[obzidian]

Mid 12's makes sense but i think a 3.9 0-60 is also a possibility.

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369

I like this analysis.

I wonder how the gearing with factor in? With an 8-speed auto and 7-speed manual, the rear pinion gear should be a little more aggressive, but there will also be more shifting to take into play. I wonder if this would actually hurt times for manuals...more shifting and all...

I can't speak for the M7 but the A8 will definitely not hurt either time. Shift times on the 8L90 are fast like a DCT and the first gear ratio is taller than the 6 speed unit it is replacing. Every car I have seen that switched from a A6 to A8 improved significantly in 0-60 and 1/4 mile.

[tswilie]

I am with you on the 8 speed auto as I am sure it will be quicker than the 7 speed manual, I am a row your own kind of guy,
There is something about shifting into second and leaving a couple of stripes that is intoxicating

[ULTRAZLS1]

Subtract around a half second from everything the 5th gen has done in the quarter mile stock or modded and that will be pretty close to how the 6th gen will perform respectively. I know other areas besides power and weight play a role but the 6th should be on par or better in these other areas such as gearing, traction, power curve and aerodynamics. It's gaining ~ 30 hp and losing ~200 lb. and don't forget now we don't have a neutered engine for the auto and it will have a nice 8 speed.


Therefore mag times will be in the mid 12 range. Hero time someone may crack into the 11s with the auto...with the stick I doubt it.

0-60 doesn't matter to me it's a test of traction and driver skill more than anything. Not enough distance to prove much no one races to 60 and shuts down lol... At least I never have. It matters but the 1/4 will tell the whole story. But it should be low 4s.

The numbers im thinking it will show is what I was expecting from the camaro in 2010. My car felt slow to me stock. My 98 ls1 would run right with it stock for stock.

[ChocoTaco369]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Subtract around a half second from everything the 5th gen has done in the quarter mile stock or modded and that will be pretty close to how the 6th gen will perform respectively. I know other areas besides power and weight play a role but the 6th should be on par or better in these other areas such as gearing, traction, power curve and aerodynamics. It's gaining ~ 30 hp and losing ~200 lb. and don't forget now we don't have a neutered engine for the auto and it will have a nice 8 speed.


Therefore mag times will be in the mid 12 range. Hero time someone may crack into the 11s with the auto...with the stick I doubt it.

0-60 doesn't matter to me it's a test of traction and driver skill more than anything. Not enough distance to prove much no one races to 60 and shuts down lol... At least I never have. It matters but the 1/4 will tell the whole story. But it should be low 4s.

The numbers im thinking it will show is what I was expecting from the camaro in 2010. My car felt slow to me stock. My 98 ls1 would run right with it stock for stock.

There are a lot of hopes and dreams wrapped up in this post.

[ilirg]

Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369

There are a lot of hopes and dreams wrapped up in this post.

Not really, bet mid 12s will be easy to get with the 6th gen.

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by ilirg

Not really, bet mid 12s will be easy to get with the 6th gen.

Agreed if a 4000lb+ Challenger can do it with 485hp, as long as we get the weight loss and 460hp.

[obzidian]

Challengers 392's put down around 420rwhp.

The lt1's also put down around 420rwhp.

The is definitely going to be faster. My guess is that at the very least it should be a mid 12's car @ 114-115mph.

Anything more than that would be icing on the cake!

[xgnxs]

Originally Posted by obzidian

Challengers 392's put down around 420rwhp.

The lt1's also put down around 420rwhp.

The is definitely going to be faster. My guess is that at the very least it should be a mid 12's car @ 114-115mph.

Anything more than that would be icing on the cake!

Just curious, where did you see that the LT1's put down 420 rwhp? The LT1 in the C7 is rated at 460 hp, so that would be a drive train loss of ~9%, which seems way too good to be true.

[IOMike]

Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369

There are a lot of hopes and dreams wrapped up in this post.

I don't think so. I think low 12's, 12.2-12.3 will be common for a GOOD time. Not an outstanding time, but a good time. Mags will report 12.4-12.6.

[NASTY99Z28]

The c7 has gone 11.4's bone stock so add another 300lbs and I could see 11.9's in a perfect hero run. Low 12's should be the norm with good conditions and a lot of high 12's low 13's for those who can't drive. Let's not forget you now get an 8speed auto with mag ride so it should launch pretty hard.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369

There are a lot of hopes and dreams wrapped up in this post.

Until all the official details are released yes I agree it's hopes and dreams. But if it comes in with the weight and power we are expecting I stand by my predictions. It's simple bench racing math looking at the improved power to weight and what other cars are running that are somewhat comparable.

[obzidian]

Originally Posted by xgnxs

Just curious, where did you see that the LT1's put down 420 rwhp? The LT1 in the C7 is rated at 460 hp, so that would be a drive train loss of ~9%, which seems way too good to be true.

Well.. anywhere from 410 and up. These are 7 speed #'s.

415rwhp @ 12.5% is right at 475hp crank.

Its dyno numbers so its not exact. The point is the new SS manual should plenty of potential to be the mid to low 12's. in otherwords.. faster than the stang!

Ford better be working on a DI version of the 5.0 unless they're not going to be competitive.

Wouldnt be surprised if Ford does a 2013 gt500 and tries to rain on gm's parade with a "release" on may 17th. Those punks at ford like to play dirty.

[ULTRAZLS1]

I lol at all the under rating posts etc. dodge guys are the worst. Under rating ended around 2007 with the updated sae standard. The motors make within 1% of the rating witnessed by an independent engineer as well as one from the given company. Don't feel like finding links but under rating is a myth now...very easy to google it. Differing drivetrain efficiencies and dynos are the culprit for people believing this. No factory freaks either... Gm certifies every motor.