Interesting power-to-weight comparison
02-02-2009, 02:44 PM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SoCal
Posts: 3,463
It's interesting how the 370Z and 911 both with similar hp/tq and curb weight run a second apart and 7mph in the traps.
I've said before and again that the 2010 Camaro SS 6m with LS3 power should allow even casual drivers who were running 13.6-7's with stock LS1 F-bodies to crack 12.99's. Good drivers at good tracks with great conditions should crack 12.6-12.8's at 110-112 in stock trim.
I've said before and again that the 2010 Camaro SS 6m with LS3 power should allow even casual drivers who were running 13.6-7's with stock LS1 F-bodies to crack 12.99's. Good drivers at good tracks with great conditions should crack 12.6-12.8's at 110-112 in stock trim.
02-02-2009, 05:44 PM
#20
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 141
It's interesting how the 370Z and 911 both with similar hp/tq and curb weight run a second apart and 7mph in the traps.
I've said before and again that the 2010 Camaro SS 6m with LS3 power should allow even casual drivers who were running 13.6-7's with stock LS1 F-bodies to crack 12.99's. Good drivers at good tracks with great conditions should crack 12.6-12.8's at 110-112 in stock trim.
I've said before and again that the 2010 Camaro SS 6m with LS3 power should allow even casual drivers who were running 13.6-7's with stock LS1 F-bodies to crack 12.99's. Good drivers at good tracks with great conditions should crack 12.6-12.8's at 110-112 in stock trim.
In regards to the 911 and 370Z numbers, what I didn't include were the engine RPM:
911 Carrera
345 Hp @ 6500 rpm
288 lb/ft @ 4400
370Z
332 Hp @ 7000 rpm
270 lb/ft @ 5200 rpm
Taking this into account, without actual dyno curves to compare to, and factoring in that the Porsche has a much quicker shifting transmission, weighs "slightly" less than the Nissan, and has a smigon more Hp / torque achieved at lower rpm on both counts helps start to explain but I do agree that being separated in the 1/4 mile by 1 whole second leaves me a bit baffled as well.
The BMW M3 though is a better representative comparison when you pit it against the SS:
BMW M3
414 Hp @ 8300 rpm (absolutely screaming)
295 lb/ft @ 3900 rpm
Camaro SS
426 Hp @ 6000 rpm
420 lb/ft @ 4400 rpm
The Camaro rpm figures are estimates presuming they follow what we've seen from the LS3 in the GXP. So the BMW can rev like a banshee but needs to climb nearly to redline to achieve it's peak Hp, while the SS gets to it's peak Hp with 3/4 the rpm. Then if you compare torque the M3 might get to it's 295 lb/ft quicker, weighing 160 lbs lighter, but with the heavier Camaro making 420 lb/ft at only 500 rpm later, you've got to expect that @ 3900 the SS is producing more than 300 lb/ft.
As with the Porsche the M3 will probably shift quicker, but I can't see it pulling that far away from the Camaro's raw grunt! There's an old saying I heard growing up around hot rodders, "There is no substitute for cubic inches", and though technology has produced these exceptionally advanced transmissions, I still believe this maxim to hold water.
02-02-2009, 07:23 PM
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,217
2003 Cobra (multiplied by final drive)
1st 2.66 (9.44)
2nd 1.78 (6.32)
3rd 1.30 (4.62)
4th 1.00 (3.55)
5th 0.80
6th 0.63
Final Drive 3.55
275/40/17 tires = 25.7" diameter
2010 Camaro SS
1st 3.01 (10.38)
2nd 2.07 (7.14)
3rd 1.43 (4.93)
4th 1.00 (3.45)
5th 0.84
6th 0.57
Final Drive 3.45
275/40/20 tires = 28.6" diameter
What its looking like is that the actual gearing of the Camaro is pretty decent if the tire weren't so darn tall!!! I'm thinking a Camaro SS with tires only (say 26" slicks) is going to be very fast!!! Some 3:90ish gears are certainly going to be a popular modification for these cars.
I wonder if the better weight distribution and less aggressive gearing (with the large tire diameter) might actually help the Camaro come out of the hole with decent traction on stock tires?
02-02-2009, 08:57 PM
#22
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,209
The BMW M3 though is a better representative comparison when you pit it against the SS:
BMW M3
414 Hp @ 8300 rpm (absolutely screaming)
295 lb/ft @ 3900 rpm
Camaro SS
426 Hp @ 6000 rpm
420 lb/ft @ 4400 rpm
The Camaro rpm figures are estimates presuming they follow what we've seen from the LS3 in the GXP. So the BMW can rev like a banshee but needs to climb nearly to redline to achieve it's peak Hp, while the SS gets to it's peak Hp with 3/4 the rpm. Then if you compare torque the M3 might get to it's 295 lb/ft quicker, weighing 160 lbs lighter, but with the heavier Camaro making 420 lb/ft at only 500 rpm later, you've got to expect that @ 3900 the SS is producing more than 300 lb/ft.
As with the Porsche the M3 will probably shift quicker, but I can't see it pulling that far away from the Camaro's raw grunt! There's an old saying I heard growing up around hot rodders, "There is no substitute for cubic inches", and though technology has produced these exceptionally advanced transmissions, I still believe this maxim to hold water.
BMW M3
414 Hp @ 8300 rpm (absolutely screaming)
295 lb/ft @ 3900 rpm
Camaro SS
426 Hp @ 6000 rpm
420 lb/ft @ 4400 rpm
The Camaro rpm figures are estimates presuming they follow what we've seen from the LS3 in the GXP. So the BMW can rev like a banshee but needs to climb nearly to redline to achieve it's peak Hp, while the SS gets to it's peak Hp with 3/4 the rpm. Then if you compare torque the M3 might get to it's 295 lb/ft quicker, weighing 160 lbs lighter, but with the heavier Camaro making 420 lb/ft at only 500 rpm later, you've got to expect that @ 3900 the SS is producing more than 300 lb/ft.
As with the Porsche the M3 will probably shift quicker, but I can't see it pulling that far away from the Camaro's raw grunt! There's an old saying I heard growing up around hot rodders, "There is no substitute for cubic inches", and though technology has produced these exceptionally advanced transmissions, I still believe this maxim to hold water.
I think a race between a manual Camaro SS and a BMW M3 comes down to the drivers.
02-03-2009, 12:06 AM
#23
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 141
I noticed this too. The M3 isn't exactly a light car, and it has less power and a lot less torque than the Camaro SS. However, the M3 does have a significant gearing advantage. The M3's first gear is 4.06:1, where the Camaro SS's 6-speed manual has a 3.01:1 first gear. The M3 has a 3.85:1 rear axle ratio, while the Camaro has a 3.45:1 ratio. With such steep gearing, the M3 makes up for the lack of power.
I think a race between a manual Camaro SS and a BMW M3 comes down to the drivers.
I think a race between a manual Camaro SS and a BMW M3 comes down to the drivers.
1st - 4.78 (15.05)
2nd - 2.93 (9.22)
3rd - 2.15 (6.77)
4th - 1.68 (5.29)
5th - 1.39 (4.37)
6th - 1.20 (3.78)
7th - 1.00 (3.15)
That gear list is reducilous! It's no wonder that they govern top speed to 160 mph on the M3. It's obvious that BMW was focused on performance above all else in the M3 design while GM was focused on a significantly more balanced package meaning performance, economy, reliability, and value in the Camaro. The Corvette is GM's "no compromise" car. And 3.45 gears aren't that bad, all things considered, but 3.73 gears would definately even the odds a bit.
Last edited by Logansneo; 02-03-2009 at 01:06 AM.
02-03-2009, 01:05 AM
#24
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 141
I found the manual transmission gear list for the 2009 Cadillac CTS-V, just to for shiggles and gits. 
1st - 2.66 (9.92)
2nd - 1.78 (6.63)
3rd - 1.30 (4.84)
4th - 1.00 (3.73)
5th - 0.80 (2.98)
6th - 0.63 (2.34)
Final Gear - 3.73
And the Camaro's again:
1st - 3.01 (10.38)
2nd - 2.07 (7.14)
3rd - 1.43 (4.93)
4th - 1.00 (3.45)
5th - 0.84
6th - 0.57
Final Drive - 3.45
You can definitely see very similar trains of thought here.
1st - 2.66 (9.92)
2nd - 1.78 (6.63)
3rd - 1.30 (4.84)
4th - 1.00 (3.73)
5th - 0.80 (2.98)
6th - 0.63 (2.34)
Final Gear - 3.73
And the Camaro's again:
1st - 3.01 (10.38)
2nd - 2.07 (7.14)
3rd - 1.43 (4.93)
4th - 1.00 (3.45)
5th - 0.84
6th - 0.57
Final Drive - 3.45
You can definitely see very similar trains of thought here.
Last edited by Logansneo; 02-03-2009 at 01:10 AM.
02-03-2009, 01:43 AM
#25
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Roch, NY
Posts: 395
M3 final gear listed in the Car and Driver Feb 09 issue was 3.15. Here's the M3 transmission gears:
1st - 4.78 (15.05)
2nd - 2.93 (9.22)
3rd - 2.15 (6.77)
4th - 1.68 (5.29)
5th - 1.39 (4.37)
6th - 1.20 (3.78)
7th - 1.00 (3.15)
That gear list is reducilous! It's no wonder that they govern top speed to 160 mph on the M3. It's obvious that BMW was focused on performance above all else in the M3 design while GM was focused on a significantly more balanced package meaning performance, economy, reliability, and value in the Camaro. The Corvette is GM's "no compromise" car. And 3.45 gears aren't that bad, all things considered, but 3.73 gears would definately even the odds a bit.
1st - 4.78 (15.05)
2nd - 2.93 (9.22)
3rd - 2.15 (6.77)
4th - 1.68 (5.29)
5th - 1.39 (4.37)
6th - 1.20 (3.78)
7th - 1.00 (3.15)
That gear list is reducilous! It's no wonder that they govern top speed to 160 mph on the M3. It's obvious that BMW was focused on performance above all else in the M3 design while GM was focused on a significantly more balanced package meaning performance, economy, reliability, and value in the Camaro. The Corvette is GM's "no compromise" car. And 3.45 gears aren't that bad, all things considered, but 3.73 gears would definately even the odds a bit.
That is insane! Damn, RPM and gearing is the way to make up for less displacement...
until the gearing advantage runs out... (probably 4th where the M6 Camaro would pull hard and pass the M3).
02-03-2009, 02:59 AM
#26
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 141
Si' senor! Makes you wonder if GM will let the Camaro SS go without a governor, and if so what will the top speed be? My guess.....178 mph! No reason.
Last edited by Logansneo; 02-03-2009 at 03:02 AM. Reason: Hmmm....
02-03-2009, 07:07 AM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,217
I found the manual transmission gear list for the 2009 Cadillac CTS-V, just to for shiggles and gits.
1st - 2.66 (9.92)
2nd - 1.78 (6.63)
3rd - 1.30 (4.84)
4th - 1.00 (3.73)
5th - 0.80 (2.98)
6th - 0.63 (2.34)
Final Gear - 3.73
And the Camaro's again:
1st - 3.01 (10.38)
2nd - 2.07 (7.14)
3rd - 1.43 (4.93)
4th - 1.00 (3.45)
5th - 0.84
6th - 0.57
Final Drive - 3.45
You can definitely see very similar trains of thought here.
1st - 2.66 (9.92)
2nd - 1.78 (6.63)
3rd - 1.30 (4.84)
4th - 1.00 (3.73)
5th - 0.80 (2.98)
6th - 0.63 (2.34)
Final Gear - 3.73
And the Camaro's again:
1st - 3.01 (10.38)
2nd - 2.07 (7.14)
3rd - 1.43 (4.93)
4th - 1.00 (3.45)
5th - 0.84
6th - 0.57
Final Drive - 3.45
You can definitely see very similar trains of thought here.
CTS-V - 285/35/19 = 26.9"
Camaro SS - 275/40/20 = 28.6"
The tire choice on the Camaro is retarded. A diameter of 28.6" is insane!
I know TrickStang37 has been saying this before, but it is just now sinking in. What was GM thinking??? Somebody tell me....
02-03-2009, 10:20 AM
#29
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 141
That is interesting, but keep in mind the tires:
CTS-V - 285/35/19 = 26.9"
Camaro SS - 275/40/20 = 28.6"
The tire choice on the Camaro is retarded. A diameter of 28.6" is insane!
I know TrickStang37 has been saying this before, but it is just now sinking in. What was GM thinking??? Somebody tell me....
CTS-V - 285/35/19 = 26.9"
Camaro SS - 275/40/20 = 28.6"
The tire choice on the Camaro is retarded. A diameter of 28.6" is insane!
I know TrickStang37 has been saying this before, but it is just now sinking in. What was GM thinking??? Somebody tell me....
But having to contend with broken wheels and ruined tires because of potholes on a friends car I can generally understand why 40 series tires are being used.
Last edited by Logansneo; 02-03-2009 at 10:22 AM.
