Potentially leaked GT500 spec sheet. - Page 4 - Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums

Hasti · 08-23-2018, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JhonnyGTR

So... A car with an Engine that weights more than 5.0 Coyote and the LT1 and has a platform that weights more than the alpha platform... Is lighter than a Camaro 1SS and a Base Mustang GT?

The gt350 has a lot of aluminum swapped in for steel on subframe of it, so it weighs less then the gt

shaffe · 08-23-2018, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JhonnyGTR

So... A car with an Engine that weights more than 5.0 Coyote and the LT1 and has a platform that weights more than the alpha platform... Is lighter than a Camaro 1SS and a Base Mustang GT?

1. I am only relaying info as the manufacturers put on their website.

2. Don't forget that the 350R, has no rear seats, no air conditioning, no audio, carbon fiber wheels.

DrkPhx · 08-23-2018, 08:01 PM

If real; those are under whelming specs. I was expecting more HP and lower weight considering how late it's coming out.

z28pat · 08-23-2018, 08:30 PM

4200 lbs? So heavy , it’s impressive getting that much hp and tq out of the “small” 5.2 , but the weight and 190mpg isn’t impressive , hellcats with less power are faster than that.

JhonnyGTR · 08-24-2018, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaffe

1. I am only relaying info as the manufacturers put on their website.

2. Don't forget that the 350R, has no rear seats, no air conditioning, no audio, carbon fiber wheels.

Oh Yeah, I forget that... By the way, it will be a unfair comparation to the GT500 because I doubt they come with at least no rear seats...

Number 3 · 08-24-2018, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by z28pat

4200 lbs? So heavy , it’s impressive getting that much hp and tq out of the “small” 5.2 , but the weight and 190mpg isn’t impressive , hellcats with less power are faster than that.

If true, this could simply be a governed speed. But speculating on top of speculation is what we do.

If true and they are getting 700 plus HP from 5.2 L, this would be nothing short of spectacular. No one should really be thinking otherwise.

Bhobbs · 08-24-2018, 06:37 PM

Why is that so spectacular? It’s using the block and heads from the Voodoo, which obviously flow a lot of air. Add in the new 2.65 and 720 isn’t that surprising.

lt4camaro · 08-24-2018, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryephile

Flat plane crank? The rev-limit implies it. Incidentally, 720 HP at 7500 RPM is 504 LbFt, which puts the high-RPM torque fall-off even more so than the LT4. Nevertheless, 650 LbFt out of a 5.2L is impressive for a big OEM V8.

5.2 liter plus a 2.9 liter blower is 8.1 liters versus 6.2 and 1.7 liter blower is 7.9 liters. The Ford is bigger with 32 valves, other than 7500 rpm its really not that great.

lt4camaro · 08-24-2018, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

Why is that so spectacular? It’s using the block and heads from the Voodoo, which obviously flow a lot of air. Add in the new 2.65 and 720 isn’t that surprising.

Is it a sure thing on a 2.65 blower or will it be larger like a 2.9 similar to the dodge.

lt4camaro · 08-24-2018, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nicktechla

That weight can't be right.. a GT350R is like 3650... if this car has a blower and stuff.. It just doesn't add up.

Any GT with any equipment/options are all over 3800 lbs, 4200lbs isn't that far out for a big blower and all the goodies that go with it. Also consider suspension and driveline upgrades, coolers, fluid capacities etc to handle all that HP.

There is close to a 300 lb diff between a ZL1 and a SS

*DGthe3* · 08-24-2018, 08:31 PM

Gushing over hp/L is nonsensical to begin with. Gushing over hp/L with forced induction is worse. Outright power is infinitely more important. And it is a powerful engine, no two ways about that.

Anyway ... the listed numbers are plausible to me. They're what most people would guess, give or take 5%. But I'm not convinced that its legitimate. Yes, there is the petrol/patrol mistake (also, why would it even be petrol instead of gasoline?). There is also the fact that its listed as 720 hp, when the units described under power are kW. Torque is given in ft-lbs and Nm, why not power? And another typo has trailor instead of trailer. One of those mistakes should raise an eyebrow. But 3 together? I don't see that occurring on an official internal form.

Bhobbs · 08-24-2018, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lt4camaro

Is it a sure thing on a 2.65 blower or will it be larger like a 2.9 similar to the dodge.

I'm pretty sure its the same 2.65 as the one on the ZR1 but its been a while since I read about it.

90503 · 08-24-2018, 10:12 PM

Ford should let their owners just have a vote...Maybe they would pick a 4cyl turbo/hybrid over N/A hypo V-8...?...Where's the fuel economy?

Ford just seems to be stuck in the past with this GT500 and not as progressive and forward thinking as Chevy and Camaro...

Bhobbs · 08-25-2018, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 90503

Ford should let their owners just have a vote...Maybe they would pick a 4cyl turbo/hybrid over N/A hypo V-8...?...Where's the fuel economy?

Ford just seems to be stuck in the past with this GT500 and not as progressive and forward thinking as Chevy and Camaro...

Uh, wat?

What is Chevy doing with the Camaro that is so forward thinking?

08-24-2018, 06:37 PM	#49
Bhobbs Drives: 2015 SS 1LE Red Hot, 1970 Chevelle Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Chino, CA Posts: 6,989	Why is that so spectacular? It’s using the block and heads from the Voodoo, which obviously flow a lot of air. Add in the new 2.65 and 720 isn’t that surprising. __________________

08-24-2018, 08:31 PM	#53
DGthe3 Moderator.ca Drives: 05 Grand Am GT Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Niagara, Canada Posts: 25,372	Gushing over hp/L is nonsensical to begin with. Gushing over hp/L with forced induction is worse. Outright power is infinitely more important. And it is a powerful engine, no two ways about that. Anyway ... the listed numbers are plausible to me. They're what most people would guess, give or take 5%. But I'm not convinced that its legitimate. Yes, there is the petrol/patrol mistake (also, why would it even be petrol instead of gasoline?). There is also the fact that its listed as 720 hp, when the units described under power are kW. Torque is given in ft-lbs and Nm, why not power? And another typo has trailor instead of trailer. One of those mistakes should raise an eyebrow. But 3 together? I don't see that occurring on an official internal form. __________________ Note, if I've gotten any facts wrong in the above, just ignore any points I made with them __________________ Originally Posted by FbodFather My sister's dentist's brother's cousin's housekeeper's dog-breeder's nephew sells coffee filters to the company that provides coffee to General Motors...... ........and HE WOULD KNOW!!!! __________________ Camaro Fest sub-forum

08-23-2018, 08:01 PM	#45
DrkPhx Drives: 2013 Triple Black ZL1 / 2006 TB SS Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: MN Posts: 2,250	If real; those are under whelming specs. I was expecting more HP and lower weight considering how late it's coming out.

08-23-2018, 08:30 PM	#46
z28pat Drives: 2002 z28, 2018 2ss 1LE Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Parrish, Florida Posts: 836	4200 lbs? So heavy , it’s impressive getting that much hp and tq out of the “small” 5.2 , but the weight and 190mpg isn’t impressive , hellcats with less power are faster than that.

08-24-2018, 10:12 PM	#55
90503 Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3 Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Torrance Posts: 14,426	Ford should let their owners just have a vote...Maybe they would pick a 4cyl turbo/hybrid over N/A hypo V-8...?...Where's the fuel economy? Ford just seems to be stuck in the past with this GT500 and not as progressive and forward thinking as Chevy and Camaro...