GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,723 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Autoweek quotes Camaro engineer on performance estimates ... and the news is good:

"Track numbers? Impressive, according to Doug Houlihan, GM’s chief engineer for global rear-drive vehicles. He said the V6 goes 0-60 mph in 6.1 seconds, finishes the quarter mile in 14.5 and stops from 60 in 132 feet. The SS hits 60 in the 4.6-4.7 range, completes the quarter in 13.2 and stops from 60 mph in 117 feet."

See: http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080721/FREE/685549631/1023/CARNEWS

I'm particularly impressed with the V6 numbers; it wasn't too long ago that mid-14 second quarter miles were true muscle-car territory. That kind of performance with decent fuel economy seems like a winning combination, particularly if the car is competitive on price.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,062 Posts
Too bad it doesn't show trap speeds. Thats the more of a solid basis for how it will do at the drag strip, and how fast it truly is.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
20,962 Posts
:clap:

Is the fuel economy for both auto/manual 26 MPG? I read 27 MPG somewhere else, it seems like the numbers are varying from site to site.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,675 Posts
With the same 300hp as the Mustang GT, I was expecting the V6 to get the same 5.3-5.5 0-60 time as the stang V8. It must be a torque and gearing thing.
 

·
Back!
Joined
·
5,366 Posts
With the same 300hp as the Mustang GT, I was expecting the V6 to get the same 5.3-5.5 0-60 time as the stang V8. It must be a torque and gearing thing.
Ya think? An extra 200lb of mass and 50lb-ft fewer torque makes a little bit (or a whole lot) of a difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,391 Posts
GM NEEDS add a kick ass turbo to the V6 RS package!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,014 Posts
With the same 300hp as the Mustang GT, I was expecting the V6 to get the same 5.3-5.5 0-60 time as the stang V8. It must be a torque and gearing thing.
And this is where the mustang will have the advantage when it receives the new engines
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,267 Posts
Ya think? An extra 200lb of mass and 50lb-ft fewer torque makes a little bit (or a whole lot) of a difference.
As much as half a second. I thing its the conservative gearing/final drive ratio that is hampering the time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
194 Posts
13.2 for the SS? That isn't good considering the F Body got the same times with the LS1.
Yeah, I was just thinking the same thing. I would run 13.5's in a LS1 convertible f-body that was 3800 lbs. I saw other folks run low 13's no problem in a LS1 F-body. 13.2 is terrible IMO for the new Camaro.

The V6 numbers sound close to what the LT1 F-body's used to run.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
Yeah, I was just thinking the same thing. I would run 13.5's in a LS1 convertible f-body that was 3800 lbs. I saw other folks run low 13's no problem in a LS1 F-body. 13.2 is terrible IMO for the new Camaro.

The V6 numbers sound close to what the LT1 F-body's used to run.
Give it time. These numbers are from GM. Wait until it gets into the hands of the general public and the times will probably go down.

What I would like to see is how this car (the SS) will stack up against the old 03/04 Cobras... should be a good match up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,770 Posts
Not sure if people realize how good thisis, but for comparison sake, my '90 RS Camaro V8 ran a 15 second 1/4 mile. Mods were computer chip, pulley, intake and tstat.

Bone stock, my '02 SS ran consistent mid 13s.

And back in the day, my '69 with built 327, roller cam, tunnel ram, dual Holleys, slicks and centerlines ran about 13 flat. This was very fast at the time.

All in all the new Camaro's number look pretty darned impressive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
837 Posts
Yeah, I was just thinking the same thing. I would run 13.5's in a LS1 convertible f-body that was 3800 lbs. I saw other folks run low 13's no problem in a LS1 F-body. 13.2 is terrible IMO for the new Camaro.

The V6 numbers sound close to what the LT1 F-body's used to run.
Don't know what part of Indy you are from but in the real world 13.2 in a 1/4 is still fast. Don't know why anyone would be disapointed with that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,251 Posts
The V6 numbers sound close to what the LT1 F-body's used to run.
Yeah, they are close. I've seen numbers stated at 5.7 sec to 60 and 14.2 in the quarter mile, which is what my '94 Z28 was doing when it was still stock.

I think the numbers for the V6 are conservative though. I saw 0-60 times for the CTS 3.6 DI stated as 5.9 seconds. The CTS is heavier, so shouldn't we expect the Camaro's times to be more like 5.7? Or should we expect V6 Camaros to get beat by Cobalt Super Sports?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
253 Posts
V6 Camaros will get murdered by Turbo Cobalt SS's expecially if the road gets curvy. The SS cobalt is a pretty sick ride, if only it wasn't visually dull in and out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,267 Posts
Don't know what part of Indy you are from but in the real world 13.2 in a 1/4 is still fast. Don't know why anyone would be disapointed with that.
Not when a 300HP BMW 135i can pull the same time.
Not when a 325 HP Fbody can pull the same time.
Not when said car is rated at 420 HP!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Heck, the LS2 HSV's were faster than that (12.9 or something), and it's only .2 off what a VE SS can pull off.

Either they've severely underestimated the car, or they've limited it to slower times/lower power/etcbecause of the 'Corvette Clause', (you know, the Corvette must be the fastest GM product, can't have it being beaten anywhere by a Pontiac sedan or a Camaro).
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top