LeadSled1

Add another one to that abnormally fast trap speed. My 01 WS6 ran 109.46 mph on its best.

m1tankr

I think people are forgetting a number of things about the new Camaro.

Factory 1/4 miles are much slower to start with due to the very mild tuning from the factory.

I came from the 04-6 GTO group and I can tell you from experience that these cars will get much faster times once you dump the torque management and lean them out. You can look at the mph to get a better idea and also realize that the factory times are worst case scenario. Do all the web searching you want and you won't find GM claiming any of the 4th gen F-Bod's running 108 mph in the 1/4. 108 mph is a hi-12 car in anyones book with a good run. The torque management is horrible on these cars. There are many stories of all of the newer LS based cars dumping TM and picking up 4-5 tenths and the ability to finally spin the tires.

I also wouldn't worry too much about the mileage. Look at the LS1 f-bods on the government mpg web site using the new rating system and you'll see the M6's suddenly drop to 26mpg hwy using current ratings. Look at the G8 boards and look what's happening when you lean them out. Most of the tuners are picking up 20-30 rwhp and 2-3 mpg. The new LS based cars are tuned VERY rich from the factory and have very restrictive timing based on temps. Changing these tables in the last couple of years as made for much more consistent and faster cars. There's also no free ride. You add weight with the heavier cars (no free rides when improving chassis strength, safety, and with IRS) and use more cubic inches, and you have the same mpg ratings, you've done something right. They did it right under the current rules (not the rules during the 4th gen development).

There is a lot left on the table and you'll see these cars running with the 4th gens, albeit less squeaks/rattles/safer/nicer materials and options.

Overall, I'd say they did a pretty good job for the current car development environment.

PorcaroZ28

Pacer and M1 have it right. A 2009 vehicle that goes 0-60 well below 5 seconds and the 1/4 mile around 13 flat while getting 23 mpg is impressive. Instead of rambling on about how bad of a job GM did and how dissapointed you are compare those numbers to the Mustang and Challenger aka the competition. Just stating that its slow or a inefficient is useless. I'm sure if the Camaro got 27mpg with 450 hp you would say that you expected 30mpg and 500 hp. I can not repeat it enough, compare this vehicle to the competition before you make comments. The point of a vehicle (or any product in a free market) is to be better and give the consumer more value than the competitiors. And that's exactly what the new Camaro does in my opinion.

93Phoenix

The 98 SS was rated by GM at 13.9 @ 105 I believe. So if you guys are claiming stock 109 traps. It's not unsafe to say these could trap 112 stock. Plenty enough for a 12 second run.

onebadponcho

All of what you said may be true.

HOWEVER, kiss your factory warranty goodbye if you mess with the tuning.

Vette Pro

I will reserve judgment on the MPG stats until some real world numbers can be supplied..you know the good ol fashioned way...I do not care how the Feds do it .. you devide the miles traveled by the gallons used to get there...I just did a 1700 mile trip on the Power Tour and got 27.42 MPG running 75 MPH with the A/C on...as to my world class Y2K Z28 ... I have seen a number of stock 4th gens run 108 and 109 in the quarter mile..I would not call my car a factory freak but it always has been a good running car...now with 164,000 + miles on it I call it a mericle of modern engineering..it has been run hard its whole life but maintained well ...aint no fun driving a hot rod slow......uses 1/2 quart of oil every 5,000 miles and has been a dailey driver its whole llfe...it has been one of the most reliable automobiles I have ever owned ... all I can say if the 5th gen is gonna be fat and have no improvment in performance and fuel economy it sure as hell needs to be a quality built car and be a good value for the yet to be determined price...I'm going to watch it and see if I want to own one in a year or so...I never buy first year cars no matter who builds them..I hope it is a succcess for GM because I am a GM guy...but so far I have been disapointed in the numbers that have been released. Maybe a test drive wil change my mind....if the Z28 comes to be produced it could change the mind of performance guys like myself.

Z28Wilson

You're right, in 1998 the LS1 Camaro set an unusually high bar.

Not completely defending the 5th Gen, but if the 2010 Camaro is playing in 1998, where exactly is the current Mustang GT?

TobyZ28

The times are like running the car with Traction control on However the 4.6 is pretty damn zippy for a mid 13 sec car , so I'm sorta confused.

I think the 4th gens were around 5.7 sec's 0-60.

Its safe to say that with that trap speed and that 0-60 we'ere looking at a SOLID 12 second car in reality.

99SilverSS

That was my point and I wanted our Ford friend to answer. I know the V6 Camaro was not tasked with a performance benchmark of the 350Z. Silence speaks volumes as usual…

PacerX

Again, if the Mustang GT is the performance standard anyone is aiming for, they're setting their sights AWFUL low.

Unless they're using the V6 to do it.

guionM

Lots of opportunities for reality checks on this thread.

Your "Bone Stock" Camaro (which was "tuned") ran a 12.9. A stock 2000 Camaro ran low to mid 13s.

Why would a Camaro need to be as quick as a 350Z?

Autos were quicker in LT1s and if I'm not mistaken, LS1 Camaros as well.


4th gens ran mid 13s. This one runs low 13s.

Using so called "Good Days" runs is useless. When comparing performance numbers, it must be done in as similar controled conditions as possible

Good memory.

Car & Driver (Jan 2005). 4.8 0-60, 13.3@107 for the Goat.

5.3 and 13.5@108. Camaro SS.

It's an all new car. If it doesn't come from GM Performance, you aren't likely to see much of anything that'll make a real difference for 2 or 3 years. Whole point is moot, though. Who's going to void the warranty after spending $30K+?


The 2010 Camaro SS car will embarrass a 4th gen LS1.

Motor Trend doesn't do neutral drops. Car and Driver does. Both Road and Track and Car and Driver have professional racers/former racers on their staff, Automobile Magazine uses pretty much the same acceleration test guidelines as Car & Driver.

You aren't likely to get the same acceleration numbers as Road and Track unless you are a damn good drag racer. You aren't likely to get the same results as Car and Driver unless you're willing to abuse the living daylights out your car. Motor Trend tends to get the slowest results in vehicle acceleration runs.

Saying car magazines "always" get slower results is untrue. If you run your car on a colder day, or with non-stock tires or even different tire pressue than reccomended, you can get different results than they do.


The test numbers are from General Motors test drivers, not Edmunds.

1997 LT4 Camaro SS: 0-60 5.5 seconds, quarter mile in 13.6 seconds.

EPA rated a LT1 Camaro at 15 & 24 mpg city/highway.
EPA rates a G8 GT at 15 & 24 mpg city/highway.

Then you realize that:

1. The G8 is 400 pounds heavier.
2. Produces more horsepower.
3. The G8's MPG ratings are based on a TOUGHER standard than the Camaro was.

The new Camaro is lighter than the G8 & has more horsepower than the G8.

Your claims and thinking on mileage & performance is in error.

Finally, there were only 100 that got the LT4 engine, so even though the performance isn't what you claimed, it still wouldn't exactly rank as a regular production car.


Name them.

Being that current LS3 Corvettes get high 12s, that prediction was a little unrealistic.

Problem is that the G8 GT isn't the Camaro. The G8's engine is basically the same as the V8 on automatic Camaros. The one in Camaro already has all the tricks and better breathing, essentially what you'd do to the G8.

The LS3 on the manual is identical to Corvette's (although rated at a insignificant 8 horsepower less). Unless you're talking supercharging, I'm not aware of too much you can do to the LS3 that will make much of a difference.

...And I can strap a jet engine to my roof and take on GT500s.

We're talking stock, off the showroom cars here. Not 10 year old cars with modified engines.

Well said.

Actually, in your case, it was GMMG (now Vengence Racing) engineering.

I'm guessing that not only has your engine been modified, it's also been torn apart and rebuilt in the modification process. Saying it has 164K miles, and not calling it a factory freak while in reality it's been modified is a bit dishonest.

PacerX

Oh, come on. Bro, if this thing can't crush 350Z's in a quarter mile then we have seriously lost our collective minds as a community as to what the hell the car was intended to do.

When the idea that a 350Z was brought up as a benchmark OF ANY TYPE for this car, that's precisely what I feared.

Here's another, very sad point about the whole deal:

Given the weight and size of the car, a 350Z is going to give it fits on a road course.

Ungood. Very, very ungood.



That wouldn't be my experience.



Late 4th gens ran low 13's. Clicked off three in a row in mine the first time tracking it, corrected, dead stock:

13.23 @ 107
13.14 @ 108
13.08 @ 108

Stock tires, stock paper filter, stock, stock, stock...

Clutched and lifted on every shift.




Not with that trap speed it won't.

108 mph traps were not factory freaks in the 2001-2002 M6 cars. Pretty much spot-on where an SS/WS6 would land with a capable driver clutching and lifting every shift.

If you're going with the idea that it'll launch harder on the IRS, I'd be willing to bet you as a gentleman a whole dozen doughnuts it wont.

Hey, but maybe they're fudging the number a bit. Nobody will truly know until somebody gets their hands on them.

The power to weight shown by the trap is basically identical. At best, it's a driver's race as long as the 2010 doesn't have wheel hop issues.

I will, however, be VERY VERY HAPPY to be wrong about all of the above.



Guy, mine was unmodded at the time.

His traps would certainly be out of the norm for a dead stock 2000 LS1 having the 2000 LS1 intake. The LS6 intake certainly resulted in more power.

skorpion317

There are plenty of people who will be modifying this car from the day they take delivery of it. Whether your modifications void the warranty depends on what you do.

My point was that the LS3 is a mild cam swap away from LS7-level power, for those who are worried that 422/400 HP and 408/395 lb./ft. of torque aren't enough (myself being one of them).

christianjax

Having some math problems here.
SS 6M weighs LESS, has a 345 gear, has MORE horse power, and does 0-60mph in 4.9
vs SS6A which weighs MORE, has 327 gear, and LESS horse power and goes to 60mph in 4.6??? Does that sound odd to anyone? Sure I understand the lost time shifting, but the power, weight, and gearing should overly compensate for that shouldn't it?

skorpion317

The 1st gear of the A6 is very low. It will accelerate very quickly.