Skid pad numbers, we are 2nd to last. why? - Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums

perfxn · 03-20-2009, 07:33 PM

The numbers are lower than most thought they would be. but for all the cars, not just the camaro. my question is with the IRS and all are new high teech suspension why aare we 3rd? is it just the weight? did the added weight alot if people didnt like cause this isssue?

EDMUNDS

At the track, all that hardware translates to a maximum 68.6-mph speed through our slalom and 0.88g on the skid pad. Here the lack of visibility was a hindrance through the slalom as well. It's difficult to see where the corners of this car are while you're driving. For most sane people, this sensation makes one overestimate the size of the car in order to ensure a safe distance from other cars or objects.

The Challenger isn't much through the slalom. That broad-of-beam brute feels composed through the cones but can muster only 64.7 mph (standard all-season tires hurt the Dodge here). The lighter and narrower Mustang is in a virtual dead heat with the Camaro at 68.4 mph and offers more outright grip on the skid pad at 0.91g. The small, nimble 370Z whoops all comers with a 72-mph run through the cones.

manimsoblack · 03-20-2009, 07:41 PM

I've seen .93 for the v6 and .90/.91 for the SS

*CamaroSpike23* · 03-20-2009, 07:41 PM

they had crappy drivers who were too scared to push the car

fireresq157 · 03-20-2009, 08:11 PM

Other reviews show much better numbers. We always rely on the skill and honosty of the reviewers especially since most have their bias. The best thing to do is average the results out for a better feel of the normal numbers.

*CamaroSpike23* · 03-20-2009, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fireresq157

Other reviews show much better numbers. We always rely on the skill and honosty of the reviewers especially since most have their bias. The best thing to do is average the results out for a better feel of the normal numbers.

or remember that the best numbers are from some very good drivers and that the lower numbers are more of what most drivers will actually see

perfxn · 03-20-2009, 08:29 PM

But that doesnt explain why the mustang had better numbers, unless the driver felt more comfortable in the GT and pushed it more?

eddiehaskell · 03-20-2009, 08:33 PM

Skidpad numbers are useless. Tires have the greatest impact on skidpad numbers. Just because one car puts up a better number DOES NOT mean it handles better or will go faster around the track. You can put a fairly sticky tire on a '93 Camaro around pull well over .90g.

0.89-.91 is perfectly fine considering most reviews have said the car soaks up bumps without a problem.

garagelogic · 03-20-2009, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eddiehaskell

Skidpad numbers are useless. Tires have the greatest impact on skidpad numbers. Just because one car puts up a better number DOES NOT mean it handles better or will go faster around the track. You can put a fairly sticky tire on a '93 Camaro around pull well over .90g.

0.89-.91 is perfectly fine considering most reviews have said the car soaks up bumps without a problem.

You are correct. Slalom is a better measurement in a test scenario. However, the Mustang GT matched the SS in that area as well, despite it's "archaic" rear suspension.

The truth of the matter is, the Camaro is going to be a great ponycar, arguably the best GM has ever produced, but much to many people's chagrin, it is only slightly ahead of it's competition in terms of performance, not the light-years many wanted to see.

eddiehaskell · 03-20-2009, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garagelogic

You are correct. Slalom is a better measurement in a test scenario. However, the Mustang GT matched the SS in that area as well, despite it's "archaic" rear suspension.

Slalom is the same as skidpad...useless. A BMW M3 might slalom 69 mph...does that mean a Mustang GT handles better? I think not. These are just numbers. On track performance is where we cut through the BS numbers. I fully expect the Camaro to give the Mustang a good thrashing on the road course...better brakes, IRS, tons of power to spare.

perfxn · 03-20-2009, 08:53 PM

yea i might have to agree with you on that one, teh mustang's old tech is keeping up in the handling so far. I dnt really like that too much. i guess its kinda like not beating them by enough, i wana run up the score! lol

GatorBlue371 · 03-20-2009, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garagelogic

You are correct. Slalom is a better measurement in a test scenario. However, the Mustang GT matched the SS in that area as well, despite it's "archaic" rear suspension.

The truth of the matter is, the Camaro is going to be a great ponycar, arguably the best GM has ever produced, but much to many people's chargrin, it is only slightly ahead of it's competition in terms of performance, not the light-years many wanted to see.

A. actually the Camaro won.

B. Its archaic rear suspension is embarrassing. Keep in mind thats with the track pack. The area where IRS will really shine over the primitive Mustang set up is ride quality. As you know.

*CamaroSpike23* · 03-20-2009, 08:56 PM

I wonder.... with the mustang being.... well, pretty much the same car as it has been for the last few years.... maybe the testers were "used" to it from testing it each year whereas the Camaro is a new breed of beast that they arent fully comfortable driving yet.

just a thought

perfxn · 03-20-2009, 09:03 PM

camarospike23 thats a good point. I cant figure how we do so well in the other handling areas but not this one. doesnt make much sense to me.

MerlinZero · 03-20-2009, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamaroSpike23

or remember that the best numbers are from some very good drivers and that the lower numbers are more of what most drivers will actually see

What I would say is... give it 3 weeks. when they start getting into OUR hands... we'll be able to top them...

I'll set up a skid pad and a slallem at the Westfield Shopping Town at Southcenter in Tukwilla WA... We can test this shit there.

I bet you it'll pull 70mph through the cones... at least.

03-20-2009, 07:33 PM	#1
perfxn Drives: 2SS RS Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: portland, OR Posts: 305	Skid pad numbers, we are 2nd to last. why? The numbers are lower than most thought they would be. but for all the cars, not just the camaro. my question is with the IRS and all are new high teech suspension why aare we 3rd? is it just the weight? did the added weight alot if people didnt like cause this isssue? EDMUNDS At the track, all that hardware translates to a maximum 68.6-mph speed through our slalom and 0.88g on the skid pad. Here the lack of visibility was a hindrance through the slalom as well. It's difficult to see where the corners of this car are while you're driving. For most sane people, this sensation makes one overestimate the size of the car in order to ensure a safe distance from other cars or objects. The Challenger isn't much through the slalom. That broad-of-beam brute feels composed through the cones but can muster only 64.7 mph (standard all-season tires hurt the Dodge here). The lighter and narrower Mustang is in a virtual dead heat with the Camaro at 68.4 mph and offers more outright grip on the skid pad at 0.91g. The small, nimble 370Z whoops all comers with a 72-mph run through the cones.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Skidpad Numbers	garagelogic	5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions	47	03-21-2009 08:06 AM
5th gen performance numbers are in from the top	Scotsman	Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons	28	07-30-2008 05:38 PM
looking for 2nd gen repair manual?	[KRPT]ECP	1st & 2nd Generation Camaros	4	02-27-2008 05:02 PM
69 Camaro Production Numbers	CBR9Seadoo	1st & 2nd Generation Camaros	6	04-02-2007 09:51 AM

03-20-2009, 08:11 PM	#4
fireresq157 Drives: 1997 SS & 2010 2SS/RS Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: South Florida Posts: 1,027	Other reviews show much better numbers. We always rely on the skill and honosty of the reviewers especially since most have their bias. The best thing to do is average the results out for a better feel of the normal numbers.

03-20-2009, 08:29 PM	#6
perfxn Drives: 2SS RS Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: portland, OR Posts: 305	But that doesnt explain why the mustang had better numbers, unless the driver felt more comfortable in the GT and pushed it more?

03-20-2009, 08:33 PM	#7
eddiehaskell Drives: Pinto Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: USA Posts: 65	Skidpad numbers are useless. Tires have the greatest impact on skidpad numbers. Just because one car puts up a better number DOES NOT mean it handles better or will go faster around the track. You can put a fairly sticky tire on a '93 Camaro around pull well over .90g. 0.89-.91 is perfectly fine considering most reviews have said the car soaks up bumps without a problem.

03-20-2009, 08:53 PM	#10
perfxn Drives: 2SS RS Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: portland, OR Posts: 305	yea i might have to agree with you on that one, teh mustang's old tech is keeping up in the handling so far. I dnt really like that too much. i guess its kinda like not beating them by enough, i wana run up the score! lol

03-20-2009, 09:03 PM	#13
perfxn Drives: 2SS RS Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: portland, OR Posts: 305	camarospike23 thats a good point. I cant figure how we do so well in the other handling areas but not this one. doesnt make much sense to me.