2010 camaro perfomance accessories?

[gunslinger]

Originally Posted by MerF

I'm sorry, but I gotta see some physical proof of that, because it makes no sense as I understand basic physics.

Isn't it part of basic physics, that with the same input power and more weight than a solid axle, that HP (a measure of accelerative potential) will be less because it has to accelerate more weight?

The Corvettes have historically dynoed lower RWHP than the Camaro when the same motor and transmission combo are used. Ex: 1998 Z28 w/ T56 vs 1998 C5 Vette w/T56...

Granted the difference is only a few HP, but it is proven that more rotating mass decreases HP rating at the rear wheels...

Torque is a whole different animal because RPM is not a part of the equation to determine torque...

[Jamestwilliams]

Just to give you an idea about GM numbers the 505 hp Zo6 (ls7) puts out 476 RWHP on a dyno. Oviously the flywheel number is way off unless gm has the most efficient drivetrain ever. So expect more than 422 horse power at the fly wheel, also the new sae net numbers seem take more into account so that might be a big part of the difference.

[Jamestwilliams]

Originally Posted by gunslinger

Isn't it part of basic physics, that with the same input power and more weight than a solid axle, that HP (a measure of accelerative potential) will be less because it has to accelerate more weight?

The Corvettes have historically dynoed lower RWHP than the Camaro when the same motor and transmission combo are used. Ex: 1998 Z28 w/ T56 vs 1998 C5 Vette w/T56...

Granted the difference is only a few HP, but it is proven that more rotating mass decreases HP rating at the rear wheels...

Torque is a whole different animal because RPM is not a part of the equation to determine torque...

Well you have to affect torque or rpms to affect horsepower. Horse power is a measure of the rate at which torque is used. This equation explains it hp= (torqueXrpm)/5252. However rotating mass does reduce torque as some of the torque is used to turn the mass horse power isn't an actual force it is just a way to compare the work done between the flywheel (high rpms low torque) and the rear wheels (low rpms high torque). The fly wheel spinning at 5000 rpms produces 400 lb/ft (in other words push on a one foot bar with 400lbs or a four hundred foot bar with 1 pound) of torque, well lets say first gear and final gear combined give a 10:1 reduction then the rear wheels will spin at 500 rpms while the torque (in a perfect world with no loss of energy through heat) will increase to 4000 lb/ft at the rear wheels, essentially what a transmission is, is a torque mulitplier. However there is always power loss as found in the difference between the fly wheel and the rear wheels now in a manual transmission without slippage the rear wheels will spin at exactly 1/10 the rpm as the fly wheel meaning that the loss must be in the form of torque assuming once again that the overall gear ratio is 10:1 (this is close enough to a normal first gear) 400 lb/ft of torque at the rear wheels is not enough to over come the forces acting on a car in order to make it move. Now with the clutch partially depressed the tranny input shaft will spin at a slower rpm than the fly wheel giving a very low rwhp.

[headpunter]

one culprit is loosing energy to heat and friction of more movable parts

[spd98]

Any type of joint produces less efficient energy transfer. Also any time you change the direction of a force you typically loose power. The CV's in the Camaro's rear end will be more efficient that U joints of old but still not as efficient as a single rear end and solid axle design.

Corvette will have less drivetrain loss than the "torque tube" design introduced in the c5 is more efficient than a driveshaft and now that Camaro has the CV losses in back it will show.

[JEFF2010SSMANUAL]

Originally Posted by Jamestwilliams

Just to give you an idea about GM numbers the 505 hp Zo6 (ls7) puts out 476 RWHP on a dyno. Oviously the flywheel number is way off unless gm has the most efficient drivetrain ever. So expect more than 422 horse power at the fly wheel, also the new sae net numbers seem take more into account so that might be a big part of the difference.

With these numbers, the 422hp SS with then put 397rwhp.

[Design1stCode2nd]

Will GM debut most of it's Camaro parts at SEMA this year? I like the idea of a CAI and catback exhaust from the dealer (or maybe port installed) with warranty intact and factored into the monthly payments.

[TheCaptain]

I would like some nice Tri-Y headers for my LS3! And a sweet Flowmaster or Magnaflow exhuast, providing the GM one is crappy.

[radz28]

If you're talking about the GMPP catback, I'm sure it'll be good. I thought I remember someone saying Borla made it for them, although I always thought the tips on the GMPP catbacks I saw looked like Corsa tips. Either way, hopefully they'll come out with a 3-inch catback, otherwise, I might have to go Magnaflow or another stainless company.

[DET MUSL]

I know I'd like to do a header back exhaust with free flowing cats but I don't know what kind of money I'll have right away cause I'm getting a house and getting married in 2010 so right now I'm just plain hoping to get the car lol.

[DGthe3]

I'm sure that GM will offer a supercharger, they offered kits for the ecotec in the days of the supercharged Cobalt SS. Still do, I think. So I don't see why they wouldn't offer the supercharger from the LS9, or at least the LSA