Gt 5.0 vs 2017 Camaro 1LE

Sasuketr · Mar 27, 2017

02gtnh said:
Here is a video of the bad handeling Alpha chassis.:doh:

They even managed a lower time with the manual zl1 than a corvette grand sport. This is with a regular zl1, imagine the zl1 1le package!! If the outward visibility was not an issue, this car offers the best bang for the buck. However, i would really like to see whats around me on public roads before unleashing that 650 lbft of torque!

68fbjjz109 · Mar 27, 2017

thePill said:
Please understand, the design used on the Camaro6's engine cradle is that of a V6, simply widened. Don't listen to the media, they can be fooled with extra power quite easily.

It is clear just by observation that the ATS/Camaro's engine cradle is a little weak. Look at what the ATS-V did in that area... additional support. Yet the base SS removes all the critical structure that the ATS got up front and all the coupes metal in between the B-C pillars? Then they reduced the tire, reduced the brake, added more power at the same weight with a longer wheelbase. All built on the CTS's shrunken architecture that STILL shows where the rear doors were at...

Why does this cost more? Why include the CTS's sheer plate when they removed the ATS-V/Coupes V Brace for the cradle arms? Why didn't they beef up the sled runners?

Like I said, this design doesn't deserve 400hp behind it. The S197 was in fact a more rigid platform. Chevy would need to provide the torsional numbers before I believe any different. Even the smaller ATS was 3000-5000lbs under the S550... the '15 Mustang rivals the very short 991 911 in rigidity 30,000-32,000-ish depending on level.

Even at first glance you can tell the HUGE differences between S550 and Camaro6. Most of those differences are between the B-C Pillars (the torsional cross road) and the engine cradle/strut tower support. The Mustang is obviously an integrated modular design while the Camaro uses a scaled down and pieced together Sedan. The missing metal between the pillars and cradle was merely adopted in sub-par, sub-frame work like the 11 connector sets and the CTS's sheet plate... the S550 still has those parts, they are just integrating that into the inner structure (a lot in which is missing on the SS Camaro). The 1LE adopted the ZL1/Vert reinforcement and that is why they missed weight by 100lbs.

Some of that reinforcement was simply removed for the ZL1LE.

When sales get as low as thePill predicted, they axed the z28 (reported here) and merged the 1LE and ZL1 programs together (reported here). The ZL1 and 1LE essentially became the same car... nothing on a ZL1LE is on the SS 1LE package so... what exactly makes it a 1LE? Track capability? I thought the SS and ZL1 already were capable? A huge issue with marketing right? Wrong... it is internal panic to the Hellcat2 and '18 GT500.

Regardless what anyone believes, a 1LE is only equivalent to the GT. Although it has better equipment, all that is mitigated in Motorsport. As we see, ALL Camaro's require some major waivers in order to compete. The GT350 is an absolute animal, so insane that they introduced the CPC version because why inherit restrictions when they don't help the Camaro beat the 350?

As far as anyone is concerned, the 1LE is about the ONLY thing that has gone almost right for the 6th Gen. The weight was necessary and the Low MSRP drove the ZL1's MSRP up (ZL1 was the best selling HALO Pony) and it will never grab a crowd like the GT350 nor put an entire class to bed like in IMSA (RIP Factory Racing).

Clear by observation... No data. Got it. The Camaro cradle is slightly larger in the Y direction, and larger in X. That's not the media telling me. That's me looking at the components and measuring them.

The SS does not remove the sheer plate, that is the LS and LT trims. The SS I have at work most certainly has it. The only difference is the Camaro has a extruded aluminum beam (structure) behind the oil pan to package the V8.

Engine bay rails, and underside torque boxes are nearly identical. The wheel well torque boxes are much more robust in shape, and larger total area on the Camaro than the ATS or CTS.

So it hasn't lost any notable structure upfront. The Camaro as similar bolt in structure to the ATS V.

The Camaro is comparable in weight to the CTS IIHS used but crashes better in small overlap. That wheel house area is an enabler of that.

I would have to look again, however IIRC correctly the ATS and Camaro have more in common from a body perspective than Camaro and CTS.

This is what I can find online for the Alpha.

Cadillac ATS (2013 – ) 29,000 Nm/deg
Cadillac CTS (2014 – ) 26,800

No idea where it came from.

I have heard the Mustang is 27,500. Yes that is near the 911 arena. I guess you can bump the Mustang up to 29000 and some change with the 10% increase from it's bolt in shocktower to cowl brace.

However like all the above numbers I don't know what is included with that.

Bumper beams, cradles, Dash/IP beams ect. Who knows. I'll look up the numbers I have at work and see if they are similar. To be honest the CTS seems high. But we don't know how any of these cars where tested or on what type of rigs. So in some ways it's a moot point.

The SS Camaro I have has no other bolt in structure or X bracing or anything crazy running cross car like the convertible.

The inner C ring and rear seat kick up cross car structure is very robust on the Camaro.

The Mustang's inner C is less so, however has more continuity with roof bow. The Mustang kick cross car structure is equal to or slightly larger, however it has less of an organic flow into the B pillar.

I really don't see it Camaro being compromised due to the lack of a enclosed cavity. Generally it is nice to see something more akin to the Mustang. However there is s different strategy being used. You have to look at the entire vehicle as complementary system.

I am not sure what your trying to prove, I don't think the S550 is flawed, because it is kicking ass on the track. I don't think the Alpha is flawed either. However I think Ford is doing more with less.

If you have questions about the structure ask me. I am not shitting anyone on here I have a ton of info on them.

Camaro guys that goes for you too, PM away.

My point is neither of these car are shit boxes.

While the cars are seemed welded and caged, I don't think the multimatic cars are running a complete tower brace at all. So there is no reason doubt the S550. I just hope it we see more efficient panels, composites, and aluminum on the S650.

thePill · Mar 28, 2017

68fbjjz109 said:
Clear by observation... No data. Got it. The Camaro cradle is slightly larger in the Y direction, and larger in X. That's not the media telling me. That's me looking at the components and measuring them.

The SS does not remove the sheer plate, that is the LS and LT trims. The SS I have at work most certainly has it. The only difference is the Camaro has a extruded aluminum beam (structure) behind the oil pan to package the V8.

Engine bay rails, and underside torque boxes are nearly identical. The wheel well torque boxes are much more robust in shape, and larger total area on the Camaro than the ATS or CTS.

So it hasn't lost any notable structure upfront. The Camaro as similar bolt in structure to the ATS V.

The Camaro is comparable in weight to the CTS IIHS used but crashes better in small overlap. That wheel house area is an enabler of that.

I would have to look again, however IIRC correctly the ATS and Camaro have more in common from a body perspective than Camaro and CTS.

This is what I can find online for the Alpha.

Cadillac ATS (2013 – ) 29,000 Nm/deg
Cadillac CTS (2014 – ) 26,800

No idea where it came from.

I have heard the Mustang is 27,500. Yes that is near the 911 arena. I guess you can bump the Mustang up to 29000 and some change with the 10% increase from it's bolt in shocktower to cowl brace.

However like all the above numbers I don't know what is included with that.

Bumper beams, cradles, Dash/IP beams ect. Who knows. I'll look up the numbers I have at work and see if they are similar. To be honest the CTS seems high. But we don't know how any of these cars where tested or on what type of rigs. So in some ways it's a moot point.

The SS Camaro I have has no other bolt in structure or X bracing or anything crazy running cross car like the convertible.

The inner C ring and rear seat kick up cross car structure is very robust on the Camaro.

The Mustang's inner C is less so, however has more continuity with roof bow. The Mustang kick cross car structure is equal to or slightly larger, however it has less of an organic flow into the B pillar.

I really don't see it Camaro being compromised due to the lack of a enclosed cavity. Generally it is nice to see something more akin to the Mustang. However there is s different strategy being used. You have to look at the entire vehicle as complementary system.

I am not sure what your trying to prove, I don't think the S550 is flawed, because it is kicking ass on the track. I don't think the Alpha is flawed either. However I think Ford is doing more with less.

If you have questions about the structure ask me. I am not shitting anyone on here I have a ton of info on them.

Camaro guys that goes for you too, PM away.

My point is neither of these car are shit boxes.

While the cars are seemed welded and caged, I don't think the multimatic cars are running a complete tower brace at all. So there is no reason doubt the S550. I just hope it we see more efficient panels, composites, and aluminum on the S650.

As soon as we get Chevy to release the actual specifications in the Camaro, we will revisit the topic.

Understand that the only information I share with you is that in which Chevy has released a photo.

The Camaro had to undergo so pretty unique weight reduction. As we get pictures, we post them up.

Unfortunately, the Camaro's platform is less than that of the CTS and the Mustang surpassed the 30,000 mark. The Camaro is extremely flimsy and as time goes on, it gets worse. The Camaro is only about 3/4ths of what the Mustang is.

Think S197 with a longer wheelbase, zero support between the B/C pillar and using the T-Birds V6 cradle.

Trust me, as soon as I can provide the data, thePill will put this to rest. I can only share with you what is on the internet... the amount of metal actually removed from the ATS/CTS Platform to accommodate the Camaro is rather larger. I mean, we can see it missing.

As for the front cradle, please examine the construction. The Alphas front section was designed for a V6 or around 375lbs. Look at what the ATS-V needed to do in that area (yes, a naked diagram that shows additional bracing in front of the A pillar exist on the internet). It clearly shows additional "V" type support encompassing the entire area. Yet the Camaro didn't get this?

Why does this matter? In a topic about the 1LE it is very important. I don't think it's a secret thePill knows what's up, people can't guess that accurately, consecutively. The 3780-3820lbs SS that was intended for the masses was, as I said, striped and neutered at the last minute. I had always wondered how it would be used to their advantage.

This is very important because, what the current 1LE became is exactly what the next SS will be. They decided to cut the weight and thePill found out how they were doing this. Two major areas on the structure that we spoke about were striped. IF the 1LE needed to add in weight that otherwise was scheduled to be in the original SS, what does that potentially say about the current SS. In my opinion, especially after seeing one nude, this weight is coming to the base model soon.

The ZL1LE may have removed needed reinforcement in order to lose weight. I've seen them do this on the 2016 SS so it isn't an issue. But, anyone that deals with vehicle structures will tell you, a lot is missing. Most of the metal missing is from the "Inner Structure" and that is why it is less rigid than the CTS. The CTS kept the inner structure and avoided the noisy sub-frame gimmick. There are actual accounts of them removing triangulation that was built into the Alpha.

With a single picture, thePill can illustrate the great lengths Chevy took to remove metal or, in many cases, exclude required areas altogether.

thePill · Mar 28, 2017

The numbers you provided on the ATS/CTS are from GM. The S550 is more rigid than the ATS. When you do the math, don't use the rigidity from the 2005-'06 S197. The S197 finished in 2014 over 21,000 and was more rigid than the 5th Gen 18,000-ish. There were rigidity increases in 2007, 2010, 2011 and 2013. I believe the 18,000 is from the 2012 Camaro and after they upgraded to the FE4.

Chevy provided percentages BUT we cannot verify their numbers. Even still, at 20-30% increases from 18,000-ish?

The Mustang is between 29,000-33,000 depending on model. The Verts are only maybe 1/2.

Coyote Red · Mar 28, 2017

Mein Gott, what a thread.

Todd15Fastback · Mar 28, 2017

Childs Play said:
Claims numbers are made up...
...while making up more numbers.

Must be that Jersey shore logic.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

thePill · Mar 28, 2017

The 25% additional Torsional Rigidity that the ATS-V got over the base ATS WAS NOT RECEIVED IN THE CAMARO PRODUCT.

In fact, the Camaro's version of the Alpha is only about 75% of the base ATS coupes 29,000.

The Mustang EB/GT and GT350 are as rigid as the 991 911 line up (30,000-35,000)

The Camaro had to make due with some compromise and eliminating the inner structure was a big part of that. It also allowed them to move the weight down for a lower center of gravity because it is worse than Gen 5 at 21-22 inches.

I wouldn't buy any Camaro EXCEPT this 1LE. It is the only thing that has gone somewhat right since release.

JohnnyUtah · Mar 28, 2017

I just can't believe we're back on the weight topic... only now it's that the weight was indeed lost, but only at the cost of structural integrity. Something that no one here will be able to prove. Convenient.

Norm Peterson · Mar 28, 2017

I have to wonder how far past 20,000 Nm/deg chassis stiffness needs to go before you're into the land of diminishing returns with stock/stockish suspension ride and roll stiffnesses and street-worthy tires. ±10% on chassis stiffness when that's about an order of magnitude bigger than either suspension stiffness doesn't sound like it'd make much change in how responsive the chassis would be to tuning, or how much more/less twist would occur over the length of the chassis.

Norm

thePill · Mar 29, 2017

Norm Peterson said:
I have to wonder how far past 20,000 Nm/deg chassis stiffness needs to go before you're into the land of diminishing returns with stock/stockish suspension ride and roll stiffnesses and street-worthy tires. ±10% on chassis stiffness when that's about an order of magnitude bigger than either suspension stiffness doesn't sound like it'd make much change in how responsive the chassis would be to tuning, or how much more/less twist would occur over the length of the chassis.

Norm

So far Norm, manufacturers are still seeing returns over 35,000 on a 98 inch wheelbase.

When vehicles get as long as the Corvette/Mustang (107), they shouldn't be below 30,000 while supporting 400+hp.

At 20,000, everything needs a main loop at the B-C Pillar at a minimum (the torsional X-roads). As we see on the 6th Gen, the main hoop area is literally missing.

thePill · Mar 29, 2017

Norm Peterson said:
I have to wonder how far past 20,000 Nm/deg chassis stiffness needs to go before you're into the land of diminishing returns with stock/stockish suspension ride and roll stiffnesses and street-worthy tires. ±10% on chassis stiffness when that's about an order of magnitude bigger than either suspension stiffness doesn't sound like it'd make much change in how responsive the chassis would be to tuning, or how much more/less twist would occur over the length of the chassis.

Norm

...think of it this way.
In SCCA AS, you put a cage in a car w/ a torsional rigidity of 20,000-25,000 you get a 30,000lbs result.

You put a similar cage in an S550 at 30,000lbs and it just makes them 100lbs heavier.

Some vehicle (S197 and 5th/6th Gens) use a cage to their advantage, to the C7, S550 and 991's, it becomes additional weight gain from a safety feature.

Seceda91 · Mar 29, 2017

What da hail happened to my thread!?! Haha

DETLTU · Mar 29, 2017

Quick Recap:
The Pill says: no way the Camaro hits its weight reduction target
The Facts say: Camaro hits the target

The Pill says: The fact that the SS 1LE will be classed in FS shows it does not significantly outperform the GT
The Facts say: SS 1LE gets classed in AS

The Pill Says: They had to add the structural support they removed from the SS back into the SS 1LE and that is why they missed their weight target
The Facts say: No significant structural support was added to the 1LE and it actually didn’t miss its weight target (although I think you could certainly argue they were misleading with their wording).

The Pill says: The Zl1 1LE saves weight by removing the extra reinforcement thereby compromising it as a performance car.
The Facts say: The ZL1 1LE doesn’t remove any structure to achieve its weight savings.

The Pill says: It’s an embarrassment that the all of the published ZL1 times and performance figures are with the automatic. Just shows how far behind the manual car would be and how all performance improvements are because of the automatic.
The Facts say: Magazine tests show the auto and manual to be pretty close with the manual actually squeaking by a victory until they go back and “optimize” the tire pressure on the auto. Then the Camaro Team releases the Zl1 1LE in manual only.

The Pill says: The release of the ZL1 1LE in manual only shows there are serious heat issues with the A10 and it is unsuitable for the track.
The facts say: Not fully determined. The A10s are just reaching customer hands so we will know soon how they handle track duty. V6 and SS are manual only so it matches the theme. Could also be to avoiding weight back in to the car.

The Pill says: He has a flawless record at calling out GM and exposing their lies
The facts say….otherwise.:shrug:

Seceda91 · Mar 29, 2017

DETLTU said:
Quick Recap:
The Pill says: no way the Camaro hits its weight reduction target
The Facts say: Camaro hits the target

The Pill says: The fact that the SS 1LE will be classed in FS shows it does not significantly outperform the GT
The Facts say: SS 1LE gets classed in AS

The Pill Says: They had to add the structural support they removed from the SS back into the SS 1LE and that is why they missed their weight target
The Facts say: No significant structural support was added to the 1LE and it actually didn’t miss its weight target (although I think you could certainly argue they were misleading with their wording).

The Pill says: The Zl1 1LE saves weight by removing the extra reinforcement thereby compromising it as a performance car.
The Facts say: The ZL1 1LE doesn’t remove any structure to achieve its weight savings.

The Pill says: It’s an embarrassment that the all of the published ZL1 times and performance figures are with the automatic. Just shows how far behind the manual car would be and how all performance improvements are because of the automatic.
The Facts say: Magazine tests show the auto and manual to be pretty close with the manual actually squeaking by a victory until they go back and “optimize” the tire pressure on the auto. Then the Camaro Team releases the Zl1 1LE in manual only.

The Pill says: The release of the ZL1 1LE in manual only shows there are serious heat issues with the A10 and it is unsuitable for the track.
The facts say: Not fully determined. The A10s are just reaching customer hands so we will know soon how they handle track duty. V6 and SS are manual only so it matches the theme. Could also be to avoiding weight back in to the car.

The Pill says: He has a flawless record at calling out GM and exposing their lies
The facts say….otherwise.:shrug:

LMAO.

Don't you ever think... What if the Pill was right from the beginning?!

02gtnh · Mar 29, 2017

Seceda91 said:
LMAO.

Don't you ever think... What if the Pill was right from the beginning?!

:lol::lol::lol: List one on the list that you think he was right.

Gt 5.0 vs 2017 Camaro 1LE

Sasuketr

Well-Known Member

68fbjjz109

Well-Known Member

thePill

Camaro5's Most Wanted

thePill

Camaro5's Most Wanted

Coyote Red

Well-Known Member

Todd15Fastback

Well-Known Member

thePill

Camaro5's Most Wanted

JohnnyUtah

Well-Known Member

Norm Peterson

corner barstool sitter

thePill

Camaro5's Most Wanted

thePill

Camaro5's Most Wanted

Seceda91

Well-Known Member

DETLTU

Member

Seceda91

Well-Known Member

02gtnh

Well-Known Member