Capn Pete

Don't try to insult my, or anyone else's intelligence here . You honestly expect people to believe there is a full second between the 4th- and 5th-gen cars?! If you want to start spouting off magazine times for a car, then please don't rule out Evan Smith's 12.89 @ 108 with a 2002 Camaro SS .

Please don't take this as me knocking the 5th-gen ... I'm not trying to ... but don't try to feed me BS like that and expect me to buy into it ... not happening!

How many HP is the 2010 Mustang rated at? 315 HP, isn't it? Again, may we please bring the '02 Camaro back into the picture here for a moment?

My very own 2002 Z28 with an automatic and 2.73 gears ran 13.43 @ 105.8 mph. Hmmm, then as per your quote, that's "still quite quick". With nothing but a set of 4.10's, my automatic Z28 ran 13.02 @ 107.44.

For a car with 400 / 426 HP (A6/M6 SS) I would be disappointed with anything LESS than a 12-second 1/4 mile time.

Again, let's hope that GM's #'s are conservative, and MAYBE there REALLY IS close to a full second between the 5th- and 4th-gens .

JakeRobb

All 2010 Camaros have a speed limiter. If it has 18" wheels (LS and non-RS 1LT), it's limited to 118mph. If it has 19" or larger wheels (all other models), it's limited to 155.

Are the 4.5/12.7 figures what Ford advertised for the '03-04 Cobras, or what is typical for the car in the real world?

An engine isn't capable of anything (except dyno numbers) without a chassis and everything else that goes into a car.

Yes, 426hp will get you going a lot faster in a lighter car (like a Corvette, or a 4th gen, or your mom's Corolla, or my lawn tractor), but that's not the point. 12.9 @ 111 is a perfectly respectable advertised time for a 3900lb, 426hp car.

I think you're just making this up because it lines up with your assertion that the Camaro is too heavy. I am willing to bet that GM hasn't changed their ways one bit, and that the advertised numbers are very conservative.

Nobody said anything about 115mph trap speeds. I think that's a pipe dream. I do, however, think that the better drivers at the lower elevations will pull off a 12.5 - 12.6 @ 112-113 pretty routinely.

I thought it was a Z28.

8Banger

This all assuming the driver knows how to drive. Lots of slower cars beat faster cars in the 1/4 mile. It's all about the driver and there are a lot
of suck *** drivers out there. Of course this mainly pertains to the manual
transmission cars. Not much talent needed to drive an auto. I mean once you get your tires hooked, your just along for the ride.

bossco

I swear that is a "just cant realisitcally get enough tire under the car to safely handle higher speeds" kinda thing.

I would dearly love to see an official explanation as to why manufacturers in general seem to have set 155 as the upper envelop?

--->edit<---
Heh, so much for the GT destroying V6 F5. Still pretty good though (it will give alot of 2v PI guys some trouble), IMO right in the sweet spot for the general public.

SS is a monster though (come on Ford with that 5.0!).

gr8fl red!

I am going to have to agree withe The Captain on this one

I see your point on this. That historically a 426hp car is 12's without a doubt. However the weight of the 2010 is going to make that hard to get with an average driver. ( i know, I know, your all great drivers ).

I am in the same Boat as The Captain, ( no pun intended ) I have a MINT 2000 SS LS1, it has 26kmi on it and T TOPs ( that do not rattle ). How much better is the 2010 that pushes me over the limit to get one for 38,000$ ? Please let me know cause I will. Please don't start hating on the 4th gen LS1s now telling me they rattle or are not refined....etc

Now as for GM's 1/4 mi times. I think IN THE PAST they have been conservative, but not any longer. Look at the stock time on an 04 GTO 13.8 was published and you know what, it would run 13.8-14.0 if you were lucky,

Guy-a whole second.....I don't think you really mean that. If we look at the 04 GTO w 350hp @ 13.8 at 3725 lbs and the 2010 SS w /426 @ xxx at 3900 gives us a difference of 76 HP and 175lbs. (So if we use old equation 10hp = .1 @ the track and 100lbs = 1 tenth ). That puts us 13.05 plus 175 pounds then = 13.25ish for your average dude. Which is a bit better than the 4th Gen Ls1. This is not a proven fact just for guesstimates. Ls1 GTO used just for comparisons.

But to get back on topic,We are happy there is a new Camaro SS but What makes me or Pete want to buy a new one for 38,000$

JakeRobb

The Pirellis that come on the SS are Y-rated, which means they're good for 186mph. So it's not tires.

You could get one for 23k, if you wanted. Or a 1SS for 31k. Or a 2SS/RS with automatic for 36k. You certainly don't have to spend 38k.

I don't know what your priorities are, so it's hard for me to tell you what makes a 2010 worthwhile over your 2000. Being ten years newer plays a big part. 60-80 more horsepower doesn't hurt. Better ride quality, better handling, more communicative steering and better shifter feel (or so I hear), six-speed automatic, better safety, better stereo, satellite radio, iPod connectivity... the list goes on. What's important to you? You have to assign value to each of the advantages you care about and add it all up yourself.

ZZtop

I am very impressed. Not bad for a $31k NA V8 car. A heavy one at that!

ZZtop

I think the point the other person was trying to make is that Ford only rated the GT500 at 12.8 Hence, the one tenth difference he mentioned.

All the mainstream mags ran between 12.6 and 12.9 in the 07-09' GT500 so that would put Ford on the conservative side. Yes, some owners did run 12.5 and Evan Smith (or God as I like to call him) even ran a 12.2 I believe.

The point is that you will likely, no one knows for sure, see a similar variation for the Camaro.

Without a doubt the Camaro does more than split the GT500 and GT, it is biting at the heels of the GT500.......and it might even snag a lame GT500 driver to two

SSCamaro99_3

Um, guys, just to refresh your memory the auto cars are down about 20 hp due to cylinder deactivation. Wouldn't affect 0-60, but will hurt quarter mile times.

guionM

Not sure how I'm insulting anyone's intellegence by posting published times, and I didn't put a price on anything here, so there's nothing to buy into.

If I pulled those numbers out my butt, then that would be different. However that's not the case.

Evan Smith seems to be the only person who managed that time of every person who has ever tested the LS1 for any publication in it's 5 years (perhaps he earned the nickname ZZtop mentioned "God").


1. Though the Mustang has 315 horsepower, the rest of the story is that it also has 325 lbs/ft of torque and a 3.73 rear axle.

2. Not going to speculate what you did or didn't do to get that 13.43 time or the conditions you ran in, but the numbers posted for the 2010 Camaros and the cars I listed came from showroom stock cars in controlled tests and represent average times, and therefore representative and an accurate yardstick.

3. Anything done or weather conditions or the occasional "good" engine that results in better times could also be applied to other vehicles, which also would result in better times. Some vehicles respond better to certain alterations, altitudes, or weather conditions better than others.

Getting back to the endgame (and away from the obsession with exact numbers and best case scenarios) the point here is under the same circumstances, the new 2010 LS3 Camaro SS is apparently 1 second quicker than the LS1 Camaro in the quarter.

That ain't what someone's selling... that's what the evidence is.


The evidence will be verified when various car magazines (each test cars the same way consistently) test an SS and we can see how it measures up to other cars that each magazine has tested in the past.

bossco

speed ratings are deceptive, since they are dependant on the maximum load the tire can sustain (more speed, more load, more air pressure required) and if the tire cannot sustain the load at maximum air pressure then the speed has to be reduced. Thats why I wonder if its a tire issue across the board (although I've read various accounts where aerodynamic instability was the probable reason).

SSPORT10

[QUOTE=JakeRobb;5881994]The Pirellis that come on the SS are Y-rated, which means they're good for 186mph. So it's not tires.[QUOTE]


They are actually Z rated tires.

JakeRobb

Z-rated means the tire is good for at least 149 mph. For several years now, all Z-rated tires have come with a secondary speed rating, which is located after the load load index (collectively, the load index and the secondary speed rating are called the Service Description). This rating gives the tire's actual max speed.

The PZero tires that come on the SS are 245/45ZR20 103Y in the front and 275/40ZR20 106Y in the rear.

Y indicates 186mph.

JakeRobb

I don't think that's the issue here. The front tires have the lower load index (103). 103 means that tire is designed to handle up to 1949 pounds.

A 3900-lb Camaro would have to do a stoppie to put 1949 pounds on a single front tire.

Given that the tire is rated for 186mph and that load, I'm betting that it would have been fine up to whatever the SS's actual drag-limited speed would have been.

This seems far more likely to me.

guionM

Wonder how much GM is charging for those 19" wheels and what other garbage you're going to have to buy in order to get them.

Still..... 155mph from a Camaro V-6 is simply awesome.

I recall Ford being purposely misleading on the car's performance. While real world Cobras ran mid 12s and in cold weather, lower than that, Ford (I think via Colletti himself) led people to believe it would be "just under" 13 seconds.

On the flip side, take a Cobra into 90 degree heat and let the engine tempreature build and just like the 2004 GTO, it becomes alot slower.


Anyone thinking a stock Camaro SS has the potential to do 115 mph 1/4 mile speeds is in for disappointment.

The Chevrolet Corvette weighs nearly 700 pounds less and has superior aerodynamics.... and it runs 115 mph quarters.

Any 4 passenger automobile that costs only $31K off the showroom flow that can burn down a quarter mile under 13 seconds at over 110 mph is DAMN FLYING!!!

If you don't think so, you're either spending too much time at the dragstrip watching modified cars, or you likely have a pretty warped view of reality.

Either way, the fact that GM managed this... AND got 24 mpg highway under the current EPA measurement system IMO earned all the engineers that made it possible at the very least either a relaxing week in Maui or a wild weekend in Bangkok... their choice!