WECIV

SWEET!!! It will be good to go for 500!!!

W

DrEvyl

iTrader: (5)

Yeah, it's stock. It's strong enough to withstand some mods, I don't see GTOs breaking all over the place, and there's a crapload of them up here. And like I said, they're going to engineer it for 500+ horsepower, with the idea in mind that people will mod it.. How much more do you want?

I say if it needs to be any stronger, I'll mod it myself.

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

I don't think they're as bad as F-bodies but I know they start chewing up parts when they hit the 11's.

Hey, that's great news.

MWUAHAHAHAHAH!!!!


Oh come on you should know better than to ask that!

TurboZ28

Whether its IRS or Solid rear, it's not going to come strong enough from the factory to run 9's. You gonna have to beef either one up.

FAST FREDDY

if you want a road race car buy a corvette. muscle cars have solid rear axles. the camaro is a muscle car. corvettes have independent rear ends because they are sports cars built for road racing.

Got Me SOM

iTrader: (2)

The Camaro started out life as a road race car to compete against the Mustang back in 1966.

Most people that own these cars aren't die drag racers they drive em on the street. The car will be more a driver's car and be fun to drive what's wrong with that?

Corvettes are astronomically priced and aftermarket parts for them are ridiculous too.

QuickT/A

iTrader: (3)

If the new camaro is a "muscle car" it won't do too well in sales. Muslce cars are dead as we knew them. The new camaro needs to be better than it was. IRS means a better ride and a more enjoyable car to drive. You don't need IRS but it would be much nicer to have.

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

Except for the fact that it is infinitely more fragile and prone to wheel hop than any comparable solid axle. Say what you will about IRS, but it just isn't well suited to hard launches. And I think that a Camaro that is incapable of running well in the 1/4 mile is missing something essential.

We can hope that GM works some serious magic on the rear end of the 5th gen, but IRS is, from an engineering standpoint, a big hinderence to running the 1/4 mile. There's just no getting around that.

vipex70

First off, cars are sold to be driven, not to be stripped down for drag racing. If you wanna race your car, that's your damn problem. Don't let the tail wag the dog. Secondly, hp/liter is just a way to measure the potential output of an engine. Since when did math become anti-domestic?? :

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

I like how the imaginary voices in your head told you that I said "strip down for drag racing," but I did not in fact say anything of the sort.

I said: Fit to drag, as in: Run at the drag strip without wheel hopping and/or snapping the axle. That in no way implies that the car will be stripped out. In fact a full weight car is even more prone to breaking parts and so is in even more dire need of a bullet-proof drivetrain.

It's math that totally dispenses with reality in favor of low-displacement import cars.

Let me explain "ricer math:" There are people out there who drive honda civics and like to make believe that they are sports cars. Don't ask me why. In order to service this fantasy, they like to brag that they make more "horsepower per liter" than many actual performance cars.

While true, it doesn't in fact make them any faster than actual performance cars. Actual performance doesn't care if your engine has less liters than the next guy. In fact, it favors the fellow who has more liters, as those engines tend to provide more power across the entire operating range of the engine.

Furthermore, adding more liters of displacement to an engine does not necessarily increase its weight or its external dimensions. It doesn't even necessarily impede fuel economy, as the added torque can allow the use of taller gearing in the transmission.

I think it is best said here:

Only engineers (and, as I said before, ricer boys) care how many horsepower per liter an engine makes; the actual performance of the vehicle is dependant upon total horsepower (or, more accurately, the amount of horsepower per pound of vehicle weight).

And let me stress this again: a smaller-displacement engine does not necessarily mean a smaller-sized or lighter-weight engine. It is possible to increase the displacement of most engines without changing their size or weight.

By measuring the success of their engineering with a metric that does not relate to actual performance, you have the maddening result of more and more “advanced” engines that don’t make the cars go any faster.

And what the hell is the use of that? The purpose of engineering is to create a better product, not to enable a bunch of nerds to one-up each other on paper. It takes a particularly disintegrated mentality to become so obsessed with derivative metrics that the actual purpose is thrown to the wayside, but that is precisely the kind of mentality that dominates Honda.

Of course, the damage of this misguided approach doesn’t stop there: while engineers are often able to squeeze the same peak horsepower out of smaller and smaller engines, anyone with even a modicum of automotive knowledge will tell you that peak numbers are next to meaningless in determining performance. This is due to the fact that “horsepower” is a derivative calculation of power and engine RPM. Without getting too far into the calculations, I’ll just say that the more RPMs an engine turns, the higher the multiplier in the horsepower equation. An engine that turns more RPMs can produce a higher peak horsepower number without actually making any more power.

So that’s the ugly truth about ricer math: not only is horsepower per liter totally useless, but so is peak horsepower, at least when it is used as a floating abstraction. It gives them an impressive number to write down on paper, but the actual performance may or may not be there.

vipex70

yeah, but hp/liter applied to an ls-series engine shows some badass hp numbers.

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

Yes, but it shows honda motors are better than LS series ones. Do you think that's accurate?

bww3588

iTrader: (49)

I think what is really accurate is the fact that GM may be digging theirselves into a hole with the new Camaro. GM is doing with IRS in the Camaro, exactly what they tried to avoid by underrating the LS1 in the F-body. So heres an idea. Lets take a C6 Corvette chassis and slap a "new" Camaro body on it, and price it lower than the Corvette and watch as the Corvette slips into an early grave. Grant it i know GM has highly paid, pencil pushing, desk jockys to figure all this out before the fact of reaility. But doesnt this sound a little fishy? Or does GM have plans to one-up the current Corvette by 2009? They dont have a choice. Either build the C7 stronger and faster than the 5th gen. or build the 5th gen slower and weaker than the current C6. which leads me to my next point, how much faster can the corvette get and still be practical? im willing to bet there are very few people who would pay an extra 20k over the price of a 5th gen. 500hp Camaro for a C7 600hp Corvette. What are you going to do with 500hp on the street let alone 600hp. You guys are all talking about whats "practical" for Average Joe who doesent race their car, so what is average joe going to do with a 600hp Corvette? because the majority of the people who have enough money to buy a 600hp Corvette are average, retired/semi-retired middle aged men who have nothing better to do with their time but too around in a car that is way to fast for them, and try to pick up teenage girls. So we already have a 400hp corvette which im assuming since the new Camaro is supposed to have the same motor is going to see a demise unless GM pulls their marketing stunt and underrates it. which means the base model Corvette is going to have 500hp in the future and the Z06 will have 600hp. Its inevitable. so in order to sell the Camaro its going to have to be less than the Corvette in terms of power, comfort, reliability, and strength. otherwise it will cost as much and nobody will buy it or if by some magical ploy GM makes it cost less than the Corvette it will compete with the it. And we all know GM wont allow that.
^^^food for thought ^^^
FWIW, i agree with black_knight and i voted for a strong solid, not a weak and independent. the way i look at that, do you want a solid cinder block wall protecting you, or a weak and independant single cinder block protecting you?

JonCR96Z

iTrader: (33)

Wow, you wrote a whole lot. It would have been easier to read with some paragraph spacing in their somewhere.

Anyway, maybe GM is leaving the Corvette alone, knowing that its will have been around for 4 years by the time the Camaro comes out, and let the Camaro have some of its sales, only to releases a new Corvette a few years down the road. After the Camaro isn't new anymore. That way sports car people will buy a new Camaro and then they will see the new Vettes and trade in their Camaro. More money for GM.

How fast can they go and still be practical? I always ask this question about sportbikes, but people were asking it 20 years ago too. That's a fact. When the Honda Hurricane came out it blew everything away, and how could you have imagened anything much faster. Fast forward to today, and the Hurricane might as well be a scooter. Everything will just get faster and no one will notice.

Who will pay that much extra for a few more hp? Someone will just to be different and it doesn't really matter as super vettes aren't designed with sales numbers in mind. Just bragging rights, similar to concept cars. They just make people look your way.

All that said. I hope they really do have a good plan and that it works out for everyone, especially buyers.

Jon

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

bww3588,

Once you get north of $60-70K everything changes. People with that kind of money will buy for status and bragging rights. They want the best. While it may seem senseless to people who can't just throw around that kind of money, they certainly will pay extra for a super vette. This same buyer probably bought an '05 vette just to have the new one, and then bought an '06 Z06. They will keep buying the latest and the greatest.

But interesting point about cutting into base model 'vette sales. I don't know what to think of that.

bww3588

iTrader: (49)

i am sorry about the long post, it went down as i thought of it. i look at it as they are either going to do the Corvette/F-body as they have in the past with the "same" motor and rate them differently or upgrade the Corvette. IMO, they can't rate them differently, too many people already caught on to that in past generations.

Chris 96 WS6

iTrader: (1)

Where did you get the idea the Camaro will be on a C6 chassis? Other than the fact it will have 8 cylinders, four wheels and IRS, it will have NOTHING in common with the Vette chassis.

All Zeta-chassis cares will have IRS, the ship has already sailed. We can only hope the Camaro's will be stronger than what the CTS has.

bww3588

iTrader: (49)

i was using that as a comparison. i know it wont be on the corvette chassis. but, it may as well be without the Getrag tranny setup. LS2, IRS, 6 speed. it may as well be a corvette with a Camaro Body.

Ace$nyper

iTrader: (8)

They are pony cars to be fair.

Muscle/pony cars are cheap sports cars and what do sports cars use to keep one up on the other brands ?? Technogly, IRS > soild in most everything save drag racing.

the camaro probbly will be running with the current stang in some racing and even though the new mustang does awesome with out IRS, it'll be a good selling point and no reason not to have it it.

FOXhound

its IRS so stfu ******** you should be lucky to be graced with IRS. it'll be more in league with the corvettes of the present rather than stone age technology.