HOW???

[02gtnh]

The only things that can throw off the formula are large temperature changes, windy conditions, and low or high frictional losses in the driveline. There is always a mph or 2 diffrence between autos and manuals due to friction losses, in the past being higher in autos. The geartrain of an auto can be heavy, and has friction losses like the hydraulic pump that a manual does not have. Modern autos are getting much better and may in some cases exceed, but its hard to know without making changes to even out the inconsistency. Like gearing each car for max rpm in the 1/4, slicks to allow the manual to uses its flywheel inertia, and no lift shifting the manual. A good example is NHRA stock and super stock class records. When I first started racing, auto's were about .2 behind the sticks, class to class, now 38 years later they are ahead.

Now with all that being said, we should also be told what the density altitude and the wind speed and the direction is. Also, we should be using weights that are measured and not manufacturer reported. I don't know what all those are, to get a more accurate result. Remember I said these are flywheel estimations, that means a standard loss percentage is being applied equally against all set-ups in the formula, and that is also a small inconsistency. It also assumes 0 wind.

After all that, you should be asking yourself, why is the Camaro so far off compared to the others? Is it all the A8's phenomenally low fictional efficiency, or has it been tweeked. Have different A8's run the same times in different hands in similar conditions. Do we see the same difference in the corvette between trans and exteme HP spreads. I believe its far too early to tell.

I am a Ford man, I give the benefit of the doubt to Ford, many here apparently to the chevy, but last I checked, this is mustang6g, and I don't care for a lot of chevy guys coming over here to defend in my eyes what I feel is shady practices by GM. Did you do the math on the 122 caddy? Probably not, you are here to bash Fords and give chevy a pass..

Where did I bash Ford?:shrug: You gave us this formula link and it seems to work well with the manual cars, but not autos. Autos are know to be faster, but heavier then manual, so how can the numbers be the same? The SS auto got a 12.3 at 116mph, so by your link it should have 482hp. The SS is SAE certified at 458hp, so that 24hp more. The manual SS got a 12.4 at 114 mph so by the link should have 448hp or 10hp less then SAE. The GT manual at 13.0 at 110 mph so link shows it should have 417hp or 18hp less. Yet the GT auto also got 13.0 but at 113mph, so link shows it should have 456hp, or 21hp more. So you can see there are quite a bit of difference between the manuals and autos of both. As far as the ATS V time, it isn't feasible in my mind and has not been duplicated yet. So either there instruments were off, or it was boosted. But since it has not been duplicated, I don't put much faith in it.:cheers:

Sponsored

 

[200MPHCOBRA]

Where did I bash Ford?:shrug: You gave us this formula link and it seems to work well with the manual cars, but not autos. Autos are know to be faster, but heavier then manual, so how can the numbers be the same? The SS auto got a 12.3 at 116mph, so by your link it should have 482hp. The SS is SAE certified at 458hp, so that 24hp more. The manual SS got a 12.4 at 114 mph so by the link should have 448hp or 10hp less then SAE. The GT manual at 13.0 at 110 mph so link shows it should have 417hp or 18hp less. Yet the GT auto also got 13.0 but at 113mph, so link shows it should have 456hp, or 21hp more. So you can see there are quite a bit of difference between the manuals and autos of both. As far as the ATS V time, it isn't feasible in my mind and has not been duplicated yet. So either there instruments were off, or it was boosted. But since it has not been duplicated, I don't put much faith in it.:cheers:

Yeah, it sucks that physics only works on certain cars, how did we ever land a man on the moon.

 

[cosmo]

Yeah, it sucks that physics only works on certain cars, how did we ever land a man on the moon.

Not by using a 2 input internet calculator LOL

"How far do you want to go? How much weight? Alright boys, I just submit it to the website. We need 50000 HP. Open and shut case, NASA out."

That calculator has assumptions for what the power curve looks like, assumptions for gearing, powertrain losses, rpm limits, etc. It's a complicated problem, that calculator is just a rule of thumb.

 

[ZaneWayne]

I'm the magazine racer and some are using a 2 variable input calculator haha.

 

[thePill]

19 gallon fuel tank now confirmed...


We cannot locate the area(s) where the SS lost 140lbs over the ATS-V Coupe. Even if we include a potential 20lbs of engine weight, the SS and ATS-V's equipment weight is nearly as wash...

It's all up to the BIW and panels now, which isn't the place they lost the weight according to Chevy (133lbs lighter). Panels and glass? Doubt it :(

NVH?? Also doubt it... The Camaro uses a shield that covers the entire bottom of the car...

Not looking good gentleman...



If this is the case, should we disregard any test done with unachievable curb weights? The ATS-V's initial test were done with 3700lbs cars and 3750-3760lbs fully loaded examples too... the V did well in those test... but gained 110lbs from April 2015 to July 2015.

Anyway, the 19 gallon tank somewhat confirms CTS architecture...




...discuss...

 

[Memphis]

19 gallon fuel tank now confirmed...


We cannot locate the area(s) where the SS lost 140lbs over the ATS-V Coupe. Even if we include a potential 20lbs of engine weight, the SS and ATS-V's equipment weight is nearly as wash...

It's all up to the BIW and panels now, which isn't the place they lost the weight according to Chevy (133lbs lighter). Panels and glass? Doubt it :(

NVH?? Also doubt it... The Camaro uses a shield that covers the entire bottom of the car...

Not looking good gentleman...



If this is the case, should we disregard any test done with unachievable curb weights? The ATS-V's initial test were done with 3700lbs cars and 3750-3760lbs fully loaded examples too... the V did well in those test... but gained 110lbs from April 2015 to July 2015.

Anyway, the 19 gallon tank somewhat confirms CTS architecture...




...discuss...

Holes, shaved bolts, additional aluminum in places the caddy doesn't, less sound deadening, engine weight difference, subframe connectors not there, smaller brakes in front.

I'm sure I'm missing a few.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[thePill]

Holes, shaved bolts, additional aluminum in places the caddy doesn't, less sound deadening, engine weight difference, subframe connectors not there, smaller brakes in front.

I'm sure I'm missing a few.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Any holes in the 30% it borrowed will be shared... Shared with the CTS that is, an already heavier platform. This would typically leave the unique portion of the vehicle for this to occur. Just by comparing the ATS-V to the SS, the entire front section is larger, the firewall/cowl area is larger... doors, roof, hood, fender, 1/4 panels, rear section and trunk... are all larger... glass could be a wash.


Let's get one thing clear, Team Chevy isn't fabricating bolts, nuts, washers and so on... by hand, unit for unit... the time and cost involved would be incredible. The ATS-V is using aluminum in some places the SS isn't, the door skins being one area. Some areas of the ATS-V were and still may be Carbon Fiber.

Another thing is the IRS and MacP suspension. They were based on the CTS which used steel for balance. The Camaro MAY have used aluminum is some of these areas BUT, the ATS-V has most of these areas covered. In other words, the Camaro is playing catch up... it's MSRP related though, keep that in mind.

The V does have lighter front brakes (rears are shared). The 14.5 inch rotors are probably 5lbs more per side and 2-3lbs heavier per caliper... Let's just say 15lbs yeah???

Engine weight: 465lbs vs. 485lbs. The 485lbs is shipping weight, the weight should come down slightly. The 465lbs for the LT1 is hopefully the dry sump version, because it's a wash if it's not. Regardless, we have figures with and without a 20lbs advantage... still not looking good either way...

The ATS-V may not require Sub-Frame connectors. This is an area the Camaro falls behind in. We have seen one of the Motor Trend SS's missing most of its sub-frame connectors. Could explain a lighter test car.

The V's stereo and seats are heavier for sure... well, I'm not sure about the seats but I'm going to say they are heavier. The stereo with amp is 40lbs, seats say 20lbs heavier combined. I need to confirm if the V has fold down seats. The SS does which makes the 30-40lbs in the rear... without they are 20lbs (examples from the S197 and S550).

Less NVH? Well, ALL Alpha cars have platform dressing under the car. All Alpha cars look heavily clad in NVH under the hood and trunk... the interior holds maybe 30-50lbs of NVH... and I know they didn't strip it... maybe 5-10lbs but even then, I doubt they removed much.

The SS's 20 inch wheels and Run-Flats are about 10-15lbs heavier per corner. The V uses lightweight 255/275-18's vs. 245/275-20's. Between 40-60lbs of extra rotational mass.

The 3 radiators are about 15lbs and the 19 gallon tank is 20-25lbs... The Camaro's driveshaft is longer and we assume a few pounds went there... then the BIW.

Chevy says it lost 133lbs, we got some higher numbers before and posted them. We now assume they are the Ecoduke/V6 configuration with sub-frame deletions. That puts the Camaro between 750-770... We assume the V took the bases 685lbs up to 720-730lbs... Let's say the SS is 750 and the V is 730... it's still 20lbs man...

We just can't find the losses they need to make a sub 3800lbs Camaro :(

 

[Memphis]

Any holes in the 30% it borrowed will be shared... Shared with the CTS that is, an already heavier platform. This would typically leave the unique portion of the vehicle for this to occur. Just by comparing the ATS-V to the SS, the entire front section is larger, the firewall/cowl area is larger... doors, roof, hood, fender, 1/4 panels, rear section and trunk... are all larger... glass could be a wash.


Let's get one thing clear, Team Chevy isn't fabricating bolts, nuts, washers and so on... by hand, unit for unit... the time and cost involved would be incredible. The ATS-V is using aluminum in some places the SS isn't, the door skins being one area. Some areas of the ATS-V were and still may be Carbon Fiber.

Another thing is the IRS and MacP suspension. They were based on the CTS which used steel for balance. The Camaro MAY have used aluminum is some of these areas BUT, the ATS-V has most of these areas covered. In other words, the Camaro is playing catch up... it's MSRP related though, keep that in mind.

The V does have lighter front brakes (rears are shared). The 14.5 inch rotors are probably 5lbs more per side and 2-3lbs heavier per caliper... Let's just say 15lbs yeah???

Engine weight: 465lbs vs. 485lbs. The 485lbs is shipping weight, the weight should come down slightly. The 465lbs for the LT1 is hopefully the dry sump version, because it's a wash if it's not. Regardless, we have figures with and without a 20lbs advantage... still not looking good either way...

The ATS-V may not require Sub-Frane connectors. This is an area the Camaro falls behind in. We have seen one of the Motor Trend SS's missing most of its sub-frame connectors. Could explain a lighter test car.

(Cont...)

Actually it's been stated that the holes are specific to the camaro. So is the aluminum dash. Not to mention the bolts don't have to be hand cut. They could have them manufactured that way specifically.

Has the irs been confirmed aluminum by anyone on the camaro?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mdnt]

GM a company that has changed its numbers before on cars after the Mags did thier tests. Same company that hasnt fixed the visibility issues and still hasnt fixed the overheating problems. In some cases i would be surprised about a company that does this stuff, but GM still cant fix recalls it did years ago.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/30/autos/gm-recall-garage/
That is GMs recall fix that was sent in 09 also. 6 years later they still havent fixed it.

 

[Memphis]

As for how Chevy says it saved pounds, the new Camaro switches to a fully aluminum suspension that’s said to be 21 percent lighter than an equivalent steel setup, while another 9.7 pounds is saved by switching to an aluminum cross-car beam (the bar that runs between the A-pillars behind the dashboard).



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[347CobraII]

Who said I can't drive? And I don't think anyone saying that Joe Shmoe can beat a professional drag racer just because he has a Camaro or vice versa. But if you can't accept that the Camaro is better out of the box, I don't know what to tell you lol. I don't need a magazine to tell me that the lighter more powerful car is faster. Kinda already had that one figured out.

Well keep dreaming better is matter of opinion. But you need magazine to tell you

 

[thePill]

As for how Chevy says it saved pounds, the new Camaro switches to a fully aluminum suspension that’s said to be 21 percent lighter than an equivalent steel setup, while another 9.7 pounds is saved by switching to an aluminum cross-car beam (the bar that runs between the A-pillars behind the dashboard).



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, I seen that statement before...

The reason is, the CTS and I believe the CTS-V used steel front and rear suspension. The Camaro was based on the CTS, the suspension itself, IRS sub-frame, links and even the differential were all CTS based.

The ATS and especially the ATS-V used extensive aluminum in the front and rear suspension. In other words, the ATS-V went above and beyond... the SS is playing a bit of catch up when comparing it to the ATS-V. In fact, in order to keep cost down, not all of the SS's suspension systems were brought up to the ATS-V level. There is still some room for the SS to grow...

...it just really complicates any explaination as to how an SS got 140lbs lighter than an ATS-V Coupe...

 

[ZaneWayne]

Well keep dreaming better is matter of opinion. But you need magazine to tell you

Better is opinion yes. But faster is not. The Camaro is faster out of the box than the Mustang. I do not need a magazine to tell me a car that is lighter with a 25 hp and 45 torque advantage is faster......

 

[thePill]

Better is opinion yes. But faster is not. The Camaro is faster out of the box than the Mustang. I do not need a magazine to tell me a car that is lighter with a 25 hp and 45 torque advantage is faster......

I would hold up before making that statement... many Camaro owners before you got caught up in magazine 1/4 mile times and were let down.

Also, we need to keep any last minute weight gain in mind. The ARS-V was tested at 3700lbs too in the first two series of test and comparisons. The V gained 110lbs suddenly and without explaination... I would think that any test car provided that can't achieve the weight it was tested at, should be dismissed don't you?

I blame a lot of this on customer demand and being pressured to test Pre-production vehicles.

 

[ZaneWayne]

I would hold up before making that statement... many Camaro owners before you got caught up in magazine 1/4 mile times and were let down.

Also, we need to keep any last minute weight gain in mind. The ARS-V was tested at 3700lbs too in the first two series of test and comparisons. The V gained 110lbs suddenly and without explaination... I would think that any test car provided that can't achieve the weight it was tested at, should be dismissed don't you?

I blame a lot of this on customer demand and being pressured to test Pre-production vehicles.

Where was the 3,700 pound ATS-V. That was the estimate, but I think the lightest one we saw was 3,740 something. Anyways. Even if the Mustang and Camaro weighed the same, the Camaro would still have the advantage due to its A8 and power advantage.

Sponsored