ZL1 1LE

[legendary mustang]

:tsk:I have to laugh when people cry about what others say about the big block rumors.

Sponsored

 

[bluebeastsrt]

You can only have smaller with forced induction or exotic materials. Ala Ferrari. If you want NA power. You gotta go bore and stroke increase.

 

[1320']

I have to laugh. When everyone and their mom is going smaller you guys talk about 7.0+. Even amg which had a killer dohc 6.3 n/a has gone to a 5.5tt and soon that will be replaced with a 4.0tt.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.auto...s-amg-phase-out-55-twin-turbo-v8-2016-report/

Yeah, and?

FI brings problems that a lot of people don't want to deal with. Plus some people simply don't like FI and prefer the more controllable power delivery nature of N/A.

 

[richtor]

Yeah, and?

FI brings problems that a lot of people don't want to deal with. Plus some people simply don't like FI and prefer the more controllable power delivery nature of N/A.

Never said it didn't. I was passing on information about what every car manufacturer is doing to add power and take away weight. BMW left n/a to go with small Turbo, Mercedes, Audi, hell even Ferrari and Aston are doing the same thing. If they can't make their $50k power plants efficient how do you suppose Ford/GM will make it efficient in their $50k vehicles?

 

[Childs Play]

C&D/R&T needs to be more honest with the information they were given.

Don't expect a "Z/28" for the 6th Gen Camaro lineup. At one time, briefly last year, the ZL1LE was destined to be the next "Z/28" but many things happened.

1.) Sales are very, very poor.

2.) ATS/CTS could be changing platforms in 2019.

3.) Ford and Dodge have higher horsepower engines

4.) MSRP got out of hand

5.) The ZL1LE is the epitome of 6th Gen performance, no Z28 could be built to compete and it would be more expensive.

When it comes to C&D, trust me...

1. Just curious. What do you think their testing out there then still? That's a serious question. The only thing I can figure is a refresh. Something that is probably needed sooner than later.

2. I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing.

3. Not currently in production though for Ford. At least for the current Mustang. I have a feeling that will be changing very soon though with what I'm guessing will be a GT500 announcement with the Mustang refresh looming. I also think the Demon will be outlandishly expensive when it comes out. Yet will still sell just as much as the current Hellcat.

4. I don't disagree. However I would be happy if Ford/Chevy/Dodge would just come out with an "ultra" base model. I'm talking manual roll down windows and no radio or backseat with pretty much everything including sound deadening being either optional or not available. I'm also pretty sure that I'd be one of five people that would buy that, and that's why it's not available.
Both Ford and Chevy have tried some of this in different configurations recently, however it's usually only on the hi-po models (GT350 / Z/28) and not on something like a standard GT or SS.
Maybe a trim option along the lines of the Fiesta S sedan or Chevy Spark L. But even less. Once again though. I'd probably be one of a very small number of people who would buy something like this.

5. Eh... While I don't generally believe everything a magazine says, we'll see. But I don't that the Z/28 is happening as well this gen. Time will tell.

 

[Hack]

Never said it didn't. I was passing on information about what every car manufacturer is doing to add power and take away weight. BMW left n/a to go with small Turbo, Mercedes, Audi, hell even Ferrari and Aston are doing the same thing. If they can't make their $50k power plants efficient how do you suppose Ford/GM will make it efficient in their $50k vehicles?

I don't mind a twin turbo V8 and reading about what Ferrari is doing is amazing. However, from what I've seen small turbo engines really aren't that efficient. Those engines are successful in passing the government regulations and they are successful at making power. Probably eventually most of the manufacturers will make them more fun to drive. Maybe they will even find ways to get better real world fuel economy. Right now they only get good fuel economy during standardized tests, not in the real world. I don't object to improving efficiency, but I DO object when they really aren't improving efficiency - just making a super expensive engine that ends up being more of a throw away due to the cost of replacement parts.

Most of the environmental regulations are silly and they should be rolled back so that we can have our larger, simpler, less expensive N/A engines back. You have to look at the whole picture. The costs and energy associated with building and repairing a vehicle are a significant part of how "efficient" that vehicle is. For instance, a hybrid that gets 50 mpg but has batteries that wear out regularly and require hazardous materials. You're saving a little gas, but not saving the environment at all. A law that requires hybrid vehicles like that benefits the car manufacturer because the car is expensive for the consumer and then it wears out quickly so then the car manufacturer can sell another "environmentally friendly" hybrid car.

The environment is a lot better off with simple, 20 mpg vehicles that last a long time and are easy to repair.

 

[Norm Peterson]

You can only have smaller with forced induction or exotic materials. Ala Ferrari. If you want NA power. You gotta go bore and stroke increase.

And/or RPM increase (likely with a gearing "increase" as well).


Norm

 

[Norm Peterson]

Never said it didn't. I was passing on information about what every car manufacturer is doing to add power and take away weight.

Mfrs can get away with that approach because most customers don't separate "drivability" from "more power". If they even know what drivability is, let alone when it might be important.

You could say they're using customer focus on HP (and ignorance concerning drivability) to 'game' the mpg requirements.


Norm

 

[thePill]

1. Just curious. What do you think their testing out there then still? That's a serious question. The only thing I can figure is a refresh. Something that is probably needed sooner than later.

2. I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing.

3. Not currently in production though for Ford. At least for the current Mustang. I have a feeling that will be changing very soon though with what I'm guessing will be a GT500 announcement with the Mustang refresh looming. I also think the Demon will be outlandishly expensive when it comes out. Yet will still sell just as much as the current Hellcat.

4. I don't disagree. However I would be happy if Ford/Chevy/Dodge would just come out with an "ultra" base model. I'm talking manual roll down windows and no radio or backseat with pretty much everything including sound deadening being either optional or not available. I'm also pretty sure that I'd be one of five people that would buy that, and that's why it's not available.
Both Ford and Chevy have tried some of this in different configurations recently, however it's usually only on the hi-po models (GT350 / Z/28) and not on something like a standard GT or SS.
Maybe a trim option along the lines of the Fiesta S sedan or Chevy Spark L. But even less. Once again though. I'd probably be one of a very small number of people who would buy something like this.

5. Eh... While I don't generally believe everything a magazine says, we'll see. But I don't that the Z/28 is happening as well this gen. Time will tell.

1&2: It's a 2019 refresh STILL on the old Alpha platform... here's why you should be concerned with an ATS/CTS move. The Camaro's base MSRP depended on additional ATS/CTS sales performance. Overall, the Camaro sales were intended to pay for the entirety of the Alpha Program. If the ATS/CTS move, expect MSRP increases to the Camaro. Even if they rush to produce a Buick Alpha, unless those cost included the ATS/CTS move (doubtful), it won't help... it could actually increase cost as well.

3: Yes, I know it isn't confirmed but both Ford and Dodge have higher output V8's coming soon... and I mean soon. That's why you see Chevy literally pushing out Special Editions, they know what's coming.



It was pretty obvious last Summer that the z28 program dissolved once the ZL1LE program was merged. That was the issue... the ZL1 they finally decided on had a lot of equipment cut and moved out. I think I specifically joked about the ZL1 and 1LE being the same car :lol: Well, in many respects, it is basically the same car. The Alpha Camaro wasn't a very good idea.

 

[thePill]

The Alpha Camaro could be refreshed as soon a Model Year 2019/Calander Year 2018. The changes in the front will include a longer front overhang to allow more design freedom and intercooler packaging, slimmer bumper cover/concealed bumper cover and larger grill opening to help cooling.

Come to think of it, these changes are being done to reflect the 1970 styling. However, it will come off very Fisker Rocket Mustang.

 

[Strokerswild]

I don't mind a twin turbo V8 and reading about what Ferrari is doing is amazing. However, from what I've seen small turbo engines really aren't that efficient. Those engines are successful in passing the government regulations and they are successful at making power. Probably eventually most of the manufacturers will make them more fun to drive. Maybe they will even find ways to get better real world fuel economy. Right now they only get good fuel economy during standardized tests, not in the real world. I don't object to improving efficiency, but I DO object when they really aren't improving efficiency - just making a super expensive engine that ends up being more of a throw away due to the cost of replacement parts.

Most of the environmental regulations are silly and they should be rolled back so that we can have our larger, simpler, less expensive N/A engines back. You have to look at the whole picture. The costs and energy associated with building and repairing a vehicle are a significant part of how "efficient" that vehicle is. For instance, a hybrid that gets 50 mpg but has batteries that wear out regularly and require hazardous materials. You're saving a little gas, but not saving the environment at all. A law that requires hybrid vehicles like that benefits the car manufacturer because the car is expensive for the consumer and then it wears out quickly so then the car manufacturer can sell another "environmentally friendly" hybrid car.

The environment is a lot better off with simple, 20 mpg vehicles that last a long time and are easy to repair.

Amen.

The wife's VW Tiguan with its 2.0 turbo is a great little rig, and on the highway it returns some pretty decent mileage for an AWD crossover. But when you drive it around town a lot and/or stand on it frequently to enjoy the pull (as I do) the mileage is not so good....

 

[68fbjjz109]

4. I don't disagree. However I would be happy if Ford/Chevy/Dodge would just come out with an "ultra" base model. I'm talking manual roll down windows and no radio or backseat with pretty much everything including sound deadening being either optional or not available. I'm also pretty sure that I'd be one of five people that would buy that, and that's why it's not available.
Both Ford and Chevy have tried some of this in different configurations recently, however it's usually only on the hi-po models (GT350 / Z/28) and not on something like a standard GT or SS.
Maybe a trim option along the lines of the Fiesta S sedan or Chevy Spark L. But even less. Once again though. I'd probably be one of a very small number of people who would buy something like this.

Unfortunately you will pay alot more for that. Some parts don't exist, it adds build complexity, and very few people truly want it, so from a business case it's a bad idea.

Profite margins are tough as it is with safety, and mileage targets, and the fact the consumer wants more electrical content.

One the Mustang side, you could put GT350R RSD, and Radio delete bezel, and lack of non adhesively bonded NVH pads.

It would be cool though.

 

[richtor]

I don't mind a twin turbo V8 and reading about what Ferrari is doing is amazing. However, from what I've seen small turbo engines really aren't that efficient. Those engines are successful in passing the government regulations and they are successful at making power. Probably eventually most of the manufacturers will make them more fun to drive. Maybe they will even find ways to get better real world fuel economy. Right now they only get good fuel economy during standardized tests, not in the real world. I don't object to improving efficiency, but I DO object when they really aren't improving efficiency - just making a super expensive engine that ends up being more of a throw away due to the cost of replacement parts.

Most of the environmental regulations are silly and they should be rolled back so that we can have our larger, simpler, less expensive N/A engines back. You have to look at the whole picture. The costs and energy associated with building and repairing a vehicle are a significant part of how "efficient" that vehicle is. For instance, a hybrid that gets 50 mpg but has batteries that wear out regularly and require hazardous materials. You're saving a little gas, but not saving the environment at all. A law that requires hybrid vehicles like that benefits the car manufacturer because the car is expensive for the consumer and then it wears out quickly so then the car manufacturer can sell another "environmentally friendly" hybrid car.

The environment is a lot better off with simple, 20 mpg vehicles that last a long time and are easy to repair.

Efficient as a better way to make power with a lighter weight. Which is what I stated. M3 needed to get lighter and they went i6tt and added power and took over 100lbs off. Ferrari same thing wants more power and wants to take weight away. Merc amg which is killing it with their 6.3 knows they can't get the power they want with adding unnecessary weight. Conclusion less cubes added turbos, and their still getting smaller.

Mfrs can get away with that approach because most customers don't separate "drivability" from "more power". If they even know what drivability is, let alone when it might be important.

You could say they're using customer focus on HP (and ignorance concerning drivability) to 'game' the mpg requirements.


Norm

No doubt. Which is why the GT350 is so amazing. Porsche and Ferrari and professional drivers all rave about it. When it's being compare to 250k vehicles for pure driving experience you know Ford hit it out of the park.

Even with all this praise and the driving experience people are still complaining not enough power. Zl1 is better it has has more power. ...Can't go 10 it must suck. I call these people stat drivers, they only like it if they can brag to their friends.

 

[thePill]

Just a thought:

The 60lbs they removed from an already extremely neutered ZL1 was more than likely the same 85lbs they put into the 1LE that made it 3750lbs. No, they didn't pull the weight out of the things they listed, it may have helped but it wasn't the entire 60lbs. Think about it, that's 60lbs plus what ever weight added to the ZL1 for the 1LE package in some areas.

This complex (and tacky) Sub-Frame System makes it difficult to forecast platform changes. I can honestly tell you the system has compromised the entire Camaro's version of Alpha. While it is nice to have the capability to drop weight OR add rigidity when ever you want is nice, but they need to market both sides of the coin. Explain what happens when they removed all that metal from the SS and ZL1LE while the base 1LE and Covertibles require it.

Removing 60lbs(plus some 1LE equipment weight) isn't being done through some engineering feat... it is simply adding in and removing the metal that should have been part of the structure in the first place. Unless they went with CC wheels and lost a majority of the weight there, the rear seat panel and shocks won't result in a 70-80lbs weight loss. That's the real weight loss after mitigating the 1LE package weight gains.

If you ever get to look at a naked 6th Gen, you can better understand the vast difference. The sun-frame system is gimmicky and it never yields the rigidity integrated platforms have. Hell, you can even see the differences between the ATS's version and the Camaro. The B-C Pillar/Sail Panel area was designed by children. The answer to weight loss is NOT the absence of trying. Both the front and rear sections needed more engineering and more metal. There is no denying that the Mustang's naked structure is as state of the art, compact and efficient as any Unibody, ever. Without the use of a single light weight metal in the structure too... pure engineering.

That's why we are getting a 2020 Mustang (see C&D Cover November 2012) while the Camaro counts its days till a refresh.

 

[Childs Play]

Just a thought:

The 60lbs they removed from an already extremely neutered ZL1 was more than likely the same 85lbs they put into the 1LE that made it 3750lbs. No, they didn't pull the weight out of the things they listed, it may have helped but it wasn't the entire 60lbs. Think about it, that's 60lbs plus what ever weight added to the ZL1 for the 1LE package in some areas.

This complex (and tacky) Sub-Frame System makes it difficult to forecast platform changes. I can honestly tell you the system has compromised the entire Camaro's version of Alpha. While it is nice to have the capability to drop weight OR add rigidity when ever you want is nice, but they need to market both sides of the coin. Explain what happens when they removed all that metal from the SS and ZL1LE while the base 1LE and Covertibles require it.

Removing 60lbs(plus some 1LE equipment weight) isn't being done through some engineering feat... it is simply adding in and removing the metal that should have been part of the structure in the first place. Unless they went with CC wheels and lost a majority of the weight there, the rear seat panel and shocks won't result in a 70-80lbs weight loss. That's the real weight loss after mitigating the 1LE package weight gains.

If you ever get to look at a naked 6th Gen, you can better understand the vast difference. The sun-frame system is gimmicky and it never yields the rigidity integrated platforms have. Hell, you can even see the differences between the ATS's version and the Camaro. The B-C Pillar/Sail Panel area was designed by children. The answer to weight loss is NOT the absence of trying. Both the front and rear sections needed more engineering and more metal. There is no denying that the Mustang's naked structure is as state of the art, compact and efficient as any Unibody, ever. Without the use of a single light weight metal in the structure too... pure engineering.

That's why we are getting a 2020 Mustang (see C&D Cover November 2012) while the Camaro counts its days till a refresh.

Once again. The Camaro is perfectly fine rigidity wise and handles just fine.

If you think just throwing more metal at something makes it better, you have no idea how engineering works.

But since you seem to think using light weight metals and materials makes a car inferior, you must think cars like McLaren and Ferrari (and Ford F150) are flimsy as hell..?

Also, Convertibles from every brand (including the Ford Mustang) generally need extra reinforcement in the frame to make up for whats now missing up top. Not sure why you think that that is a smoking gun somehow...



Edit: I'd like to add that while I do know you are rather knowledgeable on the Mustang I just don't get the rather interesting attempts to discredit what is also a well performing car such as the Camaro. At least when it comes to overall performance. Talk crap about the looks and the problem with them overpricing the car from the start. That's fine. Looks are subjective while the pricing of the car is, agreeably, a big fail when it comes to the base price (and a few overpriced options thrown in). There's a reason they have to keep offering $1000 off MSRP and more discounts... You're obviously doing something wrong when a car (Challenger) that is a generation behind is starting to outsell your car.

I get that people on here prefer the Mustang. It's a Mustang forum. If anything, you are 100% right that sales are crap for the Camaro. Also, the constant delays of the automatic ZL1 aren't helping. Almost everyone who wants a ZL1 and first put in an order back in November and earlier are STILL waiting for their A10 order to go through. I know two people that have gotten one and pretty much everyone else keeps having their order moved back and delayed due to... who knows what.

I also agree that the reason for this (first paragraph in edit) is that the Engineering/Design team was beyond lazy when it came to designing the next gen Camaro as far as looks go. If anything, GM and the Camaro team got a strong dose of reality this generation. They are finding out that just making a car that can do a quarter mile faster than it's competitor most of the time depending on who's driving isn't going to sell cars that are over priced and it's time to give up on the sinking ship that was the previous design that sold well because of a Transformers movie.

Sponsored