5th gen performance numbers are in from the top

[Scotsman]

by way of Edmunds Insideline...

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

[Xanthos]

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

[Scotsman]

Originally Posted by XanthosV6

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

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.

[Xanthos]

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

[96CAMaro]

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.

[Xanthos]

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

[boxmonkeyracing]

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.

[Xanthos]

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

[boxmonkeyracing]

Originally Posted by XanthosV6

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

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.

[Xanthos]

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

[AirGoya]

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.

[Xanthos]

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

[Captain Awesome]

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.

[boxmonkeyracing]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

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.

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.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

If we can't trust the numbers, can we at least trust the ratios?

I'd say so. Everyone has their own technique for evaluating this stuff and they stick to it. So comparing an edmunds time to motor trend isn't advisable, but edmunds to edmunds should be ok. Most of the time magazines adjust for conditions too.

[redsap05]

They probobly just turded up the tune so its not as fast a vette. My buddies ls3 c6 traps at 117 to 116 bone stock. I was hoping for at least 112 and still think it will do it. I cant wait to see what everyone gets with them. If people only get 108 I will be dissapoited.

[TAG UR IT]

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.

..."and not as fast as your current 4th Gen." I swear, if this SS isn't faster with an LS3 in it over my LS1 SS, I'm going to go nuts.




and Turtle...get ready, my friend. Because I'm going to be coming to see you at your shop. I am in no way in hell going to own a NEW Camaro that is slower than my current Camaro. Mods....here I come.



But, as always, I have faith. I think it'll run in the 12's....the SS model, that is.

[stovt001]

Not bad, but as with the mileage numbers, I'm calling sandbagging. Since these aren't official numbers yet, GM pretty much has to under-promise and over-deliver. These give you a decent idea of what to expect, but I wouldn't take them as anything close to gospel yet.

[Mindz]

I might be making a trip out to Texas myself if the 5th gen SS isn't as fast as a current SS.

[Shadowsong]

Originally Posted by XanthosV6

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

Hell if you droped 13gs in the SIX it would be faster than the vette.... Anything can be fast for that kind of cash...

[MerF]

Originally Posted by XanthosV6

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

You could drop 13G into a pinto and it be faster than a Vette. If it were all about paying too much money to make any car fast, then we wouldn't care what the car looked like or what features it had, we'd all drive Hyundai's and be pimpin'.

[Camaro82]

I dont' understand. For V6 quater-mile, auto got 14.5 and manual got 14.7.

Is V6 also paddle shifter? If so, I am pretty sure its not one of those BMW M class paddle shifters, so how is Auto faster than Manual when its heavier?

Does gear ratio makes that much difference?

[MerF]

And drivers. Remember that an Automatic shifts much much faster than a human can ever hope to. The reason historically that manuals are faster is because generally the auto makers don't adjust the car for the extra weight and gearing needed to compensate for the automatic's attributes. In this case, they actually did and we are seeing the benefit of this extra engineering.

[nfamous209]

those numbers just dont seem right. 108mph trap is 12's in the 1/4, I can see the paddle shift end up changing gears faster then the manual. but i think the times should be similar due to more weight and less hp. this car should easily hit mid 12's, if a 400hp ls2 gto that weighs 3800 can hit 12's this car should be able to.

V6 numbers are impressive, i can see mid low 14's all day long, its what the CTS is achieving. i cant wait to see real world numbers, none of this magazine racing stuff.

[shadowed_Stranger]

garfin : Can you share projected 0-60 and 1/4 mi. times with us?
DougHoulihan : Performance numbers will be released as we get closer to production, but we're very happy with the test results.

DONT PANIC!

Even those numbers "from the top" are not official yet.