Production Camaro revealed

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Pariah

The original Mustang weighed in at 2,700 pounds. Even the big-block cars didn't weigh 3,800 pounds. There's no denying the massive weight gain of modern automobiles, even when compared to the "heavy" cars of the 1960's and 1970's.

It's no secret the average car weighs more today than it did 30 years ago, it's also no secret why, so what's your point?

You seemed to imply that "boulevard cruisers" have historically been heavyweights. I was simply pointing out that this is not necessarily so.

Originally posted by: Pariah

What, exactly, do you mean by "too much HP for that suspension"? You're aware that a live axle is many orders of magnitude stronger than an equivalent IRS system and will outlast the latter in repeated dragstrip launches, right? On a drag car you're better off to have a solid axle than you are to have IRS. The benefits of IRS come in cornering (and even then are largely limited to broken pavement), not in the dragstrip use which most muscle cars will see in actual use.

Ever seen a drag car try to take a corner at speed? Doesn't work too well.

That's because dedicated dragstrip cars have no swaybars and generally use soft springs and low-damping shock absorbers to facilitate weight transfer during acceleration. The side effect, of course, is that this same weight transfer (which is beneficial in a drag race as it puts more weight on the rear tires for better traction) is a large negative for cornering. It's not the live axle that's causing the cornering issues on a drag car, it's the other modifications done to the suspension.

Originally posted by: Pariah

Only if you're in the UK. In the US, a "ton" is always a short ton, which is 2,000 pounds. The long ton (2,240 pounds) is always explicitly called out as a long ton if it is used in the US.

Regardless of which definition you want to use, the Camaro still does not weigh more than 2 tons.

Not one single person in this thread has said that it does.

ZV

 

[Arkaign]

There goes ZV and his cold, stony logic again 🙂 Damn it ZV, WHY DO YOU HAVE TO MAKE SO MUCH DAMNED SENSE!?!?!?!?

Hmm. In the end, I'd rather have a fat, porky Camaro than no Camaro at all, but I don't think it will sell all that well after the initial hype dies down. I think we're at the point where a 33mpg, 2,800lb, 300hp, sub-$30k Camaro, with performance that would be dominant in the class, would be a huge seller in comparison to the behemoth that we're getting.

 

[Pariah]

You seemed to imply that "boulevard cruisers" have historically been heavyweights. I was simply pointing out that this is not necessarily so.

It's all relative. Compared to their contemporaries, they were heavyweights. The classic muscle cars, Charger, Challenger, GTO, Road Runner, etc, were not light and nimble track cars, they were large unwieldy tanks in their day.

That's because dedicated dragstrip cars have no swaybars and generally use soft springs and low-damping shock absorbers to facilitate weight transfer during acceleration. The side effect, of course, is that this same weight transfer (which is beneficial in a drag race as it puts more weight on the rear tires for better traction) is a large negative for cornering. It's not the live axle that's causing the cornering issues on a drag car, it's the other modifications done to the suspension.

You have shown me the light and I rescind what I said. The Mustang has a fantastic modern suspension which is ideally suited for 500+HP cars. It truly is the optimal setup for maximizing the performance, and the fact that it is probably the slowest 500HP coupe available when going round a corner should not be viewed as evidence to the contrary.

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: Pariah

You seemed to imply that "boulevard cruisers" have historically been heavyweights. I was simply pointing out that this is not necessarily so.

It's all relative. Compared to their contemporaries, they were heavyweights. The classic muscle cars, Charger, Challenger, GTO, Road Runner, etc, were not light and nimble track cars, they were large unwieldy tanks in their day.

That's because dedicated dragstrip cars have no swaybars and generally use soft springs and low-damping shock absorbers to facilitate weight transfer during acceleration. The side effect, of course, is that this same weight transfer (which is beneficial in a drag race as it puts more weight on the rear tires for better traction) is a large negative for cornering. It's not the live axle that's causing the cornering issues on a drag car, it's the other modifications done to the suspension.

You have shown me the light and I rescind what I said. The Mustang has a fantastic modern suspension which is ideally suited for 500+HP cars. It truly is the optimal setup for maximizing the performance, and the fact that it is probably the slowest 500HP coupe available when going round a corner should not be viewed as evidence to the contrary.

The Corvette has a live axle as well...

 

[herm0016]

the corvette as a fully independent transverse leaf spring setup in the rear. its not your typical live axle.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: herm0016
the corvette as a fully independent transverse leaf spring setup in the rear. its not your typical live axle.

Also helps that the Corvette doesn't weigh as much as a truck 🙂

 

[AdamK47]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: Pariah

You seemed to imply that "boulevard cruisers" have historically been heavyweights. I was simply pointing out that this is not necessarily so.

It's all relative. Compared to their contemporaries, they were heavyweights. The classic muscle cars, Charger, Challenger, GTO, Road Runner, etc, were not light and nimble track cars, they were large unwieldy tanks in their day.

That's because dedicated dragstrip cars have no swaybars and generally use soft springs and low-damping shock absorbers to facilitate weight transfer during acceleration. The side effect, of course, is that this same weight transfer (which is beneficial in a drag race as it puts more weight on the rear tires for better traction) is a large negative for cornering. It's not the live axle that's causing the cornering issues on a drag car, it's the other modifications done to the suspension.

You have shown me the light and I rescind what I said. The Mustang has a fantastic modern suspension which is ideally suited for 500+HP cars. It truly is the optimal setup for maximizing the performance, and the fact that it is probably the slowest 500HP coupe available when going round a corner should not be viewed as evidence to the contrary.

The Corvette has a live axle as well...

C2+ Corvettes are IRS.

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: herm0016
the corvette as a fully independent transverse leaf spring setup in the rear. its not your typical live axle.

Also helps that the Corvette doesn't weigh as much as a truck 🙂

Actually it does.

Corvette:

Coupe 3,217
Convertible 3,246
Z06 3,162

Tacoma Reg cab: 3200

Colorado Reg cab: 3,303

Ranger Reg cab: 3030 lbs.

🙂

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: AdamK47

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: Pariah

You seemed to imply that "boulevard cruisers" have historically been heavyweights. I was simply pointing out that this is not necessarily so.

It's all relative. Compared to their contemporaries, they were heavyweights. The classic muscle cars, Charger, Challenger, GTO, Road Runner, etc, were not light and nimble track cars, they were large unwieldy tanks in their day.

That's because dedicated dragstrip cars have no swaybars and generally use soft springs and low-damping shock absorbers to facilitate weight transfer during acceleration. The side effect, of course, is that this same weight transfer (which is beneficial in a drag race as it puts more weight on the rear tires for better traction) is a large negative for cornering. It's not the live axle that's causing the cornering issues on a drag car, it's the other modifications done to the suspension.

You have shown me the light and I rescind what I said. The Mustang has a fantastic modern suspension which is ideally suited for 500+HP cars. It truly is the optimal setup for maximizing the performance, and the fact that it is probably the slowest 500HP coupe available when going round a corner should not be viewed as evidence to the contrary.

The Corvette has a live axle as well...

C2+ Corvettes are IRS.

Well then ignore me, I'm an idiot. I knew it was independant transverse leaf as I have looked into a Factory Five GTM, I was just rambling like an fool. 😱

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

At the speeds street cars run in the 1/4, aerodynamics really don't come into play. Weight has much more to do with it on this level. Also, aerodynamics can be deceptive. Overall my Volvo has a slightly better drag coefficient than my 944, despite the Volvo looking like a brick and the 944 looking rather aerodynamic.

ZV

as an example, ford made the flex more boxy because they found it improved the aerodynamics.

Originally posted by: Pariah
You have shown me the light and I rescind what I said. The Mustang has a fantastic modern suspension which is ideally suited for 500+HP cars. It truly is the optimal setup for maximizing the performance, and the fact that it is probably the slowest 500HP coupe available when going round a corner should not be viewed as evidence to the contrary.

it's a damping problem and not a live axle problem.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/...ush_vs_mustang_shelby/

 

[Pariah]

It's a independent double wishbone. Yes, there is a transverse leaf spring, but that isn't a solid axle.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Pariah

That's because dedicated dragstrip cars have no swaybars and generally use soft springs and low-damping shock absorbers to facilitate weight transfer during acceleration. The side effect, of course, is that this same weight transfer (which is beneficial in a drag race as it puts more weight on the rear tires for better traction) is a large negative for cornering. It's not the live axle that's causing the cornering issues on a drag car, it's the other modifications done to the suspension.

You have shown me the light and I rescind what I said. The Mustang has a fantastic modern suspension which is ideally suited for 500+HP cars. It truly is the optimal setup for maximizing the performance, and the fact that it is probably the slowest 500HP coupe available when going round a corner should not be viewed as evidence to the contrary.

That's a lot of words, but no actual logical defense of your position. Several points:

- It's built to be a straight-line car, not a cornering car.
- I never said that the entire suspension of the car was perfect, great, or even good for cornering. I simply said that the live axle isn't the problem piece.
- As I pointed out, there are numerous other compromises in suspension design that have vastly more impact on cornering than a live axle vs IRS, so fingering the live axle as the culprit is going well beyond mere over-simplification.

ZV

 

[lurk3r]

I really want to like this car but what's with GM's 37" head room. They must think everyone's 5'8". Screw them I'll stick with my Nissan. Oh by the way, 3700 lbs is not bad, the V6 altima is full of aluminum parts and is about 3500 lbs. When they stop making boring over prices cars with no manuals that only fit short fat people I'll consider buying one.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Pariah
You have shown me the light and I rescind what I said. The Mustang has a fantastic modern suspension which is ideally suited for 500+HP cars. It truly is the optimal setup for maximizing the performance, and the fact that it is probably the slowest 500HP coupe available when going round a corner should not be viewed as evidence to the contrary.

That's a lot of words, but no actual logical defense of your position. Several points:

- It's built to be a straight-line car, not a cornering car.
- I never said that the entire suspension of the car was perfect, great, or even good for cornering. I simply said that the live axle isn't the problem piece.
- As I pointed out, there are numerous other compromises in suspension design that have vastly more impact on cornering than a live axle vs IRS, so fingering the live axle as the culprit is going well beyond mere over-simplification.

ZV

Here here :beer:

And onto more productive conversation - Edmunds had an article listing performance numbers for the new Camaro.

http://www.edmunds.com/insidel.../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 had high hopes for the DI V6 and the 6-speed manual, until I saw the curb weight. This thing is on par with an 05-06 GTO for acceleration, but seems like it will have much better handling (more modern suspension design, hopefully better parts used).

I rate the Camaro as a solid meh. Updated 05-06 GTO (er, Monaro) with retro styling. If they wanted to impress me, they'd have gotten the weight down to 3500lb or less. I'm very happy they're offering 6-speeds across the board, but that doesn't help if anyone wants to have a fun and more economical ride with the DI V6 given the pig status.

Ugh.

EDIT I guess the Corvette is secure in its performance status across the board. Maybe a bit gun-shy after the LS1 F-Bodies had the same engine in a car that didn't weigh much more than a Vette?

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Pariah

That's because dedicated dragstrip cars have no swaybars and generally use soft springs and low-damping shock absorbers to facilitate weight transfer during acceleration. The side effect, of course, is that this same weight transfer (which is beneficial in a drag race as it puts more weight on the rear tires for better traction) is a large negative for cornering. It's not the live axle that's causing the cornering issues on a drag car, it's the other modifications done to the suspension.

You have shown me the light and I rescind what I said. The Mustang has a fantastic modern suspension which is ideally suited for 500+HP cars. It truly is the optimal setup for maximizing the performance, and the fact that it is probably the slowest 500HP coupe available when going round a corner should not be viewed as evidence to the contrary.

That's a lot of words, but no actual logical defense of your position. Several points:

- It's built to be a straight-line car, not a cornering car.
- I never said that the entire suspension of the car was perfect, great, or even good for cornering. I simply said that the live axle isn't the problem piece.
- As I pointed out, there are numerous other compromises in suspension design that have vastly more impact on cornering than a live axle vs IRS, so fingering the live axle as the culprit is going well beyond mere over-simplification.

ZV

You don't need a solid axle for 1/4's in the 12's. You can mindlessly try and defend it all you want, but not even Ford tried to when asked about it. They did it to save money, not because they thought it was better in any other way, or because they were targetting straightline performance. Fine, they didn't think it was worth it for the $40,000 GT500, but at $80,000, there is no excuse for the GT500KR not having a suspension capable of handling the power in the straights as well as the corners.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Pariah

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Pariah

That's because dedicated dragstrip cars have no swaybars and generally use soft springs and low-damping shock absorbers to facilitate weight transfer during acceleration. The side effect, of course, is that this same weight transfer (which is beneficial in a drag race as it puts more weight on the rear tires for better traction) is a large negative for cornering. It's not the live axle that's causing the cornering issues on a drag car, it's the other modifications done to the suspension.

You have shown me the light and I rescind what I said. The Mustang has a fantastic modern suspension which is ideally suited for 500+HP cars. It truly is the optimal setup for maximizing the performance, and the fact that it is probably the slowest 500HP coupe available when going round a corner should not be viewed as evidence to the contrary.

That's a lot of words, but no actual logical defense of your position. Several points:

- It's built to be a straight-line car, not a cornering car.
- I never said that the entire suspension of the car was perfect, great, or even good for cornering. I simply said that the live axle isn't the problem piece.
- As I pointed out, there are numerous other compromises in suspension design that have vastly more impact on cornering than a live axle vs IRS, so fingering the live axle as the culprit is going well beyond mere over-simplification.

ZV

You don't need a solid axle for 1/4's in the 12's. You can mindlessly try and defend it all you want, but not even Ford tried to when asked about it. They did it to save money, not because they thought it was better in any other way, or because they were targetting straightline performance. Fine, they didn't think it was worth it for the $40,000 GT500, but at $80,000, there is no excuse for the GT500KR not having a suspension capable of handling the power in the straights as well as the corners.

Once again, you have given precisely zero evidence to support your claim that the live axle is the chief problem point in the suspension design. I say again, you go well beyond mere over-simplification.

ZV

 

[Pariah]

Nor have you provided any tangible evidence that it isn't the weak link in the car's handling. Making the whole thing a pointless circular argument.

 

[ayabe]

I don't really dig the retro dial faces, but I am happy to see that they've included some extra gauges. It's nice but I'm afraid that when I sit in it I'm going to get that same feeling I get whenever I sit in an American car with hard plastic all around me.

Every "sports" car should include these as a bar minimum, and turbo charged cars should include EGT/Boost in addition.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Pariah
Nor have you provided any tangible evidence that it isn't the weak link in the car's handling. Making the whole thing a pointless circular argument.

That's because dedicated dragstrip cars have no swaybars and generally use soft springs and low-damping shock absorbers to facilitate weight transfer during acceleration. The side effect, of course, is that this same weight transfer (which is beneficial in a drag race as it puts more weight on the rear tires for better traction) is a large negative for cornering. It's not the live axle that's causing the cornering issues on a drag car, it's the other modifications done to the suspension.

Or did you quote that post without reading it? Those are all facts. Anyone who has worked on any suspension design can tell you that.

Additionally, in the only track test I could find of the KR (Popular Mechanics), they praised the handling, faulting only the brakes for too much fade late in the track session. The GT500 has it's share of handling issues, but based on what I've been able to look up, the GT500KR seems to have resolved them. Unless you can find a link to a magazine test that suggests otherwise.

ZV

 

[Pariah]

Yes, I read that, and I agree. If you want to run 9's or faster in the 1/4, you are better off with a solid axle. This car is no where near capable of that, and being a real world car, the suspension has to be able to handle the power properly through the corners as well. You have not provided any evidence that a solid axle is a better or even equal choice to an IRS in such applications.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Pariah
Yes, I read that, and I agree. If you want to run 9's or faster in the 1/4, you are better off with a solid axle. This car is no where near capable of that, and being a real world car, the suspension has to be able to handle the power properly through the corners as well. You have not provided any evidence that a solid axle is a better or even equal choice to an IRS in such applications.

Road & Track first drive of the GT500KR:

The suspension tuning, combined with recalibrated traction control and ABS, works wonders. Where the GT500 feels slow and heavy mid-corner, the KR dares the driver to go faster. Tremendous grip is provided, and putting the 540 horsepower to the ground isn't difficult. Preliminary testing from Ford indicates the KR will achieve 1.0g on a skidpad and over 70 mph in our slalom.

From the same review (emphasis mine):

On the track, the KR rewards cornering with a nice smooth steering input while gently trail-braking, then rolling back into the throttle. Not expecting the KR to have so much grip, I found myself having to get on the throttle early. A flying lap in the KR isn't slow in the corners and fast on the straights, it's fast everywhere.

Sounds to me like the live axle isn't holding it back much, if at all.

Also, I never once said that a solid axle is equal to IRS in corners. My exact quote was, "The benefits of IRS come in cornering (and even then are largely limited to broken pavement)". Note the emphasis. Not "exclusively", but "largely", meaning that IRS is still slightly superior on smooth pavement.

ZV

 

[Ktulu]

http://www.edmunds.com/insidel.../News/articleId=129586

Apparently the Camaro did 8:20 on the 'Ring.

The Nürburgring number proves even if it's a little heavy, a Camaro SS can run with some pretty exclusive company

Sounds like despite the weight this SS is a true performer, so can we please put the weight discussion to rest?

Ironically, that's only 2 seconds faster than the Cobalt SS! :shocked: :laugh:

 

[Pariah]

That's great, they think the car turns well. That isn't evidence that it wouldn't be that much better without the solid axle, indicating it wasn't able to put all the power down. Connecting your rear wheels with a steel girder would not be the first choice for any non-dragstrip performance car designer. The only place it would outperform an IRS is on a smooth level dragstrip which has no resemblance to real world driving, or any other type of track application.

Well, maybe if you want to do rock climbing, your backing of the SA would work, but I don't see the Mustang being used for that.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Pariah
That's great, they think the car turns well. That isn't evidence that it wouldn't be that much better without the solid axle, indicating it wasn't able to put all the power down. Connecting your rear wheels with a steel girder would not be the first choice for any non-dragstrip performance car designer. The only place it would outperform an IRS is on a smooth level dragstrip which has no resemblance to real world driving, or any other type of track application.

Well, maybe if you want to do rock climbing, your backing of the SA would work, but I don't see the Mustang being used for that.

Did you miss this part:

Tremendous grip is provided, and putting the 540 horsepower to the ground isn't difficult.

Seems it was able to put all that power down.

Look, an IRS will have higher theoretical limits. That has never once been in dispute. However, a well set up live axle is not a hindrance to exceptional overall performance, as illustrated by every road test review of both the Mustang GT and the big-brother GT500KR. You keep claiming "real-world", yet when concrete examples are shown of exceptional real-world performance from a live axle, you ignore them. The performance level of the GT500KR is "real-world", just as the performance of the Mustang GT is. The simple fact is that, in all practical applications, both cars offer performance on par with contemporary models that have IRS. Stop focusing on the suspension and start focusing on the resultant handling. Come out of your theoretical world and into practical applications.

ZV

 

[ElFenix]

the live axle also reduces weight compared to independent suspension (which almost none of them are actually independent due to sway bars)

Originally posted by: Pariah
Nor have you provided any tangible evidence that it isn't the weak link in the car's handling. Making the whole thing a pointless circular argument.

did you watch the roush v. gt500 video i posted?


for 99.9% of drivers and for 99.9% of driving there will be no difference between a live axle and an independent rear. no one ever complained about the previous gen maxima and it's torsion bar out back.