SLP involvement
12-14-2005, 12:26 PM
#92
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 2,801
Re: SLP involvement
Originally Posted by Z284ever
Yes you're right, I believe it would. We should only use it for OUR own internal consumption.
"Just about any car can be a GT or an "R", but only Camaro can be a Z28."
I like it. Scott, hand that over to GM marketing and tell them to run with it. 4 hours and a room full of sales geniuses should be able to make a winner out of that, LOL.
12-14-2005, 03:33 PM
#95
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ballwin, MO
Posts: 1,182
Re: SLP involvement
Originally Posted by Red Planet
How often does a stock SS have problems keeping away from a stock Z28? Well...if it's on a road course, it doesn't!
Now......I had to think about this for a while...but we did a Camaro Video for dealers and showrooms.....and we filmed it at what was Bragg-Smith in Nevada...(now Spring Mountain Motorsports Park) (great track, by the way....we still rent it to do chassis development work....)
Anyway.....we ran, as I recall 10 laps with a Mustang GT, a Z28 and an SS...same driver...same conditions...same day...same everything........
The Z28 averaged, as I recall a 4 second lead over the Mustang GT. The SS, on the other hand, had a 12 second........that's HUGE....advantage over the Mustang GT.
The SS had chassis tuning to perform better on the track. It rides more harshly than the Z....but the tradeoff is in better handling.
By the way......little known fact that we never were allowed to talk about. A 1999 Camaro SS with 1LE suspension was marginally faster on a road course than a 1999 C5 Corvette with Z51 suspension. Our own engineers would prove it at Milford and in Nevada.
Now......I had to think about this for a while...but we did a Camaro Video for dealers and showrooms.....and we filmed it at what was Bragg-Smith in Nevada...(now Spring Mountain Motorsports Park) (great track, by the way....we still rent it to do chassis development work....)
Anyway.....we ran, as I recall 10 laps with a Mustang GT, a Z28 and an SS...same driver...same conditions...same day...same everything........
The Z28 averaged, as I recall a 4 second lead over the Mustang GT. The SS, on the other hand, had a 12 second........that's HUGE....advantage over the Mustang GT.
The SS had chassis tuning to perform better on the track. It rides more harshly than the Z....but the tradeoff is in better handling.
By the way......little known fact that we never were allowed to talk about. A 1999 Camaro SS with 1LE suspension was marginally faster on a road course than a 1999 C5 Corvette with Z51 suspension. Our own engineers would prove it at Milford and in Nevada.
12-14-2005, 09:46 PM
#96
ALMIGHTY MEMBER
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Detroit, MI USA
Posts: 2,301
Re: SLP involvement
well...to answer a couple of questions:
First, don't assume that the original plan was to leave the LS1 alone.....but the decision was made to put the cars on hiatus about two years before LS1....at the end of 1998-1999. Once that decision was done, it was next to impossible to get funding to do more work on the car. (thank God for SLP!)
Also, at the time, we were to keep the Camaro at, I recall, 30hp less than Corvette. That was the rule. Didn't say I liked it. (really disliked it, actually)...however, remember that this would have been during the Zarella years. (and don't get me going on THAT.....) As a result, when the second gen (for lack of a better term) LS1 was introduced, (2001 model year) the Camaro LS1 got a truck cam to keep the horsepower down. Again...don't shoot the messenger.
Things changed once he was gone.......time to reinvent Cadillac. Now....if you're gonna take on the world, you need a powerful engine. We had a CTS...but what engine would we use? Cadillac brand image was the northstar...but some felt it wasn't powerful enough.......enter the LS6. Now...I wasn't in any of those meetings....I'm not that high up on the totem pole. Suffice it to say that the LS6 was approved for the CTS-V.....and the rule changed!
Trivia: The Vehicle Line Executive on the CTS was Jim Taylor. Prior to his assignment, he was the VLE on Camaro/Firebird! (and owns two Camaros) He's now General Manager of Cadillac. Great guy.
First, don't assume that the original plan was to leave the LS1 alone.....but the decision was made to put the cars on hiatus about two years before LS1....at the end of 1998-1999. Once that decision was done, it was next to impossible to get funding to do more work on the car. (thank God for SLP!)
Also, at the time, we were to keep the Camaro at, I recall, 30hp less than Corvette. That was the rule. Didn't say I liked it. (really disliked it, actually)...however, remember that this would have been during the Zarella years. (and don't get me going on THAT.....) As a result, when the second gen (for lack of a better term) LS1 was introduced, (2001 model year) the Camaro LS1 got a truck cam to keep the horsepower down. Again...don't shoot the messenger.
Things changed once he was gone.......time to reinvent Cadillac. Now....if you're gonna take on the world, you need a powerful engine. We had a CTS...but what engine would we use? Cadillac brand image was the northstar...but some felt it wasn't powerful enough.......enter the LS6. Now...I wasn't in any of those meetings....I'm not that high up on the totem pole. Suffice it to say that the LS6 was approved for the CTS-V.....and the rule changed!
Trivia: The Vehicle Line Executive on the CTS was Jim Taylor. Prior to his assignment, he was the VLE on Camaro/Firebird! (and owns two Camaros) He's now General Manager of Cadillac. Great guy.
12-14-2005, 10:55 PM
#97
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: San Jose, Ca
Posts: 602
Re: SLP involvement
Originally Posted by Red Planet
well...to answer a couple of questions:
First, don't assume that the original plan was to leave the LS1 alone.....but the decision was made to put the cars on hiatus about two years before LS1....at the end of 1998-1999.
As a result, when the second gen (for lack of a better term) LS1 was introduced, (2001 model year) the Camaro LS1 got a truck cam to keep the horsepower down.
First, don't assume that the original plan was to leave the LS1 alone.....but the decision was made to put the cars on hiatus about two years before LS1....at the end of 1998-1999.
As a result, when the second gen (for lack of a better term) LS1 was introduced, (2001 model year) the Camaro LS1 got a truck cam to keep the horsepower down.
Uh...shouldn't that be 1995-1996 and then the LS1 was introduced in 1998.... ?
12-14-2005, 11:43 PM
#99
West South Central Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Kilgore TX 75662
Posts: 3,372
Re: SLP involvement
Originally Posted by demonspeed
94-96 Impala SS recieved the LT1, whereas the Caprice got the TBI.
12-15-2005, 12:32 AM
#102
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: San Jose, Ca
Posts: 602
Re: SLP involvement
Originally Posted by I burn rice too
I just subtracted two years from 1999 and it only makes sense if you really think about it.
12-15-2005, 06:40 AM
#103
Registered User
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 302
Re: SLP involvement
Originally Posted by AdioSS
Nope, all 94-96 Caprice/impala SS/Roadmaster/Fleetwoods got Gen2 SBC. Some had the 4.3L L99 and most got the iron head LT1. No GM cars got TBI V8s after 1993.
12-15-2005, 06:43 AM
#104
Registered User
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 302
Re: SLP involvement
Originally Posted by Aklaim
Uh...shouldn't that be 1995-1996 and then the LS1 was introduced in 1998.... ?
12-15-2005, 06:47 AM
#105
Registered User
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 302
Re: SLP involvement
Originally Posted by Red Planet
well...to answer a couple of questions:
First, don't assume that the original plan was to leave the LS1 alone.....but the decision was made to put the cars on hiatus about two years before LS1....at the end of 1998-1999. Once that decision was done, it was next to impossible to get funding to do more work on the car. (thank God for SLP!)
Also, at the time, we were to keep the Camaro at, I recall, 30hp less than Corvette. That was the rule. Didn't say I liked it. (really disliked it, actually)...however, remember that this would have been during the Zarella years. (and don't get me going on THAT.....) As a result, when the second gen (for lack of a better term) LS1 was introduced, (2001 model year) the Camaro LS1 got a truck cam to keep the horsepower down. Again...don't shoot the messenger.
First, don't assume that the original plan was to leave the LS1 alone.....but the decision was made to put the cars on hiatus about two years before LS1....at the end of 1998-1999. Once that decision was done, it was next to impossible to get funding to do more work on the car. (thank God for SLP!)
Also, at the time, we were to keep the Camaro at, I recall, 30hp less than Corvette. That was the rule. Didn't say I liked it. (really disliked it, actually)...however, remember that this would have been during the Zarella years. (and don't get me going on THAT.....) As a result, when the second gen (for lack of a better term) LS1 was introduced, (2001 model year) the Camaro LS1 got a truck cam to keep the horsepower down. Again...don't shoot the messenger.
But this makes sense, and is pretty much what I figured you'd say. Still doesn't mean that you shouldn't take into account all my thoughts (owner assoc., "complete" package", etc). I hope you all keep this into mind for the future of the Camaro and the 'SS' brand 
Buying a SS shouldn't just be checking off a RPO code, it should be an experience.After reading this thread, I don't hate SLP Engineering so much (actually now I'm glad they were around) - just some dislike for SLP Performance.
Last edited by demonspeed; 12-15-2005 at 07:19 AM.