well. 13.0@111mph not to shabby...
03-22-2009, 11:50 PM
#21
12 Second Club
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Wilkes-barre
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Impressive
With the way they're 60ing, I'm willing to bet there's an easy two or three tenths left in either car with a solid bite; I'd like to see what a 1.9-2.0 would do for one.
That V6 will be damn near in the 13s when folks get them to the track.
With the way they're 60ing, I'm willing to bet there's an easy two or three tenths left in either car with a solid bite; I'd like to see what a 1.9-2.0 would do for one.
That V6 will be damn near in the 13s when folks get them to the track.
03-23-2009, 12:26 AM
#23
Tech Resident
I'm sorry. Eight years and nearly 100 extra horsepower and they barely outperform an LS1 F-body and you guys think that's good? That's pathetic IMO. These cars are fat pigs. If GM made them 400 lbs lighter, I would be much happier with them. The way they stand, I'm pretty disgusted. EIGHT YEARS and that's the best they can do? No wonder their stock is $2/share.
Honestly, the V6 is much more impressive than the V8 given what the videos have shown. That's a good time for a V6 car. The V8 leaves a lot to be desired.
Honestly, the V6 is much more impressive than the V8 given what the videos have shown. That's a good time for a V6 car. The V8 leaves a lot to be desired.
03-23-2009, 01:01 AM
#24
12 Second Club
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Wilkes-barre
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't agree..
Each drive-train renovation seems to have gained about a half second on average during the last three generations. Tune Port Camaros were hitting bottom 15s to mid 14s, LT1s hovered between mid 14s and high 13s, while the LS1s typically managed lower mid 13 second times.
Granted there's always been freak occasions, but I'm talking the norm here.
This car, on a bad day with a bad start, is running about the best of what you'd expect from an LS1. I can see 12.7-12.9s being completely typical with these things. Given the extra weight, I'd say that's pretty impressive, not to mention keeping the trend going.
Each drive-train renovation seems to have gained about a half second on average during the last three generations. Tune Port Camaros were hitting bottom 15s to mid 14s, LT1s hovered between mid 14s and high 13s, while the LS1s typically managed lower mid 13 second times.
Granted there's always been freak occasions, but I'm talking the norm here.
This car, on a bad day with a bad start, is running about the best of what you'd expect from an LS1. I can see 12.7-12.9s being completely typical with these things. Given the extra weight, I'd say that's pretty impressive, not to mention keeping the trend going.
03-23-2009, 01:19 AM
#26
On The Tree
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Antioch, CA
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry. Eight years and nearly 100 extra horsepower and they barely outperform an LS1 F-body and you guys think that's good? That's pathetic IMO. These cars are fat pigs. If GM made them 400 lbs lighter, I would be much happier with them. The way they stand, I'm pretty disgusted. EIGHT YEARS and that's the best they can do? No wonder their stock is $2/share.
Honestly, the V6 is much more impressive than the V8 given what the videos have shown. That's a good time for a V6 car. The V8 leaves a lot to be desired.
Honestly, the V6 is much more impressive than the V8 given what the videos have shown. That's a good time for a V6 car. The V8 leaves a lot to be desired.
Can you find another 30K (1SS, almost no options) car that can trap at 111 mph with a **** driver? The SS is a great car. People complain about it's weight a bit too much. Sure, it weighs around 3900lbs. Who cares? The M3 weighs just as much! It's not the weight of the car that makes the car - it's the engineering. The engine, the tranny, and the independent suspension.
Compare the BRAND NEW GT to the SS, and the SS blows away the stang in just about every category. Hell, the cost is almost identical, too. Compare it to the over priced Challenger, and you get the same result.
03-23-2009, 08:05 AM
#30
TECH Addict
iTrader: (75)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: South Jersey (15 miles from Atlantic City)
Posts: 2,167
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I'm sorry. Eight years and nearly 100 extra horsepower and they barely outperform an LS1 F-body and you guys think that's good? That's pathetic IMO. These cars are fat pigs. If GM made them 400 lbs lighter, I would be much happier with them. The way they stand, I'm pretty disgusted. EIGHT YEARS and that's the best they can do? No wonder their stock is $2/share.
Honestly, the V6 is much more impressive than the V8 given what the videos have shown. That's a good time for a V6 car. The V8 leaves a lot to be desired.
Honestly, the V6 is much more impressive than the V8 given what the videos have shown. That's a good time for a V6 car. The V8 leaves a lot to be desired.
03-23-2009, 01:43 PM
#34
Staging Lane
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Currently, Zormat, Afghanistan....Home staion, FT. Richardson, Alaska
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you know, I like the challengers....but i really wasnt impressed. I raced one of the 08 srt 8 challengers before i deployed. we were just dead even. My Z ran 12.90's on nitto drs all day long at the track.
03-23-2009, 02:14 PM
#35
TECH Regular
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When people get their hands on these cars they are always a good deal faster than what the magazine's say. Aspecially since the track is better prepped than the streets where most magazine's seem to get their time's.
03-23-2009, 02:17 PM
#36
TECH Regular
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry. Eight years and nearly 100 extra horsepower and they barely outperform an LS1 F-body and you guys think that's good? That's pathetic IMO. These cars are fat pigs. If GM made them 400 lbs lighter, I would be much happier with them. The way they stand, I'm pretty disgusted. EIGHT YEARS and that's the best they can do? No wonder their stock is $2/share.
Honestly, the V6 is much more impressive than the V8 given what the videos have shown. That's a good time for a V6 car. The V8 leaves a lot to be desired.
Honestly, the V6 is much more impressive than the V8 given what the videos have shown. That's a good time for a V6 car. The V8 leaves a lot to be desired.
03-23-2009, 02:30 PM
#37
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My 100k mile, 95 Camaro Vert LT1, 6 speed, 1000% stock including tires, 3,666lbs, ran
13.7@ 103 with me driving....and I ain't a pro.
I love GM, I love the 68 Camaro, and I REALLY like Scott Settlemire,
but I'll pass on the 2010 Camaro SS at 3,900 pounds.
The Pontiac G8 makes sense for the utility and stealth a sedan offers. But, the 4th gen Camaro weight was not much more than the 4th Gen Corvette.
The 5th Gen Camaro SHOULD weigh a LITTLE more than the 5th Gen Corvette.
A 3,900lb Camaro is a JOKE.
My other MAJOR complaint with GM is they did not offer a LSx powered CTS with ALL WHEEL DRIVE. Until they do, the Germans and Japanses are eating GM 's cake. It makes me sick.
Last edited by TT C6; 03-23-2009 at 02:41 PM.
03-23-2009, 02:53 PM
#38
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 680
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry. Eight years and nearly 100 extra horsepower and they barely outperform an LS1 F-body and you guys think that's good? That's pathetic IMO. These cars are fat pigs. If GM made them 400 lbs lighter, I would be much happier with them. The way they stand, I'm pretty disgusted. EIGHT YEARS and that's the best they can do? No wonder their stock is $2/share.
Honestly, the V6 is much more impressive than the V8 given what the videos have shown. That's a good time for a V6 car. The V8 leaves a lot to be desired.
Honestly, the V6 is much more impressive than the V8 given what the videos have shown. That's a good time for a V6 car. The V8 leaves a lot to be desired.
03-23-2009, 03:05 PM
#39
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree it should be lighter, but the thing has 21" rims on it, IRS, 6 freaking air bags, a larger engine than ours, and some king kong sized brakes. All that crap adds up, and the fact that you get all that and can still pull a 13 in the 1/4 is pretty damn impressive in my book.
The LT1 had an IRON BLOCK and we all know the LSx egines are around 430lbs, so the LSx engine is NOT the issue.
Who the hell NEEDS 20" rims???? 275/40/17 around good brakes gets the job done just fine. Sell the ghetto rims as an OPTION or as a dealer installed accessory.
Someone PLEASE explain to me why my 1995 CONVERTIBLE weighed 3,666lbs and the new HARDTOP Camaro weighs almost 3,900lbs ??????
03-23-2009, 03:20 PM
#40
I'm sorry. Eight years and nearly 100 extra horsepower and they barely outperform an LS1 F-body and you guys think that's good? That's pathetic IMO. These cars are fat pigs. If GM made them 400 lbs lighter, I would be much happier with them. The way they stand, I'm pretty disgusted. EIGHT YEARS and that's the best they can do? No wonder their stock is $2/share.
Honestly, the V6 is much more impressive than the V8 given what the videos have shown. That's a good time for a V6 car. The V8 leaves a lot to be desired.
Honestly, the V6 is much more impressive than the V8 given what the videos have shown. That's a good time for a V6 car. The V8 leaves a lot to be desired.
You sir are a idiot...
13.0 on a ice rink is not bad at all, the car has alot left in it.