Bob Cosby

So does that mean I *should* expect Corvette performance at Camaro prices?

RussStang

A standard M6 C5 is very capable of putting down over 300rwhp. The IRS may be more parasitic, but it isn't that much more. A stock C5 versus a stock LS1 fbody would be a good race, but the C5 gets the edge dude. It simply comes down to weight. Vettes launch well, in spite of their IRS, and fbodies, although they don't launch badly, are not rocket ships out of the hole. The Vettes have power to weight on their sides. I have seen timeslips of stock C5s running 12.7s and 12.8s. Not much out of an fbodies league, but it is still quicker.


The Vette that got dusted on the road course was a Z51, and it was all in the tires. I don't recall what the 1LE SS was wearing, but I do remember they were some damn sticky tires. Not R compound sticky, but not far from it. The Vette was on the stock suckflats. Not a fair matchup.

Robert_Nashville

It's nice to have Scott's actual quotes, thanks.

Let’s recap…

The initial statement was a VERY broad…
You’ll note there was no mention of model years or specific models of fourth generation F-bodies which would seem to imply that any fourth-generation F-Body could outperform any Corvette; at least during the model years both were being produced which I guess would cover ’94-’02?

The next statement was…
This statement is a bit more qualified; apparently limiting it to the years of the SS/WS6 availability; still quite a length of time; but then the last part of the statement once again seems to imply wider application than just SS/WS6.

At any rate, now we seem to be down to just the ’99 and perhaps ’00 model years and just the SS (and perhaps WS6) cars and either one or perhaps two road courses (from the quotes, it’s unclear to me just how many times the two vehicles were actually tested).

So what, exactly, is that supposed to show?

Are we supposed to assume that that because a/the ‘99/’00 SS Camaro was apparently faster on a road course (maybe two) and perhaps somewhat stock (except perhaps for tires) we should always expect Corvette performance from any F-Body (at least any F-Body with the best engine option)? Somehow I doubt that is a good assumption to make.

While I can’t comment specifically on straight-line acceleration measures (0-60/0-100/quarter-mile, etc. as I said earlier, if the SS/WS6 (of whatever year) was consistently faster than a C5 there ought to be many, many verifiable, published and independent examples to support that. I haven’t seen them and what listings I have found consistently show the C5 as a hair or two faster than an SS.

As far as handling, the SCCA doesn’t think the SS was the equal of the C5 and there have been many thousands of opportunities for the SS to prove them wrong – that hasn’t happened.

So where does that leave us?

The overall assertion seems to be that the top dog F-body has/should/will exceed base Corvette performance (exact categories of performance unspecified)…I just don’t see that as a realistic expectation.

As already said, one model year here and there, in one performance measurement or another once in a while…sure, it has happened and likely will happen again. But, as a generalization across many model years (past or future); I say no.

QATransAm

Yes that and the fact that i've said A4 from the beginning, visit ls1tech sometime, guys are not going to lie and say they're on the low side.

thank you

Not at 3800lbs

Fact...they're right on par with each other in everything!

Point i was trying to make from the very beginning...gone are the days when the stock Camaro scares a stock Vette...we can argue tenths of a second all day, and the simple fact that we are proves those cars are extremely close in performance.

#1 thing i was trying to say....it will not happen with the 5th gen, if 600lbs difference has to be overcome.

Robert_Nashville

I don't believe I or anyone else in this thread ever said they weren't close but that wasn't the initial assertion!

At any rate, "close" doesn't win road course events; "close" doesn't win autocross events and "close" doesn't win quarter mile events.

However, no question that the cars are "close" but close isnt' equal.

QATransAm

unreal The intial assertion was what it was, and i said it! I believe it, and you don't oh well life goes on.

TOO Z MAXX

Just a little history on autox. The SS Camaro was classed in SS, which also where the C5 Vette was placed. That later changed and the SS was moved to A stock. Someone at SCCA must have thought the SS was a challenge for the C5.

Chewbacca

Or they found the SS / WS6 was getting killed in Super Stock. Funny thing is, it really isn't much more competitive in A Stock.

Incidentally, it looks like the SS / WS6 cars are going to F Stock next year. Is that because they have been too much of a challenge for the C4s, S2000s and rally cars in A Stock?

Eric Bryant

My understanding is that this was due less to the performance (perceived or real) of the SS, and more due to the difficulty of documenting the parts content of the SLP cars.

Keep in mind that the SLP cars had great tires from the factory; that's going to be a huge factor when comparing the performance of these cars to other bone-stock vehicles of the day, and is likely the reason for Scott's claims of C5-besting lap times. Now, put all of these various cars in SoloII and on the stickiest DOT rubber available, and the game is going to change.

Let's also not forget that SoloII is a far different game than cutting fast laps on a roadcourse.

Robert_Nashville

Ok...well maybe you need to go back and read what has been written…your memory is getting very selective.

This started when I said…To which you replied…In reply, I said…You then said…Now you are saying that your initial assertion was only that is was close; not that the SS (even though you kept throwing in “Forth-gen”) was the equal of or even better than…just “close”.

Fine…whatever…we’ll just forget everything else you actually said and we’ll just believe now that you were only saying they were close.

Robert_Nashville

I don’t have every rule book form every year in front of me but I’m fairly certain that at least for the late ‘90’s through the 2005 seasons, the SS Camaro was in B-Stock then later (2004 I think) moved to A-Stock; all C5s were in Super Stock; the C4s in A-Stock.

SCCA puts cars, especially a new design, where it seems to make the most sense based on what they know, what they've tested and then based on the vehicles performance at events. As the cars actually compete, if they, for example, consistently find one “A-stock” classed car beating up on every other “A-stock” chars they’ll make an adjustment.

All that said, to the best of my knowledge, the SS Camaro and a C5 were never in the same Solo2 class at the same time although they may well have occupied the same class during different seasons.

If someone has a 1999 and 2000 rule book handy (which seems to be the “years” the SS beat the C5 per Scott) it would be nice to know for certain.

As Eric Bryant pointed out, fast laps on a road course and solo2 are different animals; HP/Tq can cover some handling "sins" on a road course that can't be covered up on a solo2 course. However, solo2 has a way of humbling cars that are supposed to be "great performance" cars and, I think, serve as a good way to evealuate a car's capabilities.

Chewbacca

That would have been before I entered the sport in '03. I've only known the "specialty" F cars to be in A Stock. How did they get bumped out of B Stock? Seems they would have taken a pounding there as well.

I thought you said you've autocrossed for a long time?


Agreed.

67 LS-1 & T-56

We sure are spending alot of time agonizing over this weight issue aren't we?

I for one plan on buying a 5th gen even if it comes in at GTO weight. I'm a die hard Camaro fan, and my loyalty isn't going to die because of a couple of pounds here or there, plus I'm confident that I could probably jettison about 100 lbs from the car if I decide its too much of a pig. Plus I could stand to lose about 20 lbs myself.

That being said, I wonder if any the super advanced technology in this article will make its way to any GM cars other than the volt? And if so how much weight could be saved on the 5th gen and other cars if so employed: http://www.geplastics.com/gep/en/New...eakingnew.html

QATransAm

Can you read? you qouted the first thing i said, close was no where to be found. Like i said, we disagree, you're not going to change my mind so how about we just let it go at that.


Back to point
5th gen(LS3)3500lbs
5th gen 3800lbs
All there is to it

guionM

Basically you're saying "If you don't agree with me, then you have no intention of buying one".

With all respect due to a fellow Camaro enthuisiast, this seems to be dangerously skirting the definition of arrogance to me. This not only discounts the people working on the car, but also takes the authority to dictate decisions and priorities on people... The "You're with me and believe what I believe or you're a heritic" stance. In this instance, an especially vunerable & undefendable position when that position is supported more by a arbitrary number and examples that either are flawed (high priced or lower powered or 2 seat cars) or nonexistent (low priced, IRS, RWD, 4-500hp, 2009MY government compliant) vehicles.

I think Robert pegs the 2 camps better:

I also appricaiate comments like these:



Everyone wants the lightest weight, most powerful, best made Camaro that can possibly be done. Most everyone remembers all the frustrations and politicing it took to get the new Camaro to even see the prospect of returning. Most all here realize that GM has their back to the wall (as do ALL automakers) to get fuel economy up and in the performance car market, get performance (including handling) better than any competitor. But it all has to be done at a price that will sell in very large quanities to the general public... who simply are NOT going to buy the $2000 more expensive car simply because it weighs 100 or 200 pounds less than the competition or some magic number.

It's the general public that's making our car possible, not the other way around. I also think everyone here wants the Camaro to be around long enough for a 6th or 7th generation. Also, with new CAFE standards and this possible "Alpha" chassis and high powered V6s, future generations of Camaros will no doubt be lighter and probally smaller.

But by then, there will likely be something else to demand under threat of not buying one.


Actually, the 5th gen is about 4" shorter thna the 4th gen.