I deleted my last post this AM because I did not have a clear head as I just got up so here is a better example of my point.

THE CAR:
Engine : V8, OHV, front engine RWD
Displacement : 5,665 cc
Valve : 16 valves, 2 valves per cylinder
Transmission : 6-spd manual, 4-spd automatic
Fuel economy : city - 16-17 mpg
highway - 21-29 mpg

Suspension : F - Independent MacPherson strut
R - Independent control link
Brakes : F - Vented discs
R - Vented discs

Horsepower : 350 hp @ 5200 rpm
Torque : 365 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm
Redline : 6200 rpm

Top speed : 162 mph
0-60 mph : 5.3 sec.(manual)
0-¼ mile : 14.0 sec @ 105.0 mph(manual)
60-0 braking distance : 125 ft
200 ft skidpad : 0.85 g

Curb Weight : 3725 lbs

This car had some complaints but performance was never one of them. It used old parts to do what it did and still was not the top performing version of this platform. The complaints were styling and price. It would smoke most Mustangs even with the old 350 HP engine.

This car if you had not guessed is the 2004 GTO. A car with only 350 HP at 3725 with small tires, old smaller brakes and at the end of it's life 1990's designed suspension platform.

The GTO was a great all around performer and was not a hopped up version like some of the Holdens. There was a lot that could have been done to expand the performance even more but thry never even dipped into the HSV part book.

I think this car can give you a picture of what to expect with the new Camaro only with the Camaro we will get the bigger brakes and newer suspension and a better tuned set up. Add to it the 430 HP LS3 it will be a great platform.

On the new Camaro all these numbers will be improved over the old GTO and even the 2004 GTO was good enough to smoke a 2007 stock GT Mustang today.

I think I will wait and see what GM will do as I already know what they have done with the GTO as a base line of what to expect. Just based on a new platform and new technology I can see it will only improve or do you really think they will let the new car take a step backward? I think they have learned a lot from the mistakes made in the past of just throwing big tires and big bars on a car just don't cust it anymore.

It is ludicrous to condem the new car before you know the final weight have not even see one spec on it. The folks at GM must get a good laugh at some of the posts here knowing what they know.

Lets just let this rest as no one can be right or wrong here till we get more info. Lets see what lap times from the Nurburgring show up after the first of the year. As anything in the 8 Min range is good for a performance street coupe. Heinrency and team will do a good job!

This fact once we get it will be a good measure of it capability. If they can get the STSV into the 8:31 min range I sure they will do well with a smaller coupe. The Z06 is at 7:42 and the standard C6 is 7:59 for comparison

2008 Mercedes-Benz CLK 63 AMG Black Series did a lap at 7:36 at 3880 pounds and 500 HP.

Check out the cars and times. They were not all light weights.

http://wheeltalk.fancal.net/?p=476

Let the lap times prove what we get. They speak more than anything.

 

Honestly, I think the GTO handles like ***. Okay, *** is maybe too strong a word. Although a GTO is pleasant to drive, it's chassis feels slow, lumbering and imprecise to me. It feels like a big sedan.

Perhaps a better example of a great handling 3,800 lbs car would be a CTS-V.

The CTS-V's chassis dynamics makes a GTO feel like aunt Mable's '76 Buick. As good as a CTS-V is though, it's still feels too heavy to be a Camaro.

Physics is physics.

 

Actually... handling performance has been a complaint with the GTO. IIRC Car and Driver got better handling numbers with the new Mustang. Don't believe / trust the magazines? Good. Neither do I.

Real world data -
The SCCA has classed GTO in F Stock. In case you don't know, F Stock is the home of the pony cars. New pony cars. Old pony cars. Guess what? Nobody runs the GTO seriously in F Stock because it isn't competitive. Why do you think that is?

Forget the newer (LT1 / LS1) cars. How can a 25 year old car (3rd gen) with more than 100 less hp and a chassis designed in the late '70s be superior to the GTO?

In fact... with comparable drivers behind the wheel, I haven't seen or read results of any GTO being able to beat ANY car of lesser weight through the cones. Why do you think that is?

Boy I hope not. Keep in mind that assuming the car is acceptable to me with regard to weight and chassis.... I'm planning to buy TWO of them within a few years. So yeah, I'm trying to be as optimistic as possible.

In a straight line, maybe. On a curvy road or autocross course, the Mustang will show it's tailights to a GTO. I've seen stock GTOs in action.

I asked this before... what black magic are you incorporating into your assumption that a 3900 lb car will out handle a 3500 lb car with roughly equal tires and no leap forward in suspension geometry? Once again... I DO NOT THINK THE NEW CAR WILL BE THAT HEAVY. I just want to know why physics does not apply to this hypothetical vehicle.

And once again... NOBODY is condemning the car. We are condemning a hypothetical overweight car, i.e "What if the 5th gen comes in at 3700 / 3800 / 3900 lbs?"

Statements like these also make me crazy. Lap times are not a clear indicator of handling. ESPECIALLY on a 17+ mile (?) course with some huge straightaways. As has been said, a GT500 would kill a Miata on a road course. Do you honestly think that a GT500 handles better than a Miata?

 

Exactly. I'm condemning hyperv6's hypothetical 3,900 lbs Camaro and the premise that it's handling will be somehow unaffected by the excess weight. A premise simply not grounded in reality.


My 3,350 lbs, 19 year old, IROC-Z, with rudimentary front struts, live rear axle and pasta al dente structural stiffness, certainly has a much better "feel" than a GTO. Why is that? Add a couple of hundred pounds more beyond that, to get to this 'theoretical 3900 lbs Camaro', and I can imagine my 3rd gen absolutely eating it on a twisty road.

Like I said, physics is physics.

 

Umm, not to burst your "hypothetical" bubble, Charlie ... but have you read any of that GT-R thread in the automotive forum??

..... seems Nissan had the ability to throw "physics" out the window, as they bested the Z06's 7:42 around Nurburgring by running a 7:38! Oh, and my point?

Z06: 505 HP / 3130 lbs
GT-R: 480 HP / 3800 lbs

 

Oh can I? Please? ....

 

I'll freely admit to not reading any of that thread so I'll have to ask...

What kind of power was / is that GTR really making? Farbeit from a manufacturer to radically underrate or tweak a car in pursuit of some publicity. Anyone remember the 1996 Camaro SS ringer that GM slipped Car and Driver? The thing ran mid 13s on street tires with them driving it.

What kind of tires was / is that GTR on? This is similar to Scott's claim of a production Camaro SS besting a C5 around a road course. Yes but that Camaro had BFG-KD tires and the C5 had stock runflats.

Who drove each car? No offense to Heinrocket but I'm willing to bet Hans Stuck can take him around the 'ring in equal cars.



We need some more hard info here before "owned" smileys get thrown around.

 

Yeah, I read through much of that thread Pete. I'd like to see a stock Z06 with a stock GT-R...oh and the GT-R having stock tires....at Nurburgring, on the same day. Because there seems to be alot of debate over the validity of those GT-R lap times. No?

Beyond that, the GT-R packs 80 grand worth of Nissan's best AWD electronic trickery, something a Camaro wouldn't or shouldn't have.

Remember all the hoopla about how the GT500 was going to eat the Z06 alive. Well.......

 

The GT-R was running on cut slick tires when it set a 7:38 lap time around the Nordschleife. The Z06 did a 7:42 on Goodyear Eagle F1 Supercar EMTs.

 

First of all, as mentioned, there is some debate over those times. Second of all, that track is not exactly a track that a smaller, nimble car would have any advantage on. I don't really think that has much to do with a handling arguement. As long as the car has decent road holding ability, it should do well.

 

You guys mean to tell me that Hans Stuck was the one driving the GT-R? On race tires, no less?! OMG, he could make an Astro Van go fast.

Speaking of which, I guess this PROVES that a 136 hp Ford commercial van is almost as fast as a Jaguar S-Type at the 'ring.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg4a1rc4Xjk

 

Well there you go (as I suspected).

Hans Stuck was actually the driver? It was just a wild guess on my part.

If so, that's two out of three. Now... who wouldn't want to see that particular car on a dyno?

"Owned" indeed.

 

No Chewy, I said it 'cause you said it. Anyways, lets see what a Z06 does on race tires.

Now, where's that owned smiley....

 

Don't worry guys, I'm on your side ..... you're preaching to the choir!!

After finding out that the GT-R beat the Z06, one of my very first questions was in regards to car "prep", and specifically TIRES . I was glad to hear that issue got cleared up! (GT-R ran an R-compound, Z06 on streets ). I knew it seemed too good to be true .

 

Regardless of which car is actually faster on the same day, the 3800lb GT-R is in the same ballpark as the 3100lb Z06.

That was the point I believe Pete was trying to make.