Z28x

Top speed isn't a big deal to me. I expect it to hit 150mph, but anything over that is just for bragging on message boards. I'd like the car to get good milage at 85mph though, that is important.

The fastest I've ever gone was 130mph for a few seconds and that was enough for me. I'd feel safe setting the cruise at 100mph, but not much over that.

Rob V

It's no biggie as to the top speed in my book, but rather how long it takes to hit it. If a car took 20 minutes to hit its top speed, would you really want it?

RussStang

The speed limiter on an F-Body with z rated tires is 162 mph. With the limiter removed, the 4th gens were good for around 170 flat out. At least, that is what SLP got stock ones to do.

I don't understand this statement at all. Not really aerodynamic reference to what? A Corvette? Because then I might agree with you. The 4th gens had a Cd of .34, and although I am unsure of its exact frontal area, its probably with a few square feet of the Vette. That Cd number isn't going to blow anyones mind, but is still better than many of the sedans (or cars period) out there. I don't know how often you have done triple digit speeds in any of your 4th gens, but mine feels fine up to 140. Never gone much faster than that. Saying the 4th gen had poor aero is ridiculous. It could have been better, but it certainly isn't bad.

About the 5th gen's top speed, I am left to assume that this all on your on presumption, unless you have actually been doing aero testing in some way or another for it. Aero is a tricky thing, cars that don't look like they should be very aerodynamically clean can often be just that, so I won't go making observations based on a concept until there is actual hard info and data to back up an assumption like that.

detltu

I've taken my 99 up to about 135 once but wouldn't do it again as the flashing lights kind of scared me straight. I like knowing that I can do 150+ but as long as the fifth gen gives me room to about 125 I'm not worried about it.

graham

...sounds like it'll be a good drafting partner, lol.

Chris 96 WS6

I'm not sure where you're getting your info but the Z rated G92 cars didn't have a speed limiter at all. Fuel cutoff at 255mph only.

The 235/55-16 cars got the 115mph speed limiter. The Z rated cars were aero limited.

mitch_cube

Fastest i have gone is 150 in a '01 Mustang GT Bullitt (only because it wasn't mine, and have never put much value into Fords), and it was very nerve racking. Both hands making dents in the steering wheel. I had my '93 Z28 going about 140 chasing some punk on a crotch rocket and it was stable as hell. Setting the cruise at 110 on squirly northern missouri roads felt like 70 in the 4th gen.

RussStang

Nope. At least not on the LS1 cars.

http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showth...+speed+limiter

http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showth...=speed+limiter

http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showth...=speed+limiter

http://web.camaross.com/forums/showt...+speed+limiter

There used to be a site where a guy took some pretty decent videos of both an A4 and M6 F-Body out on a desert road in Nevada, both cars bone stock, and ran them both to the limiter. You can sort of hear it (there is alot of wind noise even with the windows shut), and he remarks on when he has hit it. Both cars it was at 162. I will see if I can find the videos, but it has been awhile.

I also remember someone telling me that he was suprised GM put a limiter as harsh (not sure what he meant by that) on the F-Body, because he said when he nailed it at those speeds it unsettled the car more than he would have liked. I honestly am suprised at how many people don't actually know this about the 4th gens, on an enthusiast website.

RussStang

My 01 GT definetly didn't have much pull to it anymore at around 130. It would have gone faster, but I am questionable as to exactly how much faster it would have gone.

Evilfrog

There is a video of some dumbass hitting 160 in his cobalt. At least make the camaro slightly faster than the cobalt. Otherwise the ricer crowd will never let us hear the end of it.

guionM

Top Speed isn't as important as acceleration beyond bragging rights. My purpose is to bring attention to the one area of Camaro that was world class and noteworthy. Camaro (and Firebird) were probally the world's FASTEST cars that carried more than 2 people and cost under 100 grand when they were discontinued!

Wanna talk about bragging rights?!

GTO is governed at 155mph, and I believe the title now belongs to the Magnum SRT8, with the 300 SRT-8 and the Charger SRT-8 close behind.


In general. When Camaros were doing .32cd 24 years ago, and 11 years later, doing worse, then 5 years later, doing worse still, seems like it's going in the wrong direction.

A correct assesment, and probally a wise decision. years ago I had the areo numbers of a group of cars, and they weren't what you'd expect. The thing that surprized me was Camaro's. But unless GM has plenty of tricks up their sleeve, I'm guessing the 5th gen is going to be worse than the 4th aerodynamically.

One difference. Charger is pretty smooth up front save the grille opening. The Camaro doesn't even have headlight covers. It could probally be made more aerodynamic up front with them though.

Some of us westerners also care. Not because we routinely run top speed, but because it's easier to do sudden bursts of to 130 from 90 or so if your car is capable of 150 or more. There are some places in Arizona I run a steady 120 (no exaggeration).

Then there's the "Autobaun" on that stunningly long & straight streach of Interstate 15 going into the Neveda state line on the way to Vegas where I first hit 140 mph and years later witnessed my 1st 18 wheeler doing over 120.

A loaded 1997 LT1 6 speed Z28 with 255 series tires tops out at a notch past it's 155mph marking on the speedometer............

...As a side note, I have zero intentions of running that fast off track ever again. As smooth as the roads were where I ran, the tiniest dips and road imperfections have a way of scaring the living daylights out of you at that speed. My B4C will be the 1st car I ever owned that I never ran it flat out on the highway. It already was involved in a shootout (still has a bullet hole), so it has enough history already. )

You're right. The '82 Trans Am was the world's most aerodynamic car when it came out. Even by today's standards, it's insanely low (those wheelcovers helped).

The 4th gen of both Camaro & Firebird had worse aerodynamics than the 3rd gens.

R377

Definitely true. I remember the Eagle Premiere (square, blocky, Renault-derived thing) had a lower Cd than the much-hyped Taurus back in the late-80s. I don't think there's too many armchair quarterbacks that can just look at a car and accurately evaluate its aerodynamic performance.

SSCamaro99_3

We have had two huge threads in the Advanced Tech and Longe of LS1TECH on this. The 3rd gens ran from .299-.33 Cd based on model with about 22 sq/ft of frontal area. All info for 4th gens quote a .34 Cd, and I am unbale to find frontal area however it has to be close. Just as a side not the 300C has a Cd of .35. Aerodynamics is not intuitive.

RussStang

This is probably the most important statement to focus on when discussing aerodynamics. The 3rd gen was more aerodynamic then the 4th, but I wonder what kind of lift or downforce was generated with each model as the speeds increased. I seem to recall that the 4th gen z28 spoiler is better than the 4th gen SS spoiler at high speed, because the SS spoiler actually creates lift. I think the Formula spoiler actually creates downforce, although I don't remember for certain. Gimmicks like the SS hoods, although nice looking, probably do little for high speed aerodynamics (although like I said earlier, aero is tricky, so maybe I wrong).

5thgen69camaro

Cant imagine its going to be as bad as you say. The rake of the 4th gen window is much more aggressive than GTO which you said has a higher top speed. Cant the back pressure of the grille be relieved against the windshield out the back of the Cowl? Thats all they need is to go back to that windshield and cover the motor again...