 2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS and 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T. Click image to enlarge |
|
Manufacturer’s web site
|
Join CanadianDriver’s Facebook group
Follow CanadianDriver on TwitterReviews and photos by Paul Williams and Grant Yoxon
Find this vehicle in CanadianDriver’s Classified Ads
Photo Gallery:
2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS and 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T
Welcome to CanadianDriver’s new Made in Canada test-drive series, where we compare, where possible, pairs of vehicles that are built in Canada and compete in the same market segment. We’ll drive each of these vehicles for one-month, and generate a detailed description, driving impressions and conclusions concerning the vehicles we test. Paul Williams and Grant Yoxon are the lead writers.
What vehicles?
Direct competitors that compete in the same market segment are the Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla; the Toyota RAV4 and the Chevrolet Equinox and the Chevrolet Camaro and Dodge Challenger. We’ll attempt to pair other “like” vehicles as they are made available, but if certain models don’t fit into a one-on-one comparison, we’ll test them independently, using the same approach throughout the series.
And when we do drive direct competitors, we’ll drive vehicles of similar specification and price, in order to compare “apples to apples.”
Our first pair to be test driven are the Chevrolet Camaro SS and Dodge Challenger R/T
 2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS. Click image to enlarge |
2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS
By Paul Williams
Built in Oshawa, Ontario, the Camaro is available in two SS trim levels: 1SS and 2SS. They both use an engine derived from the Corvette’s LS3, although notably the six-speed manual version (LS3) makes 26 more horsepower than six-speed automatic (L99). Our $41,065 (base 2SS) Rally Yellow Camaro SS is powered with a 6.2-litre V8 engine fitted to a six-speed LS3 manual transmission. So equipped, the engine makes 426-horsepower at 5900 rpm and 420 pound-feet of torque at 4600 rpm. The 2SS version adds creature comforts like Bluetooth, Boston Acoustics audio, heated seats, but doesn’t include additional performance equipment.
Optional equipment on our test example includes 20-inch polished aluminum wheels with Pirelli P-Zero tires ($540), Rally Sport package ($1,380), power sunroof with express open and venting ($1,195) and black hood and trunk lid stripes ($585). The as-tested price is $41,065.
The car is rear-wheel drive, like the original Camaro.
Paul’s initial impressions
 2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS Bumble-Bee Transformers, New York Auto Show. Click image to enlarge |
I’m sure the striking design of the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS would turn heads without the eye-popping Rally Yellow paint and black stripe kit. However, if you’ve already checked off the big wheels and the stripe package, you might as well keep going, right? “In for a penny…,” as they say.
In pictures, the Camaro SS can look almost like a toy, rather than a real car. Those who’ve seen the Transformers movie featuring the Camaro in Bumble Bee guise understand all about the look, as do fans of the original 1969 version which it liberally quotes. When you get up close, the new Camaro is like a wild concept car that’s been put straight into production, all attitude, swagger and show.
Well, not all: it does actually go as well. Put your foot into it and the Camaro roars to life, seemingly unleashing its horsepower all at once. The sense of power is palpable; guaranteed to increase the heart rate. In normal driving, however, it’s surprisingly docile.
Really, my first impression is that if you bought this car as a reward to yourself, you’d be entirely pleased with yourself.
Pages: 1 2 | next >> View full article on one page
|
at 4:20 am
Two retro cars is where a lot of our bailout money went.
I’m sure the Camaro and Challenger are fine versions of 1960s vehicles but life has to be about more than just toys these days. These designs are almost 50 years old.
As soon as gas goes over $1.20, people are going to wake up from this fantasy and we will be left holding the deflated economic bag.
Cheers,
John Meyer
at 6:51 am
Oh John Meyer, relax. These are but two vehicles out of countless models that both of these manufacturers offer. I don’t see you complaining about the Mustang or a Toyota Sequoia, etc. Or mentioning the new fuel-efficient direct injection engines from GM, etc.
Besides, the HEMI V8 gets 36 Imperial MPG, which is only about 1 shy of what the V6 gets, thanks to cylinder deactivation. So, what’s wrong with a little fun now and then?
Back on topic: I’m wondering if it wouldn’t have been a better comparison to line up the Challenger SRT8, which would better align with the Camaro SS with its 425 hp 6.1L & $45,000 price.
at 7:00 am
Actually I don’t think “a lot” of bailout money went to these cars and if the big 3 had demand throughout their line-up similar to these cars there would not have been a need for a bailout. These cars typically represent the ‘other’ car, the third car in our 3.2 cars per household so functionality and everyday practicality such as gas consumption is not at the forefront for weekend spins. I would use less gas with a 20L/100km hobby car on weekends using transit/walking/biking on weekday commutes than a 5L/100km econo/hybrid for every weekday commute.
In the articule I wish there was more on a direct comparison of attributes and an overall favorite from the writer. I liked how price was the deciding factor on the comparison basis as that is more reflective of reality.
at 7:55 am
the car looks great from the outsude and has that sporty aggressive look . however, ugly interior as usual for a GM product, for $45K thats ridiculous…and whats up with the green display?…ugly 80s technology.
at 8:20 am
holy crap that interior does look ugly, and i still won’t consider getting one unless it can transform into bumblebee.
at 9:16 am
Ajoe, that interior is from the dodge not the camaro.
Camaro is like or hate, toy look like but I think both did excellent job on mimicking the roots.
John Meyer. these are not 50 years old car. these are the greatest and latest from gm and chrysler with the 50 year old look.
and I can not understand people complaining about gas.
V8 6.2l or 6200 cc it’s a BIG engine, don’t expect low gas mileage but for the size of the engine the consumption is way low comparing to your 60’s cars.
at 9:37 am
Wow I love both these cars.
I drive a Dodge Charger RT Daytona, as my daily driver and I love it.
Both these cars are fantastic choices for a true driving enthusist, for a daily car. I mean you have a functunal back seat. and both offer trunks in the 300+ litre size, over 400+ in the case of the Challenger. Compare this with other true drivers cars under $50 that are also sexy
Mazda RX8 -small trunk
Nissan 370Z -no backseat.
Mitsubishi Eclipse -Front wheel drive
Ford Mustang -Hey I like it
Toyota/Kia O wait they don;t even have one attractive car
Hyundai Genesis Coupe- Boring styling, could pass as a Kia Forte Coupe
But I’d go for the Challenger, thats a hot car. Now if only the domestic’s would bring back leasing. As thats all I do and I may have to eat some crow and lease an import next year when my Charger lease is over.
at 10:05 am
When will people learn that those who buy these cars don’t care about the cost of gas. They want a fun, powerful, cool looking ride.
Anyways, I fully agree with Eric. I love the look of the Challenger and Camaro too. I’ll still wait and see what the next gen Charger will look like though. I do like the idea of having for doors. In any case, great job on all three manuafacturers for bringing back the muscle cars.
at 12:14 pm
It’s all about making cars the public wants, and these two deliver. If the Big 3 delvered more great products like these for their respective markets, they would be in great shape.
I’d like to see a retro looking station wagon, along the lines of a 60s chevelle…with modern running gear. Not “cute ute crossover” here, I prefer a real car.
at 12:59 pm
All that displacement, weight, gas, Gov $$$ and nothing relative to show for it. The Mustang is still the better of the pony cars and the design is several years older than these 2 modern dino’s. Also comes in a droptop. If you’re a retired Boomer or an empty nester, why wouldn’t you take the $40,000 and buy a restored muscle car instead??? The under 25 crowd won’t buy these unless they’re in Sask or Alberta. Everywhere else, they’ll rent em’ and fry em’ and then get into their Civic’s and VW’s. Buy a classic muscle that car won’t lose value like a pension in 3 years and you won’t look like a flave-o-the-month poseur. Chrysler should also have been left to fail. We don’t need 3 domestic companies putting out similar products and they were the weakest of the lot. Just checked on-line ‘1987 Grand National 30kms one owner all documents asking $35,000′. Drive it with no depreciation and sell it in 30 years. That’s a muscle car you won’t see at Budget or Enterprise and it’s money better spent.
at 1:09 pm
I think these cars appeal to the older crowd, the people that remember the 60’s and 70’s. Both cars try to simulate that old look from that era. The youger guys like me prefer something more modern and more stylish. Lets move forward people, the 60s and 70[s are long gone
O yeah, I have to agree the interior is not very appealing, looks like it could be a truck’s interior.
at 1:11 pm
After looking again at that Camaro SS , its one beautiful machine… lol i take my comments back!
at 1:24 pm
I do not fit in the older people category and love the retro style. That doesn’t mean I like OLD cars which I do also. So don’t mix and match Larry BOY
at 2:41 pm
I would love to see the Mustang and Camero go at it. They are both sharp looking cars. Both cars are really going to be used as second cars so the price of gas does not matter at all.
at 2:56 pm
Visit Yellowknife – you are really out of touch, aren’t you? Did you honestly think that the government assistance suddenly translated into all-new vehicles within a matter of days? These vehicles were already launched prior to any government assistance. New vehicles take years to launch – from initial research and design, engineering, testing, quality control, etc.
You then have the wisdom to say “We don’t need 3 domestic companies putting out similar products”. I guess using that logic, Toyota, Honda and Nissan should all fold up as they all produce similar compact cars, and similar mid-size cars… And the 3 domestics also produce large light-duty and heavy-duty pickup trucks. Should one of them fail because they successfully build large trucks? Such bad logic, I don’t even know where to begin!
PS – you can keep your 22 year old Grand National with 30,000 km on it asking $35k. I’d take a Challenger R/T with 6-speed, 5-year warranty and drive it on a daily basis and enjoy that I have luxury, safety, ESP, ABS, and all of the latest conveniences plus a great V8 and performance. PS – the moment you drive that Grand National 20,000 km per year or in the salty winters, you will also be rapidly depreciating its value.
at 3:44 pm
@ RnR
1) The LAUNCH of these vehicles would not have been a reality without the bailout, Cash 4 Clunkers or the Gov funds to pay suppliers, advertising, creditors, employees etc… Thus, losing your precious 5 year warranty needs. Bank your depreciation funds and use that to keep a real classic on the road and get your money back on re-sale. Grand Nat, Olds 442, Firebird, Camaro, Mustang, Nova etc… with parts aplenty.
2) I don’t believe Honda, Toyota, or Nissan have any problems selling their mass market cars of similar displacement, price and size so therefore your position is moot. They’re also built close by or in North America to boot. These muscle cars are not bread and butter revenue streams and should not be viewed as such. They’re made to drive people into a brand, get press and build an image (or be in a movie) and if there are no mass appeal cars available for small families and price conscious buyers, the cart is in-front of the horse and you’ll lose more market share. There will always be MORE $300 per month car buyers than $700 per month car buyers.
3) You clearly have no business sense and are driven purely on the emotional equation of the discussion. While emotion is a buying factor for nostalgia autos, they should not be considered long term viable as the honeymoon will wear out. These are also not generally primary use cars for buyers or commuters, they are 2nd or casual use vehicles. They won’t see 20,000 km’s a year for the most part, especially the SS or RT’s and speculators are already defaulting on deposits rather than taking delivery. Chargers have discounts and Camaro’s will too. Incentive battles 2007-2008 all over again.
4) We still don’t need 3 domestic brands. Chrysler should go. It sells over 85% of it’s product in North America and isn’t viable in the long term within a world auto market. Fiat will help, but not with these cars. You’ll see more fuel efficient dual purpose cars and MPV’s which will help in the short term but not the long term. GM & Ford have a better business model and strategy along with appeal. Remember, Fiat paid zero dollars for Chrysler’s partnership. ZERO, that means it’s worth ZERO. The Challenger is still essentially riding on a 1986 – 1995 era W124 Mercedes E-Class chassis. That’s 20 year old technology so in essence, the 1987 Grand National would be a good comparison.
5) The car business is a marathon, not a sprint. Ford understands this now and are being rewarded for it. Build a bank balance and THEN build the fun stuff. GM will sort themselves out too but I don’t see it from Chrysler.
at 3:53 pm
ugly and butt-ugly
at 4:56 pm
Visit Yellowknife,
In order…
1. The Challenger was launched long before any bailout – it was a 2008 model. Camaro timing was obviously much later. Cash for clunkers did NOTHING to help these cars, as everyone flocked to 4-cylinder cars. These cars continue to sell very well on their own merits – fun to drive, value for money, performance, nostalgia, etc. Just accept that these are great cars for CERTAIN people.
Would I love a 25-year old car? YES – a ‘Cuda or Charger if I’m to be honest with you. BUT – I would never in a million years want a car like that as my daily driver. So – this is where the new Challenger, Camaro, or Mustang (and honestly even the Genesis) come in: fun-to-drive RWD cars with good warranties, safety, fuel economy and reliability that a person COULD drive every day. I envy the person who can make a $45,000 car as their 2nd or 3rd vehicle, but not everyone can.
2. My position is not moot. GM, Ford and Chrysler have no trouble selling every Camaro, Challenger and Mustang they build. I want these same attributes on more cars, not say that one of these companies should go away since they happen to ‘compete against each other’.
Now, what I wish is that GM didn’t sink money into stupid projects, such as the Envoy XUV, the HHR, the SSR, etc. But the Camaro & Challenger and Mustang are all solid cars.
3. Not sure where the “no business sense” comment is justified? I understand what these cars are. You are the one who started your original discussion that “these companies shouldn’t survive as they build similar cars to compete against each other”. YES they are low volume. I get that. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Many manufacturers have some low volume vehicles – some intentionally (ie. Camaro, Mustang), some unintentionally (ie. Ridgeline). The point is to do it while making money by sharing platforms, powertrains, key components, etc and differentiating the styling. Challengers don’t have any discounts and Camaros don’t have any discounts. Will they? Of course eventually, but every vehicle on the market today has *some* level of discount at some point including Lexus, Mercedes, BMW, even Lamborghini.
4. I really believe this to be a short-sighted statement. The world doesn’t look at the manufacturers as “domestic”, “import”, etc. They look at who offers the right product at the right price. That’s as outlandish as saying we should only have 2 domestics, 1 Korean, 2 Germans and 2 Japanese (or something to that effect).
I think if there’s one thing we agree on it’s that they should focus on volume, not niche. But sometimes if you have a platform and plant capacity at your disposal, then it’s okay to leverage that platform by building a low-volume, desirable, high-margin vehicle. We’re not talking Pontiac Solstice or Saturn Sky, which required a dedicated platforms, we’re talking about an extension of the 300/Charger platform into a Challenger. That’s good business.
at 6:29 pm
Pass the salt please….
at 6:43 pm
what a bunch whiners we got here. everyone likes something different, its called variety. so stop whining and buy what you like. who cares what anyone else thinks. i own a 70 mach 1, a 72 duster, and very soon an 08 challenger. i like em all, and if you dont oh well
at 8:39 pm
Couldn’t agree more Mark. That’s my whole point on these cars. For those who want them, they are great. I know I’d love a Challenger!
at 9:03 pm
These aren’t wimpy cars. These are drivers’ cars. If you want to drive a wimpmobile go visit your local Honda or Toyota dealer.
at 9:58 pm
Scoobs: Honda and Toyota make driver’s cars too. Just different kinds and for different purposes. These American cars are driver’s cars, and in this case muscle cars.
at 10:47 pm
Wow, the armchair auto CEO’s have more to say the industry than actually comparing the two cars.
I always like to remind people that there is no such thing as a “domestic” car from a Canadian perspective. They area all foreign. Honda makes vehicles with more Canadian content than some Ford, GM and Chrysler vehicles.
While the Challenger and Camaro do represent similar vehicles, the Challenger really is built upon an aging platform whereas the Camaro is very much new.
at 11:24 pm
Shouldn’t be Mustang included in this comparison, just to be more fair, I guess?!
at 11:32 pm
But to be completely honest, I think both those cars are just totally mess and garbage, they just simply can’t do things right.
at 11:16 am
Here we go again, Detroit is still making cars from the past and no cars for the future….Sure, they will sell, at a low volume, but that is it.
Can GM and Dodge make cars that people want??? NO.
at 9:45 pm
So Toyota can build the FJ cruiser, and VW been selling the new bettle for about 10 years, BMW the Mini, Fiat the 500, Porchse the 911…..and it’s Detroit that’s making cars from the past. It’s funny how all you hypocrites can bash Detroit, and praise the foreign companies without taking 2 seconds to think.
at 7:59 am
@Mozeby,
One glaring distinction, Detroit got a huge taxpayer bailout, the rest did not. Think for one minute, do you think the taxpayers want Government Motors to continue to build cars from the past.
The majority if not all of the taxpayers, are going through taxpayers remorse, I guarantee you that. Until then, Mozeby, you and GM will be scrutinized for every mistake they make.
at 10:46 am
I will be scrutinized? You’re waxed. Keep sniffing that bondo. These cars were designed years before a bailout was given. And both cars were great successes, selling for MORE than the sticker price in most cases because the demand was so great. Yeah, they should immediately stop selling them. Keep trolling.
at 3:27 pm
Mozeby, you are absolutely right, they were designed in the 60s and 70s. Only suckers that wear bellbottom jeans and polyester shirts would pay more than the sticker shock. Get with the times.
at 7:57 pm
I forgot, when a dozen other car makers can make retro models, then it’s all good, but when Detroit does it, then all of the sudden it’s a stupid idea. If Honda were doin’ a retro…. oh wait they never made anything worth repeating. Never mind.
at 8:30 pm
Mozeby, you’re just biased. That’s all. No more, no less. Detroit has a lot of explaining to the taxpayers (including you and I) if they can make any money from this venture of muscle cars. Justified? Not really because it doesn’t make any business sense. Selling well? You be the judge. But we’re all on the hook and I don’t like it one bit. Didn’t the Ontario government just announce a RECORD $23B deficit? Tsk. Tsk. Such a waste of our money. It’s disgusting really.
at 10:30 am
This is a Mozeby posting;
“Had a 2000 LS1 with a 4 cyl 5 speed and racked up 250000 clicks without any issues. Great on gas and drove pretty good too. My only complaint was that it was a little loud on the highway.”
I guess owning a Saturn POS makes Mozeby a car enthusiast and expert.
at 3:21 pm
“Welcome to the… new Canada test-drive series, where we compare… generate a detailed description, driving impressions and conclusions” You do provide a driving impression and general description of each car, but where are the comparisons and conclusions? I see nothing here different than pasting 2 seperate test drives together.
at 3:45 pm
Hey Roger, or is it Jim or some other name your senile mind comes up with this week. I also own a 69 Dodge Charger and Jeep TJ. I’d like to see what’s in your garage. Although being a car carrying member of Consumer Reports I bet I already know. It’s funny but not only does that magazine test appliances, their favourite cars are appliances too. Keep changing your name because after every few weeks you embarrass yourself, you need a new alias.
Oh and Not_Fooled, I’M Biased? Take a look at your own post although I’m betting this is another Roger alias judging from the fact your name hasn’t appeared on this forum yet. Are you trying to make it look like somebody else supports your BIASED point of view?
at 1:28 pm
Something of a side note, all these cars on here posted with an EPA fuel milage, as far as i know those ratings are done with the more “efficient” and cleaner E85 Flex Fuel. I just did a 3 week drive across Canada from Toronto (where i live) all the way out to Victoria BC and at the hundreds of gas stations i stopped at, i didnt see a single damn station anywhere on my trip that actually sold this E85 crap, so, im just wondering when are these ratings gonna get real and post milages for fuel that is actually available to the general public? cause saying your product can do 40MPG on a fuel no one but the factory can actually obtain is completely useless information. BTW i am 23 and even i would buy one of these cars for a weekend driver. although i must say, i would never buy something like a toyota, my friend had a late model camry and that thing was getting repaired more often then i buy groceries.
at 3:48 pm
Mozeby;
Look up the word Paranoid, you’ll find your photo. Seriously, a 69 Charger and Jeep TJ? Boy, you are living in the past.
at 3:54 pm
Height 6.4
Weight 413 lbs.
Your posting shows this is your first dance isn’t? E-85 Flex fuel achieves lower MPG. Then again at 23 yrs, you don’t know Jack, and it shows.
p.s.
Someone your size wouldn’t fit in a compact car either.
at 4:41 pm
@RogerAndme
64-413 probably refers to ‘64 mopar 413 wedge engine
and how about quit the slag
at 5:29 pm
I stand corrected, but you must understand, The majority of us do not to care or read about old carburated push rod engines.
at 6:13 pm
@RogerAndme
Or your slagging…
at 7:08 pm
I would have liked more of a testers comparison of these rather than just the specs. I did enjoy the Road & Track comparison of the Challenger, Mustang and Camaro.
I am a big person and currently have a Charger which has tons of room and can adjust to any size. Very comfortable on the hwy and decent on gas if just cruising. I also drive a Ram 1500 4×4 Hemi so while fuel is a bit of a concern, to me comfort and safety come first. Had an ‘07 Civic which was a good car but way too uncomfortable over a long drive for me so bought an older Focus ZX3 which is great for cheap commutes.
I like the Camaro for the drivetrain but would not buy due to ergonomics – tried it and it was just too small inside for me. I like the Challenger for the size, comfort and looks but don’t like the price jump for the SRT.
I did have an ‘02 Mustang GT convertible and loved the car. Good combination of comfort, performance and fuel economy. You could drive all day and still enjoy the car at the end of the day.
So next I’ll either be looking at a used Challenger or ‘00 to ‘04 Mustang and throw on a supercharger for fun.
at 11:25 pm
I get a kick oout of you rookies who really think you are car experts. I have owned dozs of vehicles over the years and they include vehicles from virtually all continents. Strange how the Japanese never have any recalls while the Detroit 3 have been honest and above board on theirs. Lord knows dozs of times the rice machines should have been recalled from so many things including rot and rust in the beginning til now with sour front end parts and lousy auto trannies in the Honda’s. Our Gov should have never let this junk in Canada or the US and should play the same game for blocking entry that the Foreign builders have done and still do in their countries. There will never be another import on my land again as they just do compare to a Big 3 vehicle in quality at all. Neither do their trucks as well and i have owned them as well. and still do own a GMC which is 38 years old and still faithful.