Test drove a Camaro today...

P71 wrote:

confuZion3 wrote:

P71 wrote: I think a Solstice/Sky with that V6 would just be the baddest sportscar ever though...

I respectfully disagree. That car is perfect as is. The turbo four makes that car perfect. And I think GM has a dealer-installed option that'll bump up the boost and jack up the horsepower to over 300 without voiding the warranty. If you want to put a larger engine in it though, why stop at a V6? A link to a site with a car that I'm sure everybody here has seen before.

I should take a step back here and reiterate that I *love* the Sky/Solstice, especially in Turbo GXP/Redline form. I also think Hot Rod's LS7 powered one is about the baddest roadster on the planet. I guess what I was getting at is there is a distinct market for a big bore/N/A motor'd roadster that's smaller then the 350/370Z and I think a V6 Solstice/Sky would just flat out rock that market. The 306HP one in the Camaro gives a great account of itself for having to haul around almost 2 tons, so in a lighter chassis I could just see it as an "out of the box" wondercar. Because let's face it, as long as there is Corvette we will never see a factory LSx Solstice.

OK, I see what you're driving at here. Unleash it on the 370Zs of the world and watch it clean house. I see where the V6 would certainly make that a lot easier! Do you think the Camaro engine would do the job?

And you're right. They will never let that car surpass the Corvette. But could it do that even with an LSX? I know the suspension and chassis are state-of-the-art, but the Corvette is a pretty capable car by itself, right?

Oh, and are they even going to keep making them? I sure hope so... I think the Sky / Solstice are the hottest sub-50K sports cars that GM has working for them.

The numbers that Hot Rod got out of the LS7 Solstice surpassed the Z06 by a fair bit. Only problem was they spent more on the car then buying a Z06!

AFAIK the Solstice/Sky are dead after 2010 model year, including the Coupe. Maybe even earlier?

P71 wrote: Have you ever sat in a car and just knew it was too uncomfortable?

Yes, and then I lived with it for a month, and realized I was wrong.

Have you ever sat in a car and just knew it was too uncomfortable?

Yep:

'85 Porsche 944 85~89 MR2 NA Miata

If the car is worth it, you get used to it.

I've driven both a 944 and a Miata and neither comes even remotely close to how painful the new Camaro was. The 4th Gen F-Body version had a more ergonomically friendly interior, and that's saying something! Go sit in one and then tell me what you think.

Yeah...you don't want to know what I think.

I had a 1995 Z28. Took it to a autox practice event and drove 10 laps, which consumed half the (OEM) tire tread. Now, this thing had ABS and traction-control so it wasn't me burning the tires off it. No, it was one heavy SOB that ate $500 in tire wear in 10 50-second laps, or, $1 per second of track time.

Never again. Oh, and it (from new) cost me $5000 in non-warranty expenses in the five years that I owned it (it would have been double that without the warranty.) Then there were the 6-ft long doors, where you had to turn around more than 90 degrees in order to get out of the thing in a parking slot. And that nose that seemed to be about 20-ft long, but could only see the first couple feet of it... Never another GM product. And don't get me started on the bailout! $(%*%&#@!!!

P71 wrote:

confuZion3 wrote:

P71 wrote: I think a Solstice/Sky with that V6 would just be the baddest sportscar ever though...

I respectfully disagree. That car is perfect as is. The turbo four makes that car perfect. And I think GM has a dealer-installed option that'll bump up the boost and jack up the horsepower to over 300 without voiding the warranty. If you want to put a larger engine in it though, why stop at a V6? A link to a site with a car that I'm sure everybody here has seen before.

I should take a step back here and reiterate that I *love* the Sky/Solstice, especially in Turbo GXP/Redline form. I also think Hot Rod's LS7 powered one is about the baddest roadster on the planet. I guess what I was getting at is there is a distinct market for a big bore/N/A motor'd roadster that's smaller then the 350/370Z and I think a V6 Solstice/Sky would just flat out rock that market. The 306HP one in the Camaro gives a great account of itself for having to haul around almost 2 tons, so in a lighter chassis I could just see it as an "out of the box" wondercar. Because let's face it, as long as there is Corvette we will never see a factory LSx Solstice.

My Redline has 290 hp and still has the stock 100k mile warranty with a torque curve that looks something like a dinner table. Why bother trying to package a 300 hp V6 when the DI turbo ecotec gets the job done?

Bryce

Very interesting thread, as I've been talking about the new Camaro a lot lately. The direct injection V6 seems like a great engine, and I like the styling (big and heavy as the car is). It seems like a very promising car. On a related note, I saw a black SRT Challenger driving through town the other day and nearly drove off the road. Classic, aggressive American muscle - nothing like it! Absolutely stunning car.

THAT SAID...GM lost any potential business they could have had from me a few years ago when my brother bought a Cobalt SS. Now, I grew up on GM/Ford products, specifically Corvettes, Cadillacs and Lincolns. But I've never bought a domestic car (only trucks). My brother bought the SS and I thought it was a HUGE step in the right direction for GM - the car drove well as stock - nice steering, power and suspension, and the interior was decent...until about 6 months into its life. After a year, the "leather" on the steering wheel was flaking apart, the painted trim on the doors was almost completely gone, as was the paint on the HVAC/center console controls, the steering had loosened considerably and the whole interior looked like it had aged ten years.

That was about it for me. I think for a lot of people in my generation, it will take very, very good products to bring us back to even considering domestic vehicles. GM, Ford and Chrysler products rarely come up in conversation. I know the domestic automakers are capable of producing great products - the Corvette is (thankfully) still a world beater at each price point...but when a car's interior basically dissolves after a year of use, it turns people off for good.

And as far as the Solstice goes, I loved the car until I looked at the trunk with the top down...barely room for a laptop, and the entire perimeter of the trunk was uncovered, with exposed metal edges everywhere. And I could physically see each individual wire that went into the trunk - no loom, no covering at all. Who let that slide?! My 1989 BMWs have better finishing than that.

kb58 wrote: I had a 1995 Z28. Took it to a autox practice event and drove 10 laps, which consumed half the (OEM) tire tread. Now, this thing had ABS and traction-control so it wasn't me burning the tires off it. No, it was one heavy SOB that ate $500 in tire wear in 10 50-second laps, or, $1 per second of track time.

I am finding this statement quite surprising...

I have a '97 mustang which, while not the same, is similar in weight. (3200-3400lbs)

I have autocrossed it on 245 section width nitto 555's and Azenis 215's. The nittos aged out, the azenis still have tread after over 2 years autocrossing on them (48+ events and a few thousand street miles)

Last year i made the plunge to 275 series Rcomps and got a HEAVILY used set of V700 victoracers. they hardly had ANY tread left. They lasted a whole season (24 events) and havent corded yet (although v710's are going on soon) I can host before and after pics if you want... the car wasnt exactly driven sedately (with the v700's i was paxing 13-16th usually out of 90 entries)

it could be that they were simply full depth all seasons and were chunking off (which if that is the case i have seen a neon do that)

I dont mean to call bull, but could it be that you are expecting unreasonable things of the (admittedly crap) stock all season tires? did you crank up the pressure to prevent rollover?

MikeSVO wrote: Yeah...you don't want to know what I think.

You're right, I don't.

Nashco wrote: My Redline has 290 hp and still has the stock 100k mile warranty with a torque curve that looks something like a dinner table. Why bother trying to package a 300 hp V6 when the DI turbo ecotec gets the job done? Bryce

Oh, I agree Bryce. I flat out love the Turbo Sky/Solstice. There is still a large market out there of people afraid of turbocharging for whatever reason or maybe they just prefer N/A power. I was just pointing out that with the exceptional chassis GM already has they could drop in the exceptional V6 engine and create a whole different vehicle marketed towards a different segment that would be another world-beater for what on the surface seems like little engineering effort.

When GM wouldn't lend Top Gear a Camaro because they were worried they'd say bad things about it, that raised red flags for me - if they're worried it will get bad reviews, it must be a bad car, or at least not live up to expectations.

Then Richard Hammond seemed to like it - he said it was a good car, but it was a true muscle car and as such it cornered like a fully laden dump truck...but buying a muscle car for the handling is like buying a Miata for the raw power.

Now I read this and it sounds like a typical half-baked GM.

Pertinent to the discussion: http://jalopnik.com/5267582/camaro-pace-cars-have-brake-weights-crazy-wheel-imbalance?skyline=true&s=i

GameboyRMH wrote: When GM wouldn't lend Top Gear a Camaro because they were worried they'd say bad things about it, that raised red flags for me - if they're worried it will get bad reviews, it must be a bad car, or at least not live up to expectations. Then Richard Hammond seemed to like it - he said it was a good car, but it was a true muscle car and as such it cornered like a fully laden dump truck...but buying a muscle car for the handling is like buying a Miata for the raw power. Now I read this and it sounds like a typical half-baked GM.

Quoted for future laughs at you. DODGE wouldn't lend Top Gear a CHALLENGER which, last time I checked, is NOT a CHEVY CAMARO.

P71 wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: When GM wouldn't lend Top Gear a Camaro because they were worried they'd say bad things about it, that raised red flags for me - if they're worried it will get bad reviews, it must be a bad car, or at least not live up to expectations. Then Richard Hammond seemed to like it - he said it was a good car, but it was a true muscle car and as such it cornered like a fully laden dump truck...but buying a muscle car for the handling is like buying a Miata for the raw power. Now I read this and it sounds like a typical half-baked GM.

Quoted for future laughs at you. *DODGE* wouldn't lend Top Gear a *CHALLENGER* which, last time I checked, is *NOT* a *CHEVY CAMARO*.

D'oh it's still 10AM, cut me a break

kb58 wrote: Then there were the 6-ft long doors, where you had to turn around more than 90 degrees in order to get out of the thing in a parking slot. And that nose that seemed to be about 20-ft long, but could only see the first couple feet of it... Never another GM product. And don't get me started on the bailout! $(%*%&#@!!!

Spoken like someone who never drove any full size cars before, from any manufacturer.

10AM, that's double-digits man! It's only 7AM here and I knew that! I'm playing with you dude, but it does point an important fact. Which is people are so ingrained with their opinions on a manufacturer that they will easily "confuse" facts around to reinforce that negative opinion. That Top Gear episode came out before we had even seen the production Camaro, and a HEMI Orange Challenger (with references to Vanishing Point throughout the episode) is kind of hard to mistake for a Camaro.

I've seen multiple Camaros at tracks and on dealers lots but I just saw the very first one on the road coming at me - I swear it looked like someone stepped in the middle of it. The sides looked higher than the middle!

And that was on a car with a hood scoop, w/o the scoop it would have looked concave.

P71 wrote: And in short, I was severely disappointed. The ergonomics are *awkward* to say the least. The steering wheel blocks the gauges, the seat is too far from the wheel yet too close to the pedals and getting out requires bending in ways I am no longer able to do. That V6 was a sweet engine though.

Funny that you like the Solstice, since this sounds EXACTLY like my Solstice.

mad_machine wrote: you do not need the feds to help GM make their cars look like Poo... followed a g6 recently? I got behind a "GXP" today and the rear wing on it overhung the rear side fenders and was probably wider than my BMW. And I thought aftermarket wings were bad

Wait, so that God awfull...THING, I spotted on the back of a G6 was from the factory??!!!

Crap like that and I wont miss pontiac once it's gone.

The front view of the Camaro reminds me of a Cheshire cat . Every time I see a Solstice, I think, that thing is huge. For a 2 seat sports car.

iceracer wrote: The front view of the Camaro reminds me of a Cheshire cat . Every time I see a Solstice, I think, that thing is huge. For a 2 seat sports car.

I was in a friend's S2000 Saturday nite when a Solstice passed us, I had to (way) look up to see the driver and this was in a stock S2000.

I hadn't realized they were that tall.

carguy123 wrote:

iceracer wrote: The front view of the Camaro reminds me of a Cheshire cat . Every time I see a Solstice, I think, that thing is huge. For a 2 seat sports car.

I was in a friend's S2000 Saturday nite when a Solstice passed us, I had to (way) look up to see the driver and this was in a stock S2000. I hadn't realized they were that tall.

They sure aren't big on the inside.

I know, I've driven one. I liken it to a small Miata inside.