NikiVee

Based on GM's numbers, it's no faster than the 05-06 GTO's. They were rated at 0-60 at 4.6 seconds also, and were able to run mid to low 13's easily.

Also the SS weighs a bit more than most thought it would..

posaune

Did you guys not see that it wasn't Edmonds that drove those times? It was the times that GM got for the Camaro.

PacerX

Doesn't really matter.

The car apparently traps right around 108mph.

Which means that given equivalent conditions and drivers, it's basically as quick as a F4 SS M6.

Black5thgen

Is that the same GM that has been under rating cars since the 60's?

PacerX

You can't really under-rate a trap speed unless he pedalled it, which I kinda doubt they would do.

BigBlueCruiser

This is NOT good.

When I predicted high 12s for this car I meant high 12s in the hands of the car rag drivers.

Welcome to 1998.

usa63t

using a simple drag time calculator (HP / Weight) i came out with assuming a 15% loss from the fly wheel

12.76 at 111.89 for the ss manual
12.96 at 104.33 for te ss auto

14.1 at 95.5 for the lt auto
13.97 at 96,8 for the lt manual

14.00 at 96.58 for the ls auto
14.02 at 96.48 for the ls manual


at 20% loss
13.04 at 104 for the ss manual
13.2 at 102 for the ss auto

14.45 at 93.6 for the lt auto
14.44 at 93.6 for the lt manual

14.48 at 93.4 for the ls auto
14.49 at 93.35 for the ls manual

they said 14.5 for v6 auto 14.7 for manual both at 97 and 13.4 for the v8 manual at 108 and 13.3 for the auto no mph I will let you all decide from here

PacerX

You have a 108mph trap to work off. In the real world, that's a 12.9-13.2 on street tires.

Skeld

I'm no drag racing expert, but 108 trap does sound high for that E.T. But then the 4.6 0-60 sounds low? So where are we losing the time here?

PacerX

Babying it out to keep the IRS from hopping?

I wouldn't call the 4.6 low... but that's just me.

30thZ286speed

GMHPT got a G8 GT to 13.1 in the quarter with just a tune and K&N filter. Camaro w/LS3 should easily do 12s if the same is applied.

HuJass

I sure hope it's faster than a 13.4.
In my first time racing a 4th gen F-body at a track, second time racing a stick at a track, and on my third run, I turned a 13.4 in my C/E.
The car was bone stock, right down to the tire pressures. It didn't even have 1,000 miles on it at the time. I was cutting 2.1 - 2.3 60 ft times and I couldn't shift worth a s**t and I still ran a 13.4. I can't remember my trap speeds but I think they were between 104-107 mph.

I really hope the 5th gen does WAYYYY better than a 2002 LS1 car.

JoeliusZ28

eh.

14.5 was my LT1 stock

13.4 was my LT1 w/ bolt ons

Looks like ill be walking these things with my new cam...meh

Vette Pro

I expected my more from this much ballyhooed car....My bone stock Y2K Z28 on street tires ran 12.90s at 109 mph and got 28-29 mpg on the highway...I was kind of disapointed in the ET, MPH, and MPG numbers that were posted for the 5th gen car...thought that GM was going to engineer some better fuel economy for this car...with no improvment in ET and MPH and less fuel economy than the 4th gen car I was big time disapointed to say the least...probably a short production run for this car with the new CAFE law looming in the next couple of years...if ya want one ya better get one before thay stop building it..with the price of gas higher than giraffe ***** it may not be around very long..

PacerX

In fairness, the CAFE cycle changed between 2000 and 2009 - the 2009 numbers are lower than they would have been in 2000 because of it.

To make a fair comparison, add a couple MPG to the 2009 numbers.

For the quarter mile time...

Welp...

The standing quarter mile is still the standing quarter mile. From the looks of it, it's a driver's race between your world-class 2000 Z28 run (109mph is an abnormally fast trap speed for that car) and a 2009 SS @ 108.