I agree it's cool, but I doubt many of the people driving those get "almost 30" MPG.  It's possible, but unlikely.  

I forget about us city folk in traffic all day. I guess almost 30 mpg is for us who have open road on the way to work.  

Okay, Okay!  The fourth (and final?) gen F-Bods were ECONOMY RUN CHAMPS . . . .

Still doesn't mean that they didn't have "horrible ergonomics, dated design, inefficient space utilization, abysmal build quality, flimsy rear axle, imaginary back seat, minimal luggage capacity, . . .  near-giveaway resale value . . . ." 

And on that fuel economy thing . . . .

hey, least they dont put non functional hood scoops on v-6 cars. ha. whats the last numbers for. (13.2, 17.4, ect.)?  

That was the "observed fuel economy" according to Consumers Guide.

GM has festooned many models over the past 50 years with fake scoops--including several Camaro models.  In fact, nearly every OEM has at one time or another.  No fakers on the 2005 Mustang, though.

some one played with the numbers then, i dont see the automatic getting better milage. when did the camaro have a fake hood scoop?  

Dude, have you ever driven a stock T-56-equipped F-Ride? 

Most folks bury the foot-feed to avoid the annoying 1-to-4 skip-shift feature.   If you use second or third gear, your mileage will suffer.  (When I have the misfortune of wheeling one, I rev 'em hard so I won't hear all the the creaking plastic bits trying to fall off inside)

GM's computer-controlled four-speed overdrive automatics with lock-up clutch converters do a fairly decent job of maximizing mileage (unlike the "loose" Powerglides, TH-350s and TH-400s of old).  So I'm not surprised at the "observed" numbers.

Fake scoops-- Hmm?  The 1968 "Injector" scoop available on the SS model immedately comes to mind.   The Iroc-Zs  had a washboard of fake hood vents.  The '91 Z28 had more such fakery atop the bonnet.  The 1978 & 1979 Z/28s had a "decorative" hood scoop (up from a "decorative" scoop-shaped decal in 1977). 

(Of course,  the 1981 Z's "functional" hood scoop fed only 175 ponies, and then a smashmouth 165-horse 305 in 1982 --both far less than most of the fake-scooped V6 Mustangs that prompted this discussion).

alot of motors now make more v6 power than the v8's of that era, thats apples and oranges. so im taking it they never took the car on the freeway much during the test. but hey, least the scoops were on v8 cars.

Brady you are like the Dog that keeps returning to his own poop. The only Muscle cars I EVER saw girls in were ALL Camaros. And seriously if you think that the monaro looks good you will need glasses about 4 inches thick to ever get out of college but with the tunnel vision you have it seems unlikely that will ever be the case. Better practice saying "Want Fries with that ?" because in order to save up enough for any new gm musclecar you had better start seeling alot more value meals at your local fast food place that you no doubt will be employed at for years to come.  

Ya, the girls were riding shot gun. Doesn't anyone remember what the mustang was made for? It was a secretary car, thats why the first years were so girly looking. The gto does look good, even if it looks like a grand am, i think the grand am looks good 2.  

The Girls bought and own the cars . That is who bought most of them. Good luck with your robot buddy, it will be finished before gm ever builds another decent muscle car . Oh and you always say about how much more power the gt-no has over the Mustang? Well it better considering how much more displacement it has about 70 more cubes shold have more hp although in terms of hp pure cubic inch the Mustang 4v motor may have the gt-no beat hands down.  

what do you drive, a honda? what kinda of muscle car guy uses the tuner excuse? who cares if you have more horsepower per cubic inch, i have more horsepower per car. you know better than that. (the robot thing was done in feburary)  

The Tuner excuse is a farce , you know that HP per cubic inch is the ultimate  usage of how much power a engine makes. You always argue about how much power the c-5 or lingenfelter makes so what? They have much bigger engines and as when I pointed out to you , on numerous occasions , that given the same cubes Ford has made even power or better than GM you just change the subject. Here is my point you have to admire how much power Ford has gotten out if that engine. it is small , Hell My FALCON has a bigger engine but it is not near as quick. I think you are just jealous of the Mustang . Because no matter what you do to that Nova it will never be as cool. The last really cool car GM built was the Trans Am until the 3rd gen wrecked it . You have secret Mustang Envy . You complain to much about for it to be anything but that. Oh and by the way I would drive a Honda before any nova.     

K, first of all, fast is fast.  If your small block gets beat by a big block, you still got beat, the other car is still faster.  It doesn't matter how much power per cubic inch you had.  

Second, you would be out of that honda in an hour once you figured out thats as far as the pedal goes down.

Third, dont get too high and mighty on your GTO, the new Shelby Mustang will at least run with it and probably beat it, and a Subaru WRX STi(you know...ying ying four banger with about the same displacement as my 2 liters of coke) will out run the goat from 0-60 and can be driven in the winter (all wheel drive).  Oh and it gets better mileage.  

Fourth, Shelby Mustangs back in the late sixties had fake scoops...get over it.

Fifth, If you want to talk about dated design...you gotta look at the mustang.  In 2004 it had the same chassis as a what (help me out Ford guys) a 1979, 1980 model?  The Camaro's back seat is a heck of a lot more comfortable than a mustangs too.  I've fit seven (err...four officer) people in my 88 Camaro.  I can barely squeeze myself in the back of my friends 94 stang (and I'm not big).  Minimal luggage...yeah, but so does the stang.  Flimsy rear axle...you're giving it a lot more credit than it deserves.  Since when did ergonomics matter??  So long as the light switch isn't on the passenger side and the steering wheel and pedals are where they are supposed to be, I'm ok with it.

The Ford guys are still PO'd at getting their butts kicked all these years, and the Chevy guys are PO'd that every engineer in their company (outside of the vette's) voted for ralph nader.  Get over it.  Both sides have cool stuff, both sides have junk.  

Honestly, I'd rather see GM bring back the Chevelle.  It'd be easier to do (so long as they quit importing the chassis and just start making them here), it'd be more practical, and if they did it right, it'd be a heck of a car (LS-6 chevelle with a 500 horse corvette based LS-7).  But GM wont  leave their little safety bubble they've built up.  So likely neither the Chevelle nor the Camaro will ever be back.

why no pics of this new camaro yet on the board?