UltraZLS1

iTrader: (13)

http://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=426517

Some cliff notes....

1ss manual 3672 lbs. They also ran a 12.4 at nearly 115mph with the manual.

A fully loaded 2ss automatic weighed in at 3760lbs. It also ran a 12.3 and 0-60 in 3.9 seconds...quicker than GM claimed.


drink it in boys...drink it in

onspeed

iTrader: (3)

The motortrend review says: " Not to take anything away from the ATS-V’s 464-hp, twin-turbo V-6, but this is the engine the Cadillac ought to have."

Which is interesting as C&D's review of the auto ATS-V sedan had it weighed at 3800 lbs and doing 12.1 @ 122. 2 seconds faster to 130, 5 seconds faster to 150.

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...-v-comparo.pdf

UltraZLS1

iTrader: (13)

I thought the same thing.

But to be fair...I hate to think GM would do such a thing...but that car might have been a ringer or had some faulty testing equipment parameters. Im not sure...but it smells.

Every other test has the ats running in the same neighborhood as the SS.

The 120+ trap speed is laughable...it is pretty much impossible given the cars power and weight. All other reviews have it in the ~115 mph range.

And as we all know...to have an accurate comparison these cars need to be run on the same track same day. Guessing they should be neck and neck.

AND....Before someone mentions it. They still hit the 200lb mark with the 2ss auto. The 15 base 2ss auto is 394x lbs. The C&D car is a 2ss auto but has MRC which is an additional option not offered on the base 2ss nor is it standard on the 16ss. It adds at least 20lbs. They just hit the mark with the 2ss. Hit it and then some with the 1SS. One also has to consider small differences in scales etc...they pulled it off.

loudblack97z71

iTrader: (2)

I knew the truth about these cars would come out eventually. The mustang boys will be running in fear once again.

I'll be trading in the C6 for a 6th gen ZL1 when the need for a back seat arrives. Lets hope they fix any cooling issues with the LT4

SSCamaro99_3

iTrader: (1)

I may have to look at one of these in the used market in a few years.

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

Excellent performance. I just hope they clean up the front and rear styling with the next refresh.

Mappinsj

Bigger front end than vette. Should it not be cooled easier GM has failed

ULTIMATEORANGESS

iTrader: (4)

200 lbs less with an auto is impressive.


i might have to test drive both.

Z Fury

iTrader: (1)

CTS-V has a bigger front end too, and there are already reports of it being a 1-lap wonder before heat soak hits it.

With the current crop of motors, it seems like you're better off getting the LT1 and adding your own blower.

HioSSilver

iTrader: (8)

Na will pretty much always be more consistent on a road course. Think about running 7+ qtr miles with a couple 1/2 miles thrown in. That's rough on a pd type blower. They need to ditch the pd blowers all together.

loudblack97z71

iTrader: (2)

Agreed Hio. But we both know the reason they use FI. It's an easy way to hit HP goals while keeping emissions and CAFE mpg requirements in check. High reving NA is ideal for reliable/consistant track cars but the auto Mfg's can only financially justify producing those in low volume. Example: GT350 & Z28 are both low volume production cars. They will purposely limit production to drive the price up and hit the CAFE (percentage of fleet) requirements.

Exidous

iTrader: (11)

They do it for the power and linear response. NA cannot match the power for a mass produced street car these days and turbos are a bit spikey at these power levels.

Just a guess.