(Finally) Review: 2011 Chevrolet Camaro SS
09-28-10, 07:11 PM
#1
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
(Finally) Review: 2011 Chevrolet Camaro SS
By CL request, a review of the 2011 Chevrolet Camaro SS.
http://www.chevrolet.com/camaro/
In a Nutshell: Woodstock, Vietnam, Jimi Hendrix, psychedelic music..........1969 all over again, in a shrink-wrapped 2011 package.
Well guys, today, I'm going to deliver on a long-awaited promise. Early last year, when the all-new 2010 Camaro debuted, I got a pretty fair number of both CL and non-CL requests for a review.....of the SS model, if possible. Well, due to a number of factors, at the time, that just wasn't possible. GM, either woefully underestimating demand, or in an attempt to make the car exclusive and keep the price up, committed themselves to producing only 5000 of them.....when they (probably) could have sold ten times that many, or even more. It was one of the worst marketing/production fiascos I've ever seen...and I've been following the new-car market for over 40 years. Last spring, new, unsold Camaros, and particularly SS models, where just not to be found....virtually all of them came in pre-sold. All 5000 were sold out in less than two months. I found ONE unsold V6 RS model (a red one) and was able to do a static review/write-up (which I posted on CL), but, even on that one, a test-drive was out of the question....they wouldn't let it off the lot.
Fortunately, however, some other CL members, here and there, managed to get spotty test-drives (one CL member rented an SS for a week), so we got some good preliminary input and reviews from them. But, even today, while more Camaros in general are available on the lots than last year (the Chevy dealership I was at today had six or seven LT models), unsold SS models, particularly with the 6-speed manual, are still quite difficult to find. But luck as with me today. After looking over a group of V6 LT models with the 6-speed automatic (Chevy changed the designation of the lower-line models from RS to LT), there was one Camaro left.....a black one, parked rather awkwardly at an angle, sitting on the edge of the lot. I went over to investigate...it turned out to be a 6-speed manual SS, with the big 6.2L V8. The car had apparantly just been washed (a few water drops were still on it, and it was spanking-clean). BOTH front windows were down all the way, and THE KEY WAS LAYING RIGHT IN THE FRONT SEAT. It looked like it had been formally-prepped and was waiting for a customer to pick it up, but, oddly, there were no plates on it. It was a sitting duck if a thief decided to get right into it and drive it off.....hey, new cars are stolen from dealerships across the country all the time.
So, of course, being the honest person that I am, I reached in, grabbed the key/fob, trotted over to the showroom, opened the door, and walked right up to the Sales Manager's desk. He stopped what he was doing and asked me if I needed help. So, I pulled the key out of my pocket, handed it to him, told him where I had found it, and his face turned redder than a beet. "You found THIS, on the seat, in a brand-new SS....unlocked?" He asked me, as if in disbelief. "Yep", I told him........."It looks to me like somebody washed and prepared it for delivery, and just forgot to roll the windows back up and take the key, so I brought you guys the key to keep it from being stolen". I was sure that some customer was waiting for it. He thanked me profusely, several times, then checked his roster and said, "No, it's not sold. It's still on the market. We just unloaded it off the truck this morning, and it went through PDI. Would you like a test-drive"? (Even though I was a perfect stranger and he had never met me before). Obviously, I jumped at the chance...the first honest chance I'd had to drive a new SS since it was introduced (and with a hard-to-get 6-speed manual). He did Xerox my Drivers' License, which is customary, and assign a salesman to ride with me (as it was the only SS they had on the lot). But, salesman or not, I still got a good test-drive.........long enough to write up not only a good static-review but to adequately describe the car's road-manners as well.
Most of you already know the Camaro's long, noted history going back to 1967, so I won't re-hash all those details here. GM dropped the F-Body Camaro and Firebird (to the bitter disappointment of F-Body fans) in 2002, because of what company officials claimed were poor sales. It's true that Camaro sales, in years past, have never equalled those of the Mustang, although last year, because of pent-up demand for some 7 years, they probably would have exceeded Mustang sales if GM had only produced enough. Anyhow, even if GM did make a mistake in dropping the F-Bodies in 2002, the Camaro is now back up and running. But, even though the supply/demand situation is not as acute as last year, SS models are still difficult to find, particularly with the 6-speed manual (the LT models are somewhat more plentiful).
For 2011, the Camaro comes in 5 trim lines.....LS, 1LT, 2LT, 1SS, and 2SS. One body style (a coupe) is offered, although convertibles are planned to be on the way. LS and LT models get the ubiquitous GM DI (Direct-Injected) 3.6L V6, which, at 312 HP and 278 ft-lbs. of torque, is no slouch....this engine is also used in several Cadillacs. SS models get the big, brutish 6.2L V8 with 412 HP and 420 ft-lbs. of torque.....enough to easily go head-to-head with the Ford Mustang GT and Dodge Challenger RT and STR8. A proposed Z28 model, with over 500 HP, is (supposedly) on the way (and, according to company indsiders, would have been here by now if not for GM's recent bankrupcy)....it will be aimed at Ford's 500-600 HP Shelby and Super Snake Mustangs. All 2011 Camaro versions get a choice of a 6-speed manual or 6-speed automatic with Sport/paddle-shifters. SS models get big, 4-piston Brembo brakes. Base LS models start in the low 20's....upper-level models, such as the 2SS I drove, can run into the high 30's (last year, with added dealer mark-ups, some Chevy shops were charging over 50K for them). The body/interior of the present-generation Camaro, though slightly more aero-look and lacking the bumper-chrome, is strongly suggestive of the 2Gen 1969-1970 model......yes, one of the classic pony-cars I went to high school with. The 3-Gen model, introduced in mid-1970, was radically different, and, IMO, lost some build-quality and interior refinement.
Anyhow, enough small-talk. You guys wanted an SS review...not my on-and-on ramblings. So, lets get on with it.
Model Reviewed: 2011 Chevrolet Camaro 2SS 6-speed Manual.
Base Price: $34,295
Options:
RS Package: $1200
Sunroof: $900
20" Polished Wheels: $470
Destination/Freight: $850 (about average)
List Price as reviewed: $37,715
Drivetrain: RWD, Longitudinally-mounted 6.2L V8, 426 HP @ 5900 RPM, Torque 420 Ft-lbs. @ 4600 RPM, 6-speed manual transmission.
EPA Mileage Rating: 17 City / 24 Highway
Exterior Color: Black
Interior: Black Leather
PLUSSES:
A classic nostalgia machine.....this car, like the Mustang and Challenger, will take you Baby Boomers back to high school.
Drag-strip engine.
Classic Muscle/Pony-Car acceleration.
Classic American muscle-car V8 exhaust rumble.
Strong Brembo brakes.
Flat cornering.
Good steering response....much better than the original Camaros.
Independent rear suspension vs. the non-Shelby Mustang's live-rear axle.
Reasonably good ride comfort for a performance car.
Good underhood layout even with a big engine and engine-cover.
Nice bright paint-colors offered.
Good paint job.
Good (but not killer) stereo-sound quality.
Busy-looking but simple, easy-to-use buttons/*****.
Generally clear primary gauges (but could be improved).
Fairly nice seat leather.
Strong, solid-closing trunk lid.
6 months of free OnStar (at the dealership I was at).
Many different cosmetic-strip and trim packages available.
GM 5/100 powertrain warranty (important, because Camaro powertrains often get heavy use).
MINUSES:
Hulk-Hogan, WWF-grade clutch and shift linkage.
Equally WWF-grade pull-up parking-brake handle.
Tiring to drive in stop-and-go traffic with the manual transmission.
Very poor rear vision from giant C-pillars.
Peephole rear window.
Virtually useless rear seat.
Gimmicky, distracting (IMO) head-up windshield digital speedometer.
(Apparant) plastic front-hood.
Where's the battery?
Virtually useless rear seat.
Ultra-cheap, hard-to-grip/pull sunvisors.
Low-rent, budget-grade interior plastics/trim materials.
Dated, conventional ignition switch, with no engine START/STOP button.
Retro-gauge panel on console historically accurate, but too low for quick reference.
Poor headroom for tall persons.
Rigid, non-swivel outside mirrors.
Extra-cost for some paint colors.
No body-side mouldings for parking-lot potection.
No oil dipstick.
No spare tire..a compressed-air-pump instead.
Miniscule, poorly-designed trunk-opening.
(Still) tight availability for the SS model.
Dealer-discounts probably hard to get.
High insurance premiums for some driver classes.
EXTERIOR:
well, as you first walk up to this car, there's no denying the link, style-wise, to the 2Gen 1969-1970 model. It has a slightly more modern aero-look to it than the original Baby Boomer Specials, and, of course, lacks the chrome/metal bumpers. But, otherwise, it's classic Camaro through and through...in a way that, IMO, the sleeker models of the 70s, 80s, and 90s just somehow lost and couldn't match. Unfortunately, the exterior materials, while OK, don't measure up to the car's classic styling. The hood is very lightweight and (appears) to be made of plastic...some models have a reverse-scoop in it. I don't mind the use of plastic on body parts (Saturn, for example, did it very well), but the hood is generally not the place for it...even Saturns had sheet-metal hoods. The front-fascia/valence area around the 1969-style grille uses very flimsy, lightweight-feeling vinyl/plastic. The twin, sleek-looking side-mirrors are rigidly attached and don't have swiveling-bases (that is simple cost-cutting). There are no body-side mouldings for paint-protection (which is also cost-cutting). Some nice bright paint colors are offered, including Bright Green, Bright Yellow, and Bright Red, but some of them, such as the yellow and Crystal Red Tintcoat, cost extra. The best-quality exterior part seems to be the solid trunk-lid that closes with a strong "Thunk"...but the trunk-lid opening itself is insultingly small (more on that below).
UNDERHOOD:
Generally pretty good in several areas (or better than I expected, given the big V8 in there). The lightweight (plastic?) hood opens up and is held in place with a single gas-strut on the left (it is probably not heavy enough for dual-struts). Undeneath the hood is a nice insulation pad.....but this engine and exhaust are not designed to be quiet.....more on that later. The big 6.2L V8 (one of the largest regular passenger-car engines still in production today), mounted longitudinally, fits in surprisingly well...Chevy obviously designed the engine compartment for that big powerplant. Yes, the usual big silver plastic engine-cover (a body-color one is an option) blocks a lot of top-engine access, but there is room to reach a number of things down the sides and front of the block without skinning your knuckes too bad....and Camaros, traditonally, often get underhood/engine modifications by their owners. Several other components underhood, though, are sealed-off in smaller black-plastic covers. There is no oil dipstick that I could see (the specs list a standard oil monitor), and I couldn't find the battery, either underhood or in the other usual space...under the trunk floor.
INTERIOR:
Style-wise, classic 1960's Camaro any way you describe it, although the general level of detailing is not as good (GM, IMO, did some of their best interiors and detailing in the late 1960s). But you had better not be very tall.....headroom, for tall persons, is quite poor under the optional sunroof. Even when the bottom seat-cushion was lowered all the way, I had to significantly lower the rake-adjustment of the seat-back to get my big 6' 2" frame (and ever-present baseball cap) under the sunroof housing....and, by then, I was sitting almost in the classic anti-G-force, F-16 fighter-pilot positon with my back way down. Tall people......check this interior out carefully before buying, especially with the sunroof. The twin-primary-gauge clusters were straight out of the 1960s handbook.....so was the forward-console group of small rectangular cluster-gauges for secondary engine functions. The small console-gauges, though, were quite low, and not easy to see at a glance when you needed to shift your eyes down to occasionally check them. The stereo sound quality was pretty good...but not killer-grade (I suspect the stereo speakers will get a lot of late-60s music from Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Credence Clearwater Revival, Iron Butterfly, The Who, Motown, etc...). The sun visors bordered in an insult...not only were they the increasingly common El Cheapo hard-plastic surfaces, but, because of their shortness, small size,and poor leverage, were hard to grip and pull down....and their small size didn't block out much sun. The leather-covered steering wheel was a more modern 3-spoke, not the classic 1969 Camaro two-spoke, and was much more comfortable to hold....the skinny, hard-plastic wheels of the 1960s left much to be desired. The interior trim materials, for the most part, were not impressive...the dash was a hard-surface, most of the black-plastic trim felt cheap, and the silver-chrome plastic, while not the worst I've seen, was not that impressive either......overall, the 1969 interior was better-done and had better-detailing. In the new one, only the shiny, smoke-gray-textured hard-plastic panels that ran along parts of the dash and door panels seemed well-done. The dash had a large analog speedometer (in the primary-gauge panel), a smaller digital speed-readout between the two primary speedo/tach gauges, AND, when the engine was started, a light-blue digital speed readout, projected into the windshield glass, that told you exactly the same thing as the digital dash-readout. I personally don't see a need for three different speedometers, and found the head-up display in the windshield to be rather annoying....there is a way to shut the windshield-display off, if desired. Yes, with this engine, the SS is capable of some serious speed (and, of course, may invite speeding tickets), but you shouldn't need three different instruments to tell you that.
The front seats are fairly comfortable, and seem to have a decent grade of leather for the car's price.....two-tone seats are offered. Though not sports-car-supportive, they do a reasonable job of holding you in place. The climate/stereo dash *****/buttons are rather busily-shaped, especially in the center dash, but are clearly-marked, intuitive, and fairly easy to use. The steering column has manual tilt/telescope controls which work fairly smoothly (many don't). The interior hardware seems decent quality...and better than most of the trim. The back seat, as with most American Ponycars, was not only almost impossible for adults (and even some children) to get in and out of, but was virtually useless for anything else except (maybe) as a part-time package-shelf. And vision out the back, from the big C-pillars and peephole rear window, was atrocious...the 1969 model's rear-vision, though not excellent, was markedly better in that area.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
Open the solid-feeling trunk lid, and the trunk, in total room inside, is fairly roomy by Ponycar standards. But a major design fault is the small, miniscule, oval-shaped trunk-opening whose sill is both too high to easily lift heavy luggage over and too small to easily get in larger bags/suitcases. This may be OK for larger, taller people with strong arms and shoulders, but not necessarily for others. The inside of the trunk is not finished particularly well, especially for a car of this price. A very thin, cheesy, black fabric/carpet lines the trunk floor, with hard-feeling walls, and you must unscrew a large plastic wing-nut to get the underfloor-panel out. Once the panel is out, there is no spare tire at all underneath, and just something that appears to be a compressed-air-bottle. I remembered that I couldn't find the battery underhood, and looked for it down there, too...no luck. The rear seats fold down for added trunk space (might as well leave them down...they're practically useless for anything else). But they don't have remote-releases, so you have to pretzel your arms and torso behind the front seats and B-pillars to reach the latches.
ON THE ROAD:
Well, after the less-than-impressive (but still nicely-retro) interior, here's where the real fun starts....especially with the SS. Start up the big 6.2L V8, with a conventional side-column ignition switch (just like in 1969, when GM itself invented the side-column-switch) and metal key/fob. The key/fob, like VW and some Cadillac keys, has a chrome metal button that folds the key up inside for storage. The big V8 barks to life with a low, throbby, classic muscle-car rumble.........if you want Lexus quietness in the drivetrain, look elsewhere. No, I won't complain....ponycar engines are SUPPOSED to be noisy. Slip the transmission in gear (more on that just below), drive easy for a minute or two to get the oil pressure/temperature up, give it some the gas moderately, and you are greeted with a nice shove in the back. Then hammer it (within the limits of a brand-new engine, of course, that is not broken-in), and the SS, even at less than full-throttle, takes off like illegals spotting the Border Patrol. This car may not be the absolute King of the Road, but the SS, in the drag-race world, is going to command some respect. Not, of course, that I condone street-racing (I never have, and never will), but if you need to get out of your own way, know that you can do so with ease. The engine is not excessively noisy, but the deep exhaust rumble, of course, increased with speed and RPMs. You always know you are in a classic American muscle/pony car. Turn the traction/stability control off (I didn't, so as not to abuse the rear tires), and, with 420 ft-lbs. of torque and a manual-clutch, tire-tread life back there will likely go up in smoke. I just wonder what the upcoming Z28 Camaro, with its 500+ HP, is going to be like......
The 6-speed manual transmission, which, of course, is more flexible than the 1969's Hurst 4-speed, is not a transmission for weak arms.......or legs (a short-throw Hurst-shifter is an option). The rather long-travel clutch is not big-truck-heavy, but beefy enough to let you know it is not an econobox.....it has to take the high torque, of course, and the stresses of built-in Launch Control (something else the 1969 didn't have). And, sure enough, early-production 6MT SS models last year did have clutch problems, probably from overzealous owners abusing them. Anyhow, the clutch is fairly smooth, a little beefy, and can bog down a little starting at lower RPMs until you get used to it....but the engine's prodigious torque pulls like a locomotive and generally prevents it from stalling or lugging while starting up, even if you don't slip the clutch a little as you have to do with low-torque engines. The standard baseball-stitched, leather-covered shift-**** is designed for large, beefy hands (even I had a handful wth it), and the Hulk-Hogan/WWF-grade shift-linkage needs a fair amount of oomph (and a fair amount of travel) to get it through the gates....ditto for the pull-up parking brake. Ladies, I don't want to sound like a sexist, or, (to use a classic 1969 term), a male chauvanist, but, unless you spend a lot of time at the gym or in arm/leg-building, I don't think that the manual transmission in this car is for you. To top it off, of course, it would be somewhat tiring to constantly row the clutch and gears in heavy traffic and stop-and-go driving....I would definitely not recommend the manual for urban areas.
The chassis, not surprisingly, is worlds above the 1969 model, which, like most muscle-cars of the era, was great in a straight line, but couldn't do much else. Steering response is fairly quick (surprisingly so for a car with an engine up front this heavy), and the steering, while not BMW-tactile or precise, seems decenty-weighted. Cornering is fairly flat, and the general level of handling is almost up to German sport-sedan standards...something that would have been unthinkable for a Camaro in 1969. Ride comfort, given the level of sharp handling, is not uncomfortably rough, but you definitely know you are not in a Buick Lucerne or Cadillac DTS. Wind-noise control is pretty good, as is for road-tire noise. Most of the noise on the road, as mentioned earlier, comes from the classic muscle-car exhaust rumble.
The big powerful 4-piston Brembo brake package (standard on the SS), even with power-assist, takes some muscle (just like the clutch/transmission), but definitely does the job. The brake-pedal is mounted in a generally good (but not perfect) position to keep my big size 15 clod-hopper shoes from hanging up on it while going from gas-pedal to brake. Light touches of the brake don't bring much response at first (perhaps because of the size of the large rotors/calipers/pads), but give it some more pressure and you'll know you've got Brembos down there. It doesn't have rear-engine Porsche-grade stops, of course, because of the big, heavy engine up front that cause a lot of nose-heaviness and forward-weight-transfer on hard braking. But, in general, you've got some braking power if you need it.
THE VERDICT:
I know I've made a lot of comparisons, in this review, between the new Camaro and the 40-year-old ones I went to high-school with. I'm a firm believer in being objective and no-nonsense in car reviews, sticking to the matter at hand, and concentrating on describing the car itself rather than one's emotions. In fact (without naming any names), I have actually criticized some auto reviewers that I felt did that.....spent too much time on comedy, one's emotions/fantasies, and general B.S. rather than actually describing the car itself. But, to be honest, even though I've been out of high school for some 40 years, it's almost impossible to get in this car, review it, or drive it without some emotions and the inevitable comparisons to its (now) ancient predecessors. That, of couse, also applies to the new retro-design Mustang and Challenger as well (not so much the 4-door Charger, as it is substantially different from the classic 2-door 1960's versions). And that (seems) to be the way that the automakers want it.....these cars appeal, of course, strongly to the guys I grew up and went to school with. But.......does it appeal to the girls I went to school with, who are now ladies in their 50s (60s, in some cases)? Again, I don't want to sound sexist, but, in general, I think not...at least for the manual-transmission version. Most girls and women I know (probably not all) would find the clutch, shift linkage, parking-brake-handle, and (maybe) even the engine/exhaust-noise level too much for them. And, yes, a lot of males, too (I admit I'm one of them) would find this car tiring in constant stop-and-go traffic, where the 6-speed automatic would be a must.
Otherwise, it's a good retro-successor to the original late-60s car, but needs some improvements in interior-trim quality/detailing, trunk-opening design, and the console-gauges. Even though the gauges are retro-original, they are still hard to see at a glance, unless you look way down to the right and take your eyes off the road...and the much-more-dense traffic of today, compared to 1969, makes any distraction and taking one's eyes off the road more hazardous.
So, guys my age, if re-living your high-school years is important to you in a car......then go for it.
And, as always, of course............Happy Car Shopping.
MM
http://www.chevrolet.com/camaro/
In a Nutshell: Woodstock, Vietnam, Jimi Hendrix, psychedelic music..........1969 all over again, in a shrink-wrapped 2011 package.
Well guys, today, I'm going to deliver on a long-awaited promise. Early last year, when the all-new 2010 Camaro debuted, I got a pretty fair number of both CL and non-CL requests for a review.....of the SS model, if possible. Well, due to a number of factors, at the time, that just wasn't possible. GM, either woefully underestimating demand, or in an attempt to make the car exclusive and keep the price up, committed themselves to producing only 5000 of them.....when they (probably) could have sold ten times that many, or even more. It was one of the worst marketing/production fiascos I've ever seen...and I've been following the new-car market for over 40 years. Last spring, new, unsold Camaros, and particularly SS models, where just not to be found....virtually all of them came in pre-sold. All 5000 were sold out in less than two months. I found ONE unsold V6 RS model (a red one) and was able to do a static review/write-up (which I posted on CL), but, even on that one, a test-drive was out of the question....they wouldn't let it off the lot.
Fortunately, however, some other CL members, here and there, managed to get spotty test-drives (one CL member rented an SS for a week), so we got some good preliminary input and reviews from them. But, even today, while more Camaros in general are available on the lots than last year (the Chevy dealership I was at today had six or seven LT models), unsold SS models, particularly with the 6-speed manual, are still quite difficult to find. But luck as with me today. After looking over a group of V6 LT models with the 6-speed automatic (Chevy changed the designation of the lower-line models from RS to LT), there was one Camaro left.....a black one, parked rather awkwardly at an angle, sitting on the edge of the lot. I went over to investigate...it turned out to be a 6-speed manual SS, with the big 6.2L V8. The car had apparantly just been washed (a few water drops were still on it, and it was spanking-clean). BOTH front windows were down all the way, and THE KEY WAS LAYING RIGHT IN THE FRONT SEAT. It looked like it had been formally-prepped and was waiting for a customer to pick it up, but, oddly, there were no plates on it. It was a sitting duck if a thief decided to get right into it and drive it off.....hey, new cars are stolen from dealerships across the country all the time.
So, of course, being the honest person that I am, I reached in, grabbed the key/fob, trotted over to the showroom, opened the door, and walked right up to the Sales Manager's desk. He stopped what he was doing and asked me if I needed help. So, I pulled the key out of my pocket, handed it to him, told him where I had found it, and his face turned redder than a beet. "You found THIS, on the seat, in a brand-new SS....unlocked?" He asked me, as if in disbelief. "Yep", I told him........."It looks to me like somebody washed and prepared it for delivery, and just forgot to roll the windows back up and take the key, so I brought you guys the key to keep it from being stolen". I was sure that some customer was waiting for it. He thanked me profusely, several times, then checked his roster and said, "No, it's not sold. It's still on the market. We just unloaded it off the truck this morning, and it went through PDI. Would you like a test-drive"? (Even though I was a perfect stranger and he had never met me before). Obviously, I jumped at the chance...the first honest chance I'd had to drive a new SS since it was introduced (and with a hard-to-get 6-speed manual). He did Xerox my Drivers' License, which is customary, and assign a salesman to ride with me (as it was the only SS they had on the lot). But, salesman or not, I still got a good test-drive.........long enough to write up not only a good static-review but to adequately describe the car's road-manners as well.
Most of you already know the Camaro's long, noted history going back to 1967, so I won't re-hash all those details here. GM dropped the F-Body Camaro and Firebird (to the bitter disappointment of F-Body fans) in 2002, because of what company officials claimed were poor sales. It's true that Camaro sales, in years past, have never equalled those of the Mustang, although last year, because of pent-up demand for some 7 years, they probably would have exceeded Mustang sales if GM had only produced enough. Anyhow, even if GM did make a mistake in dropping the F-Bodies in 2002, the Camaro is now back up and running. But, even though the supply/demand situation is not as acute as last year, SS models are still difficult to find, particularly with the 6-speed manual (the LT models are somewhat more plentiful).
For 2011, the Camaro comes in 5 trim lines.....LS, 1LT, 2LT, 1SS, and 2SS. One body style (a coupe) is offered, although convertibles are planned to be on the way. LS and LT models get the ubiquitous GM DI (Direct-Injected) 3.6L V6, which, at 312 HP and 278 ft-lbs. of torque, is no slouch....this engine is also used in several Cadillacs. SS models get the big, brutish 6.2L V8 with 412 HP and 420 ft-lbs. of torque.....enough to easily go head-to-head with the Ford Mustang GT and Dodge Challenger RT and STR8. A proposed Z28 model, with over 500 HP, is (supposedly) on the way (and, according to company indsiders, would have been here by now if not for GM's recent bankrupcy)....it will be aimed at Ford's 500-600 HP Shelby and Super Snake Mustangs. All 2011 Camaro versions get a choice of a 6-speed manual or 6-speed automatic with Sport/paddle-shifters. SS models get big, 4-piston Brembo brakes. Base LS models start in the low 20's....upper-level models, such as the 2SS I drove, can run into the high 30's (last year, with added dealer mark-ups, some Chevy shops were charging over 50K for them). The body/interior of the present-generation Camaro, though slightly more aero-look and lacking the bumper-chrome, is strongly suggestive of the 2Gen 1969-1970 model......yes, one of the classic pony-cars I went to high school with. The 3-Gen model, introduced in mid-1970, was radically different, and, IMO, lost some build-quality and interior refinement.
Anyhow, enough small-talk. You guys wanted an SS review...not my on-and-on ramblings. So, lets get on with it.
Model Reviewed: 2011 Chevrolet Camaro 2SS 6-speed Manual.
Base Price: $34,295
Options:
RS Package: $1200
Sunroof: $900
20" Polished Wheels: $470
Destination/Freight: $850 (about average)
List Price as reviewed: $37,715
Drivetrain: RWD, Longitudinally-mounted 6.2L V8, 426 HP @ 5900 RPM, Torque 420 Ft-lbs. @ 4600 RPM, 6-speed manual transmission.
EPA Mileage Rating: 17 City / 24 Highway
Exterior Color: Black
Interior: Black Leather
PLUSSES:
A classic nostalgia machine.....this car, like the Mustang and Challenger, will take you Baby Boomers back to high school.
Drag-strip engine.
Classic Muscle/Pony-Car acceleration.
Classic American muscle-car V8 exhaust rumble.
Strong Brembo brakes.
Flat cornering.
Good steering response....much better than the original Camaros.
Independent rear suspension vs. the non-Shelby Mustang's live-rear axle.
Reasonably good ride comfort for a performance car.
Good underhood layout even with a big engine and engine-cover.
Nice bright paint-colors offered.
Good paint job.
Good (but not killer) stereo-sound quality.
Busy-looking but simple, easy-to-use buttons/*****.
Generally clear primary gauges (but could be improved).
Fairly nice seat leather.
Strong, solid-closing trunk lid.
6 months of free OnStar (at the dealership I was at).
Many different cosmetic-strip and trim packages available.
GM 5/100 powertrain warranty (important, because Camaro powertrains often get heavy use).
MINUSES:
Hulk-Hogan, WWF-grade clutch and shift linkage.
Equally WWF-grade pull-up parking-brake handle.
Tiring to drive in stop-and-go traffic with the manual transmission.
Very poor rear vision from giant C-pillars.
Peephole rear window.
Virtually useless rear seat.
Gimmicky, distracting (IMO) head-up windshield digital speedometer.
(Apparant) plastic front-hood.
Where's the battery?
Virtually useless rear seat.
Ultra-cheap, hard-to-grip/pull sunvisors.
Low-rent, budget-grade interior plastics/trim materials.
Dated, conventional ignition switch, with no engine START/STOP button.
Retro-gauge panel on console historically accurate, but too low for quick reference.
Poor headroom for tall persons.
Rigid, non-swivel outside mirrors.
Extra-cost for some paint colors.
No body-side mouldings for parking-lot potection.
No oil dipstick.
No spare tire..a compressed-air-pump instead.
Miniscule, poorly-designed trunk-opening.
(Still) tight availability for the SS model.
Dealer-discounts probably hard to get.
High insurance premiums for some driver classes.
EXTERIOR:
well, as you first walk up to this car, there's no denying the link, style-wise, to the 2Gen 1969-1970 model. It has a slightly more modern aero-look to it than the original Baby Boomer Specials, and, of course, lacks the chrome/metal bumpers. But, otherwise, it's classic Camaro through and through...in a way that, IMO, the sleeker models of the 70s, 80s, and 90s just somehow lost and couldn't match. Unfortunately, the exterior materials, while OK, don't measure up to the car's classic styling. The hood is very lightweight and (appears) to be made of plastic...some models have a reverse-scoop in it. I don't mind the use of plastic on body parts (Saturn, for example, did it very well), but the hood is generally not the place for it...even Saturns had sheet-metal hoods. The front-fascia/valence area around the 1969-style grille uses very flimsy, lightweight-feeling vinyl/plastic. The twin, sleek-looking side-mirrors are rigidly attached and don't have swiveling-bases (that is simple cost-cutting). There are no body-side mouldings for paint-protection (which is also cost-cutting). Some nice bright paint colors are offered, including Bright Green, Bright Yellow, and Bright Red, but some of them, such as the yellow and Crystal Red Tintcoat, cost extra. The best-quality exterior part seems to be the solid trunk-lid that closes with a strong "Thunk"...but the trunk-lid opening itself is insultingly small (more on that below).
UNDERHOOD:
Generally pretty good in several areas (or better than I expected, given the big V8 in there). The lightweight (plastic?) hood opens up and is held in place with a single gas-strut on the left (it is probably not heavy enough for dual-struts). Undeneath the hood is a nice insulation pad.....but this engine and exhaust are not designed to be quiet.....more on that later. The big 6.2L V8 (one of the largest regular passenger-car engines still in production today), mounted longitudinally, fits in surprisingly well...Chevy obviously designed the engine compartment for that big powerplant. Yes, the usual big silver plastic engine-cover (a body-color one is an option) blocks a lot of top-engine access, but there is room to reach a number of things down the sides and front of the block without skinning your knuckes too bad....and Camaros, traditonally, often get underhood/engine modifications by their owners. Several other components underhood, though, are sealed-off in smaller black-plastic covers. There is no oil dipstick that I could see (the specs list a standard oil monitor), and I couldn't find the battery, either underhood or in the other usual space...under the trunk floor.
INTERIOR:
Style-wise, classic 1960's Camaro any way you describe it, although the general level of detailing is not as good (GM, IMO, did some of their best interiors and detailing in the late 1960s). But you had better not be very tall.....headroom, for tall persons, is quite poor under the optional sunroof. Even when the bottom seat-cushion was lowered all the way, I had to significantly lower the rake-adjustment of the seat-back to get my big 6' 2" frame (and ever-present baseball cap) under the sunroof housing....and, by then, I was sitting almost in the classic anti-G-force, F-16 fighter-pilot positon with my back way down. Tall people......check this interior out carefully before buying, especially with the sunroof. The twin-primary-gauge clusters were straight out of the 1960s handbook.....so was the forward-console group of small rectangular cluster-gauges for secondary engine functions. The small console-gauges, though, were quite low, and not easy to see at a glance when you needed to shift your eyes down to occasionally check them. The stereo sound quality was pretty good...but not killer-grade (I suspect the stereo speakers will get a lot of late-60s music from Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Credence Clearwater Revival, Iron Butterfly, The Who, Motown, etc...). The sun visors bordered in an insult...not only were they the increasingly common El Cheapo hard-plastic surfaces, but, because of their shortness, small size,and poor leverage, were hard to grip and pull down....and their small size didn't block out much sun. The leather-covered steering wheel was a more modern 3-spoke, not the classic 1969 Camaro two-spoke, and was much more comfortable to hold....the skinny, hard-plastic wheels of the 1960s left much to be desired. The interior trim materials, for the most part, were not impressive...the dash was a hard-surface, most of the black-plastic trim felt cheap, and the silver-chrome plastic, while not the worst I've seen, was not that impressive either......overall, the 1969 interior was better-done and had better-detailing. In the new one, only the shiny, smoke-gray-textured hard-plastic panels that ran along parts of the dash and door panels seemed well-done. The dash had a large analog speedometer (in the primary-gauge panel), a smaller digital speed-readout between the two primary speedo/tach gauges, AND, when the engine was started, a light-blue digital speed readout, projected into the windshield glass, that told you exactly the same thing as the digital dash-readout. I personally don't see a need for three different speedometers, and found the head-up display in the windshield to be rather annoying....there is a way to shut the windshield-display off, if desired. Yes, with this engine, the SS is capable of some serious speed (and, of course, may invite speeding tickets), but you shouldn't need three different instruments to tell you that.
The front seats are fairly comfortable, and seem to have a decent grade of leather for the car's price.....two-tone seats are offered. Though not sports-car-supportive, they do a reasonable job of holding you in place. The climate/stereo dash *****/buttons are rather busily-shaped, especially in the center dash, but are clearly-marked, intuitive, and fairly easy to use. The steering column has manual tilt/telescope controls which work fairly smoothly (many don't). The interior hardware seems decent quality...and better than most of the trim. The back seat, as with most American Ponycars, was not only almost impossible for adults (and even some children) to get in and out of, but was virtually useless for anything else except (maybe) as a part-time package-shelf. And vision out the back, from the big C-pillars and peephole rear window, was atrocious...the 1969 model's rear-vision, though not excellent, was markedly better in that area.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
Open the solid-feeling trunk lid, and the trunk, in total room inside, is fairly roomy by Ponycar standards. But a major design fault is the small, miniscule, oval-shaped trunk-opening whose sill is both too high to easily lift heavy luggage over and too small to easily get in larger bags/suitcases. This may be OK for larger, taller people with strong arms and shoulders, but not necessarily for others. The inside of the trunk is not finished particularly well, especially for a car of this price. A very thin, cheesy, black fabric/carpet lines the trunk floor, with hard-feeling walls, and you must unscrew a large plastic wing-nut to get the underfloor-panel out. Once the panel is out, there is no spare tire at all underneath, and just something that appears to be a compressed-air-bottle. I remembered that I couldn't find the battery underhood, and looked for it down there, too...no luck. The rear seats fold down for added trunk space (might as well leave them down...they're practically useless for anything else). But they don't have remote-releases, so you have to pretzel your arms and torso behind the front seats and B-pillars to reach the latches.
ON THE ROAD:
Well, after the less-than-impressive (but still nicely-retro) interior, here's where the real fun starts....especially with the SS. Start up the big 6.2L V8, with a conventional side-column ignition switch (just like in 1969, when GM itself invented the side-column-switch) and metal key/fob. The key/fob, like VW and some Cadillac keys, has a chrome metal button that folds the key up inside for storage. The big V8 barks to life with a low, throbby, classic muscle-car rumble.........if you want Lexus quietness in the drivetrain, look elsewhere. No, I won't complain....ponycar engines are SUPPOSED to be noisy. Slip the transmission in gear (more on that just below), drive easy for a minute or two to get the oil pressure/temperature up, give it some the gas moderately, and you are greeted with a nice shove in the back. Then hammer it (within the limits of a brand-new engine, of course, that is not broken-in), and the SS, even at less than full-throttle, takes off like illegals spotting the Border Patrol. This car may not be the absolute King of the Road, but the SS, in the drag-race world, is going to command some respect. Not, of course, that I condone street-racing (I never have, and never will), but if you need to get out of your own way, know that you can do so with ease. The engine is not excessively noisy, but the deep exhaust rumble, of course, increased with speed and RPMs. You always know you are in a classic American muscle/pony car. Turn the traction/stability control off (I didn't, so as not to abuse the rear tires), and, with 420 ft-lbs. of torque and a manual-clutch, tire-tread life back there will likely go up in smoke. I just wonder what the upcoming Z28 Camaro, with its 500+ HP, is going to be like......
The 6-speed manual transmission, which, of course, is more flexible than the 1969's Hurst 4-speed, is not a transmission for weak arms.......or legs (a short-throw Hurst-shifter is an option). The rather long-travel clutch is not big-truck-heavy, but beefy enough to let you know it is not an econobox.....it has to take the high torque, of course, and the stresses of built-in Launch Control (something else the 1969 didn't have). And, sure enough, early-production 6MT SS models last year did have clutch problems, probably from overzealous owners abusing them. Anyhow, the clutch is fairly smooth, a little beefy, and can bog down a little starting at lower RPMs until you get used to it....but the engine's prodigious torque pulls like a locomotive and generally prevents it from stalling or lugging while starting up, even if you don't slip the clutch a little as you have to do with low-torque engines. The standard baseball-stitched, leather-covered shift-**** is designed for large, beefy hands (even I had a handful wth it), and the Hulk-Hogan/WWF-grade shift-linkage needs a fair amount of oomph (and a fair amount of travel) to get it through the gates....ditto for the pull-up parking brake. Ladies, I don't want to sound like a sexist, or, (to use a classic 1969 term), a male chauvanist, but, unless you spend a lot of time at the gym or in arm/leg-building, I don't think that the manual transmission in this car is for you. To top it off, of course, it would be somewhat tiring to constantly row the clutch and gears in heavy traffic and stop-and-go driving....I would definitely not recommend the manual for urban areas.
The chassis, not surprisingly, is worlds above the 1969 model, which, like most muscle-cars of the era, was great in a straight line, but couldn't do much else. Steering response is fairly quick (surprisingly so for a car with an engine up front this heavy), and the steering, while not BMW-tactile or precise, seems decenty-weighted. Cornering is fairly flat, and the general level of handling is almost up to German sport-sedan standards...something that would have been unthinkable for a Camaro in 1969. Ride comfort, given the level of sharp handling, is not uncomfortably rough, but you definitely know you are not in a Buick Lucerne or Cadillac DTS. Wind-noise control is pretty good, as is for road-tire noise. Most of the noise on the road, as mentioned earlier, comes from the classic muscle-car exhaust rumble.
The big powerful 4-piston Brembo brake package (standard on the SS), even with power-assist, takes some muscle (just like the clutch/transmission), but definitely does the job. The brake-pedal is mounted in a generally good (but not perfect) position to keep my big size 15 clod-hopper shoes from hanging up on it while going from gas-pedal to brake. Light touches of the brake don't bring much response at first (perhaps because of the size of the large rotors/calipers/pads), but give it some more pressure and you'll know you've got Brembos down there. It doesn't have rear-engine Porsche-grade stops, of course, because of the big, heavy engine up front that cause a lot of nose-heaviness and forward-weight-transfer on hard braking. But, in general, you've got some braking power if you need it.
THE VERDICT:
I know I've made a lot of comparisons, in this review, between the new Camaro and the 40-year-old ones I went to high-school with. I'm a firm believer in being objective and no-nonsense in car reviews, sticking to the matter at hand, and concentrating on describing the car itself rather than one's emotions. In fact (without naming any names), I have actually criticized some auto reviewers that I felt did that.....spent too much time on comedy, one's emotions/fantasies, and general B.S. rather than actually describing the car itself. But, to be honest, even though I've been out of high school for some 40 years, it's almost impossible to get in this car, review it, or drive it without some emotions and the inevitable comparisons to its (now) ancient predecessors. That, of couse, also applies to the new retro-design Mustang and Challenger as well (not so much the 4-door Charger, as it is substantially different from the classic 2-door 1960's versions). And that (seems) to be the way that the automakers want it.....these cars appeal, of course, strongly to the guys I grew up and went to school with. But.......does it appeal to the girls I went to school with, who are now ladies in their 50s (60s, in some cases)? Again, I don't want to sound sexist, but, in general, I think not...at least for the manual-transmission version. Most girls and women I know (probably not all) would find the clutch, shift linkage, parking-brake-handle, and (maybe) even the engine/exhaust-noise level too much for them. And, yes, a lot of males, too (I admit I'm one of them) would find this car tiring in constant stop-and-go traffic, where the 6-speed automatic would be a must.
Otherwise, it's a good retro-successor to the original late-60s car, but needs some improvements in interior-trim quality/detailing, trunk-opening design, and the console-gauges. Even though the gauges are retro-original, they are still hard to see at a glance, unless you look way down to the right and take your eyes off the road...and the much-more-dense traffic of today, compared to 1969, makes any distraction and taking one's eyes off the road more hazardous.
So, guys my age, if re-living your high-school years is important to you in a car......then go for it.
And, as always, of course............Happy Car Shopping.
MM
Last edited by mmarshall; 09-29-10 at 06:41 PM.
09-28-10, 09:10 PM
#3
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
I drove a Mustang GT a couple of years ago, but have not personally sampled the new 2011 model. Road and Track magazine, however, in a recent comparison-test, picked the Mustang slightly over the Camaro, in spite of the Mustang still having a live-rear-axle and the Camaro having an IRS. The new Mustang, (apparantly), has been substantially improved, not only in the new 5.0L V8, but also in the chassis. I'm not surprised that the Mustang's new 5.0L won more kudos than its old 4.6L...I was never a fan of the 4.6L myself, having sampled it in several different Ford/Mercury products. However, even though it may (?) not be quite as good as that of the new Mustang GT, by American pony-car standards, I was still quite impressed with the new Camaro's chassis engineering. The Camaro SS's 6.2L V8, at 4600 RPM, doesn't quite have as early a torque peak as earlier, push-rod 5.7L F-Body and Corvette V8s, but, after a slight lag of maybe a second or two, the power really comes on. It will definitely get out of its own way.
Inside, of course, interiors and styling are subjective, but, as you will notice from the review, despite the unmistakable retro-themes inside, I was generally not impressed with the Camaro's interior. Not only the new 2010-2011 Mustang, but the Camaro itself of 40 years ago had, IMO, better-quality trim/detailing inside....typical of most GM-vintage cars of that period, when GM was considered the leader in interior-quality, and Chrysler and AMC the worst.
Inside, of course, interiors and styling are subjective, but, as you will notice from the review, despite the unmistakable retro-themes inside, I was generally not impressed with the Camaro's interior. Not only the new 2010-2011 Mustang, but the Camaro itself of 40 years ago had, IMO, better-quality trim/detailing inside....typical of most GM-vintage cars of that period, when GM was considered the leader in interior-quality, and Chrysler and AMC the worst.
Last edited by mmarshall; 09-28-10 at 09:21 PM.
09-28-10, 10:30 PM
#4
Thanks for the review as usual. I've been an avid Ford fan all my life, so liking this car is almost taboo in that regard. But as an automotive lover (does that sound bad lol) in general, I give GM props. I find the new Camaro as a decent notion of how a modern day muscle car should be, with plenty of style and power to boot. I do however find, much like yourself, that the interior leaves a lot to be desired although I seem to expect this from GM regardless of the strides they've taken in recent years. The mustangs interior is much better IMO and would be easier to live with. Not to mention available navigation and sync (not that a muscle car needs those creature comforts). I'm not gonna turn this into a Ford vs Chevy debate though. I think the rebirth of the Camaro is a good example of modern muscle in sense that it still retains a V8 up front powering it's rear wheels and a good modern chassis. Of course it wouldn't be the same without the merely adequate interior (I'm looking at you Dodge Challenger), but hey we don't buy these cars for that hah!
09-29-10, 02:43 AM
#6
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Sure...anytime. Sorry that it took a year and a half to finally get done. 
The Ford-Chevy battle is nothing new. In my school days, among my peers, it was even more intense than it is now.......with MoPar (Chrysler), bringing up the background. Almost nobody cared about AMC.
Bad? 
This whole forum is for automotive lovers. 
Chevy is capable of some good interiors, as the latest Malibus attest to. The Malibu's interior, and that of its now-departed brother Saturn Aura, especially by GM standards, is a true class act. 
Or any more deviations/distractions from keeping one's eyes on the road, as with the console-gauges.
If you don't, others probably will. 
True. But, even so, I think that both Chevy and Dodge did a nicer-looking job inside with the original Camaro and Challenger 40 years ago than with the new ones. GM, as I mentioned in the review, did some of their best interior work in the late 1960's. And, the original 1970-74 Barracuda/Challenger had a nice sport-3-spoke wood-trimmed wheel, wood-tone dash/console, and flood-lit racing-style (for that time) gauges. The rest of the Barracuda/Callenger interior, though, was simple hard black-plastic...nowhere near as nice as the Camaro's. And (something that is often forgotten today), quality control, in those days, left MUCH to be desired....new cars were not assembled correctly at the factory like they are now. Pick almost any stray new car off the lot (especially a MoPar), and you were virtually guaranted to find a number of significant defects in it from sloppy assembly on the line.
Sorry that it took a year and a half to finally get done.
I've been an avid Ford fan all my life, so liking this car is almost taboo in that regard.
But as an automotive lover (does that sound bad lol)
This whole forum is for automotive lovers.
in general, I give GM props. I find the new Camaro as a decent notion of how a modern day muscle car should be, with plenty of style and power to boot. I do however find, much like yourself, that the interior leaves a lot to be desired although I seem to expect this from GM regardless of the strides they've taken in recent years. The Mustangs interior is much better IMO and would be easier to live with.
Not to mention available navigation and sync (not that a muscle car needs those creature comforts).
I'm not gonna turn this into a Ford vs Chevy debate though.
I think the rebirth of the Camaro is a good example of modern muscle in sense that it still retains a V8 up front powering it's rear wheels and a good modern chassis. Of course it wouldn't be the same without the merely adequate interior (I'm looking at you Dodge Challenger), but hey we don't buy these cars for that hah!
09-29-10, 02:51 AM
#7
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Yes, I'll toss in some Jeremy Clarkson (or some of my own humor) every now and then....just to keep things from becoming too stuffy. But I still try and keep the review to the topic at hand....the car itself.
I'm glad you had lots of fun test driving this beast...
Trending Topics
09-29-10, 02:57 AM
#8
Lexus Test Driver
I remember sitting in this car at the auto show and thinking "I can't see out this thing."
So I looked over at the guy next to me (taller dude, had been fiddling with the seats the whole time I sat in the car) and asked if he could see out the thing.
"Not if I want to sit comfortably" was his reply...
So I looked over at the guy next to me (taller dude, had been fiddling with the seats the whole time I sat in the car) and asked if he could see out the thing.
"Not if I want to sit comfortably" was his reply...
09-29-10, 03:42 AM
#9
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
I remember sitting in this car at the auto show and thinking "I can't see out this thing."
So I looked over at the guy next to me (taller dude, had been fiddling with the seats the whole time I sat in the car) and asked if he could see out the thing.
"Not if I want to sit comfortably" was his reply...
So I looked over at the guy next to me (taller dude, had been fiddling with the seats the whole time I sat in the car) and asked if he could see out the thing.
"Not if I want to sit comfortably" was his reply...
09-29-10, 04:31 AM
#10
Nice review,Mike.
The rumor was GM was going to upgrade the interior for '11.I guess that was just a rumor.
It's a shame because the exterior design and engine is very nice but the interior is cheap and ugly except for the console gauges( I love them).
I like the look of the Camaro over the Mustang but the interior kills it for me.
The rumor was GM was going to upgrade the interior for '11.I guess that was just a rumor.
It's a shame because the exterior design and engine is very nice but the interior is cheap and ugly except for the console gauges( I love them
).I like the look of the Camaro over the Mustang but the interior kills it for me.
09-29-10, 04:45 AM
#11
mmarshall, thanks so much for this review. I've really been looking forward to this one and you delivered!
From your review its seems the car has some 'quirks' for lack of a better word, but to me its still a modern vehicle with deep roots that turns my head and makes me smile every time I see one rumble by.
From your review its seems the car has some 'quirks' for lack of a better word, but to me its still a modern vehicle with deep roots that turns my head and makes me smile every time I see one rumble by.
09-29-10, 04:56 AM
#12
Pole Position
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lake Country, WI
Posts: 2,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As always, thx Mike
I sat in a "Transformers" Yellow SS and did NOT get anything that got me going compared to the "old" Z28. Mustang still brings it all back or enjoyable for 2011, take your pick. Agree with most everything in your assessment and did not drive it... maybe that's the biggest note of all as I didn't want to because I'd never get one. And I checked out everything about it (stereo, trunk, back seat, guages, engine under hood...) and STILL had no interest in driving it.
Well done
I sat in a "Transformers" Yellow SS and did NOT get anything that got me going compared to the "old" Z28. Mustang still brings it all back or enjoyable for 2011, take your pick. Agree with most everything in your assessment and did not drive it... maybe that's the biggest note of all as I didn't want to because I'd never get one. And I checked out everything about it (stereo, trunk, back seat, guages, engine under hood...) and STILL had no interest in driving it.
Well done
09-29-10, 09:14 AM
#13
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Thanks.
Not entirely a rumor. I did see a few nice little touches, such as the polished smoked-gray plastic trim panel that, on my specific SS, covered parts of the dash and door panels. The silver-painted plastic on the primary-gauge-panel was also not badly done. But, in general, the interior trim quality was not impressive......and, IMO, definitely not up to the level of the new Mustang's.
Yes, the console gauges may LOOK nice if you like the retro theme, but can also be a PITA if/when you have to take your eyes off the road and look way down and squint at them.
Mercury, BTW, tried the same thing with the late Marauder....they used silver-painted front-console-gauges in an otherwise all-black interior.
The rumor was GM was going to upgrade the interior for '11.I guess that was just a rumor.
It's a shame because the exterior design and engine is very nice but the interior is cheap and ugly except for the console gauges( I love them).
I like the look of the Camaro over the Mustang but the interior kills it for me.
).I like the look of the Camaro over the Mustang but the interior kills it for me.
Mercury, BTW, tried the same thing with the late Marauder....they used silver-painted front-console-gauges in an otherwise all-black interior.
09-29-10, 09:25 AM
#14
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
I'd say "Anytime", like I usually do, but in this case, GM's failure to produce the SS in significant numbers, plus a number of other factors, meant that I just couldn't do a new Camaro last year when you guys first requested it. Even now, I got a hold of this SS by a lucky break.
From your review its seems the car has some 'quirks' for lack of a better word, but to me its still a modern vehicle with deep roots that turns my head and makes me smile every time I see one rumble by.
Once thing, though, that may (?) make more of a difference this time.......40 years ago, engineers didn't know how to deal with mileage/emission requirements except to cut back on power/engine drivability, switch to unleaded gas, and stick in smaller engines. This time, the auto industry has had 40 years of experience in electronic technology, alternate fuels, and dealing with these regs.
09-29-10, 09:33 AM
#15
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Well done
I sat in a "Transformers" Yellow SS and did NOT get anything that got me going compared to the "old" Z28.
Trying to look back, over your shoulders, is almost like trying to see out the end of the Lincoln Tunnel.
Mustang still brings it all back or enjoyable for 2011, take your pick. Agree with most everything in your assessment and did not drive it... maybe that's the biggest note of all as I didn't want to because I'd never get one. And I checked out everything about it (stereo, trunk, back seat, guages, engine under hood...) and STILL had no interest in driving it.
I know you once considered a deal on a Shelby Mustang that apparantly didn't go through.