hell yeah! i cant wait!

[axman2010]

growing up my dad had a hugger orange challenger... i think i t was a 68 or 69.
.

Your thinking charger then because the first year of the challenger was in 1970.

 

[Mr.Slave]

Challenger FTW IMO. "thumbsup"

The Camaro is pretty damn plain looking without stripes...looks like a lot full of crappy rental cars.

for sure man. everytime i drive by the chrysler dealer i cream my pants cause they got the black and orange one. they did a really good job on it.

 

[toyofast]

Those cars aren't going anywhere. No one is out there buying cars/trucks to give the dealerships enough backing from their banks to bring in more stock, especially cars that require that special buyer.

 

[dezfan]

The Challenger is very cool, but it looks a little to close to the 70s version for my taste.

I'll take the Camaro(in black)!"thumbsup"

 

[62PYRO]

Camaros are for girls.:lmao::lmao:

 

[NorCal 2500HD]

Theres a guy on one of my photog forums that works for GM (Toronto). They gave him a new SS for testing purposes.....think it has the auto in it....

 

[Mr.Slave]

challenger is still better

 

[dezfan]

I'm secure in my manhood. "thumbsup"

Like I said, I like the Camaro.

 

[4x4mtb]

camaro!!!!"thumbsup""thumbsup"

 

[looneybin]

camaro all the they way even though the challenger does look better. they nailed the look of the challenger from the factoy, althought i think a cuda swap looks even better. imo the firechicken concept based off the camaro looks 100X meaner. i think a slightly modded camaro would be awsome with a different grille insert.

 

[STANG KILLA SS]

damn norcal, those pics look amazing. i will admit the camaro does not look as good/mean in the non professional photos though.

13.3? what? the 320 hp 4th gen camaro ran 13.2s with amatuer drivers. the 422 hp should be quicker even with the added weight.
imaterial, time will tell. the SS will stomp the chalenger in real world tests.

my v6 info may have been wrong, it was unconfermed internet hype and was also posted quite some time ago.

 

[Mr.Slave]

imo the nose on the camaro looks too squished.
they got the back half right but the front is kinda off.

 

[Renslipevol]

imo the nose on the camaro looks too squished.
they got the back half right but the front is kinda off.

Im afraid I think your right there...They needed to stretch it out just a tad and put some more '69 vette into the front fenders. I agree the back half is perfect.

i was refering to the fact,that hugger orange was a GM color, i could be wrong though. google search did pop up refering to a challenger and hugger orange though. no pics of a hugger orange challenger though.



on a seperate note SRT challengers are running 13.6(pro driver/motor trend)-13.8(normal drivers/forums) stock.
the new V6 camaro (300 hp) was tested with two GM techs in the car and ran a 13.8.... this is unconfirmed though. the SS with a normal guy driving will run high 12s.

Hugger Orange is a Chevrolet Color. It got its name via the 1969 RS/SS Camaro, nicknamed "The Hugger", Don't ask me how I know that; I bought a '69 RS/SS 396/375hp 10 years ago, still have 'er. I read everthing I could get my hands on. I know lots of useless GM stuff from the good years.

 

[towtruckmikey]

Not to yank anyones chain here, but if those are the special order ones, and the red ss has the 6 speed manual, with black leather(like most will)
ITS ALL MINE!!!!!




























NOT. but it will be going to a buddy who ordered it like a year ago.

 

[binaryterror]

13.3? what? the 320 hp 4th gen camaro ran 13.2s with amatuer drivers. the 422 hp should be quicker even with the added weight.

Once again Car and Driver shows 13.7 on the 2000 Camaro SS.

Remember though not only is the 2010 about 600lbs heavier, its also geared to be more "Chevy MPG" friendly, meaning much more lame gearing.

2000 Camaro SS:
Horsepower: 320hp
Weight: 3439lbs
0-60: 5.3 seconds
1/4 mile: 13.7sec

 

[bob1961]

give me any make restored 1969/70 muscle car over these over rated, over priced piece's of junk any day and i'll be proud to drive a piece of amarican iron daily even in the rain "thumbsup" ................bob

....

 

[binaryterror]

give me any make restored 1969/70 muscle car over these over rated, over priced piece's of junk any day and i'll be proud to drive a piece of amarican iron daily even in the rain "thumbsup"

Oddly enough most 67-69 Camaros in "NEW" condition often cost more than these new SS's will. Problem is their handling, ride, power, and reliability are greatly reduced compared to the new ones.

 

[montana.matt]

Oddly enough most 67-69 Camaros in "NEW" condition often cost more than these new SS's will. Problem is their handling, ride, power, and reliability are greatly reduced compared to the new ones.

Yes, but the 67-69 Camaro has the "coolness" factor on it's side.... Not like the new Camaro that has "rental car" looks:lol:
Look at the pics Cory posted and it looks like an airport rental car parking lot like Duuuuuuuude said :lol:

 

[STANG KILLA SS]

Once again Car and Driver shows 13.7 on the 2000 Camaro SS.

Remember though not only is the 2010 about 600lbs heavier, its also geared to be more "Chevy MPG" friendly, meaning much more lame gearing.

2000 Camaro SS:
Horsepower: 320hp
Weight: 3439lbs
0-60: 5.3 seconds
1/4 mile: 13.7sec

haha what a joke. my buddy jesse took 2 weeks ago his stock 02 and on his first time ever on a track, shitty shifting MF, ran a 13.4 on our local shit hole track. ive been our local F-body club president since 1999. im quite familiar with these cars. my camaro has been in 4 magazines. just about any driver has been running 13.2 to 13.3 over the years. street tires, shitty track.

 

[RANOVRU]

Useless bench racing fellas, nothing more.

Anyone that really knows anything about cars knows NOT to pay attention to mag #'s.


As for the cars themselves, diehard Chevy guy here and I like the looks of the Mopar better...however Id still take the Chevy over it every day of the week and thrice on Sun


Jon