There's 1 published case of a LS1 Camaro running sub 13s, and that doesn't constitute tons of proof. Tons of proof is all the magazines and tests that put the LS1 Camaro in the low to mid 13s (GTs run the mid 13s). Also, to 60 mph, "edge out" is the perfect choice of words since both the LS1 f-body and GT Mustang have the same tested time. So, no, the GT won't match an LS1 over 80 mph (where the LS1 will start to walk away), but up to that speed, they are in fact, virturally a dead heat. Not an "illogical" assumption. A conclusion backed up with test results.

As far as the numbers for the Camaro SS, of course it will improve. Final tuning isn't done. The car will only get quicker. However, based on the numbers that have already been posted, the new Camaro SS manual WILL eat the LS1 Camaro, even if it doesn't change it's times.


Possibly. Got my numbers from LeftLane News who inturn swear it came from Chrysler. When Chrysler finally posts official numbers on the Challenger website, we'll know if it's true or if LLN got it wrong.
http://www.leftlanenews.com/dodge-ch...specifications

Mis-type on my part.

Numbers are from Ford. Can't argue with the source.

I'll buy the tire argument since the air induction systems did next to nothing for power increases. But you'd also have to agree that adding the same tires the lighter base Z28 would still yield marginally quicker time still.

I disagree about the automatic LT1s, but I'll have to do some more digging and I gotta get back to work.

 

Actually 2, Evan Smith of MM&FF drove the famed '99 Z28 6M to a 12.89 at Atco in great conditions and then drove a '01 red SS 6M to a 12.96 in hotter conditions at E-town.

 

Not so sure about that, but tell ya what, let's agree on the following:

It'll be darned close either way... as in "I made the bald guy on Pinks splooge himself" close.


Don't dig, bro. Go to a track.

 

As to the challenger no longer being a pig (and I'll throw the GT500 in there for good measure), if I have a buddy who is as fat or fatter than I am does that mean I'm no longer fat. If so then I've got a new diet plan that is going to sweep the nation.

The LS1 Camaros still hold up very well to the current mustang GT's and won't get embarassed at all by them. All indications point to the LS1 also being able to hang relativley well with the Challenger R/T (no embarassment if the SRT-8 is any indication). Current numbers show the LS1 standing up to the new SS pretty well in the quarter also. The 0-60 indicates that there is much more going on though. I'm sure when the final numbers come out that the new SS will spank the LS1 SS, however the numbers right now don't say that.

I know your just trying to make a point but when you go overboard with your statements like that your going to get people calling you out. The LS1 was a great car. I took mine to a 13.6 in only my second run (mine was a 99 SS 6speed with the optional exhaust) and I'm not a very good driver. While the high twelves for a stock LS1 only happen under perfect conditions, low 13s were a pretty regular event. Like I said, I have no doubt the numbers will improve and the 2010 SS will destroy the 02 SS but we can't really say that definatively right now.

 

Ok, I will take my SS 6-speed LS1 ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, Against any New Stock GT you can find, and I PROMISE...PROMISE, I will beat him in 0-60, 1/8th, 1/4, road course, WHATEVER.

I know you may be relying on "test" numbers, but outside the magazine racing, out here in the real world, I would bet my car I would beat a GT Stock for Stock.

 

I guess I don't see what you were trying to say in the first place, then. As I recall, the EV1 didn't have a particularly good torque-to-weight ratio. I can't seem to find any torque specs to back that up, but it had 137hp (which by itself tells us nothing about peak torque), and it weighed a touch under 3,000 lbs.

Theory is always fun, but in reality, if you pump "infinite" current into the motors in the EV1, they'll burn up.

Agreed. In lieu of waiting months for someone to buy one and strap it to a dyno, what's the RWHP on a stock LS3 Corvette? Camaro should be down only a couple horses from there.

The national results in the SCCA F-stock class would seem to indicate otherwise, at least in autocross . Any other venue, though, and I think you're right.

 

Yes, we all know that the LS1 F-body is underrated, but I didn’t feel like playing the guessing game as to its true ratings. Maybe I should just go with the 2002 Vette’s 350/375, but how do I account for the different cam. I didn’t feel like guessing, so I just used what GM gave me. If someone from GM wants to come out and give the actual numbers, I’ll put those in there.


I agree it’s unfair, but it’s the best I have. Plus, one point of listing the different ETs was to show how out of whack the Camaro’s times are with its power to weight ratio. Personally, I’d love to grab all 20 cars, head out to a track and have a good ole fashion shootout, but I can’t afford most of the cars and others aren’t even available to the public.

 

And as Jake pointed out, you would lose that bet at an autocross. The Shelby GTs are laying waste to F-Stock and the "normal" GTs aren't too far off the Shelbys.

More than one F-body competitor has retired or sold their car due to this. Some have even jumped into Mustangs.

Still think you'll win "whatever" "out here in the real world"?

 

OK, lemme try to clarify...

Electric motors can make tremendous amounts of torque relative to their weight - basically, there's a thermal limit proscribed by the insulator on the windings in the motor, but on startup you can dump a whole bunch of current into them and get outrageous amounts of torque.

That's why they're used in diesel electric trains, btw...

Even that massive diesel in a locomotive doesn't make enough torque to get a train rolling... but an electric motor can because of what happens to them at and near stall.

The core point of the example was that torque is not what gives great quarter mile times... power is. If all you cared about was torque, we'd be power top fuel cars with electric motors.


Sounds reasonable to me.

 

The cam was the same. The only difference was the intake and the exhaust.

 

There’s more than one LS1 F-body that got into the 12s. As stated above, Evan Smith did it twice (for some odd reason, whenever this comes up, you say there’s only one when it’s been pointed out multiple times that he did it twice) for MM&FF: 12.89 and 12.96. Link. This is the same guy that can’t crack a 13.5 in a GT from all the test I’ve seen. There’s also a different article from GMHTP where they state that Evan Smith ran an LS1 for them and got a 12.89, but it was a different trap speed than the one listed above. Link. However, I’m assuming they’re talking about the same passes since they do share office space. There are also more than a few people on this board that have claimed to get into the 12s with a stock LS1. Does that mean every car, every driver, every time is going, to be able to do this? No. But it does show that the LS1 F-body had the capability to get into the 12s STOCK. Just an FYI, GMHTP also got an auto WS6 to run a 13.13. See previous Link. Popular Mechanics got a 99 Formula to run a 13.15. Link. Plus MANY more test with the LS1 F-body running sub 13.5. I will agree that the LS1 is not a "sub 13s car." It's not the norm to run into the 12s, but it's not exactly rare. I'd personally consider it a low 13s car with a few dropping into the 12s and a few rising into the mid 13s. Think a bell curve.

There’s not one test showing a GT running lower than a 13.5 (MM&FF did get a 13.29 in a Bullitt, link) and many showing upper 13s (tons of 13.8s), so I’d consider it more of a mid-upper 13s car.

By your own admission this statement isn’t true. You said above that the LS1 Camaro is a low-mid 13s car. WTF is the claimed 13.4 for the new manual SS? Sounds like a low-mid 13s pass to me. Therefore, from these numbers, the new Camaro SS manual WILL NOT eat the LS1 Camaro. From these numbers they run dead even. I do think that when real numbers come out it will kick the LS1’s ***, but not from these numbers.

 

My bad. I thought when they went to the LS6 intake they put in a "baby cam" or a "truck cam".

 

According to.....

THIS


THIS

AND THIS


... you are correct.

 

Yep, but the Corvette got the different cam too.

For any given model year between 98 and 2002, Corvette and Camaro had the same cam.

At least, that's what I thought...

 

*shrug* That could very well be. I don't know.

On the other hand, they have a history of making decisions like that which make no economic sense (at least to me).

Exhibit A - I give you the LT1. The Corvette got 4 bolt mains, Camaro got 2 bolt mains. Why? Wouldn't it have been cheaper to make them all the same?