How the new Camaro compares to the Challenger and current Mustang
07-23-2008 | 05:19 PM
#47
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,977
From: SeVa
07-23-2008 | 05:34 PM
#48
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 77
From: Denver, CO
I don’t know why they thought the vette needed 4 while the f-body needed 2, but assuming they had a reason, it could be cheaper to use two different setups as compared to giving them all 4 bolt mains. A 2 bolt main is cheaper than the 4 bolt main; half as many bolts, taping, assembly, etc. x 5 main caps. And we all know the way bean counters work. Figure in the predicted sales of the f-body and the b-body (I’m assuming they got the 2 bolt) and it could make sense.
07-23-2008 | 05:35 PM
#49
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 948
From: Stroudsburg, PA
I think the 03/04 cobra is the place to look to see what the new camaro will run.
stock cobras were about 3650-3700 lbs. camaro is 3860.
cobra has the edge
they are geared closely. both calculations using trans gear multiplied by rear gear (3.55 for cobra, 3.45 for camaro)
----cobra--camaro
1st 9.44---10.38
2nd 6.32---7.14
3rd 4.62---4.93
4th 3.55---3.45
camaro has slight edge
looking at power, you can't go by advertised numbers. its quite obvious stock cobras were underrated.
I have seen 360-375 rwhp out of the s/c 4.6L.
most dyno results for LS3 seem to be 375-390 rwhp. may be a little less with the camaro's drivetrain and "lower" rated numbers. either way they'll be similar.
call it a draw here.
track times?
evan smith of MM&FF piloted an 03 cobra to a 12.43 @ 113. they consistently trap north of 110. most run high 12s. evan smith has gone 12.8 with an LS1 f-body that dynoed 322 whp on their dyno.
carrying 150-200 lbs more weight I would expect the mag times to be 12.9-13.0 @ 109-110. wouldn't be suprised if some enthusiasts that can really row the gears run 12.6-12.7 at some of the PA/MD/NJ tracks that have mineshaft air.
I hope my logic is right because it would be great to see the camaro running high 12s off the showroom floor! would be nice to see a top dog car with an additional 120-130 hp nipping at 11.9s
stock cobras were about 3650-3700 lbs. camaro is 3860.
cobra has the edge
they are geared closely. both calculations using trans gear multiplied by rear gear (3.55 for cobra, 3.45 for camaro)
----cobra--camaro
1st 9.44---10.38
2nd 6.32---7.14
3rd 4.62---4.93
4th 3.55---3.45
camaro has slight edge
looking at power, you can't go by advertised numbers. its quite obvious stock cobras were underrated.
I have seen 360-375 rwhp out of the s/c 4.6L.
most dyno results for LS3 seem to be 375-390 rwhp. may be a little less with the camaro's drivetrain and "lower" rated numbers. either way they'll be similar.
call it a draw here.
track times?
evan smith of MM&FF piloted an 03 cobra to a 12.43 @ 113. they consistently trap north of 110. most run high 12s. evan smith has gone 12.8 with an LS1 f-body that dynoed 322 whp on their dyno.
carrying 150-200 lbs more weight I would expect the mag times to be 12.9-13.0 @ 109-110. wouldn't be suprised if some enthusiasts that can really row the gears run 12.6-12.7 at some of the PA/MD/NJ tracks that have mineshaft air.
I hope my logic is right because it would be great to see the camaro running high 12s off the showroom floor! would be nice to see a top dog car with an additional 120-130 hp nipping at 11.9s
07-23-2008 | 06:55 PM
#50
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 859
From: AR (PA born and fled)
I don’t know why they thought the vette needed 4 while the f-body needed 2, but assuming they had a reason, it could be cheaper to use two different setups as compared to giving them all 4 bolt mains. A 2 bolt main is cheaper than the 4 bolt main; half as many bolts, taping, assembly, etc. x 5 main caps. And we all know the way bean counters work. Figure in the predicted sales of the f-body and the b-body (I’m assuming they got the 2 bolt) and it could make sense.
Since the Corvette was going to get 4 bolts right from the start, the cheapest and easiest thing to do was use the same block for ALL other applications of the engine. I mean, the blocks are otherwise the same, right?
Since that didn't happen, they had to set up at least one different station for the two bolt blocks during manufacturing. That's additional money.
Now that they have different blocks, they can't just grab a block from the shelf. They have to track both blocks and inventory them. That's additional money.
This stuff adds up. Just saying....
My point with regard to the original topic... even though it seems counterintuitive, I wouldn't be surprised if they used different cams in the Camaro LS1 vs the Corvette LS1. I also wouldn't be surprised if they did not.
Pacer buddy, if have any insight on this 4 bolt / 2 bolt deal, I'd love to hear it. Decisions like that just never make any sense to me.
07-23-2008 | 07:23 PM
#51
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,979
Here we go...
It's gotta be cost or capacity related, so part of identifying the problem comes down to understanding the BOM's (Bills of Material) for the two variants.
See, the only thing I can figure is that something about a Corvette LT1 is significantly different enough from and engineering or durability standpoint to drive a wholly different process.
Then the reasoning starts to look like this:
1) Corvette needs 4 bolt mains to pass a more stringent durability cycle or provide enough reliability at a higher power level.
2) 4 bolt mains cost more because there are added fasteners and machining operations and assembly operations due to the unique parts.
3) Camaro and the B-bodies don't have enough money left over in the program to pay for it.
4) There's not enough of an economy of scale advantage due to adding Camaro and the B-cars to the volume to lower the price and offset the greater investment (an ROI calculation for those cars, but still a NECESSITY for a Corvette for some reason).
5) Corvette can pay for it because of it's higher sales price.
Conclusion:
Corvette gets them. Camaro doesn't. Miller Time.
The REAL question here?
Did the Fleetwood (D-body) get a 4-bolt main block? The Fleetwood most assuredly COULD pay for it.
07-23-2008 | 07:35 PM
#52
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 77
From: Denver, CO
Somehow I think the savings in bolts was far outweighed by having to set up two different manufacturing proceses. Now add in inventory tracking / control of two different blocks.
Since the Corvette was going to get 4 bolts right from the start, the cheapest and easiest thing to do was use the same block for ALL other applications of the engine. I mean, the blocks are otherwise the same, right?
Since that didn't happen, they had to set up at least one different station for the two bolt blocks during manufacturing. That's additional money.
Now that they have different blocks, they can't just grab a block from the shelf. They have to track both blocks and inventory them. That's additional money.
This stuff adds up. Just saying....
My point with regard to the original topic... even though it seems counterintuitive, I wouldn't be surprised if they used different cams in the Camaro LS1 vs the Corvette LS1. I also wouldn't be surprised if they did not.
Pacer buddy, if have any insight on this 4 bolt / 2 bolt deal, I'd love to hear it. Decisions like that just never make any sense to me.
Since the Corvette was going to get 4 bolts right from the start, the cheapest and easiest thing to do was use the same block for ALL other applications of the engine. I mean, the blocks are otherwise the same, right?
Since that didn't happen, they had to set up at least one different station for the two bolt blocks during manufacturing. That's additional money.
Now that they have different blocks, they can't just grab a block from the shelf. They have to track both blocks and inventory them. That's additional money.
This stuff adds up. Just saying....
My point with regard to the original topic... even though it seems counterintuitive, I wouldn't be surprised if they used different cams in the Camaro LS1 vs the Corvette LS1. I also wouldn't be surprised if they did not.
Pacer buddy, if have any insight on this 4 bolt / 2 bolt deal, I'd love to hear it. Decisions like that just never make any sense to me.
And while counterintuitive, yes, it is a good example to show that GM might have put different cams in the two.
07-23-2008 | 07:35 PM
#53
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,808
From: FL/MI
All I could do is try to brain that one out with some guesses, some of which I would probably get wrong, but it might be fun anyway.
Here we go...
It's gotta be cost or capacity related, so part of identifying the problem comes down to understanding the BOM's (Bills of Material) for the two variants.
See, the only thing I can figure is that something about a Corvette LT1 is significantly different enough from and engineering or durability standpoint to drive a wholly different process.
Then the reasoning starts to look like this:
1) Corvette needs 4 bolt mains to pass a more stringent durability cycle or provide enough reliability at a higher power level.
2) 4 bolt mains cost more because there are added fasteners and machining operations and assembly operations due to the unique parts.
3) Camaro and the B-bodies don't have enough money left over in the program to pay for it.
4) There's not enough of an economy of scale advantage due to adding Camaro and the B-cars to the volume to lower the price and offset the greater investment (an ROI calculation for those cars, but still a NECESSITY for a Corvette for some reason).
5) Corvette can pay for it because of it's higher sales price.
Conclusion:
Corvette gets them. Camaro doesn't. Miller Time.
The REAL question here?
Did the Fleetwood (D-body) get a 4-bolt main block? The Fleetwood most assuredly COULD pay for it.
Here we go...
It's gotta be cost or capacity related, so part of identifying the problem comes down to understanding the BOM's (Bills of Material) for the two variants.
See, the only thing I can figure is that something about a Corvette LT1 is significantly different enough from and engineering or durability standpoint to drive a wholly different process.
Then the reasoning starts to look like this:
1) Corvette needs 4 bolt mains to pass a more stringent durability cycle or provide enough reliability at a higher power level.
2) 4 bolt mains cost more because there are added fasteners and machining operations and assembly operations due to the unique parts.
3) Camaro and the B-bodies don't have enough money left over in the program to pay for it.
4) There's not enough of an economy of scale advantage due to adding Camaro and the B-cars to the volume to lower the price and offset the greater investment (an ROI calculation for those cars, but still a NECESSITY for a Corvette for some reason).
5) Corvette can pay for it because of it's higher sales price.
Conclusion:
Corvette gets them. Camaro doesn't. Miller Time.
The REAL question here?
Did the Fleetwood (D-body) get a 4-bolt main block? The Fleetwood most assuredly COULD pay for it.
I'm not saying this is the answer, but trying to suggest that there's more to it than suggested.
Last edited by 1fastdog; 07-23-2008 at 07:37 PM.
07-23-2008 | 07:55 PM
#55
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,979
Maybe consider the warranty expense and any possible customer dissatisfaction resulting from any failure resulting from the lack of 4 bolt main caps... IOW. is there any reason to address what is or isn't a potential dissatisfier? Will the greater number of buyers see a cost/benefit to actually justify the feature?
I'm not saying this is the answer, but trying to suggest that there's more to it than suggested.
I'm not saying this is the answer, but trying to suggest that there's more to it than suggested.
It's an ROI (Return on Investment) calculation.
"Is the feature worth monetarily what I am going to get back from it?"
Also:
"Do I have the money available to invest, even if I can prove an acceptable ROI?"
Lastly:
"Would I be better off spending that investment money in putting a better radio in the base Impala?"
.
07-23-2008 | 08:26 PM
#56
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 77
From: Denver, CO
Zigroid, I like this analysis. The 03-04 cobras are a close comparison to the new SS. And your guess about someone being able to run a 12.6-12.7 is about spot on for what I was thinking. I decided to take this idea a little further. I went out and grabbed some of the most badass ETs I could find for cars comparable to the 2010 SS. Took some of the lightest weights and highest (or know for that ET) RWHPs (figure you have to have these two in order to get the best ETs) and compared the P-W with the ETs.
For the 2010 Camaro I used the drivetrain loss that you get with the LS3 in the Vette. 436 hp at the crank with 390 at the wheels = 89% and thus 377 RWHP for the SS. The P - W ratios surprisingly follow the ETs very well. I fit them to a power curve, since theoretically as RWHP approaches infinity and weight approaches 0, you'd get an ET of 0 and if you did the opposite, you'd get an ET of infinity. And I used to the resulting equation to estimate the ETs for each car and most came out pretty close (cobra and LS3 vette are a little off).
Using this method I came up with a 12.69 for the new SS. Yes, this is just an estimated guess that doesn’t factor in MANY variables, so take it for what it's worth.
I'm gonna go ahead and make my official guess that under great conditions, a great driver will do that ET and trap 111. I really wish someone (specifically me) could get there hands on one and see what it can do. However, I don't qualify as a great driver.
For the 2010 Camaro I used the drivetrain loss that you get with the LS3 in the Vette. 436 hp at the crank with 390 at the wheels = 89% and thus 377 RWHP for the SS. The P - W ratios surprisingly follow the ETs very well. I fit them to a power curve, since theoretically as RWHP approaches infinity and weight approaches 0, you'd get an ET of 0 and if you did the opposite, you'd get an ET of infinity. And I used to the resulting equation to estimate the ETs for each car and most came out pretty close (cobra and LS3 vette are a little off).
Using this method I came up with a 12.69 for the new SS. Yes, this is just an estimated guess that doesn’t factor in MANY variables, so take it for what it's worth.
I'm gonna go ahead and make my official guess that under great conditions, a great driver will do that ET and trap 111. I really wish someone (specifically me) could get there hands on one and see what it can do. However, I don't qualify as a great driver.
07-23-2008 | 09:28 PM
#57
Registered User
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 215
From: nj
First and formost TORQUE per lbs. means nothing.
At stall, the electric motors in an EV1 generate infinite torque. EV1's didn't exactly set the world on fire in the quarter mile. What matters, and always has, is power.
The other, crucial part of what is going on, and is missed in the analysis above, is the fact that the rated engine power is NOT what gets the car down the track. RWHP is a much better indicator.
Trap speed is a phenominally accurate measure of the combination of power, weight and aero that are involved with getting the car down the track.
Trap speed also tends to stay very, very consistent in a given car at a given power level- regardless of whether you nail the launch or spin.
What we have right now is an indicated trap speed from a GM source for the F5 at 108mph. If it was fudged or pedalled or bad air is one thing, but the fact of the matter remains this:
If that trap speed is accurate, then this car is NOT a large improvement over a late 4th gen in the quarter mile, and has a whole lot to worry about when faced with a dead stock M6 SS or WS6 - which were perfectly capable of trapping 108 mph, and did so on many, many occasions.
And no, the automatics WERE NOT quicker than the manuals in the F4's... more consistent, but not quicker.
Nor were the stripper Z28's the quickest of the F4's. The SS and WS6 cars were, not due to a Ram Air hood, but because of the TIRES.
If the 108 mph trap is accurate, and I honestly hope it isn't, it's coming down to the driver between the two cars.
At stall, the electric motors in an EV1 generate infinite torque. EV1's didn't exactly set the world on fire in the quarter mile. What matters, and always has, is power.
The other, crucial part of what is going on, and is missed in the analysis above, is the fact that the rated engine power is NOT what gets the car down the track. RWHP is a much better indicator.
Trap speed is a phenominally accurate measure of the combination of power, weight and aero that are involved with getting the car down the track.
Trap speed also tends to stay very, very consistent in a given car at a given power level- regardless of whether you nail the launch or spin.
What we have right now is an indicated trap speed from a GM source for the F5 at 108mph. If it was fudged or pedalled or bad air is one thing, but the fact of the matter remains this:
If that trap speed is accurate, then this car is NOT a large improvement over a late 4th gen in the quarter mile, and has a whole lot to worry about when faced with a dead stock M6 SS or WS6 - which were perfectly capable of trapping 108 mph, and did so on many, many occasions.
And no, the automatics WERE NOT quicker than the manuals in the F4's... more consistent, but not quicker.
Nor were the stripper Z28's the quickest of the F4's. The SS and WS6 cars were, not due to a Ram Air hood, but because of the TIRES.
If the 108 mph trap is accurate, and I honestly hope it isn't, it's coming down to the driver between the two cars.
07-24-2008 | 02:51 AM
#58
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
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
http://www.leftlanenews.com/dodge-ch...specifications
I still think the M6 Camaro SS will match up very well to an M6 SRT8. 310 pounds lighter, down 3hp and 12tq.
Now an automatic R/T is a better match for the A6 SS. 3913 versus 4041 pounds. But the R/T will get 16/23 versus probably 15/23 (haven't seen estimated city numbers for the Camaro), and the R/T needs 89 versus 91 octane.
Isn't it great to be able to have Dodge versus Ford versus Chevy benchracing discussions that are interesting again?
It almost seems like 1970, benchracing the 440-6 with the 429 and the 454.
GTX versus Torino Cobra Jet versus Chevelle SS
07-24-2008 | 03:12 AM
#59
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 446
From: Lincoln Park, MI US
I was at the "Camaro Production Announcement" in Aug '06 and I seem to remember during the Q&A at the heritage center (could have been after the Q&A, we sat around BSing for a bit) Scott saying that the C6 was the first gen Corvette that didn't LOSE money. Though I may be remembering that wrong, considering how long ago that was...
07-24-2008 | 03:17 AM
#60
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,463
From: SoCal
I think the 03/04 cobra is the place to look to see what the new camaro will run.
stock cobras were about 3650-3700 lbs. camaro is 3860.
cobra has the edge
they are geared closely. both calculations using trans gear multiplied by rear gear (3.55 for cobra, 3.45 for camaro)
----cobra--camaro
1st 9.44---10.38
2nd 6.32---7.14
3rd 4.62---4.93
4th 3.55---3.45
camaro has slight edge
looking at power, you can't go by advertised numbers. its quite obvious stock cobras were underrated.
I have seen 360-375 rwhp out of the s/c 4.6L.
most dyno results for LS3 seem to be 375-390 rwhp. may be a little less with the camaro's drivetrain and "lower" rated numbers. either way they'll be similar.
call it a draw here.
track times?
evan smith of MM&FF piloted an 03 cobra to a 12.43 @ 113. they consistently trap north of 110. most run high 12s. evan smith has gone 12.8 with an LS1 f-body that dynoed 322 whp on their dyno.
carrying 150-200 lbs more weight I would expect the mag times to be 12.9-13.0 @ 109-110. wouldn't be suprised if some enthusiasts that can really row the gears run 12.6-12.7 at some of the PA/MD/NJ tracks that have mineshaft air.
I hope my logic is right because it would be great to see the camaro running high 12s off the showroom floor! would be nice to see a top dog car with an additional 120-130 hp nipping at 11.9s
stock cobras were about 3650-3700 lbs. camaro is 3860.
cobra has the edge
they are geared closely. both calculations using trans gear multiplied by rear gear (3.55 for cobra, 3.45 for camaro)
----cobra--camaro
1st 9.44---10.38
2nd 6.32---7.14
3rd 4.62---4.93
4th 3.55---3.45
camaro has slight edge
looking at power, you can't go by advertised numbers. its quite obvious stock cobras were underrated.
I have seen 360-375 rwhp out of the s/c 4.6L.
most dyno results for LS3 seem to be 375-390 rwhp. may be a little less with the camaro's drivetrain and "lower" rated numbers. either way they'll be similar.
call it a draw here.
track times?
evan smith of MM&FF piloted an 03 cobra to a 12.43 @ 113. they consistently trap north of 110. most run high 12s. evan smith has gone 12.8 with an LS1 f-body that dynoed 322 whp on their dyno.
carrying 150-200 lbs more weight I would expect the mag times to be 12.9-13.0 @ 109-110. wouldn't be suprised if some enthusiasts that can really row the gears run 12.6-12.7 at some of the PA/MD/NJ tracks that have mineshaft air.
I hope my logic is right because it would be great to see the camaro running high 12s off the showroom floor! would be nice to see a top dog car with an additional 120-130 hp nipping at 11.9s
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
F'n1996Z28SS
Cars For Sale
8
08-24-2023 12:19 AM
ChrisFrez
CamaroZ28.Com Podcast
1
12-15-2014 04:09 PM
ChrisFrez
CamaroZ28.Com Podcast
2
12-07-2014 07:01 PM
NewsBot
2010 - 2015 Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and Multimedia
0
12-03-2014 01:30 PM