2010 SS Camaro Road Test

**Firebirdjones** · 03-29-2009, 04:40 PM

111 mph is nothing to sneeze at,,,especially for a showroom stocker. 111mph is bottom 12's with a good 60 foot.
Consider it's doing that with more weight than a 4th gen and it really starts to put things in perspective.

When you think about it,,,when the 4th gens were new I think the best MPH they got with a showroom stocker was in the 107 range or there about,,,in a car thats only actually 2-300 lbs. lighter to boot.

When you start seeing some serious bolt on 5th gens at the track,,,there is no doubt in my mind you'll see them hitting 118-120 mph with good air.

**BLKCLOUD** · 03-29-2009, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by fox1x

Why do people keep saying that the Camaro is not a sports car? It is definitly a sports car... I wouldn't classify it as a family sedan or econobox... It fits more the sports car categoty then any other category. I think people keep syaying it's not a sports car to justify some of the "down-points" of the car. Even Motor Trend calls it a sports car (http://www.motortrend.com/auto_news/...aro/index.html) and Edmund.com calls it a sports car (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=144431)

Just because something is "heavy" or has backseats doesn't exclude it from a sports car. If that's the argument, at what weight does the category change? Or is it a HP/weight ratio? There is nothing in set stone... But the Camaro is definitly more "sports car" than any other category out there.

Maybe it is my age, but I always considered a "sports car" as one with 2 seats.

Camaro is a pony car. I could even live with calling it.....get ready....and totally disregarding some things I've said recently.....a Muscle Car in today's terms. But not sports car. A Corvette is a sports car. A Camaro is not.

My opinion. If yours is different...fine. Not worth argueing over.

**fox1x** · 03-29-2009, 05:30 PM

I'm not suggesting that your opinion is wrong; I just see the Camaro as more of a sports car fitting category then say: family sedan, econobox, suv, etc... Some people are quick to point out that it "wasn't designed" to be a sports car. (even when all the mags call it that). I can see the two seat argument more than other categories I named in my previous post. I think there is more justification in that argument then say the weight and/or power. However, there are plenty of 4 seat AMG's and BMW's with serious performance that I would classify as a sports car. Or how about a RX-8 compared to a Miata? I would say they are both definitly sports cars.

Guess I'm being redundant; but I think us fans like to counter some of the sour specs that came out on the new camaro by suggesting that "well, it was never really designed to be a sports car anyway".. I think that is untrue.

**big hammer** · 03-29-2009, 06:21 PM

is the new camaro a sports car? it's a rear drive, v8 with over 400 hp, 2 door. well it aint no fuckin mini van folks!

**Firebirdjones** · 03-29-2009, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by BLKCLOUD

Maybe it is my age, but I always considered a "sports car" as one with 2 seats.

Camaro is a pony car. I could even live with calling it.....get ready....and totally disregarding some things I've said recently.....a Muscle Car in today's terms. But not sports car. A Corvette is a sports car. A Camaro is not.

My opinion. If yours is different...fine. Not worth argueing over.

I agree, coming from the old school crowd I have to say that yes,,,sports cars were (and to me still are and always will be) considered 2 seaters. Something that you wouldn't necessarily run the family to the grocery store in and fill the trunk with bags.
To me the camaro fits into more of the muscle car catagory, with room for the family, seats at least 4, rear wheel drive and a V8 with substantial power.
They were considered pony cars to compete with the mustang back in the 60's, and since this is supposed to be a modern version of the 69,,,,I don't see why things would be any different now as they were then.

**Firebirdjones** · 03-29-2009, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by fox1x

Some people are quick to point out that it "wasn't designed" to be a sports car. (even when all the mags call it that).

Eh, the mags are always screwing up terminoligy and sticking names on stuff that never had it before.

It's like all these stupid names they come up with on new cars anymore like G8,,,,I think I'm in a bingo game when I hear that

There are more stupid names I probably woudn't have room to list here but you get the idea. Man if I could just go back 40 years in time I would probably just stay there.

**Chris Arnold** · 03-29-2009, 08:29 PM

But what would you do WITHOUT THE INTERNET!? How did people live back then... hehe

**PhillyLs1** · 03-30-2009, 01:29 AM

Originally Posted by BLKCLOUD

Maybe it is my age, but I always considered a "sports car" as one with 2 seats.

Camaro is a pony car. I could even live with calling it.....get ready....and totally disregarding some things I've said recently.....a Muscle Car in today's terms. But not sports car. A Corvette is a sports car. A Camaro is not.

My opinion. If yours is different...fine. Not worth argueing over.

So then only roadsters are sports cars?
That eliminates oh, maybe 75% of the "sports cars" out there.
The STi, Evo, SRT's, VR-4's, 300zx's, F-Bodies, Mustangs, non Z M3's, G8's, R32's, Skylines, CTS-V, IS-F, Cobalt SS, Audi TT to name just a few are not "sports cars?"

**Chris Arnold** · 03-30-2009, 03:37 AM

Who cares... a rose by any other name....

Call them whatever you want to call them. The classifications are pointless in any respect.

**PhillyLs1** · 03-30-2009, 04:12 AM

Originally Posted by Chris Arnold

Who cares... a rose by any other name....

Call them whatever you want to call them. The classifications are pointless in any respect.

Well no. You don't call a dog a cat. They're classified as sports cars for a reason. Not shoe horned into a category for no reason.

If the cars I listed aren't sports cars, what are they?

**fox1x** · 03-30-2009, 04:20 AM

A muscle car is just an adjective for a sports car.. I mean come on, what's the difference? I've had my insurance tell me I drive a sports car, but never said anything about a muscle car... Same thing. The point still is; the Camaro is a sports car. It was designed for the sport minded driving enthusiast. As "bug hammer" noted; it's a 400+ HP, 2 door, rear drive machine.

And if two seats are what defines sports cars; well, the Corvette and the Solstice/Sky would be the only sports car GM makes. Exclude the Grand National right away. The Cyclone would be a sports car(er, truck), but not the typhoon.

I think you need to take in effect how the car's designers inteded the car to be catagorized and what they implemented on the car as features/traits. All things considered; I still feel the Camaro I drive is a Sports car(or muscle car; same thing)..

**Firebirdjones** · 03-30-2009, 06:04 AM

Originally Posted by PhillyLs1

Well no. You don't call a dog a cat. They're classified as sports cars for a reason. Not shoe horned into a category for no reason.

If the cars I listed aren't sports cars, what are they?

Most of them are foreign cars so they just don't register with me anyway

They are some sort of performance car from another country I guess but by no means fit into the sports car catagory that some of us older folk grew up with.
But as I stated the camaro and the mustang fall into a muscle car catagory in my book.
Sports cars aren't necessarily roadsters either, there are 2 seater solid roof cars as well.

**Firebirdjones** · 03-30-2009, 06:06 AM

Originally Posted by fox1x

A muscle car is just an adjective for a sports car.. I mean come on, what's the difference? I've had my insurance tell me I drive a sports car, but never said anything about a muscle car... Same thing. The point still is; the Camaro is a sports car. It was designed for the sport minded driving enthusiast. As "bug hammer" noted; it's a 400+ HP, 2 door, rear drive machine.

And if two seats are what defines sports cars; well, the Corvette and the Solstice/Sky would be the only sports car GM makes. Exclude the Grand National right away. The Cyclone would be a sports car(er, truck), but not the typhoon.

I think you need to take in effect how the car's designers inteded the car to be catagorized and what they implemented on the car as features/traits. All things considered; I still feel the Camaro I drive is a Sports car(or muscle car; same thing)..

I don't think you were around when the original concept was born. Cars like the Jaguar and the corvette back then were sports cars, 2 seaters. The muscle car was born when they took a small family sedan and stuck a big engine in there. You can haul the family in it and still be comfortable.

**Firebirdjones** · 03-30-2009, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by Chris Arnold

But what would you do WITHOUT THE INTERNET!? How did people live back then... hehe

I would survive just fine. I barely know how to work this damn thing anyway

**Chris Arnold** · 03-30-2009, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by PhillyLs1

Well no. You don't call a dog a cat. They're classified as sports cars for a reason. Not shoe horned into a category for no reason.

If the cars I listed aren't sports cars, what are they?

I can define the difference between a dog and a cat.

Since you're being the stickler, then tell me, would you say a 4 door WRX fits the category of "sports car" when the definition of a sports-car calls for a 2-seater? Or do you contend that sports cars can have more than 2 seats?

If the answer is yes to the former question, then you're just wrong. And, if the latter - and it is after all the latter - then my point is valid. You are calling something by a different name than others are. Hence, "a rose by any other name."

The bottom line is that you both know what the cars are. You are wasting time with semantics. What difference does a "category" make?

Let me sum up the argument so far:
"It's a sports-car"
"no it isn't"
"yes it is"
"no it isn't"
ad nauseum

Pointless much?

Chris

**Firebirdjones** · 03-30-2009, 12:24 PM

hehehe,,,no harm in trying to educate the younger generation. We have to get these things straightened out before us old folk keel over and these youngin's move in,,,,we simply can't have the car hobby all toppsy tervy and upside down now can we???

**Chris Arnold** · 03-30-2009, 12:31 PM

You trying to tell me that it isn't already messed up? Man, when I go out to the local scene now, and I go almost every weekend, I can't find any decent V8 muscle. I do find a lot of hopped up Evos, SRT4s, WRXs, and a bunch of other 4 cyls with an air-filter and muffler masquerading as fast. The guys with the biggest reputations don't have running cars, and the big name guys that actually show up have a single turbo Evo or something similar that makes 400-450 rwhp on race gas.

5 years ago in the same spot, if you opened your mouth to race someone and didn't have a 10 second car, you were going home embarrassed and a little lighter in the wallet.

Chris

**Firebirdjones** · 03-30-2009, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by Chris Arnold

You trying to tell me that it isn't already messed up? Man, when I go out to the local scene now, and I go almost every weekend, I can't find any decent V8 muscle. I do find a lot of hopped up Evos, SRT4s, WRXs, and a bunch of other 4 cyls with an air-filter and muffler masquerading as fast. The guys with the biggest reputations don't have running cars, and the big name guys that actually show up have a single turbo Evo or something similar that makes 400-450 rwhp on race gas.

5 years ago in the same spot, if you opened your mouth to race someone and didn't have a 10 second car, you were going home embarrassed and a little lighter in the wallet.

Chris

Wow,,,that is just depressing to hear

If the local hot spots don't have any old school muscle I just keep on driving by. Hasn't seemed to be a problem much though back in Ohio or here now in Arizona.

**Chris Arnold** · 03-30-2009, 12:40 PM

Oh and that's another thing. Back when people used to do the work themselves, because cars weren't so damned complex, people could tell you everything there was to know about their engines. Now, you ask them what size turbo they have, and they say, "uh, I think it's a 50 trim."

Then you say something like, "oh. Sounds good," because you don't want to be the asshole by telling them that trim doesn't answer the question of size. Clearly, though, they don't know what's going on in their own modified engine bay.

**Firebirdjones** · 03-30-2009, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by Chris Arnold

Oh and that's another thing. Back when people used to do the work themselves, because cars weren't so damned complex, people could tell you everything there was to know about their engines. Now, you ask them what size turbo they have, and they say, "uh, I think it's a 50 trim."

Then you say something like, "oh. Sounds good," because you don't want to be the asshole by telling them that trim doesn't answer the question of size. Clearly, though, they don't know what's going on in their own modified engine bay.

Ya I know what you mean. Funny at the local cruise back in Ohio we would attract 500 cars with about 90% classic cars and it was great. The other 10% were booming stereo foreign stuff half of which I can't even pronounce the name of

They had their own little click I guess, we just stayed out of that section. It's great that youngin's are into cars and all it's just a shame they got turned to the dark side

I've met some really cool kids though that have classic cars from the 60's or 70's,,,and thats refreshing. Can't save them all I guess though