427C5

Set me straight?
You don't even understand power to weight ratio!
You had to ask if we would be happier if the Camaro weighed 600lb less and had the same performance !!!!!!

Argue with me?
You don't even have the tools!
I'm willing to bet the most of the veterans on this site have forgotten more about this hobby and cars then you even know.


sorry man.

ss1129

iTrader: (16)

Do you really expect me to argue with you on whether or not I know what power to weight ratio means......after I posted a link to a thread I started about putting this car on a diet....that I started before you started trying to poison all the 2010 camaro threads.

You are aware that the 2010 Camaro meets 2012 safety standards already.....I mean your so smart. You should know that. That means heavier car. Thank your government for that one.

JD_AMG

Are these C5's equipped with granny trannies?
A M6 base model C5 will go high 12s with a good driver, just like a M6 2010 SS.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...6.html?page=13
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/perf...imes-list.html

427C5

Thanks for posting JD.
But, why argue with a kid who will deny widely known facts even after you post proof?

Chadder

iTrader: (2)

It's funny you say that, because I've posted valid facts and numbers (proof) that you have yet to respond to.

427C5

Oh, so Chowder is back claiming since ONE driver in an AUTOMATIC C5 went slower then the Camaro YEARS ago, that means the new Camaro is faster.
I don't respond to you because you post stupid **** that's not worth responding to. A stock C5 went 11's @ 119 almost 8 years ago and EVERYONE who has a clue knows a C5 will DESTROY a 5th Gen on a road course.


Why don't you and the other bonehead quit posting the bullshit that you want to pass off as facts and STFU.

ss1129

iTrader: (16)

Why dont you get the **** out of my threads and go back to your friends at NAMBLA.

Your the dumb ********** that came in here and started ****. I didnt come knocking on your door to tell you why such and such sucks. Dipshit.

427C5

Fair enough.
I'm sorry I took you thread off course.
I'll keep my posts in the "Camaro Reviewed" thread.

Good luck with putting your car on a diet.
It needs it.

As far as all your insults and chatter, make sure your this mouthy in the real world.
I look forward to hearing about you getting folded in half at track or street race in future. If you didn't live in the middle of nowhere, I'd invite you the local track for some lessons in manners.

ss1129

iTrader: (16)

Bye.....

Chadder

iTrader: (2)

You're a ******* moron. First of all, you didn't even read what I typed. A manual c5 went 8:18 on the Nurburgring. I'm not talking about the automatic at all. Second of all, c5's that go 11's stock are ******* z06's, not stock m6's that we're talking about. Third, the Camaro has a HIGHER power to weight ratio than a stock c5. While the camaro may be heavy, it makes up for it in superior power. (9.27 lb/hp C5, 9.06 Camaro SS) Therefore, performance is roughly equal.

My facts > your facts.

Troll.

427C5

Get it right if you are gonna try to quote me.
I NEVER said BASE model C5. I said C5. C5 includes LS1 and LS6 cars.
A LS6 car will mop the floor with the new Camaro.
I believe a lightly modded, or even stock , C5 will beat a Camaro as well.

And I'm not just talking 1/4 mile. When you take that fat pig on the road course, it's gonna get raped.


Lastly, keep why don't we try to keep the name calling to face to face meetings where I can SHOW you how I feel.
If not, at least respect everyone else and keep it to PM.

ss1129

iTrader: (16)

Well last I checked the Camaro beat the auto c5 on Nurburgring and only fell 2 seconds behind the stick version.

I believe a lightly modded camaro....yadda yadda yadda.


Oh wait I forgot Nurburgring must not be a road course...LOL

Oh where did your power to weight ratio argument go? Oh you lost that one too...lol.

So lets see, you still have the camaro is heavy. Yup you win that one.
Has small back seats....yup you win that one.
Has a small trunk.....yup you win that one.

You lost your two biggest arguments....power to weight
and performance be less than a c5 vettes.

427C5

OK, time to take you to school again, junior.
I'll give you just 2 more advantages of the lighter C5:
1) More performance per HP added.
2) Less strain on the drivetrain per HP added.

Maybe you can think about those facts and report back to the class why they make the C5 STILL a better performance car than your fat Camaro.

What are you still doing here, anyway?
I thought you were supposed to be outside on your front lawn taking a hacksaw to your fat girl?

ss1129

iTrader: (16)

Umm if the camaro has a better power to weight ratio wouldnt it benifit more than a car with a worse power to weight ratio?

I mean **** 5 posts ago thats all that you spewed out your vagina was POWER TO WEIGHT...POWER TO WEIGHT. Looks like you should of done the math you ******* mongoloid.

Now its more performance per hp added? What?
Oh and less strain on the drivetrain per hp added.

Your a ******* tool and I would gladly tell you to your dick breath mouth.

So again the camaro is heavy, and not good for utility. But its faster than its direct competition and meets 2012 safety standards already and competes with and in some cases out performs a c5 vette. All these things are proven facts. I know your going to jump in with NOT THE Z06zers!! ITZ DA BEST CA EVERZ!

Why are you so upset about this car. Did you lose a family member on the production line or something? Honestly?

427C5

How can someone who doesn't grasp basic physics attempt to public insult those that have much more knowledge and experience than them?

You have publicly displayed the fact you don't realize that if you have 2 cars with the same power to weight ratio, and one is 700lbs lighter, you will see a greater increase in performance per HP added to the lighter car when compared to the heavier vehicle.
Car Knowledge 101.

As far as why I'm pissed, go back and READ my post where I clearly stated why.
I think you've been to busy slinging bullshit and weak insults than you don't even take the time to read the threads.

If you met me and talked this way, you wouldn't be able to smell my breath because you would be on the floor.
Keep ranting and insulting me from behind your computer.
It's very brave.

ss1129

iTrader: (16)

And pretending to be a tough guy because you know we will never meet in real life is brave? Im just calling you names bro, Id do it to your face if you were that stupid in real life too.

Chadder

iTrader: (2)

Yeah, we're done here. Mr. Internet badass has proven his inability to debate with hard evidence or sources. Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true.

427C5

Idiots like the ones posting in this thread are why GM can get away with killing the G8 and selling a 3,850lb "Camaro".

You people deserve what you get.

I'm done.

TWS

iTrader: (63)

I skimmed this thread and decided (against my better judgement) to just make a statement about the G8.

I recently held a dyno day here and two club members brought in their G8's and strapped them down. Both have the L76 motor (they are not GXP's).

Anyway, the one with 1K miles put down 292 to the wheels. The one with 8K miles put down 310. These are SAE corrected, so you can compared them to corrected dyno numbers from elsewhere. I attrribute the difference to the 1k mile G8 not being broken in at all, plus the 8K mile G8 has the mid model year change (can't remember what it is but the owner told me) that raises flywheel HP by ~6, IIRC.

I don't want to get into the food fight going on here, but thought I could contribute a factual observation.

Oh, and BTW, the 5th gen Camaro is disappointingly heavy IMO. Don't shoot me.

It still looks very badass for a production car and I hope Chevy sells boatloads of them... God knows they need to.