2010 Camaro

[chorb]

There were some leaks earlier this weekend about the pricing for the 2010 Camaro, and was confirmed today by Chevy, slated to begin production in Feb 2009.

Looks like you can get a 6.4L V8 SS package for under 35k out the door; Which is what I'm looking at myself, drool.

I got all this info from 5thgen.org, just spreading the word.

Official 2010 Camaro Pricing

Camaro Models
(prices include $750 destination)

1EE37 - Camaro LS: $22,995
1EF37 - Camaro 1LT: $24,630
1EH37 - Camaro 2LT: $27,330
1ES37 - Camaro 1SS: $30,995
1ET37 - Camaro 2SS: $34,180

Camaro Options

SRJ - Convenience and Connectivity Package
- With automatic transmission: $665
- With manual transmission: $465

W1H - Interior Trim Package: $500

WRS - RS Package
- With Camaro 1LT: $1,750
- With Camaro 2LT: $1.450
- With Camaro 1SS or 2SS: $1,200

B34 - Carpeted Front: $60

K05 - Engine Block Heater: $75

GAQ - Red Jewel Tintcoat Premium Paint: $295

UQA - Boston Accoustics Premiun Sound System: $495

N65 - Compact Spare Tire and Wheel: $150

B7W - Cyber Gray Metallic Stripes: $395

B7X - White Stripes: $395

CF5 - Power Sunroof: $900

MX0 - Automatic Transmission: $995

Q9B - 19" Polished Aluminum Wheels
- With Camaro 1LT: $720
- With Camaro 2LT: $470

Q9J - 20" Polished Aluminum Wheels: $470

Special Thanks to CamaroZ28.com for providing us with this information:
http://www.camaroz28.com/forums/showthread.php?t=641796

 

[Arkaign]

Looks like a potential bargain on the higher models, but isn't the Mustang more affordable at the bottom? Hmmm. The middle of the roaders look dangerously parallel to the STI and EVO price points.

 

[SearchMaster]

The Mustang is cheaper for entry-level, but I think the Camaro will feature a 300hp V-6. Not sure what Ford will offer in 2010.

 

[zerocool84]

I'm comparing this and the Challenger. The base V6 Challenger looks to be around the same price as a base V6 Camaro but like everyone is saying the Camaro will have a beefy V6 but I personally like the looks of the Challenger more even though it's a portly pig.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Looks like a potential bargain on the higher models, but isn't the Mustang more affordable at the bottom? Hmmm. The middle of the roaders look dangerously parallel to the STI and EVO price points.

Yeah it is by a couple K... but then the Mustang GT has it's work cut out for it by the V6 camaro, which costs less. Embarrassing for the Mustang if you ask me Mustang GT doesn't really stand a chance against the Camaro SS for a couple K more.

 

[EightySix Four]

Ugh, that's cheaper for the SS than my Sky Redline was. Kind of depressing really.

New turbo here we come

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: crazySOB297
Ugh, that's cheaper for the SS than my Sky Redline was. Kind of depressing really.

New turbo here we come

Well I think the Sky looks better and roadsters are usually more expensive anyways.

 

[thedarkwolf]

Camaro has been faster then the mustang offerings for a while now, well before the crappy sales of the camaro killed it. Hopefully this time the camaro has something more going for it then just whats under the hood.

 

[EvilYoda]

I wonder if they'll have GMS pricing early on in the release...I'll be buying a new car in the middle of next year.

 

[EightySix Four]

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: crazySOB297
Ugh, that's cheaper for the SS than my Sky Redline was. Kind of depressing really.

New turbo here we come

Well I think the Sky looks better and roadsters are usually more expensive anyways.

LS3

But yes, the Sky most definately looks better.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: thedarkwolf
Camaro has been faster then the mustang offerings for a while now, well before the crappy sales of the camaro killed it. Hopefully this time the camaro has something more going for it then just whats under the hood.

With the new model being so much heavier, I'm not optimistic of that.

2000 Camaro SS = 3300lbs, 320HP/345TQ, 5.7L

2010 Camaro (model specific weight unknown AFAIK) listed at 3700lbs. 300HP/273TQ from the 3.6 V6 should be an uninspiring match.

2008 Mustang V6 Coupe = 3300lbs, 210HP/240TQ .. wouldn't surprise me if the 0-60 and 1/4 times were pretty close to the Camaro in the end.

Guess we'll have to wait and see. Ford definitely won't be sitting down for this one :

http://www.fordvehicles.com/the2010mustang/

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Guess we'll have to wait and see. Ford definitely won't be sitting down for this one :

http://www.fordvehicles.com/the2010mustang/

inside looks a little better. same sort of styling but with the volume backed off from 11.


ford has said it is trying to save weight on its cars in order to meet new mileage requirements. if the mustang loses weight that will certainly help it against the new chubmaro (ew, google ads on thesaurus for 'fat' gives me a chubby chaser link). and if they've got specials like a twin turbo 6 slotting in above the GT it'll definitely have enough power. iirc, there is also a 5.0 modular V8 in the works.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: thedarkwolf
Camaro has been faster then the mustang offerings for a while now, well before the crappy sales of the camaro killed it. Hopefully this time the camaro has something more going for it then just whats under the hood.

With the new model being so much heavier, I'm not optimistic of that.

2000 Camaro SS = 3300lbs, 320HP/345TQ, 5.7L

2010 Camaro (model specific weight unknown AFAIK) listed at 3700lbs. 300HP/273TQ from the 3.6 V6 should be an uninspiring match.

2008 Mustang V6 Coupe = 3300lbs, 210HP/240TQ .. wouldn't surprise me if the 0-60 and 1/4 times were pretty close to the Camaro in the end.

Guess we'll have to wait and see. Ford definitely won't be sitting down for this one :

http://www.fordvehicles.com/the2010mustang/

No way man, the V6 Mustang won't hold a candle.

Chevrolet is estimating that the V6 Camaro can get to 60 mph in 6.1 seconds and complete the quarter in 14.4 seconds. That's with either the standard six-speed manual or the optional six-speed automatic. Houlihan thinks that with final tweaking, his team will be able to get that figure down to 5.9 seconds to 60 mph. That's not going to be enough to beat a 350Z, but it would surely take down a Mazda RX-8.


Text

 

[melchoir]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: thedarkwolf
Camaro has been faster then the mustang offerings for a while now, well before the crappy sales of the camaro killed it. Hopefully this time the camaro has something more going for it then just whats under the hood.

With the new model being so much heavier, I'm not optimistic of that.

2000 Camaro SS = 3300lbs, 320HP/345TQ, 5.7L

Well, the thing is that the 98-2002 SS (LS1 based cars) generally dyno 300 to the wheels in stock form. The vast consensus is that the cars are underrated, and generally produce roughly 350hp/350tq at the flywheel.

I fully anticipate that a 98-2002 car, stock vs stock, will be as quick or quicker than the 2010 6.2L cars, due to the weight advantage.

Mine's not stock, but I look forward to seeing the 2010 model on the streets.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: thedarkwolf
Camaro has been faster then the mustang offerings for a while now, well before the crappy sales of the camaro killed it. Hopefully this time the camaro has something more going for it then just whats under the hood.

With the new model being so much heavier, I'm not optimistic of that.

2000 Camaro SS = 3300lbs, 320HP/345TQ, 5.7L

2010 Camaro (model specific weight unknown AFAIK) listed at 3700lbs. 300HP/273TQ from the 3.6 V6 should be an uninspiring match.

2008 Mustang V6 Coupe = 3300lbs, 210HP/240TQ .. wouldn't surprise me if the 0-60 and 1/4 times were pretty close to the Camaro in the end.

Guess we'll have to wait and see. Ford definitely won't be sitting down for this one :

http://www.fordvehicles.com/the2010mustang/

No way man, the V6 Mustang won't hold a candle.

Chevrolet is estimating that the V6 Camaro can get to 60 mph in 6.1 seconds and complete the quarter in 14.4 seconds. That's with either the standard six-speed manual or the optional six-speed automatic. Houlihan thinks that with final tweaking, his team will be able to get that figure down to 5.9 seconds to 60 mph. That's not going to be enough to beat a 350Z, but it would surely take down a Mazda RX-8.


Text

That's assuming there are no changes for the 2010 Mustang. They are making rumblings about it, I wouldn't think it too crazy to see the V6 boosted to ~250hp, and the GT boosted to ~335hp or so.

Given that current 210HP 3300lb V6 Stangs do 0-60 in 6.9, if they shave another hundred pounds and boost the power, it should be a pretty close match. 3700lbs is quite a portly mass to throw around.

http://www.edmunds.com/insidel...uture/articleId=126178

^^ 5.0 OHC V8 to replace the 4.6 in the current GT, so the 335+HP should be expected. That leaves a bit of room to boost the V6 output to match the new Camaro.

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: melchoir

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: thedarkwolf
Camaro has been faster then the mustang offerings for a while now, well before the crappy sales of the camaro killed it. Hopefully this time the camaro has something more going for it then just whats under the hood.

With the new model being so much heavier, I'm not optimistic of that.

2000 Camaro SS = 3300lbs, 320HP/345TQ, 5.7L

Well, the thing is that the 98-2002 SS (LS1 based cars) generally dyno 300 to the wheels in stock form. The vast consensus is that the cars are underrated, and generally produce roughly 350hp/350tq at the flywheel.

I fully anticipate that a 98-2002 car, stock vs stock, will be as quick or quicker than the 2010 6.2L cars, due to the weight advantage.

Mine's not stock, but I look forward to seeing the 2010 model on the streets.

You'll most likely be wrong though. GM has mentioned that the auto-equipped SS will do 0-60 in 4.6 and the quarter-mile at 13.3, while the 2002 SS was doing 0-60 in ~5.1 and the quarter in about 13.5. Of course it'll be interestingt to see what both cars can do lined up against each other stock for stock. I'm curious to see how the previous SS would have done on the Nurburgring I doubt it will be able to pass or hit the new SS's 8:20 time.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: melchoir

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: thedarkwolf
Camaro has been faster then the mustang offerings for a while now, well before the crappy sales of the camaro killed it. Hopefully this time the camaro has something more going for it then just whats under the hood.

With the new model being so much heavier, I'm not optimistic of that.

2000 Camaro SS = 3300lbs, 320HP/345TQ, 5.7L

Well, the thing is that the 98-2002 SS (LS1 based cars) generally dyno 300 to the wheels in stock form. The vast consensus is that the cars are underrated, and generally produce roughly 350hp/350tq at the flywheel.

I fully anticipate that a 98-2002 car, stock vs stock, will be as quick or quicker than the 2010 6.2L cars, due to the weight advantage.

Mine's not stock, but I look forward to seeing the 2010 model on the streets.

You'll most likely be wrong though. GM has mentioned that the auto-equipped SS will do 0-60 in 4.6 and the quarter-mile at 13.3, while the 2002 SS was doing 0-60 in ~5.1 and the quarter in about 13.5. Of course it'll be interestingt to see what both cars can do lined up against each other stock for stock. I'm curious to see how the previous SS would have done on the Nurburgring I doubt it will be able to pass or hit the new SS's 8:20 time.

AFAIK, the new SS will have a much more advanced suspension setup than the old gen, and that combined with GM's new appetite for quick 'Ring times spells a big improvement as far as that goes. In a straight line, they should be pretty closely matched, but on anything with a curve, the new one should really be a move forward, the only negative being the somewhat portly weight.

 

[SparkyJJO]

New Camaro is supposed to have much better suspension than the 4th gen did. Handle turns and stuff better (which really, my 4th gen isn't that bad on turns but I don't race it either).

 

[Mermaidman]

As seen on TV!

 

[melchoir]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: melchoir

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: thedarkwolf
Camaro has been faster then the mustang offerings for a while now, well before the crappy sales of the camaro killed it. Hopefully this time the camaro has something more going for it then just whats under the hood.

With the new model being so much heavier, I'm not optimistic of that.

2000 Camaro SS = 3300lbs, 320HP/345TQ, 5.7L

Well, the thing is that the 98-2002 SS (LS1 based cars) generally dyno 300 to the wheels in stock form. The vast consensus is that the cars are underrated, and generally produce roughly 350hp/350tq at the flywheel.

I fully anticipate that a 98-2002 car, stock vs stock, will be as quick or quicker than the 2010 6.2L cars, due to the weight advantage.

Mine's not stock, but I look forward to seeing the 2010 model on the streets.

You'll most likely be wrong though. GM has mentioned that the auto-equipped SS will do 0-60 in 4.6 and the quarter-mile at 13.3, while the 2002 SS was doing 0-60 in ~5.1 and the quarter in about 13.5. Of course it'll be interestingt to see what both cars can do lined up against each other stock for stock. I'm curious to see how the previous SS would have done on the Nurburgring I doubt it will be able to pass or hit the new SS's 8:20 time.

AFAIK, the new SS will have a much more advanced suspension setup than the old gen, and that combined with GM's new appetite for quick 'Ring times spells a big improvement as far as that goes. In a straight line, they should be pretty closely matched, but on anything with a curve, the new one should really be a move forward, the only negative being the somewhat portly weight.

To be fair, the "rated" times by GM on the 1/4 are kind of misleading. The 4th gen Camaro (LS1/manual) was able to run 12.8s@108 in the 1/4th by a mustang magazine driver in stock form.
Link

As for straight line performance, I still feel the 4th gen has an advantage with it's live axle.
For racing with turns, I'd definitely say that the IRS in the 5th gen would be at an advantage, albeit I've read that the 4th gen with the proper SLP package was a very capable car around the track as well.

I will be extremely surprised if the new Camaro is quicker in stock form in a straight line, but I would be disappointed if it's not, 12 years later.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: zerocool84
I'm comparing this and the Challenger. The base V6 Challenger looks to be around the same price as a base V6 Camaro but like everyone is saying the Camaro will have a beefy V6 but I personally like the looks of the Challenger more even though it's a portly pig.

The Camaro's V6 is capable of 300 hp, but it can't torque, so you're best off waiting for the Challenger or the Camaro V8 (which would be my choice).

 

[SparkyJJO]

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: zerocool84
I'm comparing this and the Challenger. The base V6 Challenger looks to be around the same price as a base V6 Camaro but like everyone is saying the Camaro will have a beefy V6 but I personally like the looks of the Challenger more even though it's a portly pig.

The Camaro's V6 is capable of 300 hp, but it can't torque, so you're best off waiting for the Challenger or the Camaro V8 (which would be my choice).

300HP 273 ft lb torque on the V6 camaro. Challenger V6 is 250HP and 250 ft lb torque. Seems to me the Camaro has the better V6.

 

[StageLeft]

The V6 camaro barebones could be a fun car to have for those wanting to stay cheap. 6.1 0-60 really isn't terrible.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
The V6 camaro barebones could be a fun car to have for those wanting to stay cheap. 6.1 0-60 really isn't terrible.

Yeah that's really not bad.

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Skoorb
The V6 camaro barebones could be a fun car to have for those wanting to stay cheap. 6.1 0-60 really isn't terrible.

Yeah that's really not bad.

I heard they're trying real hard to get it down to 5.9 by the time it's released to the public.