GT350 vs. Z/28

[on d bit]

ONE test shows 53/47, and that was an A/C car. And THAT'S the only w/d shown.

What test? What test showed 50/50? Four corner weight is preferred.

Sponsored

 

[Stuntman]

Found this:

(0) BMW S65, 4.0 liter, 414hp, 295 lb-ft, 450 lbs
(1) Coyote, 5.0 liter, 412hp, 390 lb-ft, 444 lbs
(2) GM LS3, 6.2 liter, 436hp, 430 lb-ft, 415 lbs
(3) GM LS7, 7.0 liter, 505hp, 470 lb-ft, 440 lbs

 

[thePill]

444lbs is the Coyotes shipping weight with packing material and wood box/pallet. The LS7's shipping weight is 523lbs. Typically, 20-30lbs is packaging and wood box/pallet, fluids are added to the dry weight.

If the LS7 weighed 440lbs, the LSA would weigh only 504lbs. Impossible... All my weights add up and are correct.

 

[thePill]

Let's talk about that milestone long over promised and the first test proved wrong. Team Camaro said 50/50, pretty sure that's what's advertised. Maybe on your caged Nurburgring z28... The one C&D weighed tipped the scales at 3862lbs I think. With AC and full speakers. The other magazines said 3820 No AC, no speakers, there was a 3852 I think, maybe in between.... They weighed ALL 4 corners and got a 57/43 with what I hope was a full tank of gas.

The GT500 had 57/43... That means the 5th Gen has about 80 extra lbs in the nose if you take out the engine weights. I wonder if that can come out.

 

[thePill]

What test? What test showed 50/50? Four corner weight is preferred.

I think he's falling for old "faithful" again. That 50/50 must have been simulated.

Maybe they can simulate the airbags to save weight? and save some money but charge you $95,000 for it. We'll cage it and run the Ring, play with the stop watch and market our "official" results to people like these.

 

[PowerUp]

First of all, crate engine weight is expressed as "dry". They don't ship 'em full of oil and/or water. So, a wet-sump engine, in and of itself, will weigh less than a dry-sump engine of identical architecture.

Why? Because a wet-sump oil pump weighs less than a dry-sump pump and scavenger set-up. FACT.

NOW, add in the extra weight of the dry-sump tank (necessary for the operation of the engine) and lines and ancillary parts 'n pieces NOT necessary for a wet-sump engine.

NOW, add in the extra weight of the greater capacity of oil contained in the ready-to-go dry-sump system.

THAT is why a "dressed" dry-sump LS3 weighs more than a wet-sump LS3, AS INSTALLED-READY. And so, too, is the LS7...

53-47 as per test, below: perhaps your dyslexia (or myopia) explains ALL the other invalid information you persist in sharing.

 

[PowerUp]

And here for another:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests...1_turbo_s_nissan_gt_r_comparison/viewall.html

 

[on d bit]

You're right power up however that is not the 50/50 someone quoted. I will also add that neither Mag weighed the car and they simply are reporting GM stats on it.

Once again someone stated that the GT500 was heavy but in reality it weighs just 14lbs more than the z28 or in relation just .036% more. Less than one half of a percent.
I have yet to hear measurements on either car that would translate to exactly how engine weight effects handling such as, roll center, roll axis, cg, etc.

 

[thePill]

Power, I think you missed the actual test sheet they put up. It is a scan of the actual paperwork and hand written in pen/pencil.

Regardless, it's 57/43


...and, ALL my engine weights I posted to Stuntman were correct. Your just bringing in other non-related info. I said 460-470, I was right, get over it. There is only 1 weight for an LS3, it's 418... Exactly 11lbs lighter than the Coyote. I have no idea why you brought up an engine that was never in a Camaro. Attempting to remain relevant probably, but failing miserably.

 

[thePill]

See... They weighed front and back. Now, since it fails to even meet the advertised 50/50 fr/rr, I doubt it's balanced left to right. Keep in mind, this car had AC and speakers.

In order for the z28 to be 50/50 as advertised...

It needs to shift 125lbs from front to rear. That's on a full tank... Another 80lbs + comes out running close to a 1/4 tank.

Man, you guys are so heavily brainwashed, you won't even believe the scales.

 

[Trackaholic]

That scan also shows 53/47. Where are you getting the 57/43 number?

All in all, 53/47 isn't terribly bad.

-T

 

[5.0GT]

Wow 12.7 in the qtr......damn that car is slow

 

[on d bit]

Wow 12.7 in the qtr......damn that car is slow

I dont think they ran it on a track but just on a empty street. The z28 is a low to mid 12 sec car on a prepped track with good driver. Very much like the 12/13 Mustang Boss.

 

[PowerUp]

You're right power up however that is not the 50/50 someone quoted.

Gassed and ready-to-go, 50-50. The way a person would take it to the track to run, maximizing track time and avoiding expensive track gas.

Once again someone stated that the GT500 was heavy

Once again, as all statements should be, the qualifier is it's heavy for a Mustang S197. With its locomotive power plant, 57-43 distribution, and its illegal-in-Stock-class NHRA power-to-weight ratio (under 6lb/hp), combined with its Pep Boys rolling stock, it's useless in stock form on a road course against the purpose-built Z/28. ANY road course.

It takes a race-only $90K+ 302-R to get close to the $75K street-legal Z/28. Better luck next-Gen.

But you can cherry-pick the poorest 1/4-mile time/speed (the LAST metric of concern in its development), C&D's 12.7 @ 116, and sleep better tonight. "We WIN!", indeed.

Good night. Sweet dreams.

 

[on d bit]

Again where are the four corner weights to put the camaro at 50/50? I still see no measurements to show true handling capability regardless of front rear ratio. I still find it funny that GM had trouble beating matching the zl1 ring time in the dry.

GT500 is bad because it has too much power stock. That's funny!:doh:

Sponsored