NEW Official Details on Camaro ZL1 -- 580hp / 556 lb-ft torque!!

[JHL88]

Originally Posted by Huggerorange73

4200 pounds....with powdered rods and cast silicon pistons?

I thought this was the ULTRA Camaro?

Color me unimpressed.....Right now the GT500 is still bringing more to the table guys.

Get the weight down and put some forged internals in it and you'll have a MONSTER on your hands.

As far as keeping the faith.....after what I've gone through with my car...that ship has long since sailed.

sorry to say i do agree. they dropped the ball IMO by not adding forged internals like the shelby

[radz28]

Originally Posted by shank0668

Let me state this
IT IS NOT CONFIRMED TO BE 4200 POUNDS
Now, we will have to wait till we see this. And sure the gt500 may get more horsepower, but there is no way it will perform near as well on a track.

I can't hear you...

IMO - Tran should post this on the Home Page, too...

[john2000car]

Totally amazing and above expectations. But, that's the awesome GM these days! Thanks for the updates. Any more updates? Come on, I can handle it. WOW!

[scritchy]

Originally Posted by JusticePete

I missed the Chevrolet announcement that gave the curb weight of the ZL1?????

Oh, it is there. You just have to automatically believe everything that car magazines say on unreleased vehicles and act like they are gospel (omg, the GT500 is getting 650 HP!!!!).

[ShnOmac]

Originally Posted by JusticePete

In addition to your duties as Director of Rebel Force Intelligence I am adding ZL1 FACT CHECK to your responsibilities.

Im going to need one of these for those who post false information or dwell on false information...

[rez333]

Originally Posted by b4z

I don't think it will be possible for the Mustang to be 1 step ahead of the Camaro in it's current generation.
Mustang doesn't have MRC or IRS just to name a few.

2011 GT500 is faster than the CTS-V with MRC and IRS. Heck the Boss with less HP and no MRC and no IRS is faster than the CTS-V.

I don't know why people persist on being ignorant about the supposed benefits of IRS and MRC. MRC doesn't improve performance - it just makes the ride more comfortable. Cars with regular racing suspension perform better than MRC. Case in point: Nissan GT-R.

[ShnOmac]

Originally Posted by rez333

2011 GT500 is faster than the CTS-V with MRC and IRS.

Source?

[Freddy]

Oh man Thats sooooo cool.
I want one, NOW

[rez333]

I don't know why everyone is surprised at the weight gains.

Here look, base SS = 3840lbs

+ 100lbs for supercharger kit (intercooler + fluid) (A ATI Procharger kit, 2 core intercooled is 100lbs.)
+ 80lbs in stronger drivetrain components, transmission, clutch and exhaust piping
+ 80lbs in heavier wheels & tires
+ 40lbs (?) because of MRC
+ 20lbs for engine oil cooler
+ 20lbs for rear differential cooler

= +340lbs

add that to 3840 and you have 4180lbs. Now subtract the difference between hydraulic steering vs electric and you have a close estimate of the final weight. I am not including the carbon fiber hood, because the SS aluminum hood is already light, and the ZL1 hood is already slightly bigger than the SS hood, and the SS hood has the mailslot which we all know GM installed to save at least 30lbs of weight off the hood ;-)

[IOMZL1]

Originally Posted by rez333

2011 GT500 is faster than the CTS-V with MRC and IRS. Heck the Boss with less HP and no MRC and no IRS is faster than the CTS-V.

I don't know why people persist on being ignorant about the supposed benefits of IRS and MRC. MRC doesn't improve performance - it just makes the ride more comfortable. Cars with regular racing suspension perform better than MRC. Case in point: Nissan GT-R.

Sorry but this is flat out wrong. How can a generic damper be better than one that adapts multiple times per second to the track? It can't be. Yes, MRC can soften the ride but this is a side effect and added bonus. If a car without MRC is faster than a car with MRC it is due to other factors. You'd have to fit both to the same car for equal comparison. Also the Corvette ZR1 is faster at the ring than the GT-R so your case in point is also wrong.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...eife_lap_times

[rez333]

Originally Posted by ShnOmac

Source?

http://www.leftlanenews.com/2011-for...nds-video.html

[OldScoolCamaro]

Originally Posted by ShnOmac

Im going to need one of these for those who post false information or dwell on false information...

LOL Mac, and hand a few to the MODS as well, it's getting pretty deep in here,....anybody seen the shovel???

[rez333]

Originally Posted by IOMZL1

Sorry but this is flat out wrong. How can a generic damper be better than one that adapts multiple times per second to the track? It can't be. Yes, MRC can soften the ride but this is a side effect and added bonus. If a car without MRC is faster than a car with MRC it is due to other factors. You'd have to fit both to the same car for equal comparison. Also the Corvette ZR1 is faster at the ring than the GT-R so your case in point is also wrong.

and the Lexus LFA, which also does not have MRC beats the ZR1. And all the cars faster than the ZR1 at Nurburgring also don't have MRC.

I agree that you have to fit the suspensions to the same car to make an accurate comparison but we don't have such a real-life example. We only have real-life examples of what companies do.

MRC is not like the magical BOSE magnetic suspension. It's just softening or hardening the damping liquid. In other words, a car with a high performance setting on the dampers will perform as well as MRC - it just won't be as comfortable. Furthermore, on a race course, you're not going to have the same road variances as the street, thus making MRC pretty redundant on a course. I maintain my argument that MRC is purely for street purposes, and in that regard is fantastic.

[mattbatt]

So for 580 HP GM buffs up tranny and drivetrain but people put a SC to their SS and don't, getting say 599+ HP.

If I were to buy a SC, should I follow GM's lead and buff up internal parts?