I had a 1969 Z28. That's why I won't own the new one. You can never go back. I DID like the new Bird, but it was WAY over price for what it was.

Were they FWD Milt? Ouch, i didn't even know that.

The main thing that killed the T-bird was price, i think they were like $40,000 for a base model or something crazy like that.

No they weren't. They were based on the same platform as the Lincoln LS and Jaguar S-Type. Decent platform for a luxury sedan, not so much for a premium halo sports car.

From C&D: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/corvette_camaro_corner/2010_chevrolet_camaro_fuel_economy_figures_and_opt ion_packages_released_car_news

The base 3.6-liter direct-injected V-6 will not only offer customers a burly 304 hp, but will also return impressive fuel economy—on regular unleaded, no less. Camaro buyers opting for the 3.6-liter hooked to an automatic transmission will see EPA ratings of 18 mpg city and 29 highway on the sticker, and manual-equipped cars are rated at 17/29 mpg. Both sets of figures top the 2010 Ford Mustang V-6, as that car returns 16/24 with an automatic, while the manual gets 18/26. Hyundai’s V-6 Genesis is estimated to achieve 18/26 with an auto and 17/26 with a manual, while the automatic-only Dodge Challenger V-6 yields 17/25 mpg. The Camaro’s higher numbers are due in part to the use of more precise direct fuel-injection technology that is not offered on its competitors.

Upgrading to Chevy’s 426-hp, 6.2-liter LS3 V-8 doesn’t actually hurt economy much: the EPA has rated the engine at 16 mpg city and 25 highway with an autobox and 16/24 when backed by a six-speed manual tranny. The Camaro V-8 holds a substantial 111-hp advantage over the eight-cylinder Mustang GT, yet the Chevy’s highway ratings are at the top of the class. The Ford Mustang GT automatic returns an EPA-rated 17 mpg city/23 highway, while the manual version sees a Camaro-like return of 16/24 mpg. The Hemi-powered Challenger R/T achieves the same 16 mpg city and 25 mpg highway no matter which gearbox is selected, while ceding up to an additional 54 hp to the Camaro.



So more power than competitors and better MPG. It's a good start, especially 304 HP and 29 MPG. Direct injection, overhead cams, IRS, GM is getting downright fancy.

304hp V-6, sheesh, it probably runs sub 14 second 1/4 miles with the base engine!

Supposedly 0-60 in 6.1, not bad for a rental car.;)

yeah I really considered buying the Bird but even now they are 20K. Too much in my book for a car like that. I would rather buy a well sorted SC for 2/3 the price.

Did I mention lately how much I miss my S car? Two years it's been gone now, no car will ever come close to her.

I think it looks derivative. It's close enough to the Dodge and Ford to make them almost interchangeable save for the marque loyalty quotient. As successful as this new version might be, it'll only be sold in Mustang-like quantities. It's for a niche market.

Of greater importance is how well US car buyers accept the GM lineup surrounding this vehicle. They need sales in the millions to help support production of this vehicle. And in that regard, GM is on shaky ground. Their build and design quality hasn't yet consistently reached a level approaching the euro and asian competition. If they happen to somehow manufacture a competitive vehicle (no, it wasn't the hybrid Escalade), it'll take a few years to regain the reputation they've gradually lost over the last 25 years. But by then, it will have been too late.

Unfortunately, by 2010, I believe the competition will be that much more ahead of the the GM curve.

MHO,
Sherwood

Funny...I miss mine less and less as time passes.

Doesn't look like any of the older Camaros I remember (or God forbid, owned).

Oh yea, it's 'cause its missing the factory rust.

Put some rust on those fenders behind the wheels and make sure to rot out the floorboards, then it'll be an authentic Camaro.

What? This Camaro looks NOTHING like the Ford Mustang.

It has the typical muscle car long hood, short deck muscle car profile. Other than that, I agree that it looks much different.

Pictures taken on Friday, this guy was cool about me taking photos.

Going up the on ramp he put on a little show, small amount of smoke came out of his exhaust as my 4.3L V6 tried to keep up with him.

What I like about this car is that it's low.

It has real hips, and curves, not really Porsche 930 turbo class, but not flat slab Mustang either.

http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Automobile/
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x...obile/CAM4.jpg
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x...ile/CAM2-1.jpg
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x...obile/CAM6.jpg
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x...obile/CAM7.jpg
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x...ile/CAM1-1.jpg
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x...obile/CAM5.jpg