GT350 vs Camaro 1LE

[ohtobbad]

The best comparison is the 2 cars same day, same track, same driver.
a couple of tracks of different layouts even better.
Even then, some drivers excel in different types of cars, even pros.
Reality of it is, the biggest difference will never be seen by 98%
of people, as they don't have the skill to get the maximum out of any car.

Sponsored

 

[Norm Peterson]

Actually the gt350 makes more net torque everywhere. The gt350 is straight faster in acceleration. Just wanted to point that out.

You might find this graph useful (and I wish that something similar had been available for the turbo-4 comparison ). Looks like if the GT350 driver can keep the revs above 5500 he'll be fine, even at the weight disadvantage. Don't ever get caught below 3500 on corner exit.

Norm

 

[Sasuketr]

I dont know if this was posted!

http://www.motortrend.com/news/comparison-2015-bmw-m4-vs-2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss/

Looks like 1le will run circles around an m4! Its amazing how far chevy pushed the 6th gen camaro beyond the 5th gen. I wish Ford had done the same with the mustang gt!

 

[mustang_guy]

You might find this graph useful (and I wish that something similar had been available for the turbo-4 comparison ). Looks like if the GT350 driver can keep the revs above 5500 he'll be fine, even at the weight disadvantage. Don't ever get caught below 3500 on corner exit.

Norm

i havent personally mapped it out in graph format. But the net torque results ive seen look like this. That graph you shared looks like just dyno overlays.

 

[ZaneWayne]

i havent personally mapped it out in graph format. But the net torque results ive seen look like this. That graph you shared looks like just dyno overlays.

I am not arguing the math. But how does the Camaro beat the GT by 4 tenths and run virtually dead even with the 350 in the 1/4?

 

[ZaneWayne]

I dont know if this was posted!

http://www.motortrend.com/news/comparison-2015-bmw-m4-vs-2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss/

Looks like 1le will run circles around an m4! Its amazing how far chevy pushed the 6th gen camaro beyond the 5th gen. I wish Ford had done the same with the mustang gt!

Anyone who has driven the 6th gen will give the car its praises. Its a very good drivers car.

 

[Todd15Fastback]

I am not arguing the math. But how does the Camaro beat the GT by 4 tenths and run virtually dead even with the 350 in the 1/4?

Aren't the GT350's trapping 119-120? While the Camaro's are trapping 115-116? I haven't paid close attention but my memory could be off.

 

[cosmo]

I am not arguing the math. But how does the Camaro beat the GT by 4 tenths and run virtually dead even with the 350 in the 1/4?

The GT350 has massive tires in the front (resistance) more emphasis on downforce aero and venting (resistance) and that tall slope you see at the beginning of the powerband on the 350 leads to either bogging the engine or spinning. It's difficult to get a good launch.

If you look at the trap speed, it's more around 119 to the Camaro's 116.

 

[Sasuketr]

I am not arguing the math. But how does the Camaro beat the GT by 4 tenths and run virtually dead even with the 350 in the 1/4?

First of the y axis of the graph is pound force (energy) which is not a torque unit! Torque is ft.lbf or ft.lb foot pound force! We can go back to basics

 

[cosmo]

First of the y axis of the graph is pound force (energy) which is not a torque unit! Torque is ft.lbf or ft.lb foot pound fource! We can go back to basics

No, you have a few things mixed up.

lbf is force, not energy. Energy has the same units as torque (i.e. ft-lbs) but they are not equivalent and cannot be interchanged. Using lbf and the simple F=ma equation, you can find the acceleration of the vehicle.

 

[Donkey]

The biggest handicap for the gt350 in the 1/4 is easily it's gearing. If the rear end was swapped to a more ideal ratio it's 1/4 mile times would improve significantly imo. Just wasn't designed around that at all, unfortunately people always end up arguing against it.

 

[Norm Peterson]

i havent personally mapped it out in graph format. But the net torque results ive seen look like this. That graph you shared looks like just dyno overlays.

I see what you're getting at with your 'net torque' plots. I have a spreadsheet that does more or less the same thing with torque, tranny and axle gearing, tire radius, and "weight". "Weight" in parentheses because it also addresses rotational inertia effects. Been at it longer than you'd likely guess.

If I'm only comparing engines with reasonably similar rev limits, my first cut is to look at just what's coming out of the engine - essentially dyno overlays - because the shift points are going to be at similar road speeds. With significantly different rev limits, you have to consider gearing, and accept the likelihood of having to drive it differently (even your plots show the blue Camaro line above the red GT350 line down there at the bottom - which shouldn't matter except that there's always going to be those who can't accept "losing" a street challenge under any possible combination of circumstances . . . not even briefly).


Norm

 

[ZaneWayne]

Aren't the GT350's trapping 119-120? While the Camaro's are trapping 115-116? I haven't paid close attention but my memory could be off.

I have seen 120 for the 350 and I have seen 118 for the SS. If the HP is 60+ higher and he met torque is higher, shouldn't the 350's et be much better? On paper it shouldn't be close. And it is.
Then the GT's net torque is supposedly higher, and the HP is very close, but the Camaro beats it very easily. I just don't understand how?

 

[Norm Peterson]

I have seen 120 for the 350 and I have seen 118 for the SS. If the HP is 60+ higher and he met torque is higher, shouldn't the 350's et be much better? On paper it shouldn't be close. And it is.
Then the GT's net torque is supposedly higher, and the HP is very close, but the Camaro beats it very easily. I just don't understand how?

If everything else about the two cars was identical, it wouldn't be as close. But there are differences that matter, launch difficulties being one, and weight likely being another. The GT350 was NOT optimized for the drag strip; it's a car for those of us who like our tracks to have lots of different corners. And we're only guessing at this point that the 1LE will match the SS Camaro at the dragstrip . . . and there is certainly the chance that it will not.


Norm

 

[1320']

I have seen 120 for the 350 and I have seen 118 for the SS. If the HP is 60+ higher and he met torque is higher, shouldn't the 350's et be much better? On paper it shouldn't be close. And it is.
Then the GT's net torque is supposedly higher, and the HP is very close, but the Camaro beats it very easily. I just don't understand how?

ET is traction dependent, trap MPH is a better indication of relative power levels getting put to the ground.

Also, 118 is quite high for the SS, haven't more runs been seen in the 113-115 range?

Sponsored