Quarter mile times!
03-17-2009, 07:06 PM
#61
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SoCal
Posts: 3,463
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 also assure you that GM is very different today than in 2000-2002 and they are treating the Camaro very different as well. They underrrated the HP on the LS1 F-body and treated the car like a dying vehicle, and it was. So just because they may have been conservative with the LS1 cars in the late 90's is a poor arguement to support their treatment of this 2010 Camaro. They actually embrace the 5th Gen. that’s a good thing because GM needs this car to do well.
But I'm basing my assumption on their conservativeness in 1/4 mile numbers on more than that. Look no further than the gear ratios chosen for the Manual trans SS to see that it was a compromise in fuel economy and performance and I think they worked very hard at both but opted for more economy. I think there are better numbers in the car but it's going to take a gear swap to begin to extract it.
I'll entertain this for a quick minute;
So you believe pulling a 12.5 -12.6 @ 112-113 is "NOT" made up but my disbelief in 12.5 @115 is??
If that then; If the car "routinely" runs 112-113 traps all one would need is a slight tailwind, not a pipe dream, and 115 isn't that far away.
Last edited by 99SilverSS; 03-17-2009 at 08:12 PM.
03-17-2009, 07:17 PM
#62
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,217
Although, I know you are happy to receive it! I knew the Camaro would not disappoint on the gas mileage. Way to go GM!!!
03-17-2009, 07:37 PM
#63
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 307
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!
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!
03-17-2009, 08:06 PM
#64
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 42
I think you've extrapolated a bit too far and far underestimate the LT1. I know it's posh to bash on the 275/285/305hp tried and true iron block LT1 but I assure you they will lay waste to the new V6 Camaro.
For those who have not visited a drag strip or much less from behind the wheel a .5 sec difference in ET is a bus length and your less fortunate opponent is solidly in your side rear view mirror.
-There should be a warning that "Objects at the drag strip are not as close as they appear!"
I'm by no means saying the V6 Camaro is a slouch but give the LT1 more credit. I think memory has made them seem slower than they were because of the advent of the alloy generation of small blocks.
For those who have not visited a drag strip or much less from behind the wheel a .5 sec difference in ET is a bus length and your less fortunate opponent is solidly in your side rear view mirror.
-There should be a warning that "Objects at the drag strip are not as close as they appear!"
I'm by no means saying the V6 Camaro is a slouch but give the LT1 more credit. I think memory has made them seem slower than they were because of the advent of the alloy generation of small blocks.
03-17-2009, 09:00 PM
#65
Registered User
Join Date: May 2000
Location: nj
Posts: 215
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.
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.
Guy- I had a stock z28 that corrected dyno-ed at 310,it ran 13.4-13.3s @ 105mph all day, ( and this is not uncommon) M6 I just don't understand how you are getting a whole second here. With your logic here the 2010 would be pulling 12.4 12.3 cmon man, your smarter than that.
Last edited by gr8fl red!; 03-17-2009 at 09:11 PM.
03-17-2009, 10:00 PM
#67
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Okemos, MI
Posts: 9,480
I'm assuming that it can actually achieve that speed, but keep in mind that the presence of an electronic limiter does not necessarily mean the car can go that fast.
03-17-2009, 10:19 PM
#68
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 307
http://www.gmhightechperformance.com..._gt/index.html
This might shed some light on the difference, the early shift into 5th is whats killing it the most.
They may use the same strategy on the A6 Camaros tune.
03-17-2009, 10:33 PM
#69
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,209
I wonder how much further a set of 4.10 gears and a tune would get you into the 12s, assuming you have good enough tires to take advantage of them.
Furthermore, I'll be interested to see how well a cammed LS3 with some bolt-ons will do. 11s might not be out of the question, seeing as how mild cammed LS3 'Vettes are putting out almost 500 RWHP with some bolt-ons.
Furthermore, I'll be interested to see how well a cammed LS3 with some bolt-ons will do. 11s might not be out of the question, seeing as how mild cammed LS3 'Vettes are putting out almost 500 RWHP with some bolt-ons.
03-18-2009, 07:06 AM
#70
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Okemos, MI
Posts: 9,480
http://www.gmhightechperformance.com..._gt/index.html
This might shed some light on the difference, the early shift into 5th is whats killing it the most.
They may use the same strategy on the A6 Camaros tune.
This might shed some light on the difference, the early shift into 5th is whats killing it the most.
They may use the same strategy on the A6 Camaros tune.
03-18-2009, 09:46 AM
#72
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: BFE, Ohio
Posts: 1,504
03-18-2009, 09:50 AM
#73
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Okemos, MI
Posts: 9,480
03-18-2009, 10:42 AM
#75
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 80
as for hood clearance i plan on widening and raising the cowl slightly on a factory steel hood. this things going to look sinister parked in the garage next to my pro-touring 72 camaro SS and lsx powered 93 z28