SLP involvement [Archive] - CamaroZ28.Com Message Board

90 Z28SS

12-09-2005, 04:44 PM

.....and further more SLP only did what they were contracted by GM to do . GM defined the SS and the Firehawks ...set the boundries if u will , SLP designed the packages within GM's parameters . So how does SLP suck ? If you added equal parts to your Z28 to equivilate the SS or Firehawk packages , using NEW parts ....not used , you likely would have spent MORE money than the premium charge for a new SS or firehawk over a Z28 , Formula or Trans Am .

The 2 years SLP developed the Firehawk package on their own were 91 and 92 . Unlike the 4th gens , those were just a bit more than a couple bolt ons and wheels :D You could opt for a Alumium block 350 with a T-ram intake , 6point roll bar with harnesses , aluminum hood , recaro seats to the already stout for the time Base Firehawk .

Hell back then , SLP did more for the F-bodies than GM did . Including customer appreciation days its still holds , which has now turned into a pretty big yearly event .

Aaron91RS

12-09-2005, 04:55 PM

refresh me again on the difference between SLP engineering and performance.

90 Z28SS

12-09-2005, 05:07 PM

engineering = OEM package cars

performance = All their performace parts

Jason E

12-10-2005, 11:37 AM

Bingo...

Anyway, I am very sad SLP Engineering is gone. I sold 10 Firehawks in '02, compared to 3 WS6s. For the extra $1,000 a base Hawk package cost over a WS6, the additional 20hp alone (claimed, actual, whatever...) was worth the $$...not to mention the awesome hood.

The hood looked better, the exhaust sounded better, and that Bilstein group...wow. I have the shocks on my Z, but not the lowering kit or the reinforced chassis bits. I almost bought the package for $700 when SLP still offered it (it was $1,099 installed on the Hawks, and is now just a $550 package with just the Eibachs and the Bilsteins :( ), and wish I had. I didn't really want to drop my Z though. But the one ride I took in a black Hawk with the Bilstein group...wow.

A car I want as badly as a 5th gen is a Formula Firehawk with the Bilstein group...I ordered and sold 2 that year (NBM and red), and could have bought either for about $26k...window was about $32,500. What an idiot I was :( I would have needed a $500 beater to drive every day, and wasn't willing to part with my Z28 and my then-brand-new '02 Grand Am GT to do it :(

WERM

12-10-2005, 12:22 PM

greg_nate

12-10-2005, 01:43 PM

The whole SLP ss was pretty stupid. I don't care if they defined it or GM defined it. SS = what the Z/28 should have been.

The z/28 was so plain and dowdy, no wonder so many people chose to buy the SS (or not buy a camaro).

I am not sure what you are talking about. A 4th Gen Z/28 had ground effects, whereas a 4th Gen SS did not. That was one of the things that always bothered me about the SS, is that it didn't have (by default) the ground effects.

I recall when I bought my SS, there were 3 Zs right next to it, and I tried talking the dealer into taking the ground effects from one of the Zs and putting it on the SS. He didn't go for it.

Jason E

12-10-2005, 01:53 PM

I am not sure what you are talking about. A 4th Gen Z/28 had ground effects, whereas a 4th Gen SS did not. That was one of the things that always bothered me about the SS, is that it didn't have (by default) the ground effects.

I recall when I bought my SS, there were 3 Zs right next to it, and I tried talking the dealer into taking the ground effects from one of the Zs and putting it on the SS. He didn't go for it.

And the newbie parade continues on the 5th gen board...

Don't mean to be a d!ck or anything, but the reason why he wouldn't is because those ground effects were OPTIONAL on a Z28...and not available on an SS. Why would he swap a factory option off of one car, and onto another?????

wrastler

12-10-2005, 07:10 PM

Thats illegal anyways. He'd be required by law to replace the option on the first car or he could be sued out the @$$ for it.

gr8fl red!

12-11-2005, 12:14 AM

And the newbie parade continues on the 5th gen board...

Don't mean to be a d!ck or anything, but the reason why he wouldn't is because those ground effects were OPTIONAL on a Z28...and not available on an SS. Why would he swap a factory option off of one car, and onto another?????

THAT IS CLASSIC...get ready for the flood~

Fbodfather

12-11-2005, 02:04 AM

What did SLP do for the Z28? Slapped on a hood, spoiler, shifter, catback and wheels, big deal. The 4th gen SS was a joke, nothing but a prettier Z28.

Really?

Then how 'bout you and I meet up at Spring Mountain Motorsports park and I take you for a ride in a stock Z28 and then a stock SS.........

there is a big difference.

Now....as to the drag strip.......there is still a difference........the magic in the SS is how much better it handled on a road course. It put cars costing three times as much to shame.

Fbodfather

12-11-2005, 02:08 AM

I hope that at least 275's will be available for the car. As for SLP, I'm glad they are gone too. I really didn't see the need for them and neither did GM apparently. GM was making all the SS models themselves by the 2002 (and earlier if I'm not mistaken).

Not true. We simply brought the 'stock' part of the program in-house in the 98 model year......but SLP still offered a lot of 'second sticker' content ....some were appearance items (chromed wheels, new grille insert) and some were performance (dual-dual exhaust, airbox)

I've always said that SLP was a product planner's dream come true. The team could go to them and ask for things that funding was not available for conventionally.

I don't believe the SS would have seen the light of day had it not been for SLP.

Fbodfather

12-11-2005, 02:13 AM

The whole SLP ss was pretty stupid. I don't care if they defined it or GM defined it. SS = what the Z/28 should have been.

The z/28 was so plain and dowdy, no wonder so many people chose to buy the SS (or not buy a camaro).

OK...now...I don't know how you stand on the "give us more choices" issue...but that seems to be huge in the enthusiast group.

So...................we gave you more choices.........and we were wrong to do so?

I don't understand your line of thinking.

The Z28 was a great performing car....handled extremely well...but had great ride compliance. (the handling was not as great as the SS)

So........the SS gets some power enhancements.....and a killer handling package.......and then SLP also offers all kinds of second sticker options to AGAIN allow the customer to tailor his or her Camaro/Firebird........and that's not good?

*shakes head in confusion*

IZ28

12-11-2005, 02:15 AM

Now wouldn't that have just been a shame if we didn't get the SS? ;)

What he's trying to say is that the SS became what should have been the Z28's definition, what it should have been in the first place. Instead, all throughout the 4th Gen the Z28 looked like a V6 car. The roles then got reversed, the SS took away from the Z28 in looks and in performance slightly, making it seem like a lousy, undesirable, boring, mid-model, even moreso. Then on SPEED they felt it was fine to give SLP the credit for bringing back the musclecar with the SS, as they put it. (which was ridiculous) This is how most people feel about and see that whole situation. Neither model was what they should have been, it seemed like a way to take advantage of marketing by bringing back a designation. ALOT of people call for the Z28's return to greatness at the top and for the SS to take it's place as a broad performance Camaro again for a reason.

turbo96z28

12-11-2005, 02:19 AM

as far as any future "performance" vehicles, is GMPD gonna take care of them in-house or will there be outside involvement?

Z284ever

12-11-2005, 02:26 AM

Fbodfather

12-11-2005, 02:34 AM

(ohdeargodjustkillmenow..........)

OK.........

Let's go down this road one last time.

So.........

GM develops the 4th gen.

The 'ultimate' Camaro in 1993-1995 is a Z28.

SLP comes along and says to us.......we'd like to take the Camaro to the next level.

so......DURING the 1996 model year.......they introduce the SS package AS A SECOND STICKER PROGRAM.

Now........are you telling me that mid-year we should suddenly switch nameplates?

(insert your answer here, please)

.
.
.
.
.
(still with me?)

.....

OK....now, let's look at facts.

The SS came out in 1996........and even in 2002, many dealers and enthusiasts STILL did not know how to order an SS. I was constantly bombarded with letters and emails from people and dealers who wanted to order an SS with second sticker equipment (1998 on) and could not figure it out.

So........you want us to change the nameplate in the middle of a year, huh?

I do agree........that the Z28 was a very special Camaro.

But ladies and gentlemen..........to suddenly switch gears (nameplates) in the middle of a lifecycle would be disasterous.

Now...I "ain't" talkin' about the next gen.

But suffice to say that I've been listening.

And I know that no matter WHAT nameplates we affix to the car, there will be people that are happy and there will be people that are not happy.

My 2 cents?

When someone sez "I drive a Z28"......people know what that is...it's a Camaro!"

When someone sez "I drive an SS".......people know it's a Chevy........but they don't know WHICH Chevy.

Z284ever

12-11-2005, 02:37 AM

(ohdeargodjustkillmenow..........)

OK.........

Let's go down this road one last time.

So.........

GM develops the 4th gen.

The 'ultimate' Camaro in 1993-1995 is a Z28.

SLP comes along and says to us.......we'd like to take the Camaro to the next level.

so......DURING the 1996 model year.......they introduce the SS package AS A SECOND STICKER PROGRAM.

Now........are you telling me that mid-year we should suddenly switch nameplates?

(insert your answer here, please)

.
.
.
.
.
(still with me?)

.....

OK....now, let's look at facts.

The SS came out in 1996........and even in 2002, many dealers and enthusiasts STILL did not know how to order an SS. I was constantly bombarded with letters and emails from people and dealers who wanted to order an SS with second sticker equipment (1998 on) and could not figure it out.

So........you want us to change the nameplate in the middle of a year, huh?

I do agree........that the Z28 was a very special Camaro.

But ladies and gentlemen..........to suddenly switch gears (nameplates) in the middle of a lifecycle would be disasterous.

Now...I "ain't" talkin' about the next gen.

But suffice to say that I've been listening.

And I know that no matter WHAT nameplates we affix to the car, there will be people that are happy and there will be people that are not happy.

Let's get the damn thing out first!

What???

Are we making you crazy or something? ;)

turbo96z28

12-11-2005, 02:53 AM

What???

Are we making you crazy or something? ;)

:lol: be careful Charlie or he might call it a Camaro GT :eek:

Fbodfather

12-11-2005, 03:40 AM

:lol: be careful Charlie or he might call it a Camaro GT :eek:

WHAT?????

All right, buster......in the corner and stay there until I tell you to come out!!!!

GT??? OMG...I think I'm having a stroke.............

Rob V

12-11-2005, 04:08 AM

Turbo, if the Fbodfather kicks the bucket before January 8th because of that GT remark, you can count on pretty much everyone from CamaroZ28.com showing up on your doorstep ;)

WERM

12-11-2005, 08:08 AM

OK...now...I don't know how you stand on the "give us more choices" issue...but that seems to be huge in the enthusiast group.

So...................we gave you more choices.........and we were wrong to do so?

I don't understand your line of thinking.

The Z28 was a great performing car....handled extremely well...but had great ride compliance. (the handling was not as great as the SS)

So........the SS gets some power enhancements.....and a killer handling package.......and then SLP also offers all kinds of second sticker options to AGAIN allow the customer to tailor his or her Camaro/Firebird........and that's not good?

*shakes head in confusion*

Okay, I'll try to explain.

"The Z28 was a great performing car....handled extremely well...but had great ride compliance. (the handling was not as great as the SS)"

This is true. Except it (the 1998+ model) had no hood scoop or shape to the hood whatsoever. It was perfectly flat. It also had dinky 16" wheels that had the additional benefit of being ugly. The spoiler was flat and didn't even appear to be functional. Why wouldn't GM have added any of these things to to the regular Z/28? I'm guessing that the incremental cost would have been about zero, with a slight upcharge for the wheels and tires.

So why would'nt GM have done it? Well, if the Z/28 looked cool, it'd be hard to justify a highly profitable $3500 handling package with the same engine and similar styling. In a nutshell, the Z/28 was dumbed down appearance wise to help sell SS's.

Extra choice = Good
Dumbing down the car to make me chose the "Extra Choice" options = Bad

I don't mean to come across as a jerk, but I like to see the z/28 as more than "that model between the high volume V6 cars and profitable SS cars." Any car can be an SS (especially these days). Only a Camaro can be a Z/28.

JasonD

12-11-2005, 10:03 AM

I may be incorrect, but I believe that I once heard that if SLP had not stepped in and helped sell more Camaros and Firebirds, production would not have gone to 2002 like it did.

turbo96z28

12-11-2005, 10:44 AM

WHAT?????

All right, buster......in the corner and stay there until I tell you to come out!!!!

GT??? OMG...I think I'm having a stroke.............

(running...........ducking...............hiding... ...........) :p

i expect to have to pay for that remark at the New York show? :o

Z284ever

12-11-2005, 04:52 PM

Any car can be an SS. Only a Camaro can be a Z/28.

WERM, you should be in marketing! I think we've got a tagline!

HAZ-Matt

12-11-2005, 05:03 PM

Would that hurt perceptions of all the other Chevies though?

Z284ever

12-11-2005, 05:08 PM

Would that hurt perceptions of all the other Chevies though?

Yes you're right, I believe it would. We should only use it for OUR own internal consumption.

turbo96z28

12-11-2005, 05:42 PM

Yes you're right, I believe it would. We should only use it for OUR own internal consumption.

or you could make it part of your sig Charlie ;) .

Z284ever

12-11-2005, 09:39 PM

or you could make it part of your sig Charlie ;) .

I believe someone's got it already.

formula79

12-11-2005, 11:51 PM

Man...you guys never let it go...

Everyone knows the IROC-Z is the top of line Camaro:D

Wonder if we will get the Camaro LT back?

IZ28

12-12-2005, 04:01 AM

Everyone knows the IROC-Z is the top of line Camaro:D

Now, we are talking sense. ;)

stars1010

12-12-2005, 04:47 AM

I believe someone's got it already.

Who could that be?
:D :p

demonspeed

12-12-2005, 08:09 AM

kick Z tail out

12-12-2005, 08:37 AM

Wonder if we will get the Camaro LT back?
Hopefully not ;)

HAZ-Matt

12-12-2005, 10:09 AM

RoMaD

12-12-2005, 10:45 AM

I'm glad Red posted what he did. And if that's what he says went down, I'm not sure how anyone can dispute it. However, I think some of the animosity toward SLP stems from the problems their aftermarket division had in delivering product toward the end. The board is full of bad experiences within the last couple of years. Unfair? Possibly, but true nonetheless.

Personally, I never liked the SS and feel as many do that the Z28 was unnecessarily kept "dowdy" by the existance of the SS. As if GM didn't want to step on SLP's toes by coming up with a performance/appearance package for the Z28 on their own. Sure, this might not be how things actually were, but I don't have to tell anyone here what perceptions can do. Especially in the auto industry.

And Red, if the car handled that well, why didn't we ever hear about it? Even from the SS owners themselves? Had I known that, I might have given the SS more of a break. I'm more interested in well-rounded performance than just straight-line anyway. If the car outhandles others that cost 3x as much, that might be commerical-worthy. I know, those probably weren't your decisions to make, but that's a fumble of epic proportions, again, IMHO.

graham

12-12-2005, 10:58 AM

You guys might get the heritage of what package is which and what model is above what, but I dont think it'll make a dime's bit of difference in sales.

Big Als Z

12-12-2005, 12:12 PM

What does IROC stand for again? (not thinking of International Race of Champions) :p

Disclaimer: the previous post is not intended to cause offense, so if you are offended you shouldnt have read it :)

:mad: :death: :mad: :death: :mad: :death:

I could see a Camaro LT. There is already an LT designation for most Chevy cars.
It brings up a good question, will Chevy follow suit with its other designations? Will a base Camaro be Camaro LS, then LT, LTZ, then SS, Z28?
Could go something like this...
Camaro LS
3.9 VVt V6
6spd manual
power everything standard
AM/FM/CD player
Camaro LT then would upgrade that with maybe some body colored side mirrors, optional leather heated seats and optional 5.3 V8 and 6spd auto, radio eqipment, etc etc.
then RS would be get sport suspension, more agressive seats, larger 17's, dual exhaust, body package, bigger brakes (shared with SS). RS would probably fight the GT as would low optioned SS's.

Z284ever

12-12-2005, 04:57 PM

You guys might get the heritage of what package is which and what model is above what, but I dont think it'll make a dime's bit of difference in sales.

I do.

The right name and link to proper heritage, can make the final packaging of certain products....like performance cars...more appealing. And it doesn't cost anymore to do.

90 Z28SS

12-12-2005, 05:28 PM

I do.

The right name and link to proper heritage, can make the final packaging of certain products....like performance cars...more appealing. And it doesn't cost anymore to do.

Unless your dealing with Chevy fans , could there BE anymore debates on this subject :D

CLEAN

12-12-2005, 05:32 PM

GM develops the 4th gen.

The 'ultimate' Camaro in 1993-1995 is a Z28.

SLP comes along and says to us.......we'd like to take the Camaro to the next level.

so......DURING the 1996 model year.......they introduce the SS package AS A SECOND STICKER PROGRAM.

Now........are you telling me that mid-year we should suddenly switch nameplates?

So........you want us to change the nameplate in the middle of a year, huh?.

But ladies and gentlemen..........to suddenly switch gears (nameplates) in the middle of a lifecycle would be disasterous.

.

Hi Scott, just using the above example (the doomsday scenario I mean), how was it that the IROC displaced the Z28 in the mid 80's to the point where Z28 completely went away for a few years, only to reappear a few years later as the NEW top model Camaro again. I was there, and I don't remember being overly confused as to what was the top Camaro. Not trying to antagonize you, just trying to understand the differences between the 2 scenarios.

super83Z

12-12-2005, 06:41 PM

JasonD

12-12-2005, 07:37 PM

That would have helped so much with my ford friends since all i ever hear was how chevy couldnt get the Camaro right so SLP had to do it.

First of all, you need better friends. :lol:

Second of all, that is a pretty ignorant statement.

Third, and most importantly...ask your buddies if they ever heard the names Roush or Saleen. :lol: That's what it took in most cases to beat a Z28 OR an SS back in 1996. ;);)

turbo96z28

12-12-2005, 07:46 PM

First of all, you need better friends. :lol:

Second of all, that is a pretty ignorant statement.

Third, and most importantly...ask your buddies if they ever heard the names Roush or Saleen. :lol: That's what it took in most cases to beat a Z28 OR an SS back in 1996. ;);)

:bow:
super83Z=:Owned:

90 Z28SS

12-12-2005, 08:00 PM

greg_nate

12-12-2005, 09:14 PM

I dont see why they couldnt just boost the 96 Z28's hp and then say that the SS was the new mid-level model. That would have helped so much with my ford friends since all i ever hear was how chevy couldnt get the Camaro right so SLP had to do it. They didnt make the RS top over the SS so z28 could have been boosted up and SS taken over the "old" Z28's slot. Nothing is wrong with 1 years car having more hp than the previous years.

It depends on how you look at it...

Ford couldn't get their high tech, dual overhead overhead cam V8 to compete with a simple pushrod engine. They had to stick a supercharger on top of it in order to compete with the LS1.

turbo96z28

12-12-2005, 09:33 PM

It depends on how you look at it...

Ford couldn't get their high tech, dual overhead overhead cam V8 to compete with a simple pushrod engine. They had to stick a supercharger on top of it in order to compete with the LS1.

and they waited til the Camaro finished production to bring out thier "big gun".

Jason E

12-12-2005, 10:22 PM

Hi Scott, just using the above example (the doomsday scenario I mean), how was it that the IROC displaced the Z28 in the mid 80's to the point where Z28 completely went away for a few years, only to reappear a few years later as the NEW top model Camaro again. I was there, and I don't remember being overly confused as to what was the top Camaro. Not trying to antagonize you, just trying to understand the differences between the 2 scenarios.

Chevroletman, let I send you down the road to correct knowledge!!!

By the end of '87, the IROC was selling so well GM figured it would stop offering 2 "top" Camaros. IROC was originally a package on top of a normal Z28. So for '88, Z28 and LT were axed. The Sport Coupe got the silver gfx, front and rear facias, spoiler, 15" alloys, gague cluster and a few smaller things from the Z28 anyway. The Z28 lived on as the RPO for the IROC model (RPO Z28, IIRC).

At the end of the '89 CY, Chevy lost the rights to the IROC name to Dodge. Therefore, all '90 MY production ended late December of '89, with the '91 MY commencing in early '90. Because Chevy could not use the IROC name anymore, they had no choice but to bring back the Z28 nameplate.

In reality, IROC really is the top Camaro :) Maybe we should call me IROCman!!!

turbo96z28

12-12-2005, 10:26 PM

In reality, IROC really is the top Camaro :) Maybe we should call me IROCman!!!

not until you own one PONTIACMAN :p ;)

Z284ever

12-12-2005, 10:55 PM

I dont see why they couldnt just boost the 96 Z28's hp and then say that the SS was the new mid-level model. That would have helped so much with my ford friends since all i ever hear was how chevy couldnt get the Camaro right so SLP had to do it. They didnt make the RS top over the SS so z28 could have been boosted up and SS taken over the "old" Z28's slot. Nothing is wrong with 1 years car having more hp than the previous years.

I remember this issue: http://usedmagazines.com/cgi-bin/carjpg.cgi?full/MT9607.JPG

In 1996, MT was saying the new restyled 1998 Z/28 would get the 330 hp GEN III V8 and a new midlevel RS would get a 5.3.

Fbodfather

12-12-2005, 11:37 PM

Hi Scott, just using the above example (the doomsday scenario I mean), how was it that the IROC displaced the Z28 in the mid 80's to the point where Z28 completely went away for a few years, only to reappear a few years later as the NEW top model Camaro again. I was there, and I don't remember being overly confused as to what was the top Camaro. Not trying to antagonize you, just trying to understand the differences between the 2 scenarios.

well, as Jason just pointed out, we had no choice...we ended our relationship with IROC, and thus, could not use the nameplate.

But there's also the issue that the nameplate came back at model change-over. The Camaro SS did not come out at model changeover.

Interestingly, it's been over 15 years since we built an IROC, but the 'brand awareness' of the IROC name still gives the average consumer the image of Camaro........even tho they used Chryslers and Firebirds after Chevy dropped the sponsorship. Lotsa brand equity there....but the sponsorship involves stupid amounts of money.

Fbodfather

12-12-2005, 11:44 PM

I'm trying tp be considerate here... so don't go flaming me about my opinion - constructive criticism is welcomed...

I always looked at it as comparing to the Mustang...

You look at the GT and IMO, compare it to the Z28. (I'm talking 99-04 here)... The GT came with 17" wheels, different rear bumper, different hood, obviously it got the 4.6, suspension, etc, over a V6 coupe. What did the Z28 get? An engine... oh, and dinky (ugly) wheels, no distinction, and vacuum cleaner tips.

Let's look at the Cobra (which we'll compare to the SS). HUGE improvments over the GT. Big power gains from an entirely different engine (especially 03/04), different rear, tranny (03/04 anyway), better seats, MUCH better suspension and brakes, etc. The SS got a hood, wing, wheels, "better" exhaust... sure you could get optional stuff, but at the very least, most of it should have come standard on the SS - and besides the suspension, it wasn't going to make a difference.

Not to mention that SVT has a HUGE supporting roll in the enjoyment of the driving experience. Sure, SLP has a gathering at Englishtown or whatever, but the SVTOA has (what seems) so much more to offer, including track days (not just drag racing), a message board that didn't go to poo, newsletter, etc...

How often does a stock Cobra have problems keeping away from a stock GT? Taking out driver error... Never.

How often does a stock SS have problems keeping away from a stock Z28? Well... you know the answer.

IMO, after having both a SS and Z28, the SS seemed like an afterthought. I think the SS failed to the competition (besides brute power - which the Z28 had the SAME amount of power) in delivering a UNIQUE driving experience.

How often does a stock SS have problems keeping away from a stock Z28? Well...if it's on a road course, it doesn't!

Now......I had to think about this for a while...but we did a Camaro Video for dealers and showrooms.....and we filmed it at what was Bragg-Smith in Nevada...(now Spring Mountain Motorsports Park) (great track, by the way....we still rent it to do chassis development work....)

Anyway.....we ran, as I recall 10 laps with a Mustang GT, a Z28 and an SS...same driver...same conditions...same day...same everything........

The Z28 averaged, as I recall a 4 second lead over the Mustang GT. The SS, on the other hand, had a 12 second........that's HUGE....advantage over the Mustang GT.

The SS had chassis tuning to perform better on the track. It rides more harshly than the Z....but the tradeoff is in better handling.

By the way......little known fact that we never were allowed to talk about. A 1999 Camaro SS with 1LE suspension was marginally faster on a road course than a 1999 C5 Corvette with Z51 suspension. Our own engineers would prove it at Milford and in Nevada.

turbo96z28

12-12-2005, 11:49 PM

91Z-28

12-12-2005, 11:52 PM

I believe it. I saw an article about suspension in a 2002 car craft where they averaged 1 mph more in a 2002 SS than a C5 Corvette on a slalom course.

97z28/m6

12-12-2005, 11:57 PM

Fbodfather

12-13-2005, 12:04 AM

interesting. what was Team Corvettes opinion of that?

well..........as I say..........we weren't allowed to talk about it.

I used to beam when I'd go to Spring Mountain.......we provided them with 10 new Corvettes and 10 new Camaro SSs..... all cars were stock...the SSs had stock suspension, not 1LE (the reason? we felt that you should be able to go out and buy one the next day........most dealers would not stock a 1LE)

So.......I'd watch some "Brand X" (hint....not Ford, not GM) owners, for instance, get out of the SS.......and grill us as to what mods we'd done to the cars. "You mean this $28,000 Chevy can perform that good on a track???" (after passing cars costing well over twice as much...or more)........ Yup!

turbo96z28

12-13-2005, 12:08 AM

well..........as I say..........we weren't allowed to talk about it.

I used to beam when I'd go to Spring Mountain.......we provided them with 10 new Corvettes and 10 new Camaro SSs..... all cars were stock...the SSs had stock suspension, not 1LE (the reason? we felt that you should be able to go out and buy one the next day........most dealers would not stock a 1LE)

So.......I'd watch some "Brand X" (hint....not Ford, not GM) owners, for instance, get out of the SS.......and grill us as to what mods we'd done to the cars. "You mean this $28,000 Chevy can perform that good on a track???" (after passing cars costing well over twice as much...or more)........ Yup!

hate to seem like i'm tapping you for info..... ;) .....but did you have any direct influence on what was doen to the SSs in the LS1 years?

JasonD

12-13-2005, 12:13 AM

detltu

12-13-2005, 12:40 AM

I went to Spring Mountain (when it was known by another name) a few years ago, and I was the only one driving a Camaro SS. The others drove C5's and were purebred Corvette owners. I was also the youngest there. Needless to say, I was the odd man out, and they made it known that they didn't think I was quite in their league.

I didn't care, they sure had a hard time keeping up with me. :D
I always wanted to go to B-S and plan on it when I get my 5th gen. Especially if Spring mountain gets some Camaros again (or the new Z06).

RP
Did you guys provide the cars or did B-S buy them at reduced cost or what?

Fbodfather

12-13-2005, 12:40 AM

hate to seem like i'm tapping you for info..... ;) .....but did you have any direct influence on what was doen to the SSs in the LS1 years?

yes.

DrewSG

12-13-2005, 05:20 AM

IMO, after having both a SS and Z28, the SS seemed like an afterthought. I think the SS failed to the competition (besides brute power - which the Z28 had the SAME amount of power) in delivering a UNIQUE driving experience.

What competition did the SS have? :lol:

ChrisL

12-13-2005, 11:14 AM

interesting. what was Team Corvettes opinion of that?

They came out with the Z06.

:D

Could you imagine the outcry in Corvette nation if word got out a "lowly" Camaro was faster around a race course?

Those of you old enough may also remember the outcry from Vette owners when the Buick turbo V6 engines were around kicking C4 ass?

Jason E

12-13-2005, 11:37 AM

Interestingly, it's been over 15 years since we built an IROC, but the 'brand awareness' of the IROC name still gives the average consumer the image of Camaro........even tho they used Chryslers and Firebirds after Chevy dropped the sponsorship. Lotsa brand equity there....but the sponsorship involves stupid amounts of money.

Maybe that should tell Chevy something :D

I've had customers tell me "that's a nice IROC you own!" as I've gotten out of my car at the dealership. People see a picture of me with my car on my desk here at the bank, and say "is that your IROC?" The brand equity in that name for the Camaro...is it as high as Z28?

One must ponder that, seeing as how my car IS a Z28, and to the unwashed my car IS an IROC ;) People have probably called my Z28 an IROC more than calling it a Z28!

FWIW, I am all for bringing the IROC back as a special package :) Something tells me most will disagree, and something tells me I'm biased...and that's because I AM biased :D

turbo,
Shut up...I'm working on it :D A 350 IROC is still my dream Camaro...although, Scott is making it hard to divert excess funds to a 3rd. January will help me determine where my funds end up :D

turbo96z28

12-13-2005, 01:00 PM

turbo,
Shut up...I'm working on it :D A 350 IROC is still my dream Camaro...although, Scott is making it hard to divert excess funds to a 3rd. January will help me determine where my funds end up :D

had to rib you alittle :D ;) ......i'll keep my eyes open down here in ol'Jersey for you if you want. you'd die if you knew how many of them are around here.

91Z-28

12-13-2005, 06:56 PM

I rarely see any in NY. When people ask me what my car looks like when they find out I have a Camaro, I tell them to think IROC. That acryonym defined a whole generation of Camaros.

demonspeed

12-14-2005, 07:41 AM

How often does a stock SS have problems keeping away from a stock Z28? Well...if it's on a road course, it doesn't!

Now......I had to think about this for a while...but we did a Camaro Video for dealers and showrooms.....and we filmed it at what was Bragg-Smith in Nevada...(now Spring Mountain Motorsports Park) (great track, by the way....we still rent it to do chassis development work....)

Anyway.....we ran, as I recall 10 laps with a Mustang GT, a Z28 and an SS...same driver...same conditions...same day...same everything........

The Z28 averaged, as I recall a 4 second lead over the Mustang GT. The SS, on the other hand, had a 12 second........that's HUGE....advantage over the Mustang GT.

The SS had chassis tuning to perform better on the track. It rides more harshly than the Z....but the tradeoff is in better handling.

By the way......little known fact that we never were allowed to talk about. A 1999 Camaro SS with 1LE suspension was marginally faster on a road course than a 1999 C5 Corvette with Z51 suspension. Our own engineers would prove it at Milford and in Nevada.

Thanks for the reply.

I'm not talking so much about the road course as I am real world. Most people aren't ever going to push their cars at that sort of event - or even on the street. Drag racing, OTOH, brings out many people as it's not very expensive, easy to do on a Friday night, and you don't need to travel for the most part. Not to mention it's usually a bit easier to lay into the throttle at a light than it is to throw your car around turns during the middle of the day. See where I'm going with this?

So basically, what was the point in buying a SS over a Z28? If I would have been able to afford a brand new SS before discontinuation, I would have gone with a SS with the 1LE package. The fact is, I couldn't. Most SS's you see don't even have either the Bilstein or 1LE. So again, why? My 00 SS had the same deCarbons as my 01 Z28 had. The SS was supposedly just larger sway bars in 00-02, correct? IMO, my Z28 handled more neutral than my SS did - even though my Z had the comparably tiny tires with the huge sidewall. I'm no suspension or road racing/auto X guru, that's just normal driving I pushed to the limit on the street. I might be wrong, but that's just what I *thought* I felt.

So I go back to the Cobra vs SS comparison. It doesn't matter what year we talk about, SVT threw in a COMPLETE package. You got a Cobra, you got everything. You got the brakes, the suspension (no optional suspension - you got it all), and most of all, a lot more power (compared to the GT). It doesn't matter that it took a supercharger in 03/04, the fact of the matter is Ford executed the Cobra much better than GM or SLP did.

I know Scott, that you simply can't say the SS wasn't "worth it", but you can at least offer something in the way to explain why this was the case with the SS. If it has to do with the Corvette (which if that's what it is, please, enlighten us), then I think that's silly. We've now got a 505hp Z06 (which I'm sure is only going to get better), so IMO, that LS2 C6 shouldn't even be considered the performance "cap" for the rest of GM performance cars. With a 450hp+ Shelby coming out and a Challenger (which I'm sure by 2009 it'll be more than 425hp), the Camaro simply can't hide behind the Corvette.

Again, as a SS and Z28 owner, it is my opinion that the SS was wishful thinking playing on expectations of a heritage prowess (much like the HEMI explosion), and above all else, an afterthought.

I digress back to the SVTOA and owner experience. It is my wish to see something of the sort from GM like Ford and SVT have done with the SVTOA. I'd love to see a SSOA that would include every year of a Super Sport since the Impala wore that distintion back in 64 (I believe it was 64, correct?). I don't care that people think the new SS models are a joke, nor do I care about what I just said about the 4th gen SS. I would be more than happy to start a local chapter as well.

Putting all of my comments aside about why I thought the 4th gen SS wasn't living up to what it should have, I thoroughly enjoyed my experience while owning mine. I loved every minute of it, and I was very proud to be driving a Chevy SS. The marketing "ploy" I complained about worked on me :) I bought it because I always wanted a Camaro SS and I didn't care about anything else. I've had 4 Camaros, and I will continue to buy them as long as they are available. I hope to purchase another LS1 Camaro in the spring to keep me tidy until you guys give me a 5th gen. I am anxious and I hope you won't dissappoint.

Again, Scott, your comments on my thoughts are very much welcomed. Thank you for visiting the board.

demonspeed

12-14-2005, 07:53 AM

What competition did the SS have? :lol:

The Cobra.

I'm not talking about just who's quicker, I'm talking about the complete package, the ownership experience, etc. It doesn't matter that the LS1 wooped the 32V modular (less-boost), the fact of the matter is Ford put a lot more power into the Cobra, whereas GM threw on pretty much a muffler and a hood scoop and called it a day in the power department. Sure, you might say they didn't need to pack more power to beat the Mustang in the ¼, but they should have packed more to make the SS a complete upgrade over the Z28 - just as the Cobra was a complete upgrade over the GT.

You guys are silly to also say that the Mustang sucked because they had to a put a blower on it. Who cares? They did it, they made more power, and are still making Mustangs. Stock for stock, the 03/04 Cobra blows away the 67-02 Camaro. Hell, mod for mod, look at the times and numbers those 03/04 guys are putting down. Would I rather have a Mustang? Nope. I'm just making a point.

DrewSG

12-14-2005, 09:20 AM

The Cobra.

I'm not talking about just who's quicker, I'm talking about the complete package, the ownership experience, etc. It doesn't matter that the LS1 wooped the 32V modular (less-boost), the fact of the matter is Ford put a lot more power into the Cobra, whereas GM threw on pretty much a muffler and a hood scoop and called it a day in the power department. Sure, you might say they didn't need to pack more power to beat the Mustang in the ¼, but they should have packed more to make the SS a complete upgrade over the Z28 - just as the Cobra was a complete upgrade over the GT.

You guys are silly to also say that the Mustang sucked because they had to a put a blower on it. Who cares? They did it, they made more power, and are still making Mustangs. Stock for stock, the 03/04 Cobra blows away the 67-02 Camaro. Hell, mod for mod, look at the times and numbers those 03/04 guys are putting down. Would I rather have a Mustang? Nope. I'm just making a point.

I agree with what you're saying, but they didn't really need too. How much cooler would the SS's and WS6's been if they had only came with the LT4 or got an LS6? The Mustang needed a complete upgrade to compete on a performance level, the F-Body didn't.

I'm sure with the next Challenger and GT500 raising the stakes, GM knows it can't go at this half assed with $3000 badges

demonspeed

12-14-2005, 09:40 AM

I agree with what you're saying, but they didn't really need too. How much cooler would the SS's and WS6's been if they had only came with the LT4 or got an LS6? The Mustang needed a complete upgrade to compete on a performance level, the F-Body didn't.

I'm sure with the next Challenger and GT500 raising the stakes, GM knows it can't go at this half assed with $3000 badges

They didn't need to if all they cared about was getting to the finish line first (which is most important to many), BUT, for customer enthusiasm and PRIDE, then, it is my belief, that they should have looked at what Ford had done. Again, refer to my SVTOA references and the complete upgrades included when you made the purchase of a SVT product.

Let's just look at the past 20 years...

Monte Carlo and El Camino SS of the 80's got the L69 305 HO. Sure, it was less than stellar, but for the times, it was substantial.

94-96 Impala SS recieved the LT1, whereas the Caprice got the TBI.

04/05 Impala SS and Monte Carlo SS got the supercharged 3800.

Cobalt SS gets you either the blown LSJ 2.0 or the uplevel 2.4. It's a complete make over of the Cobalt too.

The Silverado SS received the 3/4 ton HO 6.0.

The C1500 454SS got that huge monster in a half-ton truck.

And look at the Trailblazer SS... That is the complete package I am refering to!

I think the only cars that didn't get anything special were the 00-05 NA MC SS's and the S10 SS. Though the 94/95 S10 SS had the HO 4.3 Vortec which I don't beleive was available with other S10's.

Just a little more to think about :)

Jason E

12-14-2005, 12:59 PM

had to rib you alittle :D ;) ......i'll keep my eyes open down here in ol'Jersey for you if you want. you'd die if you knew how many of them are around here.

They're still clapping around here, too...just saw one on my way to work this morning. Thanks for the offer, but likely the kind of IROC I want I will find only in Hemmings or on eBay. While my Z28 has 62k miles on it (bought with 40k) and looks and drives like brand new (I have my dad's Formula to compare it to!!), the IROC I will buy will be a whole lot lower in mileage. I don't want anything with over 35k or so...and there are a lot of cars out there if I do a nationwide search. It has to be a 350 (or 305 TPI/stick), has to have t-tops, has to be black, grey, blue or maroon, has to have the uplevel cloth interior, has to have full power options, has to have G92 and has to be an '88-'89. The mileage limit is there because I want something as close to brand new as I can get, like my Z was. I don't want a car to restore, or a basket case, because to make it perfect it will cost me as much as buying a clean original! That's why I sold my Formula. I have turned down many a clean IROC solely because I want a perfect one, and am willing to pay for it. As you can see, that eliminates a ton of cars!! Add in the mileage factor, and I know I'll be spending $12-15k for one, based on today's prices...which means I'll need a home equity loan to buy it...

Which I am totally fine with :D

Chris 96 WS6

12-14-2005, 01:20 PM

By the way......little known fact that we never were allowed to talk about. A 1999 Camaro SS with 1LE suspension was marginally faster on a road course than a 1999 C5 Corvette with Z51 suspension. Our own engineers would prove it at Milford and in Nevada.

And as I understand, this little known fact gave Dave Hill fits! :D

I've pulled this fact out several times on people only to get called a liar. Nice to get another confirmation on it.

Just goes to show you live axle is not a limitation on a properly set up car, not that I want to open up that can of worms again, LOL.

Jason E

12-14-2005, 01:26 PM

Race tracks have no bumps :D

Sorry, had to point that one out :)

Chris 96 WS6

12-14-2005, 01:26 PM

Yes you're right, I believe it would. We should only use it for OUR own internal consumption.

OK so just change the "SS" to "GT" or "R" or whatever...

"Just about any car can be a GT or an "R", but only Camaro can be a Z28."

I like it. Scott, hand that over to GM marketing and tell them to run with it. 4 hours and a room full of sales geniuses should be able to make a winner out of that, LOL.

Chris 96 WS6

12-14-2005, 01:27 PM

Race tracks have no bumps :D

Sorry, had to point that one out :)

Only good race tracks have no bumps. There's plenty of rough tracks out there though.

Jason E

12-14-2005, 01:36 PM

Yeah, after I wrote that I was going to edit it and say "no big bumps in mid-turn, typically," but was too lazy and figured you wouldn't catch me on my BS.

Nice work :D

SSCamaro99_3

12-14-2005, 04:33 PM

Fbodfather

12-14-2005, 10:46 PM

well...to answer a couple of questions:

First, don't assume that the original plan was to leave the LS1 alone.....but the decision was made to put the cars on hiatus about two years before LS1....at the end of 1998-1999. Once that decision was done, it was next to impossible to get funding to do more work on the car. (thank God for SLP!)

Also, at the time, we were to keep the Camaro at, I recall, 30hp less than Corvette. That was the rule. Didn't say I liked it. (really disliked it, actually)...however, remember that this would have been during the Zarella years. (and don't get me going on THAT.....) As a result, when the second gen (for lack of a better term) LS1 was introduced, (2001 model year) the Camaro LS1 got a truck cam to keep the horsepower down. Again...don't shoot the messenger.

Things changed once he was gone.......time to reinvent Cadillac. Now....if you're gonna take on the world, you need a powerful engine. We had a CTS...but what engine would we use? Cadillac brand image was the northstar...but some felt it wasn't powerful enough.......enter the LS6. Now...I wasn't in any of those meetings....I'm not that high up on the totem pole. Suffice it to say that the LS6 was approved for the CTS-V.....and the rule changed!

Trivia: The Vehicle Line Executive on the CTS was Jim Taylor. Prior to his assignment, he was the VLE on Camaro/Firebird! (and owns two Camaros) He's now General Manager of Cadillac. Great guy.

Aklaim

12-14-2005, 11:55 PM

well...to answer a couple of questions:

First, don't assume that the original plan was to leave the LS1 alone.....but the decision was made to put the cars on hiatus about two years before LS1....at the end of 1998-1999.

As a result, when the second gen (for lack of a better term) LS1 was introduced, (2001 model year) the Camaro LS1 got a truck cam to keep the horsepower down.

:think: Uh...shouldn't that be 1995-1996 and then the LS1 was introduced in 1998.... ?

I burn rice too

12-15-2005, 12:22 AM

The LS1 was introduced in '97 in the C5.

AdioSS

12-15-2005, 12:43 AM

94-96 Impala SS recieved the LT1, whereas the Caprice got the TBI.
Nope, all 94-96 Caprice/impala SS/Roadmaster/Fleetwoods got Gen2 SBC. Some had the 4.3L L99 and most got the iron head LT1. No GM cars got TBI V8s after 1993.

Aklaim

12-15-2005, 12:45 AM

The LS1 was introduced in '97 in the C5.

Since when were we talking about corvette timelines?

I burn rice too

12-15-2005, 01:17 AM

I just subtracted two years from 1999 and it only makes sense if you really think about it.

Aklaim

12-15-2005, 01:32 AM

I just subtracted two years from 1999 and it only makes sense if you really think about it.

Yes, my math skills are quite good. I understand that "1999 - 2 = 1997". Go re-read RP's post and then read what I had posted in response.

demonspeed

12-15-2005, 07:40 AM

Nope, all 94-96 Caprice/impala SS/Roadmaster/Fleetwoods got Gen2 SBC. Some had the 4.3L L99 and most got the iron head LT1. No GM cars got TBI V8s after 1993.

I'll take your word for it, but I didn't think everyone got the LT1 - just the wagon versions and the Caddy (and 9C1).

demonspeed

12-15-2005, 07:43 AM

:think: Uh...shouldn't that be 1995-1996 and then the LS1 was introduced in 1998.... ?

I think what he was saying is that they planned on putting the cars on hiatus about 2 years prior to the LS1 f body (meaning they were discussing it at that time). When he mentions 98/99, I believe Scott is just saying that was originally when the demise was supposed to be.

demonspeed

12-15-2005, 07:47 AM

well...to answer a couple of questions:

First, don't assume that the original plan was to leave the LS1 alone.....but the decision was made to put the cars on hiatus about two years before LS1....at the end of 1998-1999. Once that decision was done, it was next to impossible to get funding to do more work on the car. (thank God for SLP!)

Also, at the time, we were to keep the Camaro at, I recall, 30hp less than Corvette. That was the rule. Didn't say I liked it. (really disliked it, actually)...however, remember that this would have been during the Zarella years. (and don't get me going on THAT.....) As a result, when the second gen (for lack of a better term) LS1 was introduced, (2001 model year) the Camaro LS1 got a truck cam to keep the horsepower down. Again...don't shoot the messenger.

What a way to beat around the bush! :p But this makes sense, and is pretty much what I figured you'd say. Still doesn't mean that you shouldn't take into account all my thoughts (owner assoc., "complete" package", etc). I hope you all keep this into mind for the future of the Camaro and the 'SS' brand ;) Buying a SS shouldn't just be checking off a RPO code, it should be an experience.

After reading this thread, I don't hate SLP Engineering so much (actually now I'm glad they were around) - just some dislike for SLP Performance.

JasonD

12-15-2005, 08:05 AM

I think what he was saying is that they planned on putting the cars on hiatus about 2 years prior to the LS1 f body (meaning they were discussing it at that time). When he mentions 98/99, I believe Scott is just saying that was originally when the demise was supposed to be.

Correct.

CLEAN

12-15-2005, 09:07 AM

however, remember that this would have been during the Zarella years. (and don't get me going on THAT.....)
Ahh, Chapter 5!!

Suaveat69

12-15-2005, 04:10 PM

I always wanted to go to B-S and plan on it when I get my 5th gen. Especially if Spring mountain gets some Camaros again (or the new Z06).

RP
Did you guys provide the cars or did B-S buy them at reduced cost or what?

Actually they have 10 Z06's now. The owner of my compnay owns Spring Mountain and is bringing all the Regional Managers out for 3 days of track time in January. So I get to thrash around a Z06 and a Radical. But since the news of the brake pad isssues, I hope that they will still be some pad life left for my turn.

90 Z28SS

12-15-2005, 04:26 PM

Chevycobb

12-15-2005, 04:34 PM

I hope GMMG will do something to the new ones too. Sure they'll be too expensive for me, but I still love seeing them around

Fbodfather

12-15-2005, 04:45 PM

:think: Uh...shouldn't that be 1995-1996 and then the LS1 was introduced in 1998.... ?
well, remember that it took a couple of years to develop the LS1......

Fbodfather

12-15-2005, 04:47 PM

After reading this thread, I don't hate SLP Engineering so much (actually now I'm glad they were around) - just some dislike for SLP Performance.

Oh believe me........SLP was a Godsend in my book.........trust me on this. I can't expect everyone to love them, but trust me......SLP was our friend!

Fbodfather

12-15-2005, 04:52 PM

Scott - So did the LS1 F-bodies selectively get the truck cam and some get the vette cam ? Why were so many 4th gen LS1 cars putting down in some cases up to 320 hp at the rear wheels , the majority were at least 300 to the wheels , and then there were a few that actually only put down rear wheel figures that would better corrolate with a 305 hp crank rating ? IT would be interesting to here about:) Cuz , you guys obviously knew from SS's to a reg. Formula ....they were making more and in some cases ALOT more than their 305-320( a few 345 hp cars ) advertised hp figures .

No...all Fbodies got the truck Cam. (can you imagine if we hadn't hadn't????) There's the old "Mine has an LS6 block" legend........well....in 2001 and 2002, they all have the same block. THe difference is that the 'bright silver' blocks were cast at Ste. Catharines, ONT and the darker blocks were cast in Mexico.

As to the cars putting down 320hp at the rear wheels...........well, let's just say that when we said "The Camaro SS -- and Firehawk have 325 hp" you can write it in the family Bible in indelible ink! EVERY car had at LEAST 325 hp. (you could say we 'lied' the good way........!!!)

<evilgrin>

demonspeed

12-15-2005, 04:56 PM

Oh believe me........SLP was a Godsend in my book.........trust me on this. I can't expect everyone to love them, but trust me......SLP was our friend!

It was pure ignorance and assumption on my part for my dislikes. I'm glad to know the truth.

90 Z28SS

12-15-2005, 05:39 PM

turbo96z28

12-15-2005, 06:08 PM

No...all Fbodies got the truck Cam. (can you imagine if we hadn't hadn't????) There's the old "Mine has an LS6 block" legend........well....in 2001 and 2002, they all have the same block. THe difference is that the 'bright silver' blocks were cast at Ste. Catharines, ONT and the darker blocks were cast in Mexico.

As to the cars putting down 320hp at the rear wheels...........well, let's just say that when we said "The Camaro SS -- and Firehawk have 325 hp" you can write it in the family Bible in indelible ink! EVERY car had at LEAST 325 hp. (you could say we 'lied' the good way........!!!)

<evilgrin>

hmmmmmmm..........wonder if the lies will continue............in a good way...........

Abidar

12-15-2005, 10:38 PM

seriously... this Camaro Z28 only has 400 hp...

SSCamaro99_3

12-16-2005, 03:51 PM

seriously... this Camaro Z28 only has 400 hp...

Very few people know for sure, and something tells me they won't be talking.

Mike2001SS

12-16-2005, 04:35 PM

No...all Fbodies got the truck Cam. (can you imagine if we hadn't hadn't????) There's the old "Mine has an LS6 block" legend........well....in 2001 and 2002, they all have the same block. THe difference is that the 'bright silver' blocks were cast at Ste. Catharines, ONT and the darker blocks were cast in Mexico.

As to the cars putting down 320hp at the rear wheels...........well, let's just say that when we said "The Camaro SS -- and Firehawk have 325 hp" you can write it in the family Bible in indelible ink! EVERY car had at LEAST 325 hp. (you could say we 'lied' the good way........!!!)

<evilgrin>
Scott remember when I got the 2001SS vert that it had all SLP Opts. available at the time and was rated at 325 HP with the duel-duel exaust and I only added the lid which was a opt. for 2002 and when we dynoed mine it showed 335 rwhp and 345 rwtq so what would you say at the flywheel on that stock LS1 with just a lid added after it left SLP Oh after cam and heads hit 410rwhp

graham

12-17-2005, 01:49 AM

seriously... this Camaro Z28 only has 400 hp...
Take that number and figure out 20% for drivetrain losses and compare that with the usual RWHP claims by 98+ owners.

Bearcat Steve

12-17-2005, 09:47 AM

Take that number and figure out 20% for drivetrain losses and compare that with the usual RWHP claims by 98+ owners.

I've heard it said that GM's official numbers for driveline loss are 12% for the M6 and 15% for the A4.

detltu

12-17-2005, 11:21 AM

I've heard it said that GM's official numbers for driveline loss are 12% for the M6 and 15% for the A4.

Im glad someone realizes that driveline losses vary between cars. I get kind of tired of every magazine that tests rwhp saying this car is really making 500hp+ when in reality it probably just has a more efficient drivetrain. Any ways thanks for those numbers I have never heard the specifics for the F-Body transmissions. Seems like a more valid estimate than the usual 18-20%

Fbodfather

12-17-2005, 11:52 AM

actually, according to John Heinricy (chief engineer) it was 18% on both 6-speed and auto..........

demonspeed

12-17-2005, 12:12 PM

actually, according to John Heinricy (chief engineer) it was 18% on both 6-speed and auto..........

Then why would an identical optioned car that is a 6 speed trap higher than an auto? Sure, they might e/t practically the same, but time and time again, 6 speeds trap higher - because they are getting more power to the ground, no?

JasonD

12-17-2005, 02:22 PM

Then why would an identical optioned car that is a 6 speed trap higher than an auto? Sure, they might e/t practically the same, but time and time again, 6 speeds trap higher - because they are getting more power to the ground, no?

I want to say that if a decent aftermarket converter was used, that auto car would smoke the 6-speed in most cases. Someone chime in.

demonspeed

12-17-2005, 02:34 PM

I want to say that if a decent aftermarket converter was used, that auto car would smoke the 6-speed in most cases. Someone chime in.

I'm talking stock for stock though. I'll just use some modded cars for example...

My 2000 SS only had a catback and lid (before the 4.10's). At the time, it had only gone a best of 13.2 @ 108. I raced my buddies 2000 WS6 A4 who had a small cam, long tubes, catback, and 'verter - and went low 12's @ around 110. We were dead even on the highway. Sure, it was quicker, but the trap proved that it simply wasn't putting power to the ground, IMO anyway.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if the M6 and A4 were both losing the same % through the driveline, then they should e/t and trap appx the same stock for stock and car for car.

danno02SS

12-17-2005, 02:47 PM

Both 6M and A4 cars may ET the same but trap differently because of gearing.

A4's are easier to get out of the hole and have tall 1st and 2nd gears. They will usually do better than an M6 in the 1/8. Down the 2nd 1/8, however, the 4L60E shifts into 3rd and falls bellow its powerband. The M6s has a taller 3rd gear that keeps the engine in the higher RPMs and 4th is hit before the end of the 1/4.

The additional gear is why the M6 traps higher. That and it puts down roughly 10rwhp more to the ground.

number77

12-17-2005, 02:47 PM

Scott, those are some cool details! Now I want a 99 Camaro with the 1LE package. I also didn't know about the block color. So they technically weren't "ls6" blocks? :)

Bob Cosby

12-17-2005, 02:49 PM

They might have used 18% for each, but that is almost certainly just a fudge factor, as the A4 will have more parasitic loss than an M6. That is the main reason you see lower traps with the A4. However, a good auto can and often does produce better ETs. One reason is due to the ability of a correctly-matched converter to keep the engine much closer to its powerband. Also, the average A4 can easily out-shift the average M6 driver....and a properly modified A4 will outshift even the best M6 driver.

demonspeed

12-17-2005, 02:50 PM

A4's are easier to get out of the hole and have tall 1st and 2nd gears. They will usually do better than an M6 in the 1/8. Down the 2nd 1/8, however, the 4L60E shifts into 3rd and falls bellow its powerband. The M6s has a taller 3rd gear that keeps the engine in the higher RPMs and 4th is hit before the end of the 1/4.

This makes much more sense. I always figured the gearing in the tranny was pretty much similar between the two other than overdrive. I'll still take my 6 speed anyday though ;)

That is, unless I was building a dedicated drag car.

And no matter what is said, there must simply be more parasitic loss with an auto than there is a manaul.

97z28/m6

12-17-2005, 04:18 PM

and a properly modified A4 will outshift even the best M6 driver.
not on a road course.;)

RussStang

12-17-2005, 04:37 PM

They might have used 18% for each, but that is almost certainly just a fudge factor, as the A4 will have more parasitic loss than an M6. That is the main reason you see lower traps with the A4.

Correct. There is no way I can see both drivetrains having the same driveline efficiency. I have never seen an A4 dyno as high as an M6.

not on a road course.

I wonder just how well an automatic could be programmed nowadays for a road course if automatics were allowed in the rules? I would bet a road course programmed auto would have shift parameters that resembled nothing like a conventional automatic does.

Bob Cosby

12-17-2005, 04:39 PM

not on a road course.;)
LOL. Touche'. I should qualify my statement by stating that I am referring to acceleration. :)

RussStang

12-17-2005, 04:42 PM

Scott - So did the LS1 F-bodies selectively get the truck cam and some get the vette cam ? Why were so many 4th gen LS1 cars putting down in some cases up to 320 hp at the rear wheels , the majority were at least 300 to the wheels , and then there were a few that actually only put down rear wheel figures that would better corrolate with a 305 hp crank rating ? IT would be interesting to here about:) Cuz , you guys obviously knew from SS's to a reg. Formula ....they were making more and in some cases ALOT more than their 305-320( a few 345 hp cars ) advertised hp figures .

I have never seen an Fcar that wasn't broken making rear wheel figures that would better corroalte its 305 crank rating, regardless of trim. They all dyno high, and they all dyno around the same, regardless of trim. The reason some LS1 cars put down around 320 at the wheels is because the 01s and 02s had the LS6 intake manifold from the factory, and with an M6 some of them are known to touch this high of a number straight out of the showroom.
Some of the fastest recorded stock F-Body times have been down with factory stripper z28 cars.

Red, I have never actually seen a supposedly F-Body LS6 block apart, but I have read from several reputable machinists that the blocks are indeed LS6 blocks, as they have the better breathing areas around the cylinders. Something like 10% of 01s and 25% of 02s got the LS6 block if I recall correctly. There has been alot of debate over whether the LS6 block itself actually increase engine horsepower, but the consensus seems to be that if it does, it is very, very minimal.

Fbodfather

12-17-2005, 09:38 PM

Scott, those are some cool details! Now I want a 99 Camaro with the 1LE package. I also didn't know about the block color. So they technically weren't "ls6" blocks? :)

not on the 99s........2001 and 2002

Fbodfather

12-17-2005, 09:41 PM

Something like 10% of 01s and 25% of 02s got the LS6 block if I recall correctly. There has been alot of debate over whether the LS6 block itself actually increase engine horsepower, but the consensus seems to be that if it does, it is very, very minimal.

nope ....they all got 'em. We changed the LS1 for the 2001 model year. The difference, as I said above is where they were cast...bright silver in St. Catharines, darker silver in Mexico.

graham

12-17-2005, 10:09 PM

Another thing to consider is the parts in an M6. There's a lot of stuff to turn inside there. More than you would think unless you've been in one.

GETGONE

12-17-2005, 11:34 PM

nope ....they all got 'em. We changed the LS1 for the 2001 model year. The difference, as I said above is where they were cast...bright silver in St. Catharines, darker silver in Mexico.

Ok...then why was there an article in GMHTP(I believe) that talked about the LS6 block and that only a certain percentage of 01 and 02 cars got them and the only way to know was the block casting number? I've been reading Will Handzel's Chevy LS1/LS6 V8 book and it gives a lot of useful information. I know that all the LS6 block was was just improved breathing between cylinders with the cast in vent windows vs the machined holes of the earlier LS1 blocks. So there's nothing else "special" about an LS6 block?

teal98

12-18-2005, 01:09 AM

They might have used 18% for each, but that is almost certainly just a fudge factor, as the A4 will have more parasitic loss than an M6. That is the main reason you see lower traps with the A4.

What about after the lockup clutch has locked? At that point, the A4 and M6 should have the same parasitic losses, right?

I wonder if an aggressive (early, that is) lockup program would work better? It would be rougher, and the engine rpm might drop a bit, but you wouldn't have loss in the torque converter. Unless I'm misunderstanding how the lockup converter works . . . .

RussStang

12-18-2005, 03:36 AM

Ok...then why was there an article in GMHTP(I believe) that talked about the LS6 block and that only a certain percentage of 01 and 02 cars got them and the only way to know was the block casting number? I've been reading Will Handzel's Chevy LS1/LS6 V8 book and it gives a lot of useful information. I know that all the LS6 block was was just improved breathing between cylinders with the cast in vent windows vs the machined holes of the earlier LS1 blocks. So there's nothing else "special" about an LS6 block?

Yes, this interests me as well.

CLEAN

12-18-2005, 10:48 AM

Ok...then why was there an article in GMHTP(I believe) that talked about the LS6 block and that only a certain percentage of 01 and 02 cars...

I think that was the same issue that they said the '02 anniversary cars would get an LS6 ;)

I too read the article though, but who are you going to believe?

demonspeed

12-18-2005, 10:49 AM

I too read the article though, but who are you going to believe?

Yeah... really haha

Not that I think GMHTP has bad info, but look who is telling us this stuff right now...

Camaro02V6

12-18-2005, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by teal98
I wonder if an aggressive (early, that is) lockup program would work better? It would be rougher, and the engine rpm might drop a bit, but you wouldn't have loss in the torque converter. Unless I'm misunderstanding how the lockup converter works . . . .

The Torque converter clutch lockup is not meant for high torque applications, its basically a small strip of friction material around the outside of the torque converter that locks the torque converter to itself, bypassing the fluid coupling part. its only used at highway speed when the engine isn't going to need to rev high. Its automatically disengaged when you brake (like disengaging the clutch in a manual) or when you need higher than normal power from the engine, then re-engages it once its been stabilized. If you look closely you can even see when the converter clutch is activated and when its not, if its not then the engine will de-rev freely to idle looking speeds (~1000 rpm), but if the engine tries to derev with the speed of the car (like in a manual), there's a good chance the converter clutch is activated, if you tap the brake then engine should automatically drop to low speeds. or that's the way i understand it anyway...
this is my first post by the way, hope it all makes sense :D