The Competition
10-18-2006 | 11:08 PM
#78
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,943
Re: The Competition
I'm not trying to dispute anybody's claim here but it just seems to me that something as basic and as easily measured as a vehicle’s curb weight shouldn’t have to be a matter of opinion or conjecture.
Lots of you keep mentioning curb weights in the 3,200-3,300lb range but I’ve yet to see anything substantive to support that.
Can anyone cite a reliable (such as a GM official) curb weight for a late model (LS1) Camaro???
Here are some of the sites I've found...
Some folks on LS1tech.com give figures in the 3,500-3,600lb range
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=291231
Autoweb.com list a 2002 Z.28 at 3,577 http://www.autoweb.com/content/resea...andardFeatures
Carsmart list the exact same http://www.carsmart.com/content/rese...andardFeatures
NewCarTestDrive.com also lists it at 3,577
http://www.nctd.com/printversion-rev...&ReviewID=1157
Call me crazy but if three “consumer oriented” sites lists the curb weight exactly the same (3,577) that seems to me to be an indication that someone (like GM itself) has supplied to them (which as I said in an earlier post is where I think most basic stats like this come from).
So, I ask again, who can post an official curb weight for a late model/LS1 Camaro that list curb weight at or under 3,300lbs as some here are claiming?
Better question, who here can explain why something as mundane and as easily measured as a curb weight is so difficult to come by???
Lots of you keep mentioning curb weights in the 3,200-3,300lb range but I’ve yet to see anything substantive to support that.
Can anyone cite a reliable (such as a GM official) curb weight for a late model (LS1) Camaro???
Here are some of the sites I've found...
Some folks on LS1tech.com give figures in the 3,500-3,600lb range
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=291231
Autoweb.com list a 2002 Z.28 at 3,577 http://www.autoweb.com/content/resea...andardFeatures
Carsmart list the exact same http://www.carsmart.com/content/rese...andardFeatures
NewCarTestDrive.com also lists it at 3,577
http://www.nctd.com/printversion-rev...&ReviewID=1157
Call me crazy but if three “consumer oriented” sites lists the curb weight exactly the same (3,577) that seems to me to be an indication that someone (like GM itself) has supplied to them (which as I said in an earlier post is where I think most basic stats like this come from).
So, I ask again, who can post an official curb weight for a late model/LS1 Camaro that list curb weight at or under 3,300lbs as some here are claiming?
Better question, who here can explain why something as mundane and as easily measured as a curb weight is so difficult to come by???
Last edited by Robert_Nashville; 10-18-2006 at 11:33 PM.
10-18-2006 | 11:39 PM
#79
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,943
Re: The Competition
It just now occured to me what you must have seen...likely the 350Z GT-S which is producing 382 HP and has a 0-60 of 4.8 sec (not in the US yet but possible; it was just Ok'd for production for Europe).
10-18-2006 | 11:41 PM
#80
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1998
Posts: 642
From: Atlanta, Ga
Re: The Competition
The 3,577 lbs is for a convertible model, a couple of the sites you linked to had that buried in there.
I'm not sure I buy 33xx lbs either though, I've seen 3450 listed before, but I don't have a site or source handy. I just use 3500 lbs as a general rule of thumb...
However, even if you use 3500 lbs for the Z28, and 3200 lbs for the 350z, figuring 300 rwhp (or even 290 rwhp on the lowish side) for the LS1 and 240 rwhp for the 350z the power to weight ratio is still in favor of the Z28 by a decent amount. Those rwhp numbers are average runs from corrected dynojets btw.
I'm not sure I buy 33xx lbs either though, I've seen 3450 listed before, but I don't have a site or source handy. I just use 3500 lbs as a general rule of thumb...
However, even if you use 3500 lbs for the Z28, and 3200 lbs for the 350z, figuring 300 rwhp (or even 290 rwhp on the lowish side) for the LS1 and 240 rwhp for the 350z the power to weight ratio is still in favor of the Z28 by a decent amount. Those rwhp numbers are average runs from corrected dynojets btw.
Last edited by Ray86IROC; 10-18-2006 at 11:59 PM.
10-18-2006 | 11:51 PM
#81
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 609
From: Winchester, VA
Re: The Competition
10-19-2006 | 01:20 AM
#83
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,002
From: Richmond B.C.
Re: The Competition
how is it not valid? im not 18 either, and the fact is, GT4 accurately portays track times via the car. its been proven 10000's of times. video game or not. track times dont lie. they are pretty equal. the more this thread goes in, im inclined to side with Robert_Nashville on this. even though i started out saying camaro will whoop a 350z. stock for stock.
10-19-2006 | 01:48 AM
#84
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,463
From: SoCal
Re: The Competition
99SilverSS,
MSRP is the only logical, consistent and verifiable way to compare “prices” of new cars; you can disagree all you want with that statement but most people here, regardless of their particular opinion about any given vehicle, will recognize the logic of comparing MSRP to MSRP and the illogic of trying to cpmpare what somebody paid for some car somewhere as a basis for comparison.
I am apparently wrong about the 2003 Z’s base MSRP being in the $23/24 range – it does indeed appear to be $26,269 which means a difference of roughly $3,500 between a 2003 Z and a 2002 Z/28…I still would say certainly in the same ball park. And, as the sticker on my 2000 Z/28 was in excess of $25,000 I would still say, the price level is comparable. Is the 350Z a slightly more expensive vehicle than a comprabably equipped Z/28, yes…is it significantly more expensive; I guess that’s for each person to decide but I wouldn’t think most people would think so unless that difference is THE make or break point for a buyer.
MSRP is the only logical, consistent and verifiable way to compare “prices” of new cars; you can disagree all you want with that statement but most people here, regardless of their particular opinion about any given vehicle, will recognize the logic of comparing MSRP to MSRP and the illogic of trying to cpmpare what somebody paid for some car somewhere as a basis for comparison.
I am apparently wrong about the 2003 Z’s base MSRP being in the $23/24 range – it does indeed appear to be $26,269 which means a difference of roughly $3,500 between a 2003 Z and a 2002 Z/28…I still would say certainly in the same ball park. And, as the sticker on my 2000 Z/28 was in excess of $25,000 I would still say, the price level is comparable. Is the 350Z a slightly more expensive vehicle than a comprabably equipped Z/28, yes…is it significantly more expensive; I guess that’s for each person to decide but I wouldn’t think most people would think so unless that difference is THE make or break point for a buyer.
I’m not sure why you say no one did a test of an LS1 Z/28…somewhere in my stack I have the issue of C&D where they did…at any rate, I believe the numbers I cited was for a 2002 Z/28 and came from “Enging-power.com
As to the ¼ mile times; if the Z/28’s times are so misstated, explain the logic that supports the (at least unstated assumption) that the 350Z is not also underrated/misstated? As has been said many times, we can argue specific ¼ times all day, however, if the testing itself is done on a consistent basis then the comparison is valid even if someone else might be able to post a lower or higher ¼ ET on some other track on some other day in some other Z/28 or 350Z. ”.
As to the ¼ mile times; if the Z/28’s times are so misstated, explain the logic that supports the (at least unstated assumption) that the 350Z is not also underrated/misstated? As has been said many times, we can argue specific ¼ times all day, however, if the testing itself is done on a consistent basis then the comparison is valid even if someone else might be able to post a lower or higher ¼ ET on some other track on some other day in some other Z/28 or 350Z. ”.
I agree the 350Z times are probably a bit slow considdering I think I've seen them run low 14's with regular drivers at a less than ideal track so give it to a good driver, like yourself maybe, and I'm sure 13's can be broken.
For LS1's well a Z28 and an SS won't run that far apart, .5 is as I explained before is quite a difference.
Not to mention if I may, my own personal experiences drag racing against a 350Z seemed to support the half second or more Camaro advantage. And like you mentioned before with your road racing experience if your personal experience is supported why not interject it? So I will.
I didn’t just jump in because someone “mentioned” the 350Z - I can live with people here not liking the 350Z or hating it for whatever reason but when someone (who probably has zero experience with the car) makes a ridiculous, albeit predictable, out of hand dismissal of the 350Z (as was done) then, yes, I’m going to respond and defend the Z.
10-19-2006 | 01:54 AM
#85
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 666
From: albany, ny
Re: The Competition
speaking of beating a dead horse what happen to that in its not in the smiles any more?
10-19-2006 | 01:59 AM
#86
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 36
Re: The Competition
*hides the baseball bat that had just smashed a 350z*
10-19-2006 | 02:05 AM
#87
Registered User
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 230
Re: The Competition
how is it not valid? im not 18 either, and the fact is, GT4 accurately portays track times via the car. its been proven 10000's of times. video game or not. track times dont lie. they are pretty equal. the more this thread goes in, im inclined to side with Robert_Nashville on this. even though i started out saying camaro will whoop a 350z. stock for stock.
really, where? its a video game bro, not real life. nice try.
10-19-2006 | 03:55 AM
#88
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 15
From: Dallas, Tx
Re: The Competition
thats where you are wrong, test any car in gt4 with the right peramiters and you will get damn near the same lap results on any real course. for eg. nurburgring 350z time in real life is an 8:24 if i remember correctly. in gt4 i did an 8:23. thats close enough in my books. they model the cars pretty damn accurate in the game. also the torque numbers were explained as they were a glitch in the numbers posted but dont affect gameplay or how the car goes about the tracks. ive spent 100's of hours in this game, i have a buddy that likes doing this stuff with me, we set the cars up to real life and have lap battles with stock cars to see where they fit. sometime i want to start a ring chart and then compaire it to real life, and then you can see how close this game is. a second or 2 is nothing, sure it may not be real life but it shows you the cars are pretty similar in its capabilities around diff. tracks. neither is better then the other really they are identical almost. i dont like 350z's i like camaros. i did this test origionally to tickle my fancy, and the results suprised me
GT4 is far from accurate, and not just the cars. I see discrepancies in the nurburgring, and I even compared the game two days after being on the track in real life. I drive many different cars on many different tracks as a driving instructor for a number of car clubs and I can say that while I enjoy gt4, it is a medocre simulation at best.
10-19-2006 | 11:29 AM
#89
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 33
Re: The Competition
im probably one of the few people but i cross shop tons of cars.
basically anything thats 2 door, rwd, sporty, and handles well.
i hope the new camaro is not a straight line car only. that was not gms intention in the 60s and i hope it isnt today.
basically anything thats 2 door, rwd, sporty, and handles well.
i hope the new camaro is not a straight line car only. that was not gms intention in the 60s and i hope it isnt today.
