Road and Track SS = LS3, Z28 = LSA etc.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,463
From: SoCal
Z28/LSA Dyno Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A little birdie dropped off a note today regarding the '10 Camaro Z28 with supercharged (1.9 TVS) 6.2L/LSA:
Quote:
The Z28 will also have 550+ HP that's underated. The dyno chart showed 520 RWHP 492 RWTQ. Changing a pulley and adding a tune & exhaust the thing had 615 RWHP and 602 RWTQ. They said that that was with a mid size pulley. They have smaller ones.
On the downside the car will weight at or over 4000lbs.
The SS is still going to be 430hp from a LS3 (3900lbs). It's gone 12.7@113 in testing."
more birdie talking here......
Z/28 posted up an 11.9@123mph. Then ran an 11.2@ undisclosed mph w/ a pulley and exhaust.
Also there's a "new" GN in the works. Still a V6 w/ a turbo. It might be a lightweight
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A little birdie dropped off a note today regarding the '10 Camaro Z28 with supercharged (1.9 TVS) 6.2L/LSA:
Quote:
The Z28 will also have 550+ HP that's underated. The dyno chart showed 520 RWHP 492 RWTQ. Changing a pulley and adding a tune & exhaust the thing had 615 RWHP and 602 RWTQ. They said that that was with a mid size pulley. They have smaller ones.
On the downside the car will weight at or over 4000lbs.
The SS is still going to be 430hp from a LS3 (3900lbs). It's gone 12.7@113 in testing."
more birdie talking here......
Z/28 posted up an 11.9@123mph. Then ran an 11.2@ undisclosed mph w/ a pulley and exhaust.
Also there's a "new" GN in the works. Still a V6 w/ a turbo. It might be a lightweight
Great numbers and big power from the Z28. Looks like the SS is running well too. What is your views?
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,705
From: Oakland, California
A little birdie dropped off a note today regarding the '10 Camaro Z28 with supercharged (1.9 TVS) 6.2L/LAS:
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
It would undoubtedly get better mpg...but would it really be more CAFE friendly?
How does this wheelbase-footprint thing effect mpg requirements? It's an honest question; supposedly smaller-wheelbase cars need to meet higher standards than their larger-wheelbase counterparts...I remember reading something about Porche being screwed becuase their teeny little cars would have to adhere to a ~40mpg standard. So would it make more sense to make a larger Camaro more effecient, instead of a smaller one?
How does this wheelbase-footprint thing effect mpg requirements? It's an honest question; supposedly smaller-wheelbase cars need to meet higher standards than their larger-wheelbase counterparts...I remember reading something about Porche being screwed becuase their teeny little cars would have to adhere to a ~40mpg standard. So would it make more sense to make a larger Camaro more effecient, instead of a smaller one?
Anyway, a smaller, lighter Camaro, might not necessarily have a much smaller footprint either, since the footprint is calculated by wheelbase and track.
As far as making the 5th gen more efficient, GM is on it. I wonder if there is much of a market for a two ton, 4 cylinder, Camaro though.
Junior Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 24
Isnt that the truth. The way gas prices are and everything else you wonder if its not DOA. Im really disappointed with the weight. This thing is a fatty. One of the reliable sources on the mustang boards have been saying what we were told in this thread for quite a while. I must say they were very accurate. Im not going to be the first inline anyway to be raped by a dealer so Ill just hang tight until the 11 mustang shows up and see what they have. So much for a 3600 lb car.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
Isnt that the truth. The way gas prices are and everything else you wonder if its not DOA. Im really disappointed with the weight. This thing is a fatty. One of the reliable sources on the mustang boards have been saying what we were told in this thread for quite a while. I must say they were very accurate. Im not going to be the first inline anyway to be raped by a dealer so Ill just hang tight until the 11 mustang shows up and see what they have. So much for a 3600 lb car.
But it's not fat, it just has big Zeta bones.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Early on, the Camaro team felt that they could re-engineer Zeta for Camaro, to come under that. That was the plan. I seriously doubt that GM would have gone with Zeta for the Camaro, if they knew it would come in at two tons. At least I'd like to think so.
Junior Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 24
3600 never seemed realistic to me either but a lot of the people drinking the gm kool aid kicked the number around a lot. I understand the problem with weight being built on the Zeta platform. Were there any other choices? These pony cars are just getting to big. The challenger is huge. I do hope Ford learns something from this. It would not bother me a bit to see a slightly smaller stang. I love the ls3 but Im going to look around when the time comes.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
