2016 Chevrolet Camaro

[Kchrpm]

http://www.roadandtrack.com/go/future-cars/spy-photos-give-the-clearest-look-yet-at-the-2016-chevrolet-camaro?src=soc_fcbks

http://www.roadandtrack.com/cm/roadandtrack/images/lM/Camaro_cdauto_92914_1-sm.jpg

http://www.roadandtrack.com/cm/roadandtrack/images/ap/Camaro_cdauto_92914_2-sm.jpg

Based on the same platform as the Cadillac ATS and CTS, here's hoping it's reined in a wee bit on the dimensions from the current car, but keeps the Corvette connection in the engine bay.

[novicius]

Should really be equal with the '15 Mustang now. :up: Still looks like visibility is a distant afterthought.

Also, Dodge called and wants their SRT Hellcat Charger grill back. :lol:

[Kchrpm]

They made the visibility shit on Stingray, as well, so I wouldn't be surprised. I'm just hoping the fact it's smaller helps.

[The359]

I swear the side windows look even smaller on this car. Other than that, it looks like the same old brick to me.

[thesameguy]

But it's 1,000 pounds lighter, 10x more agile, has double the horsepower, and costs half as much. It's totally superior in every way - according to my math by 1256%.

[George]

Windows are still too small.

Aspiring Bo and Luke Duke types with this car had better be little fellas, 'cause ain't no beer gut gonna fit through those.

[Alan P]

Shoulder seems to be getting higher while the roofline stays the same. Windows look tiny. Wouldn't like to try and reverse park that but I suppose it has rear parking sensors, maybe even a camera.

[Godson]

Most likely a camera.

[21Kid]

Who needs to look backwards or sideways? Just go faster than everyone else.

[Fast As Possible]

The current ones look like a gigantic acura rsx from the rear, this looks like it's going to be an evolution of that. If they don't care about visibility, I suggest a retro 2nd gen for the one after this.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Yeah, I don't see why they need to camouflage it when it looks pretty much the same as before... :p

[thesameguy]

The current ones look like a gigantic acura rsx from the rear, this looks like it's going to be an evolution of that. If they don't care about visibility, I suggest a retro 2nd gen for the one after this.

I think that would be a hugely intelligent move. 2nd gen cars are really attracting a lot of collector attention right now, and GM could not only capitalize on that, but drive it. Win-win. Plus, round headlights would really make it distinctive in the scene. :up:

[Kchrpm]

Yeah, I don't see why they need to camouflage it when it looks pretty much the same as before... :p
Even if nothing major has changed, you get multiple buzz cycles when it's camo'd ("OUR BEST LOOK YET" over and over again) followed by the final reveal.

Or it may have preproduction panels/equipment that they don't want to bother getting questions on, even if it's just "what was that? why is it gone?"

[Kchrpm]

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/lfkdyy4vzstudcaqxvng.jpg

A new third-party render, the C-pillar/three-quarter window looks barely better, if at all, for visibility :down:

They need to steal Nissan's birds-eye view or something.

[KillerB]

Why are we giving a thumbs down to some shitty third party render that barely looks different than the current car? It's just some asshat with 3D rendering software.

[Kchrpm]

Because I can? And it seems pretty close to the shape from the camouflaged shots. And because I'm impatient for the final reveal.

[thesameguy]

Agreed. I am going to :down: it too. I don't like the current Camaro, and a smaller current Camaro is booooooooooooooooring.

[novicius]

Isn't this what it's supposed to look like?

http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/201310/bumblebee-camaro-spi-4_600x0w.jpg

2016 Camaro Drops More Than 200 Pounds! (http://www.hotrod.com/features/1503-2016-camaro-drops-more-than-200-pounds/)


Chevrolet didn’t give any specific numbers for the various trim levels, instead stating that it has reduced the curb weight of the 2016 Camaro, “by more than 200 pounds.” Here are some of the curb weights recorded by us and by sister publication Motor Trend to put ponycar curb weight into perspective.

2013 Ford Mustang GT Track Pack: 3,618 pounds

2015 Ford Mustang GT Track Pack: 3,814 pounds

2014 Chevrolet Camaro Z/28: 3,858 pounds

2014 Ford Mustang GT500: 3,876 pounds

2015 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE: 3,888 pounds

2014 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1: 4,105 pounds

2015 Dodge Challenger SRT Scat Pack: 4,235 pounds

2015 Dodge Challenger Hellcat: 4,449 pounds

Because these cars all vary in option packages, it’s not a perfect comparison, but it seems as though the 2015 Mustang packed on nearly 200 pounds when it moved to the S550 chassis, coming within 100 pounds of the fifth-gen Camaro. Taking 200 pounds off the Camaro SS 1LE would result in a curb weight of less than 3,700 pounds. A 3,700-pound Camaro with 455 hp from an LT1 would have a better power/weight ratio than a 6.4L (392ci) Challenger. If Chevrolet saw fit to build an LT4-powered Camaro and rate it at the same 640 hp found in the Cadillac CTS-V, which shares the 2016 Camaro’s Alpha platform, the Camaro could weigh as much as 4,025 pounds and still have a better power-to-weight ratio than the Hellcat. To keep a power/weight ratio better than the 5.8L GT500, it would need a curb weight of less than 3,750 pounds. Let the bench racing begin.

[novicius]

a smaller current Camaro is booooooooooooooooring.
I will say that a slightly smaller Camaro might make an 18" rim size more attractive again.

Needing to have a 20" rim for visual balance under some of these oversculpted wheel well sizes (I'm looking at you, S197 Mustangs) is annoying. :smh:

[thesameguy]

I don't trust any of those weights. That 3814 number IIRC is Motor Trend's "we weighed it with a full tank of gas" - it's neither the curb weight nor the Vorshlag "we put it on a scale" weight. Ford said, and the listed curb weights agreed, the S550 gained between 28 and 87lbs depending on model, not no 200lbs. I dunno, it doesn't matter at this point anyway because a claim like "-200lbs" could be on the base model where the 2.0t weighs 200lbs less than the V6 or whatever. It only counts if it's 200lbs across the line, or on the models where people actually care about P:W.

That yellow thing is terrible. What did they do, let the 2004 GTO team have another go at a muscle car? "See, what we did was take all ornamentation off and maximize the bland factor. Notice the generic black plastic that wraps around the bottom of the car, and the totally featureless panels. By increasing the blandness of the vehicle, we hope to cause even the wind to ignore it, thus increasing performance and fuel economy." It looks like it's out of a racing game and they ran out of polygons.

[novicius]

I don't trust any of those weights.
Ok. :)

[thesameguy]

I didn't realize that Hot Rod and Motor Trend were the same company, but I guess that explains why one is using the other's fanciful numbers! :lol:

[Kchrpm]

Isn't this what it's supposed to look like?

http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/201310/bumblebee-camaro-spi-4_600x0w.jpg

The silhouette they've shown has a more pronounced beak, instead of that smoothed over nose.

http://images.thecarconnection.com/lrg/2016-chevrolet-camaro-leaked-during-chevy-equinox-presentation-2015-chicago-auto-show_100500336_l.jpg

[thesameguy]

Ah, that is much improved over the "Corvette on top of a Camaro" look.

[MR2 Fan]

That yellow thing is terrible. What did they do, let the 2004 GTO team have another go at a muscle car? "See, what we did was take all ornamentation off and maximize the bland factor. Notice the generic black plastic that wraps around the bottom of the car, and the totally featureless panels. By increasing the blandness of the vehicle, we hope to cause even the wind to ignore it, thus increasing performance and fuel economy." It looks like it's out of a racing game and they ran out of polygons.

I think that's the one from Transformers 4

[novicius]

Yeah that's Bumblebee from T4, not an actual render.

[thesameguy]

Thank God, because it's awful.

There's a T4?

[MR2 Fan]

Thank God, because it's awful.

There's a T4?

Yep, it came out last yeark, with Marky Mark

http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/Transformers-4-Imax-Poster.jpg

[novicius]

Let the wild rumormongering begin!!

Exclusive! We Have Performance Numbers on the 2016 Chevrolet Camaro ZL2 (http://www.hotrod.com/news/1503-exclusive-we-have-performance-numbers-on-the-2016-chevrolet-camaro-zl2/?sm_id=social_aumohotrodsshub_default_20150401_430 57786&adbid=10152664270307540&adbpl=fb&adbpr=13601527539)

http://image.hotrod.com/f/102341189+w660+h495+q80+re0+cr1+ar0+st0/2016-chevy-camaro-zl2-spy-shot.jpg


Guess all the development of cheap carbon fiber fabrication for the Stingray is going to be shared with its little brother. There’s only so much weight we can expect the 6th gen to drop though, it still has to pass all the safety and crash testing. Our source wouldn’t give us an exact number, but they said to expect something in the 3,400-range.

Tired of pushing small displacements to their limits, Chevrolet decided to go with a more square bore/stroke combination and ended up with a familiar number, a big-block displacement of 396 ci. The extra inches allow for fast turbo spool-up—oh yeah, did we mention turbos? Now we have. It makes sense, with a turbo-four as a foregone conclusion for the base models, why wouldn’t they use the same tech in the top tier? With the snails and the space, the new LT6 small-block provides more torque than even the Z06 Corvette’s 650 lb-ft LT4 yet still allows for high-revving fun, as titanium rods, valves, and keepers reduce both reciprocating and valve train weight. We have heard that the LT6 uses twin Garrett GT3776 55mm inducer turbos, each good for up to 500 hp. The number we were quoted from an anonymous Pontiac, Michigan, dyno operator, was 808 hp at about 8 pounds of boost. We’ve also heard from a supplier that the high-pressure direct-injection fuel pump from the LT4 will be carried over, and additional fueling at WOT comes from an extra set of injectors mounted way upstream to help cool the intake charge. Cylinder heads are the same casting as the LT4, but are CNC ported, a practice gleaned from Chevrolet Performance’s LS3 cylinder head package for the 5th-gen Camaro.

It appears that this uber-Camaro will offer an automatic transmission as Chevrolet brought in extra help from Allison Performance Research & Integration Logistics, a division that works closely with the Formula Optimization & Outright Lap Sector teams to test cars on the track and improve lap times. Initial testing at the Nurburgring is rumored to have shown a best time of 7:32.185. Stick shift fans will have options as well, with the Corvette’s seven-speed Tremec TR-6070 a definite, although we’ve even heard rumors of an eight-speed manual. Who cares, those extra gears are just for fuel mileage anyway. We’d take this thing with a three-on-the-tree it sounds so good! Oh, speaking of sound, the Camaro rights a wrong in the Corvette in that it automatically defaults to the loudest most raucous exhaust setting on start-up. If you want to make your neighbors happy, you’ll have to make a custom sissy setting that keeps the flapper valve closed.

What do you think? Will the Camaro knock the Hellcat from the horsepower throne, and make the Mustang 350R look like a fat Shetland pony? We can’t wait to find out.

Twin-Turbo LT6 Gen V small-block
Bore: 4.060
Stroke: 3.825
Displacement: 396 ci
Transmission: Eight-speed auto and Seven-speed manual
Rear Gears: 4.10:1
Tire Size: 305/30ZR19 front, 335/30ZR19 rear
Wheels: Carbon fiber 19x11 front 19x12.5 rear
Brakes: 16-inch Boron-Carbide rotors with 6-piston calipers

[Kchrpm]

Hellcat fighter, I'll believe it (and drool all over it) when I see it.

[novicius]

Dammit I got punked -- it was an April Fools joke. :smh:

[Kchrpm]

Fun.

[thesameguy]

Man, they put a lot of time into that one!

[novicius]

GM Program Engineering Manager Stielow doesn't sleep -- he waits. :twisted:

2015 Chevrolet Camaro Z/28 Track Retest (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1504_2015_chevrolet_camaro_z28_track_retest/?sm_id=social_aumomotortrendhub_MotorTrend_2015040 7_43390636&adbid=10152883427096312&adbpl=fb&adbpr=18332466311)


"It's funny -- it was loose and sucky last time," he said. "Now, it's so hooked up. It's back to the car we chose for Best Driver's Car. It is so well-balanced and hooked up. It's predictable. What a pleasure to drive. I could just attack Turn 8, I was in the power way in there, forget about the brakes. It just felt so fast. It handles so well. The grip is so high. It's the car we love again."

"Last time, it was loose. It wouldn't put power down. It was just kind of nervous. This time, it was just so fantastic in every way. It was balanced all the way around Turn 2 sweeper, maybe just a wee bit of understeer. At the end of the corner, I could just roll into the power, drive right off that corner. I kept getting on the power sooner and sooner and sooner. I'm pissed I can't go faster, 'cause I think the tires just don't have it in 'em. After a couple laps, they're just not as good as they are when they're fresh. The car is so well-balanced. The car is nicely behaved on bumps. Over the jump over here -- no problem. I was shifting right in the air, and when it landed, it just hooked and kept going. It was just an absolute pleasure. It's one of the best-handling factory cars I've ever driven. I wouldn't change the car a lick if I was going to go racing right now. I would leave it exactly as it is. I would just tie the crew's hands up, like 'Don't you touch this car!' It's perfect." -- Randy Pobst

[Random]

As we said last time, Chevy's still got a few tricks to learn, and they're still working from a less ideal platform than the Porsche team.


A standard FR platform is less ideal than hanging the engine out behind the rear axles? :erm:

Maybe the author meant that the basic 911 platform is better at road courses than the basic Camaro platform? Hmm. :?

[novicius]

More likely that the Porsche 991 is a better platform to start tuning from than the fat-guy-in-a-little-coat 5th gen Camaro.

[samoht]

It appears that this uber-Camaro will offer an automatic transmission as Chevrolet brought in extra help from Allison Performance Research & Integration Logistics, a division that works closely with the Formula Optimization & Outright Lap Sector teams to test cars on the track and improve lap times.


:D

[novicius]

Yep, that's the clue I missed. :smh: #eggonmyface

[thesameguy]

They could just mean that the Camaro is built on a compromise platform (Zeta) rather than a platform purpose built for a sports car. The Camaro necessarily has some compromises built into it as a result of platform sharing and cost control that the Porsche likely does not. Still seems weird to even think to compare a Porsche against a Camaro though. "The Mustang is great, but it doesn't offer the quad turbos that the Veyron does."

[Kchrpm]

Ha, I thought that was a weird combination of terms, but didn't stop to spell it out.

And yeah, I'm pretty sure they meant the Z28 is built on a fat pig of a platform that shares most of its structure with a $22k rental car.

[Kchrpm]

http://jalopnik.com/the-2016-camaro-ss-gets-the-zl1s-fancy-magnetic-ride-su-1699581094

The SS will get the MagneRide suspension as an option :up:

[Ali]

I am loving that, so far!

[Kchrpm]

The three quarter window's new shape gives it a larger area (and changes where the side and top of the fast back blend), we'll see how that works out for blind-spot-paranoia. Nothing else jumps out at me, but I've never been good at noticing small styling details.

http://www.chevrolet.com/2016-camaro/img/gallery/camaro-six-gallery-12.jpg

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/mtueh1apg5nx6v4w0h69.jpg

The lower grill is really aggressive, I would guess that it will only look like that on a high end performance model. Seems like a bit much for the base model.

http://www.chevrolet.com/2016-camaro/img/gallery/camaro-six-gallery-11.jpg

[thesameguy]

I like that new window. I wish it was a more traditional design rather than the high beltline/squinty windows as the roof's shape is quite nice. I understand why it's not and can't be different than it is, but I still wish it was. :)

[novicius]

Yep, the new windows and overall silhouette look great! :up: :up:

[Kchrpm]

http://jalopnik.com/2016-chevrolet-camaro-this-is-it-1704694612

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2015/05/2016-camaro-photos-leaked.html

http://www.autoguide.com/blog/wp-content/gallery/2016-chevy-camaro-leaked-images/2016-Chevy-Camaro-CloseUp.jpg

http://www.autoguide.com/blog/wp-content/gallery/2016-chevy-camaro-leaked-images/2016-Chevy-Camaro-Rear.jpg

http://www.autoguide.com/blog/wp-content/gallery/2016-chevy-camaro-leaked-images/2016-Chevy-Camaro-Main.jpg

[Sad, little man]

I don't see the difference.

[The359]

Is it supposed to look boring?

[Kchrpm]

It's supposed to look like a refreshed version of the last car, which sold (relatively, for the market, etc) a shit ton.

Powertrain detail leaks: http://jalopnik.com/source-2016-camaro-gets-440-hp-v8-and-a-270-hp-turbo-f-1704710074


Our tipster tells us the new, lighter, Alpha platform Camaro gets the following engine options:

A 2.0-liter turbo four as the base engine with 270 horsepower and 290 lb-ft of torque
A 3.6-liter V6 with 330 HP and 275 lb-ft of torque as an option up from that
Or the SS with a 6.2-liter LT1 V8 with 440 HP and 450 lb-ft of torque

The first engine makes a lot of sense because it’s the base engine in the Camaro’s platform-mates, the Cadillac ATS and CTS. The familiar 3.6-liter V6 is a carryover from the old Camaro (Update: It’s actually an all-new engine, presumably the one from the upcoming Cadillac CT6) but gets about a 10 HP boost here.

What’s interesting is that, unlike the Mustang, the turbo four is truly the base engine on the Camaro, both in terms of power and price. The Mustang EcoBoost slots below the GT V8 with 310 HP and 320 lb-ft of torque.

[thesameguy]

Well, unlike the Mustang the LNF+ doesn't come in anything greater than 2.0l, whereas the Ecoboost can be built out to a 2.5l turbo. ;)

[Sad, little man]

It's supposed to look like a refreshed version of the last car, which sold (relatively, for the market, etc) a shit ton.

Ford also sold a shit ton of Model Ts, then they didn't, because they let the design get old and stale.

But hey, I guess if Chevy wants to play it safe and barely change the design, the Mustang and Challenger will be happy to eat it's lunch.

[The359]

• Segment-exclusive, Interior Spectrum Lighting that offers 24 different ambient lighting settings – and offers a “car show” mode

Is this a muscle car or a mid-life crisis? :smh:

[Kchrpm]

Ford has led the way by making small, incremental changes over the years, and keeping sales strong. When you find a design that hits, you riff on that until it doesn't. Lessons learned from Ford.

It may not look hugely different from last years Camaro, but that's partially because the Camaro kept getting design changes in the last few years. Compare the 2016 to the 2012.

http://images.thecarconnection.com/med/2012-chevrolet-camaro_100349121_m.jpg

http://www.thesmokingtire.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/06-2012-chevrolet-camaro-zl1-1297267567.jpg

Is it a huge change to the shape? No, but since when have any cars in this class had major shape changes vs just changes in sculpting and fascias?

[Kchrpm]

Is this a muscle car or a mid-life crisis? :smh:

Hahaha, Ford started the interior lighting control and people thought it was awesome.

And it's a muscle/pony car AND a mid-life crisis. It's the same thing. It always has been.

Such weird arguments, it's like people don't understand the class. Were people expecting an FR-S clone or something?

[Kchrpm]

Facts plus a mock Q&A (including why they didn't bother fixing rear visibility).

http://jalopnik.com/leaked-memo-answers-all-the-2016-camaro-questions-gms-a-1704765341

[novicius]

http://www.autoguide.com/blog/wp-content/gallery/2016-chevy-camaro-leaked-images/2016-Chevy-Camaro-Rear.jpg

Ooof, they really dropped the ball with the rear 3/4. Dig the front & sides tho'. :up:

Also, I began my mid-life crisis when I was 6 years old. I've been driving fun and impractical cars (mostly pony cars) all my life. :finger:

[KillerB]

I think what people are finding odd is that every generation of Camaro has been a very strong stylistic break. At least in the blurry teaser photos, this looks very similar to the current car.

Fact that they tout that the new car is within 2" dimensionally of the old one tells me that they weren't really terribly interested in messing with the current car's formula, and that the move to Alpha wasn't occasioned by a change in mission. It's lost some weight, sure, but it's not drastic. The reengineering probably optimizes it when compared to the old Zeta based car, but hey, if it's not broke, don't fix it.

I will admit to secretly hoping it was a retro version of the 70 1/2 car, but I figured that was unlikely and I can see why they'd stay the course.

I also think that the Challenger retains some competitive advantage from being a somewhat bigger car, and should stay as such. Sales have increased every year it's been on sale.

[Kchrpm]

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/05/16/2016-chevrolet-camaro-reveal-official/

Several official pictures, though only the interior pictures don't look like weird CGI. The impressions from a few places are that they like the changes, it looks better in person, the usual.

http://www.blogcdn.com/slideshows/images/slides/348/374/3/S3483743/slug/l/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-002-1.jpg

http://www.blogcdn.com/slideshows/images/slides/348/373/3/S3483733/slug/l/2016-chevrolet-camaro-020-1.jpg

[MR2 Fan]

Interior definitely looks like an improvement

[Kchrpm]

And some outlets are getting to drive them tomorrow (maybe just around Belle Isle? who knows), so early driving impressions should follow.

[SkylineObsession]

Looks wise i'm disappointed in the back of it, particularly the rear lights. Just like the new, last ever Ford Falcon, it ruins the aggression of the car and looks too boring and Euro.

Oh well, it'll change next time. ;)

[XHawkeye]

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-chevrolet-camaro-prototype-drive-review

[speedpimp]

Not really a fan of the new pinched nose on either the Stang or the Maro. Then again the newest Mustang I've ever driven was an '87 LX(2.3, auto) in '88.

[George]

Link to Jalopnik video and article.

I Was The First Person To (Publicly) Crash A 2016 Chevrolet Camaro (http://jalopnik.com/i-was-the-first-person-to-publicly-crash-a-2016-chevr-1705084839?rev=1431966444367)

[thesameguy]

Heh. :up:

[novicius]

http://www.chevrolet.com/visualizerdirs/iofextension/?mmc=U20161AK370002SS00&options=GD1%2CSHH%2C5YM%2CS0184_K%2CBKG&shadow=yes&angle=2&width=1480&height=551

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QTgvByMBQtU/maxresdefault.jpg

Just jokin' around. ;) :lol:

[thesameguy]

On my phone I saw the first picture before the second and my first thought was Camry coupe. Lots of Toyota-ness in there IMHO.

Edit: It definitely looks smaller, though, which I like.

[novicius]

Yeah I think the '16 Camaro looks good in some colors (darker) and absolutely slab-sided in other colors (lighter). Still, I am *very* happy to see GM Design pushing the car into a more futuristic/less retro look. :up:

Now, I love me some retro but it's been done -- well past time to start looking forward.

http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/1988-pontiac-banshee-concept-car-1.jpg

:assclown:

[novicius]

Official 2016 Camaro Performance Numbers and Curb Weights are Here!

(http://www.hotrod.com/cars/featured/1509-official-2016-camaro-performance-numbers-and-curb-weights-are-here/)


2.0L Turbo
3.6L V-6
6.2L V-8


2016 Camaro
275 hp / 295 lb-ft
3,339 lbs (auto)
12.1 lbs/hp
335 hp / 284 lb-ft
3,435 lbs (auto)
10.3 lbs/hp
455 hp / 455 lb-ft
3,685 lbs (man)
8.1 lbs/hp


2015 Camaro
N/A
323 hp / 278 lb-ft
3,729 lbs (auto)
11.5 lbs/hp
426 hp / 420 lb-ft
3908 lbs (man)
9.2 lbs/hp



Change
390 pounds lighter than 2015 V-6
294 pounds lighter
12% lbs/hp improvement

223 pounds lighter
14% lbs/hp improvement




The 2.0L turbo Camaro is on par with (or even quicker than) the first 4th gen F-body LT1 V8 cars. :up: :up:

[Kchrpm]

And you can turn up the BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOST.

I'm looking forward to seeing the sales numbers and distribution between the models. They have priced the V8s so high ($32,395 for the Mustang GT, $36,300 for the Camaro SS), I wonder if they'll lose total sales or just convince people one of the smaller engines is enough.

[thesameguy]

Why on earth is there a 600lb spread between V8 and I4??? The LNF is within 100lbs of a Gen IV small block when you include the turbo & intercooler, and a T56 is within 50lbs of a T5 (not that they use a T5, it's a just light manual). Where is the extra 450lbs going?

[Kchrpm]

You're misreading, the 4 cylinder is 3339 lbs and the 8 cylinder is 3685 lbs.

The 3908 lbs is for the 2015 model.

[thesameguy]

Oh, that makes a lot more sense if you think about it.

[novicius]

I feel like the rear wheel well could have been a bit bigger but overall I like this:

http://image.hotrod.com/f/143930645+q80+re0+cr1+ar0/2016-camaro-ss-9.jpg

[thesameguy]

It is definitely better looking than I thought it was going to be, but I don't like it even a little. I can almost get over the looks because the turbo four is a pretty kickass mashup of specs and function > form for me, but I am putting it in the same corner as the Force Awakens. Two things that might be just fine, but I can't be arsed to care.

[novicius]

Ok YW. ;)

[thesameguy]

Don't be mad I'm not impressed with a not big not small not light not heavy not wimpy not powerful not pretty not ugly sportsponymusclecarsedan. It's pretty effing bland.

You just like it because it's yellow, has working windows, and no spiders. :P

[Kchrpm]

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/09/15/camod-chevy-camaro-zl1-spy-shots/

http://www.blogcdn.com/slideshows/images/slides/362/236/6/S3622366/slug/l/chevrolet-camaro-zl1-spy-shots-001-1.jpg

[novicius]

Spider-free is a bonus but I dig how it looks (without the wing).

Just don't get tedious letting us know how much you hate it EVERY TIME someone makes a new post. :blahblah:

[thesameguy]

Spider-free is a bonus but I dig how it looks (without the wing).

Just don't get tedious letting us know how much you hate it EVERY TIME someone makes a new post. :blahblah:

Haha. You wish.

[Jason]

Still fat, would not fuck.

[Kchrpm]

Not even with your FiST?

[Jason]

Only if the back was painted like a deer.

[Godson]

Only if the back was painted like a deer.


#selfburn


:lol:

[TheBenior]

:lol:

[Yw-slayer]

Haha. You wish.

So, have you guys heard about how much of a waste of time Destiny was for me?

[novicius]

:assclown:

[Kchrpm]

First impressions from an SS drive that I've seen. Sounds like they gave a bunch of journos cars in New Orleans and told them to meet them in Dallas, so I presume more will be hitting the presses soon.

http://www.windingroad.com/articles/reviews/driven-2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss/


Bottom line

Styling quibbles aside, there’s little doubt that this is the best Camaro SS ever to come out of GM’s factories – it stops, goes, turns, and tours with a level of competence we simply don’t usually expect at this price range. All in, our tester rang up a total of $46,080. That’s within spitting distance of a well optioned Mustang GT with the Performance Package, and a few thousand shy of a Dodge Challenger SRT 392.

Compared to the Ford, the SS boasts adaptive suspension, an active exhaust system, cylinder deactivation, and a host of other features that aren't available on the Mustang GT. The Challenger fairs better in terms of feature set comparisons, but the Camaro will handedly outpace the Challenger when the subject changes to performance dynamics outside of a straight line sprint.

All three certainly have their own virtues, and all three make for great grand touring road cars that are more than happy to get a day’s worth of abuse at the track. But for those singularly focused on staying at the front of the pack, the 2016 Camaro SS has just upped the ante in this segment.

[Freude am Fahren]

Z/28's are going for as much as $25k off MSRP.


http://jalopnik.com/on-black-friday-go-buy-yourself-a-camaro-z-28-with-a-r-1744593201

[thesameguy]

I can't quite put this rip on the Camaro together right now, but trust me, it would have been good.

[Godson]

Heh. Just sent that link to a buddy.

He was eyeing the gt350.

[Sad, little man]

7.0L V8, and all they could eek out was 500hp? They must hire the engineering school dropouts over there at GM.

I seem to recall that Ford extracted 526hp from 5.2 liters.

[Godson]

7.0L V8, and all they could eek out was 500hp? They must hire the engineering school dropouts over there at GM.

I seem to recall that Ford extracted 526hp from 5.2 liters.

That's the exact same engine from the c6 ZO6.

They haven't changed anything since it came out.

[Kchrpm]

I'm trying to find physical dimensions of them both to confirm, but generally the LS7 was much smaller physically and lighter than every Ford modular V8, despite being a much larger displacement. The power/displacement ratio is worse, but the power/weight and power/volume were better.

I don't know if the switch to the Coyote/Voodoo changed that, though.

[thesameguy]

OHV engines do have a significant size advantage over OHC motors. When you don't have to package a lot of cams you can save some metal.

[neanderthal]

7.0L V8, and all they could eek out was 500hp? They must hire the engineering school dropouts over there at GM.

I seem to recall that Ford extracted 526hp from 5.2 liters.

Torque?
Brake specific fuel consumption?
Cost?
Mass?
Size?

[Freude am Fahren]

It also has a huge torque curve, vs. the GT350, which is useless* below 3500RPM. And yeah, it is old.

Go to 7:10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtdtGgf1BF0

Also, in this test, on a chassis dyno, they got nearly the same HP numbers at the wheel. I don't know where that 20hp went. Perhaps it was lost in the K&N bias (probably the heat though)? But still... look at that torque.



...I'd still take the Ford though. :) Looks, handling, sound can make up for the poor(er) low-end.

[samoht]

I tend to agree that engines should be judged on what power, torque, driveability and character they provide for a given size and weight, rather than capacity which is effectively just a number.

I'd probably prefer the high-revving Ford over the big-capacity Chevy, but that's personal preference. I do think though, that once you have enough torque to spin the driven wheels there isn't any point in having more. You can use the flexibility in higher gears, but I think for driving on the limit it's probably easier to have a car which loses traction beyond 80% throttle, rather than 8%. Incidentally Ferrari agree, which is why the 488 is artificially torque-limited in lower gears but gives full boost in 7th.

At the end of the day those look like two very evenly matched competitors, but which will appeal to different people.

[Kchrpm]

I would hope the Ford is better, honestly, it's a new platform and a new engine. The Z28 is the last hurrah of a now replaced chassis paired with a 10-year old engine.

[Sad, little man]

Torque?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RovL9O_90ug&feature=youtu.be&t=1m23s

[Kchrpm]

You're going to use an early catalytic-converter choked car as your argument that torque's unimportant?

I understand you prefer the Ford, and it has plenty of qualities and strengths that the Camaro does not. Trying to get hyperbolic about an engine that, while highly touted, is 10 years old, is not necessary.

[Sad, little man]

Heh, I was just giving him a hard time for playing the torque card. It just happened to be part of a C3 Vette video.

I don't really think that torque is important when you have horsepower figures because of the fact that torque is a part of the calculation of horsepower. It's kind of like judging whether or not it's a nice day outside based solely on whether or not it's sunny vs taking into account if it's sunny and also the temperature. Just saying it's sunny tells me nothing about whether or not I want to go do something outside. Now, if you tell me it's sunny and 75 degrees, then I know it's a nice day outside.

Edit: I will say that looking at a horsepower curve is needed though, not just max horsepower. But looking at torque figures or curves just seems redundant since horsepower is a calculation of torque produced over a set period of time.

[Jason]

OOOOOH FORD RULEZ, CHEVY DROOLZ

(I can get in on this brand war now that I have a FiST, right?)

[Kchrpm]

Saying a car has good "torque" is typically just shorthand for saying it is strong at lower revs. While the importance of that is arguable on a race track (endurance racers of late have been torque monsters, but that is a result of the rule books and may not be purely by design), but the flexibility it provides in day-to-day and spirited driving is unquestionable.

Of course, some drivers prefer a car that is more timid and then "comes alive" at higher revs, whether for ease of driving or for a better sense of speed (I remember reading reviews that said the 350Z felt much slower than it actually was because the torque curve was flat compared to the peaky turbocharged engines of its predecessor).

I personally would rather have the torque of the LS7 than the revs of the Voodoo, but that is a dead engine, anyway. The Z28 is the last production GM car that will have anything like it, and the Voodoo will be the new king of the 500+ hp naturally aspirated V8s. As much as I want to see it, GM likely will forego any semblance of an LT7 and just stick with LT4-based supercharged engines for their high performance models going forward.

Long live the Voodoo :up:

[Kchrpm]

This is the horsepower/torque graph from the video that we are discussing, for those who might be lost.

https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/t31.0-8/12308091_784468422369_7027626419976542640_o.jpg

[Freude am Fahren]

Saying a car has good "torque" is typically just shorthand for saying it is strong at lower revs.

Exactly. I view HP/Tq the opposite way as you, SLM. I think your weather analogy is backwards. Rarely will you see a torque curve take a dive after peak torque until near redline. So if something in a petrol street car has 500 ft/lb, you know it makes good power too. Whereas a hp figure of, say 500 hp could have a curve that looks like the Z/28, one that looks like the GT350, or some small displacement engine with a big turbo that looks like a parabola.

[Kchrpm]

There are still some engines with big torque numbers that can't rev for shit, like relatively tame turbo cars (the one in my Mazdaspeed and to a lesser extent the FiST and FoST), truck engines, and of course diesels, and some cars have weird dips in their torque curve (the Toybaru twins), it ends up being important to see graphs like the ones above.

[Kchrpm]

1LE is back, can be had on V6s and V8s.

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/02/10/chevrolet-camaro-1le-chicago-official/?ncid=edlinkusauto00000016


The cars have upgraded suspensions, better brakes, aerodynamic treatments that create more downforce, and improved cooling features. The goal is simple: faster laps. "This is all grip and handling and cooling," said Todd Christensen, Camaro marketing manager.

[novicius]

Very cool -- a touch pricey @ $3,500 USD but ultimately worth it. :up:


Adding the 3.6L V6 to the 2016 Camaro 1LT or 2LT will increase the price by $1,495, so the 2016 V6 Camaro should start at $28,190 in 1LT form and $32,290 for the 2LT with the manual transmission. Adding the 8-speed automatic transmission will paddle shifters and remote start also adds $1,495 to every package, so the base turbocharged 4-cylinder Camaro with the automatic transmission should start around $28,190 and the V6 automatic Camaro 1LT should start around $29,685.
Ah that's right, the turbo-4 is the base Camaro model. Too bad the 1LE isn't available on that, that'll probably be more my speed by then. ;)

[Yw-slayer]

OOOOOH FORD RULEZ, CHEVY DROOLZ

(I can get in on this brand war now that I have a FiST, right?)

I got an S-Max, bruv, REPRESENT for DA BLUE OVAL

[Kchrpm]

Ah that's right, the turbo-4 is the base Camaro model. Too bad the 1LE isn't available on that, that'll probably be more my speed by then. ;)

It sounds like, if it sells well on the V6, they'll bring it down to the 4.

[novicius]

That'd be cool to, like, me and 10 other guys. ;) :up:

I'm firmly in the "moneyball" stage of my enthusiast vehicles life now: the Mustang I've got, I'd love to autox and drag race and learn to tinker on for the next 10 years. Then eventually jump to a ten-year-old Mustang V6 or Camaro I4 six-speed at that point.

Basically just how little can I spend and still get some thrills. That definitely takes away my right to vote (or complain!) about anything car manufacturers do from here on out. :lol:

[The359]

So I was out driving on Saturday and a new Camaro SS was in front of me, and I have to say I was surprised how nice it actually looked, and indeed smaller than the older Camaro. And looking at it like that really struck me how wrong I was that the new Camaro looked almost identical to the old one.

[novicius]

Again, this is why you don't bet against GM Product Engineering Manager Mark Stielow. :up: :up:

Mark Stielow Built 12 Camaros So You Don’t Have To. (http://www.hotrod.com/cars/featured/1603-mark-stielow-built-12-camaros-so-you-dont-have-to/?sm_id=social_aumomotortrendhub_MotorTrend_2016030 2_58876956&adbid=10153280428692540&adbpl=fb&adbpr=13601527539#PHOTO-01)

[Kchrpm]

Damn. That's some nice metal.

[novicius]

THE SS DETHRONES THE M4!!1! (http://www.motortrend.com/news/comparison-2015-bmw-m4-vs-2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss/?sm_id=social_aumomotortrendhub_MotorTrend_2016030 3_58923156&adbid=10153544176401312&adbpl=fb&adbpr=18332466311) :hard:

( :lol: )

What's the wheel size on the SS? 20's? Too goddam tall... :smh:

After some more looking, it's not really the rim size that bugs me, it's the stock ride height. I think the Camaro looks tip-top when lowered but awkward at the stock ride height.

[Kchrpm]

What a strange comparison choice.

[thesameguy]

You know, I am not surprised. Everything about that article as pertains to the M4 echoes my sentiments. It's a big heap of blah. It's really hard for me to divorce my expectations with reality here - every previous M3 I've driven (which I think is all of them) has felt pretty special compared to the rest of automobiledom - except maybe the E92. The M4 does not feel special in any way. In fact, between the lackluster motor and the crap steering it's actually disappointing to drive. Obviously it's academically fast, but if something came along that could match it numbers and toss in some heart, I'd definitely give it the nod. Honestly, I think the BMW twin turbo six is a great motor for a 3-series, but it's not a great motor for an M-series. Its total lack of character is a major downer in anything sporty. It doesn't even have the fun peaky '80s turboBOOOOOOOOOOOST that makes the similarly characterless LNF (and its derivatives) at least fun to drive.

[novicius]

I applaud the comparison, the results and the Camaro.

I highly doubt that there will come a time in the next ten years where a same-year Camaro is going to be cheaper than a Coyote Mustang so that pretty much nixes my chance at going F-body, but I applaud GM for letting Stielow lead a team to make it. ;) :up:

EDIT: Caught this cool render -- spoiler-delete, lowered and sleek. :up: :up:

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1512/25013286252_8b7cf7da79_b.jpg

[Jason]

I saw a new SS while in LA, very nice looking... my only beef is the SS badge location on the back of the vehicle. O.o

[TheBenior]

I was kind of surprised that the BMW's powertrain warranty is only 4 years/50,000 miles, but given all the problems that their turbocharged engines have had for the past decade, I guess they've learned that warranting them past 50k miles without a CPO inspection isn't prudent :lol:

[novicius]

Camaro turbo-four reviews are trickling out. (http://www.autoblog.com/2016/03/15/2016-chevrolet-camaro-convertible-turbo-quick-spin-review/?ncid=edlinkusauto00000016)

[Kchrpm]

Just saw one on the road. Those rear haunches look really aggressive.

[novicius]

The ZL1 breaks cover. (http://www.hotrod.com/cars/featured/1603-the-2017-zl1-is-most-powerful-camaro-ever/?sm_id=social_aumohotrodsshub_default_20160316_593 93396&adbid=10153313275037540&adbpl=fb&adbpr=13601527539):cool:

http://image.hotrod.com/f/100430691+w660+h495+q80+re0+cr1/2017-chevrolet-camaro-zl1-022.jpg


The ZL1 gets its own version of the LT4, with Camaro-specific intake routing and exhaust, so initial power estimates are just down from the Corvette, at 640 hp and 640 lb-ft of torque. That may be a legitimate guess, or it may be a courtesy to keep from stepping on Corvette’s toes, but from what we could hear as Mark Reuss and GM President Dan Ammann took journalists on hot laps at Spring Mountain, it sure sounded like it brought all 650 hp that the Z06 does.
:lol:

[Kchrpm]

I'm sure they can hear a 10 hp difference. Car journos can be so fun.

Looks mean as hell, will likely be fast as hell, looking forward to seeing and hearing one in person.

[novicius]

I'm looking forward to seeing if this rouses the GT500 from its grave, even after Ford claimed they were bowing out of the Horsepower Wars.

[novicius]

Also the 10-speed automatic in the ZL1 is the same one as in the Ford Raptor. (http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-shows/new-york-auto-show/news/a28474/the-2017-ford-raptor-and-2017-camaro-zl1-use-the-same-automatic-transmission/) It's THE new Ford & Chevy truck transmission for the next two decades.

[Freude am Fahren]

It reminds me of the zombies with their jaws removed from The Walking Dead.

[novicius]

Who is GM racing at this point, honestly? The Hellcat is a straight line monster and the GT350R is a normally aspirated Z/28 fighter.

Is the Z/28 going to come back if the ZL1 is out there? If Ford doesn’t bring out the GT500, isn't the ZL1 in a league of its own?

[Kchrpm]

The Z/28 would require a new engine to be made. It is an engine that I hope is being developed, but I doubt ever sees production outside of crate engines.

[SkylineObsession]

So in the grand scheme of things, how do the Camaros flow?

3. SS
2. Z/28
1. ZR1?

Or another order?

[novicius]

I believe the Z/28 was the top dog last gen.

(ZR1 is a Corvette.)

[Freude am Fahren]

I think the ZL/1 vs Z/28 is kind of a power monster top dog vs. track king type thing. So some may put the Z/28 above depending on their needs.

I imagine if we get a new GT500, it would go against the ZL/1 and the Z/28 goes against the GT350.

[Kchrpm]

Yes, the Z/28 was a stripped track special, the ZL1 had more power and all of the creature comforts of the normal vehicles. Which is above the other is a matter of taste.

[novicius]

Price- and exclusivity-wise, the Z/28 was top dog last gen. ;)

[novicius]

$28K track dog. (http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/first-drives/reviews/a28492/the-four-cylinder-camaro-is-the-27000-cadillac-ats-we-wanted/)

Steep...

[thesameguy]

Really creates an interesting conversation though - 2.0t Camaro or BRZ or FoST...

[novicius]

Oh absolutely -- but even with the new platform it's still 500+ lbs. more than the BRZ. Plus it's still tank-ish: no way the Camaro can compete on driving feel.

(Still, reviews have compared the heavier EcoBoost Mustang against an FR-S, WRX and FiST before...)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-4OIxm3XaE

[thesameguy]

All true, but you know that most people don't really get "feel" - the audience for "feel" is minute. People shop sports cars, or fast cars, or fast sports cars they can afford. And if the 2.0t Camaro can put the numbers out at $28k, it will steal people from 86 500lbs notwithstanding.

[novicius]

Really creates an interesting conversation though - 2.0t Camaro or BRZ or FoST...
Yeah but sales figures aren't really interesting, that's all I'm sayin'. ;)

But if we are talking numbers then I want to see a BR-Z vs. Camaro 2.0t vs. Mustang V6 shootout... but of course most mags will put in a fully-loaded EcoBoost Mustang instead. :rolleyes:

[thesameguy]

Yeah, they would... completely missing the point in the process.

If we're talking fantasy comparos, I want to see a Camaro 2.0t vs. 428i, too. Let's book-end this shit.

[novicius]

Definitely. :up: :up:

[novicius]

Ask and ye shall receive...

New Z/28 spy shots. (http://www.autoblog.com/2016/03/22/chevy-camaro-z28-spy-shots/?ncid=edlinkusauto00000016)

[Kchrpm]

Well alrighty then. I look forward to finding out what the engine will be.

[novicius]

Full Corvette LT1 is my guess.

[Kchrpm]

That would be quite the downgrade from the previous Z28.

[novicius]

I agree with your earlier comment that GM engineers are not going to get the green light to develop a new normally aspirated V8 AND they're not going to get the supercharged LT4.

What's left? A "Corvette" LT1. #lol

[Freude am Fahren]

And considering the GS didn't get any extra power, that's what I'd expect too. Unless they can keep the LS7 in it?

[Kchrpm]

The GS on the C6 didn't get additional power over the base model, either. The previous Z28 got a very large power bump over the base models, and arguably from a somewhat exclusive/pedigreed engine.

I would not mind at all if the LS7 kept plugging along. I don't know if it can with the environmental regulations coming up, but maybe the Z28 is such a low volume model that they can get away with it. It would be odd to be putting what is effectively a 10-year old engine into a new model, though.

I'm fine with them making a hardcore, carbon-fiber-clad, stripped out Camaro with an LT1 and calling it the Z28. I don't know if the people that actually spend $60k-$70k on those kinds of cars will be fine with it.

[novicius]

Yep it'll have to be pretty special -- or LT4, making it a faster stripped-out ZL1. #splittinghairs

[Freude am Fahren]

Why not drop the top?

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--UINc5xAQ--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/dd57zbvregrmxhnrkyw9.jpg

[2ndMoparMan]

I think that shot makes it look WORSE. Car is just too busy with all the angles and lines. Don't like it, plus it's too fat.

[Kchrpm]

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/04/01/2016-chevy-camaro-track-warranty/


Much as it does with the Corvette, Chevrolet has confirmed that it will honor the warranties on V8 Camaros even if the issue in question was caused by a track day or night at the drag strip. Motor Authority was told about the policy by Camaro Chief Engineer Al Oppenheiser, and Autoblog got an official confirmation from GM. There are, of course, caveats, plus some open questions about the policy.

"If you're not modifying your car and you take your production car to a track day and you have an issue with one of your parts, it's covered under warranty," Oppenheiser told Motor Authority. "That's pride of craftsmanship that we know it will stand up to track use."

As Oppenheiser says, don't expect to make sweeping modifications to your car and have GM still foot the bill for any issues that befall your car on the track.

"We know when somebody changes their ECM calibration and we know if they changed to a cold-air intake, we can tell all that," Oppenheiser said. "But driving it as you break it in from the dealership, if you have a half-shaft or whatever, it's covered."

[Kchrpm]

More "Z28" spy shots

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/04/06/chevy-camaro-z-28-wing-spy-shots/

[Kchrpm]

Now at the Ring

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/05/10/chevy-camaro-z28-spy-shots-nurburgring/

High rise wrap-around wing, pronounced front aero: so they're replacing the unique engine with unique, over-the-top aero as the selling point.

[novicius]

Unique aero, unique lightweight glass, unique carpet, unique body panels, unique chassis mods, etc.

Just the motor will be "common".

(K33f & I discussed this on FB, I'm not correcting him.)

[Kchrpm]

Indeed. I'm going to tell myself that this means the Z06 will get an aero package with diveplanes and a wing, as well, just to make sense of it all.

[Kchrpm]

Now for video of that prototype, including a crash.

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/05/12/2017-chevy-camaro-z28-nurburgring-crash-video/

My ears did not detect a hint of supercharger whine, but they are not sensitive nor finely-tuned instruments.

[Freude am Fahren]

Here's the embedded video (for those with filters at work, I assume it's the same. I'm at work and can't see the autoblog one, but saw one on Jalopnik).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etX1UIgrH2s

Pit Stripes over the camo are a nice touch. Let's not get into a debate about them being on both sides though :)

[SkylineObsession]

I quite like the gaping mouth. And the narrow lights.

Wonder how many more cars will end up going to really skinny front and rear lights as technology gets better.

[Drachen596]

Not a fan of those tiny tail lights. To me they look really weird on the massive expanse of a rear end.

[Kchrpm]

I want to believe, but I can't let my heart get excited just to be let down.

http://www.motortrend.com/news/next-chevrolet-camaro-z28-will-7-0-liter-v-8/


Now, we know that the upcoming Z/28 has a naturally aspirated engine. Check out and listen to all the videos out there—do you hear the telltale supercharger whine? Me neither. Next, think about the LT1 that’s found in both the Camaro SS and Corvette. That 6.2-liter V-8 produces 455 hp, or 460 hp in Stingray tune. Could the General Motors engine boffins get that mill to punch out another 100 or so ponies? Sure, but…

The Z/28 has to have a “special” engine. The last one did—remember the LS7, that amazing 7.0-liter lump of small block awesomeness that is a first-ballot inductee into the Engine Hall of Fame? Well, it would be if such a hall of fame existed. Anyhow, we all know about the Shelby’s special engine, the butt-kickin’ 5.2-liter flat-plane crank V-8. Chevrolet would be crazy not to pack something extra groovy under the Z/28’s vented hood.

We also know that GM people love the 7.0-liter. Anecdotally speaking, some extremely senior people (wink wink) have told me that the LS7 is a collective favorite. Let’s not forget that the LS7 is still in production. You can buy it for $16,503 right now on www.chevrolet.com. Sources inside Chevrolet have also told us that the 7.0-liter will appear in another future Chevy product. Could that be Corvette? Maybe. But since the Z06 already has the LT4 it would be odd to slot in a model below it. The Z/28 definitely makes the most sense.

If I were a betting man—and I am—I’d wager that the 7.0-liter in the Z/28 will be called the LT7. I didn’t exactly need a roadmap to figure that one out, I know. The bump in power from the previous Z/28’s 505 hp to our guesstimated 540-565 hp will most likely come from the adoption of direct-injection, revised cylinder heads, a more lumpen cam—basically all the stuff that changed from the LS3 to the LT1. There’s another 50 horsepower right there, easy.

Has team Camaro confirmed any of this? Absolutely not. That said, what else could be powering the insane looking Z/28? Seven liters baby, you heard it here first.

[thesameguy]

I wouldn't get my hopes up either, but I think it does make sense. Going up against the GT350 with forced induction is just asking to be made fun of. I think the 7.0l is the move here too.

[Freude am Fahren]

Other than making sure they can still sell it and pass regs, it doesn't even need to be a new engine. A regular old LS7 or one with maybe 10hp or so more, just to be different on paper would be enough if they really nail the chassis/weight/aero.

[Kchrpm]

The LS7 will be more than 10 years old at that point, I doubt it will pass regs now and/or going forward.

[novicius]

Fingers crossed for you, Keef! :D

[novicius]

800-hp ‘Yenko’ 2017 Chevrolet Camaro revealed (http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1108628_800-hp-yenko-2017-chevrolet-camaro-revealed#image=100590613)

http://gtxforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=2208&stc=1


Among the upgrades is a rebuilt LT1 V-8 that now features a supercharger and displaces 6.8 liters instead of the standard 6.2 due to a stroker kit.
Because of course. :lol:

[thesameguy]

I am opposed to this.


SVE uses the name under license from owner General Marketing Capital Incorporated.

Happy Yenko got paid, but name licensing is shitty, especially when it comes to tuner cars.

[thesameguy]

Also, the stripes are wrong.

http://www.ridergraphix.com/2010_Camaro_Yenko_FullSide.jpg

(And no, I don't care why they're wrong. :lol:)

[novicius]

Yeah but the stripes don't look *bad* per se. :cool: :up:

I mean the whole thing looks like a Hot Wheels car. Kinda outrageous with that front-end. Retro like Death Race 2000 is retro. :lol:

[thesameguy]

TBH, if they hadn't stuck Yenko on it I'd be a-ok with it - the scoop is a bit much, but whatever... totally agree that it's cool like DR2K cars were cool.

But to then (pointlessly?) license Yenko's name and implement his signature stripe wrong is inexcusable!

[thesameguy]

Like, check out this barn find Callaway DeLorean.

http://i.imgur.com/GRqSxso.jpg

[Kchrpm]

https://www.autoblog.com/2017/08/11/chevrolet-considering-budget-v8-camaro-regain-sales/


"I think we've got opportunities at the very low end of the Camaro range and some remix of some of the V8 options on it so we don't force people to buy all the options with a V8, just to get a V8."

The words of the Chevy product chief. I'll believe it when I see it, but they have good reason to do it.


Based on a sales chart from GM Authority, Camaro sales have been dropping since right about the time the sixth-generation model was introduced. In 2015, the last year that fifth-generation cars would have been on lots, sales for the year were just over 77,500. That dropped in 2016, the first full year of sixth-generation models, to just under 73,000. And for 2017, Camaro sales are down about 1,000 cars through July compared with 2016. Those signs say Chevy needs to do something soon.

[dodint]

I have more respect for the modern Camaro now than I ever have and it's flailing. Go figure.

Just now saw that Callaway. I've met that guy. I didn't call him a tool, but I was thinking it.

[novicius]

:up: :up:

How long before Chevy dumps the V6 too?

[thesameguy]

Personally I think Lutz may have been right - the thing holding the Camaro back isn't the mechanicals, it's the looks. We all thought Bumblebee looked great, but that was ten years ago. Ford has had three very distinctively different Mustangs in that same time period. The choptop box look wasn't *great* to start with, and now it is seriously played out.

[dodint]

I spent many hours in chat explaining to Carlo how ugly the last 15 years of Camaro has been.

Oh, and the square headlight ones in the late 70s. Those too.

[novicius]

:lol:

[TheBenior]

Personally I think Lutz may have been right - the thing holding the Camaro back isn't the mechanicals, it's the looks. We all thought Bumblebee looked great, but that was ten years ago. Ford has had three very distinctively different Mustangs in that same time period. The choptop box look wasn't *great* to start with, and now it is seriously played out.
Yep, the 6th gen Camaro may have more performance cred than the 6th gen Mustang, but it loses on looks, price, and daily practicality. The 5th gen Camaro's looks were stunning enough then to get people to put up with the practicality issues. The 6th gen doesn't look different from a 5th gen to a non-enthusiast until you point out that it's the new one. Meanwhile, the Mustang has done an excellent job of looking modern and fresh while still looking like a Mustang. In this era of base model Mustangs making 300hp, a little bit of extra performance isn't enough to get most people to overlook the Camaro's higher price, still crap visibility, and smaller trunk (9.1 cu ft vs 13.5 cu ft!).