Z/28: Now...or '16?

[2cnd chance]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

I do expect the max size wheel to be 19" on the 6th gen for this very reason. The problem with the current car is that it was designed to meet enthusiasts' demands for the concept to be produced as-is....that car wore 21 and 22s!!

Here's my question to some earlier comments:

Isn't the rolling weight a much more influential attribute that center of gravity of the wheel?

Yes. And a taller wheel takes more to move and stop. Just like gearing. But it's not just the taller wheels the tire height and weight needs to be put into the equasion as well.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by 2cnd chance

Yes. And a taller wheel takes more to move and stop. Just like gearing. But it's not just the taller wheels the tire height and weight needs to be put into the equasion as well.

I was thinking of the weight when I asked. I'm not sure tire height has nearly as much of an effect on things when we're talking 2-3 inches difference. But I've never really explored this.

[LOWDOWN]

Both are important considerations...rolling weight has to be overcome to accelerate the wheels/tires, which cause the vehicle to launch...less weight = quicker acceleration (even fractionally!). But you see, when Ed 'n the boyz designed the Gen-5, on a larger-than-perfect donor platform, they HAD to go with bigger wheels/tires/wheel openings to get the proper "scale" and "look". Try to imagine the Camaro with smaller openings...just take a look at the '04-'06 GTO, if you want to see "out-of-scale" design... That car BEGGED for bigger wheel openings. Ed 'n the boyz fixed that...

Another "proof" of this reason: Did those 245/45-20s and 275/40-20s exist before the Gen-5 Camaro? No...

Remember, the Gen-5 Camaro is about the same size as a Gen-1 Malibu!

CG is "simply" a math computation of where the centerpoint of the Mass is... The lower it is, the more easily a Mass will change direction with less attitude change...and the more stable it is against any opposing force.

[LOWDOWN]

Michelin PS2:

305/30-19 = 26.3" tall, 12.2" tread width

305/35-20 = 28.4" tall, 11.3" tread width...1" taller sidewall, 1" narrower tread...this is the size of the ZL1 rear tires

1" in height affords "slower" turn-in, more squirm, but a better ride. 1" more width = 4" total tread width...hmmm...gimme the 19s! Plus, 4 equal-sized tires can be rotated...

Goodyear 285/35-20 = 27.9" tall, 10.5" tread width...ZL1 front tires

vs. (4) 305/30-19s, that's now over 5" extra tread width in favor of the 19s!

Now, shed 200+ pounds, drop 75hp, add 5+" of rubber...makes a Gen-5 ZEE a worrisome/eager combo to some (former?!) ZL1 prospects...

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

Michelin PS2:

305/30-19 = 26.3" tall, 12.2" tread width

305/35-20 = 28.4" tall, 11.3" tread width...1" taller sidewall, 1" narrower tread...this is the size of the ZL1 rear tires

1" in height affords "slower" turn-in, more squirm, but a better ride. 1" more width = 4" total tread width...hmmm...gimme the 19s! Plus, 4 equal-sized tires can be rotated...

Goodyear 285/35-20 = 27.9" tall, 10.5" tread width...ZL1 front tires

vs. (4) 305/30-19s, that's now over 5" extra tread width in favor of the 19s!

How did the width of the tread change by altering the diameter of the wheel?

[LOWDOWN]

Wheels alone don't affect it...these specs are as per Tire Rack: Michelin- http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....ilot+Sport+PS2

Goodyear- http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....upercar+G%3A+2

[LOWDOWN]

And a 1" (diameter) drop lowers cg, as well...

"Buildable" by GM? Not quickly, but do-able, depending on bumper height for crash-test purposes...

[mr02Z/28]

I wish GM would put together a 2015 Camaro Z/28 with a 375hp TT V-6 with a weight about 3500lbs solid rear setup with 3.90 gears and a PG tranny.... and don't forget the 8Track..




I'm being very serious... I don't want Lumbar support, 8-way adjustable power seating, Navigation, Leather/Suede, 9 speaker radio system... in other words I would forego comfort for a B*llBusting Reasonably priced Camaro.... Why does it have to compete with Ford.... Why can't it be it's own Competition, be different...

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

Wheels alone don't affect it...these specs are as per Tire Rack: Michelin- http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....ilot+Sport+PS2

Goodyear- http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....upercar+G%3A+2

Yes, but note that the 19" tire is a Porche-specific design...they could have meddled with things to achieve that distortion. And tire-rack makes a good point: There's no industry standard to measuring tread-width, so some companies just don't publish it.

Annnnnyways....

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

And a 1" (diameter) drop lowers cg, as well...

I was reading "cg" as that of the wheels themselves (since their weight does not effect the sprung mass of the vehicle)...you seem to be talking about the car's cg?

[wildpaws]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Yes, but note that the 19" tire is a Porche-specific design...they could have meddled with things to achieve that distortion. And tire-rack makes a good point: There's no industry standard to measuring tread-width, so some companies just don't publish it.

Annnnnyways....


I was reading "cg" as that of the wheels themselves (since their weight does not effect the sprung mass of the vehicle)...you seem to be talking about the car's cg?

Exactly, lowering the CoG for the entire car does wonders for handling IMHO, that's why I pointed out that the '67-'69 Z/28 sat almost two inches lower with 15" wheels than the majority of Camaros did with 14" wheels.
Clyde

[wildpaws]

Originally Posted by mr02Z/28

I wish GM would put together a 2015 Camaro Z/28 with a 375hp TT V-6 with a weight about 3500lbs solid rear setup with 3.90 gears and a PG tranny.... and don't forget the 8Track..




I'm being very serious... I don't want Lumbar support, 8-way adjustable power seating, Navigation, Leather/Suede, 9 speaker radio system... in other words I would forego comfort for a B*llBusting Reasonably priced Camaro.... Why does it have to compete with Ford.... Why can't it be it's own Competition, be different...

It's already been discussed MANY times on these forums, the TT V-6 would weigh the same as or more than a V-8 SBC and produce less HP. The majority of the Z/28 afficianados on these forums have said no to V6 and yes to V8.
Clyde

[mr02Z/28]

so what..... I'm saying Yes-------- I want a TT V-6

[wildpaws]

Originally Posted by mr02Z/28

so what..... I'm saying Yes-------- I want a TT V-6

So what........you've already been outvoted by about 99 to 1, very few others do!!
Clyde

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by wildpaws

Exactly, lowering the CoG for the entire car does wonders for handling IMHO, that's why I pointed out that the '67-'69 Z/28 sat almost two inches lower with 15" wheels than the majority of Camaros did with 14" wheels.
Clyde

Ah...I follow now. I wasn't on the same page. But now I am - and I agree!!

If I go any further this will turn into a 6th gen discussion, so I'll stop there.