See I disagree. The Nissan 350Z is a good example of this. They are both sporty cars within the same price range. The main difference is he passenger capacity.

 

So now you are disagreeing with your own .5-.7 second estimate....unless of course we are to take your high 12 second statement to mean 12.9 and no faster.

ROFLMAO. Yes, I've seen Goats run at the track, never seen one turn better than a low 13 second et in stock trim but I've known enough reputable folks who have seen the same to accept it. Nice to see that you can sink to ever greater lows in your posting though.

Wow, getting lower still. Do you always resort to personal attack when your argument fails you? Oh wait, I remember now, you do.

You can argue aerodynamics all you want. The fact remains that the Camaro isn't nearly enough of a brick to explain away such a close time with the Cobalt SS/TC given the huge disparity in power. Aerodynamics matter quite a lot at the Nurb, but not enough to offset that much difference between these two cars. However, for those who have watched portions of the Camaros run around the Ring the incessant tire squeal in virtually very corner, particularly on entry where the car looked surprisingly unsettled, did tell us quite a bit about why the Camaro was so close to the SS in lap times there. Porsche's Cayenne Turbo exhibits notably less tire squeal on the same circuit, which should tell everybody something. And once again, your argument is left wanting.

Is your understanding really this rudimentary? Keeping a car in it's power band is a great strategy, but you cannot always run a car around a road course exactly where you want it to be in terms of powerband and, even if you could, torque multiplication through a set of gears is a lot more useful and forgiving...particularly when already at speed......when the engines torque band is nice, fat, and flat.

I really think you don't understand.....I just have no interest in playing your game. We began with you not knowing who Fourcam even was, to you declaring him an e-thug (pretty rich from you considering your incessant trolling), to you apparently now admitting his info has some validity though doing so by proxy. That said, I am tired of spoon feeding you so you will have info from which to argue about. I get my info from several sources, all of whom have proven credible and all of whom I am glad to give credit to. If you are intent on trashing the 2010+ cars every chance you get, and obviously you are, thenwhy don't you bring something of substance (note that word, it's a critical factor) to the argument.

For a Camaro SS which weighed an appropriate amount? Probably somewhere between 5 and 10 seconds fast than it actually ran given the rather significant amount of time GM spends there.

 

I am using what are published numbers. Do some research and you will see that my original statement is accurate given current published results. Again, being an internet fanboy, you cannot accept the fact that GM built a FWD car that handles well.


Now your reading comprehension is failing you. I've not once resorted to a personal attack. I've hinted that you are full of BS (this is the internet) and that you are a fanboy. Quit being a Ford cheerleader and I will take that label away. Give other cars credit. The Mustang is by means perfect, except in your blue colored eyes.

GM's own head designer stated that the aerodynamics aren't ideal for the 'Ring. Again, you are simply failing to see what has been said numerous times. The Cobalt SS is a great handling car, in fact the magazines have even went so far to call it "the best handling FWD car ever". That's big shoes to fill. Finally, I am done arguing with you about handling. Your last sentence is borderline laughable. Go to a roadcourse and watch some cars driving. If the tires are not squeeling, the driver isn't pushing the car to the limits. Even Hoosier R compounds will let you know when you have reached the limit. Street tires do it a lot more.


Take a ride in a car at the track and you will understand what I am saying. Maybe you will pickup that tires make noise when they hit the limits of adhesion. There is a simple technique that they teach you at a professional driving school called heel and toe downshifting. If you do it properly, you will keep the engine "in the rpms"


Post a link for us enthusiasts. I've know who FourCam was for years. I won't take back my comment that he posts like an E-thug because he does. In closing, his word is credible, but things are changing quickly at Ford. Projects get cut when business is bad and Ford needs to focus on building fuel efficient cars. His information could have already changed by now. I guess we will see in a year or two.

So that would put the Camaro in the same timeframe as a E60 M5 for reference. I think your estimates are a bit un-realistic. When you get down from fantasy land...

8:18 --- 149.92 km/h -- BMW Z8, 400PS/1651 kg (sport auto 08/00)
8:18 --- 149.92 km/h -- Chevrolet Corvette Z05 Commemorative Edition, 344 PS (sport auto 09/2003)
8:18 --- 149.92 km/h -- Ferrari F355, 380 PS/1350 kg (sport auto 06/97)
8:18 --- 149.92 km/h -- Maserati GranSport, 400 PS/1672 kg (sport auto 09/05)
8:20 --- 148.32 km/h -- Audi RS6, 400 PS/ 1815 kg (sport auto 03/01)
8:20 --- 148.32 km/h -- BMW M3 E36, 321 PS (Autocar magazine 1997)
8:20 --- 148.32 km/h -- 2008 Honda NSX, 500 PS/??? kg, http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsAr...llCars/225863/
8:20 --- 148.32 km/h -- Porche 993 GT3, Walter Roehrl (Car magazine 10/99)
8:22 --- 147.75 km/h -- BMW M3 E46, 343 PS/1584 kg (sport auto 12/00)
8:22 --- 147.75 km/h -- BMW M Coupe, 321 PS/1445 kg (sport auto 10/98)
8:22 --- 147.75 km/h -- Mercedes-Benz C55 (sport auto07/2004)
8:22.38 147.62 km/h -- Nissan Skyline R32 GT-R (Best Motoring video "Carrera Invasion")

 

max, you still haven't given me a good example of GM building a heavy car that can outhandle the mustang in the same price bracket. You gave BMW and Caddy doing it, but their cars are much more expensive than the stang. You also mentioned Nissan, but they are not GM.

 

[quote=max2000jp;5610902]Your Cobalt numbers are, at this point, complete fantasy as the best numbers yet for a Cobalt SS/TC indicate a best effort 13.9x 1/4 miles in stock trim. If we are truly going to use published numbers then by GM's statements the Camaro SS is a low 13 second car and by what we have seen thus far in testing the Cobalt is a low 14 second car. Once again, we are back at a full second. Your idea that there is potentially as little as a half second difference between these two is simply not credible by any measure.

As for me not accepting the fact that the Cobalt can handle well, I never stated otherwise. In fact, I've personally called the Cobalt an exceptional handler on this forum long before this thread was ever conjured. But even taking that into consideration the reality is that the Cobalt isn't nearly stellar enough in this respect to put a car with the huge hp and torque advantage the Camaro has on the trailer unless the Camaro is lacking somewhere....and aero alone wont cover a gap that big. If you want to argue otherwise feel free, but as usual you will be wrong in doing so.

I give other cars more than enough credit, and I've criticized the Mustang on more than a few occasions although I don't do it as much as I otherwise might as you and a few other folks go so overboard in this respect there is simply no need. By this juncture your tactics are clear. You simply choose to cast insults at anybody who doesn't agree with your seriously flawed reasoning.. Of course this doesn't make me a fanboy, but it does make you a troll.

As for you lifting any label you have placed upon me. In all sincerity, if you approved I would start to worry.

You are well beyond borderline laughable. As for road course driving, I've both seen it and done it and if you had you would know that the constant screaming from ingress to apex and beyond of the Camaro's tires on every corner isn't normal for a performance car, particularly of the rwd variety, and it certainly isn't a good thing. Tires do squeal, but they shouldn't do so all the time. (I would have thought that to be obvious, alas...) The visible instability during braking.entry isn't a good thing either for that matter. Aerodynamics are very improtant on this track, but again you are going waaaay overboard here trying to explain far more than the aerodynamic difference between these two cars could ever be expected to cover.

You must be kidding. Are you going to reveal other mysteries like how to properly transfer the weight of the car onto the outside front tire during braking just prior to entering a turn for me too? Are you seriously trying to teach somebody something?

I would post a link for enthusiasts, if there were another one besides me in this discussion. I really don't think you understand. At this juncture I place absolutely no value on what you post or think.....I simply feel no compulsion to accommodate you in any way. In fact, all that keeps me in this discussion is the thought that somebody might read what you have to say and actually accept it at face value.

I called it as it is. But I am curious, what will you say when the 2011 Mustang GT bests the Camaro SS on a road course?

 

[quote=jsaylor;5611054]The Magazine's have tested the Cobalt at 14.0 @ 102. Again, this is on an unprepped surface with magazine writers. We all know that mag times can be beaten by a good driver. Why is .2 to .3 no believable? Again, I question if you have ever been to a track.

Could it be that the Cobalt makes up a bit due to it's suspension tuning? Hmm....maybe it's able to carry speed better through the turns. Like I said before, big hp doesn't mean fast lap times. It's not that simple. Prove me wrong.

You are the ultimate cheerleader. Fanboy isn't an insult. It's your behavior on this board.


Again, I call BS on you ever being on a track.

Watch and Listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6mEirkQN8o
The ZR1 is at the limits of adhesion from turn-in to turn-out through the corners in various points of the video. You can here the tires over the engine. This is how a street tire performs at the limit. If you've ever driven a car hard, you'd notice this. As for aerodynamics, I am simply pointing out what GM has publicly stated.

Secondly, where do you see visible instability in this video?
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do....photopanel..2.*


Huh? You lost me here. I am not talking about left foot braking an automatic car, but heal and toeing a manual transmission.
http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/how...2/article.html


Post it up or shut up. Again, FourCam's thread is about engine and drivetrains.


You call it as a biased source. Look at the list of cars and the Camaro is in good company in terms of the performance food chain. Maybe Ford will test the Mustang at the Ring, so we can get some comparison numbers.

 

I'm a Mustang lover, but that new Camaro SS is going to out-perform both the Mustang & Challenger.
If Ford improves the brakes & suspension - plus add 50-75hp to the Mustang GT, I think we will be fine.

 

yes. i think they will have the right cards when its time to show em

 

[quote=max2000jp;5611069]Hasn't been done yet. And there are plenty of places in the US with cool, mid-60 degree Friday and Saturday nights at this time of year (we just has a couple here and I'm below the Mason Dixon line) where the track surface would have time to reach a nice temperature for launch....and those kind of conditions are going to be just about as good as it is going to get. You might see a 13.8 or two and on a perfect day when God is smiling a 13.7 might actually happen, although I doubt the latter, but even if it does we are still closer to my statement that there is a one second difference between the Camaro and the Cobalt than we are two your .5-.7 second prediction (which has of course been my point all along) unless you are arguing that the Camaro wont be any faster than the GTO, not even by a tenth.

As for your skepticism, I actually don't question whether you have been to a track, but you give every indication of somebody who hasn't actually driven on one or, if they have, is still a novice...and I'm being kind.

SChool is back in session (I should charge you tuition) What is wrong with a fwd car which produces a lot of torque on a track like the Nurburgring where you have a lot of medium and high speed corners? The problem is that fwd cars use the same tires still performing cornering duty to accelerate out of the corner, meaning the contact patch on the front tires of a fwd car has to perform the same amount of work as the contact patch on all four of a rwd cars tires. Of course, this is going to take any oversteer issues and magnifying them greatly to say the least. Even worse, the Nurburgring has a lot of transitions on corner exists, both in terms of surface and grade, which would further serve to exacerbate the situation. This is a huge disadvantage for the Coibalt and, when coupled with the rather large power disadvantage, doesn't say good things about the Camaro's ultimate handling ability.

Were in handling basics 101 here. This is one of the major reasons car manufacturers are so hesitant to shove big torque motors into fwd cars in the first place, and you are totally oblivious. How is anybody supposed to take you seriously as a 'road course' enthusiast when basics like this completely elude you?

Please, you've been sniffing fumes this entire thread. The truly amusing thing is that you almost certainly are learning something here and will likely break it out in future threads. We might make a useful contributor out of you yet.

Here we go again The fact that to you 'tire squeal is tire squeal' is just one more thing which tells everybody reading this thread that you just don't know. Some tire squeal in a corner? Normal and perfectly acceptable. The Camaro's tire squeal is well beyond what the Vette experienced, those tires are begging for mercy.....listen for the difference in the sound....it's there. Notice where the tire squeal begins for the Camaro, notice how long it lasts, and notice how loud and consistent it is. Then do the same for the Vette's run. I'm already certain you will swear that you can't tell a difference, the unfortunate thing here being that you likely really don't know the difference, but that isn't my problem.

And then you took that info and decided how much you felt it was worth on this road course, which is the problem since you aren't equipped to do so.

You don't see the instability? Take a look at the left hander with the surface transition, I think it's the second corner the guy takes on the entire video, you can see the weight of the car violently shift upon entry and then do so again upon exit. If this guy wasn't a pro you would probably have a Camaro in a great big ball in Germany somewhere.

Further, look at (and listen to) all the speed this guy scrubs off going into those corners. To be blunt he is taking it rather easy through the turns and this guy is a pro. Again, this tells me all that I need to know about the Camaro, this guy is depending upon it's torque, hp, and brakes to bully its way around the track making up for lost time in corners by using every ounce of power to pick up time down the straights.

OMG you really are that naive. You completely missed the point, and the jab, as I think my cat probably knows what heel and toe driving is. I brought up, without going into detail, the concept of the proper method to enter a corner, which includes braking and down-shifting (and hence heel and toe driving) each at the proper time, which saves tire life, ensures the maximum practical amount of speed is carried through a corner without overtaxing the brakes or tires which would lead and without having to brake again once you have entered the corner both of which would ultimately lead to reduced acceleration out of the corner (ideally you should begin accelerating at least slightly, or carrying your speed at a minimum, immediately after entering a corner) The idea being that speed into a corner is not a good trade for maximum possible acceleration out of a corner, a facet of road course driving which is extremely important and typically missed by every novice....apparently including you.

You have no idea how much I am enjoying this. You simply have no credibility left so I absolutely just don't care what you want or think. In fact, at this point I would go out of my way to not accommodate you. You're a constant troll and you simply aren't worth the effort. In response to your post I will say that you are far too stuck on Fourcam, another issue I would have thought to be obvious. (that is becoming a trend) And your pathetic attempt at e-bullying is laughable. Stop, your embarrassing yourself.

Who called it biased? That said it isn't complete or authoritative. The Camaro is in some fast company, on one track where GM spends a lot of R&D time both of which can obviously skew results. Of course GM is going to get best possible times there, they stay until that actually happens. A far more accurate comparison will be a same day road course test between the Camaro SS and 2011 Mustang GT, and in roughly a year and potentially some change we'll get one. Of course my prediction will be on the money, the Camaro wont stand a chance without a power advantage...and as it apparently wont have one unless GM, in their infinite wisdom, decides to sacrifice fuel economy for power yet again we already know what is going to happen....or some of us do.

Like I said before, my only worry is brakes.

 

Indeed! And ditto on the brakes... WOW you cats were battling!

 

If a 4140lbs, 425HP Automatic Challenger SRT8 can run a 13.1, than a 3913lbs, 422HP Automatic Camaro SS should be a bit faster. I want to see what the 6 speed Manuals can do!

3920lbs, 500HP 6 speed Manual Mustang GT500 ran a 12.6
3500lbs, 300HP 5 speed Manual Mustang GT runs between 13.5-13.9

Have to wonder what a 400hp Mustang can do?

 

Mid to high 12s if it hooks

 

I'm thinking high 12's. Hope that new 5.0L keeps the weight down!

 

I never thought I would say this but brakes are a big deal. My mach 1 has the best set of brakes of any car I have ever owned. They were basically the same brake that were on the 03/04 cobras but with 300 less lbs to stop. I have never driven an exotic car like a vette so I cant compare but these are very impressive on a 03 car.

The 5.0 is going to be a screamer in this car when it finally hits the street. I really wish they could come out right out of the gate with DI.

A stick axel is fine with me. I know its been beat to death also but I dont want the extra weight or cost. I just want Ford to step it up in the powertrain dept. I think they will. Im very sad about the 5.0 not coming in 2010. The 5.0 and a six speed will be sweet if they can keep the weight down.

 

[quote=jsaylor;5611280]I had a reply written, but deleted it. You are pointless to debate with. You are so brand biased that you cannot hold a rational arguement. I have a Mustang GT, but like cars in general. You my friend will never accept that the Ford Mustang has faults. Ford in your eyes is a leader, even though reality and wall street see it otherwise.

Lastly, I'd love to see you out at the track. Your the typical know it all that ends up black flagged or in the gravel traps. I am still waiting for the published information on the suspension setup of the refresh for 2010. Please provide it

You won! To leave you with a actual fact. The Cobalt SS was faster than a Ferrari F430 through the slalom. I'd love to see you actually give a positive comment for once and say that's impressive because any car guy knows it is.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=6704.

 

There's no doubt that the Camaro SS will outperform the current Mustang GT, and Challenger. However Ford's going to turn the tables, once the new 400HP 5.0L 4v, hits the streets in 2010-11

 

I am still not convinced the new V8 will be 400hp. Maybe in an SE.
I am thinking 340-375hp in the Mustang GT. That will be plenty, if the weight remains 3500lbs.

 

I know it is hard to belive that Ford will jump 100HP as it is not thier style. All we can do is hope. A lot of people seem sure that it will happen.
I guess if it looks good and has a better interior, suspension, brakes we can handle it coming in with around 350HP.

 

I am still not convinced that the new V8 will be 400hp. I will believe it when independent dynos show the actual engine output. Plus, the Bullitt already weighs over 3500 lbs. Throw in added content, a bigger engine and 6 speed manual, bigger brakes, etc. and I could see the refresh coming close to 3,600 lbs.

 

Ford better bring it because the battle is about to begin.............

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5657