Zeta News 2.0: New VF Commodore and Chevrolet SS

[Bones Brigade]

I don't think 4th gens weighed 2 tons. .9 is very good.

 

[Paulie]

I don't think 4th gens weighed 2 tons. .9 is very good.

And compared to the competition is lowsy. Why not just get a 4th gen and do some mild tuning? The LS1 will easily match this power with some mild tuning.

 

[ND4SPD]

Hmm doesn't the 2010 'Stang get 1.0g's? That's with a LRA as well!

 

[Bones Brigade]

it's tons faster than the competition as well. the thing is pretty cheap, so there has to be a trade off somewhere. you're not going to get huge speed and mega handling for 30k. but really, its not like .9 is bad. evo 8/9s pull .9g and the 350z's didn't even pull .9g and they were lauded for handling prowess. (somewhat.) and lateral grip on a skidpad is also kinda like 1/4 times. a little more important than 0-60, but still not indicative of the cars total performance.

^ the mustang gets like .95, if the. .05 matters much, I don't know.

 

[YSSMAN]

I don't think 4th gens weighed 2 tons. .9 is very good.

The fourth generation SS, as I recall, weighed in around 3600 lbs (or, about what the Mustang GT weighs now). The V6 Camaro comes in just over 3700, the SS being in the mid 3800 range. Considering the added power, and the immensely better chassis that it is based upon, I'll take the extra pounds for the goodness that comes out of it.

C&D's V6 Review seems to confirm that its a pretty good starting point for the car, which continues to push my preference for the V6 RS forward. The other reviews on the SS were otherwise what I had been expecting... Its fast, handles well, and rides out nicely. Its not as big and bouncy as the Challenger, but not as fun as the Mustang. No major surprises. I can understand the criticism about the interior as well, but as all of the articles have pointed out, it won't likely mean much to a lot of the people who would be buying anyway.

...Still makes me wish they would have done a stripped down, 360 BHP Z/28 model...

 

[JCE]

The skid pan numbers disappoint me greatly, a 4th Gen Camaro can pull those numbers (0.90 Gs).


Edit: For good measure, see it in action! Inside Line seems to have numbers a little worse than everyone esle though, could be track condition or simply dodgy drivers.

Worthless! The '10 Mustang GT gets the same 0-60 time and only slightly slower on the 1/4mi time. What's shocking is the GT has better skidpad and the 370Z beats the Camaro in 0-60 time while also getitng almost the same 1/4mi time. The SS Camaro is worthless. Give me a 2002 WS6 Trans-Am and watch me walk the new 5th gen SS. I'm really disappointed. Yes its sexy to look at but for that kind of money I want NUMBERS. I'll take the '10 Mustang GT over the new Camaro SS thanks. I was really hoping the numbers were going to be better with all that power and 6spd transmission. Weight = most important stat in this segment it seems.

 

[Bones Brigade]

comparing edmunds car for car: (SS, Stang, Z)

0-60: 5.0s vs 5.2s vs 5.1s
1/4 mile: 13s @ 111mph vs 13.5s @ 103mph vs 13.4s @ 105mph
60 - 0: 109ft vs 107ft vs 101ft (although in the Camaro article they say the Z takes 108)
Grip: .88g vs .91g vs .97g
Slalom: 68.4mph vs 68.4mph vs 69mph (Camaro review says Z does it at 72)

Matches up well to me. All the cars are between 32 and 34k when equipped to get those numbers.

I feel like putting the numbers from the other mags up in the same fashion, but I have to go work. I'll get to it in the morning.

 

[McLaren]

Worthless! The '10 Mustang GT gets the same 0-60 time and only slightly slower on the 1/4mi time. What's shocking is the GT has better skidpad and the 370Z beats the Camaro in 0-60 time while also getitng almost the same 1/4mi time. The SS Camaro is worthless. Give me a 2002 WS6 Trans-Am and watch me walk the new 5th gen SS. I'm really disappointed. Yes its sexy to look at but for that kind of money I want NUMBERS. I'll take the '10 Mustang GT over the new Camaro SS thanks. I was really hoping the numbers were going to be better with all that power and 6spd transmission. Weight = most important stat in this segment it seems.

Kind of in the same boat, dude. But, that's nothing some modifications couldn't change since, to be honest, are going to be my main priority with the SS if I decide I still want one in a year's time.

 

[JCE]

comparing edmunds car for car: (SS, Stang, Z)

0-60: 5.0s vs 5.2s vs 5.1s
1/4 mile: 13s @ 111mph vs 13.5s @ 103mph vs 13.4s @ 105mph
60 - 0: 109ft vs 107ft vs 101ft (although in the Camaro article they say the Z takes 108)
Grip: .88g vs .91g vs .97g
Slalom: 68.4mph vs 68.4mph vs 69mph (Camaro review says Z does it at 72)

Matches up well to me. All the cars are between 32 and 34k when equipped to get those numbers.

I feel like putting the numbers from the other mags up in the same fashion, but I have to go work. I'll get to it in the morning.

I would like to have as many number from magazines as possible then average them out. Different tests with different conditions/drivers. I still maintain the GT is a better value for money than the other two. And you don't need to drop over $30k for a Mustang GT to get those numbers, unless Ford raised the price of the GT from $26~28k to over $30k.

Kind of in the same boat, dude. But, that's nothing some modifications couldn't change since, to be honest, are going to be my main priority with the SS if I decide I still want one in a year's time.

What about the people who do not want to mod a new daily driver? If I buy a RWD coupe for daily driving use I want it to be the best it can out of the box for the money I paid. I don't want to have to spend more money modding it to beat a damned way less powerful Mustang or Datsun.

 

[McLaren]

I see your point, esp. with the SS. All I can say though is, they can't all be winners.

 

[Paulie]

Despite the SS's slightly worse handling, it would more than likely still outpace a Mustang around the track fairly easily, as the handling is so similar (Same slalom speed there even), but the acceleration once you're moving would be better.

 

[Leonidae]

I'd still take the V6 RS model with manual and 18" wheels, kthxbai.. and not only because I has a mullet.

 

[Paulie]

I'd still take the V6 RS model with manual and 18" wheels, kthxbai.. and not only because I has a mullet.

That's what I thought, until people started rasing questions (in this thread too I believe) over the long-term reliability of direct injection and problems that could arise from tuning it (and I'd want to tune the V6 up quite a bit).

Edit: ...........An LS2 GTO was rated and tested as faster than all these cars with 0-96km/hr in 4.6sec and a 1/4mile of 12.8sec.

 

[Bones Brigade]

And you don't need to drop over $30k for a Mustang GT to get those numbers, unless Ford raised the price of the GT from $26~28k to over $30k.

You are correct. The base is like 27 but that "track pack" is another few or so isnt it? so...29 - 34.

 

[Leonidae]

Who cares? it's personal preference, and IMO, direct injection DOHC V6 is the better option.

 

[Bones Brigade]

Who cares?

I'm sure there are plenty of people who care about whether or not the Mustang GT is 27 or 32k.

Edmunds (SS, Stang, Z):
0-60: 5.0s vs 5.2s vs 5.1s
1/4 mile: 13s @ 111mph vs 13.5s @ 103mph vs 13.4s @ 105mph
60 - 0: 109ft vs 107ft vs 101ft (although in the Camaro article they say the Z takes 108)
Grip: .88g vs .91g vs .97g
Slalom: 68.4mph vs 68.4mph vs 69mph (Camaro review says Z does it at 72)

Motor Trend (SS, Stang, Z):
0-60: 4.7s v 4.9s v 4.7s
1/4 mile: 13s @ 111mph v 13.4s @ 104mph v 13.3s @ 105.7mph
60-0: 105ft v 108ft v 109
Grip: .9g v .95g v 1.01g
Figure 8: 25.8s @ .8g v 25.5s @ .7g v 24.8 @ .76g


Car and Driver:
0-60: 4.8s v 5.0s v 4.8s
1/4 mile: 13s @ 111mph v 13.6s @ 104mph v 13.4s @ 107mph
70-0: 171ft v no data v 157ft


Road and Track:
0-60: 4.6s v 5.3s v 5.1s
1/4 mile: 13s @ 111mph v 13.8s (no data) v 13.7 @ 103.6mph
60-0: no data v 115ft v 117ft
Grip: .87g v .93g v .97g
Slalom: 66.8mph v 69.9mph v 71.4mph


Averages:

Camaro:
0-60: 4.775s
1/4 mile: 13s @ 111mph
60-0: 107ft
Grip: .897
Slalom: 67.6mph

Mustang:
0-60: 5.1s
1/4 mile: 13.6s
60-0: 110ft
Grip: .93g
Slalom: 68.85mph

370Z:
0-60: 4.925s
1/4 mile: 13.45s
60-0: 109ft
Grip: .9825g
Slalom: 70mph

 

[Tornado]

I'm somewhat disappointed that it doesn't seem to be any faster than the GTO. Considering the GTO itself was no slouch when it came to doing the bits where you go left and right, it actually gets more annoying.
Though I would want the V6 anyways, so whatever.

 

[Bones Brigade]

I'm somewhat disappointed that it doesn't seem to be any faster than the GTO. Considering the GTO itself was no slouch when it came to doing the bits where you go left and right, it actually gets more annoying.

One of these mags needs to do SVT Cobra v '10 SS v GT500 v Challenger SRT8 and RT v LS2 GTO v WS6 and '02 SS v Mach 1 just for kicks.

 

[Keef]

it's tons faster than the competition as well. the thing is pretty cheap, so there has to be a trade off somewhere. you're not going to get huge speed and mega handling for 30k. but really, its not like .9 is bad. evo 8/9s pull .9g and the 350z's didn't even pull .9g and they were lauded for handling prowess. (somewhat.) and lateral grip on a skidpad is also kinda like 1/4 times. a little more important than 0-60, but still not indicative of the cars total performance.

^ the mustang gets like .95, if the. .05 matters much, I don't know.

That little extra .05 isn't much on paper, but the buttometer says "Holy crap this thing is on rails". Yes, that much grip is a very noticeably difference.

Also, the Camaro is too heavy. That's just the bottom line. This thing has over 400 horsepower and can only accelerate with the 370Z, while not matching the handling of it or the Mustang. It's simply too heavy. They need to chop at least 200 pounds off this thing. It's about the same weight as the GT500, eh? Except the GT500 has an iron block 540 horsepower engine. I believe at least the King of the Road version pulled better handling numbers, too.

 

[Bones Brigade]

and a 70k price tag

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Appears to me that the Zeta IRS isn't all it's cracked up to be...

Or is there something else to blame for the car having the power to crack VERY low 12s or high 11s even according to trap speed, but only running 13 flats? It's a fairly heavy car with very wide rear tires, it should put the power down at least somewhat decently. Yet... Nope. (Cough, hack, cough cough, MM&FF had an '03 Cobra run 12.778 at the same 111mph trap speed with the infamous-for-wheelhop Fox IRS)

 

[Tornado]

I will say that every single car that has come after it has only made the SVT more magical.

 

[Bones Brigade]

Taller gear ratios? It should also be noted that Road and Track tested the Cobra at 0-60 in 5 seconds and the quarter mile in 13.4 @ 107.

 

[Tornado]

Road and Track never managed to get the final Cobra to go well, because that's nearly as slow as the "it has 320 horsepower, honest" 1999-2002 SVT Cobra.

The '03 car was generally accepted to be faster than the GT500 that replaced it (at least to the quarter).

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Taller gear ratios? It should also be noted that Road and Track tested the Cobra at 0-60 in 5 seconds and the quarter mile in 13.4 @ 107.

Handily, they were 3 tenths off everyone else in the Z and Mustang but a tenth quicker than everyone else in the Camaro.

Further, 13.4 @ 107 is Mach 1/LS1 GTO/99-01 Cobra times, not '03-04. MPH is a bit high for those cars but you could granny launch the Cobra and run quicker than that...

 

[JCE]

You are correct. The base is like 27 but that "track pack" is another few or so isnt it? so...29 - 34.

The BASE GT without that track pack is still putting down .87g~.89g. That's the $27k version.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who care about whether or not the Mustang GT is 27 or 32k.

Motor Trend (SS, Stang, Z):
0-60: 4.7s v 4.9s v 4.7s
1/4 mile: 13s @ 111mph v 13.4s @ 104mph v 13.3s @ 105.7mph
60-0: 105ft v 108ft v 109
Grip: .9g v .95g v 1.01g
Figure 8: 25.8s @ .8g v 25.5s @ .7g v 24.8 @ .76g


Car and Driver:
0-60: 4.8s v 5.0s v 4.8s
1/4 mile: 13s @ 111mph v 13.6s @ 104mph v 13.4s @ 107mph
70-0: 171ft v no data v 157ft


Road and Track:
0-60: 4.6s v 5.3s v 5.1s
1/4 mile: 13s @ 111mph v 13.8s (no data) v 13.7 @ 103.6mph
60-0: no data v 115ft v 117ft
Grip: .87g v .93g v .97g
Slalom: 66.8mph v 69.9mph v 71.4mph


Averages:

Camaro:
0-60: 4.775s
1/4 mile: 13s @ 111mph
60-0: 107ft
Grip: .897
Slalom: 67.6mph

Mustang:
0-60: 5.1s
1/4 mile: 13.6s
60-0: 110ft
Grip: .93g
Slalom: 68.85mph

370Z:
0-60: 4.925s
1/4 mile: 13.45s
60-0: 109ft
Grip: .9825g
Slalom: 70mph

More proof that the Camaro SS is a waste of money. I'll still take the V6 thanks. Much much much better value for money.

I'm somewhat disappointed that it doesn't seem to be any faster than the GTO. Considering the GTO itself was no slouch when it came to doing the bits where you go left and right, it actually gets more annoying.
Though I would want the V6 anyways, so whatever.

Isn't that ironic really? GM replaced the GTO with....a GTO that has a Camaro retro body. *shrugs* Why?

That little extra .05 isn't much on paper, but the buttometer says "Holy crap this thing is on rails". Yes, that much grip is a very noticeably difference.

That is absolutely correct.

Also, the Camaro is too heavy. That's just the bottom line. This thing has over 400 horsepower and can only accelerate with the 370Z, while not matching the handling of it or the Mustang. It's simply too heavy. They need to chop at least 200 pounds off this thing. It's about the same weight as the GT500, eh? Except the GT500 has an iron block 540 horsepower engine. I believe at least the King of the Road version pulled better handling numbers, too.

They really need to shed some weight or just increase the damned power. They wont because that would put the Camaro SS's bhp more than the C6 (435). GM can never have a car with more power than the Corvette can they?

I will say that every single car that has come after it has only made the SVT more magical.

+1 The Terminator is still the end all to be all modern pony car. It will always have a place in my heart.

And lets not forget about this monster...

Road and Track never managed to get the final Cobra to go well, because that's nearly as slow as the "it has 320 horsepower, honest" 1999-2002 SVT Cobra.

The '03 car was generally accepted to be faster than the GT500 that replaced it (at least to the quarter).

I'd love to see a proper test conducted by a professional racing driver. The only vs review I've seen was done by some clot who doesn't know his *** from a hole in the ground.

Handily, they were 3 tenths off everyone else in the Z and Mustang but a tenth quicker than everyone else in the Camaro.

Further, 13.4 @ 107 is Mach 1/LS1 GTO/99-01 Cobra times, not '03-04. MPH is a bit high for those cars but you could granny launch the Cobra and run quicker than that...

12.8~13.4 1/4mi is also what the ZR1 Corvette did...IN 1989. What's even more sad is the Camaro SS has done the 1/4mi in 13.4~13.6s IN 2000. The 2000 SS SLP did the same numbes TEN YEARS AGO.

 

[Tornado]

Well, in the defense of GM, Pontiac had those numbers 15 years ago, 10 years ago and 5 years ago. So its cyclic, I guess. Maybe Pontiac is just better than Chevrolet?

 

[Jay]

Isn't that ironic really? GM replaced the GTO with....a GTO that has a Camaro retro body. *shrugs* Why?

Well the GTO was Holdens modified version of Omega platform, Camaro is based of Holdens new brain child Zeta, which inherits the Zeta's major fault..... weight.

GTO wasn't selling well on the US, so they go where the money is (Camaro and retro styling)

 

[Paulie]

The major problem with Camaro is while everyone else went and made a purpose built sports car platform, GM went and decided to make a 4 door sedan with 2 doors and call it a sports car. WTF happened to Alpha? THAT'S what Camaro should have been built on if they gave a damn.

 

[buickgnx88]

Sort of like Chrysler with their Challenger!