2010 Camaro Production pics

[Karps TA]

http://jalopnik.com/398828/production-2010-chevy-camaro-revealed

I am so happy they got rid of the slot in front of the hood. Removing that cleaned up the front end tremendously. The interior still does nothing for me. But the engine choices seem awfully nice.

[0TransAm0]

looks good. not sure if i like the interior either.. just something about it that turns me off.

[Karps TA]

For me it's the Nintendo controller looking A/C and radio area. Just looks so out of place.

[0TransAm0]

yeah see i don't mind that it was mainly just the way the speedo and tach look to me.. kinda wierd... i like that they put the other gauges down by the shifter tho...

[Cutlass Queen]

is this car actually going to be coming out in 2010 or will it get pushed back again :(

[Prince Valiant]

The exterior looks great; interior, not so much.

[Korndogg]

yeah see i don't mind that it was mainly just the way the speedo and tach look to me.. kinda wierd... i like that they put the other gauges down by the shifter tho...


thats part of the old school look

[70 cutlass 442]

looks good, but by the time this hits production that design will be outdated.

[Prince Valiant]

The portioning of the interior with modern padding looks like it misses the mark.

Must admit to being curious about the 3.6 though...that might be a "nifty" car with a 6 speed. Fiancee might appreciate it if I got my challeger and her a camaro...lol, I wish :(

[Slow Joe]

is this car actually going to be coming out in 2010 or will it get pushed back again :(

Prolly will get pushed back again... Personally I wouldn't get my hopes up... :rolf

Other than that I don't think it looks that bad... It's just not my style...

[6forwardgears]

Ugly, ugly, ugly... Especially that rear end.

[Korndogg]

so my car is ugly then eh? thx

[6forwardgears]

so my car is ugly then eh? thx

Not at all, I just don't think the 1st gen's lines worked out well for this new car. Or at least, not how the designer interpreted them...

[STANMAN]

I like the little analog gauges beneath the stereo, very retro looking. The speedo/tach look very similar to the S197 Stangs, as does the shifter, so they did some other things right to:thumbsup Not a bad exterior at all, but yeah, that whole stereo/climate control area needs to go away, it just doesn't fit the rest of the car. Weighs more than the Mustang, and if history is any indicator, it will cost more than the Mustang as well. With 296 horses out of the base model though, it should match up pretty well with Mustang GT's though, so if the base model of the Maro and the Mustang GT are similar, it should be a wash.



Now, are they going to actually make it is the question!

[Fast SVT]

at least it is not a rehashed charger interior like in the challenger

[chargedformula]

it is set to come out feb of 09 but it will be a 2010 model

[Prince Valiant]

at least it is not a rehashed charger interior like in the challengerYeah, heaven forbid they give a decent looking interior :rolleyes:


http://brewcitymuscle.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5412&stc=1&d=1216438319

2008 Dodge Challenger

VS.

http://brewcitymuscle.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5413&stc=1&d=1216438319

2010 Camaro Interior.


understated and rehashed (yet not a carbon copy of) is preferable to ugly as sin. Granted, the 'maro's steering wheel looks better...but that's about it.

[Slow Joe]

Yeah, heaven forbid they give a decent looking interior :rolleyes:


http://brewcitymuscle.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5412&stc=1&d=1216438319

2008 Dodge Challenger

VS.

http://brewcitymuscle.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5413&stc=1&d=1216438319

2010 Camaro Interior.


understated and rehashed (yet not a carbon copy of) is preferable to ugly as sin. Granted, the 'maro's steering wheel looks better...but that's about it.

Agreed, I prefer the Charger/Challenger interior over the Camaro interior...

[Silver86]

the only part of that car that looks good imo... is the front...


the interior looks too busy/cluttered... and the rear end looks out of place..

[Poncho]

Lame foot pedals. Cheaped out there.

[Reverend Cooper]

anyone notice it says The mullet mobile is back!! lolololol

[Crawlin]

If i remember right, the designer of the interior is actually a Wisconsin native.

I don't like the Challenger interior after sitting in it. it reminds me too much of my Impala. Just lacks any kind of punch!

Now the Camaro, I love the retro gauges at the base of the console. That should be the highlight of the interior. I'll fully agree the rest of that middle area is pathetic. And the steering wheel looks too much like a late 70's, or even an mid 80's Corvette steering wheel.

[Karps TA]

Here's some vid of Dale Jr driving ithttp://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232/site/14081545/?video=796624729&play=1&__source=jpk|pst|gmprem|07192008|&par=jpk

[HAMRHEAD]

If i remember right, the designer of the interior is actually a Wisconsin native.

I don't like the Challenger interior after sitting in it. it reminds me too much of my Impala. Just lacks any kind of punch!

Now the Camaro, I love the retro gauges at the base of the console. That should be the highlight of the interior. I'll fully agree the rest of that middle area is pathetic. And the steering wheel looks too much like a late 70's, or even an mid 80's Corvette steering wheel.

agreed! The challenger interior doesn't feel right.

[07ROUSHSTG3]

the real question is....

why would anyone considering this car just not get a vette?!??!

[Karps TA]

the real question is....

why would anyone considering this car just not get a vette?!??!

Cause they don't have an extra $20K to spend and they are comfortable with the size of their penis?

[07ROUSHSTG3]

Cause they don't have an extra $20K to spend and they are comfortable with the size of their penis?

so the fully loaded camaro is going to sell for just over 30K.

wow. :wow:wow:wow:wow:wow

[Karps TA]

Probably around $35K. We'll find out this week.

Not that I love the Camaro. But you can't swing a dead cat without hitting 5 Vettes. They are the Ford Taurus of performance cars.

[Poncho]

so the fully loaded camaro is going to sell for just over 30K.

wow. :wow:wow:wow:wow:wow

why wouldn't it?? Everything the GTO has/had --- just with proper body work to make it WORTH buying to the general public.

[Karps TA]

2010 Production Specs

Overview
Models: Chevrolet Camaro LS, LT and SS
Driveline: Four-passenger, front-engine, rear-drive coupe
Construction: Unitized body frame, one- and two-sided galvanized steel
Mfg Location: Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
Competitors: Dodge Challenger, Ford Mustang, Nissan 350Z

Available Colors: Aqua Blue Metallic, Black, Cyber Gray Metallic, Imperial Blue Metallic, Inferno Orange Metallic, Rally Yellow, Red Jewel Tint Coat (Extra Cost Color), Silver Ice Metallic, Victory Red, and White (Interim Availability)

Chassis/Suspension:
Front: double-ball-joint, multi-link strut; direct-acting stabilizer bar; progressive-rate coil springs; fully adjustable camber, caster and toe
Rear: 4.5-link independent; progressive-rate coil springs over shocks; stabilizer bar; fully adjustable camber and toe
Steering type: variable-ratio rack-and-pinion
Steering ratio: 16.1:1
Steering wheel turns, lock-to-lock: 2.5
Turning circle, curb-to-curb (ft/m): 37.7/11.5

Brakes:
Type: four-wheel disc w/ABS; ventilated front and rear rotors; single-piston front calipers and single-piston alloy rear calipers (LS, LT); four-piston fixed Brembo aluminum front and rear calipers (SS)
Rotor diameter, front (in/mm):
LS/LT: 12.64/321
SS: 14/355
Rotor diameter, rear (in/mm):
LS/LT: 12.4/315
SS: 14.4/365
Rotor thickness, front (in/mm):
LS/LT: 1.18/30
SS: 1.26/32
Rotor thickness, rear (in/mm):
LS/LT: 0.9/23
SS: 1.1/28

Wheels/Tires
Wheel size and type:
LS: 18x7.5-inch steel
LT: 18x7.5-inch aluminum OR 19x8-inch aluminum
SS: 20x8-inch aluminum (front), 20x9-inch aluminum (rear)
Tires:
LS: P245/55R18 all-season
LT: P245/55R18 all-season OR P245/50R19 all-season
SS: P245/45ZR20 summer (front), P275/40ZR20 summer (rear)

Engines
3.6l V-6 DI VVT (LLT)
Application: LS, LT
Displacement (cu in / cc) 217/3564
Bore & stroke (in / mm) 3.70 x 3.37 / 94 x 85.6
Block material – cast aluminum w/ cast-in-place iron bore liners
Valvetrain – dual overhead camshafts, four valves per cylinder, continuously variable valve timing
Fuel delivery – direct high-pressure fuel injection
Compression ration – 11.3:1
Horsepower (hp/kW)– 300/224 @ 6400 rpm *
Torque (lb-ft / Nm @ rpm) - 273/370 @ 5200 *
Recommended fuel – regular unleaded
Max engine speed – 7000
Fuel economy (auto trans) – 26 hwy (est)6.2L V-8 (LS3, L99)


6.2L V-8 (LS3, L99)
Application : SS
Displacement (cu in / cc) 376/6162
Bore & stroke (in / mm) 4.06 x 3.62 / 103.25 x 92
Cylinder head material: aluminum (v6 too, whoops)
Block material – cast aluminum w/ cast-in-place iron bore liners
Valvetrain – valve-in-head: two valves per cylinder; roller lifters; Active Fuel Management (L99)
Fuel delivery – returnless, multi-port fuel injection
Compression ration – 10.7:1
Horsepower (hp/kW)– 422 / 315 @ 5000 rpm (LS3) * 400 / 299 @ 5000 (L99)*
Torque (lb-ft / Nm @ rpm) - 408 / 553 @ 4500 (LS3)* 395 / 535 @ 4500 (L99)
Recommended fuel – premium unleaded
Max engine speed (rpm)– 6000 (L99) 6600 (LS3)
Fuel economy (auto trans) – 23 hwy (est)

Transmissions
Hydra-Matic 6l50 six-speed automatic (LS, LT) w/ TAPshift
Gear ratios (:1):
First: 4.07
Second: 2.37
Third: 1.55
Fourth: 1.16
Fifth: 0.85
Sixth: 0.67
Reverse: 3.06
Final drive ratio: 3.27

Hydra-Matic 6l80 six-speed automatic (SS) w/ TAPshift
Gear ratios (:1):
First: 4.03
Second: 2.36
Third: 1.53
Fourth: 1.15
Fifth: 0.85
Sixth: 0.67
Reverse: 3.06
Final drive ratio: 3.27

Aisin Warner AY6 six-speed manual (LS, LT)
Gear ratios (:1):
First: 4.48
Second: 2.58
Third: 1.63
Fourth: 1.19
Fifth: 1.00
Sixth: 0.75
Reverse: 3.67
Final drive ratio: 3.27

TR6060 six-speed manual (SS)
Gear ratios (:1):
First: 3.01
Second: 2.07
Third: 1.43
Fourth: 1.00
Fifth: 0.84
Sixth: 0.57
Reverse: 3.28
Final drive ratio: 3.45

Dimensions, Exterior:
Overall length (in/mm): 190.4/4836
Overall width (in/mm): 75.5/1918
Overall height (in/mm): 54.2/1377
Track, front (in/mm): 63.7/1618
Track, rear (in/mm): 64.1/1628 (LS, LT); 63.7/1618 (SS)
Curb weights (lb/kg):
3750/1705 - LT w/automatic
3741/1700 - LT w/manual
3769/1713 - LS w/automatic
3780/1718 - LS w/manual
3913/1779 - SS w/automatic
3860/1755 - SS w/manual
Weight balance (% front/rear) 52/48

Dimensions, Interior:
Seating capacity (front/rear): 2/2
Headroom (in/mm): front: 37.4/950; rear: 35.3/897
Legroom (in/mm): front: 42.4/1077; rear: 29.9/757
Shoulder room (in/mm): front: 56.9/1444; rear: 42.5/1080

Capacities:
Cargo volume (cu ft/L): 11.3/320
Fuel tank (gal/L): 19/71.9
Engine oil (qt/L): 3.6L: 7.6/7.2; 6.2L: 8.9/8.5

[6forwardgears]

3860 / 1755 – SS w/ manual

The SS is still a porker :stare A couple hundred less than the challenger at least.

[07ROUSHSTG3]

why the crappy gear ratios?

and i will believe the ss for $35K when I see it. I am guessing that a fully loaded ss will go for at least a few grand over $40K.

[Poncho]

why the crappy gear ratios?

and i will believe the ss for $35K when I see it. I am guessing that a fully loaded ss will go for at least a few grand over $40K.

bs

[07ROUSHSTG3]

bs

will have to wait and see i guess. dealers should be getting the order sheets pretty quick and I will take a peek at one. i just think that there is no way this thing can come in priced any LESS than the srt challenger.

on another note, here is a quote from the mustang news that i thought was pretty funny:

"Whether or not the new 2010 Chevy Camaro will replace the old one as the favorite car for small time drug dealers, wife beaters, and robbers of convenience stores will remain to be seen.":rolf

[Poncho]

You can say the same about Mustangs.