[Iroc_Z28]

Originally Posted by ECS C6

Can you read?
I am buying a 2016 Camaro SS because it's the performance car to own.
Alpha chassis, LT1, TR6070, 3600lbs, LSx aftermarket, Forum community support, etc, etc, etc.

Judging by the way you communicate with people on automotive forums such as Camaro6, "community support" is going to be hard to come by for you... just sayin'

[90503]

Originally Posted by ECS C6

Can you read?
I am buying a 2016 Camaro SS because it's the performance car to own.
Alpha chassis, LT1, TR6070, 3600lbs, LSx aftermarket, Forum community support, etc, etc, etc.
If that isn't the thoughts, opinion, and post of a proud GM fan boy, I don't know what is.
Why does a brand new member and Cobalt owner like you think you have the right to question my GM loyalty since I've owned Camaros since 1993?

Plenty of people who already own Camaros have been banned from this web-site....Just by saying you plan on buying a Camaro doesn't guarantee anything here.

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by ECS C6

Can you read?
I am buying a 2016 Camaro SS because it's the performance car to buy this year.
Alpha chassis, LT1, TR6070, 3600lbs, LSx aftermarket, Forum community support, etc, etc, etc.
If that isn't the thoughts, opinion, and post of a proud GM fan boy, I don't know what is.
Why does a brand new member and Cobalt owner like you think you have the right to question my GM loyalty since I've owned Camaros since 1993?


I actually did sell cell phones......in 1992. I would never disrespect myself by owing a Evo. The GTR is the only Japanese car I ever respected, and it took a fellow ZO6 owner buying a GTR to change my mind about the GTR.

Nobody cares that you're buying a 6th gen. The reason people are calling you out is because you have a crappy attitude towards everyone. You could be the world's biggest GM fan and own the entire lineup but people are still going to call you out if you're going around talking sh*t about other people's cars.

[Phenix]

Not trying to read through all this bickering so I'm not sure if anyone else mentioned this already here...

Those tires there are run flats... Also the sizing information has been removed from the tire, but I'd think that some spyshots somewhere might have caught it.

[FenwickHockey65]

As a moderator on another site, there's nothing that puts a member at the top of the **** list faster than complaining publicly and being a smartass about getting infractions or scolded in a PM. Just sayin'.

[SuperSound]

Definitely hope we get a non run flat option. Not a big fan of the ones on my 328i.

[WHAMMO]

Originally Posted by ECS C6

I wasn't being a smart ass. I was being sincere about everything I posted.
You should probably stop publicly attacking me because you are only going to add to your multiple infractions.
When are you ordering your 2016 SS?

Again youre the smartass, hope youll be banned soon. You ruined this thread. Bravo!

[Phenix]

Originally Posted by ECS C6

How do you know they are run flats? I hope we get a non-run flat all season option.

Follow the link on post one and you can download a high res image. Compare with the Tire Rack image someone else posted. At about the 11:30 position there is a box on the tire in the GM image that says "RunOnFlat" with a bunch of run flat instructions/disclaimers printed on the tire from about 12:00 to 2:00. Tire sizing and loading should be down around the 7:00 position based on Tire Rack image. On GM's image there is nothing there.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by DenverTaco07

"The lighter structure also enabled the size and mass of elements such as the wheels, tires and brakes to be scaled accordingly."

Still not sure what this means, scaled in which direction heavier, lighter, bigger...what?

To me, it sort of says, hey, we have a much lighter chassis, we can put 20" rims on without any problem.

bigger brakes too?

or everything is lighter, wheels and brakes too?

It wouldn't make any sense what so ever when trying to lighten a car to 'compensate' for it being lighter by adding heavier wheels. When working towards a goal, why sabatoge your efforts?

No, a lighter car can have a lighter wheel because the wheel doesn't need to carry as much load. Lightweighting like this is known in engineering as being a 'virtuous circle'. A lighter car can use lighter components which makes for an even lighter car.

Thats how Ford saved 700 lbs on the F150 by making the body out of aluminum, which in and of itself saved about 350 lbs. Because the body was lighter, they didn't need as beefy components for the brakes and suspension and axles and frame and so on, which let them save even more weight. Note: this is also why the payload capacity for the F150 didn't go up by 700 lbs when they removed 700 lbs of weight from the truck.

Originally Posted by 90503

...I think I'm right....a smaller diameter tire will need more turns to go the same distance as a larger one....

I know when I put on my 19" track wheels and tires, the odometer is off by about 10%...

GM kinda takes all that into account when they're designing the cars in the first place. If you change it by downsizing (or upsizing), then it will muck up the factory calibrations.

[Phenix]

Right, they are saying that by making the car smaller and lighter they can go with smaller (and cheaper) brakes, skinnier (and cheaper) tires, and lighter suspension/drivetrain bits. This could save money for them, add up to more weight savings, and save money for the owners on the consumable parts as well.

[DenverTaco07]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

It wouldn't make any sense what so ever when trying to lighten a car to 'compensate' for it being lighter by adding heavier wheels. When working towards a goal, why sabatoge your efforts?

No, a lighter car can have a lighter wheel because the wheel doesn't need to carry as much load. Lightweighting like this is known in engineering as being a 'virtuous circle'. A lighter car can use lighter components which makes for an even lighter car.

Thats how Ford saved 700 lbs on the F150 by making the body out of aluminum, which in and of itself saved about 350 lbs. Because the body was lighter, they didn't need as beefy components for the brakes and suspension and axles and frame and so on, which let them save even more weight. Note: this is also why the payload capacity for the F150 didn't go up by 700 lbs when they removed 700 lbs of weight from the truck.


GM kinda takes all that into account when they're designing the cars in the first place. If you change it by downsizing (or upsizing), then it will muck up the factory calibrations.

got it - that makes sense.

[wakespeak]

Is the point of showing the wheels that they are light weight forged? If so cool, but I'm with most of the guys that some standard 5 spokes would look better. If those wheels have some concave shape, then it might work.

[CarGarage]

By the way.
I know lots of you have lots of time and are good with computers. Don't we know the wheel base or the length of the car by now??

Can't we use some spy pictures and some math and programs to compare it
To a car in a picture we do know.
Then we can use some ratios to see the length of the Camaro and the wheel size

Just saying

#mathmajor #butimlazy #engineer #phdforworkonly

[Autonaut]

Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369

HATE the wheels. Of course, that can be "fixed." What's depressing to see is Eagle F1's. Will this be another Camaro that needs $1,000 in new rubber to drive 12 months a year? If they want to stick these things on a 1LE, ZL1 or Z2/8 equivalent, so be it, but I hope they outfit the SS with a high performance all-season this time. When you spend $30-40K on a new car, another $1,000 in rubber so you can actually drive the car you bought is a lousy proposition.

If you want to drive your muscle car in the winter thats your choice. To me it's fair you go ahead and buy your own winter/allseason tires. I'll be happy with the stock tires then. I wouldnt drive these things in the winter anyhow.