It'llrun

While it could be 3,400, I'll expect a 3,500-3,600 empty weight. I'd also expect about 225rwhp stock. From there, it's really a matter of the turbo and tuning. When I saw a 2.3L Mustang go from some 245whp to just over 300 w/ a tune, I was actually impressed. That car ran 12.6's consistently and I was even more shocked than impressed. JLP(heard of it, but that's all) tuned it and he said that's all he did... 100% stock aside from tune. 12.6... yup, that's impressive. It's also in the same 3,500+ stock weight group, sans driver.

The V6 probably will see 13.5's stock. This is just getting hilarious, how well cars run today. That one ran 14.0's @ 2-300 lb more and w/ a few less hp/tq. If weight transfer is correct, it's good to go. Otherwise, it's still looking @ 13.7's, I would think. Respectable.

The reason I don't have a Corvette now... can't see buying two. Just picked up the 1/2 ton 3mo ago and while I'm driving it WAY too much(already over 9k), I'm happy with it so far. For someone who doesn't have to drive to work regularly, and can't afford a proper vacation to drive it on, that's too much! I'm thinking I may rejoin the workforce before the end of the year, just to afford a vacation!! The way things are going, I may end up w/ no choice though... gotta love rentals. Another story...

YJ Goat

I can NOT get excited for a new car that will be a mid-level contender that you will see in all different forms on EVERY street corner in the country. Sorry, I'm going to stand pat.

DietCoke

iTrader: (18)

The LT5 wasn't ever a GM product. Damn junk *** overpriced lotus/mercury boat motor.

ULTIMATEORANGESS

iTrader: (4)

lol,good info here on that motor. apparently its not even considered a SBC. generally anyway.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_small-block_engine#LT5


i liked zr1s though. very fast car for its time.

It'llrun

I know this will ruffle feather(always does), but after seeing different information and now having some testing done on the ATS-V, I went into the whole, "So, what will this thing REALLY weight?" thoughts. Clearly, I don't know that answer, but I do have some ideas. Since the release is getting closer, I thought I'd bring up this dead thread.

Seems that SS could lose 200 lb and weight in right at 3,700 lb w/o fuel. That's good enough. Who thinks it will?

I know Al claimed that and that the V6 will be some 290 lb lighter. I can believe the SS loss, but from all I've read from GM, there's no chance the V6 will be more than about 225 lb lighter.

UltraZLS1

iTrader: (13)

The last loaded ats-v weighed in at 3754 with a full tank.

Curb weight=full tank and all fluids etc.

3700 with no gas would be around 3800 curb weight. Not good.

They need to be 3750 or so full tank with the 2ss or GM lied.

Gonna be close...

It'llrun

I can see the 1SS getting there... don't believe the 2SS has any chance, however. That is, as advertised today.

I know there's a test showing 3754, but it had Recaro seats and those simply must weigh less than standard. It was also a manual. After seeing tests, I think fewer and fewer people will stick w/ a manual. The auto is just an animal!

Btw, I don't know that the 3,754 actually did have full fuel. The reason: When C & D tests, they specifically say they do so w/ a full tank(it's close, I'm sure) and they got a 3,760 from a 6M w/ Recaro seats. MT got 3,754 in their test, but I don't know if they use a full tank. You'd think, yes, since it was 6 lb less and also a 6M w/ Recaros.

Side note about the ATS-V: C & D tested 3 or more... the heaviest I'm aware of weighed 3800 and that car lacked basically all upgrades and was a sedan. I am having trouble accepting the idea that Recaro seats, track package(carbon fiber whatever) and so forth are dropping roughly 140 lb from the car. If they do, the 2SS will get that lower weight we all want just as soon as Chevy allows those options(and I think they will for the 17 or at least 18 MY. I'm a bit surprised they're not already offering that stuff.

UltraZLS1

iTrader: (13)

The 3800 was a sedan like u said. Don't care. The 376x was another coupe. Scales can vary as well. Not sure about gas levels but full tank is how everyone knows it should be done and how they usually do it.

They debated this and broke down different weights and educated guesses for days on mustang6g.

What I took away from it...

The ats-v recaro is full power etc and may even be heavier than stock.

The track package may very well not drop any weight at all. For example the lightweight battery is actually an additional battery and has something to do with the PDR.

Cadillac lists the base ats-v at 3700 lbs estimated.

Until someone weighs a standard ats-v coupe with no boxes checked its hard to know what the base weight is.

A 2ss has to beat the curb of the loaded ats by 16 lbs in 2ss form to be legit. 1ss has to drop another 30 which will be easy.

Like you said it's the 2ss I'm worried about. They may miss the mark on that one but I'm guessing by not more than 20 lbs or so. GM has really lost it to push the statements that hard if they aren't even close. Heck they even said " more than 200 lbs model for model" at the reveal.

I really don't think a standard 2ss will come in over 3800.

Now add in the optional 6 piston front brake set up, MRC , sunroof and NPP dual mode I guarantee the car eclipses 3800. But that's not apples to apples to the 5th gen. And lots of times the loaded cars are the ones that get tested. Guessing many will cry foul and not consider those extra options when the car is weighed by trend or c&d or whoever.

It'llrun

I'm only "concerned" about the sedan vs coupe weights based on 1 oddball thing I think we briefly discussed here and that is, Cadillac listed the coupe as heavier for awhile(and still does for non V ATS' in both 2L and 3.6L form. Suddenly, we're being told the sedan weighs more in V form and that simply doesn't make sense, especially when looking at the 4 and 6cyl differences.
Coupe 2L 3418 lb 3.6L - 3530.
Sedan 2L- 3373 lb 3.6- 3461
That's 45 and 69 lb and now... the coupe weighs less just because V?

The real question is, why was it listed as heavier and then changed? Maybe it's all legit, but it's sure strange!

No offense to over there but... I don't think I care about all that... over there. I mean, I don't go to Cam 6 to get my 2015 Mustang GT info, eh?

I'm not really in disagreement here... it's all still questionable, as you said below... the Recaro seats amount to the ONLY thing I actually believe have dropped weight to any notable degree on the V. Any other thing... probably amounts to more overall weight.

Yup... I'm really and truly confused about that weight... too rounded, plus it seems odd that we can't find one... plus, and this matters, w/ fuel we're seeing only about 60 lb more in those 2 cases. That's odd, even w/ Recaro seats. I mean... fuel should add about 100 lb in that car.

1SS is surely gonna do it. 2SS... just don't see it. Honestly, looking over all the standard equipment on 2SS, it appears to be likely around 100 lb heavier. There's just SO MUCH!

I'm expecting the 1SS to be right around 3700 and the 2 to be right at 100 lb heavier. That said, I don't really expect 105 lb more... so if the 1 is 3,699, I'm thinking the 2 will be right at 3,799. I do, unless the 1SS is truly missing many things found on the standard ATS-V, expect it to weigh more than the V. It's just bigger. There are things on the V not on the 1SS, for sure... it gets leather, standard, right? It also gets MR, but Idonno how heavy that really is.

Conversely, I' thinking I read the V gets 18's and the SS, 20's. That can't help in terms of weight(unless different kind of wheel) or unsprung weight/mass when trying to move quickly, for that matter.

You're right about this, I'm sure. Once the roof and all is added, there's another 25+ lb, but many won't pay that any mind. They'll just go, "SEE!" and maybe here and there, I would too...

Mean87SS

iTrader: (21)

Brand new ATS sedan has run ~14.3-14.5 @ 95.X MPH... In hot 90* weather.. 500' DA

It'llrun

This could be warning of a little drawback to the performance (and maybe the sales) of the 6th... in 4cyl form. It will probably be heavier than the ATS and I'd like to see GM turn it up some because if they don't at least get it to 300hp, it looks like the 2.3L Mustang is going to run notably better.

C & D did run a 14.6 @ 93 in one, but... it was an automatic convertible and weighed 3,796 lb(danged heavy for a 4cyl!). Conversely, they got 13.9 @ 102mph in a manual fastback and that one only "blimped out" @ 3,657. They also tested an auto and somehow, it weighed 3,663... kinda weird. I think that one ran a 13.9 as well, but @ only 98mph. Then there's MT, which only got a 14.4 @ 97.4mph testing a manual fastback weighing 3,654 lb. I'd chalk that one up to... non-drivin' fool, but that's me.

Anyway, I'd really like to see a slightly pumped up 2L. It seems that a 315hp version can't be impossible and would allow it, with the bump in torque, to be quicker and let's face it... the 2L ATS shouldn't outrun the 2L Camaro!

ULTIMATEORANGESS

iTrader: (4)

just something i found to add to this discussion.



http://www.autonews.com/article/2015...o-has-the-edge

It'llrun

Looks a tad lopsided in its results... the 2L clearly isn't as powerful as the 2.3L and even though the 3.6L and 6.2L beat the Ford rival, the story attempts to tell the reader that the 4cyl power is basically equal because... and that's INCORRECT!

I think most here will be on board with the idea that the 2L could be bumped some. The article says that the Ford loses power on 87 ... well, so does the 2L and both are recommended to run on premium fuel for that reason. Somehow, the writer only new about the Ford and even through an automatic, that 2.3L put down 272whp using the aforementioned high octane... 93... that's the rated power of the 2L ... so I expect that to show in the real world. Maybe it won't because maybe the Camaro will really be very light. Idonno, but I wouldn't trust that article on merit. Besides, I've never heard of a 15% loss w/87. The most I've heard of is 11. 15's stretching. Also, I noted the near certainty of the writer, that Most Mustang owners won't be using 91-93. That may be true, but if you're going racing, the likelihood skyrockets. Just sayin' .. too many assumptions.

The article goes on to say the 2.3L is a $1,500 option, which is deceiving, at best. That $1,500 gets plenty of other additions, like 6-way power front seats. I concede, you have to pay the $1,500(by MSRP) for the engine, but ... it just has other stuff.

Personally, I still fully expect the SS to perform best and the other models to be largely ignored, save a few early comparisons. Other than being certain it's also going to cost more and not be as light as Al claimed for the upgraded stuff(2SS), in terms of serious use, I'd rather the Camaro(GT350 excluded). Gotta go..

NW-99SS

iTrader: (6)

I will agree that article was trash.

But who wants to argue 4 cylinder performance on pony cars anyway?

Another thing, the article gave the handling nod to the Mustang. This is laughable at best, since the 5th gen was clearly ahead of the Mustang in handling and I highly, highly doubt GM is going to release a 6th gen that doesn't handle better than the out going platform...

Either way, it's all speculation until we finally get a true side by side comparison of the models. Should be fun and entertaining for both sides!

It'llrun

I'd expect the handling nod went to Mustang based on the overall information currently available. That is, the GT350R is an animal, definitely the best available now and... there will be no 1LE, etc. immediately available for Camaro.

Personally, I'm ready to see the new cars heads up... clearly the Mustang GT is in trouble to some degree, but at what cost? Then comes the idea that we wanna see Chevy bring the next ZL1 or better still, Z/28 so we can really see the platform shine. That's where the real contest will be, but for most buyers, we can expect Camaro to simply win because most of us won't be buying the upgraded version anyway.

NW-99SS

iTrader: (6)

Only issue I have with that is who has tested a GT350R to verify its capabilities (please note: the 350R is obviously capable, but without any verifiable numbers from testing, all we have are leaked lap times from different sources). Has the S550 GT w/track pack been able to compete with the out-going 1LE?

RikkiTorment

Nope, the tests that I have seen is the 1LE still outdoes the new S550 with the track pack. The S550 with the track pack performs on par with the base model SS around the track, maybe slower.

It'llrun

You're right to question some of this, but seriously... the GT350 is obviously EXCELLENT. It will be tested by wannabe drivers in the magazine world, though I don't recall any of those testing the Z/28. I hope they don't crash any and considering most of them aren't good, let alone great drivers, that's a very real concern. I'll be okay with Randy Pobst testing. I personally think he could drive the Mustang better, but perhaps with the 5.2L he will. I've thought in the past, he's too timid with the throttle. These DOHC's don't operate well in the rpm range of the typical or high end OHV and I do think that's a bit of a drawback. That said, he's had some recent fun in the 918 and other "hyper cars" w/ very high revving engines. I think he'll do fine.

The outgoing 1LE does beat the GT w/ PP and it's not really close. Of course, that will be debated by many because of 2 things(in my personal opinion), namely that the 2 were really only tested 1 time (by a magazine) and because in actual racing, the Mustang is doing much better than it does in testing. I mean, even before IRS it beat Camaro in SCCA competition, taking 2 divisional crowns to 0. It can't just all be... the driver.

Finally, I think many simply aren't giving the 1LE its due here... we all just expect the 16 SS to crush it, but I don't see that happening. It may indeed beat the 1LE... but that car is GREAT and won't be just trounced, I'm sure.

There's simply never been a test showing that as a fact. Let's not get carried away w/ bias. No testing has even been done, to my knowledge, using a non 1LE equipped Camaro SS since the 1LE came out, at all... not just against Mustang, but testing, period. Even if it has, we'd have to look very closely to find whether or not the car in question happened to have been equipped with ZL1 brakes or the 1LE suspension or even the strut tower brace, all of which can be ordered singly or together, aside from the full 1LE package.

Judging by the fact, even the 2010 Mustang beat the SS when the 2 were tested in handling... I see no reason to believe the current standard SS would win against the Mustang GT PP ... since it's quicker than the last GT PP, which cleanly beat the SS in road holding.
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...camaro-ss-page-3

Then the 2011 simply smashed the Camaro: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...n/viewall.html

I don't care about those results to speak of, but they make a point that your comment saying the Mustang GT may be behind the base SS ... simply laughable.

The standard SS is no contest anywhere against the 1LE today. That's why there is a 1LE.

RikkiTorment

The Camaro had suspension tweaks in 2012 that were standard on the SS trim. The few comparisons that I have looked into, have the 1LE marginally faster around the track than the GT PP. While I personally have not seen a base model SS go against a GT PP, the spread between the 1LE and the GT PP is what leads me to believe the SS trim would be a better race. Motor Trend did a comparison where the 1LE was a second and a half faster than the GT PP, for example.

NW-99SS

iTrader: (6)

I don't see how R-spec non-street legal, no interior competition cars have too much relevance in this thread --- totally different setups than their showroom counterparts.

Either way, what Rikki said, major suspension tweaks in 2012 for the base SS as well - it would be a good comparison to a track pack S550.

And I don't think anyone expects a base SS 6th gen to perform better than the out going 1LE, but just as Ford continues to raise the bar, you can be sure that the 6th gen 1LE won't be released until they have it dialed in to beat its predecessor.