[VAZL1]

Originally Posted by oldman

What? Summer tires are not "faster" than all season. You should put some base Camaro all seasons on your 1LE then and save some $$$$$$$

Total douche bag Quit feeding the old troll guys...

[KingLT1]

Originally Posted by lt4camaro

0-60 times are not a accurate indicator of real world 1/4 mile et. 60ft times, 330 ft times and 1/8 times are, that is what is measured at any 1/4 mile track. Also, you cannot compare boosted cars versus naturally aspirated cars, cannot compare automatic cars versus stick cars or automatic cars versus DCT cars. Certified horsepower, weight, boost, NA, rear wheel drive versus all wheel drive etc must all be separated. The Z51 C8 is quoted to get to 60 in under 3.0 sec ( probably 2.9), the new GT 500 ford says mid 3 sec to 60 (3.5) it it will trap and et much quicker than the Z51 C8. Thats why I say 0-60 doesnt mean crap as far as 1/4 mile et. The C8 is going to be a street war killer up to under 100mph. God bless corvette

Sure it does... I already explained it plain and clear.

0-60 can be just as relevant as 60ft, 330, 1/8th, and 1/4. They just don't use that metric on time slips because drag strips use distance traveled vs rate of time instead of rate of time to reach X mph. Either way they are still measurements of acceleration.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by lt4camaro

I am comparing the C7 trans axle drive train not a rear drive transmission in the middle vehicle versus the mid engine drivetrain, real world the drivetrains today absorb 15% . Look at Gm sae certified horsepower ratings, then get a bunch of good stock dyno pulls, add 15 % to those dyno pulls and your very close to the SAE certified rating . IMO, I do not think the Mid engine drive train will be that much more efficient on a dyno, maybe 12% versus 15%. Great 0-60 times are achieved by a super hook and no spin all the way to 60 and no spin during a hard shift. After that 60 to 120 will be slightly quicker only because of the super fast shifts and power thru shift that the tremec DCT allows instead of power interuption on a typical torque converter automatic and of course a manual trans even while power shifting.

The C7 transaxle drivetrain is a front engine, connected by a torque tube to a rear transaxle setup. The torque tube is somewhat heavy, and absorbs power. That's eliminated in the mid-engine setup. The engine and flywheel are directly connected to the transaxle. It's a much more efficient setup. The only loss now will be the weight of the flywheel, efficiency of the dual clutch, and whatever resistance is in the transaxle. With today's super synthetic lubricants, the trans could actually be quite efficient. It's a new trans so you can bet it takes full advantage of computer calculated efficiency in its design and performance. This is a state-of-the-art car. Results are going to be state-of-the-art too.

When asked about the performance, the engineers aren't suddenly grinning for no reason. They know what it means to say the C8 will outperform its predecessors. We'll have to wait for official numbers and track tests, but I suspect it's going to set a new standard and be surprising.

[lt4camaro]

Originally Posted by KingLT1

Sure it does... I already explained it plain and clear.

0-60 can be just as relevant as 60ft, 330, 1/8th, and 1/4. They just don't use that metric on time slips because drag strips use distance traveled vs rate of time instead of rate of time to reach X mph. Either way they are still measurements of acceleration.

First of all , I doubt the C8 Z51 will be a full second quicker to 60 mph and the 1/4 mile ET than a C7 auto trans Z51 . The base C8 and the Z51 C8 will be about 150 lbs heavier than the C7 in the same configuration. 11.50 quarter mile ET bone stock in average air and elevation is my conservative realistic guess. A Dodge reference regarding a Demon and the 1320 cars, Dodge says 9.65 on the Demon, no one has done it and 11.7 on the 1320 car, 12.0's are the norm on that car.
I know a tenth drop in 60 ft times shows up in the 1/4 mile et drop of that same tenth. Does a .5 diff to 60 MPH on similar powered and weight vehicles show up a plus or loss of .5 in the 1/4 mile et? I do not know...

[lt4camaro]

Originally Posted by Doc

The C7 transaxle drivetrain is a front engine, connected by a torque tube to a rear transaxle setup. The torque tube is somewhat heavy, and absorbs power. That's eliminated in the mid-engine setup. The engine and flywheel are directly connected to the transaxle. It's a much more efficient setup. The only loss now will be the weight of the flywheel, efficiency of the dual clutch, and whatever resistance is in the transaxle. With today's super synthetic lubricants, the trans could actually be quite efficient. It's a new trans so you can bet it takes full advantage of computer calculated efficiency in its design and performance. This is a state-of-the-art car. Results are going to be state-of-the-art too.

When asked about the performance, the engineers aren't suddenly grinning for no reason. They know what it means to say the C8 will outperform its predecessors. We'll have to wait for official numbers and track tests, but I suspect it's going to set a new standard and be surprising.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but the torque tube just sits there. There is a moving spinning shaft inside that torque tube, probably lighter, no universal joints etc I believe compared to a driveshaft with Ujoints. Flywheel and torque converter are on the back of the engine in the C7, and thats the main difference for C8 ,all will be bolted up directly. Synthetic fluids have been used for years , so there should be no gain there in efficiency

[KingLT1]

Originally Posted by lt4camaro

Does a .5 diff to 60 MPH on similar powered and weight vehicles show up a plus or loss of .5 in the 1/4 mile et? I do not know...

Yes it sure does...I have measured it with a performance meter. Anytime my 0-60 changed the 1/4 mile time changes the same amount.

My SS when stock went 4.2 0-60 @ 12.4 1/4 mile. When I did light bolt-on/e85, it went 3.9 @ 12.1 on stock tires. Went to a 305/35/20 Nitto 555r and pulled a 3.4 and went 11.55. So you can see clearly 0-60 has a direct impact on 1/4mi.

That is why I keep saying, if the C8 z51 actually pulls 2.8 0-60, it's going to go bottom 11's because I know from experience how quick a 35-3600lb car with 500hp will accelerate to the 1/4mi with specific 0-60's. A 500hp V8 @ 3500lbs isn't going to pull a 2.8 then fall on it's face to only run a mid 11.

I do agree being skeptical on the 2.8 claim. I am not saying that it will run that, I am just saying what it will run if does actually pull that off.

[lt4camaro]

Originally Posted by KingLT1

Yes it sure does...I have measured it with a performance meter. Anytime my 0-60 changed the 1/4 mile time changes the same amount.

My SS when stock went 4.2 0-60 @ 12.4 1/4 mile. When I did light bolt-on/e85, it went 3.9 @ 12.1 on stock tires. Went to a 305/35/20 Nitto 555r and pulled a 3.4 and went 11.55. So you can see clearly 0-60 has a direct impact on 1/4mi.

That is why I keep saying, if the C8 z51 actually pulls 2.8 0-60, it's going to go bottom 11's because I know from experience how quick a 35-3600lb car with 500hp will accelerate to the 1/4mi with specific 0-60's. A 500hp V8 @ 3500lbs isn't going to pull a 2.8 then fall on it's face to only run a mid 11.

I do agree being skeptical on the 2.8 claim. I am not saying that it will run that, I am just saying what it will run if does actually pull that off.

I will be waiting to see where the C8 actually comes in at on actual magazine tests. I honestly cannot see low low 11.s, naturally I will be thrilled if it does. I am a conservative realistic person that only dabbles in drag racing late model cars, and did a lot back in the day also with the 60's cars. Look me up if you see some actual real world tests in non hero conditions OK...

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by Doc

Yeah it will. You're eliminating the torque tube and additional connection points, all of which add weight and absorb power. The rear wheels on the C8 are being driven directly from the transaxle. On a front-engine rear-wheel-drive setup, the drivetrain loss is typically anywhere from 12-16%, with power being absorbed by the flywheel, clutch, trans, u-joints, driveshaft and differential. With a mid-engine/transaxle setup, it's engine, flywheel, clutch, trans. The trans and differential are one and the same.

Same as a FWD car. Which are usually around 15%. Same as an MR2, which is around 15-17%.

Just because it doesn't have a driveshaft doesn't mean it's going to be that much more efficient. I believe it will be SLIGHTLY more efficient.. but if it computes out to 10% or lower then GM is underrating the car more than the rear mounted DCT is being extremely efficient.

[Baldilocks01SS]

Some of you are failing to realize that when the DCT changes gears, it does so WITHOUT a loss of power. THIS is why it will out accelerate a similarly equipped vehicle that is using a conventional transmission. Like someone stated before, you need to change your way of thinking. This is why my AWD 3600 lb, 470 WHP Golf R can run 3 second 0-60 times and run 10.8 quarter miles.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by Baldilocks01SS

Some of you are failing to realize that when the DCT changes gears, it does so WITHOUT a loss of power. THIS is why it will out accelerate a similarly equipped vehicle that is using a conventional transmission. Like someone stated before, you need to change your way of thinking. This is why my AWD 3600 lb, 470 WHP Golf R can run 3 second 0-60 times and run 10.8 quarter miles.

Couple that with the efficiency of the fact that the engine is bolted directly to the transaxle, and you're going to see a very efficient power transfer to the rear wheels. I don't believe the base model is going to run sub-3 second times, probably somewhere in the low 3's, but the Z-51 might be right at 3 if not a 2.9. It's the high-performance models that are going to be sub 3 second 0-60 cars.

I wonder though, how many people who are buying these actually care about any of that? Most people probably care more about looks; both on the outside and inside. After watching a video where the woman who was in charge of the infotainment shows off all of what you can do with the system, that was impressive. This is a driver's car, and I mean that in a far greater sense than just 0-60 performance.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Yea man I'm starting to revise my thinking on this matter. I'm looking at other vehicles with a mid/rear engine design and around the same HP range and seeing what they're all doing. Cars like the Aventador, Huracan, Gallardo, Spider...they're all doing low 3 sec to high 2 sec 0-60s and are in the mid 10 sec to low 11 sec quarter mile range. Granted they do have more HP than what GM is reporting that the C8 has. But I'm thinking the C8 will be more in the low 500 HP range. And I'm seeing that the C8 has much more TQ than some of these cars. I'm starting to think that it actually will be faster than the C7 Z06 and we just might see high 10 sec times in the Z51.

Aventador is 690HP with AWD, Hurcan is 570-630HP depending on which version + AWD

The Gallardo is probably the closest comparison. 540HP and it was in the mid 11s

Again I sure hope the C8 blows my mind. I'd rather be pleasantly surprised than get my hopes up.

Originally Posted by lt4camaro

First of all , I doubt the C8 Z51 will be a full second quicker to 60 mph and the 1/4 mile ET than a C7 auto trans Z51 . .

This ^ that would be a hell of an achievement. Hope it happens, but I will remain a little on the glass half empty side lol

[Gen6_1Le]

Originally Posted by Doc

Couple that with the efficiency of the fact that the engine is bolted directly to the transaxle, and you're going to see a very efficient power transfer to the rear wheels. I don't believe the base model is going to run sub-3 second times, probably somewhere in the low 3's, but the Z-51 might be right at 3 if not a 2.9. It's the high-performance models that are going to be sub 3 second 0-60 cars.

I wonder though, how many people who are buying these actually care about any of that? Most people probably care more about looks; both on the outside and inside. After watching a video where the woman who was in charge of the infotainment shows off all of what you can do with the system, that was impressive. This is a driver's car, and I mean that in a far greater sense than just 0-60 performance.

My gripe since they first shown the C8 was there was not enough info on performance numbers . I would like to know at least how they achieved the sub 3 seconds 0 to 60 times . Almost everyone I talked to about the C8 believes it’s a sub 3 second car for under $60k . That whole show they put on was just a bunch of crap really, I all got from it was it can hold two sets of golf clubs and everything else is unknown. Kinda shady if you ask me .

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeROC

The 2 sets of golf clubs thing is so annoyingly stereotypical, IMHO. It'd be like Camaro bragging about mullets or BMW bragging about its d-bag owners.

I like the golf club stat lol. I also find it funny the mid engine C8 can fit two full sets of clubs and the Camaro cant fit 1.

[FNxR3DNECK]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeROC

The 2 sets of golf clubs thing is so annoyingly stereotypical, IMHO. It'd be like Camaro bragging about mullets or BMW bragging about its d-bag owners.

Honestly I'm kinda with you here, all I really care about is that the targa top can fit in the trunk(or frunk) after that it doesn't need much more storage space. I would be totally happy if the Z06/ZR1/whatever loses some storage space to be used for more go fast bits (coolers/batteries/electric motors) but I'm sure it won't be too drastic because the old dudes will still want to take their Z06 golfing and Chevy knows that...