HOW???

[ZaneWayne]

WOW you still don't get it..... stop bench racing

Well my car isn't here so that's all I have right now......
So are you saying that the Mustang and Camaro will be virtually even with equal drivers?

Sponsored

 

[347CobraII]

Well my car isn't here so that's all I have right now......
So are you saying that the Mustang and Camaro will be virtually even with equal drivers?

Now you putting words in my mouth........................ Still not getting it LOL

 

[02gtnh]

You haven't shown me anything, you just quoted magazine data, tell my mathematically how a camaro can defy physics, and start with the laws of thermodynamics.

Well your using mag data are you not for the Camaro and ATS V? I showed C&D time for both autos for the GT and Camaro. The GT got 113mph at 3850lbs and the SS got 116mph at 3760lbs.

 

[200MPHCOBRA]

So given the 113-116 trap at lets 3,750 pounds, how much hp should the Camaro have?

Go to Stan Weiss web site, pick the calculator you need(he has free ones), and don't forget to add the drivers weight, because the car was not on remote control. Over the years his seem to be the most accurate I have seen. Ive seen some that are way off. Experience says 114 is about what you will see. 116 is too close to the vette, with similar equipment how does it get that close to a slightly more efficient car with 350 pounds less weight? The answer is it wont in the real world. If it does, it makes more power or the drivetrain is way below 15% loss on an automatic, unheard of so far. Possible but unlikely, since they have the same trans.

 

[thePill]

I think the traps are okay... not really jaw-dropping impressive but they are what a 3672lbs car w/ 175lbs driver would do with 405RWHP.

The issue now is the weight staying that low and the RWHP staying that high.

I think I made it pretty clear the 11% the SS lost to the wheels and 405 it put down was far better than the 460hp Corvette Z51.

Some people see it as a driver's race and any manual between 400-500hp kinda is. Many argue the fact that you never get what GM advertises... I myself anticipate a last minute, 110lbs weight gain like the ATS-V experienced...

I also anticipate a few quick MSRP increases in the first 2 years... and even more weight gain as the equipment gets larger.

 

[ZaneWayne]

Go to Stan Weiss web site, pick the calculator you need(he has free ones), and don't forget to add the drivers weight, because the car was not on remote control. Over the years his seem to be the most accurate I have seen. Ive seen some that are way off. Experience says 114 is about what you will see. 116 is too close to the vette, with similar equipment how does it get that close to a slightly more efficient car with 350 pounds less weight? The answer is it wont in the real world. If it does, it makes more power or the drivetrain is way below 15% loss on an automatic, unheard of so far. Possible but unlikely, since they have the same trans.

There are automatic cars with less than 15 percent parasitic loss. You don't think that the auto SS will run low 12s? The godawful L99 dipped into the high 12s. At more than 3,900 pounds and down 55hp, 45 lbs of torque, and 2 less gears. The SS will be in the low 12s. Will everyone be able to be in the low 12s, no. But the car is definitely capable of very low 12s. Sorry if that upsets you.

 

[Memphis]

I think they traps are okay... not really jaw-dropping impressive but they are what a 3672lbs car w/ 175lbs driver would do with 405RWHP.

This issue now is the weight staying that low and the RWHP staying that high.

I think I made it pretty clear the 11% the SS lost to the wheels and 405 it put down was far better than the 460hp Corvette Z51.

Some people see it as a driver's race and any manual between 400-500hp kinda is. Many argue the fact that you never get what GM advertises... I myself anticipate a last minute, 110lbs weight gain like the ATS-V experienced...

I also anticipate a few quick MSRP increases in the first 2 years... and even more weight gain as the equipment gets larger.

They usually do get heavier over the years. Case in point last gen camaro. Also pricing went up a little as well.

I don't know if that was the case with the mustang however.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Memphis]

Go to Stan Weiss web site, pick the calculator you need(he has free ones), and don't forget to add the drivers weight, because the car was not on remote control. Over the years his seem to be the most accurate I have seen. Ive seen some that are way off. Experience says 114 is about what you will see. 116 is too close to the vette, with similar equipment how does it get that close to a slightly more efficient car with 350 pounds less weight? The answer is it wont in the real world. If it does, it makes more power or the drivetrain is way below 15% loss on an automatic, unheard of so far. Possible but unlikely, since they have the same trans.

But connected quite differently. Don't forget that.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ZaneWayne]

I think the traps are okay... not really jaw-dropping impressive but they are what a 3672lbs car w/ 175lbs driver would do with 405RWHP.

The issue now is the weight staying that low and the RWHP staying that high.

I think I made it pretty clear the 11% the SS lost to the wheels and 405 it put down was far better than the 460hp Corvette Z51.

Some people see it as a driver's race and any manual between 400-500hp kinda is. Many argue the fact that you never get what GM advertises... I myself anticipate a last minute, 110lbs weight gain like the ATS-V experienced...

I also anticipate a few quick MSRP increases in the first 2 years... and even more weight gain as the equipment gets larger.

MSRP will increase as do all. Weight will increase because content will be added as the years progress. But it's not going to gain any significant weight this year. They have released official curb weights.

 

[02gtnh]

I think the traps are okay... not really jaw-dropping impressive but they are what a 3672lbs car w/ 175lbs driver would do with 405RWHP.

The issue now is the weight staying that low and the RWHP staying that high.

I think I made it pretty clear the 11% the SS lost to the wheels and 405 it put down was far better than the 460hp Corvette Z51.

Some people see it as a driver's race and any manual between 400-500hp kinda is. Many argue the fact that you never get what GM advertises... I myself anticipate a last minute, 110lbs weight gain like the ATS-V experienced...

I also anticipate a few quick MSRP increases in the first 2 years... and even more weight gain as the equipment gets larger.

Cars Illustrated just dynoed another SS but a auto and got 400hp and 410tq.

 

[200MPHCOBRA]

So once you earn a degree, you can never be questioned?

I mentioned respect, If you ask a genuine question I will answer. If you want to make a joke at my expense you will be challenged harshly.

 

[mdnt]

It's a drivers race of the mustang driver is a stud and the Camaro driver is not, yes. And the heavy Camaro was faster because it had the A8.

That statement shows your limited track exp.

http://www.hellcat.org/threads/m6-1-4-mile-times.8072/
http://www.moderncamaro.com/forum/drag-racing/38306-average-time-stock-2ss-m6.html

notice on the moderncamaro thread that the fan themselves are saying 13.3-13.4 yet the magazines are saying 12.9-13.1?
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1209_2013_chevrolet_camaro_ss_1le_first_test/
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests..._2010_challenger_srt8_comparison/viewall.html
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0903_2010_chevrolet_camaro_test/specs_test_data.html

Does the real world results match the magazine?

 

[200MPHCOBRA]

But connected quite differently. Don't forget that.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's why I said "slightly more efficient" I was speaking of the vette.

 

[ZaneWayne]

I mentioned respect, If you ask a genuine question I will answer. If you want to make a joke at my expense you will be challenged harshly.

Man I have been respectful to almost every single poster. Even thePill haha. I haven't named called any. If you're wanting respect to just be giving out, maybe don't tout your "money and experience." It's not endearing.

 

[ZaneWayne]

That statement shows your limited track exp.

http://www.hellcat.org/threads/m6-1-4-mile-times.8072/
http://www.moderncamaro.com/forum/drag-racing/38306-average-time-stock-2ss-m6.html

notice on the moderncamaro thread that the fan themselves are saying 13.3-13.4 yet the magazines are saying 12.9-13.1?
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1209_2013_chevrolet_camaro_ss_1le_first_test/
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests..._2010_challenger_srt8_comparison/viewall.html
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0903_2010_chevrolet_camaro_test/specs_test_data.html

Does the real world results match the magazine?

There are many guys that have gotten 12s with their fifth gens. Is it common? No. But the car is capable of it.

Sponsored