could have made a smaller car and changed it but then people would complain it just is not like the original. It was never intended to be a segment leader and is doing the job it was intended. While it is not my kind of car it has done well to fill the old shoes.

The key to the Camaro now is since there is no Z28 coming to upgrade the new car with new features, powertrain and suspension upgrades. These packages need to compete with the Mustang as Ford will offer future Bullit, Mach one and Boss packages. The track pack is also a prime special offering. GM need to do this to compete and keep ahead of the Mustang. Ford is focused on this car and will probe more into the new features. Sorry the puns just came to me.

GM needs to do better than in the past with just sticker special editions. Good example is the Transformer car. It is nothing but trim. They should have offered the Z28 nose since they already have it ready and some other special options.

Also the Camaro needs some Gear options. Check out the available gearing and if needed offer them as a dealer install to by pass the CAFE. This car is geared for MPG and would be much faster with a better ratio.

Maybe offer some Odd limited options in the old COPO style. Like a base car with the V8 and steel wheels? Crazy stuff that would keep interest high.

I was in an original COPO 69 427 today. Even a few COPO cars for track use like the Cobrajet Mustangs for NHRA would be neat. Make 50 with the ZR-1 engines and show what is possible.

I spoke to one of the Camaro team memebers this weekend and they are epecting this to be a Camaro year at SEMA. We should hear soon more on that. Also the road racing team is coming together soon.

I love the road racing but GM still needs to drag race these cars. Imagine the KB pro stock team out of G6 and in Camaro's? Fords is going to own NHRA soon and GM needs to keep some tie there. I am no drag race fan but it is important to many fans.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>"I am not sure I buy the non-functional features like the fake hood scoop or the three vertical indentations ahead of the rear wheel well either."<<

Scoops are one thing (and even 'functional' ones are often not ducted to the air intake, likewise rendering them non-functional in reality), but the 3 indented curves in the quarter panel are character lines; they're not supposed to be 'functional' other that appearance-wise.

Edited by balthazar
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The three indentations weren't functional on the '69... and non-functional, sporty hood trim is traditional. This is just bitching for bitching's sake. Edited by ocnblu
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mustang guy on Cheers and gears gives the new Camaro an...A plus.

You guys keep talking about lightweight cars and how heavy cars have gotten. We live in Central Ohio and am involved in Motorsports. I know quite a few people who work for Honda. A bunch of us were standing around an Integra today and talking about how nice and light it was compared to the current SI Civic.

Shawn, my friend (who actually designed and developed parts of the SI package for Honda) said that every engeneer for Honda would give their eye teeth to build a car like the Integra again...but it will never happen because of safety items. We've beat this thing to death on this forum with the whole B pillar thing and why there will never be any more cars without B pillars, etc.

Went out for a coke tonight with my oldest daughter, Elizabeth. Parked next to a Toyota Corolla.

Keep bitching when they give us something good...and you'll be driving a crapbox like the Corolla.

Chris

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and isn't it a little funny that we bugged GM for six years to build this damn thing and then...we bitch about it when it gets here.

How many Camaro's have the fine people at GM sold to C and G regulars? How many of the Half million posts here are about the new Camaro?

Toyota builds the Camry in 52 flavors because they can sell 52 flavors of Camry. GM will sell 52 flavors of bland midsize if they can sell 52 flavors of bland midsize.

Not that the Camaro doesn't have it's faults...it has a ton. But every single car with charactor and personality does. How perfect do you think the 60's muscle cars were back in the day...hmmmm....

I still give it an A plus. But if you don't like it. don't worry. It will be the last of the breed, trust me. In 2018, you can get your Cruze Hybrid XFE and you all will be happy....

Chris

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They weren't functional on the '69... and non-functional, sporty hood trim is traditional. This is just bitching for bitching's sake.

Not true. The '69 cowl inducted hoods were in fact functional.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Chaz, I edited my post for clarity. I was talking about the three hashmarks ahead of the rear wheel.

Yes, cowl induction hoods were functional... but there were so many SS/RS model hoods that just wore jewelery, I feel it is unfair to single out the new car's mail slot. It's just a little calling card that you're looking at a V8 car.

Edited by ocnblu
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, Chaz, I edited my post for clarity. I was talking about the three hashmarks ahead of the rear wheel.

Yes, cowl induction hood were functional... but there were so many SS/RS model hoods that just wore jewelery, I feel it is unfair to single out the new car's mail slot. It's just a little calling card that you're looking at a V8 car.

No problem.

Actually those rear fender vents were to be made functional on the Z/28 as rear brake cooling ducts, similar to the Z06, before it was canceled.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...and isn't it a little funny that we bugged GM for six years to build this damn thing and then...we bitch about it when it gets here.

Honest injun, I was bugging them for something different....

Edited by Chazman
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Mustang guy on Cheers and gears gives the new Camaro an...A plus.

You guys keep talking about lightweight cars and how heavy cars have gotten. We live in Central Ohio and am involved in Motorsports. I know quite a few people who work for Honda. A bunch of us were standing around an Integra today and talking about how nice and light it was compared to the current SI Civic.

Shawn, my friend (who actually designed and developed parts of the SI package for Honda) said that every engeneer for Honda would give their eye teeth to build a car like the Integra again...but it will never happen because of safety items. We've beat this thing to death on this forum with the whole B pillar thing and why there will never be any more cars without B pillars, etc.

Went out for a coke tonight with my oldest daughter, Elizabeth. Parked next to a Toyota Corolla.

Keep bitching when they give us something good...and you'll be driving a crapbox like the Corolla.

Chris

or a cruze........what chevy will become......

to me, the biggest camaro flaw is the interior. its just too cheap and sparse. now, considering what else you get it really isn't a deal breaker....or is it. the 010 mustang i sat in recently was a great orgasm in comparison.

but the camaro's body is so sexy. and it has the horsepower to back it up.

Chevy can and should develop the chassis to refine it a bit more. but if this car is to be in production for quite some time i would make it urgent to get a knockout interior in the thing. its not priced cheap, it should at least have an interior that doesnt call attention to itself as 'corners cut'.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the point on the interior, but none of the Chevy's has a great interior.

The Z06 showed up at our autocross yesterday and I rode in in once...my daughter Joanna rode with Ginger (owners wife) during 5 of her runs. Amazing car. Interior isn't much better than the Camaros.

Not holding my breath for a better interior in the Camaro. Somewhere in an alternative universe a Firebird version of this car is being built and has a better interior.

But that's not the universe we live in.

Chris

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quarter gills are nothing but styling and never were. They are a Camaro trait from the first gen and are fine on this car. Now if GM had put them on a new GTO or other car that had no history of therm then it is an issue. It is no different than the Lacrosse side spear.

The hood scoop is very understated and non functional. I would have left it off it it contributed nothing.

I did see a Nickey edition 2010 Camaro and it has the old style open hood scoop to the front similar to a old Baldwin style. The GM engineer told the guy from Nickey at high speed they would have a high pressure area there and he told them there was a good chance he would lose the hood. GM evidently figured this out and that may be why we did not get a scoop like this. I noted even the intended Z28 looked to have a rear opening or it was just closed too?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chevy can and should develop the chassis to refine it a bit more. but if this car is to be in production for quite some time i would make it urgent to get a knockout interior in the thing. its not priced cheap, it should at least have an interior that doesnt call attention to itself as 'corners cut'.

I wouldn't hold my breath on Camaro getting a new interior.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You guys keep talking about lightweight cars and how heavy cars have gotten. We live in Central Ohio and am involved in Motorsports. I know quite a few people who work for Honda. A bunch of us were standing around an Integra today and talking about how nice and light it was compared to the current SI Civic.

Shawn, my friend (who actually designed and developed parts of the SI package for Honda) said that every engeneer for Honda would give their eye teeth to build a car like the Integra again...but it will never happen because of safety items. We've beat this thing to death on this forum with the whole B pillar thing and why there will never be any more cars without B pillars, etc.

This is not really true. Other than for the requiring airbags in the 90s, government "safety" regulations haven't changed much over the past decade and a half here. In Europe there is the minimum bumper height nonsense, but apart from that there hasn't been legislative requirements that cars have to be able to with stand crashes much better than they did in the 90s. What we have seen is a great deal of voluntary advancements in terms of crash safety.

If you build a new car today with exactly the same impact safety as a 1994 Integra, it won't earn a 5-star crash rating. But it also won't be illegal to sell in the USA. If you raise the bumper height it'll be OK in Europe too. A Lotus Elise is very light and quite under protected against side impacts and front offset intrusions. It is nonetheless a completely legal car to market in the USA.

Regardless of all of that, it is also quite untrue that cars have to be much heavier to meet today's safety expectations (mandated or otherwise). The 2006 to present Honda Civic is 2750 lbs. That is not that much more than the 2400~2600 lbs of the previous two generations. Most of that comes from the fact that the current model is a much bigger car. So big in fact that Honda has to have a separate Civic model for Europe and the "Fit" to cater to customers stateside who feel that the Civic is too big a car for their preference.

I am not against safety, but one also has to recognize that tank like crash safety performance is not required by law and perhaps should not be the #1 priority in a sporty car. How many customers will shy away from a sports car because it has a 3.5 stars crash rating instead of 5 stars? On the other hand, a heavy, under performing and somewhat sluggish handling car may turn away good number of enthusiasts. There may even be a niche market for cars which do not even hide the fact that they trade safety for performance, style or driving dynamics -- hey if that isn't true nobody will buy Motorcycles or ride one without a helmet (in states that permit it).

For a mainstream product like the Camaro targeted at young, driving enthusiasts. There can and should be a balance struck between lightness and safety, and it shouldn't be either taken to the extreme. This really is is a choice here for the designer to make; an oppressive safety standard mandating 4000lb designs is a myth.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

unfortunately, the second thing most people these days look for after fuel economy is crash ratings. a car maker isnt out to set themselves up for another exploder/firestone scenario... well... except for toyota's new problem thats come to light. I am sure that if GM could bury the statistics on the fatalities in 2dr s10 blazers, you'd never here a peep about it again. no one wants the reputation of an unsafe vehicle. VW was practically whoring this fact out a yr ago. after all everyone remembers the Pinto fiasco as well.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not that the Camaro doesn't have it's faults...it has a ton. But every single car with charactor and personality does. How perfect do you think the 60's muscle cars were back in the day...hmmmm....

Chris

that gy-normous red thing pictured below this was my daily driver throughout high school. lets see. it was/is cold in the winter, hot in the summer. lots of wind and cabin noise. irritable at times, runs on 92 or higher, puny brakes...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I drove a similar car (it's Chevelle brethren) through high school.

Chris

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is not really true. Other than for the requiring airbags in the 90s, government "safety" regulations haven't changed much over the past decade and a half here. In Europe there is the minimum bumper height nonsense, but apart from that there hasn't been legislative requirements that cars have to be able to with stand crashes much better than they did in the 90s. What we have seen is a great deal of voluntary advancements in terms of crash safety. If you build a new car today with exactly the same impact safety as a 1994 Integra, it won't earn a 5-star crash rating. But it also won't be illegal to sell in the USA. If you raise the bumper height it'll be OK in Europe too. A Lotus Elise is very light and quite under protected against side impacts and front offset intrusions. It is nonetheless a completely legal car to market in the USA. Regardless of all of that, it is also quite untrue that cars have to be much heavier to meet today's safety expectations (mandated or otherwise). The 2006 to present Honda Civic is 2750 lbs. That is not that much more than the 2400~2600 lbs of the previous two generations. Most of that comes from the fact that the current model is a much bigger car. So big in fact that Honda has to have a separate Civic model for Europe and the "Fit" to cater to customers stateside who feel that the Civic is too big a car for their preference. I am not against safety, but one also has to recognize that tank like crash safety performance is not required by law and perhaps should not be the #1 priority in a sporty car. How many customers will shy away from a sports car because it has a 3.5 stars crash rating instead of 5 stars? On the other hand, a heavy, under performing and somewhat sluggish handling car may turn away good number of enthusiasts. There may even be a niche market for cars which do not even hide the fact that they trade safety for performance, style or driving dynamics -- hey if that isn't true nobody will buy Motorcycles or ride one without a helmet (in states that permit it). For a mainstream product like the Camaro targeted at young, driving enthusiasts. There can and should be a balance struck between lightness and safety, and it shouldn't be either taken to the extreme. This really is is a choice here for the designer to make; an oppressive safety standard mandating 4000lb designs is a myth.

The Elise is also a niche market car sold in very low numbers and it costs 50 large.

The Camaro will have to sell to a lot of secretarys and such to be viable.

Do you have 60 Grand to buy a '10 Camaro?

Chris

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • Who's Chatting

    There are no users currently in the chat room