Dragoneye

+1

Misunderstandings suck.

JakeRobb

You need to do a bit more research before you post next time.

In 2000, Camaro rear end gears went as follows:

V6 automatic cars got 3.08 gears.
V6 manual cars got 3.23 gears.
V8 automatic cars got 2.73 gears, with an option to upgrade to 3.23.
V8 manual cars got 3.42 gears.

So, your statement that 3.42 was optional and 3.08 was standard doesn't fit with any of the powertrain configurations available. I believe that's true for all 10 model years of 4th gens (93-02). It's definitely true for 2000. Here's the specs from GM.

My 2002 Z28 was rated 19/28 using the old standard. EPA updates are 17/26.Here's the window sticker. 2001 and 2002 LS1 cars got a different cam and intake manifold, hence the difference between your 2000 and mine.

The cars we've seen so far using the new 6L80E six-speed automatic don't have a super-low 6th gear like the 4th gen T56 does, so it's flawed logic to assume that it will improve fuel economy over the 4L60E. For example, it's 0.667:1 in the C6 Corvette. That's only 5% better than the 4th gen's 0.70:1 top gear, and nowhere near the 0.50:1 in the 4th gen T56.

/threadjack

Dragoneye

But those same 6L80 Corvettes have a 2.56 rear. That's a total ratio of 1.68:1. So wouldn't that make it a 12% improvment from the 4thgen auto setup?

JakeRobb

It would, assuming that the 5th gen Camaro gets a similarly low rear gear. G8 GT gets a 2.92 rear gear (presumably because it weighs so much more than a C6) with the same 0.67:1 ratio in 6th, and I think that's a better indicator of the gears we'll get in the Camaro.

G8 GXP supposedly gets a 3.23 rear gear and a 0.57:1 6th gear (that's a TR6060 manual, not the 6L80E).

HAZ-Matt

You are the one who needs to do more research. I owned that V6 for seven years and was / am active on the V6 boards.

To keep it simple... starting with the 3.8L which saw limited introduction in MY1995, the standard automatic rear end ratio in the V6s was 3.08 (RPO GU4) and standard rear end was 3.23 (GU5) in the M5s. They both were paired with an open diff. Option Y87 was introduced for MY1996, and on an automatic you received the Auburn LSD and 3.42s (which if you look at the RPOs listed on the vehicle are reflected as G80 and GU6). The gears were always 3.23s in the manuals. Additionally, you got 235 width tires, disk brakes all around, quicker steering ratio, and dual outlet exhaust.

For MY1998 all the cars were facelifted and the V6s had standard 4 wheel disks that were identical to the V8 cars, as well as revised spring rates that were identical to the V8s in the rear.

For MY1999 the LSD in Y87 was changed to the Torsen.

To make things more complicated, for MY2000 GM began producing V6 automatic cars optioned with 3.42 with and without LSD outside of the Y87 package. Mine was actually one of those cars and the window sticker reflected those as a NO CHARGE option, and so did the RPO stickers which clearly showed GU6 and G80.

No changes for MY2001 or MY2002.

If you don't want to believe me, here is a description of Y87 at the very least...

http://www.media.gm.com/division/che...ro/chassis.htm

You could also check out the faq at fullthrottlev6.com, except that since I wrote the bulk of it you might want to stick with the gm website or just google Y87.

Regarding the differences between the 01s and the 2000s, I am aware of the differences. My 2000 was a V6, the Formula is an 01 and was rated as yours was. I thought it most expedient to post the numbers from a single model year and picked 2000, which would be an easier target for the 5th anyway. It may have been slightly unclear when I just rambled about the fuel economy, but my Formula is listed in the sig as an 01. If you want to list all the differences, 01 LS1s had minor PCM OS differences, different injectors, No EGR (suppose that goes with revised intake manifold), and Z06 style clutch in the manuals. At any rate the rating difference between 2000 and 01 was fairly minor for all powertrains.

As far as the 6 speed auto goes, you are forgetting that the rear end ratios are drastically different than in the Fbody. In the Corvette, the standard ratio is 2.56 for the automatic. If you compare 2.56x.667=1.707,and the M6 Fbody numbers of 0.5x3.42=1.71, it is very similar. Overall wheel/tire diameter will modify that, but I would bet that the overally diameter will be larger on the 5th than on the 4th which will again reduce the RPM further at highway speed.

Z284ever

Let's face it. I can't imagine this car outdoing the mpg numbers of the 4th gen cars. In fact, at best it may match them.

Unfortunately, gas costs 3x as much now as it did in 2002 - most probably more than that by release time. Consumers are once again becoming very, very MPG literate and sensitive. Plus, the Feds will be breathing down everyone's neck with new CAFE standards.

Anyone see a problem here?

Weight will be this car's undoing way before cost ever is.

Dragoneye

Are you basing all of this under the assumption that the car will already be priced at a good level? Because if you are, trying to decide the priority of the two at this point is unfair. If we "know" that it will be priced well, then the only other thing one could logically complain about is the weight. That makes the results of this poll even more impressive to me. I think if this poll were taken 2 years ago, there'd be a landslide win of Price > weight.

Since we're assuming things. I don't have any doubts about the cars handling. Nor do I think it will be lacking in performance. I whole-heartedly believe Scott and the others when they say "class-leading". So the only other thing that 'normal' buyers would care about and weight could impact is fuel economy.(I also think that's part of the class-leading thing, too...)

But a lot of the fuel economy concerns could come from aerodynamics. In fact, we all know that at highway speeds weight has almost no influence on fuel economy. But what do manufacturers(ALL of them) flaunt? And therefore, which numbers does the average consumer compare? So while singing the should-coulda-woulda's about weight, and Zeta, why not hum about the exterior? It can't be nearly as aerodynamic as the 4thgens; so why wasn't it designed like a butter knife to get that 27-30mpg out of the V8?

Besides...who shops Camaro with the primary intent of finding a fuel-sipping econobox? Nobody I know of. But how many are comparing Camaro's fuel economy to that of its competitors? THAT'S where GM needs to win. Not fuel economy in the grand scheme of things, but fuel economy as compared to the Mustang and Challenger (maybe the Genesis). And I think they've done that...which is why I'm not worried about this weight thing as much as I could be.

I'm just having a real hard time seeing the importance of weight over cost like you do, Charlie...I think that cost will have more of an impact than weight EVER could. We all know that cost was one of the contributers to the 4thgen's demise. The Camaro was the better vehicle those years...at least 'better' by most of our standards here. But the Mustang was cheaper; and here we are...no Camaro for almost 7 years. Because of that history lesson, we all know that the Camaro MUST be priced within the very low thousands of a similar Mustang. If it's not, Camaro could weigh 3000lbs, get 35mpg and handle so well a BMW would blush; BUT it won't sell!! And that's the key. That's where the discussion of this poll is heading; which of the two impacts the car's sales the most?

Z284ever

Here's something else worth discussing....

The Camaro must be priced competitively. GM is in the Camaro business to make money. How profitable can a competitively priced Camaro be, if it's built on an architecture which had it's business case based on 400,000 annual units. And now most of those units are simply gone....

Actually, it may be cost which will eventually undo it, not so much at the consumer level, but at the production level.


BTW, you'd have to be hitting the sauce pretty hard, if you think a 3,000 lbs, 35 mpg, incredible handling Camaro, wouldn't sell like crazy, even at a premium over Mustang. Are you kidding me?

EDIT: I think Camaro isn't as price sensitive as everyone else seems to think it is. Sure, it needs to be in the ballpark. But during some of Camaro's best sales years, it cost SUBSTANTIALLY more than an equivalent Mustang. Google 3rd gen Camaro/Firebird.

Chewbacca

I keep seeing this in threads and it makes me wince.

Right up front, I'll freely admit that the car will likely handle well enough for at least 90% of the buyers. Many of these people never take their cars to the limit; as long as the car can take a corner at the posted legal limit, it handles "good" enough for them. That's fine, I have no issue with that. However, some of us want more from their cars.

Now then, let's stop with this nonsense that the new car will automatically be a better handler than the 4th gen (or 3rd gen) just because it is new. I'm willing to wager it won't. I'm fairly certain that if it comes in at the rumored weight, it is going to get killed in the corners.

How could anyone think otherwise if they know anything about what it takes to make a car perform?

Let's see...

1) 4th gen front suspension actually has a fairly good camber curve. The 5th gen will have almost NO camber curve due to the strut front end.

Advantage 4th gen

2) The 5th gen has IRS.

Advantage 5th gen on bumpy surfaces.

3) The 4th gen weighs 3400 -3500 lbs and runs on 245 - 275 width tires. According to what we've seen and heard, the 5th gen will weigh 3900 - 4100 lbs on the same size 245 - 275 tires.

Huge advantage 4th gen


Mustang went through this a few years ago with the supercharged / IRS Cobra. Those cars get crushed by lesser Mustang GTs in the corners. NOBODY seriously autocrosses the Cobra. Why? Because even with it's huge power advantage, it just can't sling it's bulk around using roughly the same size tire.

Class leading? I doubt it. I really do. The new Shelby GTs (NOT the GT500s) are laying waste to the SCCA SOLO F-Stock class. This class was owned by 3rd and 4th gen F-bodies for years. How will the new car be class leading if it can't corner as well as those old cars or the Shelby?

I REALLY want to like this car. I REALLY want to buy one. I REALLY think they nailed the styling and we all know what GM Powertrain can bring to the table. Problem is, I also REALLY like my cars to handle and I just don't see this car handling better than the old one. It just isn't going to happen gentlemen, as much as you and I would like it to. The older cars are going to eat these things alive in the corners. How can I justify buying a new $40K Z28 when I'll need to park in it favor of my 12 year old (and counting) car when I want to have some fun?

While I have absolutely no doubt that the 5th gen will be a great car, it could just as easily carry the Chevelle name (awesome styling, stunning straightline speed, middling cornering prowess, not really tossable) with a quick reskin. In my mind, that just isn't a Camaro and that's the reason for Charlie's (and others) angst with regard to weight / mass / bulk / size.

Price isn't really an issue for us so long as it doesn't encroach upon Corvette territory. We'd HAPPILY pay a premium for the car we want.

Capn Pete

While I agree with your logic (seems "common sense", right? ) I don't agree that the buying public sees things the same way .

Maybe Camaro had 1 or 2 "good years" (even while being priced higher than Mustang) but IMO (maybe somebody has hard figures to prove otherwise ) the Camaro died, in part, due to being priced higher than the "budget" Mustang . And I think it could kill it again .

..... even though I would pay a little more for the (more powerful, better handling) Camaro .

90rocz

Not that I believe the 5th gen will hit the 2-ton mark, cause I don't...but I've been reading about the G8GXP which will probably give clues to the Camaro's set up and performance, possibly...



This isn't 2002, and handling engineering has improved, so comparing a 4th gen to a 5th gen, to me, is apples to oranges.
I'm not gonna pass any more judgment until I see some solid testing and drive one.

Dragoneye

Capn' Pete answered for me. It's exactly what I would have said:

All the common consumer, the average V6 buyer (the one's who ultimately controls the fate of the car) is concerned with in the end, is the $$$. That 3000lbs Camaro isn't going to cost nearly as little as our 'portly' 5thgen. That's what I was trying to get at.
(I'm not convinced it's going to weigh 3900 lbs either, 90rocz...)

Then I think you REALLY need to wait and test drive one first.

I understand what you're saying...and I read all your points against the new car when compared to the 4thgen...but I can't fathom GM regressing with performance of this car. I don't care what advantages the 4thgen has over it. If the current Mustang is giving the 4thgen a rough time as other threads have been so kind to point out, then how can it be class leading, and NOT be a superior vehicle? And yes, I've taken that whole "class-leading" thing to heart.
(call it denial if you wish.....)

Chewbacca

How has engineering improved? How can we now design a 1/4 ton heavier car to corner harder than a lighter one while using the same size tire? What has changed? Honestly. I'd like to know so that I could somehow fold this knowledge into my car and crush everyone at the races.

Yes, the IRS will not be affected by mid corner bumps the way the older live axle was.

However, 5th gen is not going to gain camber like the 4th gen when the suspension compresses. That's fact. That's what a strut front end does. Loss of camber means loss of grip. The car then pushes like a dump truck. The loss of camber on a strut car can be minimized by running a bunch of static camber, a big front bar and heavy springs. However this will come at the expensive of tire wear and the comfy ride most desire. There's no 21st century engineering that will change this.

BMW uses a double ball joint setup on their strut front ends. This effectively makes the lower control arm appear "longer" to the spring, allowing them to run heavier springs (it also changes the steering arc of the front wheels, somehow improving the feel.... the details escape me at the moment). BMW has historically done light years better with shock/strut valving when compared to GM. These are two details that have never been seen on GM cars and are what allow BMW cars to ride nicely and handle even better. Will we see this on the 5th gen?

Even if we do, the newer BMW cars aren't as tossable or as "lively" as the old ones. I wonder if the added weight has something to with this?

You're right on one point though. Comparing 4th and 5th gens could be seen as apples and oranges. One is a fairly large pony car and the other can't honestly be described as a pony car.

Z284ever

I disagree Pete. You could buy 4th gens pretty cheap. But the cheap ones didn't sell. Any number of factors killed the Camaro. Price, IMO, wasn't even on the radar screen.

Z284ever

Me too. The notion that somehow, someway, excess weight will have little or no effect on Camaro's performance, handling, MPG, really borders on the insane.