check out this video
This is a discussion on check out this video within the Camaro / SS forums, part of the Vehicle Specific category; Originally Posted by Lethal Z A bone stock 98-02 LS1 camaro runs mid 13's and does so with about 320hp. ...
05-04-2010, 10:02 PM #21
It's not pathetic there only asking about 4g's more than what the old ones new cost, and again you get so much more quality then you did the old ones. Yah they can do better but you seem to be missing that if they wanted to shave off a few 100lb's by going to an aluminum frame the car wouldn't be as affordable as it is. The mustang chassis also has a 6 year head start on the Camaro of 2010. And in the first year Chevy made it faster than the mustang of 2010, I think Chevy deserves a pat on the back for that.
Another thing it doesn't have 400hp let's talk rwhp that's a much more accurate comparison. Stock m6's get over 300rwhp 98's-00 I have seen bone stock average 305-315rwhp, 01-02's actually were hitting mid 320's, heck I have seen them stock w/ just tunes hit 340rwhp. Now for our 2010 I have one video for you to look at, search some more if you aren't satisfied w/ this one.
http://www.streetfire.net/video/2010...-2_1264073.htm yes that is at the wheels, so we can see the a6 does not make 80 hp more.
It's a great motor but the ability to turn off cylinders comes w/ a price. Even then stock for stock the new cars aren't any slower than the old ones my auto ran 13.48 stock, I have seen the l99's stock doing 13.3's. So w/ more weight and less rwhp they beat my car by nearly 2 tenths.
Back to f-bods, stock m6's are capable running high 12's stock-go search on the web or in some old threads.
So we see a 02 w/ a tune making at least 340rwhp, we won't even assume exhaust includes headers. My auto w/ the same mods minus slicks runs 12.7, and my only advantage would have been the launch-the auto's only advantage. No way my car will out launch a similar modded car with a slick. A m6 will always out top end an auto of the same chassis. On youtube there is a vid of a guy running 12.6's (m6)stock to the filter w/ just slicks.
So in comparison you have a modded mid 12's car stacked against a stock low mid 13's car. Which going back to your being better off in your old car comment. The gt is still a 13 second car stock and you can't compare a modded m6 car w/ slicks to a stock car in the vid above. That's like comparing a cammed f-bod to a stock 04 cobra-we get the same argument just about different cars
Now for your 450hp remark. The m6 2010 have been shown to run high 12's stock much more frequently than the f-bods, it's only putting down 430 at the crank.
They have done a real good job w/ that l99-it was efficient enough to save them from the gas guzzler tax. Another thing the ability for that auto to run as fast as mine did stock w/ that extra weight shows they are improving.
Remember the cars of the 60's? They sure were a hell of a lot faster than those of the late 70's, I personally can't count on both hands the cars I would like to own from the 80's even. What's more back in the 80's you could buy a 60's muscle car for a lot less than you could for a brand new tpi (230hp)Vette-what turds those were. There are countless examples of a time when hp had to step back a bit so technology could progress. And for the longest time hp really suffered, then we started to see technology actual benefit hp. For instance there used to be just one 02 sensor after the y. Now we have 2 (let's not discuss the other 2) Technology is at a point where they can now put o2's at every exhaust cylinder. No more having to worry about flow matching injectors(for lack of bank control) or worrying about the dreaded #7 cylinder tanking out. Not only is it even more fuel efficient but the hp potential goes up more. What is really cool is they have a motor that has no cam, all the valve events are handles by electrical solenoids. Imagine a smog legal car that has a lift of .420 at idle and .680 lift at wot (no not vtec), that would embarrass an ms4 cam, t-rex cam, vindicator, polluter, etc. And gets better mileage for less rotating resistance. They have the technology it's just now trying to figure out how to make those solenoids last 100k miles. So look at the l99 as a step in the right direction not as something they can improve on-they are working on it.
Back to those cars of the 60's if every car was faster than it's predecessor we would all be driving 9 second cars. Gt-40, Porsche 917, zl1. The new ford gt isn't even as fast as the old gt-40. Think how recent it was until they gave us an aluminum block after the zl1 so many years ago. Look at a vette of the early 80's (tpi 230hp) compared to a 427 vette of the 60's. Yes hp is lacking in the 80's vette but what about the advancement in brakes (rotors), tires, computers, chassis.
Advancement comes in small steps. They improve one thing so then down the line they improve something else and buy doing it in small steps they can keep costs down-much less expensive than starting a factory over from square one(Something to take into the account for the cost for the new factory in Canada). I am sure if the Camaro did not share it's chassis w/ a few other vehicles it would have been delayed even longer than it's already 8 year hiatus and the price tag certainly would not have been any cheaper.
If you want to look at it this way we all know gm is cheap. You think they would come out w/ a whole new frame and immediately make it out of the more expensive materials or start w/ something cheaper and improve it later thus giving people a reason to buy a new one down the road. And give there factory a chance to figure out what they can do to make them more efficiently made so they can afford to give you that aluminum chassis for less.
Considering all the bullshit gm has gone through w/ the plant in Canada to getting bailed out, to getting taken over were lucky to even have the new Camaro. I would agree w/ anyone the Camaro has been one of gm's saving grace and that they should have never canceled it in the first place.
I don't see the new Camaro as pathetic it shed it's old chassis(dating back to the turd gens), old motor, and old interior for something a lot newer. The fun is is yet to come when they progress even further on there new platform.
05-05-2010, 04:00 PM #22
man you really put some thought into this. dont get me wrong and i think i speek for everyone here. I love GM and just about everything they put out especially the camaro. I wasnt trying to down grade the new camaro I think it is fantastic. I was just trying to give all of us f body a little encouragment for how great our cars still are, and how little it takes to really beef these things up. And it also made me feel a little better about not running down to the dealer and trading my car in lol. But i am deffinatlly looking forward to the advancement of the new camaro. so far they done great. i just hope they dont go to far with it and sky rocket the price so that the guys who made the camaro what it is cant afford it.
05-05-2010, 06:06 PM #23
Just to give you guys an idea any 2011 Camaro we order we add 5% to the MSRP because ive been told its going to be that much higher.1993 Z28 M6: K&N Intake, 52mm TB, TB Bypass, No Cats, Exhaust Cutout, Flowmaster Muffler, 3.90 Gears, 160 Thermo, Tune, BMR Springs, Bilstein Shocks, 3 Point SFC,s & MGW Shifter.
05-06-2010, 04:11 PM #24
Im just gonna touch on a few things here. Why would GM need to make an all aluminum chasis to loose a few 100lbs? If I give GM a pat on the back it will be for the 98-02 F-body. It made great power good weight and today is still a force to be reckoned with on the street. For that GM, well done.
Now getting into our F-body discussion. Now you say its unfair to compare a modded mid 12 second car to a mid 13 second car. Well thats looking at this discussion at face value, and your argument just proves my point. The TA in question has a huge advantage......less weight. The fact that it happens to be an m6 is just another nail in the coffin for the SS. Like you said its capable of 12's bone stock and does so with 320 hp. If it had the same weight as the SS theres no way it could pull that off stock. Lets look at it another way. Lets say the SS had been a manual, this car is capable of hitting 12's stock. Heres the problem, the TA would most likely still beat it. It was running 12's to begin with now that its been modded its running mid to low 12's. Now you have one car running low 12's with 350hp and another running high 12's with 430hp. As far as Im concerened with this big of a difference in HP in favor of the SS, the mods to the TA should be irrelevent. This is why I say you might be better off in the car you have now.
As far as the 2011 mustang goes I guess we'll have to wait and see but I don't think its gonna be pretty. The Mustang will have the same weight advantage as the TA did with more HP. If you go with the camaro I think you know which one you wanna stay away from.
05-09-2010, 01:48 PM #25
05-12-2010, 10:08 PM #26
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
- Ontario Canada
- 2001 Camaro ss
..there is a chance that the horsepower is slightly overated on the 2010.....the other thing..if he's got the traction control on that will slow the camaro down..that traction control works good in the rain and that about it..
05-14-2010, 12:05 AM #27
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- U. S And A Greatest country in all of world
- 2002 Camaro
I think if the 2010 would have had more stickers it would have won for sure!
They are great cars, just a little to heavy for my liking.
05-14-2010, 12:44 AM #28
Suggestion: If you are particularly irritated by another member's posting habits and are constantly fighting the urge to flame them, you can click on that person's profile, and select "Add to ignore list." This will make that person's posts invisible to you.
05-14-2010, 05:38 AM #29
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- U. S And A Greatest country in all of world
- 2002 Camaro
05-16-2010, 07:19 PM #30
- Join Date
- May 2010
- Los Angeles CA
- 2011 Mustang GT
Most of my experience is with Mustangs but this race did'nt surprise me at all.I've seen how hard those ls1 motors run with bolt on's and a stick vs auto is gonna usually go to the stick unless the auto is modified (higher stall converter etc.) and mabey lower gears for the auto like 3.90,4.11's what gear ratio for both cars? I would like to compare them to see the real advantage for the manual.
Last edited by zilla8; 05-16-2010 at 07:22 PM.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By powermelissa in forum Multimedia SectionReplies: 0Last Post: 04-04-2007, 02:10 PM
By Musclefan21 in forum Almost Anything GoesReplies: 4Last Post: 10-08-2006, 06:23 AM
By Frankthetank in forum Southern MembersReplies: 3Last Post: 09-17-2006, 07:29 PM
By nitrox28 in forum Almost Anything GoesReplies: 4Last Post: 08-22-2006, 08:16 AM
By J3ff in forum Almost Anything GoesReplies: 21Last Post: 01-30-2006, 01:30 PM