GM Inside News Forum banner

2010 Chevy Camaro SS: 0-to-60 time officially 4.7 seconds!

22K views 46 replies 28 participants last post by  Cphelps 
#1 ·
#3 ·
^^^ 6.1 seconds is what GM stated in the dealer training videos
 
#4 ·
Sub 5 seconds definitely works for me! :drive:
 
#5 · (Edited)
THIS IS BULL ***!!!! Who tested this thing EDMUNDS??? :confused:


I guarantee MT or C&D get a hold of it and break 4.2-4.3secs. The G8 GXP was tested by MT at 4.5secs and it weighs more and has less power at 415HP vs the 426HP... altho they could have been testing the AFM engine

THIS MUST HAVE BEEN The 400HP AFM engine with the AUTOMATIC

G8 GXP 0-60 4.5secs
 
#9 ·
C&D got 4.6 seconds from a LS2 GTO...4.7 sounds too slow for this car...of course, it also weighs more than a LS2 GTO.

Does the SS Camaro have a 3.42 rear end? That's what my GTO has, well at least for now...3.91's coming soon.
 
#18 ·
Well, slap me across the Adam's apple and call me Shirley, that is a darned purdy number!
 
#23 ·
Probably so. A couple weeks ago someone posted a dyno of the DI CTS and with just intake/exhaust it picked up something like 30hp.
 
#24 ·
Here U go MR. HASKELL:cool:

D3 Concepts took a CTS 3.6L Di (always remember that a average loss in HP is 15% from Flywheel to Rear Wheels... hence a 304HP engine divided by 1.15= 264HP)

Baseline run: vehicle produced 263.0 rwhp and 241.7 lbs/tq.
Adding the new Corsa Exhaust power jumped to 281.1 rwhp and 255.3 lbs/tq. for an increase of 18.1 rwhp and 13.6 lbs/tq




Added their intake system and power jumped to 294.2 rwhp and 261.3 lbs/tq for an increase of 13.1 rwhp and 6.0 lbs/tq. Total gain in power was 31.2 rwhp and 19.6 lbs/tq. from just an intake and exhaust.




MEANING: That they took a 304HP (at the Fly) 3.6LDi and boosted it to 340HP with the Exhaust and Intake MOD.....
:yup:
 
#25 ·
MEANING: That they took a 304HP (at the Fly) 3.6LDi and boosted it to 340HP with the Exhaust and Intake MOD.....:yup:
Yes sir. That's what I'm talkin' about! :tup:: :dro:
 
#31 ·
If you check the specs on the new Camaro webiste it gives the 1/4 mile time. LS3=12.9@111...v6=14.5@97. V6...0-60=6.1. Back in Sept. 08 at Indy one of the engineers said he pulled a 12.9 in a manual car and I doubt he is that good of a driver, so I'm sure someone with more experience could improve on that time.
 
#32 ·
I don't see why the SS couldn't get into the 12's...plenty of guys in LS2 GTO's can get theirs in the 12's...you just need technique and traction. With a decent set of DR's, I could even see mid 12's.
 
#36 · (Edited)
Aparently, a Dynapack takes its readings from the hub with the rear wheels OFF. I thought this was the case.

This definitely would give a more "optimistic" reading (closer to true flywheel hp) than a Mustang or Dynojet brand dyno. That being said, wheels and tires (especially big one's like 18's and 20's, having more weight transferred to the outer edge) would be a large part of a modern drivetrain's loss. From what I've read during my research here and talking with my tuner friend who does a lot of dyno tuning, it's up to 50% of the total parasitic loss.

That puts a Dynapack at a more conservative 5-6% drivetrain loss from current SAE flywheel horsepower ratings as opposed to a 10-12% loss experienced by a Mustang or Dynojet roller style dyno.

That being said, one can estimate the following taking your stock Dynapack figures of (HUB)HP and obtain the following estimate:

263/.94 (6% loss) = 280 @ the crank

and checking this gives...

280 x .94 = 263 @ the wheels

24 HP bellow advertised. If this is consistent with other dyno tests......
 
#38 ·
Aparently, a Dynapack takes its readings from the hub with the rear wheels OFF. I thought this was the case.

This definitely would give a more "optimistic" reading (closer to true flywheel hp) than a Mustang or Dynojet. That being said, wheels and tires (especially big one's like 18's and 20's, having more weight transferred to the outer edge) would be a large part of a modern drive train's loss. From what I've read during my research here and talking with my tuner friend who does a lot of dyno tuning, it's up to 50% of the total parasitic loss.

That puts a Dynapack at a more conservative 5-6% drive train loss from current (realistic) SAE flywheel horsepower ratings as opposed to a 10-12% loss experienced by a Mustang or Dynojet roller style dyno.

That being said, one can estimate the following taking your stock Dynapack figures of R(HUB)HP and obtain the following estimate:

263/.94 (6% loss) = 280 @ the crank

and checking this gives...

280 x .94 = 263 @ the wheels

24 HP bellow advertised. If this is consistent with other dyno tests......

Do I smell a lawyer? :eek:
With SAE certified, I find it unlikely that horsepower would be overstated that much. 263/304 is 86.5%. Are you sure that 13.5% loss isn't a reasonable number for this dyno? Environmental conditions need to be factored in too.
 
#40 · (Edited)
Here it is from the horses mouth. This is from Shawn Church's website, owner of Church Automotive Testing:

The final difference between a Dynapack and virtually all other chassis dynos on the market today is that the Dynapack eliminates the tire to "road" interface. By using a special hub adaptor that replaces the wheel and tire, the Dynapack eliminates wheel slip, alignment losses, tire inflation/wear issues and more. However, by eliminating the large mass (and attendant inertia) of the wheel and tire combination, the Dynapack does tend to read higher than comparable "roller" dynos.
Keep in mind that the below writeup was printed before the more conservative SAE rating system was adopted, so the loss to the hubs in newer models compared to their advertised rating is about 15 horsepower, not the 25 stated by Church (when using his Dynapack on a 230 flywheel horsepower test car). He did a comparison between the two different style dynos just to see what the differance was and found the Dynojet read 10 horsepower less than his Dynapack, further stating that as the wheel/hub horsepower increased from engine modifications, so did the widening of the gap in the reading between the two different dynos.

I believe that when the Camaro or CTS are tested on a Dynojet, like the ones the Genesis and G37 were tested on, they will be down 15 horsepower from the Dynapack reading of 263 taken at the hubs. This isn't considering the fact that the tires and wheels on the Camaro and CTS are heavier and larger than the smaller 17's used on Church's test car, which would make for an even greater loss on a Dynojet. This further widens the gap from the Genesis 3.8, where the Camaro and CTS are down at least 25 horsepower at the rear wheels...yet they only share an indicated gap of two at the flywheel. What gives???

DYNO TECH

I am almost convinced now that the 3.6DI's horsepower rating is embellished by at least 25 horsepower. Could this be why there is such a difference in performance compared to the competition?
 
#45 · (Edited)
With the new SAE J1349 standard the HP has to be within 1% + or - of what it is rated, so it is very likely it is putting out within 1% of what it is rated. It is true that the Dyno Pack dynos show higher numbers, since the wheels off removes large amounts of inertia from the equation. Either way 1 set of dyno numbers from one shop isn't enough to draw any conclusions about the stock HP of the 3.6DI. Dyno numbers can be made to say basically whatever the dyno operator wants depending on the inputs selected. You can estimate what drive train losses "should be" all day long, but until you chassis dyno a vehicle in a climate controlled area, then remove the engine and use an accurate engine dyno such as the one at Katech's facilities, you don't really know what they are.

As far as the CTS's acceleration numbers not stalking up compared to the G35, the RWD CTS is 3874lbs, while the RWD G35 is 3497lbs, and their HP is rated about the same at the crank. That nearly 400 lbs of extra weight is what is killing the numbers. Plus the G35 has a slightly more aggressive (higher numerically) axle ratio.
 
#46 ·
The CTS and G35 are different animals. The G35 is more of a two-door boy racer car with a small backseat, while the CTS is a full up luxury car with four doors and a real backseat. Though slower, the CTS is a fabulous car which I would rather have due to its capabilities and interior room over the G35.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top