Guess what? Motortrend favors the Camaro again

[Norm Peterson]

...there is what MT can measure, then there is what makes a great car. No matter what they might say about the 1LE Camaro, it's not track ready, don't believe me, go over to Camaro 6 and check out all the suspension mod people are putting on. To be tops at each track the suspension must be modified, heck it must be modified depending on the temperature.

There is a difference between track-ready, as in HPDE, and race-ready, as in time trialing, wheel-to-wheel, and even autocrossing (typically in the classes allowing higher levels of modification).

I make exactly two kinds of 'adjustments' when I get to the track, those being tire pressures and damper settings. That's it. Now I have brought my car up in many respects to what a PP2-level package for the S197 might have been (a little shy in one respect, a bit beyond in another, clearly beyond in terms of brake pad compound), but that's exactly the way I have daily-driven it, and it's the way I would have spec'ed it if it had been possible to do so way back in 2008.

Basing the winner of these cars on track times is pointless. Why do I say that? first of all SS 1LE's make up about 4% of Camaro's on the road, so they aren't even evaluating the Camaro you'll likely ever see.

What the other 96% might think about their car, about a 1LE, or about whatever I might be driving means nothing here.

Actually, track times are loosely indicative of how composed and how easy a given car is to drive "enthusiastically", when "enthusiastically" includes a few corners. Composure is something that can be noticed, though you might have to get out a bit beyond most folks' comfort zones for it to be readily apparent.


Supercharging and trucks/SUVs have no place in this discussion.


Norm

Sponsored

 

[JohnnyUtah]

No matter what they might say about the 1LE Camaro, it's not track ready

Wrong. I've been tracking cars for many years. The SS 1LE is ready out of the box. Brake fluid change for safety's sake is all that is really needed.

I crushed my previous personal bests my first session out with the car. No track pad change, no tire changes, no suspension mods.

It is as arrive and drive as it can get. It's fast and is at a great price point.

You are out of your mind.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Basing the winner of these cars on track times is pointless.

The acceleration comparisons were essentially a wash, and the only other big differences were in braking distance and figure 8 g's. How would you have picked a performance winner?

Do you have a lap time of your own to share, so that we might have some basis for understanding your position a little better? The one about lap times being pointless as an indication of anything?


Norm

 

[thehunterooo]

MT is garbage;
MT and C&D still pick truck of the year based on handling and 0-60 times, in other words they have no idea what makes a good truck. For example they also believe big wheels are a great idea for a 4x4, and they honestly believe no one ever takes a 4x4 off road. The same goes with the pony car segment; there is what MT can measure, then there is what makes a great car. No matter what they might say about the 1LE Camaro, it's not track ready, don't believe me, go over to Camaro 6 and check out all the suspension mod people are putting on. To be tops at each track the suspension must be modified, heck it must be modified depending on the temperature. So whether you buy a Mustang or Camaro if the suspension isn't set up for quick adjustments AND the fastest time is all you care about then you'll be heavily modifying either one. If you just want to have a good time; A Mustang GT will deliver just as well as the Camaro, best? IMO that is people that only dream of these cars worry about, once you own one, that kinda falls away, and it's because you realize you can do whatever you want with that car, it's not even that expensive to do.
Basing the winner of these cars on track times is pointless. Why do I say that? first of all SS 1LE's make up about 4% of Camaro's on the road, so they aren't even evaluating the Camaro you'll likely ever see. Perhaps MT and C&D would prefer it if we were all tracking our cars, however I'll leave that to the pros. A Mustang is a GT, and ought to be evaluated as such, frankly I'd prefer the next generation Mustang have a non-fastback version so my rear passengers have a bit more head room. Ford ought to win that competition outright; they lead that segment. GM nor FCA had a supercharged engine until Ford did it. Guess what for all the heralding of the Chevy small block, it's now clear GM is going to replace it in, at the very least the Camaro and Corvette with a DOHC V8, to be specific a 5.5L DOHC that may even be a FPC engine. Once again GM is following Ford, other than the Ford the FCA deserves credit for the success of the Challenger, which may well outsell the Camaro this year.

Please don’t get the trolls ammo they are already super toxic as it is they will say we all think this.....

 

[TheLion]

We can debate 1PP vs 2SS or 2PP vs 1LE, but until the 2PP is put up against a 1LE the Camaro is the better performing car. The rest is speculation.

I personally would be very surprised if a 2PP beats a 1LE at the track. I felt the 2SS I drove to be the better drivers car to the 1PP. The Camaro makes noticebly more troque down low as well. I just much prefer Mustang styling.

You do realize that low end torque is nearly meaningless in terms of acceleration? You can feel the initial pulse of torque as that surge, but power is what keeps you pulled back in the seat because power is what accelerates.

Yes power is a function of torque and RPM. But you need RPM to make torque useful. Torque lines on a dyno show instantaneous torque at that RPM, not he sum of the torque pulses applied over time unlike the power plot which is accounting for the effects of RPM. So even though torque falls off at higher RPM, the number of times it is applied increases at a rate faster than the peak of each pulse falls (until it falls so fast that power begins to drop as well).

What matters is power. Power is work being done. Think of torque as a Pulse Width Modulation (Square Wave) of force. At the lower and mid rev ranges for example, the LS 6.2 makes quite a bit more torque than a Gen 2 Coyote like I have in my 2016, nearly 70~80 ft-lbs in some areas. Yet that nets only 15~25 hp in the lower RPM ranges. You need a massive increase in torque to get a little increase in power. But in the upper RPM ranges, a little increase in torque results in a substantial increase in power. The Honda S2000 is a great example of this concept, it makes only a peak torque of 130 ft-lbs tot he wheels, pitiful. Yet it can run as fast as a 14.0~13.8 bone stock. That's because it revs to 9,000 RPM! Aka a big motor cycle engine.

The LS 6.2's torque falls off fast however once you start approaching 6k and by 6500 RPM the 5.0L Coyote makes the same torque. HOWEVER, the 5.0 can rev 500 RPM higher. So while it's power band has a lower Peak (20 hp), it has a longer breadth. That means it can do a high amount of work in the same gear for a longer time than the LS can. So it's higher rev range makes up for it's lower peak. What matter is the total area under the curve, not the peak.

I took the time to use Riemann sums to integrate some common dynos of a stock 2015 GT PP 6M and a stock 2016 1SS 6M both done on dyno jet dynos and SAE corrected. Dyno Jet specs a 1% accuracy deviation from dyno to dno, pretty darn good. SAE correction factors are very good at giving you comparable numbers, but the weather readings were similar enough as is. The resolution of the Riemann sums were every 250 RPM.

The 5.0L coyote came out at 2% more total power from 2500 RPM to 7000 RPM than the 6.2L LS did from 2500 RPM to 6500 RPM. Neither car makes a meaningful amount of power much below 2000~2500 RPM, they become very close, with a few HP of each other. So if I integrated from 1000 RPM to the max it would result in the same. Most are not going to launch or use the rev range below that anyway so it's irrelevant.

Also don't forget you can't simply rev up the LS 6.2 either without internal mods, where the Gen 2 Coyote uses the internals from the 5.0 Road Runner (Boss 302) valve springs, rods, crank, valves. Higher rev range, when not designed for it causes issues with valve float and rod / bearing damage, good way to throw a rod or burn up the valves / exhaust is to over rev an engine. You'd need to go with aftermarket rotating assembly in the LS to rev it up. That's why FP can offer a PP3 where the RPM range is extended to go to 7450 and it just keeps making power all the way up. The 5.0 was designed to rev out, but they went conservative at the factory, probably to keep enough distance from the GT350 and due to pushing the new engine to market quickly in the S550 chassis.

That's another 450 RPM with an addition 37 HP peak that holds all the way out. I integrated the Moto IQ dyno graphs for a PP3 GT and it was about 13% to 15% more total power than a stock LS 6.2. RPM's matter, that's why the fastest cars in the world, formula cars, utilize low torque / high RPM engines because that's the best way to make a lot of usable power and allows you to stay in a lower gear longer. They are using engine designs that provide the most area under the curve, not the highest peaks. GM uses the 6.2 because that's what their tooling and factories have been set up for. Ford utilizes the 5.0 displacement becuase they were tooled up for the 4.6 modular throughout the 80's, 90's and 2000's. Two different ways to make power, but I will say the LS is less prone to problems, it's simply less complex!

Now there is some error in the dynos. So if the 5.0 dynos are favorable and the 6.2LS dynos are unfavorable, then they would at best be nearly identical given the error tolerances stock to stock. So it's not a power problem as to why the SS is the faster car as the strip and track. It's suspension and gearing.

The SS gearing is where the biggest difference comes in for drag and why the 2018 GT 10A is almost a full second faster than a 2015~2016 GT PP 6M. Both the PP GT 6M and SS 6M have a 3.73 final drive and 19" wheels with nearly identical roll out (27.7 vs. 27.5, which has almost no meaningful impact on final drive). But 1st in the SS is 2.66 and 1.78 for 2nd where the GT is 3.657 in 1st and the 2nd is 2.43. 1st gear in the SS is nearly as tall as 2nd gear in the GT!

Simply put Ford's gearing in the GT PP is not ideal for drag racing. It works better for the track where you would use 2nd and 3rd, possibly 4th or even 5th on large tracks. The SS would be using 1st and 2nd on short tracks, it hits 54 mph in 1st, 80 mph in 2nd and 110 in 3rd. The GT PP hits 115 in 4th by comparison! 1st gear is too short to be optimal for any sort of racing (drag or track), you can't put the full power down so your wasting time running the engine at reduced throttle. Your always going to be slower than an SS. Don't even get me started on Ford's suspension tuning and their excessive use of rubber isolators in the rear suspension. The front end is tight (sans some aero down force), but the rear end on the S550 is atrociously all over the place and likely the primary reason it feels so floaty. PP cars are better than a base GT, but PP options don't address the primary causes. That's why my mods so far are going to be focused purely on tightening up the rear end so I can see what the car could do if it at least had a more truly performance oriented suspension setup. A good starting place is to use the parts in the FP Track Pack (even if you do your own, you can modify the same sets of components as competitors also make their versions).

All the above explains why the S550 isn't really much difference than the SS once you go after market. The S550 becomes just another flavor. But stock to stock they are night and day difference in handling and driving regarding performance the SS is simply the better car as it comes stock. That doesn't meant he GT is a bad car, compared to all the other cars on the market it's darn good. The SS is just exception from the factory and it's only due to the recent Alpha + LS 6.2 vett engine implementation. 2010's to 2015 SS's are a far cry from the 2016~2018's.

I believe the magic in the latest alpha SS comes in it's suspension and gearing, not it's power output or weight (base GT is 3705, base SS is 3685). Same for the track. Their gearing works, it's very optimal at maximizing power usage of the LS 6.2's available power. That's what racing is, efficiency. Making the most of everything you have at your disposal. Bigger is NOT always better. Why do you think the Tesla Gen 2 Roadster that's coming out (or is out) is faster than any petrol chemical car on the market PERIOD? 1.9 S 0-60....electric motor can hold torque and rev to 14,000+ RPM, making HUGE power. There's no gearing losses other than the final drive, no shifting etc.

That's why the 10A 2018 GT's run high 11's (best cases). Because the 10A is keeping the Gen 3 Coyote in it's peak power band more often. That's also why the 10A GT beat the 2018 SS in a top speed run by 8 mph and over 4 car length's. It's making the same peak power as the LS but for a longer time and is kept in that power range more of the time. It's also why I've been suggesting we take some time to try 2nd gear launches on 6M GT PP cars. 2nd in a GT PP 6M is a bit taller than 1st in the SS, but not by much...it's almost as if you could get rid of 1st in a PP GT and you'd have a slightly taller geared SS....running 4.10's and using 2nd as 1st in a GT PP would be literally almost identical to a stock SS....very interesting, I think GM is on to something. Ford has been building comparable and is now (for 2018) building more powerful engines than GM, but until the 10A tranny in the 2018's, they haven't been using it as effectively.

GT PP: 1st = 3.657, 2nd = 2.430, 3rd = 1.686, 4th = 1.315, 5th = 1.000
SS: _____________1st = 2.660, 2nd = 1.780,3rd = 1.300, 4th = 1.000, 5th = 0.740

 

[B4Sunrise]

Correction

You do realize that low end torque is nearly meaningless in terms of acceleration? You can feel the initial pulse of torque as that surge, but power is what keeps you pulled back in the seat because power is what accelerates.

Yes power is a function of torque and RPM. But you need RPM to make torque useful. Torque lines on a dyno show instantaneous torque at that RPM, not he sum of the torque pulses applied over time unlike the power plot which is accounting for the effects of RPM. So even though torque falls off at higher RPM, the number of times it is applied increases at a rate faster than the peak of each pulse falls (until it falls so fast that power begins to drop as well).

What matters is power. Power is work being done. Think of torque as a Pulse Width Modulation (Square Wave) of force. At the lower and mid rev ranges for example, the LS 6.2 makes quite a bit more torque than a Gen 2 Coyote like I have in my 2016, nearly 70~80 ft-lbs in some areas. Yet that nets only 15~25 hp in the lower RPM ranges. You need a massive increase in torque to get a little increase in power. But in the upper RPM ranges, a little increase in torque results in a substantial increase in power. The Honda S2000 is a great example of this concept, it makes only a peak torque of 130 ft-lbs tot he wheels, pitiful. Yet it can run as fast as a 14.0~13.8 bone stock. That's because it revs to 9,000 RPM! Aka a big motor cycle engine.

The LS 6.2's torque falls off fast however once you start approaching 6k and by 6500 RPM the 5.0L Coyote makes the same torque. HOWEVER, the 5.0 can rev 500 RPM higher. So while it's power band has a lower Peak (20 hp), it has a longer breadth. That means it can do a high amount of work in the same gear for a longer time than the LS can. So it's higher rev range makes up for it's lower peak. What matter is the total area under the curve, not the peak.

I took the time to use Riemann sums to integrate some common dynos of a stock 2015 GT PP 6M and a stock 2016 1SS 6M both done on dyno jet dynos and SAE corrected. Dyno Jet specs a 1% accuracy deviation from dyno to dno, pretty darn good. SAE correction factors are very good at giving you comparable numbers, but the weather readings were similar enough as is. The resolution of the Riemann sums were every 250 RPM.

The 5.0L coyote came out at 2% more total power from 2500 RPM to 7000 RPM than the 6.2L LS did from 2500 RPM to 6500 RPM. Neither car makes a meaningful amount of power much below 2000~2500 RPM, they become very close, with a few HP of each other. So if I integrated from 1000 RPM to the max it would result in the same. Most are not going to launch or use the rev range below that anyway so it's irrelevant.

Also don't forget you can't simply rev up the LS 6.2 either without internal mods, where the Gen 2 Coyote uses the internals from the 5.0 Road Runner (Boss 302) valve springs, rods, crank, valves. Higher rev range, when not designed for it causes issues with valve float and rod / bearing damage, good way to throw a rod or burn up the valves / exhaust is to over rev an engine. You'd need to go with aftermarket rotating assembly in the LS to rev it up. That's why FP can offer a PP3 where the RPM range is extended to go to 7450 and it just keeps making power all the way up. The 5.0 was designed to rev out, but they went conservative at the factory, probably to keep enough distance from the GT350 and due to pushing the new engine to market quickly in the S550 chassis.

That's another 450 RPM with an addition 37 HP peak that holds all the way out. I integrated the Moto IQ dyno graphs for a PP3 GT and it was about 13% to 15% more total power than a stock LS 6.2. RPM's matter, that's why the fastest cars in the world, formula cars, utilize low torque / high RPM engines because that's the best way to make a lot of usable power and allows you to stay in a lower gear longer. They are using engine designs that provide the most area under the curve, not the highest peaks. GM uses the 6.2 because that's what their tooling and factories have been set up for. Ford utilizes the 5.0 displacement becuase they were tooled up for the 4.6 modular throughout the 80's, 90's and 2000's. Two different ways to make power, but I will say the LS is less prone to problems, it's simply less complex!

Now there is some error in the dynos. So if the 5.0 dynos are favorable and the 6.2LS dynos are unfavorable, then they would at best be nearly identical given the error tolerances stock to stock. So it's not a power problem as to why the SS is the faster car as the strip and track. It's suspension and gearing.

The SS gearing is where the biggest difference comes in for drag and why the 2018 GT 10A is almost a full second faster than a 2015~2016 GT PP 6M. Both the PP GT 6M and SS 6M have a 3.73 final drive and 19" wheels with nearly identical roll out (27.7 vs. 27.5, which has almost no meaningful impact on final drive). But 1st in the SS is 2.66 and 1.78 for 2nd where the GT is 3.657 in 1st and the 2nd is 2.43. 1st gear in the SS is nearly as tall as 2nd gear in the GT!

Simply put Ford's gearing in the GT PP is not ideal for drag racing. It works better for the track where you would use 2nd and 3rd, possibly 4th or even 5th on large tracks. The SS would be using 1st and 2nd on short tracks, it hits 54 mph in 1st, 80 mph in 2nd and 110 in 3rd. The GT PP hits 115 in 4th by comparison! 1st gear is too short to be optimal for any sort of racing (drag or track), you can't put the full power down so your wasting time running the engine at reduced throttle. Your always going to be slower than an SS. Don't even get me started on Ford's suspension tuning and their excessive use of rubber isolators in the rear suspension. The front end is tight (sans some aero down force), but the rear end on the S550 is atrociously all over the place and likely the primary reason it feels so floaty. PP cars are better than a base GT, but PP options don't address the primary causes. That's why my mods so far are going to be focused purely on tightening up the rear end so I can see what the car could do if it at least had a more truly performance oriented suspension setup. A good starting place is to use the parts in the FP Track Pack (even if you do your own, you can modify the same sets of components as competitors also make their versions).

All the above explains why the S550 isn't really much difference than the SS once you go after market. The S550 becomes just another flavor. But stock to stock they are night and day difference in handling and driving regarding performance the SS is simply the better car as it comes stock. That doesn't meant he GT is a bad car, compared to all the other cars on the market it's darn good. The SS is just exception from the factory and it's only due to the recent Alpha + LS 6.2 vett engine implementation. 2010's to 2015 SS's are a far cry from the 2016~2018's.

I believe the magic in the latest alpha SS comes in it's suspension and gearing, not it's power output or weight (base GT is 3705, base SS is 3685). Same for the track. Their gearing works, it's very optimal at maximizing power usage of the LS 6.2's available power. That's what racing is, efficiency. Making the most of everything you have at your disposal. Bigger is NOT always better. Why do you think the Tesla Gen 2 Roadster that's coming out (or is out) is faster than any petrol chemical car on the market PERIOD? 1.9 S 0-60....electric motor can hold torque and rev to 14,000+ RPM, making HUGE power. There's no gearing losses other than the final drive, no shifting etc.

That's why the 10A 2018 GT's run high 11's (best cases). Because the 10A is keeping the Gen 3 Coyote in it's peak power band more often. It's also why I've been suggesting we take some time to try 2nd gear launches. 2nd is a bit taller than 1st in the SS, but not by much...it's almost as if you could get rid of 1st in a PP GT and you'd have a slightly taller geared SS.

I'll correct one point; the Coyote is able to rev 900 RPM higher. Published Dyno's of the 2018 Coyote are with the fuel being cut off at ~6900 due to RSS (155mph)- "restricted safe speed" as the tests I believe are being done in 6th. The redline is at 7400 RPM, however on authority of Ford Racing engineers present at a Daytona track day; put a quality racing oil in the coyote and it's safe at least up to 8000 RPM. At the ~6900 RPM the slope of the curve is still increasing, meaning the HP peak is above 6900. I've heard the peak is right around 7200 RPM (not from the FRE's at Daytona), as that was in 2016.

I've also heard the PP2 is 3.5 second faster around a track than the PP1. However none of that really matters because the SS 1LE has a very, very low take rate and my guess the seasoned Camaro owners are wary of buying a car with tires that will wear out in 3k miles or less; in in the first six months of ownership if you simply bought an SS, a set of racing wheels and track only tires, you're probably 9/10's of the way to a 1LE and still saved money. On the other hand the PP1 is very common. A comparison of a PP1 and a non-1LE SS is accurate as it is a competition that is far more likely to actually occur in private owner's hands.

 

[JohnnyUtah]

However none of that really matters because the SS 1LE has a very, very low take rate and my guess the seasoned Camaro owners are wary of buying a car with tires that will wear out in 3k miles or less; in in the first six months of ownership if you simply bought an SS, a set of racing wheels and track only tires, you're probably 9/10's of the way to a 1LE

I have 14K miles and 4 hard track days on my first set of Supercar G3 on my 1LE. Not sure why you think they only last 3k miles.

If you think they wear quickly, then you'll be shocked at the Sport Cup 2 that is standard on the PP2. They are much worse

 

[thehunterooo]

I have 14K miles and 4 hard track days on my first set of Supercar G3 on my 1LE. Not sure why you think they only last 3k miles.

If you think they wear quickly, then you'll be shocked at the Sport Cup 2 that is standard on the PP2. They are much worse

Per C6G Camaros live on the track almost every mile they are driven so it is safe to assume the tires are going to wear out faster.

 

[JohnnyUtah]

Per C6G Camaros live on the track almost every mile they are driven so it is safe to assume the tires are going to wear out faster.

That's a good point. The Sport Cups do seem to last a long time on the 350Rs that just go to cars and coffee.

 

[thehunterooo]

That's a good point. The Sport Cups do seem to last a long time on the 350Rs that just go to cars and coffee.

Exactly.

 

[9secondko]

Well... If the 2019 Camaro refresh is any indication, MT won’t be able to give fake praise to the Camaro anymore... because it will have been discontinued.

They took a nice, futuristic looking performance car and beat it with San ugly stick. Whoever authorized that needs to be sent to jail. Looks like a modern Yugo.

The Mustang got more aggressive and the Camaro is now less aggressive looking than a Civic.

 

[thehunterooo]

Well... If the 2019 Camaro refresh is any indication, MT won’t be able to give fake praise to the Camaro anymore... because it will have been discontinued.

They took a nice, futuristic looking performance car and beat it with San ugly stick. Whoever authorized that needs to be sent to jail. Looks like a modern Yugo.

The Mustang got more aggressive and the Camaro is now less aggressive looking than a Civic.

Discountined? Look at the retail sales! And the profits! Camaro is selling more and making GM huge amounts of money #nofleetsales

 

[9secondko]

Discountined? Look at the retail sales! And the profits! Camaro is selling more and making GM huge amounts of money #nofleetsales

LOL

SORRY BRO.

The camaro has lost the sales war, is continuing the losing trend, and the 2019 is in danger of sinking it. The design is an epic failure. The original 6 gen design is pretty awesome. But the refresh is pure barf.

It looks outdated as it borrows older design cues and looks like what a new Chevy cobalt would look like if they made a new one.

It’s not doing great now and will likely do horribly very soon.

 

[Norm Peterson]

However none of that really matters because the SS 1LE has a very, very low take rate

The 1LE was never intended to have mainstream appeal or even mainstream performance appeal, so you can't really and truly understand it from a mainstream point of view.

and my guess the seasoned Camaro owners are wary of buying a car with tires that will wear out in 3k miles or less; in in the first six months of ownership if you simply bought an SS, a set of racing wheels and track only tires, you're probably 9/10's of the way to a 1LE and still saved money.

You're mindset is purely mainstream, and you'd have to go further than that if you'd ever actually drive up at whatever elevated performance (and if the car's behavior being composed while doing so means anything to you).

If it's just for looks and fooling other people into thinking you drive a track day car on the streets, have at it.


Norm

 

[Hack]

The 1LE was never intended to have mainstream appeal or even mainstream performance appeal, so you can't really and truly understand it from a mainstream point of view.

Norm

One of my big objections to the 1LE is the matte hood seems very impractical. I know if I owned a car with that hood it would be all marked up in short order.

People have told me that it's a wrap and I can just take it off. The thing is, I don't want to pay for a feature that I don't want.

What's my point? I agree with you that the 1LE isn't set up to have mainstream appeal for people that are in the market for a new car to use at least partially for driving around town running errands, going to work, etc. Track performance is important to me, but it's not priority #1. Not even close. And I think that holds for the vast majority of buyers.

Sponsored