well my friend -- I don't know if your current Fbody is stock -- but if it is, you are WRONG on 2 of 4 points above.

Really!

No kidding.

How do you like your crow? BBQ'd, sauteed, fried, baked, or stuffed?

 

And THEREIN, my friend is the truth............you just proved that you do not know what you are talking about in terms of weight (I refer to my post about moving the front axle forward....)

Now - you can continue on -- and continue to look foolish to those who ARE engineers or understand engineering -- or you can learn.

I don't mean to flame - but being that you started it............

 

the SRT8 challenger, based on the other SRT8 vehicles, will make 360ish RWHP. But its also a little misleading because their Hemi HP curves are much flatter than the LS3's on the topend, giving the Hemi's a little more under the curve up top. Its not a huge difference but it would probably be more comparable to about 365-370 in a more typical engine. Based on 400 hp, the auto L99 will probably make about 350 rwhp while the manual 422 hp, probably putting it at 370-375 rwhp. Based on HP alone, with the SRT8 being the standard of 108 mph @ 4100 lbs, the A6 camaro should be at about 108 mph and the M6 at about 110-111.

Now, this is how the gearing plays out:
................1st........2nd........3rd......... 4th
SRT8.........49.........80.........124.........174
SS A6.......39..........66.........102.........132
SS M6.......54..........79.........114.........163

i didnt include 5th and 6th since they are both useless. Based on the gearing. Looking at the M6, it just flat out sucks. with the gearing it has, it takes ZERO advantage of being a manual. It won't even get out of third in the 1/4, which atleast, if its going to have horrible gearing, thats the way to do it. So that would probably dumb down the trap alomst 1 mph or so. For an automatic, the SRT8 is average (for a modern auto, it does kinda suck tho, but it is only a 5 spd). In the auto A6, its geared very well, but not well enough because the 3 to 4 shift leaves it very low in the powerband too late in the 1/4. So in a way, its about average, but the 0-60 and 0-100 should look pretty awesome.

so in the end:
SS M6 ... 110 mph
SS A6 ... 108 mph
SRT8 A5 ... 108 mph

its hard to say what a manual srt8 will really do down the 1/4. The 425 6.1 Hemi is not an SAE certified engine, meaning we dont really know what kind of driveline losses the 5 spd auto really causes. The 425 hp rating may be just a marketing type ploy to match the old hemi's. If it really makes 425 hp and only makes 360 rwhp, then that auto takes roughly 15%. Or maybe they just rated the engine based on 15% losses. We wont know until it gets SAE certified (which I doubt it will).

Based on what they normally dyno, a corvette loses roughly 11%-12% on the 6 speed manual and 12-13% on the auto. As a reference, the GT500 loses about 12% from its TR6060 as well. The camaro should lose about the same as the corvette, I would assume, through its driveline.

If the Hemi really does make 425 Hp, then the manual SHOULD push ~375 rwhp, and SHOULD trap about 1.5mph higher than the auto, or about 109-110. If the auto in the hemi is really more efficient than 15% and closer to the A6 found on the SS, then the manual might be closer to just a solid 109.



Long post, and, in the end, meaningless.

 

Gaaahhhhh.... names and addresses please sometimes the flock strays a bit, just need to help them find the way again

I have to ask with the Mustang guys, what was bigger on the list IRS or more power?????

 

My 05 weighs in at 3480 with 1/4 tank gas (track scales) and it's an automatic. Now there are some things the S197 can do to loose weight, for one I got a Spyder aluminum Driveshaft, the stock one is 2 peices and weighs over 60 pounds. Replace the K Member with a tube frame you can save weight, there is a Radiator support delete and more. I have not attemped these yet because I do drive my car daily and have not seen crash ratings on them yet... I do have the Drive shaft now though...

the 07's did gain 70 lbs to the front ent to support the 5.4L engine in the GT500. and you are right they come in now a little over 3500lbs.

 

By far the IRS -- you will find that the majority of Mustang owners are not concerned about power -- they are looking for style and every day driveability......

Camaro/Firebird people are more likely to talk about power......

 

For me it was the IRS, But I wanted a true Road car, with GM you can always make more power with Mods.I wanted the power to
but first was Handling...FBodFather.. Do I actually classify as a "Mustang Guy" Since this is my First Ford? I am a GM guy overall...

Plus my Wife took my Vette away from me...

 

well -- it's a free country. We hope you'll try out a Camaro first -- but if you don't -- many of us will be looking at you thru our rear view mirrors.

By the way -- I'm agreeing with you -- the Camaro owner feels power is more important -- and we want to keep our Camaro owners -- you can talk all you want about weight -- but trust me - this car is going to surprise a lot of people.......

As I've said earlier -- go look at the various cars out there -- look at the weights -- there's a REASON they weigh so much -- and it's not because we or they don't care -- trust me on this.

 

You said it. But most bench/internet racing posts when the use of a calculator is needed usually end up further from the point than when ya started.

In this case I'd say the gearing for the SS 6M is better than it was for the 4th Gen F-bodies. With stock 3.42 gears they always required a shift to 4th about 100 ft before the stripe.
In the new SS 6M's case if third rounds out at 114 that will mean only two gear changes in the 1/4 mile. And it will be in the high rpm powerband when it rolls through the traps as opposed to lower rpm very soon after a shift into forth gear and it's 1 to 1 ratio in the 4th gen cars.

 

The last thing this thread needs is one more post, but here goes anyway.

Modern cars are heavier for a whole host of reasons. Longer wheelbases, better crash ratings, more equipment, more rigid bodies, complex electrical systems, hosts of airbags, bigger wheels and tires, etc., etc., etc.

Then you get a compounding effect when you add the more powerful engine, which requires a stronger drivetrain, and now that the car's heavier, you need a strong suspension, differential, etc., etc.

I don't think anyone would argue the trend.

You have computer simulation of structure, and more expertise in aluminum and high strength steel. Those help mitigate, but they're not enough to reverse the trend.

So we have a new, modern Camaro, using a chassis designed this decade, and it's heavier than the one based on a chassis designed in the 80s. For one, the 80s chassis doesn't meet modern market requirements, and it would need changes to meet legal requirements. Those changes would make it heavier.

So this all explains why cars are heavier in general and why Chevy couldn't just re-release the F4.

What about making it smaller? If GM had a smaller RWD platform, maybe it could have been used for Camaro. But, would it have had a V8. It seems doubtful to me.

If it were sized to take a V8, how much smaller could it be? Six inches shorter is not going to make a lot of difference in weight -- probably less than 100 pounds.

What about aluminum and carbon fibre? Expensive.

What about longer hours by the engineering team? I would argue that they took off in the neighborhood of 200 pounds already from where they started.

So even if there is an Alpha F6 in 2015, I don't see it being much lighter than the current car, unless the new weight loss religion apparently sweeping the industry (though it's really not clear how much is PR -- talk is cheap, after all) really takes hold. It will increase car prices. It definitely puts a V8 in danger. All speculation, but just take a look at the situation yourselves.

Finally, the Camaro is not heavy compared to similar cars from all over the world. It's quite competitive. Of course, there's the Mustang. I like the Mustang. I don't need refinement. I like my '02 Camaro. But I'm in the minority. Read comparison tests of the Mustang. Words like unrefined and primitive are used. Maybe you don't care. Most of the market does. Refinement adds weight.

I've not driven the new Camaro and I've seen it only at autoshows, but based on what I know about its ancestor (Holden VE), and drives of the G8, I think it will be a great car.

Will it do well? Who knows. The market changed more in the past four months than it had in the previous 20 years. I don't think that 5 inches shorter and 100 pounds lighter would make a difference (1 hwy mpg is in the noise). I don't think 300 pounds lighter is a reasonable 'what if'.

Finally, there's no way to make everyone happy. If GM focused on pleasing only 4th gen buyers, I wouldn't like its chances.

So why not step back and enjoy the new car for what it is. A real new Chevy Camaro. And for people who like the 4th gen better, there are still good ones either in your garage or on the used market.

 

When we have specs on the 2011 WLSRA 400hp Mustang, I'm sure we will.

The Mustang and Camaro are clearly following different formulas. And the Challenger is yet a bit more different.

For some, the Camaro formula will appeal more. For others, the Mustang.

For those who insist on IRS, the Mustang will be a non-starter.

For those who want light weight above all else, the Mustang will win, assuming current rumors pan out.

For those who insist on light weight and IRS (you know who you are), you can decide which matters more.

Of course, for the Ford vs. Chevy people, this makes for great debate, and resurrects fun times from the past.

 

Thats why I asked. I didnt mean to insult you engineer guys here, sheesh. But with all things being equal, a 3500 pound car is going to out handle, out brake and out accelerate a 3900 pound car. It doesnt take an engineer to know that.
As far as eating crow, if this car can hang with the Shelby GT autoxing, not only will I eat a huge amount, but I will do more than that, I will buy a new Camaro, but my gutt tells me I will be going hungry.

 

Wow.

I've had my agreements and disagreements with FBF over the years and I have no problem having more. Seen him be right, wrong, stubborn, and lenient with people here.....but seriously, how about people stop blaming him personally for things that are "wrong" with this car?? In actuality, he probably had nothing to do with any of it and if he says they have tried everything within reason to make the car lighter on this chassis, chances are that's the way it is.

 

Saying you aren't "buying all this weight crap" comes off like saying you believe Scott and the rest of the team are lying. I'd take it personally too.

And yes, all things being equal, the lighter car will beat the heavier one, but things are not equal here.

The Camaro has better weight distribution, and IRS, and I'm willing to bet will cost less (even after the dealer markdowns in most places) than the Shelby GT. But if all you care about is autoXing and weight, a Shelby Terlingua is an even better choice than the SGT and can be had cheaper if you do it right.

If you care about ONLY the handling in an autoX situation then just say so, the only people that can argue with you at that point are the people that have driven these cars hard, and it seems like on this board, there aren't that many of them.

Lets face it I don't have a clue how this car handles, but neither do you.

 

Indeed, and AMEN