5th gen Camaro performance

[JoeliusZ28]

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=129496

NORTH HOLLYWOOD, California — GM engineers at today's official 2010 Chevrolet Camaro unveil were all too willing to provide performance numbers for their hot, new muscle car, including quarter-mile and 0-60-mph times.

Al Oppenheiser, chief engineer for GM's North American rear-wheel-drive platform and owner of a first-generation Camaro convertible, was pleased to run through his baby's accomplishments.

According to Oppenheiser, the new 300-horsepower 3.6-liter V6-equipped Camaro will run from zero to 60 mph in 6.1 seconds regardless of transmission choice. The V6 coupe will cover the quarter-mile in 14.5 seconds with an auto and 14.7 seconds with a manual, both at 97 mph. The brakes don't sound quite as impressive, though, as Oppenheiser said the base Camaro stops from 60 to zero mph in 132 feet.

Not surprisingly, the V8-equipped Camaro SS delivers better numbers across the board. Chevy's Camaro SS outfitted with the 422-hp 6.2-liter LS3 V8 six-speed manual hits 60 mph in 4.9 seconds and runs a 13.4-second quarter-mile at 108 mph according to Oppenheiser. Strangely enough, Oppenheiser also claims that the automatic-equipped SS Camaro, which is rated at 400 hp, runs from zero to 60 mph in just 4.6 seconds and through the quarter-mile in 13.3 seconds. "We optimized the shift points," he said.

Both versions of the V8 Camaro SS pull a maximum 0.90 g on the skid pad. Four-piston Brembo brakes help stop the Camaro SS in 117 feet.

What this means to you: If Chevrolet's numbers pan out, the Camaro SS will be every bit as fast as the Dodge Challenger SRT8 for a lot less money. — Kelly Toepke, News Editor

I didnt realize that the L99 for automatics only like that article makes it sound...

I was also expecting better than a 13.4 out of an LS3 weighing 3860 poounds. My bolt on LT1 wouldve given that a hell of a good race :shake:

 

[VTRauder]

What this means to you: If Chevrolet's numbers pan out, the Camaro SS will be every bit as fast as the Dodge Challenger SRT8 for a lot less money. — Kelly Toepke, News Editor

or you could get a Mustang GT for cheaper than both of those ow:

 

[4 cam tbird]

Not really surprised the auto is claimed to be faster after seeing the gear ratios of the two transmissions

 

[Joe]

Remember if those are even actual numbers, they used pre-production vehicles. I'd expect those to change at least a little on the production units.

 

[ibmgto]

IRS probably plays a part, wonder if the wheelhop is as bad as the GTO.

 

[JoeliusZ28]

i hope it doesnt wheel hop, what good is a camaro that cant pull a holeshot.

 

[DRKCYDE]

8:20 around the Ring. God that thing is a pig.

 

[nascarnate326]

8:20 around the Ring. God that thing is a pig.

While not good, its got to be better then the Challenger. 8:20 is right on with lotus's and the last gen M3, and were talking nearly 2 tons. I wonder what the v6 version could do it in?

 

[DRKCYDE]

While not good, its got to be better then the Challenger. 8:20 is right on with lotus's and the last gen M3, and were talking nearly 2 tons. I wonder what the v6 version could do it in?

I love how you left out the Cobalt doing it almost as fast.:icon_mrgr

 

[nascarnate326]

I love how you left out the Cobalt doing it almost as fast.:icon_mrgr

appears I have been pwnd.:banana:

 

[GeosRide]

Aren't those numbers worse than the 4th gen LS1's they killed off? That just sounds weak to me.

 

[SSpdDmon]

I love how you left out the Cobalt doing it almost as fast.:icon_mrgr

I was going to say - the Cobalt did the ring in 8:22 IIRC. I'd expect a little more out of GM in getting the performance of this car straightened out. Cobalts with catbacks and tunes only are turning 13.2@104. :shake:

 

[DRKCYDE]

I was going to say - the Cobalt did the ring in 8:22 IIRC. I'd expect a little more out of GM in getting the performance of this car straightened out. Cobalts with catbacks and tunes only are turning 13.2@104. :shake:

And keep in mind the Cobalt secret weapon....reverse. Thats got to be good for at least four seconds around the Ring.

I am just glad my buddy that is about to buy a Cobalt will be able to keep up with a Camero around the Ring.:icon_mrgr

 

[SSpdDmon]

And keep in mind the Cobalt secret weapon....reverse. Thats got to be good for at least four seconds around the Ring.

I am just glad my buddy that is about to buy a Cobalt will be able to keep up with a Camero around the Ring.:icon_mrgr

:thumbsdow
CamAro

Camera's take pictures.

 

[hourang]

Aren't those numbers worse than the 4th gen LS1's they killed off? That just sounds weak to me.

yeah werent they rated at 13.6 1/4 mile with 100hp less?

 

[GeosRide]

yeah werent they rated at 13.6 1/4 mile with 100hp less?

I thought it was about that, mid to low 13's on the 4th gen LS1's. I can't wait to see what dealers start selling these for... I think that will determine whether or not the car lasts.

 

[Joe]

I thought it was about that, mid to low 13's on the 4th gen LS1's. I can't wait to see what dealers start selling these for... I think that will determine whether or not the car lasts.

Not really an accurate gauge of any vehicle program. Plenty of people paid markups for new designs and the cars continue to sell.

Besides, we aren't talking about a limited production vehicle here.
I don't fault the dealers for that, nobody forces the buyers to pony up the $$

 

[SSpdDmon]

yeah werent they rated at 13.6 1/4 mile with 100hp less?

4th Gen. LS1's were under rated. 305hp for the Z28? Ha! Those cars made that at the tires stock. If you cut a decent 60', it was low 13's and occasionally high 12's in the 1/4 with some halfway decent weather. But, that's if you can drive.

 

[COOKIE MONSTER]

Generally, I see most stock LS1 car run mid to low 13s, but I've heard of them getting into the 12s, and bolt on cars into the 11s...

 

[GeosRide]

Not really an accurate gauge of any vehicle program. Plenty of people paid markups for new designs and the cars continue to sell.

Besides, we aren't talking about a limited production vehicle here.
I don't fault the dealers for that, nobody forces the buyers to pony up the $$

But it's gouging the customer to price it higher than MSRP, and it will turn people off from buying them. How many potential F-body customers did GM leave out in the cold when they killed the platform? Ford has had their shit together and it shows.

Why am I going to spend that sort of cash on an F-body when I can very easily drop less on a Mustang? Sure, 400+ HP is great, but it's not running the numbers given the level of power advertised. And it got fatter to boot.