didnt the thirdgen do a .94 g ?

and by thirdgen i mean a 1982 on 60 series tires

 

A6 Corvettes are typically faster than M6's

 

I'm a re-posting fool, but here's my original guess on performance numbers for the M6 SS based on power-to-weight along with comparisons of other cars in the power-to-weight class of the Camaro. Not too far off and potentially attainable via good driver.


2010 SS Camaro

426 Hp (9.06 lb per Hp)
420 lb/ft (9.19 lb per lb/ft)
Weight: 3860 lbs 0.92-0.94 LatG(my est)
12.7@113 mph(my est) 4.4 - 60 mph (my est)
3.45 final gear(?) 52/48 f/r balance


2009 M3 BMW

414 Hp (8.93 lb per Hp)
295 lb/ft (12.54 lb per lb/ft)
Weight: 3700 lbs 0.93 LatG
12.6@113 mph 4.1 - 60 mph
3.15 final gear 50.8/49.2 f/r balance


2009 911 Carrera

345 Hp (9.62 lb per Hp)
288 lb/ft (11.52 lb per lb/ft)
Weight: 3320 lbs 0.93 LatG
12.5@113 mph 4.1 - 60 mph
3.44 final gear 38/62 f/r balance


2009 Nissan 370Z

332 Hp (10.2 lb per Hp)
270 lb/ft (12.5 lb per lb/ft)
Weight: 3373 lbs 0.97 LatG
13.5@106 mph 4.9 - 60 mph
3.69 final gear 55/45 f/r balance


2009 Ferrari California

453 Hp (8.49 lb per Hp)
358 lb/ft (10.75 lb per lb/ft)
Weight: 3850 lbs 0.95 LatG(est)
12.3@114 mph 3.9 - 60 mph
3.30-3.60(est) final gear 47/53 f/r balance

 

I got a problem with the braking of the SS at 123 ft. when the G8 GXP can do it in 117 ft. I understand being conservative with your statistics but come on! Also why does the SS have larger diameter brakes in the rear than the front? Isn't there more weight in the front of the car?

 

There sure is under hard braking.

 

I don't know about third gens, but a 4th gen LS1 Z28 did 0.87g.

Also, note that "greater than 0.90g" could actually be 0.94.

The SS has wider tires in the rear than in the front. There is more available traction back there, and therefore it can apply more braking force.

Where did you get the 117-foot figure for the GXP? If it didn't come from GM, it's pointless to compare them.

 

Well, IMO, 12.9 @ 111 is good for a ~3900 lb car, but not so good for a ~425 HP car . But I guess I'm in that very minority group, eh? Right now I have a car that has already run 12's @ 110, and handles & brakes really well, but when I can afford to, I'd like to buy a 5th-gen SS as well. I'm just curious what you think I'm missing out on? I still appreciate the new Camaro for what it is and what it offers, but I'm not blind to the fact that a lighter version of it would have provided more exceptional performance, that's all . Just think of what ~425 HP does for a 4th-gen, and that's what the 5th-gen could have had.

But alas, what's done is done, and at least we're still getting a 12-second car right from the factory (well, if you get the 6-speed that is ).

 

How about 12.6? You have to remember that GM's published times are always conservative. I'm betting that real-world times (in the hands of good drivers) will be closer to that.

Think of all of the things the 5th gen couldn't have had in order to be 500 pounds lighter. You know, like a flex-free body structure with 5-star crash ratings across the board and a modern, rattle-free interior, all for 30k.

We all understand the appeal of a 425hp 4th gen. Is that really what you wanted/expected GM to build? It sure seems that way. I don't think you realize how foolish or shortsighted that is.

I'm expecting that the auto will pull off 12.9s in the real world pretty easily.

All 5th generation Camaros have six-speed transmissions.

 

I sure hope so! I don't doubt that they (deliberately?) publish conservative numbers.

We all know the reason why the 5th-gen is as big as it is, and it's not because of "content" or "structure" . It's because it's built off of a big-sedan chassis, originally intended to be shared with a couple big sedans. Have we not already heard that the engineers would have designed the car to be smaller, if it were being built as its own car from day 1?

No, I'm not foolish or shortsighted, and I certainly didn't "expect" merely a higher HP version of the 4th-gen, but thanks for making that ***umption . I'm happy/satisfied/impressed that GM spent so much time & effort into designing a quality car in the 5th-gen. I hope it sets a new benchmark for GM, and for the industry. I had a chance to drive one briefly already, and it's remarkably smooth and quiet inside . BUT, it did NOT have to be so "big" . That may be my opinion, but the fact of the matter is that a smaller car would have been lighter ..... and yet, it still could have retained all of the quality and content that makes it the car that it is .

Sorry, I should have been more specific ..... the 6-speed manual .

 

Yes, why yes you are.

 

IF the Camaro had been 400lbs lighter, I seriously doubt that GM would have put 426hp under the hood. I think they would have put whatever they needed to meet a target performance figure. And the heavy 2010 Camaro meets the target.

 

I haven't driven one, but I've sat in one, and personally, I'm happy with the interior size. A smaller overall vehicle would have needed a smaller interior to retain the styling (which I love), and then it would feel small inside.

I think that if the platform had been designed with only Camaro in mind from the get-go, but with the same overall vehicle dimensions, they might have saved 100 pounds, but nowhere near 500.

I think the G8 is a great car, and I'm glad it exists. If Camaro had to be 100 pounds heavier in order for G8 to exist, that's OK by me.

 

Verdicts are in.

Count One: 4th gen LT1 versus 5th gen V6:

0-60: 6.1 (V6), 5.4 (LT1: Car & Driver 12/93), 5.8 (Motor Trend 6/93)
1/4 mile: 14.5@96 (V6), 14.1@101 (C&D 12/93), 14.4@97 (MT 6/93)

The LT1 is undoubtably quicker to 60 mph, but with manufacturer acceleration numbers almost always slightly conservative (to keep legally safe), quarter mile times between the LT1 and V6 Camaros might be a wash.

Count Two: 2010 Camaro SS vs 2005 GTO vs LS1 4th gen Camaro:

0-60: 4.7 (SS) 4.8 (GTO: C&D 1/05) 5.2 (Z28 C&D 2/99)
1/4 mile: 12.9@111 (SS) 13.3@107 (GTO C&D 1/05) 13.8@104 (C&D 2/99)

The new Camaro SS doesn't exactly lay new ground to 60 mph (An LS2 GTO will match it, and Motor Trend...of all magazines... managed to light off a 4.9 0-60 sprint from the new Mustang GT), but the new Camaro (with the manual)is pretty much a monster in the quarter mile. Although less than half a second separates it from a GTO, there is an easy full second between it and the 4th gen LS1 (MT's 2010 Mustang did a 13.5@104). The 13.2@105 times of the automatic Camaro SS, though slower, is still quite quick.



Summary:

The new 29 mpg Camaro V6 with it's LT1-like quarter mile times is absolutely remarkable. GM performed a minor miracle with this setup, and if there is no top speed limiter, this car can easily become the modern-day 5.0 LX Mustang, not only because it's similar in acceleration times.. It's cheap, quick, and it's only an axle change and a tune away from sub-6 second times. But the big item is.... by every account it's an absolute blast to drive!

The acceleration times of the new SS make for intresting runs to 60 against a wide range of cars (even a Nissan 370 Z will do it 4.7 seconds), so though extremely quick by traditional standards, isn't exceptional today. BUT.... the line gets alot shorter when it comes to stock quarter mile times. It wasn't that long ago that the cars that did the quarter over 110 stock was limited to the Dodge Viper and the Corvette Z06.

But be advised:
The 4.5 0-60 run and the 12.7 quarter of the old supercharged Cobra (assuming the one you happen upon at the stoplight still have the stock pulley) probably means you should keep your ego & overconfidence in check and probably shouldn't run against that Cobra (let alone the new GT500) for pink slips.

 

I have to agree with Capt. Pete. The times and trap speed is good for the race weight but not for what 426hp LS3 is capable of. But we've had this debate before and there is no winner.

I don't think GM's 12.9 @111 is very conservative. I think there will be a lot more 12 sec stock 2010 Camaro SS's than the LS1 4th Gens ever had but I don't really see a lot of 12.5's @115 from the average drivers on Saturday t'n't. Now I’m not saying there isn’t supreme potential with just a few mods as I think there is.
GM cares quite a bit more about the performance numbers of this car and isn't going to just throw some tongue in cheek mid 13 sec pass out to the press like they did with the LS1 cars. I think the goal was a 12 sec pass and they got it.

To go any faster they would start cutting into the very good fuel economy numbers and that's as far as that goes. It's a compromise all the way around.

IF the 5th Gen Camaro had been on its own coupe platform things would have been quite different in many aspects. But platforms are not cheap and even a much healthier GM in the early part of this decade decided against it so it was either this architecture or nothing. Case closed.

But no matter what the car weighed GM would have thrown their performance small block v8 into it regardless of power. Engines like platforms are expensive and so they wouldn't have spent money to detune a completed one from the Vette for a lighter car. It's a matter of cost plain and simple.

 

I think you've extrapolated a bit too far and far underestimate the LT1. I know it's posh to bash on the 275/285/305hp tried and true iron block LT1 but I assure you they will lay waste to the new V6 Camaro.

For those who have not visited a drag strip or much less from behind the wheel a .5 sec difference in ET is a bus length and your less fortunate opponent is solidly in your side rear view mirror.

-There should be a warning that "Objects at the drag strip are not as close as they appear!"

I'm by no means saying the V6 Camaro is a slouch but give the LT1 more credit. I think memory has made them seem slower than they were because of the advent of the alloy generation of small blocks.