Static Review: 2010 Chevrolet Camaro
06-18-09, 07:52 PM
#1
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Static Review: 2010 Chevrolet Camaro
By numerous CL member requests, a static review of the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro
http://www.chevrolet.com/camaro/
In a Nutshell: Another icon from the late 1960's re-joins the Mustang and Challenger...but there simply aren't enough for demand. And build quality seems to be mixed.
(Two-tone seats shown)
(Console gauges shown)
Needless to say, I got a number of CL member requests for both the V6 and V8 versions of the new 2010 Camaro. Of course, I was more than a little curious myself, as the Camaro, along with the Ford Mustang, Dodge Charger, and Dodge Challenger, is a classic pony/muscle car from the late 1960's that I grew up with (though the Charger, today, unlike the others, is stuck with 4 doors). Finding new unsold 2010 Camaros, though, that are available for review, has been a real pain in the a**......more on that in minute.
Most of you already pretty much know the Camaro's long history, so I won't go into the details, except to say that, unlike the continuously-produced Mustang, GM, on the excuse of poor sales (an excuse which doesn't seem to hold water) dropped F-Body (Camaro/Firebird) production after 2002-2003. And the Camaro, in the mid-1970's, did not use subcompact-based platforms and engines like the rival Mustang did for several years.
However, GM officials, noting the continuing enormous success of the retro Ford Mustang and the outcry from F-Body Camaro/Firebird enthusiasts, apparantly (tacitly) admitted error and committed themselves, even with bankrupcy looming on the horizon, to once again bring the F-Body ponycar back to life...this time, like rivals Ford Mustang and Dodge Challenger, in retro-styled form. But bankrupcy still pays its price. In the same manner that Plymouth's demise meant no Barracuda twin when the new Challenger came back, Pontiac's demise means no more Firebird either......a shame, IMO, because I always thought that the Firebird, especially the ornate Trans-Am trim, looked better than the Camaro.
But, crying over spilled milk or not, we still have the new Camaro....F-Body enthusiasts can, at least, be thankful for that. The problem, though, is that, as of yet, there just isn't ENOUGH of them. GM's marketing error in dropping them some six years ago, combined with the widespread hype and publicity given the new Camaro in the automovive press (IMO, to some extent, more hype than the car actually deserves), has created an enormous pent-up demand for new Camaros.....more than GM can supply right now. And, unlike the new Mustang, where Ford builds as many of them as the market will buy, even if there is a log back-up and waiting list, GM doesn't seem to have committed itself to Camaro production in the numbers that Ford did for the Mustang. This could be due to several factors.....bankrupcy and reorganization, of course, don't help, as the fact that future labor costs in GM's American plants are still somewhat in question. Most Chevy dealerships, as of this date, have only got one or two Camaros in stock (some don't have any). The dealership I was at today had four listed on its website, but three of them, like virtually all new Camaros, turned up already pre-sold. The Chevy people there said that orders for new 2010 models are no longer being taken at their shop......the entire model run is already sold out, though it is unclear if that just means allocation for that dealer or if the factory itself is backed up so far that they can't fill any more 2010 orders (I haven't seen anything concrete from GM officials about this). So, whether the acute Camaro shortage is the result of poor factory planning, the bankrupcy organization, or just far-greater-than-expected demand (and if enough Camaros can be built to meet it) is unclear at this time....I won't speculate any further. But, it should be noted that, in 2001, we saw a similiar huge demand/short supply at first for the retro two-seater Ford Thunderbird, and a couple of years later, for the new retro Mustang. The Mustang lives on, but the T-Bird's demand plummeted after that, and the car lasted only 4 years.
The 2010 Camaro comes in five trim levels; LS, 1LT, 2LT, 1SS, and 2SS. A convertible series was planned, but may or may not be introduced later, depending on GM's financial situation and what becomes of it (after all, GM is just coming out of bankrupcy). LS and LT models come with the same 3.6L, 304 HP VVT-i V6 used in the Cadillac CTS; SS models use a 6.2L, 426 HP V8 that is similiar, though not identical, to comparably-powered 6.2L, LS3 base-model Corvette engines. All versions, for 2010, come with a choice of a six-speed manual or six-speed Sport-paddle-shift automatic. An RS Sport package is available on all but the base model LS version.
With the current large demand and very tight supply of these cars, naturally most dealerships are treating them like gold. I've been waiting for some time, but a full review of either V6 or V8 models has simply not been an option in this area. Virtually every one coming off the transporter is pre-sold, and most Chevy dealerships weren't even letting people sit inside of them or open the doors/hood/trunk, much less drive them (Chevy had two of them at the D.C. Auto Show this year and, likewise, wouldn't unlock or uncordon them off either. For the most part, only the auto press has been getting reviews and test-drives. But I had some luck today......a bright red V6 1LT model at the Chevy dealership I was at today was unsold, parked out front of the dealership in a special place all by itself. It was not pre-sold because it had been acquired from another dealership in some kind of exchange program, and did not have the factory price sticker with it. When I asked why, they said that technically, because of the titling, it could not be sold as new, and was, technically, a "used" car, though with only 147 miles on it....and the full factory warranty. Still, they were asking what was (probably) over list....34K. Not surprisingly, they refused a test-drive, but did allow me (and even invited me) to do a static review and, otherwise, examine it thoroughly. So, instead of holding out for a full review and test-drive (which may (?) not happen with any of the 2010 models) I took the chance I had today and did a full static review, inside and out.....I figured that was better than nothing. If I do get a chance for a 2010 test-drive later, then, of course, so much the better......some of the new ones sold, of course, may end up being repo'ed if the owners can't make the payments.
I was not the only one, of course, to notice an unsold 2010 Camaro sitting on the lot for sale. Even though it was cloudy, it was a typically D.C. area summertime warm, humid morning and I worked up a fair sweat going over the car. But that didn't stop a number of other people, either. During the 40-45 minutes I was doing the static review, a number of cars pulled up (seemed to be mostly males in their 20s and 30s) and they got out to take a look for themselves. So, I spent as much time answering their questions and pointing out the car's features to them as I did looking at the car myself. I finished the review just in time.....the warm front moving into the area brought a big area of heavy showers. So, I hopped back into my Outback (which, with its AWD, has superb rain traction), ducked into a nearby Olive Garden restaurant, got a nice Italian lunch, and finished getting my written notes together for the write-up. Details to follow.
Model Reviewed: 2010 Chevrolet Camaro 1LT
Base Price: N/A
Options:
Destination/Freight:
List Price as Reviewed: N/A*
*The 2010 Camaro 1LT I looked at today was a dealer-purchase/swap model, no longer considered a new car, had the price sticker removed, and was technically on the market (with only 147 miles on it) as a used car, with a used-car sticker on it. The dealership was asking $34,000 for it (which it will probably get).
Drivetrain: RWD, longitudinally-mounted VVT-i 3.6L V6, 304 HP @ 6400 RPM, Torque 273 Ft-lbs. @ 5200 RPM, 6-speed automatic transmission with Paddle
Sport shift.
EPA Mileage Rating: 17 City, 29 Highway (Chevy, strangely, does not publish separate manual/automatic transmission EPA figures for the Camaro)
Exterior Color: Victory Red
Interior: Black Cloth
PLUSSES:
Excellent 5/100 and 3/36 warranty.
Dynamite exterior styling.
Excellent paint job (bordering on superb).
Superb, bright-color paint choices.
Generally solid exterior sheet metal and hardware.
Spunky V6 and V8.
All versions offer choice of manual or sport-shift automatic.
Nice fore/aft shifter design without annoying ziz-zags.
Nice, attractive (IMO) chrome mag-style wheels.
Large front/rear brakes and calipers (I couldnt' sample them, of course)
Good but not excellent underhood layout.
Nice hood strut...no prop-rod.
Both hood and trunk insulation pads.
Proper console-mounted handbrake, unusual in GM cars.
Excellent stereo sound.
Beefy steering wheel for firm grip.
Clear, easy-to-read dash gauges.
Small but simple climate-control buttons.
Nice fabric headliner.
Good front headroom without sunroof.
Nice, solid-feeling, chrome inside door handles.
Handy, well-contoured console cubby-compartments.
Nice-feeling cloth upholstery.
Well-finished cargo area.
Well-designed trunk hinges.
Handy cargo-area net.
MINUSES:
Absurdly short supply for current demand.
Ripe for dealer price mark-ups.
2010 model year may (?) be sold-out.
Previous Camaros worse-than-average in reliablity (but this, of course, is an all-new model)
Small, pony-car rear seat unuasble for adults.
Battery hidden under trunk floor.
Flimsy-feeling, flat-black-plastic grille.
Rigidly-mounted side mirrors so not swivel or fold.
Small, trapezoid-shaped side mirrors not particularly effective.
Small, hard, cheap-feeling sun visors.
Brake pedal in automatic version not well-placed.
Cheap-looking, black-grained dash materials.
Flimsy-feeling glove box.
Cheap-looking, silver-metallic, console/steering wheel trim.
Poorly-designed column paddle-shifts for the transmission.
Awful, Ultra-flimsy steering-column stalks.
Center-console gauges (in cars so equipped) low and out of the driver's line of sight.
Unimpressive door-panel trim in 1LT model.
Fix-a-Flat, compressed-air bottle instead of a spare tire.
Thick C-pillars and smallish rear window impede some rear vision.
EXTERIOR:
Well, of course, when you first walk up to this car, nobody is going is going to wonder what it is, especially somebody like me who grew up with the original cars 40 years ago. This is a classic Camaro through and through....even more so, the ones with the big, wide, double-hood stripes. It is not a perfect replica of the 1969, of course (it lacks the 69's chrome bumper, striped-tires, and grille), but takes strong design cues from it, especially in the front end, taillights, and rear-quarter areas. The rear quarter-window area and body up-sweep is reminicsent of not only the original Camaros, but, like the original, is similiar to the new Dodge Challenger. In fact, from a direct side-view, the new Camaro and Challenger look very similiar, though the Camaro sits a little lower. The body sheet metal is generally solid, with the doors and trunk lid having generally a slightly more solid feel than the hood. The paint job is excellent, bordering on superb...GM has made enormous progress in paint quality in the last several years. The bright Victory Red on the car I looked at not only opened your eyes but was smooth, even, and glossy, with only a very tiny amount of orange peel. Some Toyota/Lexus paint jobs I've looked at recently didn't seem as good as this one. And GM provides some superb paint colors on the Camaro as well....not just stuff from Clancy's Funeral home. There are the usual silvers, whites, grays, and black, but also a stunning bright aqua blue, bright sun-yellow, bright red, though the superb copper/Sunset Orange that is offered on some other GM cars didn't seem to make it to the Camaro.
The exterior hardware and trim is generally good, except for the flimsy-feeling, flat-black plastic grille. The trapezoid-shaped twin side-mirrors are not only a little small for my tastes, but are rigidly-mounted, with no folding/swiveling function....a sign of cost-cutting. I liked the look of the chrome, 5-spoke mag-style wheels, though I missed the nice red-striped Uniroyal Tiger-paw tires the came on the original one (red-striped tires were common on 60s-vintage muscle cars). Those old tires couldn't hold a candle to the way tires handle and grip today, though. The aforementioned thick C-pillars and rear window do restrict some rear vision, but not seriously.
UNDERHOOD:
Raise the hood, and you are greeted with a nice insulation pad under the hood and a nice, big, single hood strut on the left-middle instead of a prop-rod. Underneath, the longitudionally-mounted 3.6L V6 fits in pretty well, with a fair amount of room in front and around the sides to reach things, although a large, annoying, flat-black plastic cover blocks most things on top of the engine (this cover is not shown with the Google-image of the engine I posted above. I didn't get a chance to actually check the 6.2L V8 underhood, although this is a pretty large engine compartment in the classic pony-car long-hood school of design, and was obviously designed with the bigger 6.2L in mind. Most of the non-engine underhood components, however, are packed under annoying plastic covers, and the battery is back in the trunk, under the floor, instead of underhood. Dipsticks, reservoirs, and filler caps, however, are rather easily accessable.
INTERIOR:
The interior had some nice features in it, but, on the whole, I found the trim materials and some of the hardware rather unimpressive. Leather seats come in the 2SS and 2LT versions; cloth in the others. The cloth in my 1LT model, though, felt pretty nice, though the front seats, even with some low-to-moderate side support, couldn't really be considered sports-car seats. The rear seats, of course, in the ponycar tradition, are best used either for small children or as a package shelf....they are all but useless for normal-sized or larger adults. Headroom in front, without a sunroof (my car didn't have one) was fine, even without much seat-back rake, if you lowered the seat cushion down. The headliner, with a soft felt-like substance, felt nice, but the small, somewhat undersized cheap sunvisors felt hard and unpleasant. The big, beefy steering wheel had a nice leather covering and a firm grip, but the thick spokes had cheap-looking silver-painted trim, and tended to hide the primary gauges when turned off-center. The big, retro-styled, primary gauges themselves are clear and easy-to-read.....when the spokes don't block them. The optional rally-gauge pack on the console (a throwback to the original Camaros) is nice for nostalgia, but is low and out of the drivers' line of sight. The cross-housing-shaped climate-control buttons in the middle of the dash, despite the unusual shapes, were clear and easy-to-use...as were the stereo buttons and controls. The stereo sound quality itself is excellent....just short of superb (I was tempted to play Wilson Pickett's famous "Mustang Sally" tune of 1965 as a joke, but I didn't want to irk the salespeople). The parking-brake handle, in a pleasant break from the usual awkward GM foot-pedal under the dash, was a nice, properly-designed, pull-up lever on the console. The transmission shifter has a nice fore/aft shift motion instead of the annoying zig-zag, but lacks a manual-sport-shift gate, and the shift-**** has baseball-style stitching on it.
I didn't find the rest of the interior very impressive. The door panels had nice, solid, chrome door handles, but otherwise, IMO, looked and felt cheap......ditto for the black-grained material used on the wide dash. The manual-shift paddles on the steering column, IMO, were awkwardly-designed, with a rigid-mount upper half and a clicking lower-half. The thin, El Cheapo, ultra-flimsy stalks on the steering column were some of the most poorly-made I've seen....I know I complain about some of the stalks in German cars, but these are even worse. The glove box, console-compartment lid, and several other interior hardware pieces felt a little weak as well. So, overall,the new Camaro is not the worst interior I've seen, but, IMO, it's a long way from the superb interior of the brother Chevy Malibu that it shares the same dealer lot with.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
Open the nice, solid-feeling trunk lid, and well-designed, smooth-operating, scissors-type hinges allow the lid to go up to and past vertical. The shape of the trunk-lid opening, though, is rather small, flat, narrow, and does not drop down part of the back end for easy-loading of bulky items. The cargo area itself is not large, and rather limited in size, though not bad by traditionally-short pony-car standards. The Camaro does not offer folding rear seats for added cargo-space, perhaps (?) because of rear-body bracing for stiffness, but a pass-through for the rear seat is available as an option. The cargo area itself is pretty well-finished, with a nice, fairly soft, but durable-feeling gray carpet on the walls and trunk floor. The trunk lid, like the hood up front, has a nice insulation pad on it. The battery is under the trunk floor, where the spare tire normally would be. And the spare tire? Sorry.....not even a donut/temporary one. The Chevy bean-counters, instead, stuck in a bottle of compressed-air, Fix-a-Flat.
ON THE ROAD:
I wasn't able to get even a short test-drive, but, from my prior experience with the 3.6L V6 in the Cadillac CTS and LS-series V8s in Corvettes, I can say that they are both strong, torquey powerplants, though the 3.6L is a little peakier and needs to be wound out a little more. Judging by the way it drove in the CTS-DI model I reviewed last year, its 304 HP, especially with the more responsive manual transmision, would give the Mustang GT, with its larger 4.6L V8, a good run for the money. The 6.2L, 426 HP V8, of course, is a real torque powerhouse, and should be able to run toe-to-toe with the Dodge Challenger SRT-8 Hemi. According to reviews, It will handily blow the Mustang GT's doors off, though the Mustang counterpunches with mega-powered Shelby, GT500KR, and Super-Snake versions with over 600 HP. The Camaro's brakes, even on the lower-line 1LT I looked at today, had pretty good-sized rotors/calipers, and looked like they would certainly do the job.But, without a test-drive, that's about all I can predict about its potential road manners.
THE VERDICT:
I obviously can't come to a full verdict without a test-drive, but, from what I've seen of the Camaro, I have mixed feelings about it. On the surface, it's a nice pony car, wih a superb paint job, dynamite styling reminiscent of original late-60s Camaros, simple, easy-to-use buttons, decent build quality if you subtract a few obvious cost-cutters, a respectable V6, enough power with the V8 to do a classic muscle-car burnout and outrun all but its highest-powered competitors like the Shelby Super-Snake, and an excellent factory warranty (keep it off the drag strip, though.....automakers' warranties do not cover formal racing).
But I find the interior, particularly on the lower-line version, rather unimpressive, especially compared to the new 2010 Mustang. The retro console gauges on the SS model are nice for nostalgia, but place several important functions way out of the average drivers' line of sight. The ultra-flimsy turn-signal and wiper stalks are a joke. The trunk opening is not well-designed for easy loading or bulky items. The thick steering wheel spokes cover up some of the gauges when off-center. Like all ponycars, the rear seat is little more than a package shelf or for small children. GM needs to do something about the car's acute supply shortage, especially during this recovery period when it needs all the sales....and profits......it can generate. And, come on, Chevy, can we have more than a bottle of compressed-air for the tires? We get enough compressed-air, every day, from politicians.
http://www.chevrolet.com/camaro/
In a Nutshell: Another icon from the late 1960's re-joins the Mustang and Challenger...but there simply aren't enough for demand. And build quality seems to be mixed.
(Two-tone seats shown)
(Console gauges shown)
Needless to say, I got a number of CL member requests for both the V6 and V8 versions of the new 2010 Camaro. Of course, I was more than a little curious myself, as the Camaro, along with the Ford Mustang, Dodge Charger, and Dodge Challenger, is a classic pony/muscle car from the late 1960's that I grew up with (though the Charger, today, unlike the others, is stuck with 4 doors). Finding new unsold 2010 Camaros, though, that are available for review, has been a real pain in the a**......more on that in minute.
Most of you already pretty much know the Camaro's long history, so I won't go into the details, except to say that, unlike the continuously-produced Mustang, GM, on the excuse of poor sales (an excuse which doesn't seem to hold water) dropped F-Body (Camaro/Firebird) production after 2002-2003. And the Camaro, in the mid-1970's, did not use subcompact-based platforms and engines like the rival Mustang did for several years.
However, GM officials, noting the continuing enormous success of the retro Ford Mustang and the outcry from F-Body Camaro/Firebird enthusiasts, apparantly (tacitly) admitted error and committed themselves, even with bankrupcy looming on the horizon, to once again bring the F-Body ponycar back to life...this time, like rivals Ford Mustang and Dodge Challenger, in retro-styled form. But bankrupcy still pays its price. In the same manner that Plymouth's demise meant no Barracuda twin when the new Challenger came back, Pontiac's demise means no more Firebird either......a shame, IMO, because I always thought that the Firebird, especially the ornate Trans-Am trim, looked better than the Camaro.
But, crying over spilled milk or not, we still have the new Camaro....F-Body enthusiasts can, at least, be thankful for that. The problem, though, is that, as of yet, there just isn't ENOUGH of them. GM's marketing error in dropping them some six years ago, combined with the widespread hype and publicity given the new Camaro in the automovive press (IMO, to some extent, more hype than the car actually deserves), has created an enormous pent-up demand for new Camaros.....more than GM can supply right now. And, unlike the new Mustang, where Ford builds as many of them as the market will buy, even if there is a log back-up and waiting list, GM doesn't seem to have committed itself to Camaro production in the numbers that Ford did for the Mustang. This could be due to several factors.....bankrupcy and reorganization, of course, don't help, as the fact that future labor costs in GM's American plants are still somewhat in question. Most Chevy dealerships, as of this date, have only got one or two Camaros in stock (some don't have any). The dealership I was at today had four listed on its website, but three of them, like virtually all new Camaros, turned up already pre-sold. The Chevy people there said that orders for new 2010 models are no longer being taken at their shop......the entire model run is already sold out, though it is unclear if that just means allocation for that dealer or if the factory itself is backed up so far that they can't fill any more 2010 orders (I haven't seen anything concrete from GM officials about this). So, whether the acute Camaro shortage is the result of poor factory planning, the bankrupcy organization, or just far-greater-than-expected demand (and if enough Camaros can be built to meet it) is unclear at this time....I won't speculate any further. But, it should be noted that, in 2001, we saw a similiar huge demand/short supply at first for the retro two-seater Ford Thunderbird, and a couple of years later, for the new retro Mustang. The Mustang lives on, but the T-Bird's demand plummeted after that, and the car lasted only 4 years.
The 2010 Camaro comes in five trim levels; LS, 1LT, 2LT, 1SS, and 2SS. A convertible series was planned, but may or may not be introduced later, depending on GM's financial situation and what becomes of it (after all, GM is just coming out of bankrupcy). LS and LT models come with the same 3.6L, 304 HP VVT-i V6 used in the Cadillac CTS; SS models use a 6.2L, 426 HP V8 that is similiar, though not identical, to comparably-powered 6.2L, LS3 base-model Corvette engines. All versions, for 2010, come with a choice of a six-speed manual or six-speed Sport-paddle-shift automatic. An RS Sport package is available on all but the base model LS version.
With the current large demand and very tight supply of these cars, naturally most dealerships are treating them like gold. I've been waiting for some time, but a full review of either V6 or V8 models has simply not been an option in this area. Virtually every one coming off the transporter is pre-sold, and most Chevy dealerships weren't even letting people sit inside of them or open the doors/hood/trunk, much less drive them (Chevy had two of them at the D.C. Auto Show this year and, likewise, wouldn't unlock or uncordon them off either. For the most part, only the auto press has been getting reviews and test-drives. But I had some luck today......a bright red V6 1LT model at the Chevy dealership I was at today was unsold, parked out front of the dealership in a special place all by itself. It was not pre-sold because it had been acquired from another dealership in some kind of exchange program, and did not have the factory price sticker with it. When I asked why, they said that technically, because of the titling, it could not be sold as new, and was, technically, a "used" car, though with only 147 miles on it....and the full factory warranty. Still, they were asking what was (probably) over list....34K. Not surprisingly, they refused a test-drive, but did allow me (and even invited me) to do a static review and, otherwise, examine it thoroughly. So, instead of holding out for a full review and test-drive (which may (?) not happen with any of the 2010 models) I took the chance I had today and did a full static review, inside and out.....I figured that was better than nothing. If I do get a chance for a 2010 test-drive later, then, of course, so much the better......some of the new ones sold, of course, may end up being repo'ed if the owners can't make the payments.
I was not the only one, of course, to notice an unsold 2010 Camaro sitting on the lot for sale. Even though it was cloudy, it was a typically D.C. area summertime warm, humid morning and I worked up a fair sweat going over the car. But that didn't stop a number of other people, either. During the 40-45 minutes I was doing the static review, a number of cars pulled up (seemed to be mostly males in their 20s and 30s) and they got out to take a look for themselves. So, I spent as much time answering their questions and pointing out the car's features to them as I did looking at the car myself. I finished the review just in time.....the warm front moving into the area brought a big area of heavy showers. So, I hopped back into my Outback (which, with its AWD, has superb rain traction), ducked into a nearby Olive Garden restaurant, got a nice Italian lunch, and finished getting my written notes together for the write-up. Details to follow.
Model Reviewed: 2010 Chevrolet Camaro 1LT
Base Price: N/A
Options:
Destination/Freight:
List Price as Reviewed: N/A*
*The 2010 Camaro 1LT I looked at today was a dealer-purchase/swap model, no longer considered a new car, had the price sticker removed, and was technically on the market (with only 147 miles on it) as a used car, with a used-car sticker on it. The dealership was asking $34,000 for it (which it will probably get).
Drivetrain: RWD, longitudinally-mounted VVT-i 3.6L V6, 304 HP @ 6400 RPM, Torque 273 Ft-lbs. @ 5200 RPM, 6-speed automatic transmission with Paddle
Sport shift.
EPA Mileage Rating: 17 City, 29 Highway (Chevy, strangely, does not publish separate manual/automatic transmission EPA figures for the Camaro)
Exterior Color: Victory Red
Interior: Black Cloth
PLUSSES:
Excellent 5/100 and 3/36 warranty.
Dynamite exterior styling.
Excellent paint job (bordering on superb).
Superb, bright-color paint choices.
Generally solid exterior sheet metal and hardware.
Spunky V6 and V8.
All versions offer choice of manual or sport-shift automatic.
Nice fore/aft shifter design without annoying ziz-zags.
Nice, attractive (IMO) chrome mag-style wheels.
Large front/rear brakes and calipers (I couldnt' sample them, of course)
Good but not excellent underhood layout.
Nice hood strut...no prop-rod.
Both hood and trunk insulation pads.
Proper console-mounted handbrake, unusual in GM cars.
Excellent stereo sound.
Beefy steering wheel for firm grip.
Clear, easy-to-read dash gauges.
Small but simple climate-control buttons.
Nice fabric headliner.
Good front headroom without sunroof.
Nice, solid-feeling, chrome inside door handles.
Handy, well-contoured console cubby-compartments.
Nice-feeling cloth upholstery.
Well-finished cargo area.
Well-designed trunk hinges.
Handy cargo-area net.
MINUSES:
Absurdly short supply for current demand.
Ripe for dealer price mark-ups.
2010 model year may (?) be sold-out.
Previous Camaros worse-than-average in reliablity (but this, of course, is an all-new model)
Small, pony-car rear seat unuasble for adults.
Battery hidden under trunk floor.
Flimsy-feeling, flat-black-plastic grille.
Rigidly-mounted side mirrors so not swivel or fold.
Small, trapezoid-shaped side mirrors not particularly effective.
Small, hard, cheap-feeling sun visors.
Brake pedal in automatic version not well-placed.
Cheap-looking, black-grained dash materials.
Flimsy-feeling glove box.
Cheap-looking, silver-metallic, console/steering wheel trim.
Poorly-designed column paddle-shifts for the transmission.
Awful, Ultra-flimsy steering-column stalks.
Center-console gauges (in cars so equipped) low and out of the driver's line of sight.
Unimpressive door-panel trim in 1LT model.
Fix-a-Flat, compressed-air bottle instead of a spare tire.
Thick C-pillars and smallish rear window impede some rear vision.
EXTERIOR:
Well, of course, when you first walk up to this car, nobody is going is going to wonder what it is, especially somebody like me who grew up with the original cars 40 years ago. This is a classic Camaro through and through....even more so, the ones with the big, wide, double-hood stripes. It is not a perfect replica of the 1969, of course (it lacks the 69's chrome bumper, striped-tires, and grille), but takes strong design cues from it, especially in the front end, taillights, and rear-quarter areas. The rear quarter-window area and body up-sweep is reminicsent of not only the original Camaros, but, like the original, is similiar to the new Dodge Challenger. In fact, from a direct side-view, the new Camaro and Challenger look very similiar, though the Camaro sits a little lower. The body sheet metal is generally solid, with the doors and trunk lid having generally a slightly more solid feel than the hood. The paint job is excellent, bordering on superb...GM has made enormous progress in paint quality in the last several years. The bright Victory Red on the car I looked at not only opened your eyes but was smooth, even, and glossy, with only a very tiny amount of orange peel. Some Toyota/Lexus paint jobs I've looked at recently didn't seem as good as this one. And GM provides some superb paint colors on the Camaro as well....not just stuff from Clancy's Funeral home. There are the usual silvers, whites, grays, and black, but also a stunning bright aqua blue, bright sun-yellow, bright red, though the superb copper/Sunset Orange that is offered on some other GM cars didn't seem to make it to the Camaro.
The exterior hardware and trim is generally good, except for the flimsy-feeling, flat-black plastic grille. The trapezoid-shaped twin side-mirrors are not only a little small for my tastes, but are rigidly-mounted, with no folding/swiveling function....a sign of cost-cutting. I liked the look of the chrome, 5-spoke mag-style wheels, though I missed the nice red-striped Uniroyal Tiger-paw tires the came on the original one (red-striped tires were common on 60s-vintage muscle cars). Those old tires couldn't hold a candle to the way tires handle and grip today, though. The aforementioned thick C-pillars and rear window do restrict some rear vision, but not seriously.
UNDERHOOD:
Raise the hood, and you are greeted with a nice insulation pad under the hood and a nice, big, single hood strut on the left-middle instead of a prop-rod. Underneath, the longitudionally-mounted 3.6L V6 fits in pretty well, with a fair amount of room in front and around the sides to reach things, although a large, annoying, flat-black plastic cover blocks most things on top of the engine (this cover is not shown with the Google-image of the engine I posted above. I didn't get a chance to actually check the 6.2L V8 underhood, although this is a pretty large engine compartment in the classic pony-car long-hood school of design, and was obviously designed with the bigger 6.2L in mind. Most of the non-engine underhood components, however, are packed under annoying plastic covers, and the battery is back in the trunk, under the floor, instead of underhood. Dipsticks, reservoirs, and filler caps, however, are rather easily accessable.
INTERIOR:
The interior had some nice features in it, but, on the whole, I found the trim materials and some of the hardware rather unimpressive. Leather seats come in the 2SS and 2LT versions; cloth in the others. The cloth in my 1LT model, though, felt pretty nice, though the front seats, even with some low-to-moderate side support, couldn't really be considered sports-car seats. The rear seats, of course, in the ponycar tradition, are best used either for small children or as a package shelf....they are all but useless for normal-sized or larger adults. Headroom in front, without a sunroof (my car didn't have one) was fine, even without much seat-back rake, if you lowered the seat cushion down. The headliner, with a soft felt-like substance, felt nice, but the small, somewhat undersized cheap sunvisors felt hard and unpleasant. The big, beefy steering wheel had a nice leather covering and a firm grip, but the thick spokes had cheap-looking silver-painted trim, and tended to hide the primary gauges when turned off-center. The big, retro-styled, primary gauges themselves are clear and easy-to-read.....when the spokes don't block them. The optional rally-gauge pack on the console (a throwback to the original Camaros) is nice for nostalgia, but is low and out of the drivers' line of sight. The cross-housing-shaped climate-control buttons in the middle of the dash, despite the unusual shapes, were clear and easy-to-use...as were the stereo buttons and controls. The stereo sound quality itself is excellent....just short of superb (I was tempted to play Wilson Pickett's famous "Mustang Sally" tune of 1965 as a joke, but I didn't want to irk the salespeople). The parking-brake handle, in a pleasant break from the usual awkward GM foot-pedal under the dash, was a nice, properly-designed, pull-up lever on the console. The transmission shifter has a nice fore/aft shift motion instead of the annoying zig-zag, but lacks a manual-sport-shift gate, and the shift-**** has baseball-style stitching on it.
I didn't find the rest of the interior very impressive. The door panels had nice, solid, chrome door handles, but otherwise, IMO, looked and felt cheap......ditto for the black-grained material used on the wide dash. The manual-shift paddles on the steering column, IMO, were awkwardly-designed, with a rigid-mount upper half and a clicking lower-half. The thin, El Cheapo, ultra-flimsy stalks on the steering column were some of the most poorly-made I've seen....I know I complain about some of the stalks in German cars, but these are even worse. The glove box, console-compartment lid, and several other interior hardware pieces felt a little weak as well. So, overall,the new Camaro is not the worst interior I've seen, but, IMO, it's a long way from the superb interior of the brother Chevy Malibu that it shares the same dealer lot with.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
Open the nice, solid-feeling trunk lid, and well-designed, smooth-operating, scissors-type hinges allow the lid to go up to and past vertical. The shape of the trunk-lid opening, though, is rather small, flat, narrow, and does not drop down part of the back end for easy-loading of bulky items. The cargo area itself is not large, and rather limited in size, though not bad by traditionally-short pony-car standards. The Camaro does not offer folding rear seats for added cargo-space, perhaps (?) because of rear-body bracing for stiffness, but a pass-through for the rear seat is available as an option. The cargo area itself is pretty well-finished, with a nice, fairly soft, but durable-feeling gray carpet on the walls and trunk floor. The trunk lid, like the hood up front, has a nice insulation pad on it. The battery is under the trunk floor, where the spare tire normally would be. And the spare tire? Sorry.....not even a donut/temporary one. The Chevy bean-counters, instead, stuck in a bottle of compressed-air, Fix-a-Flat.
ON THE ROAD:
I wasn't able to get even a short test-drive, but, from my prior experience with the 3.6L V6 in the Cadillac CTS and LS-series V8s in Corvettes, I can say that they are both strong, torquey powerplants, though the 3.6L is a little peakier and needs to be wound out a little more. Judging by the way it drove in the CTS-DI model I reviewed last year, its 304 HP, especially with the more responsive manual transmision, would give the Mustang GT, with its larger 4.6L V8, a good run for the money. The 6.2L, 426 HP V8, of course, is a real torque powerhouse, and should be able to run toe-to-toe with the Dodge Challenger SRT-8 Hemi. According to reviews, It will handily blow the Mustang GT's doors off, though the Mustang counterpunches with mega-powered Shelby, GT500KR, and Super-Snake versions with over 600 HP. The Camaro's brakes, even on the lower-line 1LT I looked at today, had pretty good-sized rotors/calipers, and looked like they would certainly do the job.But, without a test-drive, that's about all I can predict about its potential road manners.
THE VERDICT:
I obviously can't come to a full verdict without a test-drive, but, from what I've seen of the Camaro, I have mixed feelings about it. On the surface, it's a nice pony car, wih a superb paint job, dynamite styling reminiscent of original late-60s Camaros, simple, easy-to-use buttons, decent build quality if you subtract a few obvious cost-cutters, a respectable V6, enough power with the V8 to do a classic muscle-car burnout and outrun all but its highest-powered competitors like the Shelby Super-Snake, and an excellent factory warranty (keep it off the drag strip, though.....automakers' warranties do not cover formal racing).
But I find the interior, particularly on the lower-line version, rather unimpressive, especially compared to the new 2010 Mustang. The retro console gauges on the SS model are nice for nostalgia, but place several important functions way out of the average drivers' line of sight. The ultra-flimsy turn-signal and wiper stalks are a joke. The trunk opening is not well-designed for easy loading or bulky items. The thick steering wheel spokes cover up some of the gauges when off-center. Like all ponycars, the rear seat is little more than a package shelf or for small children. GM needs to do something about the car's acute supply shortage, especially during this recovery period when it needs all the sales....and profits......it can generate. And, come on, Chevy, can we have more than a bottle of compressed-air for the tires? We get enough compressed-air, every day, from politicians.
Last edited by mmarshall; 06-18-09 at 08:10 PM.
06-18-09, 10:31 PM
#3
Interesting that Chevy lists on its website a "pass through rear seat" but the pics from the June issue of Car and Driver definitely show the back seat folded down, one -piece back rest with a latch in the middle. Maybe that's why they call it pass - through? Because it's not the normal split/fold?
Nevertheless, the trunk is small, and the opening as evidenced by the pic you link up top is small and awkwardly shaped.
I'd say A for aesthetic design, A for powertrain options (strong v6 and strong V8 with 6 speed manuals and automatics all around), B for some of the materials.
I was surprised that the dash design doesn't really lend itself to a navigation system. I know GM leans towards on-star, but still. And swapping out that head unit for an aftermarket system would ruin the dash.
Nevertheless, the trunk is small, and the opening as evidenced by the pic you link up top is small and awkwardly shaped.
I'd say A for aesthetic design, A for powertrain options (strong v6 and strong V8 with 6 speed manuals and automatics all around), B for some of the materials.
I was surprised that the dash design doesn't really lend itself to a navigation system. I know GM leans towards on-star, but still. And swapping out that head unit for an aftermarket system would ruin the dash.
06-18-09, 11:33 PM
#5
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
ugliest guage cluster i've ever seen, and that trunk opening is more like a manhole cover. 
i really do not like this car.
i really do not like this car.
06-19-09, 06:06 AM
#6
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
The new 2010 Mustang's interior is somewhat of an upgrade over the 2009 in materials and quality. The Challenger's interior, to an extent, trails both the Mustang and Camaro's (just like it did 40 years ago, I might add), except for the Camaro's ultra-flimsy stalks. Chrysler needs to do some major upgrading inside the Challenger.
06-19-09, 06:13 AM
#7
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Uote]
Nissan did the same thing with the Z-series sports cars, but placed them higher, in the middle of the dash, instead of way down low.
The trunk opening, I agree, is too small. Pony cars, of course, are not designed to be cargo-haulers, but, even so, it could have a better shape.
i really do not like this car.
Trending Topics
06-19-09, 06:25 AM
#8
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Interesting that Chevy lists on its website a "pass through rear seat" but the pics from the June issue of Car and Driver definitely show the back seat folded down, one -piece back rest with a latch in the middle. Maybe that's why they call it pass - through? Because it's not the normal split/fold?
I screwed up yesterday and forgot to actually check the seat-fold mechanism myself like I usually do, so I had to go by the web site. I was busy checking out a bunch of other things and explaining the car to guys stopping by to see it, and simply forgot that. For one thing, in most pony cars, it's hard to reach the top of the back seats, period....you have to lean in and twist yourself like a pretzel.
Nevertheless, the trunk is small, and the opening as evidenced by the pic you link up top is small and awkwardly shaped.
I'd say A for aesthetic design, A for powertrain options (strong v6 and strong V8 with 6 speed manuals and automatics all around), B for some of the materials.
And swapping out that head unit for an aftermarket system would ruin the dash.
So? It's not that nice a dash to start with, unless you like the retro-gauge touch.
Last edited by mmarshall; 06-19-09 at 06:30 AM.
06-19-09, 07:25 AM
#9
Lexus Test Driver
There not much not to liek about the new Camaro, I would take one over the Mustang or the Challenger anyday. The engine is state of art, the exterior is nice beyond and words. The only knock is the interior I guess, but like most retro car offered by the competition, the interior is not their best selling point.
06-19-09, 08:24 AM
#10
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
There not much not to liek about the new Camaro, I would take one over the Mustang or the Challenger anyday. The engine is state of art, the exterior is nice beyond and words. The only knock is the interior I guess, but like most retro car offered by the competition, the interior is not their best selling point.
06-19-09, 10:01 AM
#11
WOW!! Just Wow!!! This dash cluster/arrangement just looks sooooo horrible in it's execution. GM had a real potential to turn this car into a real profit getter, until you open the door and get a glimpse at that dash. It just does not have that "inviting" feeling at all; more utilitarian than anything else. I am sure that the die hard enthusiasts will propel this car into great sales numbers, primarily b/c they have been starving for GM to throw them a bone for a long while. I actually do like some aspects of the camaro, and always have, but most of them were asthetic. This new Camaro is one that I will continue to admire from afar, but not admire enough to invest my money into.
06-19-09, 10:46 AM
#12
Lexus Test Driver
Are you talking about the 2009 Mustang or the 2010? The 2010 Mustang's interior is a definite upgrde over the 2009. And the Challenger R/T and SRT-8 certainly have state-of the art Hemis...the R/T version even has cylinder-decoupling for better gas mileage when cruising, though it cannot be fitted to the SRT-8 for technical reasons. The Challenger's interior, though, is cheap plastic junk.....worse, in some ways, than the Camaro's.
The new Camaro is just in a class by itself as far as exterior design is concerned, GM did a real good job designing the new Camaro.
06-19-09, 09:22 PM
#13
WOW!! Just Wow!!! This dash cluster/arrangement just looks sooooo horrible in it's execution. GM had a real potential to turn this car into a real profit getter, until you open the door and get a glimpse at that dash. It just does not have that "inviting" feeling at all; more utilitarian than anything else. I am sure that the die hard enthusiasts will propel this car into great sales numbers, primarily b/c they have been starving for GM to throw them a bone for a long while. I actually do like some aspects of the camaro, and always have, but most of them were asthetic. This new Camaro is one that I will continue to admire from afar, but not admire enough to invest my money into.
06-19-09, 10:14 PM
#14
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
love the way the short overhang looks, particularly on the convertible:
interior's still retro but better than '09 and WAY better than that fugly camaro:
Last edited by bitkahuna; 06-19-09 at 10:17 PM.
