0-60=4.7

I found this interesting, the 0-60 times for the V8 Auto and Manual are the same at 4.7 seconds even tho the HP numbers are 400 vers 426.
http://www.camaroz28.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=67&pictureid=259
http://www.camaroz28.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=67&pictureid=258

4.7 is quick.

Is that the official number? I haven't seen 4.7 before.

Is that the official number? I haven't seen 4.7 before.

Yeah, not sure how accurate the info is, but it's interesting just the same.

Yeah, not sure how accurate the info is, but it's interesting just the same.

I would bet that after real world tests on properly broken-in cars, you will see lower times than those, probably around 4.3-4.4. The auto is supposed to be around the same times as the manual, even though it makes less HP/torque, due to the A6 and its excellent gearing!

I forget who said it, but at Indy they announced that they nailed a 4.6 in the auto car, a 4.8 in the stick car.
Its pretty quick.
current GT500 is 4.5
2010 GT500 and the current GT500KR is 4.3
CTS-V is in the 4.3ish range

How is the Auto supposed to be the faster car, gears? It should be heavier than the manual and has less power.

where did this come from?

How is the Auto supposed to be the faster car, gears? It should be heavier than the manual and has less power.

Not taking into account torque converter slippage, the L99 should be turning 5400RPM at 60mph in 2nd gear.
On the other hand, the LS3 will only be turning 5000RPM right after shifting into 2nd at about 54mph.
That is probably where the difference comes. If the LS3's T6060 would have used the same internal gears as the older T56, then the Camaro would have been able to make the run to 60 without having to shift into 2nd gear (like the Z06) which would have put up better 0-60 times.

I would bet that after real world tests on properly broken-in cars, you will see lower times than those, probably around 4.3-4.4. The auto is supposed to be around the same times as the manual, even though it makes less HP/torque, due to the A6 and its excellent gearing!

Don't really see it being that fast. The C6 most likely barely does that. 4.7-5.0 seems like the right times for this car.

Everything I've read puts the C6 'Vettes 0-60 time at 4.3 seconds. The G8 GXP is 4.7s and is about 100#s heavier than the Camaro. And since I'm not sure if the gearing matches between the G8 & Camaro the 0-60 time should be slightingly quicker than the G8...probably 4.5s-4.6s.

If by "most likely" you mean real world scenarios most can expect to see on the street and not on a prepped track with a great driver, then yes 4.7s 0-60 for a 'Vette seems likely. But for tested times by the professional drivers at the car mags 4.7s for a vette is slow.

I wouldn't get too cought up with these numbers. We are talking about a a few tenths of a second to 60mph. And it's even with the manual trans.

Automatic cars in stock or near stock trim usually launch easier than manual trans cars. So the fact that they are even at 60mph with more powerful manual cars just means they launched better. Usually if the race goes a full 1/4 mile the benefits of the manual trans and the stated power advantage will come through.

The good news is a 4.7 0-60 time translates well into a high 12 sec 1/4 mile.

Don't really see it being that fast. The C6 most likely barely does that. 4.7-5.0 seems like the right times for this car.

The base C6 (LS3) is capable of 4.0-4.1. I am not saying that everyone who drives a SS will get those #'s, but I would say it will be a few tenths slower than a C6.

I would bet that after real world tests on properly broken-in cars, you will see lower times than those, probably around 4.3-4.4. The auto is supposed to be around the same times as the manual, even though it makes less HP/torque, due to the A6 and its excellent gearing!

You simply are not going to get from 4.7 to 4.3 seconds simply by breaking in an engine. Getting to 60 mph today requires only 1 or 2 shifts.

All that said, 4.5 is going to be pretty much the quickest for a showroom stock Camaro that you can even remotely hope for. Times below that is pretty much out of the question.

Save slightly milder engine programing (and underrated power), the drivetrain on the mere 150 pound heavier Pontiac G8 GXP, right down to the rear end gearing, is identical to the Camaro SS.

The GXP does 0-60 in 4.7. So it makes sense that GM would rate a Camaro SS at 4.7, while it's actual times end up a couple tenths quicker.


For the record, the 300 pound lighter, 100 horsepower (about 25%) inferior Mustang GT is now a 4.9 0-60 sprinter according to Motor Trend... and they aren't known for getting the quickest times out of their rides.

Something to think about.

You simply are not going to get from 4.7 to 4.3 seconds simply by breaking in an engine. Getting to 60 mph today requires only 1 or 2 shifts.

All that said, 4.5 is going to be pretty much the quickest for a showroom stock Camaro that you can even remotely hope for. Times below that is pretty much out of the question.

Save slightly milder engine programing (and underrated power), the drivetrain on the mere 150 pound heavier Pontiac G8 GXP, right down to the rear end gearing, is identical to the Camaro SS.

The GXP does 0-60 in 4.7. So it makes sense that GM would rate a Camaro SS at 4.7, while it's actual times end up a couple tenths quicker.


For the record, the 300 pound lighter, 100 horsepower (about 25%) inferior Mustang GT is now a 4.9 0-60 sprinter according to Motor Trend... and they aren't known for getting the quickest times out of their rides.

Something to think about.

The GXP is SAE certified so it shouldn't be "underrated". Also, the gearing is only the same in the automatic GXP and Camaro. The manual GXP gets a 3.70 rear gear versus the Camaro's 3.45 rear gear. As you mentioned, the Camaro is lighter and it also has wider rear tires. Thus, I am thinking 4.7 sounds about right to me for the Camaro and 4.5 would be a great run.

As for the Mustang it is indeed quick off the line when optioned with 3.73 gears (always remember to clarify if the Mustang you are talking about has the optional 3.73 gears) but will quickly run out of steam do to its aggressive gearing and relatively low horsepower. This is where the LS3 will start to really shine. Remember that objects in motion want to stay in motion, so once the Camaro has overcome its massive weight and got going, it is going to be bye bye Mustang. The Camaro is going to embarrass the new Mustang in street races from a roll. Without a doubt!

I have a feeling the Camaro won't be very traction limited with those tall tires, even on 20" wheels.

I hope some kind of Track Pack is available for it that offers the GXP's 3.70 gearset.

I have a feeling the Camaro won't be very traction limited with those tall tires, even on 20" wheels.

I hope some kind of Track Pack is available for it that offers the GXP's 3.70 gearset.

I have been hoping the same kind of thing. However, with the Camaro's tall tires, it really should be more like a 3.90 gear.

From what I am seeing in the numbers, I think rear gears are going to be the single best bang for your buck mod to these cars. No sugar coating, the gearing on the Camaro is downright bad.

I have a feeling the Camaro won't be very traction limited with those tall tires, even on 20" wheels.

I hope some kind of Track Pack is available for it that offers the GXP's 3.70 gearset.

eventhough the ss has big RIMS, the tire height shouldnt be any taller, if at all, than the 18 or 19" rims on the v6 models. you see the thing is, the side wall is smaller on a larger diameter wheel and larger on a smaller diameter rim. kinda weird huh? so the 20" rims and tires could measure about 29" tall and the 18" rims can still measure around 29" tall due to the large amount of sidewall.
thats how the car maintains the same ride height through out the various models.

eventhough the ss has big RIMS, the tire height shouldnt be any taller, if at all, than the 18 or 18" rims on the v6 models. you see the thing is, the side wall is smaller on a larger diameter wheel and larger on a smaller diameter rim. kinda weird huh? so the 20" rims and tires could measure about 29" tall and the 18" rims can still measure around 29" tall due to the large amount of sidewall.
thats how the car maintains the same ride height through out the various models.

Correct, but the Camaro's tire is just plain HUGE at 28.6" in diameter. This effectively raises the cars gearing (numerically lower). Lets take a look at the 2010 Camaro gearing versus the 2002 Camaro gearing:

MPH is based on 6600rpm for the LS3 and 6000rpm for the LS1.

2010 Camaro SS
1st 3.01 (10.38) = 54mph
2nd 2.07 (7.14) = 79mph
3rd 1.43 (4.93) = 114mph
4th 1.00 (3.45) = 163mph
5th 0.84
6th 0.57

Final Drive 3.45

275/40/20 tires = 28.6" diameter


2002 Camaro SS
1st 2.66 (9.097) = 50mph
2nd 1.78 (6.088) = 75mph
3rd 1.30 (4.446) = 103mph
4th 1.00 (3.42) = 134mph
5th 0.74
6th 0.50

Final Drive 3.45

275/40/17 tires = 25.7" diameter


What you notice when you look at these numbers is that the 2002 Camaro has higher actual gearing (tranny gear times final drive) but when tire diameter is factored in, it realistically has lower gearing than the 2010 Camaro.

You will also notice that both cars have a 25mph gap between the top of 1st and the top of 2nd. However, the 2010 Camaro has a 35mph gap between 2nd and 3rd, while the 2002 Camaro has only a 28mph gap. You will notice this even in the actual gearing. The 2002 Camaro has closer gearing than the 2010 Camaro and in fact, it is MUCH closer between 2nd and 3rd, and 3rd and 4th.

I surmise the Camaro may appear to sort of "fall on its face" after 2nd gear, much the way the new Mustang does. Hopefully the greater area under the torque curve of the LS3 is enough to make up for this gearing deficit. But then there is the added weight of the new Camaro to factor in and I believe the new cars coefficient of drag is higher and its frontal area larger (anyone have numbers on this?).

So if we look at power to weight, using a real world number for the LS1 in the Camaro:

2010 Camaro - 3860/426 = 9.06 lbs/hp
2002 Camaro - 3500/345 = 10.14 lbs/hp

So the question becomes, is the relatively small power to weight advantage of the new Camaro enough to overcome its poor gearing and likely worse aerodynamic drag than the previous car?

The new Camaro has 12's written all over it with a better rear gear, something like a 3.90, but I am becoming increasingly less convinced it is going to do much better than low 13's in stock form.



Just had a thought, one more car to take a look at: 2005 GTO

LS2 redline is 6500rpm

2005 GTO
1st 2.97 (10.276) = 48mph
2nd 2.07 (7.16) = 69mph
3rd 1.43 (4.948) = 100mph
4th 1.00 (3.46) = 144mph
5th 0.84
6th 0.57

Final Drive 3.46

245/45/17 tires = 25.7" diameter

We see that the GTO has very aggressive gearing in 1st and 2nd. However, it still has a large gap between 2nd and 3rd, and 3rd and 4th relative to the 2002 Camaro. Its effective gearing is better in every way than the new 2010 Camaro. So lets take a look at the power to weight ratio:

2010 Camaro - 3860/426 = 9.06 lbs/hp
2005 GTO - 3750/400 = 9.375 lbs/hp
2002 Camaro - 3500/345 = 10.14 lbs/hp

We see that the GTO has a power to weight ratio closer to that of the 2010 Camaro than the 2002 Camaro. Yet, it was unable to run times measurable faster than a 2002 Camaro. Basically, they were both low 13 second cars in stock form with a good driver.

So with only a slightly better power to weight ratio, but worse gearing than the LS2 GTO, the new Camaro has its work cutout for it to break GM out of the low 13 second rut for a $30k performance vehicle.

Correct, but the Camaro's tire is just plain HUGE at 28.6" in diameter. This effectively raises the cars gearing (numerically lower). Lets take a look at the 2010 Camaro gearing versus the 2002 Camaro gearing:

MPH is based on 6600rpm for the LS3 and 6000rpm for the LS1.

2010 Camaro SS
1st 3.01 (10.38) = 54mph
2nd 2.07 (7.14) = 79mph
3rd 1.43 (4.93) = 114mph
4th 1.00 (3.45) = 163mph
5th 0.84
6th 0.57

Final Drive 3.45

275/40/20 tires = 28.6" diameter


2002 Camaro SS
1st 2.66 (9.097) = 50mph
2nd 1.78 (6.088) = 75mph
3rd 1.30 (4.446) = 103mph
4th 1.00 (3.42) = 134mph
5th 0.74
6th 0.50

Final Drive 3.45

275/40/17 tires = 25.7" diameter


What you notice when you look at these numbers is that the 2002 Camaro has higher actual gearing (tranny gear times final drive) but when tire diameter is factored in, it realistically has lower gearing than the 2010 Camaro.

You will also notice that both cars have a 25mph gap between the top of 1st and the top of 2nd. However, the 2010 Camaro has a 35mph gap between 2nd and 3rd, while the 2002 Camaro has only a 28mph gap. You will notice this even in the actual gearing. The 2002 Camaro has closer gearing than the 2010 Camaro and in fact, it is MUCH closer between 2nd and 3rd, and 3rd and 4th.

I surmise the Camaro may appear to sort of "fall on its face" after 2nd gear, much the way the new Mustang does. Hopefully the greater area under the torque curve of the LS3 is enough to make up for this gearing deficit. But then there is the added weight of the new Camaro to factor in and I believe the new cars coefficient of drag is higher and its frontal area larger (anyone have numbers on this?).

So if we look at power to weight, using a real world number for the LS1 in the Camaro:

2010 Camaro - 3860/426 = 9.06 lbs/hp
2002 Camaro - 3500/345 = 10.14 lbs/hp

So the question becomes, is the relatively small power to weight advantage of the new Camaro enough to overcome its poor gearing and likely worse aerodynamic drag than the previous car?

The new Camaro has 12's written all over it with a better rear gear, something like a 3.90, but I am becoming increasingly less convinced it is going to do much better than low 13's in stock form.



Just had a thought, one more car to take a look at: 2005 GTO

LS2 redline is 6500rpm

2005 GTO
1st 2.97 (10.276) = 48mph
2nd 2.07 (7.16) = 69mph
3rd 1.43 (4.948) = 100mph
4th 1.00 (3.46) = 144mph
5th 0.84
6th 0.57

Final Drive 3.46

245/45/17 tires = 25.7" diameter

We see that the GTO has very aggressive gearing in 1st and 2nd. However, it still has a large gap between 2nd and 3rd, and 3rd and 4th relative to the 2002 Camaro. Its effective gearing is better in every way than the new 2010 Camaro. So lets take a look at the power to weight ratio:

2010 Camaro - 3860/426 = 9.06 lbs/hp
2005 GTO - 3750/400 = 9.375 lbs/hp
2002 Camaro - 3500/345 = 10.14 lbs/hp

We see that the GTO has a power to weight ratio closer to that of the 2010 Camaro than the 2002 Camaro. Yet, it was unable to run times measurable faster than a 2002 Camaro. Basically, they were both low 13 second cars in stock form with a good driver.

So with only a slightly better power to weight ratio, but worse gearing than the LS2 GTO, the new Camaro has its work cutout for it to break GM out of the low 13 second rut for a $30k performance vehicle.

Great info. I'll bet gear swaps will be on the Mod list for most of us then. Even a 3.73 would be better. But I wonder how it would compare to the 2.93 on my 99 Trans Am?

soooo, your saying just throw some new gears in like 4:10 or 3:93 and it will be much quicker acceleration? what about top end? how will that be affected by new gearing? i never really understood gearing too much. its all pretty complicated to me.

Great info. I'll bet gear swaps will be on the Mod list for most of us then. Even a 3.73 would be better. But I wonder how it would compare to the 2.93 on my 99 Trans Am?

Your 1999 Trans Am
1st 2.66 (7.794) = 59mph
2nd 1.78 (5.215) = 88mph
3rd 1.30 (3.809) = 120mph
4th 1.00 (2.93) = 156mph
5th 0.74
6th 0.50

Final Drive 2.93

275/40/17 tires = 25.7" diameter

Looks like you are really hurting in 1st and 2nd gear compared to the 2010 Camaro.

soooo, your saying just throw some new gears in like 4:10 or 3:93 and it will be much quicker acceleration? what about top end? how will that be affected by new gearing? i never really understood gearing too much. its all pretty complicated to me.

Yes, gears will likely be the best bang for your buck mod on this car in my opinion.

As for top end, how fast do you really need to go? If you track the car, you might be able to hit 140-150mph on some tracks with generous straightaways and a lower rear gear should not prevent you from hitting these speeds in fifth gear on the 2010 Camaro. On the street you should have no need to go that fast.

I got a chevy email today that confirms an expected 4.7 second 0 to 60.

It also says that pre-ordering ends Mar. 15th

I ran those numbers also (I used f-body.org/gears) but I didn't want to post them. I also emailed the people who run that site to try to convince them to add the gear ratios, etc for the new Camaro. It would be nice if they do that.

There are times when changing the rear gearing to a lower gear (numerically higher) can actually increase your top speed. The LT1 Impala SS was capable of 140mph with 3.08 gears. Switching to 3.73s brings top speed up to about 150 because it puts the engine closer to where it can make more power. That is with a big car with a large frontal area, but a cD of about .36 and an engine that makes peak power at about 5100RPM.

I don't know the cD or frontal area of the new Camaro yet, but the additional 140-160 horsepower should allow a much higher top speed.

0-60 times are a virtual waste of a measurement of a street car on street tires on the street. Way too many variables to be a meaningful stat, in my opinion.

However, it is the holy grail of automotive magazine test numbers, so we see a lot of it.

Your 1999 Trans Am
1st 2.66 (7.794) = 59mph
2nd 1.78 (5.215) = 88mph
3rd 1.30 (3.809) = 120mph
4th 1.00 (2.93) = 156mph
5th 0.74
6th 0.50

Final Drive 2.93

275/40/17 tires = 25.7" diameter

Looks like you are really hurting in 1st and 2nd gear compared to the 2010 Camaro.

Thanks for the info. I know that I'm 300lbs lighter, but something doesn't add up. I have a few mods. Ram Air hood, air box & lid, SLP MAF sensor, flowmaster exhaust. And my car will sprint to 60 in around 4.6-4.7 seconds. And that is with the worst gears that Trans Am had in 99.
Here's a video of my T/A 0-60. I clock it at around 4.65. and 0-90 in 9.38
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKbHlBQAwYI

So my question is, with MUCH better gears like the 2010 has, and 426hp shouldn't it muscle past the 300lbs disadvantage?

Yes, gears will likely be the best bang for your buck mod on this car in my opinion.

As for top end, how fast do you really need to go? If you track the car, you might be able to hit 140-150mph on some tracks with generous straightaways and a lower rear gear should not prevent you from hitting these speeds in fifth gear on the 2010 Camaro. On the street you should have no need to go that fast.

im sure i will not be going over 150 but i plan on taking it to the track ,yes. not drag strip track. what gears would you recommend putting in?
does GMPP sell gears that could be still concidered under warranty?

Thanks for the info. I know that I'm 300lbs lighter, but something doesn't add up. I have a few mods. Ram Air hood, air box & lid, SLP MAF sensor, flowmaster exhaust. And my car will sprint to 60 in around 4.6-4.7 seconds. And that is with the worst gears that Trans Am had in 99.
Here's a video of my T/A 0-60. I clock it at around 4.65. and 0-90 in 9.38
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKbHlBQAwYI

So my question is, with MUCH better gears like the 2010 has, and 426hp shouldn't it muscle past the 300lbs disadvantage?

I can not watch the video (at work) but something does sound odd. You said you have a 2.93 rear gear but I though the only stock gear ratios were 2.73, 3.23, and 3.42????

Do you have sticky tires where you are able to launch at a higher rpm than you would be on stock tires?

Also, remember that the hardest thing for the new Camaro to do, will be to get started. This is where its weight hurts it the most.

Clocking with a stop watch and a speedometer is fun, but shouldn't be compared with clocking with a proper 5th-wheel setup (which I ASSUME is done by the car maker and most mags).

im sure i will not be going over 150 but i plan on taking it to the track ,yes. not drag strip track. what gears would you recommend putting in?
does GMPP sell gears that could be still concidered under warranty?

It would be between a 3.90 and a 4.10. The 4.10 will certainly be better at the drag strip if that is important to you, but the 3.90 should do a little better on the street in terms of driveability and get a little better gas mileage as well. I suspect both will be fine on the track.

Something else I just noticed is that both of these gears will make 6th gear much more usable. From what I am seeing, 6th gear is going to be rather useless like it is on the 4th Gen Camaro, if not more so.

Lugging along at 1600rpm in 6th gear would put you at around 69mph with the standard gearing of the Camaro. That is stupid! Useless! However, a 4.10 gear would put you at 58 mph and a 3.90 at 61mph. I like the 3.90 gear in this case as it would allow you to cruise in 6th at a reasonable, yet low, rpm on 55mph roads (assuming you drive about 10mph over the speed limit). It would also still be reasonable on 65mph speed limit roads as 75mph would put you at about 2000rpm.

So from some real quick analysis, my opinion is that a gear around 3.90 will be the best compromise of performance, drivability, and gas mileage. GM needs to offer a gear like this as part of a "track pack" like Dodge and Ford are doing. They BADLY need to do this!


2010 Camaro SS
1st 3.01 (11.739) = 48mph
2nd 2.07 (8.073) = 69.5mph
3rd 1.43 (5.577) = 101mph
4th 1.00 (3.90) = 144mph
5th 0.84 (3.276) = 171mph
6th 0.57

Final Drive 3.90

275/40/20 tires = 28.6" diameter



2010 Camaro SS
1st 3.01 (12.341) = 45.5mph
2nd 2.07 (8.487) = 66mph
3rd 1.43 (5.863) = 96mph
4th 1.00 (4.10) = 137mph
5th 0.84 (3.444) = 163mph
6th 0.57

Final Drive 4.10

275/40/20 tires = 28.6" diameter

3:90 it is! i dont really plan on going to the drag strip at all. i think i took my trans am there 3 times in the 5 years i owned it.
does GMPP sell 3:90 gears? or will i have to go aftermarket for them?

I can not watch the video (at work) but something does sound odd. You said you have a 2.93 rear gear but I though the only stock gear ratios were 2.73, 3.23, and 3.42????

Do you have sticky tires where you are able to launch at a higher rpm than you would be on stock tires?

Also, remember that the hardest thing for the new Camaro to do, will be to get started. This is where its weight hurts it the most.

My bad, just did a search on ls1tech and found that my code GU5 means I have 3.23
I'm running General Exclaim UMP 245 45 17's. ( should be same height as stock tire)
The launch was from idle, no staging at all. (tends to break tranny mounts if I stage)

Clocking with a stop watch and a speedometer is fun, but shouldn't be compared with clocking with a proper 5th-wheel setup (which I ASSUME is done by the car maker and most mags).

True but factoring in the lag of the speedo, wouldn't that mean I was actually FASTER?;)

Does the speedo lag? Is it cable-operated or digital? :D

Does the speedo lag? Is it cable-operated or digital? :D

cable. Most speedo's lag.

Something else I just noticed is that both of these gears will make 6th gear much more usable. From what I am seeing, 6th gear is going to be rather useless like it is on the 4th Gen Camaro, if not more so.

Lugging along at 1600rpm in 6th gear would put you at around 69mph with the standard gearing of the Camaro. That is stupid! Useless!

Actually, that gearing is really good for helping highway fuel economy. My truck gets its best mileage at about 60-65mph. With my combo (4L60E/3.23/30" tires) that is only 1500-1650RPM. Oh yeah, my 275/60R17 tires are a half inch shorter than the stock 245/70R17, so that would be 1500-1600RPM. The 5.3L feels comfortable there. I would imagine that the Camaro's much smaller frontal area and much larger engine wouldn't have any problem loafing around at even lower RPM.

The steep first gear ratio in the 6L80E means that the rear gears don't need to be steep to get good acceleration off the line. Compared to the 4l60E it is like having 4.10s off the line, but 3.08s on the highway. The best of both worlds :cool:

Everything that I'm seeing about the Camaro SS is making me think that GM has done a hell of a job with it. I really look forward to finally getting inside one this weekend :yes:

cable. Most speedo's lag.

Really? Hmm...if it is a cable, then it would have to be mechanical linkage, right? Is the lag caused by the cable twisting prior to moving? How much lag is there?

Seriously curious...would love to see documentation of this.

Really? Hmm...if it is a cable, then it would have to be mechanical linkage, right? Is the lag caused by the cable twisting prior to moving? How much lag is there?

Seriously curious...would love to see documentation of this.

Can't help you with documentation. Just what I've been told. If lag is not the proper word to use, then how about calibration? When you are at WOT and you hit a registered 60mph on the speedo you are most likely doing more like 63 or so.

Anywho, found this
http://www.leftlanenews.com/pontiac-g8-gxp.html
on the GXP G8. they also rate it at 4.7 and 13.0 in the 1/4 mile. So I would expect that if those numbers are legit, then real world numbers for the Camaro should be better, the manual weighs 200 lbs less, and is rated with an extra 11 horses. So one would think the Camaro should be a click faster than the GXP. right?

Actually, that gearing is really good for helping highway fuel economy. My truck gets its best mileage at about 60-65mph. With my combo (4L60E/3.23/30" tires) that is only 1500-1650RPM. Oh yeah, my 275/60R17 tires are a half inch shorter than the stock 245/70R17, so that would be 1500-1600RPM. The 5.3L feels comfortable there. I would imagine that the Camaro's much smaller frontal area and much larger engine wouldn't have any problem loafing around at even lower RPM.

A 4th Gen F-body will lug along in 6th at 1500-1600rpm but I wouldn't say it likes it. When you hit a hill and have to give more throttle, you are really straining the engine. Still, you can do it.

However, if you can't use 6th gear until about 1600rpm, which is 69mph in the new Camaro, then you can't use 6th gear except for on 65mph+ roads and you would be basically breaking the speed limit on all but 70mph roads. Not that we all don't do that, but it is odd for a manufacturer to design a car this way. I believe they probably did it because the new highway fuel mileage tests take the car up to 80mph if I remember correctly which is absolutely insane and should never have been allowed since it is higher than the highest posted speed limit of any road in the country.

So, you can't use 6th in the Camaro unless you are going about 70mph.

Since most roads are 55 to 60mph due to urban sprawl and ever increasing population densities near roads, you are stuck using 5th gear most of the time with the current cars gearing. With the 3.45 gears in the Camaro, you will be turning just under 2100rpm in 5th gear at 60mph. With 3.90 gears you could be lugging along at the same speed, turning 1600rpm in 6th gear, which you claim will give better gas mileage.

Unless you have a long commute on a 65mph+ road I would say 3.90 gears are actually going to yield better gas mileage than the stock gears.


Everything that I'm seeing about the Camaro SS is making me think that GM has done a hell of a job with it. I really look forward to finally getting inside one this weekend :yes:

I think the car is going to be great, but the gearing is not very well done in my opinion, especially the large gaps between 2nd-3rd and 3rd-4th, which are not easily fixable unless you consider rebuilding a transmission in a new car an easy fix.

Even the G8 GXP gets a much better 3.70 rear gear. I wonder if this will become a common swap...

A 4th Gen F-body will lug along in 6th at 1500-1600rpm but I wouldn't say it likes it. When you hit a hill and have to give more throttle, you are really straining the engine. Still, you can do it.

However, if you can't use 6th gear until about 1600rpm, which is 69mph in the new Camaro, then you can't use 6th gear except for on 65mph+ roads and you would be basically breaking the speed limit on all but 70mph roads. Not that we all don't do that, but it is odd for a manufacturer to design a car this way. I believe they probably did it because the new highway fuel mileage tests take the car up to 80mph if I remember correctly which is absolutely insane and should never have been allowed since it is higher than the highest posted speed limit of any road in the country.

So, you can't use 6th in the Camaro unless you are going about 70mph.

Since most roads are 55 to 60mph due to urban sprawl and ever increasing population densities near roads, you are stuck using 5th gear most of the time with the current cars gearing. With the 3.45 gears in the Camaro, you will be turning just under 2100rpm in 5th gear at 60mph. With 3.90 gears you could be lugging along at the same speed, turning 1600rpm in 6th gear, which you claim will give better gas mileage.

Unless you have a long commute on a 65mph+ road I would say 3.90 gears are actually going to yield better gas mileage than the stock gears.



I think the car is going to be great, but the gearing is not very well done in my opinion, especially the large gaps between 2nd-3rd and 3rd-4th, which are not easily fixable unless you consider rebuilding a transmission in a new car an easy fix.

Even the G8 GXP gets a much better 3.70 rear gear. I wonder if this will become a common swap...

Sounds like 3.90's is the way to go. But if anyone is planning on taking their 3.90 to the track with a 6speed, good luck launching it.

Seems like the 2010 SS gearing is more for acceleration/moving the weight of the car in gears 1-2 and then focus on overall fuel economy. I think GM would have gone at least 3.73 had it not been for trying to meet mpg goal. 20" wheels really have really thrown off the ratios.

Sounds a lot like the N/A 4.6L Cobra's and their 3.27 gears out of the box. 4.10's really worke them up. We now have the luxury of the 6th gear where they never did.

Just takes practice and a decent tire.

Sounds a lot like the N/A 4.6L Cobra's and their 3.27 gears out of the box. 4.10's really worke them up. We now have the luxury of the 6th gear where they never did.

My Impala had 3.08 gears when it left Arlington, but it has 4.10s now :D

Wow, lots of points needing clarification in this thread...

even tho the HP numbers are 400 vers 426.
In addition to the gearing differences which have dominated this thread, remember that peak power isn't everything! The L99 has variable valve timing, which should broaden its torque curve, giving it an off-peak advantage over the LS3. I haven't seen actual numbers here, but I suspect that this plays a big part.

eventhough the ss has big WHEELS, the tire height shouldnt be any taller, if at all, than the 18 or 19" wheels on the v6 models. you see the thing is, the side wall is smaller on a larger diameter wheel and larger on a smaller diameter wheel. kinda weird huh? so the 20" wheels and tires could measure about 29" tall and the 18" wheels can still measure around 29" tall due to the large amount of sidewall.
Fixed. Please get it right. :)

soooo, your saying just throw some new gears in like 4.10 or 3.93 and it will be much quicker acceleration?
Fixed again. Please get this right too.

0-60 times are a virtual waste of a measurement of a street car on street tires on the street. Way too many variables to be a meaningful stat, in my opinion.
It's meaningful in that testers try over and over and over again, and report the absolute best result they were able to attain. That eliminates most of the variables. Then they normalize the results for standard weather conditions, which eliminates most of what's left.

The real value in 0-60 times is that it's something the average car owner can try to reproduce, on the street, without getting in trouble.

Clocking with a stop watch and a speedometer is fun, but shouldn't be compared with clocking with a proper 5th-wheel setup (which I ASSUME is done by the car maker and most mags).
They have been using GPS systems like the Racelogic VBOX for at least a decade now. Nobody who's anybody uses 5th wheels anymore. :)

A 4th Gen F-body will lug along in 6th at 1500-1600rpm but I wouldn't say it likes it.
You're lumping three different engine configurations together here.

I can't comment on how much an LT1 likes the above.

A '98-00 LS1 will get along just fine at 1500 in 6th, but will struggle if you go much below that.

An '01-02 LS1 (different cam, intake manifold, and tune) will run in 6th at 1000 rpm with no problem, and it will accelerate from that speed, up a reasonable hill, without difficulty (slowly, but no lugging). I do it all the time in mine. You have to get down to 700-800 for it to lug.

I still think it is rather meaningless (perhaps its the drag racer in me)....but....

....They have been using GPS systems like the Racelogic VBOX for at least a decade now. Nobody who's anybody uses 5th wheels anymore. :)

....I guess you can tell I'm a 70's child! ;)

You're lumping three different engine configurations together here.

I can't comment on how much an LT1 likes the above.

Doh! I should have said LS1 4th Gen. I always do that:bang:


A '98-00 LS1 will get along just fine at 1500 in 6th, but will struggle if you go much below that.

An '01-02 LS1 (different cam, intake manifold, and tune) will run in 6th at 1000 rpm with no problem, and it will accelerate from that speed, up a reasonable hill, without difficulty (slowly, but no lugging). I do it all the time in mine. You have to get down to 700-800 for it to lug.

We must have very different definitions of lugging and/or hills, haha. I drive an 02' and I would never drive it at 1000rpm, ESPECIALLY accelerating up a hill. I would say its limits are pretty similar at around 1500-1600rpm. I never use 6th gear below 65mph in my car, it would hate me if I did (my calcs say that 1500rpm is 68mph in my car, so it sounds about spot on).

1000rpm would put you at 45mph in 6th gear!!!! There is no way you are doing that! Please tell me you are not doing that to your baby....

CD and frontal area are going to play a factor here as well and I am wondering how the 5th Gen compares to the late 4th Gen or the 05-06' GTO which I personally think is the best comparison in terms power to weight (gearing is very different though).

1000rpm would put you at 45mph in 6th gear!!!! There is no way you are doing that! Please tell me you are not doing that to your baby....

Yes, I do this all the time. 6th gear, cruise set at 45, and moving along steadily on somewhat hilly roads.

I'm not talking about 10% grades or anything. Probably 3% at the most. Regardless, there's a point on my daily commute where I'm going uphill and the speed limit changes from 45 to 55. I press the RES/ACC button ten times (or sometimes just hold it down), and the car picks up 10mph like it was nothing.

:shrug:

Seriously, 1000rpm is no problem. Modern engines can handle it.

Anyone else drive their relatively stock, stock geared, LS1 F-body at 45mph in 6th gear?

65mph is when I shift to 6th, although I think I will let it drop to 60mph or so due to traffic on the highway. Otherwise, I shift to 5th because it just doesn't feel/sound good.

You're lumping three different engine configurations together here.

You forgot 2 engine families... The 3.4L and 3.8L V6s :lol: But of course neither was offered with a 6 speed, so that's beside the point :p

Anyone else drive their relatively stock, stock geared, LS1 F-body at 45mph in 6th gear?

Yes. To be honest, I did it all last summer when gas prices were astronomical. LS1 F-bodies will run perfectly fine at 45 in 6th. At least, '01-'02s will. Now, if you need to accelerate quickly, that might be another story.

Man, I just can't believe you guys do that. I am going to have to go do it now to see. Perhaps you guys are in 6th on a 45mph speed limit road and not actually going 45mph? I just can't believe you are driving at 1000rpm and accelerating even! You may be able to do it, but trying to accelerate from 1000rpm in 6th gear is lugging the engine in my opinion.

I never did with my 99 T/A. I'm sure the motor would do it, but I just can't handle lugging something down like that. I would also suggest that the gas savings are minimal, if anything at all, because while the rpm is less (injectors don't fire as often), the load is much greater (injectors shoot more gas when they do fire).

Personal preference I guess.

I love 6th gear with the 3.42s, I like cruising on the interstate at 85 MPH at 1800RPM. Ive driven in 6th between 1000-1500 RPM, it cruises just fine, just downshift if you need to accelerate.

I drive an auto LS1 (99) and where I live is Flat. I leave it in 3 unless I get up and stay up over about45-50, then I'll put it in D. (for city driving, on the highway I keep it in D)
The two reasons are that I have more engine braking when I have to slow down, and more acceleration available if needed. If I did have a stick (my 2010 will be) I doubt I would ever see 5th let alone 6th on my daily driving.

Wow, lots of points needing clarification in this thread...


In addition to the gearing differences which have dominated this thread, remember that peak power isn't everything! The L99 has variable valve timing, which should broaden its torque curve, giving it an off-peak advantage over the LS3. I haven't seen actual numbers here, but I suspect that this plays a big part.


Fixed. Please get it right. :)


Fixed again. Please get this right too.


It's meaningful in that testers try over and over and over again, and report the absolute best result they were able to attain. That eliminates most of the variables. Then they normalize the results for standard weather conditions, which eliminates most of what's left.

The real value in 0-60 times is that it's something the average car owner can try to reproduce, on the street, without getting in trouble.


They have been using GPS systems like the Racelogic VBOX for at least a decade now. Nobody who's anybody uses 5th wheels anymore. :)


You're lumping three different engine configurations together here.

I can't comment on how much an LT1 likes the above.

A '98-00 LS1 will get along just fine at 1500 in 6th, but will struggle if you go much below that.

An '01-02 LS1 (different cam, intake manifold, and tune) will run in 6th at 1000 rpm with no problem, and it will accelerate from that speed, up a reasonable hill, without difficulty (slowly, but no lugging). I do it all the time in mine. You have to get down to 700-800 for it to lug.
so you dont have answers for my questions you just want to play spell check? i got it right the first time....RIMS.whats wrong with calling them RIMS and tires? they are rims.

I love 6th gear with the 3.42s, I like cruising on the interstate at 85 MPH at 1800RPM. Ive driven in 6th between 1000-1500 RPM, it cruises just fine, just downshift if you need to accelerate.

Be careful giving such a large rpm range. 1000rpm versus 1500rpm is a HUGE difference in 6th gear.

Are you telling me that you shift to 6th gear at 45mph? I want you to go do this on your way out to lunch or home from work and tell me you think it is just fine and not lugging the engine.

You forgot 2 engine families... The 3.4L and 3.8L V6s :lol: But of course neither was offered with a 6 speed, so that's beside the point :p
You made my point for me -- I didn't forget them, I excluded them.

You may be able to do it, but trying to accelerate from 1000rpm in 6th gear is lugging the engine in my opinion.
When you lug an engine, there are distinctive vibrations. For example, sometimes my '93 Regal 3800 lugs itself around 55mph in top gear (1000-1100 rpm) before it decides to downshift.

Those vibrations simply don't occur in my '02 LS1 in 6th gear at 45mph.

I would also suggest that the gas savings are minimal, if anything at all, because while the rpm is less (injectors don't fire as often), the load is much greater (injectors shoot more gas when they do fire).
Higher load on an internal combustion engine typically translates to more efficiency, not less. That's why cars with small, low-power engines running at higher RPM tend to get better fuel efficiency.

Personal preference I guess.
I would argue that it might be old habits, or even old wive's tales. If I'm not mistaken, you and ZZ are among our older members, and lugging was a bigger issue in the past, especially in the pre-EFI days.

so you dont have answers for my questions you just want to play spell check? i got it right the first time....RIMS.whats wrong with calling them RIMS and tires? they are rims.
The rim is just the outside edge of the wheel.

As for answering your questions... yes, numerically higher gear ratios in the rear end will improve acceleration, at the expense of fuel economy. Also, your engine will run at higher RPM when cruising, which may introduce exhaust drone, depending on your setup.

And no, there's not really anything weird about how they change tire sizes along with wheel sizes to maintain the same overall diameter. :shrug:

Are you telling me that you shift to 6th gear at 45mph? I want you to go do this on your way out to lunch or home from work and tell me you think it is just fine and not lugging the engine.
My Camaro is tucked safely away in the garage until the snow/ice/salt have been cleared from the roads for the season, but I assure you, I have done this hundreds of times, and it is not lugging the engine.

this isnt the old days any more. there are more than 1 term for WHEELS. and RIM is one of those terms.

this isnt the old days any more.
:confused:

there are more than 1 term for WHEELS. and RIM is one of those terms.
It's a commonly used term, but it's inaccurate. I object to inaccurate use of language, as it dulls our ability to communicate effectively and efficiently with others. The average American's control of the English language these days is pitiful, and I think it's part of what is dragging this country down.

Hence my requests for you to please get these things right.

:confused:


It's a commonly used term, but it's inaccurate. I object to inaccurate use of language, as it dulls our ability to communicate effectively and efficiently with others. The average American's control of the English language these days is pitiful, and I think it's part of what is dragging this country down.

Hence my requests for you to please get these things right.

Word. Yo?

:confused:


It's a commonly used term, but it's inaccurate. I object to inaccurate use of language, as it dulls our ability to communicate effectively and efficiently with others. The average American's control of the English language these days is pitiful, and I think it's part of what is dragging this country down.

Hence my requests for you to please get these things right.

how does using the word RIM dull our ability to communicate?????EVERY ONE KNOWS WHAT I AM SAYING!!!this is out of control. so because i use the word RIM its wrong and makes everyone stupid for me using it? you can use the word RIMS to anyone and they know exactly what you are talking about. hey to each his own but thats what i use. you may not like it but thats what it is.

the brits call the HOOD a BONNET. is that wrong? get off my case.

down south they call it SODA i call it POP. which of those terms makes us more stupid for using it???

Higher load on an internal combustion engine typically translates to more efficiency, not less. That's why cars with small, low-power engines running at higher RPM tend to get better fuel efficiency.
Hence the "minimal" in my statement. However, I'd also suggest that engines have certain operating ranges in which they are more efficient. Agreed? The question then becomes this: Is the LS1 more efficient accelerating (albiet slowly) from 45 mph in 6th gear or 5th? Or 4th?

I'll stick by my original statement on this one.

I would argue that it might be old habits, or even old wive's tales.
And I have to admit that this is quite possible. I have no data to say otherwise. I suspect you have no data to support the above, either.

If I'm not mistaken, you and ZZ are among our older members, and lugging was a bigger issue in the past, especially in the pre-EFI days.
Ouch! 44's not old! :D

Oh...all your bases are belong to us!

My Camaro is tucked safely away in the garage until the snow/ice/salt have been cleared from the roads for the season, but I assure you, I have done this hundreds of times, and it is not lugging the engine.

That wasn't directed to you, but mine is tucked away as well! I am definitely going to go try this and see what I think when it gets warmer.

FYI I drove my 02 daily for just under 3 years so to me, I felt like I was lugging the car at 60mph in 6th gear. In fact, when the car fell to 60mph in 6th and I now needed to accelerate to keep up with traffic, I distinctly remember hitting the gas and thinking, "this doesn't sound/feel good" and shifting to 5th. I would then shift back to 6th when I got over 65mph.

Ouch! 44's not old! :D


Haha. 25 and 3 months here! But I feel older than Bob probably does!:D

how does using the word RIM dull our ability to communicate?????EVERY ONE KNOWS WHAT I AM SAYING!!!
True, everyone does. 100 years from now when nobody remembers the difference between a wheel and a rim because so many people helped blur the line, what happens if someone actually wants to refer specifically to the edge of the wheel? They have no word for it, because "rim" means "wheel".

That is admittedly a minor example of the degradation of our language, but it's the one you used, so it's the one I pointed out.

this is out of control. so because i use the word RIM its wrong and makes everyone stupid for me using it?
You're not the only one doing it, and calling wheels "rims" isn't the only example. Take your self importance down a notch, would you?

the brits call the HOOD a BONNET. is that wrong? get off my case.

down south they call it SODA i call it POP. which of those terms makes us more stupid for using it???
Those are examples of dialect and colloquialism, which is different than misuse of a word.

Your defensive reaction indicates that you know I'm right but that you don't want to admit it. It's okay.

I'd also suggest that engines have certain operating ranges in which they are more efficient. Agreed?
Agreed.

The question then becomes this: Is the LS1 more efficient accelerating (albiet slowly) from 45 mph in 6th gear or 5th? Or 4th?
I would guess that 5th and 6th are more efficient than 4th, but that the difference between RPM and efficiency in 5th and 6th make it pretty much moot.

However, I'd be surprised if cruising at 45mph in 5th was as efficient as in 6th.

And I have to admit that this is quite possible. I have no data to say otherwise. I suspect you have no data to support the above, either.
True, I don't have data -- just circumstantial evidence: I've experienced lugging in a number of different cars, and that in general, the newer the car, the lower you can go without lugging.

Ouch! 44's not old! :D
:lol:

Yeah, and 28's not old either, but on this forum, even I'm quite a bit older than the average. The onset of male pattern baldness has me feeling older than I am...

actually the outter part of the rim is called the "lip". and no my anger isnt because you think your right its because your so damn ignorant.

I'm a firm believer in only being as old as you feel. Any of you young whipper-snappers wanna go do a bit of running with me, come along! My best half was Oct 07...1:31:30. :D

Rims vs wheels...ya, wheels is more better ( :D ), but I understood what he meant by "rims". No big deal.

there was no need whatsoever to go through my post and correct every thing i said or did wrong. its just uncalled for and very ignorant of him. times change and phrases change. dont get mad that your getting older and things arent the same as when they were when you were young.

there was no need whatsoever to go through my post and correct every thing i said or did wrong. its just uncalled for and very ignorant of him. times change and phrases change. dont get mad that your getting older and things arent the same as when they were when you were young.

I corrected two things you did wrong, which was far from everything.

Even though I disagree, your "times change" argument has some ground to stand on for the rim vs. wheel debate. However, your representation of the gear ratios was clearly wrong.

You keep saying I'm ignorant, but the context of your statements has me thinking you mean "arrogant." Right?

actually the outter part of the rim is called the "lip". and no my anger isnt because you think your right its because your so damn ignorant.


Lighten up Francis. You do realize that you are pissing on a SUPER MODERATOR don't you? Just sayin'.

And It's all called COKE, not soda or pop. :D (can you tell I'm from the south?)

actually the outter part of the rim is called the "lip"

Note the 4th definition: http://www.google.com/search?q=define:rim

Note the lack of any such definition: http://www.google.com/search?q=define:lip

Lighten up Francis. You do realize that you are pissing on a SUPER MODERATOR don't you? Just sayin'.

As long as he doesn't go much further with the name calling, he's entirely within his rights as a member of this board to continue the argument we're having. I'm certainly not going to lock this thread, delete/edit his posts, or give him infraction points or something, just because I disagree with him. If I were in the habit of doing stuff like that, I don't think Jason would keep me on as a mod.

I realize in hindsight that we've thoroughly hijacked this thread, though, and respectfully request that we take any further discussion to PM.

actually the outter part of the rim is called the "lip". and no my anger isnt because you think your right its because your so damn ignorant.

Doesn't it go: Wheel = entire assembly the tire mounts to.
Rim = the outer edge of the wheel.
Lip = the outer edge of the rim.

J/K. :lol:


Back to the original topic. What I find funny is that most of the reported times for the cars on page 1 are the absolute best times for these cars (i.e. Evan Smith driving at Englishtown in 30 degree weather.) I firmly believe that the average time you are going to see in the car rags are right where GM has stated (or wherever those cards came from.)

actually the outter part of the rim is called the "lip". and no my anger isnt because you think your right its because your so damn ignorant.

there was no need whatsoever to go through
my post and correct every thing i said or did wrong. its just uncalled for and very ignorant of him. times change and phrases change. dont get mad that your getting older and things arent the same as when they were when you were young.

You keep saying I'm ignorant, but the context of your statements has me thinking you mean "arrogant." Right?

I know, right? His use of the word "ignorant" makes him appear to be ignorant to the definition of the word. Yet his arrogance won't let him realize his mistakes...

Damnit! What happened to tranny and rear end gear ratios!?! 0-60mph is long gone, hahaha.

I know, right? His use of the word "ignorant" makes him appear to be ignorant to the definition of the word. Yet his arrogance won't let him realize his mistakes...

:lol: I see what you did there. :)

i want to know how i turned out to be the bad guy in this when all i did was use the word RIM and you didnt like it.yeah apparently im the guy in the wrong . i used the word RIM which is another word for the wheel. would you rather me call them DUBS? they are those too.

Lighten up Francis. You do realize that you are pissing on a SUPER MODERATOR don't you? Just sayin'.

And It's all called COKE, not soda or pop. :D (can you tell I'm from the south?)

i dont care if hes the president of the united states. what do you want me to do? never use the word RIM again? i didnt use the wrong word. i used the word i meant to . RIM. another word for wheel.

i want to know how i turned out to be the bad guy in this when all i did was use the word RIM and you didnt like it.
I don't think you're "the bad guy." I do think you lack interest in improving the perceptions other people have of you. It's almost like you go out of your way to seem unintelligent -- I know you're smarter than you seem in your posts, but you seem unwilling to show it. Rather than acknowledge my clarification and learn from it, you argued with me, and repeatedly demonstrated that you in fact did not know what you were talking about (my favorite part was your "lip" argument).

By the way, this all happened when you responded negatively to my original comment (post 56), and not when you originally used the word "rim" (post 18).

i used the word RIM which is another word for the wheel. would you rather me call them DUBS? they are those too.
They're only dubs if they're 20". You can call them that, sure. It's slang, but it's not incorrect. "Dubs" didn't mean something else before people started using it to refer to 20" wheels.

what do you want me to do? never use the word RIM again?
What I want you to do is use "rim" when you're talking about the edge of the wheel, and "wheel" when you're talking about the whole thing.

You certainly don't have to do what I want you to do. You're free to continue tarnishing the English language in this way (and in any others you like); I just wanted to share my feelings on the subject with you.

i didnt use the wrong word. i used the word i meant to .
Those are not contradictory statements. You did both.

RIM. another word for wheel.
Another inappropriate word for wheel, whose propagation I am trying to fight.

If you're comfortable using an inappropriate word, that's fine, but if you want to continue arguing that it was in fact appropriate, you'll lose.

Rim = wheel
Lip = edge of rim, or edge of wheel

Deal with it...

i just think this is funny that i clearly am not the first person to use the word RIM to refer to wheels and yet im the one being stoned for it.

i just think this is funny that i clearly am not the first person to use the word RIM to refer to wheels and yet im the one being stoned for it.

You are not the first person I've corrected. You are, however, the first person to defend yourself so adamantly.

This horse is really starting to smell and is a pretty big pulp right now. I thought this was Camaro Z28 not Vocabulary 101. Please take it somewhere else, moderator or not it is completely unnecesary on both sides.

No one is here to be educated on the use of the English language, but rather to learn about the Camaro and exchange views on that subject. Can we please get it back to that level?

Thanks!

Jason, sent you a PM, different subject!

Language is a wonderful thing.

AFAIK "wheel" is the proper term. Rim is a part of a wheel. So is a "flange" in most cases

Granted, "rim" has some street use to denote a "wheel"...

At GM, the folks that do engineering work and tests on the metal devices that are covered with pneumatic rubber dodahs on cars and trucks fall under a "Wheel and Tire" designation.

Of course, that's General Motors and a lot of the folks here think GM has no clue as to what they do or say...:lol:

I'm unsure if any vehicle manufacturing companies have "rims and meats" departments...:burnout: Maybe a wheel maker like Dub...

I hear "rim" I think of custom wheels made and bought primarily for looks is what's being described.

Maybe it's where you come from that makes the difference. Lots of street slang goes here, not a big deal.

LMAO!!! Good one!:lol::D:yes:

:tired:

So....uh....anyone think the new Camaro can go from 0-60?....at all?:D

or better yet,

Is we is, or is we ain't, gonna talk about the Camaro going from 0-60? :lol:

Language is a wonderful thing.

AFAIK "wheel" is the proper term. Rim is a part of a wheel. So is a "flange" in most cases

Granted, "rim" has some street use to denote a "wheel"...

At GM, the folks that do engineering work and tests on the metal devices that are covered with pneumatic rubber dodahs on cars and trucks fall under a "Wheel and Tire" designation.

Of course, that's General Motors and a lot of the folks here think GM has no clue as to what they do or say...:lol:

I'm unsure if any vehicle manufacturing companies have "rims and meats" departments...:burnout: Maybe a wheel maker like Dub...

I hear "rim" I think of custom wheels made and bought primarily for looks is what's being described.

Maybe it's where you come from that makes the difference. Lots of street slang goes here, not a big deal.

i never said that wheel was not the right term and rim was. i was just using a term that i always do and got slammed by everyone for not following in a strait line and apparently having a backbone.

i never said that wheel was not the right term and rim was. i was just using a term that i always do and got slammed by everyone for not following in a strait line and apparently having a backbone.

Don't sweat it dude...

i never said that wheel was not the right term and rim was. i was just using a term that i always do and got slammed by everyone for not following in a strait line and apparently having a backbone.

We're good here my friend.

As for "Slamming"?
How do you think it feels to work for GM?:lol:

Grain of salt, man, grain of salt.;)

:tired:

So....uh....anyone think the new Camaro can go from 0-60?....at all?:D

or better yet,

Is we is, or is we ain't, gonna talk about the Camaro going from 0-60? :lol:


Yes, it goes from 0-60 and beyond. Without regard to what you call the thingees the lugnuts keep attached.

Yes, it goes from 0-60 and beyond. Without regard to what you call the thingees the lugnuts keep attached.

Well that's a relief. I was affraid my new 426hp SS was going to top out around 57mph. :D Rumor has it that it will reach 60mph in 4.7 seconds.
Anyone else hear that? :lol:

isnt that the same 0-60 as the g8 gxp? if that is the same, wouldnt it be a little quicker due to the fact it has wider tires(better grab) and isnt it a little lighter than the gxp?

I don't think "everyone" was slamming you for using "rim" vice "wheel". I certainly don't care.

And dammit.....its "straight" not "strait"! Dont you no inglish?

Be careful giving such a large rpm range. 1000rpm versus 1500rpm is a HUGE difference in 6th gear.

Are you telling me that you shift to 6th gear at 45mph? I want you to go do this on your way out to lunch or home from work and tell me you think it is just fine and not lugging the engine.


Where I live we have LONG FLAT roads, Ive done it countless time, I dont make it a habit of cruising around like that. But when you have 5-8 mile to drive at 45MPH on flat road with traffic moving steadily, its fine to do so. If I need to accelerate, I go down a couple gears. To me lugging would be to try to go from 45-75 in 6th at the same rate that you would do it from a lower gear.

Well maybe its because I live in South Carolina and there is no such thing as flat roads. Everything is hilly it seams. Even the highways are like rolling hills.

We have hills here in North Florida, thier called Ant Hills. :lol:

In Cincinnati, there is no such thing as a flat road or a straight road -- except Straight Street in the Clifton area. Of course, Straight Street is so steep that even if one has 4-wheel drive and chains, one can't drive up it with two or more inches of snow.

Um, how come nobody corrected the part about a cable drive speedometer??? :confused: Those haven't been used in most GM cars since the late ~80's / early 90's?!? :shrug:

Does the speedo lag? Is it cable-operated or digital? :D
cable. Most speedo's lag.
Really? Hmm...if it is a cable, then it would have to be mechanical linkage, right? Is the lag caused by the cable twisting prior to moving? How much lag is there?

Seriously curious...would love to see documentation of this.
Can't help you with documentation. Just what I've been told.

A T56 uses an electrical speed sensor, and I'd bet dollars to donuts that the T6060 does too ;). Since we're into correcting mistakes in this thread and all :p :lol:.

If I can get away from language (and I do agree that English is wonderful, and can be very precise, with many synonyms) two points: Way back in the beginning, someone accused GM of underrating HP, and I think that is accurate- the SAE ratings would guarantee a minimum HP rating, i.e., this car produces 'at least' XX HP- Ford and Toyota have both been sued for their (not there, not they're) vehicles not producing advertised HP numbers- hence a motive to rate the HP conservatively- that was claimed on the 4th gen cars, because of identical heads, cams, etc- and GM not wanting to steal the limelight from the Corvette- So, yes, underrating is common, and happens- would you complain if you bought a car that was rated 350 HP and it actually produced 365 HP? Not likely, you would think you got a bargain-

On the cable speedo, and lag- well, two things- by federal law, all speedo are required to be optimistic- they can read high, but never low- you can't be pulled over by a cop for going 65 and say that "my speedo only read 60" However, when your speedo reads 60, you most likely are in fact going 58 or 59- And I haven't seen a cable speedo or odometer in over 2 decades- with the advent of all the electronically controlled transmissions everything uses a vehicle speed sensor, and you change the programing, rather than using different gears in the tail of the transmission matched to the rear axle ratios- used to be they were color coded- they used to even sell adapters for trucks when you went to big tires-

Yeah, V-box rules- it's a GPS world- and I will be 55 this year- been doing this for quite a while- I still know how to set the dwell on points and change the weights in a distributor-

isnt that the same 0-60 as the g8 gxp? if that is the same, wouldnt it be a little quicker due to the fact it has wider tires(better grab) and isnt it a little lighter than the gxp?


I think that the GXP has a 3:70 rear end compared to the Camaro's 3:45, so that will probably take car of the weight difference. I wish they would have put the 6-speed into the GT, the GXP is just too much $$ and more engine than I would want for my 4 door DD. Esp since it seems to gets much worse mileage.

BTW:
http://www.camaroz28.com/forums/showthread.php?t=593310&highlight=wheels+vs+rims

:D:D

If I can get away from language (and I do agree that English is wonderful, and can be very precise, with many synonyms) two points: Way back in the beginning, someone accused GM of underrating HP, and I think that is accurate- the SAE ratings would guarantee a minimum HP rating, i.e., this car produces 'at least' XX HP- Ford and Toyota have both been sued for their (not there, not they're) vehicles not producing advertised HP numbers- hence a motive to rate the HP conservatively- that was claimed on the 4th gen cars, because of identical heads, cams, etc- and GM not wanting to steal the limelight from the Corvette- So, yes, underrating is common, and happens- would you complain if you bought a car that was rated 350 HP and it actually produced 365 HP? Not likely, you would think you got a bargain-

On the cable speedo, and lag- well, two things- by federal law, all speedo are required to be optimistic- they can read high, but never low- you can't be pulled over by a cop for going 65 and say that "my speedo only read 60" However, when your speedo reads 60, you most likely are in fact going 58 or 59- And I haven't seen a cable speedo or odometer in over 2 decades- with the advent of all the electronically controlled transmissions everything uses a vehicle speed sensor, and you change the programing, rather than using different gears in the tail of the transmission matched to the rear axle ratios- used to be they were color coded- they used to even sell adapters for trucks when you went to big tires-

Yeah, V-box rules- it's a GPS world- and I will be 55 this year- been doing this for quite a while- I still know how to set the dwell on points and change the weights in a distributor-

so.......in a nutshell, I'm right. :D

I think that the GXP has a 3:70 rear end compared to the Camaro's 3:45, so that will probably take car of the weight difference. I wish they would have put the 6-speed into the GT, the GXP is just too much $$ and more engine than I would want for my 4 door DD. Esp since it seems to gets much worse mileage.

BTW:
http://www.camaroz28.com/forums/showthread.php?t=593310&highlight=wheels+vs+rims

:D:D

call it what YOU want. ill call it what I want.:D

so.......in a nutshell, I'm right. :D
About what?! :confused: The speedometer lag part? Sure, they lag, I think most people realize that ;). The cable speedometer part? Nope! :p

About what?! :confused: The speedometer lag part? Sure, they lag, I think most people realize that ;). The cable speedometer part? Nope! :p

I never claimed I had a cable speedometer.;) I claimed that the speedo lagged and when sprinting to 60mph when it registers 60 on the speedo, it isn't there yet.

I'm going to claim that I don't think anybody here really knows.

I claimed that the speedo lagged and when sprinting to 60mph when it registers 60 on the speedo, it isn't there yet.

That's contradictory. A lagging speedometer would show 60mph after you actually reached it, not before.

Now, if you have a speedo that predicts the future, that'd be pretty cool. ;)

That's contradictory. A lagging speedometer would show 60mph after you actually reached it, not before.

Now, if you have a speedo that predicts the future, that'd be pretty cool. ;)

D'OH! I guess you're right. Actuallly I phrased that wrong. If it is in fact lagging. Then when it registers 60mph, then you have in reality already past it.
So then if you are basing 0-60mph based on the speedo and using a stopwatch, then the car should actually be a touch faster than the time you will get. How's that?:D