CiniZter

Brand New 2016 Chevy Camaro SS Goes From 0 to 60 MPH In Just 4.0 Seconds

i was impressed to read all the neat things about the new camaro. what do you all think.


------------------source - tech time--------------------------------------
Chevrolet has recently released the 2016 Camaro lineup's performance figures and based on the numbers, having less weight and adding more power is turning out great for Chevy.

According to the sheets, the Camaro SS coupe (1SS), Camaro's Super Sport edition, will go from 0 to 60 mph in 4.0 seconds and will cover a quarter of a mile in 12.3 seconds, with speeds hitting 116 mph. However, the recorded times were set using the 8-speed automatic transmission. Going with the manual adds about three-tenths of a second, or 0-60 mph in 4.3 seconds.

The digits are comparable to that of the Corvette Z51, which does 0 to 60 mph in 3.7 seconds and finishes the quarter-mile in 11.9 seconds, which should not be a surprise since both Chevrolet and Corvette are under one roof, General Motors. The similarities extend to the Camaro's dual-exhaust mode that is inspired by the Corvette ZL1.

The 2016 coupe's newfound nimbleness is attributed to the 6.2L LT1 V8, which produces 455 ponies and 455 pounds of toque per feet, and the 390 pounds that was shaved off thanks to the lightweight aluminum components and the modular design. Note that the 2016 Camaro SS coupe is 233 pounds lighter than its predecessor, which gives spikes the power-weight ratio by 14 percent.

SouthernStang79

The numbers are impressive, I'll give it that.... but why make it look so much like the last Gen?

Looks it what is going to sell this thing, not power. If it was all about power and performance, 90% of camaros and stangs would be GT/SS and above. Reality is most of them are the V6/T4 versions.

Stage_3

FIXED!! lol
That's pretty impressive for that car. I just cringe why I see a newer generation Camaro on the road. They are ugly, in my opinion. This new one is a little easier on the eyes, but still ugly.
Although, I wouldn't mind a Z28!

2 Go Snake

The numbers for the 2016 Camaro are pretty good , but the GT350 will be quicker. Some will compare the SS to the Mustang GT , but the SS is more comparable to the GT 350.

BavarianStang

For me the Camaro SS ist the competitor of the Mustang GT but not the GT350.
The GT50 ist more expensive and also the SS can be orderd with an excellent 8-speed Automatic transmission - the GT350 offers a manual only.

The new Camaro moves the benchmark even higher, I'm interested if/ when / how Ford will respond.. (The 10-speed-automatic will be great, for example)

GottaHaveIt

Chevy GM repair kit except for 67/68&69 cameros

Phillip123

I think that the GT350 will be faster. However, these numbers are amazing!

bob

The LT motor is pretty impressive and while some people will disparage it for its low HP/L rating you cant argue with the results. Its got power and torque all over the rev range and in the alpha based Camaro works exceedingly well.


The Mustang's really big advantage tough is its lower price of entry as GM has made the Camaro fairly well equipped with little in the way of options however in typical Ford fashion in order to get comparable or better hardware you have to pay a premium in price.

wannabe

From looking at pics, I'll call the '16 a huge improvement over gen 5. The older ones always looked like three different committees designed it without talking to each other. This one looks more 'one'. I'd like to see it with the early gen 5 taillights.

Automatic 5.0

I am impressed with everything about the new Camaro except the base price for the SS. $37K, really?

And the SS is not built to compete with the GT350. The Z/28 will be, and the ZL1 will compete with the GT500 rumored to be due out in 2017.

bob

The SS comes fairly well equipped at 37k - The comparable Mustang GT would be equipped with the Performance Pack and almost all the electronic gizmos so the base price isn't to bad especially when you figure in the level of performance the SS is going to offer. Mid to low 12's in the 1/4 and most certainly 3 minute or sub 3 minute times at VIR.


Stock for stock the Mustang GT even with the Performance Pack is going to see taillights at the strip and on the course and in order to beat the SS at the performance game your going to have to step up to the GT350 (and hope you can find a dealer that isn't going to ram it in dry) otherwise its mod city and that again puts you over the price of the SS


That said like I mentioned earlier the Mustang does offer a lower price of entry so that gets a person's foot in the door if they want a V8 car. IIRC over a 60 month loan you would save 60-100 bucks a month over the SS but your getting 7/10ths the performance.


We'll see who has the better strategy over the long run. IMO Ford has a decent plan with its fresh styling and lower price point but the SS certainly makes a case for stealing away people focused solely on the performance numbers plus the LT motor like its LS forebear will offer substantial power gains for comparatively few dollars with simple bolt-ons (in this case cam/intake/exhaust should put the LT easily past 500 hp).


Its a great package and it will be interesting to see how Ford counters in 2017 if the do at all.

bt4

Hold on just a minute--I have yet to see an instrumented test. Yes, looks like the numbers are impressive; but those are mfg estimates. The curb weights are provided by the factory. Based on the weight and the HP numbers published, the performance numbers look very reasonable--but I'd like to see some independent confirmation before I get overly excited.

1) I am not sure the curb weights listed represent base machines, or optioned up vehicles. Are they with standard seats? Standard wheels? Does it reflect the weight of the 2SS with power driver and passenger seat, dual-zone climate control, and 20-iinch wheels, etc?

(Caveat, I see a weight listed for the Caddy ATS-V on GM's web site, yet the weight as tested on three different sites lists 3 different weights, one of which was 3,800-lbs. I am sure you get the point.)

2) At an estimated 4.3 seconds from 0-6 (estimated) is only .1 seconds quicker than an actual test of a 2015 GT--uh, not exactly an overwhelming difference. And an estimated 4.0 is still .3 seconds slower than the estimated 3.7 for the GT 350.

3) If horsepower sells, explain why the 2005 GTO (400-HP) sold 11,000 units while the 2005 GT (300-HP) sold 160,000 units.

I like the new Camaro--GM did a fine job of assembling a parts-bin special, (not necessarily a bad thing) which could have been a disaster using a Cadillac frame and a Corvette engine and made what appears to be an outstanding performer.

Having said that, JMO, the pricing could be a real problem. $37K + for an entry level V8 is going turn away some prospective customers. Even though any number of people (the entire Bowtie Nation in fact) will claim that the price is not too high--it is a strain. Especially since the newer--and smaller package isn't as family friendly as the outgoing model, which was no champ in that particular arena. If you can only afford one car--a DD, something tells me the 2016 1SS is going to be; if I can borrow a metaphor, a bridge too far, for any number of wannabe owners. A fully optioned 2SS, might require a considerable amount of disposable income. Which may be why Chevy bumped the HP and made the V6 a better performer.

If you want a RWD V8, one where you might be able to toss kids in the back, a Mustang is probably going to be a much better bang for the bucks. (Though even there the pricing is getting harder to justify for a practical DD--but closer to livable compared to the Camaro.)

To those affluent enough to shell out over $40K for a Mustang GT, or 2SS, especially when looking at a sticker over $46K will probably not be too concerned over spending another $5k for a GT 350. Quite frankly a fully loaded 2SS or a fully loaded Mustang GT Premium, is at a price point that makes it hard to justify either in place of a Corvette or GT 350.

Just my .02

bob

The new SS is essentially a cheap bastards ATS-V with the difference being mostly in how its powered.

I don't trust them either but GM has a proven record of making pigs fly, my gut feeling is the new Camaro will be similar to the S550 in weight content for content.

But... you have to step up to the GT350 in order to beat the SS - if the SS weighs approximately the same as the standard Mustang GT the larger 6.2 V8 in the SS and its beefier power curve is going to kick sand in the GT's face with less aggressive gearing (and most likely better mileage).

It does for people who are focused on the numbers not the brand. The GTO also like the SS Sedan have crappy marketing. The GTO also suffered from an unfavorable exchange rate and poorly timed introduction complicating the matter not to mention the decidedly un GTO like styling.

I think its going to set the bar in the segment outside of SE cars like the GT350 and I'm not a really a fan. I just don't have a problem prognosticating the SS is going to do that. It might not win the sales race but its going to push boundaries and while the price of entry is steeper for what you get its actually a good bargain.

I largely agree here except on the GT350 and the added ADM's which effectively make it a more expensive option. I'm hoping that changes with the 2016+ GT350's as it would be nice to step up to one in the next 2 years provided I get the chance without having to say goodbye to the GT500.

bt4

Yes--the GTO was more expensive. The Holden Monaro was an excellent car. But too pricey for the market. It offered more performance, and IRS, but was far more expensive than the new Mustang. Thus price, NOT performance was the death knell of the GTO.

You obviously believe HP sells. In 2010 The re-styled Mustang had a 315-HP 4.6 In 2011 the new body style got a 412-HP 5.0. According to your theory, the new Mustang should have sold better (more units) because of a nearly 100-HP boost. Look up the sales figures. The sales tanked.

According to your theory, the 2001 Camaro should have easily outsold the 2001 Mustang. The Mustang (with its 4.6 and 2-valve heads was at a serious power disadvantage) yet it outsold the Camaro by a 3-1 margin. By the way, though much faster than the Mustang GT, Chevy only managed to sell 29K Camaros that year. What really counts to the people who manufacture automobiles is not 0-60, it's how fast it moves of the lot. Hence there was no 2004 Camaro.

There are only two factors in volume sales. 1) Do people like the way it looks 2) Can they afford it.

A tenth in performance (or even three tenths) here or there doesn't make or break sales. If you want a V8 in a RWD coupe the proposition of $33K vs $37K to someone with limited resources is not going to come down to tenths but cents.

bt4

The magazine instrumented tests are in, and to be honest I am not sure what to make of the numbers.

C/D tested a 2SS with the A8, and two numbers jump out: 0-60 in 3.9 seconds, **** that's impressive. As it turns out the car is only 50-lbs lighter, 3760, (with only 20 more horsepower) than the GT Premium, but that 8 speed tranny allows it to make the most of the motor. That's impressive. The other number that jumped out at me was $47,480! That's a fairly impressive number as well. On the other hand, R&T only managed a 4.2 0-60 sprint, and MT recorded a 4.0 time, all with the new 8-speed auto--each magazine remarked that the 6-speed manual was slower (4.3 seconds.) So, from a full half-second quicker than a Mustang GT (4.4) in a 0-60 sprint to .1 second quicker, the new Camaro is a lot quicker, or a little quicker depending on the driver and whether it is equipped with an auto or a stick.

The review on the looks are just as mixed. Some reviews claimed the looks were much improved, other reviews used the word "cartoonish" to describe the new look. The same with the visibility issue. One review slammed the outward visibility as terrible, while another reviewer noted that the visibility was much improved. The position of the A/C vents, (blowing on the shifter) was nearly universally panned. And, there was the comment about there not being much of a back seat--just an upholstered shelf.

Overall the reviews were positive--impressed with the performance. I must admit I was impressed with the C/D 0-60 run and the 1/4 mile time. But looking at the cost of entry (ranging from an as tested $38,585 to a $47,480) I predict Chevy is going to sell a lot of V6 Camaros.

After reading the reviews, the thought occurred to me; if the back seat is not really something that can be used as a back seat, and you're going to pay nearly $50k for a two-seat sports car, why not just buy a Corvette?

bob

The Camaro SS is pretty bad ***, it occurred to me at work today though what if GM is planning on taking the Corvette well up market and the Camaro is becoming the bargain performance car that the vette is now?


GM has said most of the previous C5 V8 cars were the 2SS trim level and so the new Camaro reflects that purchasing behavior.


I think Ford's choice to break with the previous Mustang's styling was a smart move as well as offering a lower price of entry.


While it offers a lot of value for the money the Camaro seems to be traveling upmarket. This strategy was used by GM before in the 80's and 90's as the Camaro offered better performance (yes that IROC Z with a 5.7 was faster stock for stock than the comparable 5.0 Mustang) and was correspondingly more expensive.

bt4

I hadn't thought of it--but that is an excellent point. Especially if GM final follows through on a mid-engine Corvette designed to compete on equal footing with the exotics.

David Young

Just got my MotorTrend with a test of the GT and SS. Mustang lost on everything except interior Sad to say the Mustang is 'now' the fat kid on the block.............

bob

At one time I had heard the 2015 Mustang was fairly light weight with its bones based on a modified S-197 chassis but the decision was made to possibly make a Lincoln based RWD off of the new car and that ended up forcing major changes.


I don't know how true that is but remember at one point Team mustang had said it was lighter by a good margin then all of a sudden it was heavier.


Still even with a 153 weight disparity Ford could tighten up the handling and close the gap and maybe make it a better handling car. GM was able to successfully do this with the heaver 1LE 5th gen (albeit in a very focused package).


Not much can be done in the acceleration department though as the LT motor just has to much average power and the lower curb weight works to its advantage as well.


Reading some scans of the article over at SVT it appears the Camaro is more of a "hardcore" performance package compared to the Performance Pack equipped GT.


Despite the image it might conjure the Performance Pack is still more focused on a comfortable ride than all out handling performance which is sorta a shame since they don't offer a "Track Pack" or "Performance Pack Plus" that offers a tighter suspension and sticker tires.

kaycee71@comcast.net

I'll always be a Ford/Mustang lover but I do have adoration for the early Camaros. The 50th Ann. Camaro may have lotsa nifty things going for it but those damned windows & heinous blindspots make it chock fulla' NOPE for me.