HOW???

[legendary mustang]

Yeah, I think it's Auto vs. the Corvettes manual.

Z51 ran a 12.2@117 and the SS ran a 12.3@116 I think.

C&D also dyno'd the automatic and they got 400RWHP. That is harder to achieve than the manuals 405RWHP Motor Trend reported...

Most Auto equipped, front engine, rear drive vehicles with IRS lose 15-18% to the rear wheels...


This is becoming even more incredible than before!!!

The fully loaded 2SS with auto weighed 3760lbs too! Still 50lbs lighter than the ATS-V coupe and ALL of the equipment is shared... plus what the Camaro has that the ATS-V doesn't... including a sunroof :lol:
.
Oh boy...

yea,i hear ya.its like you said.PRE-PRODUCTION cars,are getting those times.:rant:thats the only thing i can see.

Sponsored

 

[thePill]

yea,i hear ya.its like you said.PRE-PRODUCTION cars,are getting those times.:rant:thats the only thing i can see.

At this point, we have them cornered...

All the content is basically shared with the ATS-V at the 2SS level. Now it has an equivalent stereo system with amp, the seats are nearly the same (ATS-V uses Recaro's vs. the 2SS's OEM seats) and everything in the interior is more or better than the ATS-V as far as bells and pickles. The front rotor and caliper remain one of the only areas the ATS-V is heavier.

Plus, this 3760lbs 2SS was an automatic and had a sunroof... So, I say this now...




... IF the Camaro SS is 3670lbs, the only way it could have done this is the structure or, the Body in White some call it. The panels and glass look to be heavier and larger on the Camaro too.

So... It absolutely HAS to be the BIW that is 120lbs lighter (maybe more) than the ATS-V Coupe...



So... Why is that an issue???




Other than extremely exceeding the "133lbs lighter Body in White" claim. We need to ask why wasn't this technique or material used in the ATS or CTS which it is based on? The material and construction of the Camaro's platform looks to be identical to the CTS...

... If you work with the 133lbs and remove it from the 5th Gen's 870lbs BIW, you get close 735lbs... that is as light as I can make a 5th Gen and that's as light as I can make this 6th Gen... 735lbs would be equal to the S550. I have reason to believe the 6th Gen's BIW is between 750-770lbs.

Now, the ATS starts at 685lbs... let's say the ATS-V Coupe went up to 735lbs as well... That's 20lbs heavier than the base CTS...

We are pretending the SS and ATS-V's BIW weigh the same... and bending the rules in order to make the 133lbs claim work...


We still get an SS around 3800lbs :(

 

[thePill]

...thePill would just like to add onto the Original Posters main topic here... "HOW???"


Not "how" did the Camaro pull these numbers off...


"How" does thePill do this? "How" does a single, random internet poster challenge the well informed media and the manufactures mechanical engineers and the company itself... "How" he aquires or guesses at numbers as accurately as thePill can, as many times as he has?


It is purely luck... 100% luck...







I would give a great, great deal of my attention to structural and material information on a production 2016 Camaro SS, V6 and EcoDuke. It would need to include the final sub-frame connector design as well... not the proposed design...


...I would also like to see the structural reinforcement installed on the vehicle... in place and the vehicle functioning...

 

[Memphis]

Did you find out about those ats-v owners?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[thePill]

Did you find out about those ats-v owners?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I have a handful of claims and I'm waiting for visual proof.


thePill is lost in the irony...


I went out of my way, fought tooth and nail to prove a 3800+lbs ATS-V exist for the better part of 2015...


...now I am frantically searching for a 3700lbs ATS-V and trying to prove one exist...





Maybe thePill's naysayers are right... maybe I should see a head doctor...

 

[Memphis]

No, I have a handful of claims and I'm waiting for visual proof.


thePill is lost in the irony...


I went out of my way, fought tooth and nail to prove a 3800+lbs ATS-V exist for the better part of 2015...


...now I am frantically searching for a 3700lbs ATS-V and trying to prove one exist...

None of the forums are very active. So these must be people you know.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[thePill]

None of the forums are very active. So these must be people you know.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One from the military, retired... the others are through him from his local ATS Pow Wow.

Edit: I think it's for certain that nobody on the Internet within the automotive circle is having the conversations we are having here... if I were an investigative journalist in the automotive industry, I could have the story of a life-time...


...but I want nothing...

 

[thePill]

One thing of value these test may show is the weight spread from base to fully loaded 2SS. We see 3672lbs and 3760lbs... about 90lbs in options total. While I may not buy the numbers themselves, the spread could be somewhat accurate.

I am also going to assume the R&T SS is a 2SS with no options at 3726lbs. That's 54lbs using MT's SS's weight... Using the official 3685lbs and it puts us right around 40lbs. thePill reported this spread weight between the 1SS and 2SS months before the weight was released. I kinda questioned the 40lbs before but it appears that is what they are either going with or that's exactly what it is, no kidding for real... Just the stereo upgrade should be 35-40lbs alone... the seats and all the extra stuff are surely closer to 50-60lbs. Maybe the MT and RT 54lbs spread is more accurate...



...The thing that is staring Team Camaro right in the eye is the fact that a 3809lbs ATS-V exist. This wasn't common knowledge until just recently... a world-changing discovery in my opinion... discovery of the updated numbers :lol: Convincing people the SS weighed 3685lbs when an ATS-V weighed 3700lbs could have been pulled off... sure... 15lbs... 9lbs from the dash duh...

... but no duh... Now Caddy kinda screwed Team Camaro on this one. Going semi-official yet not public curb weight of 110lbs higher than previously estimated... Uh Oh... Now a 3672lbs 1SS looks state of the art, advanced compared to the ATS-V. Something I'm sure even internally they are barking about :lol: Nevertheless, as of now, the 2016 1SS weighs 3672lbs... and that's 137lbs lighter than the ATS-V. A Fully Loaded, 2SS with a Sunroof and an Automatic is 3760lbs...

...the ATS-V Coupe is 3822lbs when adding an automatic... not sure about the options.. The Sunroof is a 20lbs option as well...

The ATS-V would be closer to 3850lbs with sunroof and automatic...







All I am asking for is the structural data and material listing... a comprised list of weight loss areas vs. the ATS AND the CTS as well. The CTS and C7 had list... thePill would like to see your numbers please :lol: :lol: ;) ;)

 

[cosmo]

I get you dislike the huge (ish) gap in estimated weight between the ats v pre and post production. However, it still performs to the estimates of performance.



12.06 bone stock a8 ats v. It is beating the performance estimate of 12.3. So even with the weight difference, they still met their performance targets. Same is for the cts v. The corvette meets its performance target as well. There are 2 instances of the platform the camaro is based on along with the engine in another platform meeting the performance targets put in place for them. That's the best we have until customer times come out. How can the camaro not be up to par, or so far out, that it will miss its performance targets and not run a 12.2?

I'm not a GM fanboy, not a Ford fanboy, I'm a car fanboy. I don't see how the real world times the mustang is putting out won't be beat by the camaro, handedly. This goes by the evidence of the ats v, cts v, and corvette.

 

[thePill]

I get you dislike the huge (ish) gap in estimated weight between the ats v pre and post production. However, it still performs to the estimates of performance.



12.06 bone stock a8 ats v. It is beating the performance estimate of 12.3. So even with the weight difference, they still met their performance targets. Same is for the cts v. The corvette meets its performance target as well. There are 2 instances of the platform the camaro is based on along with the engine in another platform meeting the performance targets put in place for them. That's the best we have until customer times come out. How can the camaro not be up to par, or so far out, that it will miss its performance targets and not run a 12.2?

I'm not a GM fanboy, not a Ford fanboy, I'm a car fanboy. I don't see how the real world times the mustang is putting out won't be beat by the camaro, handedly. This goes by the evidence of the ats v, cts v, and corvette.

What some drivers can do with in a 1/4 with some cars is magical. There are truly some fine drivers out there... There are also tiny tricks that can be done with air pressure as well as free lightweighting that happens too... I know it happens because people that drive and sell parts for Mustangs make a living driving.

The issue is we witnessed a drop in performance and the increase in weight happen before our eyes and over the span of 6 months.

Right now, the SS is 3672lbs and it's faster than the fully loaded example Ford sent. thePill pointed out before the wheelbase being a little too Full Sized, the wheelbase:track ratio was a little too Grandma and the standard performance equipment was a little blah... Now we see a very poor 54/46 front bias for not having the proper equipment in front, they raised the center of gravity by an inch and a half, there is no performance options, they did no track test whatsoever and the cars are only losing 11% to the wheels

We confirmed it is CTS based and it uses the CTS suspension and fuel tank... it needs a 620-640lbs BIW to keep a 3685lbs Curb Weight and we think it has a 750-770lbs BIW instead...

Trust me when I say this... I am eager to hear how this was accomplished... I sometimes wonder if Team Camaro actually knows Caddy officially went with 3809lbs (3812lbs Sedan). Has anyone ever ask the question to a Chevy official on C5/C6? Afraid to know the answer yeah???

I think this is absolutely glorious in every way... Chevy needs to show us how the Alpha Camaro lost 130-140lbs over the ATS-V...

But, they can't answer that because that is not a fact... :lol:

 

[mdnt]

I get you dislike the huge (ish) gap in estimated weight between the ats v pre and post production. However, it still performs to the estimates of performance.



12.06 bone stock a8 ats v. It is beating the performance estimate of 12.3. So even with the weight difference, they still met their performance targets. Same is for the cts v. The corvette meets its performance target as well. There are 2 instances of the platform the camaro is based on along with the engine in another platform meeting the performance targets put in place for them. That's the best we have until customer times come out. How can the camaro not be up to par, or so far out, that it will miss its performance targets and not run a 12.2?

I'm not a GM fanboy, not a Ford fanboy, I'm a car fanboy. I don't see how the real world times the mustang is putting out won't be beat by the camaro, handedly. This goes by the evidence of the ats v, cts v, and corvette.

thats actually the fastest time on the ats forums, noone has hit the 122 mph without mods tho. most seem to be 112-114 traps

 

[cosmo]

Again, the weight might become an issue. But as of right now, we don't know that yet. Even adding 100-200lbs to the camaro, the car will then run about a 12.3, 12.4 max. And that's for the average driver, not the advanced drivers. An advanced driver, per everything I'm seeing with the alpha platform looking competitive and the lt1 having good results elsewhere, should be able to get an a8 camaro to AT LEAST 12.0. Advanced drivers on the 6r80 mustang are hitting 12.5. Where will that gap be made up? A tune might be able to cover that, but the lt1 on the corvette is showing the same results on tuning as the mustang. About 5.5% more power across the curve.

I'm going to be watching closely. I'm not rooting against the mustang, I'm just trying to help get people to understand it's not looking too good.

 

[Memphis]

One from the military, retired... the others are through him from his local ATS Pow Wow.

Edit: I think it's for certain that nobody on the Internet within the automotive circle is having the conversations we are having here... if I were an investigative journalist in the automotive industry, I could have the story of a life-time...


...but I want nothing...

Your loss if true lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cosmo]

thats actually the fastest time on the ats forums, noone has hit the 122 mph without mods tho. most seem to be 112-114 traps

The only place I could find the 122 mph trap is a car and driver specifications table. Did Cadillac come out with that? I found 2 different comparison tests by motortrend trapping 114 and 116 and a separate car and driver articles citing 12.5 at 116, right in line with your numbers. Honestly, I think someone fat fingered the 2 when they meant to hit the 1 to make it 112 lol. Could also explain the 4 seconds which disappeared on the mustang GT 0-150.

 

[mdnt]

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-cadillac-ats-v-coupe-test-review

manual 12.6 at 115

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-cadillac-ats-v-sedan-test-review
auto 12.1 at 122

Sponsored