Camaro Turbo 1LE 390hp w/ Trofeo Rs.

Ok so I for one never seen myself in a Camaro or a Camaro without an LS, but I'm a techie, so I started reading the numbers and making some comparisons and I think this is the closest I'll ever come to NASCAR handling for the street. Why? The Curb weight, weight distribution, and tire clearances is the closest I've ever seen. Factor in the ZL1 1LE lap time at the Nurburgring and I see room for improvement. 

Wheels are an easy upgrade to ZL1 1LE 19s for Trofeo R 305/30R19s square. This is the closest I've seen to the NASCAR tall tires on a car with NASCAR weight that has been this affordable. ( I always thought it funny that people used Rally sized tires on cars that don't have Rally car weight, js.) 

For $2,600+ Vermont Tuning will upgrade me to 390hp with 7k rpm shifts so I won't be stuck in 3rd gear around VIR like the V8 is. Intercooler would be necessary for long runs I imagine.

I'm seriously considering doing this right now and would be nice to have some competition at the track. Dare I say I would be in 390hp 911 territory. Now that would be some satisfaction.

I like the Turbo 1LE a LOT.

it might be as fast as a V8 for one lap when tuned like you're saying. But the V8 will lap consistently and handle heat better stock than a tuned 4cyl turbo.

I'd buy a  V8 SS1LE and keep the factory warranty over tuning a 4cyl 1LE when it comes to the track. Autox I'd totally understand and agree with using the 4cyl and the weight advantage. 

I'd also just say screw it and run Hoosiers in those sizes because the Hoosier are cheaper than the Trofeo R. 

spacecadet said:

I like the Turbo 1LE a LOT.

it might be as fast as a V8 for one lap when tuned like you're saying. But the V8 will lap consistently and handle heat better stock than a tuned 4cyl turbo.

I'd buy a  V8 SS1LE and keep the factory warranty over tuning a 4cyl 1LE when it comes to the track. Autox I'd totally understand and agree with using the 4cyl and the weight advantage. 

I'd also just say screw it and run Hoosiers in those sizes because the Hoosier are cheaper than the Trofeo R. 

 

 

 

I've seen the overheating problems with other turbo kits on NA motors, but this actually comes with a warranty guard from VT, so seems like reliability may not be a problem. The stock motor seems detuned, it peaks at 5500 rpm but has a 7k rpm redline, so that speaks for itself. With the cost so low an intercooler would probably be a smart investment.

Would love to have Hoosiers, but they don't make a 265/35R20. 

The gearing and the weight of the V8 just takes the fun out of driving fast. There's nothing worse than tall gears and without a 50/50 weight distribution. That's why so many people lover underpowered Japanese cars, but Japan never seemed to want to give us a Turbo 4 RWD GT. Porsche did but dropped the ball when it cut into 911 sales, just like Mitsubishi with the Starion and the Eclipse. Just imagine what the Starion would have become with the FQ400 motor, that would have been a game changer. 

svxsti said:

spacecadet said:

I like the Turbo 1LE a LOT.

it might be as fast as a V8 for one lap when tuned like you're saying. But the V8 will lap consistently and handle heat better stock than a tuned 4cyl turbo.

I'd buy a  V8 SS1LE and keep the factory warranty over tuning a 4cyl 1LE when it comes to the track. Autox I'd totally understand and agree with using the 4cyl and the weight advantage. 

I'd also just say screw it and run Hoosiers in those sizes because the Hoosier are cheaper than the Trofeo R. 

 

 

 

I've seen the overheating problems with other turbo kits on NA motors, but this actually comes with a warranty guard from VT, so seems like reliability may not be a problem. The stock motor seems detuned, it peaks at 5500 rpm but has a 7k rpm redline, so that speaks for itself. With the cost so low an intercooler would probably be a smart investment.

Would love to have Hoosiers, but they don't make a 265/35R20. 

The gearing and the weight of the V8 just takes the fun out of driving fast. There's nothing worse than tall gears and without a 50/50 weight distribution

Mark Scroggs weighed his 4CYL DS car and it came in at 52/48, the turbo 1LE is heavier on the nose because of the extra fluid coolers, and the SS is rated at 54/46... we're not talking about a large difference in balance between a 1LE and a SS.  

I'd take GM's track powertrain warranty over an aftermarket manufacturer. 

I can fit 265's under my focus. If i was you, i'd get a square wheel setup and run hoosiers and put 305 Square, they fit without issue on the camaro. 





 

spacecadet said:

svxsti said:

spacecadet said:

I like the Turbo 1LE a LOT.

it might be as fast as a V8 for one lap when tuned like you're saying. But the V8 will lap consistently and handle heat better stock than a tuned 4cyl turbo.

I'd buy a  V8 SS1LE and keep the factory warranty over tuning a 4cyl 1LE when it comes to the track. Autox I'd totally understand and agree with using the 4cyl and the weight advantage. 

I'd also just say screw it and run Hoosiers in those sizes because the Hoosier are cheaper than the Trofeo R. 

 

 

 

I've seen the overheating problems with other turbo kits on NA motors, but this actually comes with a warranty guard from VT, so seems like reliability may not be a problem. The stock motor seems detuned, it peaks at 5500 rpm but has a 7k rpm redline, so that speaks for itself. With the cost so low an intercooler would probably be a smart investment.

Would love to have Hoosiers, but they don't make a 265/35R20. 

The gearing and the weight of the V8 just takes the fun out of driving fast. There's nothing worse than tall gears and without a 50/50 weight distribution

Mark Scroggs weighed his 4CYL DS car and it came in at 52/48, the turbo 1LE is heavier on the nose because of the extra fluid coolers, and the SS is rated at 54/46... we're not talking about a large difference in balance between a 1LE and a SS.  

I'd take GM's track powertrain warranty over an aftermarket manufacturer. 

I can fit 265's under my focus. If i was you, i'd get a square wheel setup and run hoosiers and put 305 Square, they fit without issue on the camaro. 





 

 

Oh, but that's what everyone is missing, 300 lbs is a large difference in handling terms, and taking 68 lbs out of the nose to achieve 50/50 at 3300+ lbs would be very satisfying. If I wanted a V8, I would just get a used Vette. Actually a Cambiocorsa with a manual swap and F430 mufflers, just for the sound.

I do like a square set up myself, always have, but I would have to get the ZL1 1LE wheels for the front and then it would be 19s and stretching 305s on a 12 for the rear. I'd also be further from the NASCAR tire height I've always wanted. The ZL1 1LE suspension parts do look attractive though. The goal here is to be faster than the V8. Maybe just using the entire ZL1 1LE set up would be the smart play.

A 305 won't be stretched on a 12.  A 245 is a very slight stretch on a 10.  It will actually be pretty square.  Should work awesome!

In reply to svxsti :

The SS may be heavier, but you're talking about track work. I'll take a V8 with a less than 10% weight penalty for a 15-ish% power advantage with 455 torque and Horsepower over the tuned 4cyl. I'd also rather have the magride on the SS1LE with the update Chevy performance tuning over the DSSV ZL1 1LE shocks myself. The magride just does a phenomenal job of hiding that weight of the car with being able to increase damping on the fly. 

A 4k lb Chevy SS with magride drives like my 3k lb focus in autocross. You can ask it to do a LOT of quick movement stuff that conventional suspension is very unhappy about. 

I look at it this way, I like the 2.0 1LE as I stated before. I like it for the reasons you do. But I wouldn't want to add lots of power on track. If track work was my goal I'd start with a V8. You will chase a bunch of money in the 4 cyl and I truly believe it's going to be less reliable and still not as fast. 

Definitely go and sit in or test drive one too, the visibility is so bad I wouldn't be able to drive one.

Why do you keep comparing the 4 cylinder Camaro on 20's to a NASCAR car? Its like comparing apples to a zebra.

svxsti said:

The stock motor seems detuned, it peaks at 5500 rpm but has a 7k rpm redline, so that speaks for itself.

Most likely what that says is that the turbo is starting to run out steam at 5500 rpm and can't maintain full boost any more. Most turbo cars these days seem to be tuned more for lower rpm torque and low lag at the expense of high rpm power. That doesn't automatically mean that they're "detuned".

kevinatfms said:

Why do you keep comparing the 4 cylinder Camaro on 20's to a NASCAR car? Its like comparing apples to a zebra.

Great question, the laws of physics never change, weights and measures. Not many cars that weigh near 3200 lbs can fit 28" tires square and allow you to experience that dynamic regardless of suspension technology.  Tire technology kept tires for the street small, that's why sizes meant for 2600 lb rally cars ended up on 3500 lb Evos. It wasn't until the GTR that "truck" sized tires showed up, but were really just close to what the FIA cars used. Alot of people come from a school of thought where the manufacturer knows best, and sometimes it's just to meet MPG. A good example is if you were to calculate the weight over the front axle of the best handling FWD cars and compare it to the weight and power of rear engine cars you would see a big difference in tire sizes. All those little tires are good for are late breaking flips I've seen over and over again. So yeah I'm saying if you have a 300hp Altima 3.5 Coupe then you should have 265/35R19s on the front, courtesy of a Porsche that weighs the same with the same power, and if it's square then you would have even more grip than the 300hp Porsche. 

svxsti said:

kevinatfms said:

Why do you keep comparing the 4 cylinder Camaro on 20's to a NASCAR car? Its like comparing apples to a zebra.

Great question, the laws of physics never change, weights and measures. Not many cars that weigh near 3200 lbs can fit 28" tires square and allow you to experience that dynamic regardless of suspension technology.  Tire technology kept tires for the street small, that's why sizes meant for 2600 lb rally cars ended up on 3500 lb Evos. It wasn't until the GTR that "truck" sized tires showed up, but were really just close to what the FIA cars used. Alot of people come from a school of thought where the manufacturer knows best, and sometimes it's just to meet MPG. A good example is if you were to calculate the weight over the front axle of the best handling FWD cars and compare it to the weight and power of rear engine cars you would see a big difference in tire sizes. All those little tires are good for are late breaking flips I've seen over and over again. So yeah I'm saying if you have a 300hp Altima 3.5 Coupe then you should have 265/35R19s on the front, courtesy of a Porsche that weighs the same with the same power, and if it's square then you would have even more grip than the 300hp Porsche. 

Makes zero sense and you're babbling a bit too much about things that have nothing to do with your Camaro. The GTR changed nothing in regards to tire height, construction or width. There were cars before it that ran tires wider and taller.

The Mitsubishi Evolution in stock form has a tire that can support its weight, performance, mile per gallon and heat requirements. It doesn't need wider tires or taller tires.

And yes, the manufacturer of a vehicle has to conform to certain requirements. Yet, you continue to see new vehicles use 275, 285, 295, 305, 315 and 335 size tires in performance applications. You think the GTR started that? I think the Viper and Corvette would like a word.

The 15" tires made by Goodyear on a NASCAR have nothing to do with the tire height, construction, width, grip or heat resistance of your tires on your Camaro.

A 305/35 squared setup will perfectly suit your "needs" on your 4 cylinder Camaro. Dont overthink it.

In reply to kevinatfms :

Appreciate the feedback but when you compare the FIA front tires for rear engine cars that weigh far less than street cars, ie. 315/30R18, you see that the Vette and Viper were so undersized for street applications. I remember the 254mph Callaway Sledgehammer used 275/40R17 square. Why? Because that's all it could fit. Testers always complained about how overpowered Vettes and Vipers tires were, especially at autocross events where the tuned AWD Porsches dominated. The only car that tried to use a proper tire back then was the McLaren F1 and that size never caught on until the Ford GT, CGT, S7 and Enzo that they started to get the height right and even then Vette and Viper we're sticking to shorter tires and wouldn't exactly call them analog cars now either, which is a school of  thought that doesn't include electronic nannies. The funny thing about EVOs and STis is if they were properly equipped they wouldn't need AWD, which is exactly what the Civic Type R has demonstrated. Again thank you for putting so much effort into my babble. GTi Club Sport with 265/35R19s anyone?

svxsti said:

In reply to kevinatfms :

The funny thing about EVOs and STis is if they were properly equipped they wouldn't need AWD, which is exactly what the Civic Type R has demonstrated. 

Whoa whoa whoa.... Time out. The CTR is a phenomenal car. But saying the EVO and STi wouldn't have needed AWD if they had enough tire up front is a BIG reach. 

My focus ST can fit a ton of front tire and benefits from platform sharing with the RS. But the RS is a faster car and benefits from AWD. I can keep cramming tire under the ST. But it will always lack 4 wheels of traction that the RS has for low traction situations. 

All of these drivetrains have advantages and disadvantages 

In reply to spacecadet :

Granted you don't exceed the traction requirements, you would still have the same exit points as the RS, this is why the CTR(not the Fly Yellow lol) is faster than AWD cars with the same weight and power. You have a great chassis to put this into practice. Over 300hp it does become impractical, unless you have an Outlander and GT-R size tires for an FQ400 fwd.

That Vermont Tuning package claims an additional 40% power (on E85) with no cooling upgrades.  I don't see this as a recipe for success on track. 

mfennell said:

That Vermont Tuning package claims an additional 40% power (on E85) with no cooling upgrades.  I don't see this as a recipe for success on track. 

This.

That said, I'm sure that 2.0T with mild bolt ons is still a ton of fun on track with a square 305 setup.

svxsti said:

In reply to kevinatfms :

Appreciate the feedback but when you compare the FIA front tires for rear engine cars that weigh far less than street cars, ie. 315/30R18, you see that the Vette and Viper were so undersized for street applications. I remember the 254mph Callaway Sledgehammer used 275/40R17 square. Why? Because that's all it could fit. Testers always complained about how overpowered Vettes and Vipers tires were, especially at autocross events where the tuned AWD Porsches dominated. The only car that tried to use a proper tire back then was the McLaren F1 and that size never caught on until the Ford GT, CGT, S7 and Enzo that they started to get the height right and even then Vette and Viper we're sticking to shorter tires and wouldn't exactly call them analog cars now either, which is a school of  thought that doesn't include electronic nannies. The funny thing about EVOs and STis is if they were properly equipped they wouldn't need AWD, which is exactly what the Civic Type R has demonstrated. Again thank you for putting so much effort into my babble. GTi Club Sport with 265/35R19s anyone?

Again with the FIA bullcrap. The Evo and STi have AWD for homologation purposes for Group A and Group N rally racing. Since Group R now governs all of it, they are broken into sub classes. Four wheel drive dominated so badly that they have two wheel drive classes to keep the competition viable. Please read into the classes as you think AWD is slower than FWD/RWD on a rally stage...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_R

A GTi clubsport doesnt need 265's on 19's for anything. You assume that based on your "knowledge" which is mind blowingly bad.

A 1992 Viper has 275 width front tires and 335 rear tires. Please explain how that is undersized? That was WELL before the McLaren F1 or the GTR or any of the other cars you listed. There were cars with wider and taller tires before the Viper also. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

The ZL1 has plenty of tire height and width for ANYTHING you can throw at your 4 cylinder. Stop trying to make apple juice out of lemons.

Oh and you keep talking the FIA but then you digress back to NASCAR. Which organization are you trying to copy with regards to your tire size?

At this point build either a touring/rally car or a tube frame NASCAR cup car since neither will be anything close to your Camaro.

1)  You can always use more tire.

2)  If you do want to run an insane amount of tire, a Camaro is not a bad place to start.

For the record I never referred to Rally times, only street car lap times, ie. VIR(Virginia International Raceway), which the Rally type cars are overweight and underpowered. AWD is really unnecessary under 500hp, unless you need help handling a car. This is why 4 and 500hp GT3 RS cars will always be faster than equal weight and power AWD cars. FWD cars can as well if equipped accordingly. I do find it interesting that FIA and NASCAR are close in tire height, with the NASCAR weight being closer to a street car than a WRC car. Sure, 245/40/18s work great, on a car that weighs 2600 lbs or doesn't have an engine over them.

GT3 RS cars are basically race cars and are built as such.  Similar power/weight awd cars are not.  That's why the GT3 RS's are so much faster on a race track.  Apples to oranges.

Race cars are track only cars and don't pass state inspections. It's going to be very satisfying when this Camaro is passing a 996 GT3 on the outside corner. Just have to figure out how to lose 400lbs lol.

In reply to svxsti :

Only if the driver in the 996 GT3 isn't particularly skilled.