ok the camaro and firebirds last year of being build was in 2002. soo there goes 2 pretty powerful competititor in the GM selection of performance.

In the chevy group of perfromance theres always the corvette for.........around $50,000 grand or so, but lets get real, wheres the cheap fast car that we want.....not the camaro anymore. What other chevy could replace dollar for dollar, and performance "almost"lol. ........hmm lets thing..........you have the ................uh............well...family sedan ss impala..........ok no

cobalt came out in 2005 with the s/c ss, yes they also made the sedan and lt modles out of it, but i think thats just for added sales on the same car ya know. PLus you can "modd" out your cobalt straight from the dealership.

I dont know about you guys but my theroy is that cobalt is the next camaro....tell me what you think.

 

everyone has their own opinion thats all i have to say

 

the camaro is the next camaro... seeing how it will be back out in a few years..

 

X2

 

I would say your theory is backwards but thats just my thoughts. The cobalt replaced the Cavalier as an entry level vehicle and the SC version was added as the top of the line. The most sales of the cobalt are not the performance version but the base models.

They needed something not so expensive as a vette but to have some performance while the Camaro was being redone. So why not add some goodies to a base model car you already have to bridge the gap? I also wonder if the cobalt will ever see boost again when the camaro hits, hopefully they'll make the switch to turbo but nobody knows.

 

can't argue with that.

Thread over, lock it up! lol

 

UMMMMMMM I think "The Next Camaro" is the next camaro..... lol Not sure if you know but its comming out in 2 years. BTW, you can get a vette for like 45K.

I guess I understand what your trying to say, but when the camaro is back out..... The Balt will be more of what the GTZ Beretta used to be.

yes, really!

 

i think your an idiot b/c the next camaro is already in production ...

 

I've heard the Cobalt SS/SC called the baby 'vette.
Kinna like the Beretta GT was the baby Camaro, and the Sunfire GT was the baby Firebird. (Called that because of similar styling cues)

 

Honestly our car is pretty close to the sense of a "true" muscle car. A powerful engine slapped into the smallest, cheapest, package.

But as far as the Camaro goes... yeah... it's back.

 

I sum what agree. For the Evolution of the term Muscle car for this day in age, it is kinda a Muscle car. However when the Camaro comes back out, any chance of calling it that will have gone out the window with the returne of "True Muscle" lol -Thats some crazy Sh*t right there, I think you just made like a fact and Sh*t (Guy from scary movie 3) lol

 

i think that the cobalt was made to keep up with the tuner performance. everyone had seen fast and the furious so all that money was going to honda, mitsubishi, etc. Chevy wanted to get them a piece of that pie by making a fast compact car, good on gas when babied and a beast when need be. so for it being the next camaro, i doubt that was the intention. I had a camaro, they are 2 different beasts. Uncomparible really, besides both being fast cars.

 

By definition our car is not a muscle car. lol It's FWD with a 2.0 engine. Muscle cars are RWD with big engines.

 

Technically Camaros, mustangs, and firebirds aren't muscle cars. Muscle cars were the big cars like the Pontiac GTO - big and bad, the top performance car in a division (the vette is not in this category because its a sports car). Camaros, etc are Pony cars - smaller cheaper cars built for speed - marketed towards the young crowd.

The cobalt is a econobox replacement for the cavalier, that's all it is. The Mustang has had no competition, and that's why the Camaro is coming back out.

 

Oh come on you guys, you're being way too picky. So you're telling me when there is going to be a "muscle car" show, that it's only GTO's, GTX's, etc. and no Mustangs or Camaros?? I don't think so. It's a pretty general term that I understand to be any car (within reason) built between 1960 and 1975 that has a V-8 and decent power. Only 2 doors may be a requirement too?

I think what Raineman was referring to was the early Novas, that were pretty small cars (relatively speaking) with huge power. But yeah, most of the so-called "muscle cars" weigh as much as todays SUVs.

 

if a plant is producing the car, then it is in production ... doesnt matter if you can order one or not..

 

Oh Jesus, let's not get into the definition of a Muscle Car/Pony Car/Sports Car debate... That s**t never ends well. A Cobalt's a Cobalt and the '09 Camaro will be a Camaro.

 

That's awesome...

 

I don't know about other states, but Dobler Chevorlet in Franklin Square, NY has a 25 car waiting list, $400 bucks and your on the list. I am not sure if this is for 2008 or 2009 but the car is here.

Edit: BTW this is for the new Camaro

 

how many have you seen photos off/ seen at shows..

dont ask a stupid question that you know only gm can answer

 

you are soooo right.... we are the NOVA SS of today!!! and the Cobalt SC can not and will not take the place of the Camaro ... as said before "the Camaro is the Camaro"

that is the OLD definition of a Muscle Car!!! is an Plasma or LCD not a TV?

 

X10,000

I have some new pics, model. and price specs on the new camaro.

I got them at the Indy 500. They won't be called RS,Z28,SS instead LS,LT,LTZ
Also the base price is going to be around $34,000. LTZ is going to be $40,000plus
Don't know or think there will be a v6 model?
I know people will want pics of this, but I'm at work right now. As soon as I get home I'll post 'em

 

I think the Camaro is the next Camaro.

But if you are referring to the Cobalt as being the next thing to put a gun rack in, and drive to Supercuts to trim your mullet, then I can see that happening. Are our cars prone to rust? It'd be real sweet once these things get some rust on them, to throw on a few decent mods, like the Calvin pissing on Ford stickers, and other various American Pride logos.


We should let out tires get real bald, and then snap the exhaust hangers so that the pipe hangs dangerously low to the ground and sparks when I fly over the railroad tracks. Too bad we don't have T-tops to leave off in the rain so that the car can reek of mildew, but I guess some of you guys could leave the sunroofs open.

Then when we get these cars finally decked out, we can drive down to sonic with our pretty sister, and talk crap about how fast it used to be back in the day, and drink rootbeer floats.

Note to self: Need to go to Goodwill and buy some oily hankerchiefs and some jeans with the knees torn up, preferrably as faded bluish/white as possible. And if there are any 'Tallica T-shirts snag those up too, but in case of emergency grab some NO FEAR shirts in Black just to show that you ain't backin' down from no fights, and you ain't skeered.

MAN, I CAN'T WAIT 'TIL MY COBALT BECOME THE NEXT CAMARO!

 

You know... on a similar topic... wasn't it Jay Leno who said "It's the new small-block V-8", about the LSJ. I think it was the Atom2's release where he said it.

 

c'mon you don't consider the SC a muscle car?
so, it's not rear wheel drive and a V8... it's doesn't need it! (it wouldn't handle so well)
do you not consider the SC muscular?
aI think it is... especially if you have a few mods and are over 250hp

I think the formula is: power to weight ratio for low cost

or must it be RAW horsepower??? 400hp + to be considered muscle?

here are some facts from my Muscle Car bible:
car & driver march 1962
Chevrolet 409
409 CI / 380 HP
0-60: 7.3
1/4: 14.9 @ 94

car & driver march 1968
Chevrolet Nova SS
396 CI / 375 HP
0-60: 75.9
1/4: 14.5 @ 101

car & driver november 1966
Chevrolet Camaro SS
350 CI / 295 HP
0-60: 7.8
1/4: 16.1 @ 86

car & driver jan 1969
Chevrolet Chevelle SS
396 CI / 325 HP
0-60: 5.8
1/4: 14.41 @ 97.35

muscle car review 1970
Chevrolet Chevelle SS
454 CI / 360 HP
0-60: 6.0
1/4: 14.2 @ 100

here are a few examples of Chevy muscle.... yes there are faster SS's out there.
remember you can not option out a car like back then either (like the COPO cars Don Yenko ordered from GM)... but the performance #'s are very close to ours and those cars only went fast in a straight line... granted my 1970 Charger 500 w/ a 383 magnum handled better than I expected (but, I did not expect it to handle)

and here is a 2006 SC...
we know what the motor and HP figure is
Timeslip Scan:
Car Make: Chevrolet
Car Model: Cobalt
Car Type: SS/SC
Car Year: 2006
1/4 Mile ET: 14.420
1/4 Mile MPH: 99.950
1/8 Mile ET: 9.429
1/8 Mile MPH: 77.250
0-60 Foot ET: 2.290
Temperature F: 47.0

so by today's standards......I think we got MUSCLE

can you imagine crusin all day at 100 mph in a 1968 Nova

I was thinking the biggest difference is that muscle cars of the past had very few creature comforts;
no A/C, no leather, no power windows or door locks, no power trunk release....

we are living in the best of all possible worlds.... great performance for the buck and all the creature comforts of a luxury