Originally Posted by I Go To Costco

We'll see what happens when real drivers get behind the wheel of the new Camaro SS. Not to bash the car mags but quite a few people have gotten in the low/mid 13's in the 1/4 with bone stock, Z28s with street tires. The best time you can expect is in the high 12's for a 6-speed manual car.


This is why so many people over at LS1tech are disappointed with the new Camaro. Sure, it has all these new bells and whistles but it's shaping up to be hardly any faster in a straight line, if at all.

Originally Posted by charliemike

Maybe not faster but it's going to be a much, much better car overall.

Originally Posted by DrewSRX

Motor Trend Comparison - Camaro SS vs. Mustang GT vs. Challenger R/T

http://www.motortrend.com/road....html

Edmunds Comparison - Camaro SS vs. Mustang GT vs. Challenger R/T

http://www.edmunds.com/insidel...1.*#2

Originally Posted by Brandon24pdx

The Camaro SS easily has the most firepower with a 111 mph 1/4 mile. An SRT8 Challenger would have been a better comparison. And Ford has a new 5.0 up it's sleeve.

Originally Posted by swift22

^well would you want to pay $40k on a "camaro"...... its a chevy, not a BWM or lexus. Hence why no NAV and other bells and whistles

Originally Posted by Maximized

GM has less than 1 year to gloat about the performance advantage over the Mustang. Next year, the Mustang is getting a new modern 5.0L and 6 speed manual. Bye Bye Camaro!

Originally Posted by fsttyms1

Doubtful.

Originally Posted by Maximized

The 2011 Mustang is going to have a modern 5.0L and 6 speed manual. The rumors are 400hp. Remember, the Camaro is a porker at 3800+ lbs.

Originally Posted by I Go To Costco

Would give GM even more reason to come out with the LSA-powered Z28

Originally Posted by I Go To Costco

Would give GM even more reason to come out with the LSA-powered Z28

Originally Posted by C&D

We expect your palms are all clammy in anticipation of the predictable Detroit Three muscle-car comparo, in which belching V-8s reduce tires to a gray haze that hangs on the horizon like a thousand dirty sweat pants. We’ll produce the gray haze in due course.
But first, let’s be responsible by looking at where most pony-car transactions transpire—that is, in the V-6 trenches, accounting for 65 percent of sales—and then let’s be irresponsible by celebrating this: The 2010 Camaro V-6 is 0.7 second quicker to 60 mph than, say, a Camaro SS 396 we tested in 1968. Heck, it’s quicker and faster through the quarter-mile than a BMW 328i. No chicken coupe, this.
So we sent out invitations, but Ford and Dodge didn’t RSVP, choosing silence instead. Here’s why: The Camaro LT and the Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8 are both spanking-new four-valve twin-cammers with independent multilink rear suspensions, and their outputs are on top of each other: 306 horsepower for the Genesis, 304 for the Camaro. Neither Ford nor Dodge can make like claims. It’s more than a little frustrating that the V-6 in Ford’s latest Mustang produces a pitiful 210 horses from greater displacement than either Chevrolet or Hyundai requires. Unless Ford equips the Mustang with, say, an EcoBoost V-6, Dearborn simply won’t have a horse in this race. Dodge’s V-6 Challenger—automatic only—isn’t much better off, producing 250 horsepower from 3.5 liters. A V-6 Challenger we tested achieved 60 mph in 7.5 seconds, leaving it embarrassingly in the wake of the two cars gathered here, in part because the Dodge is one big lunker—more than 15 incheslonger than a Genesis coupe. Which left us with this unlikely but toothsome twosome: a 3.6-liter V-6 Camaro versus a 3.8-liter Genesis coupe. America versus Korea. Except the Camaro is built in Oshawa, Ontario. So let’s call it Oshawa versus Ulsan.

If you squint at this new Genesis—and if you’ve had a shot or two of tequila—you can make out some of the pugnacious lines that emboldened the little front-drive Tiburon, which this coupe replaces. The new car rides on the rear-drive Genesis sedan’s platform, minus 4.6 inches of wheelbase, and feels nothing like the Tib. It feels far more confident, more substantial, and more aggressive in all its moves. What the Genesis coupe is, in fact, is a pony car.
Our version arrived with the Track pack, including 19-inch Bridgestones; Brembo brakes; beefier springs, shocks, and bars; a brace between the front shock towers; a limited-slip differential; and a vaguely tacky rear spoiler that fortunately was 90-percent invisible in the rearview mirror.
The Track pack certainly tracks. Body motions are rigidly disciplined, and this Hyundai’s 0.88 g of skidpad grip felt more like a full g in the hills, where the car took a confident, firm set and exhibited excellent path control. Like the Camaro, a steady throttle through a turn induced mild understeer, but a sudden wallop of horsepower could rotate the tail, especially when the overly aggressive stability control was disabled. And when matters got too exuberant, the Brembos brought the action to a halt, like, yesterday. The brake pedal doesn’t offer the greatest feel, but 70 mph is dissipated in 161 feet—sports-car territory.
The Genesis proved 0.4 second quicker to 60 mph than the Camaro and 0.3 second quicker through the quarter-mile. You can spin the rear tires right to redline in first gear and provoke a satisfying bark while slamming into second. Those straight-line bona fides are likely the upshot of a Slim-Fast engineering diet. This coupe is 315 pounds lighter than the Camaro. Nice detail: Regular unleaded works fine in both engines.
Although the steering is a little heavy, it’s quick. Turn-in is sharper than the Camaro’s, and freeway tracking is superb. Too bad there’s an odd engine drone at interstate speeds. Any throttle dithering lends that drone a persistent on/off quality, drawing even more aural attention. Otherwise, the V-6 is mechanically thrashy only near redline, where it is largely drowned out by a booming exhaust snarl.

The front seats are firm and aggressively bolstered, tethering your torso securely in place. The rears are habitable by children only. If you’re taller than about five-seven, your hair will rub against the rear window. Plus, there’s the inevitable fight getting through the front seatbelts.
Despite its 32 buttons and switches, the center stack is satisfactorily understandable, and the four IP gauges feature legible white lettering on black backgrounds. The pedals are arrayed for those who care to heel-and-toe. Cabin surfaces are just as hard and plasticky as the Camaro’s, but they’re more pleasing because they’ve been twisted into interesting compound shapes. As is true of all pony cars, rear three-quarter visibility is grim, and the trunk is less a trunk than, say, a metal briefcase that, in this instance, swallows 10 cubic feet of stuff versus the Camaro’s 11.
__________________________________________________ _______________
<table class="default" width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td valign="top">
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top">
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> __________________________________________________ _______________
Although it delivered better test-track numbers, the Genesis coupe lost major points to the Camaro for two reasons. First, its ride is harsh. Every heave, crack, dimple, and hummock in the tarmac finds its way into the cabin and up your spine. So firm is the ride that, at the limit, the chassis feels jittery, nervous. Even under light braking, we’d often feel a pulse of the ABS from whichever wheel had most recently lost touch with Mother Earth. If you live in a ravaged-road state, forgo the Track pack.
__________________________________________________ _______________
<table class="default" width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td valign="top">




</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top"> No shroud for the V-6.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> __________________________________________________ _______________
Second, although Hyundai’s manual six-speed shifter offers short and direct throws, the clutch is too heavy and, worse, the driveline and engine aren’t talking to each other. The transmission is overeager to bind, wind up, and snatch if the driver too quickly tips in or out of the throttle. It’s annoying to have your head snap with every shift. No car should actively resist a driver’s attempts at smoothness. At the very least, this trait must be introducing needless shock to the gear teeth and half-shafts.
This sporty coupe is direct and visceral, the first Korean car to get our blood pumping. It’s a little rough around the edges, but Hyundai has a habit of catching up. Fast.



Climbing out of the Hyundai and into the Chevrolet is a night-and-day shocker, the difference between the Appalachians and the Alps. The Camaro feels big because it is: 8.1 inches longer than the Hyundai, 2.1 inches wider, heavier by the weight of two healthy humans. Hey, it’s a half-foot longer than that SS 396 we tested in 1968.
Well, sometimes it pays to aim big because onlookers simply go all teary-eyed when they encounter the Camaro, rushing up to snap pics and peer through the gun-slit windows. Which perhaps suggests the styling will pass the test of time. God knows the Camaro’s visage has been relentlessly reproduced in magazines since the concept car’s debut some 40 months ago.
We cycled through five Camaro V-6s before eventually settling on a test car: an LT with leather and 19-inch Pirellis. Although the base LS would have saved us $1635, we didn’t care for its cloth seats, whose overly soft cushions were wadding and bunching after only a couple days’ use. Neither were we crazy about the base 18-inch rubber, which slightly degraded the otherwise crisp turn-in and added to some minor on-center steering slop. Plus, our well-equipped LT included that cool quartet of center-console gauges, which not only recall the ’69 Z28 but also help mitigate this latest Camaro’s interior monotony. The passenger-side dash, for instance, is an expanse of flat, cheaply pebbled vinyl so vast that you’ll consider hanging a painting there. While we’re carping, what’s with the dull, flimsy plastic around the shifter and HVAC controls? And why are the steering wheel’s spokes so ridiculously wide?
Fourteen-thousand folks have already laid down earnest money to secure a Camaro, but we hope none of them is taller than five-ten. That’s because the roof has been seriously slammed. If you’ve got anything resembling Dog the Bounty Hunter’s pompadour, prepare to leave an oily spot on the headliner. Sunroof? Just say no.
Otherwise, this new Camaro won us over. As much as we love this direct-injection V-6 in the Cadillac CTS, we love it more in the Camaro because it’s finally married to a manual transmission that’s endearing. Its clutch is lighter than the Hyundai’s, the shift linkage travels more effortlessly and intuitively through its gates, and the engine requires fewer blipping revs to ensure seamless downshifts. It’s a forgiving drivetrain that, unlike the Hyundai’s, goes to lengths to hide the driver’s mistakes. Too bad the pedals are so far apart. Heel-and-toeing is confined to size-13-and-above clodhoppers.
__________________________________________________ _______________
<table class="default" width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td valign="top">




</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top"> You’ll likely never study the four console-mounted gauges, which recall the ’69 Z28, but they help break up the interior monotony.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> __________________________________________________ _______________
On our handling loop, the Camaro delivered enough grip to excite, and though the body moved around more than the Genesis coupe’s, it rarely seemed to disrupt the assigned path. What’s more, the Camaro offers two different shots at eliminating the steady-state understeer. Push a button to disable the traction control; press it again (for five seconds) to kill the stability control. After which, a heavy foot will swing-dance the tail.
Best of all, the Camaro proved calm, relaxed, and surprisingly serene for a pony car. It soaked up the pockmarked tarmac that was launching the Hyundai in multiple directions, crash-through was infrequent, there were fewer shivers up through the steering column, and wind noise was less pronounced. Our sound-level measurements didn’t show much difference between these cars, but it’s the quality of noise that matters: A lion screaming is sort of nice. Joan Rivers screaming isn’t. On freeway slogs, it was the Camaro you wanted to inhabit, and it was always the Camaro that was unintentionally hoofing along at about 20 mph beyond the legal limit—a good sign. Someone at GM sweated this car’s ride-and-handling trade-off.
The Camaro’s back seat was only marginally better than the Genesis’s, with one’s cranium scraping the cushy headliner rather than the hard rear window. And we especially appreciated the telescoping steering column, a feature that Hyundai forgot to offer. GM says 55 percent of its early Camaro buyers are “conquests” or “winbacks”—nice news for a company currently applying tourniquets to all of its appendages. All we know is that the Camaro V-6, a car so smartly and enjoyably couped up, is a bargain. In the end, that alone might have carried the day. The Camaro won by one point.

Originally Posted by Doom878

I always interpreted Gotta Have It as an intangible. Since Genesis is a Hyundai, automatically they're brainless fucks who piss on the brand. I was telling my cousin about the Sonata which is f'in nice but she insisted on the Accord because of "Honda reliability". I informed her about 2000 Accord's tranny issues but I doubt I batted her opinion. Then since the Camaro is a nice looking car, hot, and brand new then that also widens the gap for the Gotta Have It calculation.

Originally Posted by I Go To Costco

^Jesus Christ. You are to domestic cars as msl82 is to anything/anyone anti-Hyundai. Next time, take a Xanax before you post in a Camaro/Mustang/Challenger thread.... gulp down a couple Prozacs too while you're at it.

Are we that dense to completely dismiss subjectivity in a review? It happens with everyone and everything, and it is a huge reason why Hyundai's rep is low. If you compared a Yugo to a F430, the Yugo would have a Gotta Have It rating of 0 and the Ferrari would be at 100. Also the above post about the Sonata and Accord is a perfect example.

Never mind the fact that they chose the V6 instead of the V8 Camaro for the comparo, and never mind the fact that the suspension on the V6 is softer than the SS, and never mind the fact that there are 14,000 pre-orders for the new Camaro. If that isn't Gotta-Have-It, then I don't know what is.

Biased? Sure, it definitely seems like it.... but a magazine review based on objective ratings is boring. Just like comparing cars based on objective ratings is boring.