Boomer

More info on the Camaro:
http://www.chevrolet.com/camaro/insi...y/?id=cid00020

Colours:
http://www.chevrolet.com/camaro/explorecamaro/gallery/
Silver Ice Metallic
Victory Red
Black
Rally Yellow
Aqua Blue Metallic
Inferno Orange Metallic
Cyber Gray Metallic
Red Jewel Tint Coat (interesting)
Imperial Blue Metallic
White

LS/LT
3.6L v6
300hp/273ftlbs
3.27 Final Drive ratio
LS 18x7.5 inch steel (P245/55R18 all season)
LT 18x7.5 inch alum. (P245/55R18 all season)
LT 19x8.0 inch alum. (P245/50R19 all season)
3741 - 3780lbs between LS/LT with auto/manuals

SS
LS3/L99 V8 6.2L
422hp/408ftlbs LS3 - 6 speed manual
400hp/395ftlbs L99 - 6 speed auto with active fuel management
3.45 Final Drive SS 6 speed
SS 20x8.0 inch alum. front (P245/45ZR20 all season)
SS 20x9.0 inch alum. rear (P275/40R20 all season)
3860-3913 - SS between auto/manuals

Knight

Interesting, so rated better mpg and 100 more hp then the stang.... they still ahvn't released pricing.

Boomer

http://www.chevrolet.com/camaro/multimedia/

Ambient lighting as well...look at that.

adrenalin

I am sure the SS is going to be insanely priced. Or should I say I hope it is so I won't buy one

Moosetang

Premium fuel only for the SS, and the MPG figure is only for the L99 version with Active BS Management, what's the rating for the LS3 without?

Knight

unfortunatly the LS3 has only been in the vette which is lighter and more areodynamic so number should be better on the vette with a camaro would be with that engine. 2008 vette is rated 16/26.

heres a good way to figure here is the 2006 gto and vette stats, since both used Ls2.

Vette is 18/28
GTO is 17/25

so going by same difference using the 2008 rating camaro would be 15/23 with the LS3.

jsaylor

The more the numbers leak out the more I realize, the GTO was a better car than this. The GTO knocked down more mpg, weighed less, and when you take into consideration the Camaro's extra weight and relatively small hp advantage you begin to realize that the LS2-powered GTO was probably about as fast as the new Camaro will be. GM could have slapped a retro, 69 Camaro body onto the GTO and managed as much for less....and with better FE numbers.

05fordgt

Not yet, but expect INSANE ADMs at your local Chevy store!!!

Knight

GTO is old rating system, i bet if you go to the epa converter site you will get numbers very close to 15/23

EDIT: pulled up the epa site for the GTO and low and behold new rating is 15/23.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/21856.shtml

jsaylor

Fair enough, but it's important to note that the rest still stands...particularly the comments about acceleration. The LS3-powered Corvette is so similar to the old, LS2-powered model in this respect that you need a stopwatch to tell the difference. Given the Camaro's weight disadvantage when compared to the GTO I'm betting acceleration comparisons between the two will be too close to call. It's not unthinkable that the Camaro is a more comfortable car than the GTO, but it does seems unlikely given how comfy the Goat was, and the Camaro's extra heft likely means any suspension improvements made to the Zeta chassis will be blunted as well. I'm genuinely unimpressed.

Knight

Agree, the GTO was a great car, the only turn off i had with the GTO is the useless trunk. You really cannot use the car as a daily driver.

A race between LS2 GTO and Camaro will def be a drivers race.

exgto

Well let me think. Camaro SS = 3900+lbs, 422hp, 3.45 rear diff
Challenger SRT8 = 4,031 425hp + 11 ft/lbs of tq. & 3.92 rear diff

Slight edge to the Challenger IMO.

Knight

GT500 3900lbs.... 500hp... and i thought the chevy and dodge boys were actually going to try this time.

exgto

Good point. I can't wait to hear all the GM nut swingers eat crow after all they've done for over a year is trash talk the GT500 and Challenger for being too heavy. Now they can call their beloved Camaro a "fat pig" also.

stangfoeva

2 questions:

where will the NAV or aftermarket radio go?

is that HUD really necessary?

jsaylor

The plot thickens.....All that mass and weight and the Camaro actually has less rear legroom than the Mustang!

Rear Legroom

Mustang: 30.3 inches

Challenger: 32.6 inches

Camaro: 29.9 inches

Couple that with the nearly unusable trunk and this car continues to baffle. All the size and weight of the Challenger with less room in both the back-seat and the trunk than the Mustang? Is anybody still wondering why GM's situation continues to worsen?

This car was built to look good (to a potentially limited audience) and carry a big ole' V8 but not to do much else. They've added better build quality, retro styling, IRS, and a whole lot of dollar signs to the bottom line since the 4th gen cars, but otherwise this car largely follows the same path of needlessly limited appeal that doomed the 4th gen models. Once again, GM continues to go out of their way to prove that they have no idea why they are failing so spectacularly at being an auto maker.

bpmurr

The more I see the car the more it's growing on me. Even that rear when viewed from the right angles. I'd rather have a Challenger though if I didn't have a Stang. Needless to say the 2010 Mustang needs to be on point because it's not the only player in the game anymore. It's got two nice cars to compete with and that Camaro has one hell of a V6.