[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by hotlap

There was all sorts of comedy in this thread after the ZL1 killer, 18 GT A10 came out. In fairness, it needed e85 too,
https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showp...&postcount=836

Ah the good ole days...

Thank you for finding that. There were quite a few who claimed an 18 GT could get into the 10s "easily with nothing but a few simple mods". And that they could beat Hellcats, ZL1s, Z06s, etc. I remember even on YT a few guys claimed that the 18 GT's real competition now was Hellcats and ZL1s and not the SS.

[Chadicus]

Originally Posted by hotlap

There was all sorts of comedy in this thread after the ZL1 killer, 18 GT A10 came out. In fairness, it needed e85 too,
https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showp...&postcount=836

Oh yes. How could we ever forget the ZL1 and Hellcat killing GT* with "just a few mods".

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Chadicus

Oh yes. How could we ever forget the ZL1 and Hellcat killing GT* with "just a few mods".

What was funny is that out of everyone who was talking shit about what the 18 GTs could do, not one of them had one.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

What was funny is that out of everyone who was talking shit about what the 18 GTs could do, not one of them had one.

It was seriously funny.

One thing we can all agree on. Give the GT one mile and 159 mph, it will beat the SS 30 out of 30 time ...in the real world.

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Were the LT1 engines not SAE certified also? I believe they were. And many of them were making 405 to the wheels. Which means that 455 number they gave was very underrated. Again I do not know if it was SAE but I think they were. If that is the case then I fully expect the C8 engine to be putting like
455-470 to the wheels. Which is what the C7s claimed to have at the crank. Or 40-60 more than what the C7s were making at the wheels. That alone is more than enough to drop ET by a significant amount.

And what about aerodynamics? Perhaps the C8 is by far superior to the C7 in that regard. I doubt it is any one of these things alone but everything put together that could allow the C8 to achieve more than the C7 Z06 could. Remember, GM switched to this design in the first place because the front engine design was very limited. It could be that the C8 took a huge jump ahead.

And I will repeat, comparing the C8 to the C7 Z06 looking at only the numbers is what many people are mistaken. You can't just keep looking at "650" vs "495" and finding it incomprehensible that the C8 Z51 is superior. Nor can you compare it to the other cars with ME design and more HP. Perhaps all those other ME cars are not as good as what GM could produce when only performance is the focus. We already saw that GM was keeping up with many of those Supercars in the past. Now with a better design I find it possible that GM could surpass them even if they have more HP or forced induction or AWD.

But we'll know next Thursday for sure.

Similar to 1/4 mile times from old pony cars, that 15% drive train loss figure is antiquated. It's more like 10-12% nowadays. Another reason to the list of many of why modern cars are faster than older cars. 455 crank hp with 12% loss = 400 rwhp. 455 crank hp with 10% loss is 410 hp (rounded up). Using the average of those figures is 405 rwhp. If the LT1 averages 405 rwhp and GM rates the LT2 at 40 more hp, then you'd expect the RWHP of the LT2 to be about 36 more rwhp than the LT1 (40 crank hp x 0.90) assuming the same drivetrain efficiency which yield 441 rwhp. Most likely, the C8 will have a more efficient drivetrain, let's say 9-10% in lieu of 10-12%. Assuming slightly better drivetrain efficiency, then it may be +40 rwhp, for an engine that is rated at only 40 more crank hp. I'd expect 445-450 rwhp at those drivetrain efficiencies. That doesn't mean underrated, it means efficient drivetrain. There are tolerance and consistency requirements for SAE ratings so I doubt it will be a 520+ crank hp engine. Probably 495-505 crank hp, depending on each specific engine's manufacturing tolerances.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by hotlap

It was seriously funny.

One thing we can all agree on. Give the GT one mile and 159 mph, it will beat the SS 30 out of 30 time ...in the real world.

On a dried up lake bed...

[newmoon]

Ok since we know the SS is slower than the GT and the ZL1 will soon be a lot slower than the 500, can we get back on the face saving 500 vs C8 topic.

[Martinjlm]

At the end of the day, if GM could have claimed 500, they would have claimed 500. There is a huge difference in perception between 498 and 501.

If we were talking the difference between 488 and 495, sure. But when you can click over that first digit, you do it.

[Ethanolic]

Originally Posted by newmoon

Ok since we know the SS is slower than the GT and the ZL1 will soon be a lot slower than the 500, can we get back on the face saving 500 vs C8 topic.

No, the forum tough guy says we can’t talk about those cars because we don’t own one.

[95 imp]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

On a dried up lake bed...

Over a cliff.....

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by newmoon

Ok since we know the SS is slower than the GT and the ZL1 will soon be a lot slower than the 500, can we get back on the face saving 500 vs C8 topic.

Yea it's just that you'll have to pay over $12K more to get a Ford that can beat a standard ZL1 and only in a straight line at that. And then there's the matter of a C8 that will demolish that GT500. So. Congrats I guess!!

SS slower than the GT? Ok. Congrats again.

Originally Posted by Ethanolic

No, the forum tough guy says we can’t talk about those cars because we don’t own one.

Dude, nobody even takes you seriously. Your only purpose here is to troll around. You have not added 1 intellectual or noteworthy reply to this entire thread. Probably because you have nothing intellectual to add. Most of us only reply to you to see you write something silly anyway...

Originally Posted by 95 imp

Over a cliff.....

LOL, yea...or into a crowd of people!!

[BlaqWhole]

Here is a link with some predictions. They predict a 2.9 quarter mile and a 190 MPH top speed.

https://www.topspeed.com/cars/chevro...QA1iRHRkvbekeM

[Baldilocks01SS]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Here is a link with some predictions. They predict a 2.9 quarter mile and a 190 MPH top speed.

https://www.topspeed.com/cars/chevro...QA1iRHRkvbekeM

2.9 1/4 mile? wow...

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

That wasn't the point shaffe. The point was that you can't say "weight per HP" anymore because those equations are antiquated. Also because there are many more factors that influence how a vehicle performs. I'm not talking about DRs. But since you brought it up, GM had those GY tires on the ZL1 that are basically as close to DRs as it gets without being a DR. Aftermarket tires are not making much improvement if any improvement at all over the stock ZL1 tires. And as far as the rest, that is exactly what I'm saying. That the 6th Gen Camaro made huge strides over the 5th Gen Camaro despite only having a 29 HP difference. It was because of al those things you mentioned (which I have been mentioning). The trans, tires, chassis, tuning, etc. So how is it that you can't seem to fathom that a Vette with a mid-engine design, 40 more HP, a way better trans, less weight, (presumably) better tuning, and a whole gang of advancements cannot make such a huge jump? We literally just saw a 455 HP 6th Gen Camaro SS beat a 580 HP 5th Gen ZL1 3 years ago. GM overcame a 125 HP difference easily. So how is it this difficult to understand that it is possible? They also literally have been saying that they cannot push the front engine design any further and that is why they switched to the mid engine design. And the literally just said that the Z51 will outperform the Z06 in every way. So I'm not getting how this is that complicated.

Well if they haven't then that shows just how good GM is at building performance cars. Because if they need all that much more HP to do what GM claims they are doing with "only" 495 HP, then that says a lot.

We are just going to go around and around in circles lol. I'll remain skeptical until we see the numbers. I'll be first to admit when I am wrong if I am wrong and i'll happily be wrong.

So for it to outperform the Z06 in every way.

0-60 less than 2.95
1/4 mile less than 10.95
Top Speed of over 205MPH

If that really is the baseline for a Z51 god only knows what the high performance variants will do.