0-60 and 1/4 mile time for GT350, R, and Camaro SS

[bpmurr]

No media embargo, just some upcoming reviews.

Who knows at this point. I'm hoping soon, just so it doesn't end up coming off a truck in snow.

Yeah that's the second problem. Why the heck have the 137 2015 units been sitting for months? If something is wrong it would be nice to get a little news from Ford as to why units haven't shipped. At this rate those 2015 owners might get their car a week before a 2016. It's not like the 2015 model has any special options/colors like the 50th LE that set them apart from a 16 other than the VIN.

 

[svtfocus2cobra]

Where does it say that???

"To the seat of our pants, the R felt stronger than the base GT350. Our Vbox agreed—though there was a negligible 67-pound weight difference between the two, the R beat the GT350 on both 0-60 (by 0.2 second, 3.9 seconds versus 4.1) and through the quarter mile (12.1 seconds at 119.6 mph versus 12.4 at 117.8 mph)"

These were not real timed 1/4 mile passes on a prepped surface, but instead a Vbox estimate on an unprepped dusty road

Its amazing how many people are using this as some sort of justification that the GT350 is falling short of expectations and some even contemplating canceling their orders. Lets order a factory track car, then cancel the order when one shitty magazine puts up a lower than expected 1/4 estimate :shrug::shrug:

Well I made a mistake by thinking we were looking at the Road & Track where they state it is estimates, but they don't list a 1/4 mile time, just their seat of the pants feeling. I wouldn't call any of these tests official yet though as shown above.

I'm assuming all the magazines were there for the same media day so their articles are based off of that day. From reading these magazines for years there is usually a preliminary test where they get a first look at the car and then a final test where they get more time and the hard numbers.

 

[DBK]

Yeah that's the second problem. Why the heck have the 137 2015 units been sitting for months? If something is wrong it would be nice to get a little news from Ford as to why units haven't shipped. At this rate those 2015 owners might get their car a week before a 2016. It's not like the 2015 model has any special options/colors like the 50th LE that set them apart from a 16 other than the VIN.

15's will be leaving imminently. Supposedly.

 

[Voltwings]

You just explained the horsepower calculation...

Horsepower = (torque x rpm)/5252, sure, but not quite what i was talking about. I meant the effective torque being put to the ground when you factor in the gearing, the point of gearing is to multiply torque.

I know i've seen it calculated out before, but im drawing a blank right now. I'm pretty sure this is along the lines of what im talking about:

http://www.ehow.com/how_8140164_calculate-gear-ratios-torque.html

 

[jtfx6552]

Horsepower = (torque x rpm)/5252, sure, but not quite what i was talking about. I meant the effective torque being put to the ground when you factor in the gearing, the point of gearing is to multiply torque.

I know i've seen it calculated out before, but im drawing a blank right now. I'm pretty sure this is along the lines of what im talking about:

http://www.ehow.com/how_8140164_calculate-gear-ratios-torque.html

If you want to know which car will accelerate quicker starting at any given speed, you don't need to take the torque number and do a bunch of calculations, all you need to know is which car has more HP at that speed.

 

[Voltwings]

If you want to know which car will accelerate quicker starting at any given speed, you don't need to take the torque number and do a bunch of calculations, all you need to know is which car has more HP at that speed.

So for the sake of example, all else equal, a 500 whp 5.0 with a 2.73 rear gear will out accelerate a 450 whp 5.0 with a 3.73 rear gear?

Or even better, a 500 whp 5.0 starting in 4th gear at 40 mph will automatically out accelerate a 5.0 starting in 2nd all else equal? I kind of see where you're coming from, and my examples are a bit of a hyperbole, but i disagree; gearing is a very big factor.

 

[GT Premi]

...
Or even better, a 500 whp 5.0 starting in 4th gear at 40 mph will automatically out accelerate a 5.0 starting in 2nd all else equal? ...

Yes, because of the underlined above. But I see what you're trying to get at.

 

[Voltwings]

Here, i found it, and its relevant because we're comparing two vastly different torque numbers between a S/c 5.8 and Na 5.2, and the gearing in the transmissions is night and day as well:

The way to look at how a transmission gear works is this: Let's assume for the moment that there are no losses in the gears due to friction. If a torque T is applied to a 2:1 reduction gear, remember that the speed of the shaft is reduced by the gearbox. Let's say we have an input torque of 100 N-m with a shaft speed of 1000 RPM going into this gearbox. What happens is that the speed of the output shaft will be 1/2 of the input shaft, or 500 RPM. However, the input torque of 100 N-m is multiplied by the gear ratio, so you will get 200 N-m out of the gearbox. The total amount of energy in the shafts is proportional to the product of the torque and the shaft speed, so k*100*1000 = k*200*500.

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/torque-and-gearbox.734302/


So he 5.8 has a lot of natural torque and doesnt need a lot of multiplication through the gearbox. Consequently, the lower torque 5.2 has steeper gearing (in the gear box, not just final drive), which improves not its Wheel torque via a dyno, but the effective torque it is actually putting to the ground. This is why you dyno in a 1:1 gear, to remove influences from the gear box.

My initial comment still stands, i believe the 5.8 still has higher effective torque, it would be hard for it not to; but the 5.2 is probably closer than most think.

 

[rwboring]

If you want to know which car will accelerate quicker starting at any given speed, you don't need to take the torque number and do a bunch of calculations, all you need to know is which car has more HP at that speed.

Gearing gets you to your max hp at a given speed.

I think that is what he is trying to say.

It can also be said that area under the hp curve in respect to gearing is a big factor.

 

[jtfx6552]

So for the sake of example, all else equal, a 500 whp 5.0 with a 2.73 rear gear will out accelerate a 450 whp 5.0 with a 3.73 rear gear?

Or even better, a 500 whp 5.0 starting in 4th gear at 40 mph will automatically out accelerate a 5.0 starting in 2nd all else equal? I kind of see where you're coming from, and my examples are a bit of a hyperbole, but i disagree; gearing is a very big factor.

It takes a lot of typing, but the key is the speed. I'll try to keep it short.

If two cars are identical except one has a higher numerical gear, the car with that can be in the lower gear at the chosen start speed will momentarily out accelerate (if they have traction obviously) the car with the higher numerical gear. He will have to shift sooner, so then that car will have less reduction and the car with the lower numerical gear will get his turn to pull.

In your second example above, the car starting in 4th will be at a much lower RPM than the car starting in second. At that RPM, the car in 4th will be at an RPM where the engine is putting out way less HP, and will get walked.

Here is a way I've explained it in the past that seems to trigger a light bulb for most people.

Say you have two identical cars, one has and engine with 400 lb ft at 2000 RPM, the other 400 lb ft at 4000 rpm. Which one will win a race to X MPH? The later car, because he can have twice the rear gear ratio and still make it to X MPH, so he will effectively have twice the torque at the rear wheels the whole time.

edit, in my attempt to be brief, I left out the summary, Engine B above has twice the HP as engine A, which accurately tells the tale that the car with engine B is capable of double the rate of acceleration. The torque numbers don't tell anything about the outcome of the race.

 

[Voltwings]

Here, i found it, and its relevant because we're comparing two vastly different torque numbers between a S/c 5.8 and Na 5.2, and the gearing in the transmissions is night and day as well:

The way to look at how a transmission gear works is this: Let's assume for the moment that there are no losses in the gears due to friction. If a torque T is applied to a 2:1 reduction gear, remember that the speed of the shaft is reduced by the gearbox. Let's say we have an input torque of 100 N-m with a shaft speed of 1000 RPM going into this gearbox. What happens is that the speed of the output shaft will be 1/2 of the input shaft, or 500 RPM. However, the input torque of 100 N-m is multiplied by the gear ratio, so you will get 200 N-m out of the gearbox. The total amount of energy in the shafts is proportional to the product of the torque and the shaft speed, so k*100*1000 = k*200*500.

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/torque-and-gearbox.734302/


So he 5.8 has a lot of natural torque and doesnt need a lot of multiplication through the gearbox. Consequently, the lower torque 5.2 has steeper gearing (in the gear box, not just final drive), which improves not its Wheel torque via a dyno, but the effective torque it is actually putting to the ground. This is why you dyno in a 1:1 gear, to remove influences from the gear box.

My initial comment still stands, i believe the 5.8 still has higher effective torque, it would be hard for it not to; but the 5.2 is probably closer than most think.

It takes a lot of typing, but the key is the speed. I'll try to keep it short.

If two cars are identical except one has a higher numerical gear, the car with that can be in the lower gear at the chosen start speed will momentarily out accelerate (if they have traction obviously) the car with the higher numerical gear. He will have to shift sooner, so then that car will have less reduction and the car with the lower numerical gear will get his turn to pull.

In your second example above, the car starting in 4th will be at a much lower RPM than the car starting in second. At that RPM, the car in 4th will be at an RPM where the engine is putting out way less HP, and will get walked.

Here is a way I've explained it in the past that seems to trigger a light bulb for most people.

Say you have two identical cars, one has and engine with 400 lb ft at 2000 RPM, the other 400 lb ft at 4000 rpm. Which one will win a race to X MPH? The later car, because he can have twice the rear gear ratio and still make it to X MPH, so he will effectively have twice the torque at the rear wheels the whole time.

edit, in my attempt to be brief, I left out the summary, Engine B above has twice the HP as engine A, which accurately tells the tale that the car with engine B is capable of double the rate of acceleration. The torque numbers don't tell anything about the outcome of the race.

We ended up saying the same thing, just from different angles.

 

[Mustang289]

I Can't believe anything written in MT about anything other than GM, it's clear they're on ObamaMotors payroll. Figured quickest SS time was in MT.

Based on the times provided, I honestly don't think so.


We know the gt350 hasn't been properly tested yet, the ss tests have ranged from motortrends 12.4@115 to auto weeks 12.7@112. 2010- 2014 ss's ran [email protected]@109 in various tests.

I honestly think the times motortrend is showing for the gt350(r) are likely to be some of the slowest the magazine drivers will get. They admitted it was a dusty surface and very hot. It reminds me of the zl1 test vs the gtr. Terrible test conditions led to iirc a 12.8@113 and an 11.2@124 for the gtr, again iirc. It was 3 years ago. I really think something similar is afoot this time around as well. I can't see how a sticky 315 tire, short gearing na car can trap 120 and only run 12.3, it's showing of a bad launch or bad driver.

It'd be like an 03 cobra running 13.3@110. Yeah it's not slow but it's way off the mark. I expect voodoo cars will dip into the 11's pretty regularly. I think a hero run might go 11.5@123+ in absolutely perfect conditions/the stig rowing gears.

I'm in complete confidence of dbk's comment. 11.7@121 will be a thing, it probably already has been. DBK doesn't mislead or run us a foul on this site.

 

[az20115.0]

I think this car needs something similar to the PDK transmission with very closer ratios and launch control to get it out of the hole.. And then this car will be an absolute screamer.. just look at what the 911 gt3 is able to accomplish with a mere 3.8l engine with a similar torque curve to the vodoo, just less of it..

 

[DSG2003SVT]

I think this car needs something similar to the PDK transmission with very closer ratios and launch control to get it out of the hole.. And then this car will be an absolute screamer.. just look at what the 911 gt3 is able to accomplish with a mere 3.8l engine with a similar torque curve to the vodoo, just less of it..

At that point, it starts becoming more of a bragging rights, numbers on paper type of car. The driving experience of the GT350 and R is what is going to make it so great I think. It's more than numbers.

 

[krt22]

I think this car needs something similar to the PDK transmission with very closer ratios and launch control to get it out of the hole.. And then this car will be an absolute screamer.. just look at what the 911 gt3 is able to accomplish with a mere 3.8l engine with a similar torque curve to the vodoo, just less of it..

Its actually sort of the other way around, the peaky nature of the smaller GT3 motor means it needs closer ratios in order to keep that motor happy. Yes the PDK will shift much faster, but the GT350 will require fewer shifts since it can get away with longer gears with its broad power band

 

[BrunotheBoxer]

Its actually sort of the other way around, the peaky nature of the smaller GT3 motor means it needs closer ratios in order to keep that motor happy. Yes the PDK will shift much faster, but the GT350 will require fewer shifts since it can get away with longer gears with its broad power band

Plus those pdk's are damn expensive and good luck fixing one if you fubar one.

 

[black92]

Camaro build is now up and I'm confused about the brakes. They say Brembos are standard yet it's a $3,175 option for for 6-piston front brakes? A 2SS with auto, brakes, mag shocks and nav is $50K and that's not going crazy with more options!

http://www.chevrolet.com/camaro-sports-car/build-your-own.html

 

[DSG2003SVT]

They have smaller 4-piston Brembos as standard.

 

[hognutz]

Camaro build is now up and I'm confused about the brakes. They say Brembos are standard yet it's a $3,175 option for for 6-piston front brakes? A 2SS with auto, brakes, mag shocks and nav is $50K and that's not going crazy with more options!

http://www.chevrolet.com/camaro-sports-car/build-your-own.html

Probably CTS-v/ Zl1 brake caliper but I am not 100% positive yet. way cheaper to add after you buy the car. the factory prices on those upgrades are through the roof. I did all 4 wheel CTS-V upgrade on a buddies 1le and I think were $1700 off amazon in and sold his stock take off's for $800.

yet at the dealer a zl1 brake upgrade kit was over 3K front only.

 

[Shaker1]

This thread is what happens when people get all emotionally invested in a car months before it's availability. And maybe even begin having doubts about spending a whole lot of moola.

Only one think that is certain, there will be something even nicer, better or more desirable soon after you plunk down your money. Of course, that is what rationalizing is there for. LOL