[libertyforall]

I am very interested to read the power to weight ratios for the

I4:
V6:
V8:

It might be a bit premature, numbers might not yet be available.

Plus the future models unannounced...

[DGthe3]

We only know power, not weight. Not specifically anyway. But GM has repeatedly said that the SS will be 200 lbs lighter than the 5th gen. Its also been said a few times than for the LT models, it is probably closer to 300 lbs less than the outgoing car. Additionally, the V6 & I4 will weigh roughly the same.

For the 2015 Camaro the advertised curb weights are (in pounds):
1LS: 3719
2LS: 3702
1LT: 3738
2LT: 3802
1SS: 3908
2SS: 3935

That would put a 6th gen LT at somewhere between 3400 & 3550 lbs, depending on which model you're looking at comparing & how close to 300 lbs less it is. For simplicity's sake ... why not split the difference and call it roughly 3475 lbs.

A 6th gen SS SS would be coming in at approximately 3700-3730.

The best case scenario (lightest estimate + V6) works out to 10.15 lb/hp. The worse case scenario (heavy + turbo4) is 12.91 lb/hp.

For the SS, the window is a lot smaller ranging from 8.13 to 8.21 lb/hp based on what GM has said thus far.



Now that I've laid all that out, here are the best approximations that I can give for hp/lb
I4: ~12.6
V6:~10.4
V8: ~8.2

[DenverTaco07]

slight error, this is lbs/hp - just in your summary is all, but yes...what DG said.

[mt3130]

Originally Posted by DenverTaco07

slight error, this is lbs/hp - just in your summary is all, but yes...what DG said.

It is interesting that it is commonly known as a power to weight ratio, yet the commonly used measurement is weight to power.

[Jeffro19]

Hopefully in the next few months we will know the weight for all the models. The power to weight ratios will be very impressive regardless

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by DenverTaco07

slight error, this is lbs/hp - just in your summary is all, but yes...what DG said.

Well, at least I got it right 3 times out of 4 ... thats not too bad

[Vee8Thunder]

Originally Posted by mt3130

It is interesting that it is commonly known as a power to weight ratio, yet the commonly used measurement is weight to power.

yeah it's always been something I have to catch myself before getting them backwards in my head. I'm assuming it derives from "thrust to weight ratio" nomenclature from the aviation industry where the numbers are 1) actually written in that order to make the ratio referenced and 2) the numbers are in the same units to make an actual unit-less ratio.

On a slight tangent...

edit: meh nevermind. I realized while typing out my idea how many variations of the "correct" way to do it there are and the infinite arguments/debates that would ensue. Probably why peak HP is used since it's simple and easy for everyone to agree to. Carry on. But maybe a watered down version of my (and others' before me) idea of just taking average HP between 2 points in the RPM range (whatever that might mean in a standardized way of calculating it for all cars) would work as a better yardstick than just peak HP for comparisons of power/weight (or weight/power) ratios which are mostly useless except in relative terms across cars with similar drivetrain setups.

[DenverTaco07]

I think either ratio is valid and used by many?

lb/hp

hp/lb

[Vee8Thunder]

Originally Posted by DenverTaco07

I think either ratio is valid and used by many?

lb/hp

hp/lb

It's more psychological than anything I think.

Most people use lb/hp as it results in a number greater than one which seems to make people's brains happier than dealing with a number that is smaller than one. It's more intuitive/comfortable for most people (I suppose) to see that a car that is 5:1 lb/hp is relatively twice as good as a 10:1 car, than it is to see the same cars with 0.50 versus .25 hp/lb ratios respectively. Mandatory fractions make people sad. Leaving the ratio as 2 numbers so that math must be done in one's head each time makes people sad. The lb/hp derived single number lends itself to being rounded to an integer in many cases with no math-in-the-head and that makes people happy

[V6CamaroRS]

Originally Posted by Vee8Thunder

It's more psychological than anything I think.

Most people use lb/hp as it results in a number greater than one which seems to make people's brains happier than dealing with a number that is smaller than one.

Kudos for putting your finger on the issue!

The same turns out to be true of power/thrust to weight ratios as well. In applications where it's prevalent, you're looking for that number to exceed one. That means you have a very powerful machine indeed!

F-22: ~1.26
Mig-29: ~1.09
F-16: ~1.096
Harrier: ~1.1
Space Shuttle: ~1.5 - 3.0 (variable due to drastic mass change)

Since our ground machines aren't quite *that* powerful (though some days it feels like we're getting there!) lbs/hp makes a better number for our soft, squishy grey matter. :-p

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

....

Now that I've laid all that out, here are the best approximations that I can give for hp/lb
I4: ~12.6
V6:~10.4
V8: ~8.2

I've commented several times in the past on the power to weight ratio...I find it interesting. I agree with your estimates above....shouldn't be too far off as an average depending on whether you get I4, V6, or V8.

I like to compare them to the current 5th gen:

Base V6: 11.9
1SS (auto) : 9.7
1SS (manual): 9.2

As you can see that is quite the nice change in ratios. With mods it becomes even more interesting, for example the new V6, with just an extra 15 - 20 HP added, and maybe 25 pounds lost, its ratio becomes VERY close to a current 1SS auto.

[DenverTaco07]

Originally Posted by Vee8Thunder

It's more psychological than anything I think.

Most people use lb/hp as it results in a number greater than one which seems to make people's brains happier than dealing with a number that is smaller than one. It's more intuitive/comfortable for most people (I suppose) to see that a car that is 5:1 lb/hp is relatively twice as good as a 10:1 car, than it is to see the same cars with 0.50 versus .25 hp/lb ratios respectively. Mandatory fractions make people sad. Leaving the ratio as 2 numbers so that math must be done in one's head each time makes people sad. The lb/hp derived single number lends itself to being rounded to an integer in many cases with no math-in-the-head and that makes people happy

Originally Posted by V6CamaroRS

Kudos for putting your finger on the issue!

The same turns out to be true of power/thrust to weight ratios as well. In applications where it's prevalent, you're looking for that number to exceed one. That means you have a very powerful machine indeed!

F-22: ~1.26
Mig-29: ~1.09
F-16: ~1.096
Harrier: ~1.1
Space Shuttle: ~1.5 - 3.0 (variable due to drastic mass change)

Since our ground machines aren't quite *that* powerful (though some days it feels like we're getting there!) lbs/hp makes a better number for our soft, squishy grey matter. :-p

This made me chuckle a little, thanks for that - don't get me wrong I totally think your hypothesis is plausible.

I think though that most consumers don't even know what either of these means, or they don't even care - case in point all the posts regarding the hellcat's 707HP (and how can camaro possibly compete with that?) - this is for many the only number, (and is evident in marketing campaigns) shoot torque for that matter is often never brought up as well.

Anyway, the 6amaro is going to have a very good ratio.

[Doc]

To be realistically useful, it's better to use weight/power-to-the-rear-wheels which gives you a more accurate performance to weight ratio. There are resistance factors between the engine and the rear wheels which eat up a percentage of the crank horsepower and can result in slightly misleading perceptions of performance.

Currently there seems to be a power loss of about 12-14% between the engine and rear wheels due to various inefficiencies and resistance from things like clutch, trans, driveshaft, etc. That means 426 crank hp gets reduced by roughly 50-60 hp as a result by the time it gets to the rear wheels. So in reality (being optimistic) about 376 hp out of 426 at the crank is making it to the rear wheels, which means the weight to power ratio on a stock SS is actually more like 10.38-to-1, not the 9.16 you get if you calculate based on crank hp.

Things like lighter clutch/flywheel, lighter 1-piece driveshaft, more efficient oils in trans and diff can improve that by anywhere from 10-16 hp without doing a thing to the engine, simply by improving efficiency of those components and reducing resistance as a result.

The 2016's are going to be real performers.

[kal]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

I've commented several times in the past on the power to weight ratio...I find it interesting. I agree with your estimates above....shouldn't be too far off as an average depending on whether you get I4, V6, or V8.

I like to compare them to the current 5th gen:

Base V6: 11.9
1SS (auto) : 9.7
1SS (manual): 9.2

As you can see that is quite the nice change in ratios. With mods it becomes even more interesting, for example the new V6, with just an extra 15 - 20 HP added, and maybe 25 pounds lost, its ratio becomes VERY close to a current 1SS auto.

Just imagine how unmodded 5th Gen ss owners will feel when the I4's start turning up boost.