2010 - 2015 Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and Multimedia All 2010 - 2011 - 2012 - 2013 - 2014 - 2015 Camaro news, photos, and videos

dissapointing performance SS?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 07-23-2008, 08:56 AM
  #16  
Registered User
 
NikiVee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: No where
Posts: 826
Originally Posted by Fbodfather
Camaro numbers are not accurate........
Those numbers were given out by Al Oppenheiser, chief engineer for GM's North American Rear Drive program.
NikiVee is offline  
Old 07-23-2008, 10:51 AM
  #17  
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
blue 79 Z/28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Richmond B.C.
Posts: 2,002
Originally Posted by NikiVee
Those numbers were given out by Al Oppenheiser, chief engineer for GM's North American Rear Drive program.
maybe they are purposely misleading us and low balling to trick the competition into thinking they got us in the bag and they are close so they don't tweak their cars more. then when the camaro comes out in 7 months, everyone will be surprised in the added performance. 7 months is still time for others to change things also, makes sense if you think abou it.
blue 79 Z/28 is offline  
Old 07-23-2008, 10:59 AM
  #18  
Registered User
 
christianjax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Jacksonville Florida
Posts: 881
Originally Posted by blue 79 Z/28
maybe they are purposely misleading us and low balling to trick the competition into thinking they got us in the bag and they are close so they don't tweak their cars more. then when the camaro comes out in 7 months, everyone will be surprised in the added performance. 7 months is still time for others to change things also, makes sense if you think abou it.
I was thinking the same thing.
christianjax is offline  
Old 07-23-2008, 11:01 AM
  #19  
Registered User
 
94Z28rag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 420
Originally Posted by NikiVee
Those numbers were given out by Al Oppenheiser, chief engineer for GM's North American Rear Drive program.
You're going to believe Al over Scott??? I think you need to start reading this website more often...
94Z28rag is offline  
Old 07-23-2008, 11:19 AM
  #20  
Registered User
 
Gold_Rush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,870
The Challenger SRT8 with about the same hp has run 13.0-13.1 and that's with an extra 300lbs of weight and longer gearing. I think there's a very good chance the SS will at least match if not beat that by a tenth or two. We might even see some high 12's. The mph is definitely there.

You can't put too much stock in early factory preproduction times.
Gold_Rush is offline  
Old 07-23-2008, 11:33 AM
  #21  
Registered User
 
jg95z28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 9,710
Originally Posted by NikiVee
Those numbers were given out by Al Oppenheiser, chief engineer for GM's North American Rear Drive program.

Originally Posted by blue 79 Z/28
maybe they are purposely misleading us and low balling to trick the competition into thinking they got us in the bag and they are close so they don't tweak their cars more. then when the camaro comes out in 7 months, everyone will be surprised in the added performance. 7 months is still time for others to change things also, makes sense if you think abou it.
Originally Posted by christianjax
I was thinking the same thing.
+2! I was thinking exactly the same thing.
Originally Posted by 94Z28rag
You're going to believe Al over Scott??? I think you need to start reading this website more often...
jg95z28 is offline  
Old 07-23-2008, 11:35 AM
  #22  
Registered User
 
z28Power's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 269
Originally Posted by Fbodfather
Camaro numbers are not accurate........
Thank you Scott.

I was talking in depth with blackoutj about this last night over some dinner and we concluded that the numbers just didn't seem right for the power and mph on the 1/4 run.

That's all you have to say to make me happier (for now!) I'm sure you'll let us know when you can on this
z28Power is offline  
Old 07-23-2008, 12:25 PM
  #23  
Registered User
 
christianjax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Jacksonville Florida
Posts: 881
Originally Posted by Gold_Rush
The Challenger SRT8 with about the same hp has run 13.0-13.1 and that's with an extra 300lbs of weight and longer gearing. I think there's a very good chance the SS will at least match if not beat that by a tenth or two. We might even see some high 12's. The mph is definitely there.

You can't put too much stock in early factory preproduction times.
I put a shout out over on the Charger Forum to get some numbers for SRT8 times. Most are in the very low 13's, but one guy ran consistant 12.90's in a bone stock SRT8 Chrysler 300. (which is heavier than the Challenger). So The Camaro will have its work cut out for it to take down the big 6.1 Hemi's. I know it will spank the 5.7 Hemi in my Charger Daytona. (heck, my 99 LS1 Trans Am does)
But I'm counting on the SS Camaro to come in at LEAST 5 Grand cheaper than a Challenger SRT8, hopefully even more.
christianjax is offline  
Old 07-23-2008, 12:54 PM
  #24  
Registered User
 
Ron78Z&01SS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Wichita, Kansas
Posts: 639
Originally Posted by skorpion317
Not sure where you're getting the 12.8 figure from for the LS3 Corvette. Car and Driver has run 12.4@116 MPH, Road and Track has run 12.6@115.7 MPH, and Motor Trend has run 12.5@115 MPH. Many private owners have run faster times.

If anything, the LS3 'Vette is a consistent low-to-mid 12 second car.
Agreed 100%.

I'm thinking he's quoting high 12 times of the 400hp LS2.
Ron78Z&01SS is offline  
Old 07-23-2008, 12:57 PM
  #25  
Registered User
 
Ron78Z&01SS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Wichita, Kansas
Posts: 639
Originally Posted by Fbodfather
Camaro numbers are not accurate........
Glad to hear it !

I wouldn't go as far as saying I was dissapointed by those LS3/SS numbers, but I was definately expecting better.

I DO think the V-6 numbers are pretty impressive though!
Ron78Z&01SS is offline  
Old 07-23-2008, 01:25 PM
  #26  
Registered User
 
Gold_Rush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,870
Originally Posted by christianjax
I put a shout out over on the Charger Forum to get some numbers for SRT8 times. Most are in the very low 13's, but one guy ran consistant 12.90's in a bone stock SRT8 Chrysler 300. (which is heavier than the Challenger). So The Camaro will have its work cut out for it to take down the big 6.1 Hemi's.
On paper, the SS looks to be more capable (similar hp, better gearing, and less weight). We'll see how it stacks up in the real world.

As for the 300 being heavier, how much heavier? published weight figures i've seen for the SRT8 chargers/300/challengers have all been within 40lbs of each other.

Charger SRT8: 4,160lbs (off Dodge site)
300c SRT8 : 4,178lbs (off Chrysler site)
Challenger SRT8: 4,140lbs-4,170lbs (off allpar because i couldn't find any weight on Dodge site. Allpar lists 4,140 - 4,170lbs).

That's a difference of less than 38lbs which is too small to notice.
Gold_Rush is offline  
Old 07-23-2008, 01:28 PM
  #27  
djn
Registered User
 
djn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 422
The G8 GXP is one bad ****. Can't wait for it to hit showrooms so I can drive it.
djn is offline  
Old 07-23-2008, 01:44 PM
  #28  
Registered User
 
christianjax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Jacksonville Florida
Posts: 881
Originally Posted by Gold_Rush
On paper, the SS looks to be more capable (similar hp, better gearing, and less weight). We'll see how it stacks up in the real world.

As for the 300 being heavier, how much heavier? published weight figures i've seen for the SRT8 chargers/300/challengers have all been within 40lbs of each other.

Charger SRT8: 4,160lbs (off Dodge site)
300c SRT8 : 4,178lbs (off Chrysler site)
Challenger SRT8: 4,140lbs-4,170lbs (off allpar because i couldn't find any weight on Dodge site. Allpar lists 4,140 - 4,170lbs).

That's a difference of less than 38lbs which is too small to notice.
I wasn't aware of the exact amount of weight difference in the LX cars, I was thinking the Challenger was around 100lbs lighter, being shorter and a two door.
christianjax is offline  
Old 07-23-2008, 01:50 PM
  #29  
Registered User
 
NikiVee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: No where
Posts: 826
Originally Posted by 94Z28rag
You're going to believe Al over Scott??? I think you need to start reading this website more often...
I'm just stating some facts that were given out by the head engineer of the GM Rear Wheel NA program. Those are the numbers he stated the new Camaro runs right NOW.

I'm not passing judgement on who is telling the truth and who isn''t. Marketing guys and sales people push the truth, engineers just state facts.

Last edited by NikiVee; 07-23-2008 at 01:55 PM.
NikiVee is offline  
Old 07-23-2008, 02:03 PM
  #30  
Registered User
 
jg95z28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 9,710
Originally Posted by NikiVee
Marketing guys and sales people push the truth, engineers just state facts.
Not always. Engineers are typically stubborn and will state facts that are outdated if they aren't aware of any changes.
jg95z28 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
PFYC
Supporting Vendor Group Purchases and Sales
2
08-24-2015 06:41 AM
karpetcm
Parts For Sale
5
08-14-2015 03:02 PM
RallyRed701/2
LT1 Based Engine Tech
2
07-27-2015 02:55 PM
RX Speed Works
Supporting Vendor Group Purchases and Sales
0
07-24-2015 02:25 PM
Catmaigne
Parts For Sale
0
07-14-2015 05:17 PM



Quick Reply: dissapointing performance SS?



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:09 AM.