The New 2017 ZL1 Camaro

[16MustangVet]

GTR only had trans issues for 1st few years iirc.

considering the current gen GTR is double price now as when this generation came out it damn well better have a useable launch mode!

Sponsored

 

[J_Maher_AMG]

Pill, show me one time where Chevy said the 1le would loose 230lbs. The 1le only gained 70lbs over the base and it has bigger tires, mag ride, aero, Recaro seats, and bigger brakes. Now look how much the GTPP gains over the base with much less.

http://media.chevrolet.com/media/us...nt/Pages/news/us/en/2016/aug/0808-camaro.html

They still haven't changed it because there isn't enough people aware enough to call BS. They will stick with the marketing and tell people it lost 230lbs.

While the first two were weighted at 3736 and 374x, there are 1LE's out there that are on the higher end like 3750-3770lbs.

The 100lbs that was added back into the 1LE was all structural. It is quite literally the same weight removed from the SS that made a 3670lbs SS possible. They also changed the 13.79 inch rotors I reported on to a 13.6/13.3 set.

You will also find that once they removed the weight, it destroyed the Alpha's incredible 50/50 weight distribution. In little words, they took something that was good and made it bad.

Note the ZL1's projected 220lbs loss? I doubt we get that too...

So I guess what you are saying is the larger tires/wheels, brakes, magnetic suspension, and aero bits don't increase weight? Or are you purposefully ignoring the fact that this equipment comes with the 1LE to support your notions?

You talk about rigidity and flex, yet a 1SS Camaro will easily, and I mean EASILY, eclipse a GTPP's lateral grip performance. So dose the Mustang need boatloads more structural reinforcements as well, Mr. NOT an engineer Pill?

I'm by no means saying that they didn't add more reinforcement to the car when they added the LT4 and made a ZL1, and perhaps the 1LE could share that HYPOTHETICAL reinforcements as well, but that doesn't mean it was "bad" to begin with.... You think the GT500 will ride on the exact same chassis as the GT350 when it comes out with an extra 300tq or more? But yet adding reinforcements to a Mustang is obviously 100% OK in your books.

Don't know why you're so bent out of shape about it. WHO CARES what the marketing division decided to say. It is the age old competition, one offers more performance but suffers from design flaws that make it a poorer DD, the other offers more DD friendly aspects, but isn't as performance oriented and doesn't perform as well on track. Same shit, different year.

The only point that I think you make that is actually a valid question, is in regards to the pricing. You are absolutely right that considering all of the parts that make the Camaro track-capable are shared across various platforms, so that the ultimate cost of each unit should be lower than it is no doubt. Is the performance and items that it is offering worth the value they are asking? Absolutely, but it doesn't mean the cost shouldn't be lower. IMO if they were more aggressive with the pricing, they could offer a car that is cheaper than its direct competition while offering significant performance advantages. I think they could increase sales drastically, as people would only have to choose then between "daily driveability" aspects like greater visibility and more trunk space vs higher performance. As of now they have to give up driver friendly aspects as well as pay out more $$ to get that higher performance, and IMO is why they are hurting in the sales department.

 

[Childs Play]

Excuse me... the responses we are looking for is "official word" from the manufacturer. Not just some random person on the internet right?

Looking at the answers... blah...


Only 70lbs? Only in a magazine comparison, the other one was around 85lbs. But yes, it was waaaaaaaaaaaay off. They were just as off on the 1LE guess as thePill was from the 1SS weight. So... don't you want to know what happened? Why 100lbs magically appeared out of nowhere? I can't see any thing extra. When the Mustang GT gained 86lbs is was all over... now the 1LE missed the 230lbs weight loss goal and I want to know why.

You said the SS is more expensive than a GT because it comes with more standard features? It also shares 80% of its equipment with other vehicles. Not only is the platform cheap but the entire suspension, drivetrain and brakes came from other vehicles. I am sorry but there aren't enough standard features on an SS to make it $1000 more once all the shared cost are involved. Even the features that you are talking about came from other cars.

Heritage was a marketing term thrown around when the 2014 z28 came around. Does a supercharged ZL1 with 305/315's and an A10 sound like a "Z/28" to anybody? It sure doesn't fit Chevy's description of one.

Where is the manual ZL1's lap time? The 2016 BMW M4 GTS lapped the Ring in 7:27.9. Since Chevy whole heartedly feels the Camaro is a BMW M4 competitor, are you still impressed with the full auto ZL1's 7:29.6?

I don't think BMW is too concerned about anything Camaro. I doubt the 1LE can beat the ZL1 either...

Chevy hasn't come clean on any of the issues being discussed.

Why is the ZL1 $20,000 more than a 1LE? Why is an SS more than a GT being 90% shared? Where is the manuals performance? Why was the A10 delayed? Is the Heat issue corrected on the LT4/A10 combo? Shouldn't they call it a ZL1 Carbon and not cash grab on the z28? It won't really be a GT350 competitor with an LT4.

The thing to watch out for is the quick weight gain. Just as the S197 did from 2006 to 2007, structural reinforcement needed to be added to support the GT500. You can see at the 1LE's level, it already needs reinforcement.


The ZL1's promised 220lbs weight loss could only end up being 100lbs depending on how much metal was added. It is a shame they won't say where they removed the metal from on the SS because that is where thePill's 3780-3820lbs 1SS went ;)

Not many can checkmate the Camaro like thePill. You wanted to see where I got the 3780-3820lbs claim? You literally get to see them put it back on in order to get the platform to work for them. Eventually, the 80lbs you see on the 1LE will migrate over to the SS because it desperately needs the rigidy. There is more weight to come...

There are 50lbs of sub-frame connectors that should have been integrated into the structure like the Mustang and Corvette. Not much else they can do now... the platform rigidy isn't even equal to the ATS from which it was based on.

So let's say I wanted to be serious for a minute and actually discuss this...

Sharing parts with other platforms doesn't necessarily translate to free extras. I'm interested in why you care so much considering you don't like the Camaro to begin with.

Regarding the "heritage" of the Z/28... The Z06's "heritage" was a N/A motor but it's now supercharged. That's really all I have for that so there.

I find it interesting that in one area we've pointed out that cars of comparable times around the track are comparable. But now we've went back to them not being comparable. (See conversation between Voodooo and me. I pointed out that the ZL1 wasn't really comparable to the GT350R, but he made a great point about how even though they weren't in the past, they really are now considering how they're set up these days, and I agree with him.) To each their own on this one.

You may be right on the weight. If so. Well alright. I know GM BS's crap sometimes (like the infamous "It will run 11's all day comment). However I'll wait until I see some real world weights roll through to hold judgement on the 1LE from the last gen to this gen. As far as a 2016-2017 weight gain, I'll see if I can get some of our club members to bring one into a sponsor's shop and weigh one and report back to see if you're right. Like I said. You could be. I personally am not concerned about it but some people are I guess.

I really don't get the obsession with the frame and reinforcement. This is by far the best frame they've ever used for the Camaro and has been shown to be plenty strong to take abuse on and off the track. I don't buy into this one and have to go with the Engineers at GM over someone's opinion on the internet about this.

As far as pricing goes for the ZL1, there's way more involved in the ZL1 than the 1LE than just dropping in a LT4 and calling it a day and you know it. That being said there's more mark up. I'm pretty sure that's common with Halo cars across the board. Once again though. I don't understand why you're concerned with this considering you don't seem to like Camaros and won't own one.

The A10 was delayed just like the 4turbo was delayed. It's a new concept and they wanted to do further testing. Any tests I've seen, and other people in the Camaro community have participated in have shown the ZL1 has no overheating issues though. Hell they ran two all day out at a Camaro press/invite event and they never had an issue. Not even brake fade. Those were being ran flat out, pulled over to switch out people and then ran flat out again and again. Is that just two cars out of however many there will eventually be? Yea. Could there be some issue we don't know about? Maybe. I really doubt it though. This seems pretty standard for GM.

If you remember they delayed the 5th gen ZL1 line up similarly when it was new. There weren't really too many issues with it once it was out. The only issues I remember were some (a lot) of people having issues with the supercharger bearing eventually and the rear end being noisy. My personal ZL1 had the rear end issue and had to have the exhaust replaced due to a faulty valve on it causing a nasty rattle. Other than that? No other issues that were much of a big deal. Oh and it definitely had heat soak issues but I didn't really run it at a track too often so meh. Not a big deal to me.

My SS on the other hand... Was riddled with issues. However those were more caused by the dealership curbing the shit out of my car, ruining the front end, and attempting to blame it on me. That got pretty nasty for them.

 

[thePill]

So I guess what you are saying is the larger tires/wheels, brakes, magnetic suspension, and aero bits don't increase weight? Or are you purposefully ignoring the fact that this equipment comes with the 1LE to support your notions?

You talk about rigidity and flex, yet a 1SS Camaro will easily, and I mean EASILY, eclipse a GTPP's lateral grip performance. So dose the Mustang need boatloads more structural reinforcements as well, Mr. NOT an engineer Pill?

I'm by no means saying that they didn't add more reinforcement to the car when they added the LT4 and made a ZL1, and perhaps the 1LE could share that HYPOTHETICAL reinforcements as well, but that doesn't mean it was "bad" to begin with.... You think the GT500 will ride on the exact same chassis as the GT350 when it comes out with an extra 300tq or more? But yet adding reinforcements to a Mustang is obviously 100% OK in your books.

Don't know why you're so bent out of shape about it. WHO CARES what the marketing division decided to say. It is the age old competition, one offers more performance but suffers from design flaws that make it a poorer DD, the other offers more DD friendly aspects, but isn't as performance oriented and doesn't perform as well on track. Same shit, different year.

The only point that I think you make that is actually a valid question, is in regards to the pricing. You are absolutely right that considering all of the parts that make the Camaro track-capable are shared across various platforms, so that the ultimate cost of each unit should be lower than it is no doubt. Is the performance and items that it is offering worth the value they are asking? Absolutely, but it doesn't mean the cost shouldn't be lower. IMO if they were more aggressive with the pricing, they could offer a car that is cheaper than its direct competition while offering significant performance advantages. I think they could increase sales drastically, as people would only have to choose then between "daily driveability" aspects like greater visibility and more trunk space vs higher performance. As of now they have to give up driver friendly aspects as well as pay out more $$ to get that higher performance, and IMO is why they are hurting in the sales department.

None of this is bending me out of shape.

They are details that are reported, there is almost zero emotion that goes into it.

Yes, that stuff is heavy but it also shows us they didn't get the weight they wanted. Why?

I have been attempting to commentate the entire event and, I must say, with great accuracy. While the actual 200lbs weight loss was baffling at first, after a little research, it isn't too far fetched.

The Camaro's Alpha Wide version of the ATS is unique to the platform family. Instead of adding any structural reinforcement to the ATS's 109 inch, 4 cylinder platform, the 1SS/2SS removed the intended steel and composed a unique sub-frame connector design. It allows Chevy to add or subtract reinforcement depending on the trim and performance level. The ZL1 uses 11 groups altogether while the 1SS uses maybe 4.

Along with the sub-frame groups, the structure most likely integrates some structural reinforcement to the platform as well. Like the 2012 Convertible, each level has its own, semi-unique structure and some improvements go down to addional layers of sheet metal work hardened in specific areas (B-pillar cross support, Torque Boxes, Front Section, Runner and Rockers can all scale to some degree.

Speculation started when the Convertible was canceled for the ATS lineup. The Alpha Platform had integrated support engineered for the ATS Convertible. That 80-100lbs of additional sheet metal and sub-frame connectors were thought to be dead... however, once the ATS-V started testing, more reinforcement was needed AND, GM added it. thePill made light of this very topic... At one time, the ATS-V was set to be about 3700lbs. After testing was conducted, about 103lbs were added to the base model.

While I did get a chuckle out of the weight gain, I decided to actually look at an ATS and ATS-V myself. Ultimately, one day I would get to compare an SS's platform to one. The move was one made for quality... The ATS-V ended up being almost as rigid as the Mustang and Corvette. Around 29,000lb FYI believe, close to a 991 911 too (32,000-ish).

Fast forward to the Camaro. Since the Mustang and Corvette integrated support and the ATS-V did a little bit of both, I figured NO WAY Chevy tries to use a V8 in a stretched 4 cylinder platform without using the reinforcement the ATS-V engineered....



...thePill was wrong :lol:


They left out the much needed reinforcement that the ATS-V developed in order to make more proposed 1LE lightweighting standard. Like Ford did with the GT350 that made it slightly lighter than the GTPP (3770 vs 3780), Chevy put more $$$ into the SS which is why the MSRP ended up higher and there are increases coming every year.

There was no way around it and I knew that just by watching the ATS-V and seeing the platforms. The SS needed major reinforcement BUT, as long as the car doesn't get traction, it's hard d to notice. Put 285's on it and it is obvious the 1LE needed the ATS-V support... and they got it.

Is it bad? Well, the 1LE didn't lose 230lbs and the SS is missing a lot of metal that the 1LE and ZL1 have. I know 3670lbs was needed in order to shut thePill up but the cost to the SS wasn't worth it.

In all honesty, the sub frame connector groups was a bad idea. They don't work nearly as well as integrated support. The Camaro SS needs a design like the ATS Coupe uses (A-pillar/Torque Box reinforcement) or the major overhaul like the ATS-V got. Even the 1LE's reinforcement isn't as in depth as the ATS's. It's because of the sub-frame connectors were deemed too cheap for a Caddy.

So... how much extra metal work did the ZL1 get and what about the 220lbs? Since the 1LE and ZL1 are essentially the same car and program (yes it is), I'd say the 80-100lbs the 1LE took on will migrate over to the ZL1 and then some.

 

[thePill]

So let's say I wanted to be serious for a minute and actually discuss this...

Sharing parts with other platforms doesn't necessarily translate to free extras. I'm interested in why you care so much considering you don't like the Camaro to begin with.

Regarding the "heritage" of the Z/28... The Z06's "heritage" was a N/A motor but it's now supercharged. That's really all I have for that so there.

I find it interesting that in one area we've pointed out that cars of comparable times around the track are comparable. But now we've went back to them not being comparable. (See conversation between Voodooo and me. I pointed out that the ZL1 wasn't really comparable to the GT350R, but he made a great point about how even though they weren't in the past, they really are now considering how they're set up these days, and I agree with him.) To each their own on this one.

You may be right on the weight. If so. Well alright. I know GM BS's crap sometimes (like the infamous "It will run 11's all day comment). However I'll wait until I see some real world weights roll through to hold judgement on the 1LE from the last gen to this gen. As far as a 2016-2017 weight gain, I'll see if I can get some of our club members to bring one into a sponsor's shop and weigh one and report back to see if you're right. Like I said. You could be. I personally am not concerned about it but some people are I guess.

I really don't get the obsession with the frame and reinforcement. This is by far the best frame they've ever used for the Camaro and has been shown to be plenty strong to take abuse on and off the track. I don't buy into this one and have to go with the Engineers at GM over someone's opinion on the internet about this.

As far as pricing goes for the ZL1, there's way more involved in the ZL1 than the 1LE than just dropping in a LT4 and calling it a day and you know it. That being said there's more mark up. I'm pretty sure that's common with Halo cars across the board. Once again though. I don't understand why you're concerned with this considering you don't seem to like Camaros and won't own one.

The A10 was delayed just like the 4turbo was delayed. It's a new concept and they wanted to do further testing. Any tests I've seen, and other people in the Camaro community have participated in have shown the ZL1 has no overheating issues though. Hell they ran two all day out at a Camaro press/invite event and they never had an issue. Not even brake fade. Those were being ran flat out, pulled over to switch out people and then ran flat out again and again. Is that just two cars out of however many there will eventually be? Yea. Could there be some issue we don't know about? Maybe. I really doubt it though. This seems pretty standard for GM.

If you remember they delayed the 5th gen ZL1 line up similarly when it was new. There weren't really too many issues with it once it was out. The only issues I remember were some (a lot) of people having issues with the supercharger bearing eventually and the rear end being noisy. My personal ZL1 had the rear end issue and had to have the exhaust replaced due to a faulty valve on it causing a nasty rattle. Other than that? No other issues that were much of a big deal. Oh and it definitely had heat soak issues but I didn't really run it at a track too often so meh. Not a big deal to me.

My SS on the other hand... Was riddled with issues. However those were more caused by the dealership curbing the shit out of my car, ruining the front end, and attempting to blame it on me. That got pretty nasty for them.

Sharing platforms and drivetrains do mitigate cost, if it doesn't, they are doing it wrong.

The Z06 lost its street credibility once it aquired a heatsoaking LT4. Since that is the same engine destine for the ZL1/z28, shouldn't we be concerned? Didn't the z06 just get delayed for the same issue and now a "phased release" for the A10? Come on man... we don't need to be head over heels.

As for structure, I do obsess over it and all aspects involved. It is one of many areas that I was involved. I know for sure that you always have issues coming from a 4 cylinder platform. I can also say with assurance that you need to integrate the reinforcement at the OEM level, especially in the $35,000 range. We can do addional sub-frame work on our own at home... A lot didn't happen for the Camaro but they did save weight... initially. It is one of the main reasons Team Camaro still conducts R&D in the SCCA. Fast sweepers? Sure... the Camaro and about any other sedan can do that. Long wheelbase and a short track. Anywhere tighter than that?

Look at it this way... BMW can get a 7:27.9 from nearly the same exact footprint as a Camaro (110.7x63-64). That car has 475-500hp. 3600lbs

The ZL1, 650hp, 4000lbs (they say 3900) can only do a 7:29.6...

Platform, Footprint, Tires, Brake... all working against the ZL1 :(

Trust me, you don't want a video of a GT350. If a manual with 525hp can match you, it won't look good. This 7:29 is about the only positive in the Camaro's existence right now. Don't egg Ford on to ruin it... because they will.

As for the 2012 ZL1 delay... I remember stellar performances at first... then the strange delay. Now the OEM ZL1's struggle with the 11.9's don't they? Also lost 1/2 of its track comparisons. Some rumored that it was "dialed back". Yeah... I remember that. I think that is happening again, it's being dialed back yet they will stick to the published numbers. Look, they haven't even updated the weight loss predictions yet. Caddy fixed theirs... Chevy?

Unless someone with any sense steps in, it looks like the next z28 will be a ZL1 with better tires and brakes. Is that where the z28 is going? Didn't the z06 receive some heavy flak for that? Didn't it literally take the "track" out of track ready? Now you want to put an additional 500lbs on the LT4 and think a taller engine cap is gonna fix it?

Delays are never good. Never ever in a million years. For if the A10 comes out during MY17, it is no doubt being funded during the current fiscal budget. If it's pulling money out of the budget, it is expected to still perform as projected for the year.

If my guys wonder in and tell me the roll out for a new product will only see 30% of expected sales for the first 9 months, I would start crying. Manual vs. A10 polling looked 30-70 to me, maybe 40-60 but it's still not enough. It is putting stresses on the program that are totally uncalled for. They are also using the A10 as the primary tool for marketing and it's not ready yet :(

Was the phased release of the 4 cylinder a good idea? No... the absence of the 3rd option allowed the market to flood with the other 2. Now there is now room left for proper base car showcase. You see how they are offering a new base, base model? Because they have a ton a 4 cylinders that never shipped because they were never ordered. That's another issue altogether and it will be the end of the Camaro.

Back on the ZL1...

It is using the record number of structural support in the sun-frames. It will also adopt some of the structural bracing at the A pillar/Torque Box, B-pillar cross member and probably front section, runner and rocker reinforcement.

Why? Because none of that is included in the Camaro at any level.

 

[J_Maher_AMG]

None of this is bending me out of shape.

They are details that are reported, there is almost zero emotion that goes into it.

Yes, that stuff is heavy but it also shows us they didn't get the weight they wanted. Why?

I have been attempting to commentate the entire event and, I must say, with great accuracy. While the actual 200lbs weight loss was baffling at first, after a little research, it isn't too far fetched.

The Camaro's Alpha Wide version of the ATS is unique to the platform family. Instead of adding any structural reinforcement to the ATS's 109 inch, 4 cylinder platform, the 1SS/2SS removed the intended steel and composed a unique sub-frame connector design. It allows Chevy to add or subtract reinforcement depending on the trim and performance level. The ZL1 uses 11 groups altogether while the 1SS uses maybe 4.

Along with the sub-frame groups, the structure most likely integrates some structural reinforcement to the platform as well. Like the 2012 Convertible, each level has its own, semi-unique structure and some improvements go down to addional layers of sheet metal work hardened in specific areas (B-pillar cross support, Torque Boxes, Front Section, Runner and Rockers can all scale to some degree.

Speculation started when the Convertible was canceled for the ATS lineup. The Alpha Platform had integrated support engineered for the ATS Convertible. That 80-100lbs of additional sheet metal and sub-frame connectors were thought to be dead... however, once the ATS-V started testing, more reinforcement was needed AND, GM added it. thePill made light of this very topic... At one time, the ATS-V was set to be about 3700lbs. After testing was conducted, about 103lbs were added to the base model.

While I did get a chuckle out of the weight gain, I decided to actually look at an ATS and ATS-V myself. Ultimately, one day I would get to compare an SS's platform to one. The move was one made for quality... The ATS-V ended up being almost as rigid as the Mustang and Corvette. Around 29,000lb FYI believe, close to a 991 911 too (32,000-ish).

Fast forward to the Camaro. Since the Mustang and Corvette integrated support and the ATS-V did a little bit of both, I figured NO WAY Chevy tries to use a V8 in a stretched 4 cylinder platform without using the reinforcement the ATS-V engineered....



...thePill was wrong :lol:


They left out the much needed reinforcement that the ATS-V developed in order to make more proposed 1LE lightweighting standard. Like Ford did with the GT350 that made it slightly lighter than the GTPP (3770 vs 3780), Chevy put more $$$ into the SS which is why the MSRP ended up higher and there are increases coming every year.

There was no way around it and I knew that just by watching the ATS-V and seeing the platforms. The SS needed major reinforcement BUT, as long as the car doesn't get traction, it's hard d to notice. Put 285's on it and it is obvious the 1LE needed the ATS-V support... and they got it.

Is it bad? Well, the 1LE didn't lose 230lbs and the SS is missing a lot of metal that the 1LE and ZL1 have. I know 3670lbs was needed in order to shut thePill up but the cost to the SS wasn't worth it.

In all honesty, the sub frame connector groups was a bad idea. They don't work nearly as well as integrated support. The Camaro SS needs a design like the ATS Coupe uses (A-pillar/Torque Box reinforcement) or the major overhaul like the ATS-V got. Even the 1LE's reinforcement isn't as in depth as the ATS's. It's because of the sub-frame connectors were deemed too cheap for a Caddy.

So... how much extra metal work did the ZL1 get and what about the 220lbs? Since the 1LE and ZL1 are essentially the same car and program (yes it is), I'd say the 80-100lbs the 1LE took on will migrate over to the ZL1 and then some.

I'm not trying to bend you out of shape; I am just trying to discern fact from fiction. This is one of the first posts I've seen that I can actually read and be semi-interested in, as it isn't the typical "lol" emojis laughing at the Camaro with claims about weight or this or that with no explanations attached.

While I am interested in many of the points you made here, do you have any form of proof or source for any of this? Honestly curious. In addition, does this same form of tiered performance platforms and structural reinforcements not happen across many brands, the Mustang included? Otherwise how would the last GT500 weight significantly more than the 5.0 GT? I could be wrong, but it really doesn't seem like this is an uncommon practice.

The only point I think is worth noting is that sure the marketing division "lied" about the upcoming weight loss. But when you say the "cost to the SS wasn't worth it" I am not sure how you can say that. Considering it is lighter, has more power, and can outgrip any Mustang less than a GT350, I don't see where your opinion that the SS needed that reinforcements is coming from. It clearly performs very well, outdoing its Mustang counterpart, and it clearly isn't falling apart on the road. It has great lateral grip capability. So this claim that the SS required the reinforcement has me at a loss, because it surely doesn't seem to require it from a performance standpoint.

Sharing platforms and drivetrains do mitigate cost, if it doesn't, they are doing it wrong.

The Z06 lost its street credibility once it aquired a heatsoaking LT4. Since that is the same engine destine for the ZL1/z28, shouldn't we be concerned? Didn't the z06 just get delayed for the same issue and now a "phased release" for the A10? Come on man... we don't need to be head over heels.

As for structure, I do obsess over it and all aspects involved. It is one of many areas that I was involved. I know for sure that you always have issues coming from a 4 cylinder platform. I can also say with assurance that you need to integrate the reinforcement at the OEM level, especially in the $35,000 range. We can do addional sub-frame work on our own at home... A lot didn't happen for the Camaro but they did save weight... initially. It is one of the main reasons Team Camaro still conducts R&D in the SCCA. Fast sweepers? Sure... the Camaro and about any other sedan can do that. Long wheelbase and a short track. Anywhere tighter than that?

Look at it this way... BMW can get a 7:27.9 from nearly the same exact footprint as a Camaro (110.7x63-64). That car has 475-500hp. 3600lbs

The ZL1, 650hp, 4000lbs (they say 3900) can only do a 7:29.6...

Platform, Footprint, Tires, Brake... all working against the ZL1 :(

Trust me, you don't want a video of a GT350. If a manual with 525hp can match you, it won't look good. This 7:29 is about the only positive in the Camaro's existence right now. Don't egg Ford on to ruin it... because they will.

As for the 2012 ZL1 delay... I remember stellar performances at first... then the strange delay. Now the OEM ZL1's struggle with the 11.9's don't they? Also lost 1/2 of its track comparisons. Some rumored that it was "dialed back". Yeah... I remember that. I think that is happening again, it's being dialed back yet they will stick to the published numbers. Look, they haven't even updated the weight loss predictions yet. Caddy fixed theirs... Chevy?

Unless someone with any sense steps in, it looks like the next z28 will be a ZL1 with better tires and brakes. Is that where the z28 is going? Didn't the z06 receive some heavy flak for that? Didn't it literally take the "track" out of track ready? Now you want to put an additional 500lbs on the LT4 and think a taller engine cap is gonna fix it?

Delays are never good. Never ever in a million years. For if the A10 comes out during MY17, it is no doubt being funded during the current fiscal budget. If it's pulling money out of the budget, it is expected to still perform as projected for the year.

If my guys wonder in and tell me the roll out for a new product will only see 30% of expected sales for the first 9 months, I would start crying. Manual vs. A10 polling looked 30-70 to me, maybe 40-60 but it's still not enough. It is putting stresses on the program that are totally uncalled for. They are also using the A10 as the primary tool for marketing and it's not ready yet :(

Was the phased release of the 4 cylinder a good idea? No... the absence of the 3rd option allowed the market to flood with the other 2. Now there is now room left for proper base car showcase. You see how they are offering a new base, base model? Because they have a ton a 4 cylinders that never shipped because they were never ordered. That's another issue altogether and it will be the end of the Camaro.

Back on the ZL1...

It is using the record number of structural support in the sun-frames. It will also adopt some of the structural bracing at the A pillar/Torque Box, B-pillar cross member and probably front section, runner and rocker reinforcement.

Why? Because none of that is included in the Camaro at any level.

I also agree concerning the mitigation of cost. I think if the Camaro were cheaper than the Mustang (which it certainly could be) I think it would help their sales tremendously. More performance for less money? Pretty good incentive. But when you factor in poor visibility and less trunk space, along with a higher price tag, that extra bit of performance that most people won't utilize becomes a significant factor in the buying decision and leads a lot of buyers to the Mustang IMO that has better DD characteristics.

I also agree regarding the Z06. When it is running right, it is one of the most track-capable cars in the world, but they have been riddled with heat-soak issues since day 1. I would venture to say that a lot of people are viewing the new Grand Sport as the true successor to the C6 Z06.

In regards to the GTS's laptime on the Ring, BMW's are notoriously underrated, but I don't have a lot of faith that it was a production stock GTS. We saw how it did at BDC, even with a lighter body and better power/weight ratio, also on Cup 2's, with a DCT and it performed rather poorly. I don't feel that car is really capable of lapping within 2 seconds of a 991 911 GT3 that has a far better power/weight ratio, better suspension, dynamics, braking, transmission, etc. I would think the R could crack a 7:28 time if pushed to the limit.

I'm sure there are some concerns about heat soak with the new ZL1, but considering it has 11 heat ex changers, I have my doubts whether we will see many issues with this car and heat soak. You also have to remember that the ZL1 is riding on 285/305's and they are not track tires like the Cup 2's. With better tires I think it could improve upon it's time by several seconds easily.

 

[BaylorCorvette]

I really don't see what getting into a pissing match is going to accomplish unless you're just bored at work (like I currently am) and thus the reason why there is such an argument going on. At the end of the day this is what each manufacturer has brought to the table. In terms of top tier pony car currently GM has brought the better road/touring car and an argument can be made that Ford has brought the better track car, but the ZL1 is certainly capable. Now in a year or two when/if a GT500 and/or a Z/28 is out, each offering will have a high horsepower touring/drag car and also a road course car. Buy what you're interested in and be done with it. The fact that we have all of these great options is fantastic, just be glad it isn't the 80s and early 90s again.

.
I also agree regarding the Z06. When it is running right, it is one of the most track-capable cars in the world, but they have been riddled with heat-soak issues since day 1. I would venture to say that a lot of people are viewing the new Grand Sport as the true successor to the C6 Z06.

When I bought my C7 Z51 the idea of buying a C7 Z06 never crossed my mind. Every track event I've been to over the past year and half to two years that has had a C7 Z06 has had overheating issues except for one, which was being driven in a novice run group. I'm totally disinterested in the C7 Z06. Now had the C7 GS come out a week before I purchased my Z51 rather than a week AFTER, I'd be in one of those right now. I agree that it is the "true" successor to the C6 Z06. I'll say this, the low end torque of the LT1 is absolutely amazing.

 

[mustang_guy]

If you dont chew Big Red, fuck you.

 

[ZaneWayne]

If you dont chew Big Red, fuck you.

Ricky Bobby!!!!!

 

[Stage_3]

Has upper and lower pulleys swap as well. Just not listed in title.
Pretty nasty!

[ame]​

 

[WhiteyDog]

D*mn, TireRack must love him. Time to give 'em a call, . . . . . . . .

 

[mustang_guy]

Has upper and lower pulleys swap as well. Just not listed in title.
Pretty nasty!

​

13-14 gt500s put down 800-850 with like mods. Color me unimpressed with its gains. It looks nice and sounds pretty good though.

 

[Stage_3]

13-14 gt500s put down 800-850 with like mods. Color me unimpressed with its gains. It looks nice and sounds pretty good though.

Don't get me wrong,.....I'd take a '13 or '14 GT500 over the ZL1 any day, but still pretty bad ass. Torque is crazy!

 

[mustang_guy]

Don't get me wrong,.....I'd take a '13 or '14 GT500 over the ZL1 any day, but still pretty bad ass. Torque is crazy!

Id still rather have a coyote. Had gm not added DI id like this gen camaro a lot more then i currently do with the exception of its stuffy interior. The outside and sound is nice.

 

[Stage_3]

Id still rather have a coyote. Had gm not added DI id like this gen camaro a lot more then i currently do with the exception of its stuffy interior. The outside and sound is nice.

Yeah,....not too crazy about the interior as well. I think the Coyote is a way better looking car overall, inside and out. :ford:

Sponsored