i know. i was just thinking if you thought that g8gt was such a close comparason to the camaro, that the gxp would be even more close. because of the chassis,engine, tranny combination.

 

I am curious about this statement and I could use a little help from you guys with old Camaro review articles laying around with lap times.

Here is some of what I have been able to find:

Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords comparing the 2002 SS to 2003 Cobra at Old Bridge Township Raceway Park in New Jersey
http://www.musclemustangfastfords.co...out/index.html

If we could get some more 2002 Camaro vs. 2003-2004 Cobra data that supported this conclusion, then we could also look at 2003-2004 Cobra data compared to GT500 data and get a pretty good ballpark.

Here is Modded Mustangs comparing the GT500 to the 2006 Corvette (no mention of Z51) at Grattan.
http://www.moddedmustangs.com/2007-s...-corvette.html

So according to them, on the same day at the same place, the GT500 'might' be faster than the Charger SRT-8. So lets see some Charger SRT-8 data compared to the Camaro.

Here is one review where I was able to find a lap time for the 2001 Z28 Camaro at Willow Springs, but I cannot find a credible stock lap time for the GT500 for comparison.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...01/pageId=5979

If you guys have some Camaro lap times from reviews and comparisons, post of the track and the time.

 

does anyone here remember the car and driver issue of the gt500 when it first came out? they compared it to the c6 with the z51 suspension. the vette beat it in every catagory. it was less hp than the gt500 but it had the advantage over it because that thing is heavy as hell. the vette is pretty light but the gt500 will still be heavier than the camaro.

 

Only by 60-70lbs over the SS unfortunetly.

 

the vette weighs in at 3217lbs, gt500 weighs in at 3920, and the new camaro weighs 3850 your saying? gt500 does 0-60 in 4.6, the new g8 gxp does it in 4.8. and being that the camaro is lighter than the gxp i think it will be quite close to the gt500. top end may be where the gt500 gets the camaro with the blower, but i have no doubt this car will be a contender against the gt500.

 

The Camaro SS may compete with the CURRENT 2007 to 2009 GT500, but I the new 2010 GT500 should be a little more convincing.

If we take the G8 GXP as a baseline for the Camaro SS and MAKE SURE we remember that is weighs 200 pounds more than the Camaro, has smaller tires, only has single piston Brembo's in the rear, and likely will has a few less ponies than the Camaro, then things look rather promising.

Both sets of numbers taken from Motortrend:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...fications.html
http://www.zimbio.com/Pontiac+G8/art...Pontiac+G8+GXP

G8 GXP
0-60mph: 4.5sec
Quarter Mile: 13.0 @ 109.6mph
60-0mph: 111-117ft
Lat. Accel.: 0.90g (avg)
MT Figure-8: 26.4 sec @ 0.70 g (avg)

GT500
0-60mph: 4.3 sec
Quarter Mile: 12.6 @ 114.2mph
60-0mph: 118ft (have seen as low as 110ft)
Lat. Accel.: 0.89g (avg)
MT Figure-8: 25.9 sec @ 0.71 g (avg)

Assuming the Camaro will better the G8 GXP numbers, that's pretty competitive folks. Well, at least as competitive as two cars with over $10,000 or almost 30% difference in price could possibly be.

Let us also not forget that the more powerful and more capable 2010 GT500 will likely perform better than the 07-09' GT500. However, it also has an MSRP of over $46,000 (before gas guzzler tax I believe) so it will be even more expensive than the Camaro.

 

One thing about the new Camaro and the new GT500 is where the weight is. I would bet the new Camaro has a better lower center of gravity due to the weight of the motors and where all that weight is located. The GT500 has a lot of weight up high. In an autox I would give the nod to the new Camaro because of the weight and the better rear suspension that could be adjusted to really make it handle well.

 

ferrari fxx 45000 for monthly payments need sum major overtime

 

I'd wager the 2010 SS will run 12.8 to 12.9 @ 110-111 with a solid driver and a decent track/weather. The 2010 GT500 should probably run 12.4 to 12.5 @ 116-117 under the same conditions so there is your comparo. The slight difference in curb weight for the SS will be easily made up by the extra 118hp the GT500 has.
These numbers seem close but at the track it will be far more apparent which car has more power.

It's very similar to a race between a 2002 LS1 SS and a 2002 Stang GT auto.

 

There's a logical fallacy in your question. Guion says that "GM wishes it were lighter". You're inferring this means GM thinks it's too heavy.
Think of it this way, if you wish you were taller, does that mean you're too short?

Even if he did say that it was too heavy, does he now expect that it should be lighter? Third or fourth hand, it's impossible to comment on whether the person who supposedly said that was being unrealistic or unreasonable. Maybe he was or maybe he wasn't. Whoever heard this from whoever said this could have asked.... Most likely the person has a realistic understanding now based on the issues that came up during development.

For my part, I have a hard time seeing how a Camaro with an LS3 would come in lighter than, or even as light as an M3, even if you could design a new platform specifically for the Camaro. If you give up safety or durability or amenities like A/C, then a lot is possible, I suppose....

Years ago, when I first heard the Camaro would have IRS, I expected 3800 pounds, because I knew it would have more horsepower, more safety features, and every other car that adds these things gets heavier. To expect the Camaro to have a different result than every other car is -- unrealistic. Sorry.

And it just so happens that, when all is said and done, the Camaro weight is competitive with other cars with similar suspension, hp, tq and 4 seats, many of which have more exotic materials in their construction.

 

its really gonna be a close call between the 2 and the thing it comes down to is the huge $ difference between the 2, and who are you loyal to, Ford or Chevy?
i know with the 10k+ ill be saving compared to the gt500, i can put a s/c on and lighten it up by a few hundred lbs and do a little suspension work, and still whoop the gt500 even more.

 

My thoughts on weight -- if you want a really fast cars that only weighs a little, go buy a used, battered, barely alive '69 Camaro. Then, take it apart piece by piece, put a tubular frame in, bolt the body panels on, beef up the LS3 with heads, cam, headers, etc., and go race.

Some people on message boards actually race -- most talk. If you don't race your ride, who the heck cares what it weighs or what it might do versus a GT500, an M5, or whatever. It's all message board bravado.

Even if you do race, you are better of spending a whole bunch of time at the track working on your skills rather sitting back and complaining that Chevolet didn't build a factory race car for you.

 

Seriously, who here is going to do more than an occasional run down the drag
strip? I know there are people who will do more, but a VERY small minority.
For us others this car will handle WAY beyond our needs and never even come
close to the limits, which by the way I'm sure will be much better than most
cars on the road. Let's talk about this car in reality folks.

 

i dont do "drag racing". ive never really liked it. i prefer Lemanns style racing. on a track or open street. but i do want to know that if i pull up to a gt500,how will i match up. yeah ill probably give him a little race. but id rather do it in traffic than an open road. adds a little excitement. you actually get to see how good of a driver they are. instead of just punching the gas and shifting a few times. throw them some curves.

DISCLAIMER:
however i do not condone road racing. it is dangerous and illegal. not not try this at home.

 

The only fallacy results from your reluctance to follow your own logic argument through to the end. Use logic to answer the following question.... Why does GM wish it was lighter?

Logically, if they wish it was lighter then it follows that they are at best unsatisfied with the current condition.

Therefore, logic would seem to lead us to the conclusion that if they wish it was lighter and they are unsatisfied with it, then they must think it is too heavy. Otherwise, why would they wish it was lighter or be unsatisfied with the end result?

Pushing forward, logic would seem to state then that if they are unsatisfied with the weight, they must feel there would be some benefit to the vehicle if it were lighter.

Do they think that acceleration / braking / handling / fuel mileage or sales numbers would improve? Or do they wish it was lighter just because they can wish it?

Logic would seem to prefer at least some part of the former rather than the latter, wouldn't you agree?

I've been told here repeatedly that weight doesn't matter as much as the "*****" may think. I've been told here repeatedly that weight is not a concern for anyone but those nitpickers. Funny, but as time passes the weight concern crowd seems to be much more in step with what GM wanted to accomplish with this car than those on the other side of the argument.

Nope. I believe he feels as I and many others feel. After owning several Camaros and enjoying them thoroughly, they have lost us with the new car.

It's sad and unfortunate but it is what it is.


I too am sorry.

I am sorry that I am reminded the Cobalt SS is an "amazing" performer when I compare track times between it and the Camaro. I find it odd that we are criticized for expecting to be amazed by the new Camaro when it is perfectly acceptable to be amazed by an econobox.

I am sorry that I expect a car that, in my opinion, is a bit farther up the food chain and has a history far more worthy of respect than a Cobalt to set new standards in Camaro performance with its amazing abilities.

Despite being hampered by the decisions of those above them, the engineers did what they could and the car will probably be the best performer in its weight class. However, using a seasonally appropriate analogy, linemen are used against linemen and you don't often have much success using them to cover tailbacks.

And no, I don't consider a car that weighs 300 - 400 lbs less to be in the same weight class.