Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com

Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com (https://www.camaro5.com/forums/index.php)
-   5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions (https://www.camaro5.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Track time predictions... (https://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5573)

str8himalaya 07-28-2008 01:09 AM

Track time predictions...
 
Anybody have any predictions what the camaros will run? 300 HP v-6, i'm thinking maybe 5.6-5.8 0-60 based on the cadillacs, that would put it close to 13.8-14.1 quarter mile? How about a 400 HP auto w/TABshift? Maybe 4.7-5.0 0-60 and 13.0 quarter? Just guessing, what do you all think?

davidcroft 07-28-2008 08:25 AM

I'm almost positive I read a 4.6 0-60 somewhere. I'd say high 12s with sticky tires......low 13s with street tires.

radz28 07-28-2008 09:15 AM

I pretty much agree with what's been posted. I think high 13s for the 3.6 and bottom to low-13s for the 6.2. Sticky tires should put it pretty close to high-12s I think. I keep thinking about the weight of the car in general and can't help to be a little concerned, but an LS2 GTO would run low-13s with a good driver, and I'm sure an LS3 Camaro would be at least very close to that. I keep reflecting on an SRT-spec' LX-car and think that it should at least be on par with those, so I think we should be looking pretty good, regardless. ;)

SilverTurtle 07-28-2008 09:23 AM

I have a feeling we'll see some mid 12s when people find out that 18" wheels on this car will reduce rolling mass considerably... my guess is 12.46@109.8 for the manual transmission SS with some 18" Nitto DRs out back.

radz28 07-28-2008 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverTurtle (Post 101846)
I have a feeling we'll see some mid 12s when people find out that 18" wheels on this car will reduce rolling mass considerably... my guess is 12.46@109.8 for the manual transmission SS with some 18" Nitto DRs out back.

YOW!!! I'd love to see people run those numbers, but, IMHO, it would take a VERY, talented stick driver. Maybe an auto' with a converter would easily run that number, but I think it's pretty optimistic for a stick. I can honestly say that I have only seen one 4th. Gen. driver run low-12s on slicks, WITH LTs, lid, catback, and a tune, and he beat that tranny and 12-bolt like it was his job. It was awesome really. That car weighed 3500 lbs. without him and he was about 220 lbs., and probably put down about 350 RWHP, so I don't expect this car to run low-12s, "only" having probably 350-380 RWHP (those are numbers I've noticed with LS3 'Vettes) and weigh another 400 lbs. without driver. Don't get me wrong, I hope it runs those numbers :drinking:

2K05GT 07-28-2008 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radz282003 (Post 101842)
I pretty much agree with what's been posted. I think high 13s for the 3.6 and bottom to low-13s for the 6.2. Sticky tires should put it pretty close to high-12s I think. I keep thinking about the weight of the car in general and can't help to be a little concerned, but an LS2 GTO would run low-13s with a good driver, and I'm sure an LS3 Camaro would be at least very close to that. I keep reflecting on an SRT-spec' LX-car and think that it should at least be on par with those, so I think we should be looking pretty good, regardless. ;)

No way with the 3.6L dip into the 13's with the weight and low torque.

Here are my perdictions.... (These are average number not best times)

2010 Camaro SS 6 Spd Man
3860 lbs
422 HP @ 5000 408 TQ @ 4500
13.2 @ 108
0-60 mph in 4.9 sec

2010 Camaro SS 6 Spd Auto
3913 lbs
400 HP @ 5000 395 TQ @ 4500
13.1 @ 108
0-60 mph in 4.6 sec

2010 Camaro 3.6L V6 Auto
3769 lbs
300 HP @ 6400 273 TQ @ 5200
14.5 @ 97
0-60 mph in 6.1 sec

2010 Camaro 3.6L V6 Man
3780 lbs
300 HP @ 6400 273 TQ @ 5200
14.7 @ 97
0-60 mph in 6.1 sec

MAROobsession 07-28-2008 10:13 AM

are those your predictions or Edmunds.... b/c thats a mirror image of what Edmunds said. which is def underrated.

SilverTurtle 07-28-2008 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radz282003 (Post 101852)
YOW!!! I'd love to see people run those numbers, but, IMHO, it would take a VERY, talented stick driver. Maybe an auto' with a converter would easily run that number, but I think it's pretty optimistic for a stick. I can honestly say that I have only seen one 4th. Gen. driver run low-12s on slicks, WITH LTs, lid, catback, and a tune, and he beat that tranny and 12-bolt like it was his job. It was awesome really. That car weighed 3500 lbs. without him and he was about 220 lbs., and probably put down about 350 RWHP, so I don't expect this car to run low-12s, "only" having probably 350-380 RWHP (those are numbers I've noticed with LS3 'Vettes) and weigh another 400 lbs. without driver. Don't get me wrong, I hope it runs those numbers :drinking:

and see, I have a friend who had a 2001 Z28 M6 with Eagle RS-A tires out back that ran consistent 12.60s@109 with only a lid and Random Tech muffler... so I completely believe that this car, with a better power/weight ratio on paper, can pull a 12.4 with some Nitto DRs out back.

kevin2323 07-28-2008 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAROobsession (Post 101879)
are those your predictions or Edmunds.... b/c thats a mirror image of what Edmunds said. which is def underrated.

Not that overated I think the camaro will do 0-60 in 4.6 with a 1/4 of 12.8-12.9.

topgun1 07-28-2008 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2K05GT (Post 101873)
No way with the 3.6L dip into the 13's with the weight and low torque.

Here are my predictions.... (These are average number not best times)

2010 Camaro SS 6 Spd Man
3860 lbs
422 HP @ 5000 408 TQ @ 4500
13.2 @ 108
0-60 mph in 4.9 sec

2010 Camaro SS 6 Spd Auto
3913 lbs
400 HP @ 5000 395 TQ @ 4500
13.1 @ 108
0-60 mph in 4.6 sec

2010 Camaro 3.6L V6 Auto
3769 lbs
300 HP @ 6400 273 TQ @ 5200
14.5 @ 97
0-60 mph in 6.1 sec

2010 Camaro 3.6L V6 Man
3780 lbs
300 HP @ 6400 273 TQ @ 5200
14.7 @ 97
0-60 mph in 6.1 sec

I would agree pretty honestly with the 3.6L projected times as my 2003 Acura CL Type-S weighed in stock at 3446 lbs, had a 3.2L VTEC, 260 hp, 232 lb/ft torque and was 5.9 0-60 mph and 1/4 at 14.6 @ 98 mph (stock). So 300 hp at about 300 lbs more would be pretty similar I would think.

When adding just a CAI, cat-back exhaust, and taking some weight off like spare tire, jack, etc. and running on 1/8 tank of premium, managed a 14.24 @ 102.3.

boxmonkeyracing 07-28-2008 12:01 PM

108 for 13.2. . .man someone isn't launching worth crap. 13.2 should be closer to 105 then 108. yea yea 3mph but put it this way at 111 I was doing 12.5. at 104.3 I was doing 13.3. and by no means am I saying I'm a good driver. just believe this camaro will be dipping lower then a lot of people think.

boxmonkeyracing 07-28-2008 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by topgun1 (Post 101920)
I would agree pretty honestly with the 3.6L projected times as my 2003 Acura CL Type-S weighed in stock at 3446 lbs, had a 3.2L VTEC, 260 hp, 232 lb/ft torque and was 5.9 0-60 mph and 1/4 at 14.6 @ 98 mph (stock). So 300 hp at about 300 lbs more would be pretty similar I would think.

When adding just a CAI, cat-back exhaust, and taking some weight off like spare tire, jack, etc. and running on 1/8 tank of premium, managed a 14.24 @ 102.3.

front wheel drive needs the top end compared to a rwd car. a good launch and you don't need that 102.3 to get a 14.24. a good launch and 102 would be high 13's.

topgun1 07-28-2008 12:06 PM

yeah, i've seen guys at the track with Supras, WRX's, Evo's, Vipers, etc. running embarrassing E.T.'s because they couldn't launch

Black5thgen 07-28-2008 01:22 PM

12.90's all day long with a decent driver. 12.60's with a great driver and optimal conditions. 13.2 for the average person. But bolt-on's plus cam= >11.50's.:confused0068:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.