2010 Camaro going backwards?

Like many, I eagerly awaited any official news and specs on the 2010 Camaro.  Now that it is available, I am rather on the disappointed side of things.

My wife and I both enjoy our 2002 Camaros each owning one.  We can load our kayak and camping things easily into the hatchback and still get 30 Mpg on our way to a favorite river.

When I look at the 2010 Camaros, yes, 422 Hp is nice.  But the added body weight is putting this vehicle no different than the 2002 SS full blown 335 Hp model.

We always say it's nice to have more horsepower.  If that is all we are concerned with.  Some people will rate the 2010 Camaro only by it's 1/4 mile times.  However, you will still see tons more 2010's (and past Camaro's) with V-6 motors than with V-8's.  

We rate a car by it's complete package.  The new 300 Hp V-6 is nice, but it's not that fast.  Does driver's really want to drive a car that is "almost fast"??  We already have the Mustang in that catagory.  

This is why I am disappointed with the new 2010 model Camaro.  It gain 400+ pounds in weight over the 2002 model I don't want.  I lose the hatchback and can't pack anything into the 2010 trunk.  I lose nearly 6 Mpg.

My thought on a near perfect Camaro is this.  Retain a total weight similar to the 02 model.  Keep aero-dynamics low, not higher like the 2010 model.  Add the 231 Hp V-6 from the Impala dropping 3 cylinders on the highway.  Keep the hatchback!!

This would give us a much more practical Camaro.  The extra Hp would be very nice with the 6-speed and ability to "gain" Mpg.  If a big Impala can get 30 Mpg with this motor, I bet anything a Camaro would push 35 Mpg.

What will sell more Camaros?  Advertising 422 Hp??  Or advertising 35 Mpg!!

The future will always be about MPG over brute power.  It's OK to have a few 450 Hp Camaros, but most of us want a very sexy sports car that is practical.  Like the Camaro model they should have built.

John  

I have a 1995 Trans Am. It had more stated horsepower than the 2002 F-Cars, and that was 275hp. No where near 335hp. The advertised fuel economy was 17/23 if I remember correctly. That was before the EPA changed the fuel economy rating system for the 2008 model year. That would be the equivalent of about 14/20 today.

I too have gotten 30mpg on long drives along mostly flat highways at 85mph. At 75mph, the fuel economy was lower.

It's likely the newer Camaros will get even better mileage. At 29mpg post 2008, the 6 cylinder will probably get close to that 35mpg number at extra-legal speeds. At 305 horsepower, it's 30 more than my V-8 Trans Am, which is plenty fast but did have a 5.7 second 0-60 time vs the V-6's 6.1.

The V-8, with two more advertised mpg than my Trans Am under stricter economy standards that caused the Prius to drop from 60mpg to 45 or so, should match or beat the mileage of our aging F-Cars.

Since my '95 isn't worth much, I was planning on keeping it for the infrequent times I need the hatch back. Or when I need to park in a bad neighborhood. Or to leave in front of my house so my retarded white trash neighbor doesn't park his humongous RAM pickup smack in the middle of my two car space and then leave town for a two month fishing trip.

The future is the future, it isn't today. Today, 25-30mpg highway is still pretty acceptable, and they've got that bolt on hybrid transmission they can always add when they need to get the city mileage up. GM's also talking about putting a turbo 4 in the car as well as the fuel economy standards tighten up.

The Impala V-6 is a dog and an embarrassment. The direct injection engine can be reprogrammed to run on 3 cylinders as well, but it wouldn't have enough torque for the 6 speed, which is why the Impala doesn't have that steep overdrive.

To sum it up: out of the showroom your 2002 would have required binoculars to see the tail lamps of the new SS in the 1/4 mile, it'll get better fuel economy than you get, it handles far better with a fully independent suspension and 52/48 weight balance, nearly every one, even Mustang lovers, thinks it looks great, and everyone knows the trunk is a joke and you'll have to load it from the fold-down rear seats.

If anything, the only thing they need to sell more Camaros, the thing that makes everyone stop dead in their tracks when they're already pre-sold, is the horrendously ugly, worst retro interior ever. I've only met a couple of old guys who thought that particular nod to the '69 was a good idea. I'm willing to ignore it, but it will take an effort of will to do so.

As far as fuel economy, the V-6 gets better mileage than any of the Japanese or German V-6s out there, and matches a few of the 4 cylinder models.  

If you want to go camping, get a truck, load up your stuff and have fun. If you want high fuel ecomomy, get a VW.....If you want an awesome late model muscule car get a new Camaro and have fun with it.
There is bad side about everything in life so look for the positives and you will soon learn too enjoy life and the new Camaro.
The weight issue is all about a very high quaility ride, outstanding control and handling.
It is easy to tell you have spent ZERO time in the new Camaro. If you were to spent a few days in a 2010, you would realize that your 2002 is way below the standards of the auto industy today. The new Camaro is a MUSCULE CAR, it's not about...... MPG - Camping gear - Hatchbacks - etc.....I don't think you understand what this car is. Keep your 2002 if you wish, but to trash the new Camaro show a clear lack of reason.

Tony  

Its a matter of choice as to what Generation one prefers - while I always loved the Camaro it wasn't until the 2010 was available that I joined the Camaro ranks.  No car is perfect - the 5th Generation has more of a '69 1st Generation connection than with 2-4th Gens.  So we should celebrate the Camaro's return, look forward to its new evolution (convertible, Z28) and provide input into hopefully an eventual 6th Generation 4-5 years from now.  
tjd24 @ camaro5.com
2010 Camaro 2LT RS
Vin #3434