2002 Chevy Camaro SS and Skyline R34 GT-R

[Smokescreen]

This is NOT a performance thread.

I was looking on Rotorex's site and it cost almost 80 grand to get a used R34 GT-R in the U.S. Now the people who have GT-R's in the U.S. have a passion for that car. If they really wanted to, they could buy a number of car cheap and perform just as well, but it's exclusive to Japan and and they want the GT-R. So it occurs to me, there are probably people in other country's that really want certain car exclusive to other places, like North America, and the 2002 Camaro SS. So what I'm asking, is what kind of price are people willing to fork out for a shiny "new" Camaro SS or Firebird WS6 overseas?

[F1_Master]

Well, at this time that "new" Camaro or Firebird would cost you a good penny. Otherwise, after shipping, it must meet the countries regulations, you do know that, right? Of course you do. Anyways, a Camaro in England. Would that be considered rare over there?

Maybe Matra can answer that for me.

[IWantAnAudiRS6]

If I remember rightly, you could buy yourself a Chevy Corvette in Britain for a great price of £33,000. The Camaro SS was about the same....by the way, a Nissan Skyline here would cost you about $70,000 BRAND NEW.

[IWantAnAudiRS6]

And Camaros did happen in Britain... they were extremely rare, I don't understand why it wasn't more popular!

[Coventrysucks]

Yes, American muscle cars are fairly rare in the UK.
(Saying that I saw a 1960's style Chevy Impala earlier this week)

I don't know how much a 'new' Camaro SS would be, but a 1997 SS 30th Anniversary edition £11,850.
= ~ $21,500

[Matra et Alpine]

And Camaros did happen in Britain... they were extremely rare, I don't understand why it wasn't more popular!
Please if I tell you I'd need to kill you :)

Well documented why.

Anyway, Camaro's are generally rare but were actually amazingly common on the West cost of Scotland. Of course that was due to the 5000 Americans based there as part of the Holy Loch submarine base. Most of them imported yank-tanks and a few were Camaros, tho' don't remember many 'vettes ( guess that was officers :) )

[Coventrysucks]

I don't understand why it wasn't more popular!

Because they had crap ride, were incredibly poor quality, a huge car (for the UK), it drank like a fish, they were all left hand drive, and there wasn't much in the way of a dealer/ servicing network.

Not a recipie for success.

I remember when they came out here, I saw one at the motorshow. I got quite excited, but the closer I got, the worse it was. I think I could have gotten in by climbing through the panel gaps.

It was the same with the old Cadillac STS, Cheverolet Blazer, Chrysler Viper GTS, etc, etc...

[Slicks]

Because they had crap ride, were incredibly poor quality, a huge car (for the UK), it drank like a fish, they were all left hand drive, and there wasn't much in the way of a dealer/ servicing network.

Not a recipie for success.

I remember when they came out here, I saw one at the motorshow. I got quite excited, but the closer I got, the worse it was. I think I could have gotten in by climbing through the panel gaps.

It was the same with the old Cadillac STS, Cheverolet Blazer, Chrysler Viper GTS, etc, etc...

Figured someone would say some ignorant things on here...
Have you ever rode in a 4th gen Camaro? What are you comparing it to when saying it has a "crap ride"? I recently rode in a new 350Z, now that has a crap ride, a Camaro rides much smoother than that. And as for gas guzzling, again what are you comparing it to? You do relize that a 02SS actually gets better gas milage than an S2000 right?

[Matra et Alpine]

.. I recently rode in a new 350Z, now that has a crap ride, a Camaro rides much smoother than that.
See, now we have to re-enter the old chestnut of EXPECTATIONS.
Especially with the word 'smoother' :) See smooth means compliance, compliant-suspension means poor cornering and direction change if a large car.
SO 'smooth' for you , translates to 'wallowing' for us usually. Hence why most cars get a rollocking from journos when they try to sell them over here.

[F1_Master]

That's what I thought. I wonder how much a used R32 would be here. Gotta look around, but the only import place here in Texas close to Plano is the Rotary Imports and other cars.

[Slicks]

See, now we have to re-enter the old chestnut of EXPECTATIONS.
Especially with the word 'smoother' :) See smooth means compliance, compliant-suspension means poor cornering and direction change if a large car.
SO 'smooth' for you , translates to 'wallowing' for us usually. Hence why most cars get a rollocking from journos when they try to sell them over here.
Again coming from someone who has never ridden in a Camaro... Always assuming our cars lack suspension refinement.
Tell me how is it that a Camaro SS is able to beat an S2000 around a track, when the S2000 is actually quicker to 60, and close to the same speed in the quartermile?
S2000s time (http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=155&page_number=5&preview=)

Camaros time (http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=155&page_number=3)

Ill give you a hint, other than the fact that the Camaro has a much better mid range punch (thanks to the torqueless VTEC) its handling is greatly underrated, and people like you assume that since its a muscle car, it cant handle.

[Matra et Alpine]

Again coming from someone who has never ridden in a Camaro...
WRONG.

But not a modern one granted.

Always assuming our cars lack suspension refinement.
Tell me how is it that a Camaro SS is able to beat an S2000 around a track, when the S2000 is actually quicker to 60, and close to the same speed in the quartermile?
Gearing.
If the speeds keep the Camarro within it's wide torque range then the Honda won't manage to make up for the additional necessary gear changes it needs to use it's power.
GRIP, the Camaro runs much more rubber than the S2000, so again depends on the circuit if it makes a difference.
Oh and driver :)
But NO, it's not either of those .....

S2000s time (http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=155&page_number=5&preview=)

Camaros time (http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=155&page_number=3)

Ill give you a hint, other than the fact that the Camaro has a much better mid range punch (thanks to the torqueless VTEC) its handling is greatly underrated, and people like you assume that since its a muscle car, it cant handle.
I'll give you a bigger hint, read the articles again and not just the numbers.
The S2000 was in the wet :)
OOPS :eek:

???????????

Oh and :PS: What are the spring and damper ratings for the S200 in the US market ? I'm repeatedlay having to point out that most of the time the US gets 'softer' settings from the manufacturers to make the cars sell.

[Coventrysucks]

Figured someone would say some ignorant things on here...
Have you ever rode in a 4th gen Camaro? What are you comparing it to when saying it has a "crap ride"? I recently rode in a new 350Z, now that has a crap ride, a Camaro rides much smoother than that. And as for gas guzzling, again what are you comparing it to? You do relize that a 02SS actually gets better gas milage than an S2000 right?

Oh, I'm so ignorant.
The Camaro was the best ever car. So much better than anything else available in Europe at the time.
That is why it was the runaway sales success of the decade.

Strangely enough, the British press consider the 350Z a fine car.
Different countries, different driving styles, different requirements.
American cars cannot cope with the appaling road surfaces in Britain, leading to lots of pitch and wallowing.

Seeing as I wasn't of a driving age, and there aren't many about, I didn't get the opportunity to sample the Camaro.

I do vividly remember its appearance on Top Gear though, driven by Tiff Needell. Again, I was looking forward to it, as I did actually like the thought of the Camaro at the time, but it wasn't a good day for the Camaro.
:)

[Coventrysucks]

After some further digging, I have found some info on the "UK" spec Camaro.

From Car magazine's "The Good, The Bad & The Ugly" from 2000.
"Massive ammounts of sports-car presence and sheer grunt for the money - especially the V8. It'll make an impression. But it's simple and crude and as subtle as Liberace. Left hand drive only.

V6 is quicker than the MX-5 brigade, but you drive on the torque. Z28 is a 288bhp 5.7-litre V8, massively fast, and you needn't use the truck-like gearbox much. But there's a live axle at the back, so drive as if it's a (large) classic car in modern clothes.

Sold through a small network of Vauxhall dealers, so servicing ought to be matched to British norms, even if the car itself certainly isn't."

Lhd and big-cube engines will bring an insurance penalty.
Understressed engines mean fuel consumption isn't too tragic.*"

*Still doesn't mean it is good.

3.8 V6 coupe £18,975 ($35,000) 125mph (0-60) 8.5 MPG 22.9
3.8 V6 cabriolet £22,500 ($41,000)
Z28 5.7 V8 £22,900 ($41,600) 158mph (0-60) 5.4 MPG 20.9

2001 Honda S2000 MPG 28.5

As both sources are British publications, I assume they are both imperial gallons.

Some comments on other American imports:
Cadillac Seville STS: "Just one model, and we probably wouldn't choose it at all."

Chrysler Neon: "Sadly the Neon is nowhere near the standards of the best Europeans. The 2.0 litre engine is too noisy and the three speed auto comical.

Our Choice: Buy a nearly new Focus."

Chrysler Viper:"Here's a Chrysler import we don't actually need. We already do torquey beasts (see TVR/Marcos) better than this V10 animal, and it's neither cheap nor well equipped.

What'll it do mister? That'll be one of the mre polite enquiries you'll get from resentful members of the British public. Be prepared to be the centre of attention, whether you like it or not. Also be prepared for the thing to fidget and fuss ovr anything but smooth tarmac, yet another reason why it shouldn't be given road room over here. If you like powerslides on demand though, and you are challenged in the trouser department, this is definately your kind of snake.

A Viper GTS has airbags, air-con but no ABS or electric windows.
The Roadster hasn't got any of the above. If it rains you'll be soaked by the time you've nailed the roof together. Kit-wise, even a Neon has more going for it than one of these."

Corvette C5:"Traditional Corvette virtues - value, performance, looks - married to a more sophisticated package that can compete globally.

Goes like a rocket sled... which will make an F355 go red. But ride is hard with the 'performance handling package' suspension. Opt for 'real-time' adaptive ride option, which also improves handling on real roads."

See - they can be nice if they want!
:)

[Slicks]

WRONG.

But not a modern one granted.

Gearing.
If the speeds keep the Camarro within it's wide torque range then the Honda won't manage to make up for the additional necessary gear changes it needs to use it's power.
GRIP, the Camaro runs much more rubber than the S2000, so again depends on the circuit if it makes a difference.
Oh and driver :)
But NO, it's not either of those .....

I'll give you a bigger hint, read the articles again and not just the numbers.
The S2000 was in the wet :)
OOPS :eek:

???????????

Oh and :PS: What are the spring and damper ratings for the S200 in the US market ? I'm repeatedlay having to point out that most of the time the US gets 'softer' settings from the manufacturers to make the cars sell.

Uh oh, the SS was driven in the rain too!
Check Hondas website for the spring and damper rates, im not sure where else to look.

[Slicks]

Oh, I'm so ignorant.
The Camaro was the best ever car. So much better than anything else available in Europe at the time.
That is why it was the runaway sales success of the decade.

Strangely enough, the British press consider the 350Z a fine car.
Different countries, different driving styles, different requirements.
American cars cannot cope with the appaling road surfaces in Britain, leading to lots of pitch and wallowing.

Seeing as I wasn't of a driving age, and there aren't many about, I didn't get the opportunity to sample the Camaro.

I do vividly remember its appearance on Top Gear though, driven by Tiff Needell. Again, I was looking forward to it, as I did actually like the thought of the Camaro at the time, but it wasn't a good day for the Camaro.
:)


I never said it was the best, i just said that people abuse it so much and yet havent even driven one... And ofcourse it didnt sell well in europe, with people like topgear, and others thinking pushrods are "lowtech" how could it?

I also never said that the 350Z was a bad car, i was just using an example of another perfomance car with similar stats.

[Slicks]

After some further digging, I have found some info on the "UK" spec Camaro.

From Car magazine's "The Good, The Bad & The Ugly" from 2000.
"Massive ammounts of sports-car presence and sheer grunt for the money - especially the V8. It'll make an impression. But it's simple and crude and as subtle as Liberace. Left hand drive only.

V6 is quicker than the MX-5 brigade, but you drive on the torque. Z28 is a 288bhp 5.7-litre V8, massively fast, and you needn't use the truck-like gearbox much. But there's a live axle at the back, so drive as if it's a (large) classic car in modern clothes.

Sold through a small network of Vauxhall dealers, so servicing ought to be matched to British norms, even if the car itself certainly isn't."

Lhd and big-cube engines will bring an insurance penalty.
Understressed engines mean fuel consumption isn't too tragic.*"

*Still doesn't mean it is good.

3.8 V6 coupe £18,975 ($35,000) 125mph (0-60) 8.5 MPG 22.9
3.8 V6 cabriolet £22,500 ($41,000)
Z28 5.7 V8 £22,900 ($41,600) 158mph (0-60) 5.4 MPG 20.9

2001 Honda S2000 MPG 28.5

As both sources are British publications, I assume they are both imperial gallons.

Some comments on other American imports:
Cadillac Seville STS: "Just one model, and we probably wouldn't choose it at all."

Chrysler Neon: "Sadly the Neon is nowhere near the standards of the best Europeans. The 2.0 litre engine is too noisy and the three speed auto comical.

Our Choice: Buy a nearly new Focus."

Chrysler Viper:"Here's a Chrysler import we don't actually need. We already do torquey beasts (see TVR/Marcos) better than this V10 animal, and it's neither cheap nor well equipped.

What'll it do mister? That'll be one of the mre polite enquiries you'll get from resentful members of the British public. Be prepared to be the centre of attention, whether you like it or not. Also be prepared for the thing to fidget and fuss ovr anything but smooth tarmac, yet another reason why it shouldn't be given road room over here. If you like powerslides on demand though, and you are challenged in the trouser department, this is definately your kind of snake.

A Viper GTS has airbags, air-con but no ABS or electric windows.
The Roadster hasn't got any of the above. If it rains you'll be soaked by the time you've nailed the roof together. Kit-wise, even a Neon has more going for it than one of these."

Corvette C5:"Traditional Corvette virtues - value, performance, looks - married to a more sophisticated package that can compete globally.

Goes like a rocket sled... which will make an F355 go red. But ride is hard with the 'performance handling package' suspension. Opt for 'real-time' adaptive ride option, which also improves handling on real roads."

See - they can be nice if they want!
:)


Dig a little deeper, the Camaro SS gets 18/29mpg, the S2000 of the same year gets 20/28mpg.

[Coventrysucks]

We never got the SS, so why argue the point?

My original post was stating why the Camaro didn't sell in the UK, so why discuss models not sold here.

There might have been a gold-plated version, which was the best handling car in the world, with 1,000bhp, and 100mpg in the US for all I care, but if it wasn't sold in the UK, it doesn't change the fact that the version in the UK got relatively poor economy, and didn't handle well.

And BTW, the Top Gear review was pre-cynical Jeremy Clarkson days, when they used to take a much more objective standpoint, rather than subjective.

[Coventrysucks]

And of course it didnt sell well in europe, with people like topgear, and others thinking pushrods are "lowtech" how could it?

Pushrods are lowtech, which is part of the appeal.
Less mechanical complexity, less moving parts, less to go wrong etc.

[Smokescreen]

I knew this would happen. :D

Note that the following is coming from a 16 year old.

I want the non Americans to get a little something about The Camaro and all it's muscle car brethren. People over here don't buy cars like the SS or Z/28 to take them on the twisties. They have them as eveyday, low-tech cars that go fast in a straight line. With an S2000, you can't haul four friends around on a weekend or carry a whole lotta stuff either. America is a BIG place. there are very few uninhabited places, all of it is spread out with small towns avery ten mils or so. I'm not sure what it's like where you all are from but here there are a lot of straight low traffic, rarley patroled country roads. Heck, if you wanted to you go out in the country five or six miles, measure off a quarter mile and run it in broad daylight and no one would ever even know about it. Handling means nothing. It all about speed.

Part of is is becasue of the car's personality. When you see an f-body with dual exhaust you know it's a a V-8 powered car. They have aggressive looks. They sound mean. I'm not saying that these are perfect cars, but they are cool cars. It's like Harley riders. There's something about Harleys. Call it noslatgia.

Here are some prices of Gen 4 Camaros and Firebirds from the mid-90's, take from my local auto trader:

'95 Trans Am, 76k miles, 5.7L, AC, AT $6,500
'95 Trans Am, "low milage", 5.7L, 5 speed, $5,995
'93 Camaro Z/28, AT, CD, $4,700

A friend of mine owns a '95 Z/28, rated and 275hp and with exhaust, intake, and chips, it will easily make 350hp. I know that this isn't a car for all landscapes, but i just want you all to see why Americans like these kinds of cars. Just my two-cents.

[Slicks]

We never got the SS, so why argue the point?

My original post was stating why the Camaro didn't sell in the UK, so why discuss models not sold here.

There might have been a gold-plated version, which was the best handling car in the world, with 1,000bhp, and 100mpg in the US for all I care, but if it wasn't sold in the UK, it doesn't change the fact that the version in the UK got relatively poor economy, and didn't handle well.

And BTW, the Top Gear review was pre-cynical Jeremy Clarkson days, when they used to take a much more objective standpoint, rather than subjective.
Didnt know you never got the SS, no matter, the Z28 gets the exact same gasmilage.

[Slicks]

Pushrods are lowtech, which is part of the appeal.
Less mechanical complexity, less moving parts, less to go wrong etc.
Also lighter, physically smaller, and can produce the same ammount of power...whats so bad about a small lightweight engine with loads or torque and power?

[Slicks]

I knew this would happen. :D

Note that the following is coming from a 16 year old.

I want the non Americans to get a little something about The Camaro and all it's muscle car brethren. People over here don't buy cars like the SS or Z/28 to take them on the twisties. They have them as eveyday, low-tech cars that go fast in a straight line. With an S2000, you can't haul four friends around on a weekend or carry a whole lotta stuff either. America is a BIG place. there are very few uninhabited places, all of it is spread out with small towns avery ten mils or so. I'm not sure what it's like where you all are from but here there are a lot of straight low traffic, rarley patroled country roads. Heck, if you wanted to you go out in the country five or six miles, measure off a quarter mile and run it in broad daylight and no one would ever even know about it. Handling means nothing. It all about speed.

Part of is is becasue of the car's personality. When you see an f-body with dual exhaust you know it's a a V-8 powered car. They have aggressive looks. They sound mean. I'm not saying that these are perfect cars, but they are cool cars. It's like Harley riders. There's something about Harleys. Call it noslatgia.

Here are some prices of Gen 4 Camaros and Firebirds from the mid-90's, take from my local auto trader:

'95 Trans Am, 76k miles, 5.7L, AC, AT $6,500
'95 Trans Am, "low milage", 5.7L, 5 speed, $5,995
'93 Camaro Z/28, AT, CD, $4,700

A friend of mine owns a '95 Z/28, rated and 275hp and with exhaust, intake, and chips, it will easily make 350hp. I know that this isn't a car for all landscapes, but i just want you all to see why Americans like these kinds of cars. Just my two-cents.


Sounds about right to me, except the 4th gen f-bodies came out in 98, so those are the 3rd gen.

Mainly yes, there are many strait and broud roads here, where you able to go very fast. There are a fair share of the twisties though, in which the Camaro performs just fine.

[Matra et Alpine]

Also lighter, physically smaller, and can produce the same ammount of power...whats so bad about a small lightweight engine with loads or torque and power?
When belts technology wasn't great this is true.
But nowadays, it's not an issue.
It's hard to stop a pudhrod flexing and IS a limiting factor on recs and aggresive timing.
Course big torque and low revving solutions make this an apples an doranges comparison.

So far I've not seen any varable valve timing solution based on pushrods - anyone ???

So it may become a quaint memory along with mechanical fuel pumps :)

[Coventrysucks]

You do relize that a 02SS actually gets better gas milage than an S2000 right?

Autocar's own test figures from November 1999:
Z28 20/27mpg
S2000 33.1/29mpg

Top Gear Magazine's own test figures May 2001:
Z28 20.9mpg
S2000 28.5mpg

Evo magazine's figures September 1999:
Z28 20.3mpg
S2000 28.5mpg

All figures are imperial gallons.

Please could you explain how the Z28 gets better economy than a Honda S2000.

[Smokescreen]

Sounds about right to me, except the 4th gen f-bodies came out in 98, so those are the 3rd gen.

Mainly yes, there are many strait and broud roads here, where you able to go very fast. There are a fair share of the twisties though, in which the Camaro performs just fine.

No, the 4th gen came out in the early 90's, it was mostly cosmeticaly redesigned in '98(Camaro got the dual headlight housings and rounder body panels). 3rd gen were the 80's IROC body style cars.

[Slicks]

Autocar's own test figures from November 1999:
Z28 20/27mpg
S2000 33.1/29mpg

Top Gear Magazine's own test figures May 2001:
Z28 20.9mpg
S2000 28.5mpg

Evo magazine's figures September 1999:
Z28 20.3mpg
S2000 28.5mpg

All figures are imperial gallons.

Please could you explain how the Z28 gets better economy than a Honda S2000.


Tell me was the Z28 tested an auto? I couldnt find any tests done by EVO, top gear, and autocar on any camaro(and not like im going to belive anything topgear says :rolleyes: ). Unfortunetly any articles concerning test driving the Camaro in Car and Driver, Road and Track, and MotorTrend are all to old to keep alive on thier websites. But i can find the S2000.

For 2003 CarandDriver-observed fuel economy: 23 mpg
For 2004 CarandDriver "extreme sports" for a 800mile trip C/D got 22mpg average, and 25mpg highway.

It seems either the S2000 euro spec is different from ours, or other things can be a work here.

Do you want me to explain how the Z28 gets better gas milage than the S2000? You dont have to rev the crap out of the engine to get anywhere. In the S2000 you have to rev to 3000-5000RPMs to just keep up with traffic. The Z28 will easily stay with traffic at 2000RPMs. Also with all the low end torque you can achieve good gasmilage (27+) in 6th gear for hwy driving, where as again you dont have that kind of torque with the S2000, hence one reason for bad hwy EPA (25mpg)

One more thing, here we have a gas guzzler tax you pay when purchasing a car, im not sure exacly what the EPA must be to pass it but the Z28 and SS both (manual form) pass it, where as the S2000 doesn not.

[Coventrysucks]

Tell me was the Z28 tested an auto? I couldnt find any tests done by EVO, top gear, and autocar on any camaro(and not like im going to belive anything topgear says :rolleyes: ). Unfortunetly any articles concerning test driving the Camaro in Car and Driver, Road and Track, and MotorTrend are all to old to keep alive on thier websites. But i can find the S2000.


It didn't specify whether it was an auto or not. Evo probably didn't test the auto if they could get their hands on a manual.

Why not belive Top Gear magazine from the late '90s. It isn't the same as today's programme.
Top Gear started out as a serious motoring review programme and magazine, and built up a reputation as such. Now with 5th Gear doing the kind of thing Top Gear did, TG tv has taken a different approach.
And just because you don't like what they say, doesn't make it wrong.

3 sets of independant figures show that the S2000 does get better economy than the Camaro, why isn't that enough for you?

[Matra et Alpine]

.....Do you want me to explain how the Z28 gets better gas milage than the S2000? You dont have to rev the crap out of the engine to get anywhere. In the S2000 you have to rev to 3000-5000RPMs to just keep up with traffic.
Revs themselves are NOT an indicatino of gas mileage !!
Best engine efficiency can ceom at any poitn in an engines rev range, eacj engine is designed to deliver it at different points in it's power curve. An engine COULD use more gas at 2000 revs than it does at 5000 under load.

However, it IS the norm that low revs and high revs take more gas, just how loa and how high is engine and car dependant ( wweight, transmission, final ratios etc )


The Z28 will easily stay with traffic at 2000RPMs. Also with all the low end torque you can achieve good gasmilage (27+) in 6th gear for hwy driving, where as again you dont have that kind of torque with the S2000, hence one reason for bad hwy EPA (25mpg)
TOrqiue is unimportanta for hiwghway mileage, but what IS is a very long top gear and I've ususally found most American and US-bound cars are supplied with a top gear that can ONLY be used on motorways. It's there to 'cheat' the mileage :)[/QUOTE]


One more thing, here we have a gas guzzler tax you pay when purchasing a car, im not sure exacly what the EPA must be to pass it but the Z28 and SS both (manual form) pass it, where as the S2000 doesn not.
Not knowing anything but one fact about the 'guzzler' tax I can't comment.
BUT any system which allows SUVs to be bought by families for family use and NOT be included in the tax is a clear indication that it is a biased solution in at least ONE aspect and possibly suspect in all :)

[Slicks]

It didn't specify whether it was an auto or not. Evo probably didn't test the auto if they could get their hands on a manual.

Why not belive Top Gear magazine from the late '90s. It isn't the same as today's programme.
Top Gear started out as a serious motoring review programme and magazine, and built up a reputation as such. Now with 5th Gear doing the kind of thing Top Gear did, TG tv has taken a different approach.
And just because you don't like what they say, doesn't make it wrong.

3 sets of independant figures show that the S2000 does get better economy than the Camaro, why isn't that enough for you?

Just from the milage they have claimed to have gotten it seems they tested an auto Z28.
Its not the fact that i dont like what they say its the fact that they simply lie. Ive gone over this before, the "heavy shifter" in the C6 claimed by TopGear was said to be "fingertip light" by the Telegraph. Also the "plastic" center counsol is actually alluminum. You tell me, lies? There are more but im not going to go on.

Your figures still differ from mine, even Hondas offical site says different. Like i said the eurospec might be different from the us spec.

[Slicks]

Revs themselves are NOT an indicatino of gas mileage !!
Best engine efficiency can ceom at any poitn in an engines rev range, eacj engine is designed to deliver it at different points in it's power curve. An engine COULD use more gas at 2000 revs than it does at 5000 under load.

This can be true, but in general the higher you rev the more the gas the engine will consume.


TOrqiue is unimportanta for hiwghway mileage, but what IS is a very long top gear and I've ususally found most American and US-bound cars are supplied with a top gear that can ONLY be used on motorways. It's there to 'cheat' the mileage :)
That is untrue, the more the low end torque, the less the engine has to strain to get the car moving. When on the hwy in top gear, teh transmission will be spinning faster then the engine, hence the better milage on the hwy than the city. With low end torque the engine more easily can spin the transmission in a high gear ratio like that.



Not knowing anything but one fact about the 'guzzler' tax I can't comment.
BUT any system which allows SUVs to be bought by families for family use and NOT be included in the tax is a clear indication that it is a biased solution in at least ONE aspect and possibly suspect in all :)
Why do you assume that SUVs do not have to pay the gas guzzler tax? This is the problem with you guys, you assume the worst all the time. This tax applies to all vehicles bought that get X amount of gas milage.

[Matra et Alpine]

That is untrue, the more the low end torque, the less the engine has to strain to get the car moving. When on the hwy in top gear, teh transmission will be spinning faster then the engine, hence the better milage on the hwy than the city. With low end torque the engine more easily can spin the transmission in a high gear ratio like that.
Missed the point I think.
Tt's common to put a VERY long top gear so the car is sitting at the most efficient fuel point in the power band. Generally NOT a good idea if only 5 gears and/or the engine is low on torque.
It's the gear ratio of the top gear which makes a HUGE difference to the motorway mileage. City mileage is about torque for reasonable driving.
It is avout efficiency ( which is usually NOT from torquey engines ) but hard to sell a car that needs 15 gear changes between traffic lights :)

Why do you assume that SUVs do not have to pay the gas guzzler tax? This is the problem with you guys, you assume the worst all the time. This tax applies to all vehicles bought that get X amount of gas milage.
I've probably used the wrong term, BUT the US treats an SUV as a commercial vehicle and it does NOT need to meet the efficiency and emissions of the state/country ? I'd need to go back and find the article I'd read a while ago on this. But I'm sure You'll clarify which 'tax' or 'law' it is......

[henk4]

I drove a Pontiac Grand-Am V6 4-speed autobox this summer. The forth gear gave 1800 revs at 100 km. The absence of torque in that range made the box shift down at every anthill in the motorway. My own car (a diesel) does 2000 revs when cruising at 100 kph, and gets its max torque at 1750. It's manual but there is hardly ever a need to go back to forth gear, and yes I live in a flat country, but I do travel. I won't bother you with the mileage, because you wouldn't believe it anyway and as long as the US consumer keeps on applying an ostrich policy against diesel propulsion, it's just pearls before swines :)

[Coventrysucks]

Its not the fact that i dont like what they say its the fact that they simply lie. Ive gone over this before, the "heavy shifter" in the C6 claimed by TopGear was said to be "fingertip light" by the Telegraph. Also the "plastic" center counsol is actually aluminum. You tell me, lies? There are more but im not going to go on.

Sorry, but that is complete bollocks.
You judge road test figures from Top Gear magazine, from over 5 years ago, because of comments made on the Top Gear television programme a few weeks ago? The television programme is made by different people than the magazine.

If you had indeed read the Telegraph article, you will recall that the gearbox and clutch were replaced after its period with Top Gear.
Could that mean there was a problem with the gearbox, that caused it to become heavy and difficult to use?

If they hadn't previous experience of the car, how were they to know there was a defect, and that it wasn't supposed to be like that?


Your figures still differ from mine, even Hondas offical site says different. Like i said the eurospec might be different from the us spec.

www.honda.co.uk
S2000
mpg urban: 20.6 (cold start, average 12mph)
mpg extra urban: 35.3 (warm start, average 39mph)
mpg combined: 28.5 (weighted average of urban/extra urban)

www.hondacars.com
S2000
mpg city: 20 = 24 imperial
mpg highway: 25 = 30 imperial

The closest comparison to the Camaro today is the Vauxhall Monaro.
Using a 330bhp version of the same engine, and with only 100kg more to lug around, the car achieves 13.0/28.0/19.6 according to euro figures.

According to http://www.fueleconomy.gov
Camaro 19/28/22
S2000 20/26/22

= no score draw.

So, in summary:
According to data from American sources:
For city driving, the S2000 is more efficient.
For highway driving, the camaro is more efficient

According to data from European sources:
For city driving, the S2000 is more efficient.
For other driving, the S2000 is more efficient.
:)

[Matra et Alpine]

...
According to data from American sources:
...
According to data from European sources:

:)
Remember the cars are different for emissions and possibly fuel.

What fuel does the US spec cars run on and the Camaro ?

Possibly 87 octane.

UK cars ar 95 octane and some now are able to make use of the 98 octane Optimax for better performance.

So at best, you might be able to say that the Honda runnign on low-grade fuel is beaten by the Camaro. That woudl make sense and be possible.
Shame really :)

[Slicks]

Missed the point I think.
Tt's common to put a VERY long top gear so the car is sitting at the most efficient fuel point in the power band. Generally NOT a good idea if only 5 gears and/or the engine is low on torque.
It's the gear ratio of the top gear which makes a HUGE difference to the motorway mileage. City mileage is about torque for reasonable driving.
It is avout efficiency ( which is usually NOT from torquey engines ) but hard to sell a car that needs 15 gear changes between traffic lights :)

Im pretty sure i understand what your saying.


I've probably used the wrong term, BUT the US treats an SUV as a commercial vehicle and it does NOT need to meet the efficiency and emissions of the state/country ? I'd need to go back and find the article I'd read a while ago on this. But I'm sure You'll clarify which 'tax' or 'law' it is......
What? Ive never heard that before...
My family has 2 small SUVs ( a jeep and a blazer) and both go through the same emission testing any other car does.

[Slicks]

I drove a Pontiac Grand-Am V6 4-speed autobox this summer. The forth gear gave 1800 revs at 100 km. The absence of torque in that range made the box shift down at every anthill in the motorway. My own car (a diesel) does 2000 revs when cruising at 100 kph, and gets its max torque at 1750. It's manual but there is hardly ever a need to go back to forth gear, and yes I live in a flat country, but I do travel. I won't bother you with the mileage, because you wouldn't believe it anyway and as long as the US consumer keeps on applying an ostrich policy against diesel propulsion, it's just pearls before swines :)
Again you europeans assuming, you think im not going to belive that your diesel gets better gas milage than a normal combustion engine? I know most diesel get better milage, why most people think of them as "dirty" is that bug trucks like dump trucks, and moving trucks use diesels, and even some lawn mowers, and the pollution they put out is very visible.

[Coventrysucks]

Remember the cars are different for emissions and possibly fuel.

What fuel does the US spec cars run on and the Camaro ?

Possibly 87 octane.

UK cars ar 95 octane and some now are able to make use of the 98 octane Optimax for better performance.

So at best, you might be able to say that the Honda runnign on low-grade fuel is beaten by the Camaro. That woudl make sense and be possible.
Shame really :)

Surely the cars tested in the UK would be running on the same fuel etc, and the cars tested in the USA would be using the same fuel etc, or am I missing the point?

[Slicks]

Sorry, but that is complete bollocks.
You judge road test figures from Top Gear magazine, from over 5 years ago, because of comments made on the Top Gear television programme a few weeks ago? The television programme is made by different people than the magazine.
Top gear has always been known to be biased...


If you had indeed read the Telegraph article, you will recall that the gearbox and clutch were replaced after its period with Top Gear.
Could that mean there was a problem with the gearbox, that caused it to become heavy and difficult to use?
I read the article, the clutch had to be replaced because topgear tried everything they could to get the C6 to break. Even the Telegraph told GM not to send a C6 to topgear...


If they hadn't previous experience of the car, how were they to know there was a defect, and that it wasn't supposed to be like that?
Was it a defect, or was it lies?





The closest comparison to the Camaro today is the Vauxhall Monaro.
Using a 330bhp version of the same engine, and with only 100kg more to lug around, the car achieves 13.0/28.0/19.6 according to euro figures.

You have to put more into consideration to mpg than that. What about areodynamics, Camaros live rear axle, transmission, and gearing.


According to http://www.fueleconomy.gov
Camaro 19/28/22
S2000 20/26/22

= no score draw.

So, in summary:
According to data from American sources:
For city driving, the S2000 is more efficient.
For highway driving, the camaro is more efficient

According to data from European sources:
For city driving, the S2000 is more efficient.
For other driving, the S2000 is more efficient.
:)
Like i said the eurospec S2000 is most likely different from the US spec.
But yes, in America, the Camaro is more efficient on the hwy, where most of the driving occurs.

[henk4]

Again you europeans assuming, you think im not going to belive that your diesel gets better gas milage than a normal combustion engine? I know most diesel get better milage, why most people think of them as "dirty" is that bug trucks like dump trucks, and moving trucks use diesels, and even some lawn mowers, and the pollution they put out is very visible.

OK. I got about 11-12 km/l with the Pontiac, and I am pretty sure that under similar circumstances I would have got between 18-19 km/l with my own car. But you clearly indicate what most people "think", without having any idea how far ahead European diesel technology actually is.

[Matra et Alpine]

Surely the cars tested in the UK would be running on the same fuel etc, and the cars tested in the USA would be using the same fuel etc, or am I missing the point?
yes, but the engines will operate differently.
Fuel-mixture can be adjusted for sure, but where an engine is more efficient and HOW efficient it is will vary.

and low compression, large capacity engines are MUCH more accepting of differeing fuel octanes. So there 'window' of efficiency is wider.

[Matra et Alpine]

Im pretty sure i understand what your saying.:)

What? Ive never heard that before...
My family has 2 small SUVs ( a jeep and a blazer) and both go through the same emission testing any other car does.
You know that all you do is convince everyonbe that Americans are lazy, stupid or both.

OK, *I* took the time to go find it.
Pisses me off at your arrogance at not even BOTHERING.
So this is the end, I'm not getting involved with ANY thread or post of your again.
And if there wass a way to block you from reading mine I'd do that to.
SheerBLOODY LAZINESS is the worst attitude anyone can have and you've just exhibited it.

So to shut you up read this .....

CAFE Standards

In response to the Arab oil embargo of 1973-1974, Congress enacts The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975. The EPCA establishes corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for passenger vehicles model years (MY)1978-80 and 1985 and thereafter.2 The CAFE standards establish a minimum average mpg a vehicle class must obtain.

In the U.S., SUVs (along with minivans and pickup trucks) are classified as "light trucks" and are held to different standards as passenger cars. Currently, the standard for passenger cars is 27.5 mpg, while for light trucks it is only 20.7 mpg. (Note that these standards are averaged for all vehicles in a specific class, and many SUV's average a mere 12 or 13 mpg.)

and if you'd bothered to check you'd not have looked as big a fool as you now do to all of UCP.

ENJOY :)

Edit: WOO-HOO :) !!! I love UCP, just found out about the ignore list. Just added a name to it. Goodbye :)

[Coventrysucks]

Top gear has always been known to be biased...

How do you figure that?
Biased against whom?


Was it a defect, or was it lies?
Will we ever know?


You have to put more into consideration to mpg than that. What about areodynamics, Camaros live rear axle, transmission, and gearing.

I am well aware of that.
I find it intriguing to think that as emissions and engine technology have improved so much in the past five years, that the engine of the Monaro wouldn't be cleaner and more efficient than that of the Camaro. So I wouldn't have thought that there would be a huge difference in the two.

I did say the closest comparison, not an exact comparison.


Like i said the eurospec S2000 is most likely different from the US spec.
But yes, in America, the Camaro is more efficient on the hwy, where most of the driving occurs.

Personally, I would much rather enjoy thrashing an S2000 about some country lanes and getting poor mpg, than cruising along a straight bit of highway in 6th with the engine barely above tickover in the Camaro.

Like Matra, I am a bit annoyed that it is I who have had to provide the evidence for this argument.

[Slicks]

OK. I got about 11-12 km/l with the Pontiac, and I am pretty sure that under similar circumstances I would have got between 18-19 km/l with my own car. But you clearly indicate what most people "think", without having any idea how far ahead European diesel technology actually is.
Dude what are you talking about, i already said that i believe you...

[Slicks]

:)
You know that all you do is convince everyonbe that Americans are lazy, stupid or both.

OK, *I* took the time to go find it.
Pisses me off at your arrogance at not even BOTHERING.
So this is the end, I'm not getting involved with ANY thread or post of your again.
And if there wass a way to block you from reading mine I'd do that to.
SheerBLOODY LAZINESS is the worst attitude anyone can have and you've just exhibited it.

So to shut you up read this .....

CAFE Standards

In response to the Arab oil embargo of 1973-1974, Congress enacts The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975. The EPCA establishes corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for passenger vehicles model years (MY)1978-80 and 1985 and thereafter.2 The CAFE standards establish a minimum average mpg a vehicle class must obtain.

In the U.S., SUVs (along with minivans and pickup trucks) are classified as "light trucks" and are held to different standards as passenger cars. Currently, the standard for passenger cars is 27.5 mpg, while for light trucks it is only 20.7 mpg. (Note that these standards are averaged for all vehicles in a specific class, and many SUV's average a mere 12 or 13 mpg.)

and if you'd bothered to check you'd not have looked as big a fool as you now do to all of UCP.

ENJOY :)

Edit: WOO-HOO :) !!! I love UCP, just found out about the ignore list. Just added a name to it. Goodbye :)


If you can read this, seriously you have a problem man. You need to chill out, why should I have to go and look things that you want to know up?

[Slicks]

How do you figure that?
Biased against whom?

Ask anybody that has ever watched the show who is not british.


Will we ever know?

I never read anything about a defect, so all i can do is assume.



Personally, I would much rather enjoy thrashing an S2000 about some country lanes and getting poor mpg, than cruising along a straight bit of highway in 6th with the engine barely above tickover in the Camaro.

Like Matra, I am a bit annoyed that it is I who have had to provide the evidence for this argument.
And I personally rather be in an SS beating a S2000 around a track, and not having to wait for it to get to a usable RPM range.

[Coventrysucks]

Ask anybody that has ever watched the show who is not british.

It is true! You don't read anything!

How long has Top Gear been biased? Just in the last few series, or since the show started back in 197?/ 8?

And how does that equate to the magazine, which is different to the television programme, being biased?

Apart from people moaning about stuff like the Corvette review, I can't say that I have heard many non-brits who have said that it is grossly biased.

[Slicks]

It is true! You don't read anything!

How long has Top Gear been biased? Just in the last few series, or since the show started back in 197?/ 8?

And how does that equate to the magazine, which is different to the television programme, being biased?

Apart from people moaning about stuff like the Corvette review, I can't say that I have heard many non-brits who have said that it is grossly biased.
Tell me what do you want me to read?

[Coventrysucks]

Tell me what do you want me to read?

This:

You judge road test figures from Top Gear magazine, from over 5 years ago, because of comments made on the Top Gear television programme a few weeks ago? The television programme is made by different people than the magazine.


Top gear has always been known to be biased...


How long has Top Gear been biased? Just in the last few series, or since the show started back in 197?/ 8?

What exactly do you mean by "Top Gear has always been known to be biased"?

Do you mean that
a) Top Gear, since it's introduction sometime in the 1980s (I think) on the television, and that all programmes and magazine publications since then are biased.

Or

b) The Top Gear television programme, during the last few series in its 'new format' has become opinionated and biased.

I accept statement b) to be true, as it has become "The Jeremy Clarkson Show", and it is well documented about how opinionated he can be.

I don't really accept statement a) unless you have some very good evidence to back it up, as I have been watching Top Gear for at least 10 years, and never really noticed any "bias" untill the 'new format' came along.

[IWantAnAudiRS6]

That is not true, because when all three presenters review the cars, they will always highlight good and bad points- some cars are worse than others, which is why some may have less good points and more bad points (i.e. Nissan Cube), some are perfectly in the middle (Renault Clio 182) and others are viewed as fantastic (Aston Martin DB9). My case rests. If they dispute it, it still doesn't affect the overall result (unless Jeremy decides he's going to use his height advantage to put cars where he wants them on the cool board.... cheeky rascal!).