Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com - 5th gen performance numbers are in from the top

- Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons (https://www.camaro5.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=11)

- - 5th gen performance numbers are in from the top (https://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5292)

5th gen performance numbers are in from the top

by way of Edmunds Insideline...

Quote:

2010 Chevy Camaro SS: 0-60 in 4.6 Seconds

Date posted: 07-21-2008

NORTH HOLLYWOOD, California — GM engineers at today's official 2010 Chevrolet Camaro unveil were all too willing to provide performance numbers for their hot, new muscle car, including quarter-mile and 0-60-mph times.

Al Oppenheiser, chief engineer for GM's North American rear-wheel-drive platform and owner of a first-generation Camaro convertible, was pleased to run through his baby's accomplishments.

According to Oppenheiser, the new 300-horsepower 3.6-liter V6-equipped Camaro will run from zero to 60 mph in 6.1 seconds regardless of transmission choice. The V6 coupe will cover the quarter-mile in 14.5 seconds with an auto and 14.7 seconds with a manual, both at 97 mph. The brakes don't sound quite as impressive, though, as Oppenheiser said the base Camaro stops from 60 to zero mph in 132 feet.

Not surprisingly, the V8-equipped Camaro SS delivers better numbers across the board. Chevy's Camaro SS outfitted with the 422-hp 6.2-liter LS3 V8 six-speed manual hits 60 mph in 4.9 seconds and runs a 13.4-second quarter-mile at 108 mph according to Oppenheiser. Strangely enough, Oppenheiser also claims that the automatic-equipped SS Camaro, which is rated at 400 hp, runs from zero to 60 mph in just 4.6 seconds and through the quarter-mile in 13.3 seconds. "We optimized the shift points," he said.

Both versions of the V8 Camaro SS pull a maximum 0.90 g on the skid pad. Four-piston Brembo brakes help stop the Camaro SS in 117 feet.

What this means to you: If Chevrolet's numbers pan out, the Camaro SS will be every bit as fast as the Dodge Challenger SRT8 for a lot less money. — Kelly Toepke, News Editor

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=129496

0-60 for the v6 is depressing, to say the least. But, I have heard of a lot of CTS owners getting around .5 seconds better 0-60 times when they run 89 octane gas instead of 87. That would put the v6 right around 5.6 seconds, bone stock, which is a bit more respectable. I wonder if those numbers are using the LS weight, or the LT weight (about 40 pounds difference).
- Xanthos

Quote:

Originally Posted by XanthosV6 (Post 95295)

Don't get worked up yet. Wait until the magazines get the cars, you'll see true real world numbers then which are typically better than the manufactures usually conservative numbers.

I'm not exactly worked up - I'm not planning on keeping my car stock anyway. It'll just hurt the street rep of the car if its slower than the mustang v6, if only by .1 seconds.
- Xanthos

I hope that edmunds is off by a mile. Those numbers correspond to a new 2005+ Mustang GT and a 2000+ Z28/SS Camaro. I'm hoping the Camaro will have performance figures that will shatter the world of the Mustang and Evo's, Sti's, SRT-4's, and Challengers. I want something that darn near rivals the Corvette. :paddle:

Wait... we can't kick the snot out of the corvette? Although, I'm sure if I dropped 13gs into the v8 camaro it would be faster than the vette even if those numbers are correct.
- Xanthos

I don't expect the mags to have real world numbers either. maybe for a fat guy that can't drive. I only say that because we had 01 and 02 camaro's in the 12's in stock forum but mags never got that close.

heck even my camaro was rated at 13.5 in the 1320 and I was able to do 13.2 stock. . .and with exhaust ls6 intake and lid 12.5 at 111. so yea. some people will get better some will get worse.

Good - I know I have at least average shift times (though I like the think I can mash gears with the best of them =D) but I'm also light - I weigh in at a whopping 130 pounds. Thank god for military assisted body fat percentages!
- Xanthos

Quote:

Originally Posted by XanthosV6 (Post 95352)

HA HA military here and I'm around 190. . .but avg shift times are? I'd like to think I'm at least avg shift times or faster but I don't know my 12.5 run was after I got back with out driving a manual for 5.5 months over seas.

I dunno - I usually compare my shift times to how fast the other people I see/race against shift. Although I have seen many calculators that use 500ms as a baseline - and I know I'm MUCH faster than that.
Its not just military that makes me light - I also have a naturally fast metabolism and naturally lean muscle mass. Doesn't bother me at all. Went to the doctor this year because he was worried because my metabolism hasn't slowed down yet and I'm 20 now. Did a full metabolic screen (thyroid, etc.) - everything normal. Tape worm - not that either. Body fat test - 1.5%.
- Xanthos

P.S. Sorry about the :threadjacked:

Just thought i would tell you guys, the same web site (insideline) says the mustang gt (around 3,500 right?) gets to 60 in 5.9 seconds. Isnt it actually like 5.1? And they say the BMW 135i coupe (300hp and 3,399 pounds) gets to 60 in 5.0 seconds.

So what you're saying is that their numbers can't be trusted?
- Xanthos

If we can't trust the numbers, can we at least trust the ratios? That 0-60 time for the auto is better with both engine choices is kinda scary. The auto is heavier and makes less HP but has better acceleration.

Hmmm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome (Post 95530)

better final drive ratio then manual. . .only reason I'm considering getting paddle shifters. because honestly in the end i plan to race either my old camaro or years down the line this one.