Jaynen said:@oldopelguy I immediately wondered how good those 4 cylinder ATS's might be also
Should be pretty good being on the same platform.
Jaynen said:@oldopelguy I immediately wondered how good those 4 cylinder ATS's might be also
Should be pretty good being on the same platform.
There is even special chassis bracing the V series ATS gets for that chassis.
Nick (Bo) Comstock said:In reply to racerfink :
I never really got that complaint. And yes I have driven them. Like most things it's never as bad as the internet makes it out to be.
Same. The first 5 minutes you are in them, it is a little disconcerting. But then once you drive it a little bit you totally get used to it and can see fine.
This dopey parts kid at work has an LT-1 Trans Am and was talking about what a disgrace a 4-cylinder Camaro is. I then pointed out that it weighs the same if not less, makes more power and has a chassis that will outhandle his car. He shut up quick
Driven5 said:A base 2.0T Camaro on the nothing-special stock shocks and stock sway bars not only took the class win over existing DS cars by a 1.5 second margin, but also beat the entire more aggressively tired/suspended/powered FS field by .5 seconds, and would even have taken 3rd in BS?...Something doesn't add up here.
The only thing I can think besides the power and torque in the right place is street class requires stock width rims so the Camaro probably has a significant tire advantage?
In reply to Jaynen :
Just looking at weight, power, and tires, the Camaro is classed roughly correctly. I know this was a fairly fast course and many cars were on the limiter for a good chunk of it. Maybe the Camaro has a slightly taller second gear that helped there.
I put most of the blame on the driver.
Knurled said:Snrub said:Just for the record, 1LE basically means suspension, brakes from the next level up.
The V6 1LE has the suspension and cooling from the base SS (V8). There's no reason you couldn't build your own 4-cyl 1LE type car, but it's not going to help you with classing.
SS 1LE has the ZL1's stuff (eg. more performant magnetic suspension).
ZL1 1LE is the top dog and has DSSV shocks.
That... doesn't make sense. An RPO code *is* the parts on the car. It isn't dependent on what other options are on the car, just what chassis it is. That would be like saying all Camaros have LS1 engines, the 4 cylinder has the LS1 four cylinder, the V6 has the LS1 V6, etc.
Unless they're using the 1990s RPO code for a 2010s option package name, which is confusing as all heck.
1LE isn't the RPO code anymore. It's become kind of a trim level. The RPO for a V6 1LE is A1X, the RPO for an SS 1LE is A1Y, and the RPO for a ZL1 1LE is A1Z.
My SS 1LE has the same brakes as the 5th gen ZL1 (370mmx34mm rotors in 6-piston front, 339x26 in 4-piston rear) vs the 4-pistons on the standard SS. It has the more aggressive magneto shocks. It has the electronically controlled LSD with a 3.73 rear end. It has the Recaros with the suede inserts, suede steering wheels, suede gear knob with the factory short shift kit. Different tuning on the no-lift-shift. Black hood, black mirrors, black front splitter, special 3-piece black rear spoiler. Dual-mode exhaust. Extra performance modes and different stability and traction control settings. And it also has all the coolers on all the parts. The V6 1LE comes with the 4-piston brakes from the SS, the extra coolers, the same black accents, standard seats but the Recaros are optional, a standard non-electronic LSD, 3.27 rear end.
No 1LE package for the 2.0 turbo.
Also, I don't really find the visibility to be a problem. What is a problem is that you're sitting low in this big, wide car, with a big, wide hood that has two levels to its height with a bulge in the middle, and the 1LE's wheels are offset so that they are flush with the fenders rather than being tucked in a little bit. I've curbed both front wheels a few times. On those dark-colored wheels, you can really see the times I didn't realize quite how wide the car is.
But rearward visibility hasn't been a problem, and front visibility when you're not trying to see something below bumper level is fine, too.
And I've never had any problem getting anything into the trunk. It currently still has my track toolbox, floor jack, folding chairs, half a crate of water (but it was originally full), helmet, and a bag with cleaning products in it. Last night, without taking that stuff out, it had my computer back, Mrs. Lugnut's giant school backpack, and a full load of groceries. Cargo space is more than adequate.
And I ran a 1:19 lap at Blackhawk a couple weeks ago. That was on my second day out in the car. It took me a year of driving my E46 M3 RIGHT on the edge in order to hit a 1:19.
It's wicked fast and wicked awesome. It's rapidly become one of my favorite cars I've ever had. Maaaaaaybe finally displacing that 928 as my actual favorite. I adore this car.
This doesn't have anything to do with how fast that 4-cyl was at the autocross. I just took advantage of an opportunity to rave about it.
This link might help decipher some RPO codes.
Not driven the 4-banger, but the SS is an amazing chassis/engine/trans.
Lugnut said:Also, I don't really find the visibility to be a problem. What is a problem is that you're sitting low in this big, wide car, with a big, wide hood that has two levels to its height with a bulge in the middle, and the 1LE's wheels are offset so that they are flush with the fenders rather than being tucked in a little bit. I've curbed both front wheels a few times. On those dark-colored wheels, you can really see the times I didn't realize quite how wide the car is.
But rearward visibility hasn't been a problem, and front visibility when you're not trying to see something below bumper level is fine, too.
And I've never had any problem getting anything into the trunk. It currently still has my track toolbox, floor jack, folding chairs, half a crate of water (but it was originally full), helmet, and a bag with cleaning products in it. Last night, without taking that stuff out, it had my computer back, Mrs. Lugnut's giant school backpack, and a full load of groceries. Cargo space is more than adequate.
And I ran a 1:19 lap at Blackhawk a couple weeks ago. That was on my second day out in the car. It took me a year of driving my E46 M3 RIGHT on the edge in order to hit a 1:19.
It's wicked fast and wicked awesome. It's rapidly become one of my favorite cars I've ever had. Maaaaaaybe finally displacing that 928 as my actual favorite. I adore this car.
This doesn't have anything to do with how fast that 4-cyl was at the autocross. I just took advantage of an opportunity to rave about it.
Be my guest, I enjoyed the post and I think it speaks to how good it is.
In reply to Jaynen :
agreed. First modern stupid fast car I felt comfortable hanging the tail out on my second run. Turn in is fantastic, loves some slip angle and is just brilliant under braking. First gen GT500 I spun on the first turn. The camaro I never did spin. 5 runs I was within 1 second of the car owner who's run it two years.
I talked to someone who was there about this car. Part of the magic is there is an option for 8 inch wheels. (I'm 95% sure it's 8, maybe 8.5?) You need to option the car correctly to get the wheels, and I think they're 20's which is why everyone ignores it. However, you can up or downsize an inch in diameter in street so the winning car was on (if I heard correctly) an inch smaller very light wheels. This allowed for substantially more tire than the rest of the class. As always, it's about the tires.
My thought was that even though I can't get the good 1LE stuff from the factory, all that bolts on. I could run a 4cyl Camaro in the small bore class for One Lap and get the entire car, aside from the engine, up to the handling and aero specs of the good cars with the GM parts catalog. At that point it's just a matter of how much engine I think I need. And driving talent. 
This is just a theoretical build BTW, I don't think it fits into my current fleet/family situation. If $1,000,000 falls out of the sky, I'm going shopping.
mazdeuce said:If $50,000 falls out of the sky, I'm going shopping.
FTFY
Very impressive. I'm surprised that they don't offer the 1LE package on the 4 cylinder cars. It doesn't make sense as the car is classed such that it would make more sense on it than on the 6 cylinder cars, but they must have a reason.
As an owner of a 2011 SS I don't know that I would buy either the 4 or 6 cylinder cars. I know they are both impressive and would blow the old muscle cars into the weeds with their power and incredible chassis, but the raw power of the V8 cars is addicting. The only time visibility is an issue is when backing out of a parking spot with trucks and SUV parked next to you.
If I'm correctly reading my codes, the optional RS package for the four-cylinder car adds 20x8.5-inch front wheels and 20x9.5-inch rears. And as mazdeuce, notes, yep, then you can go up or down 1 inch in the SCCA Street classes. That's some big wheels.
Jaynen said:Driven5 said:A base 2.0T Camaro on the nothing-special stock shocks and stock sway bars not only took the class win over existing DS cars by a 1.5 second margin, but also beat the entire more aggressively tired/suspended/powered FS field by .5 seconds, and would even have taken 3rd in BS?...Something doesn't add up here.
The only thing I can think besides the power and torque in the right place is street class requires stock width rims so the Camaro probably has a significant tire advantage?
That doesn't change the fact that the 2.0T (base) Camaro certainly doesn't have wider wheels (or stiffer springs/shocks/bars) than the even more performance oriented Camaro SS...Yet is somehow still faster than that as well.
The weight difference is staggering. It's something like 410lbs lighter with the 2.0.
It is funny to think of a Camaro as a David vs the Goliaths, but that is what it seems like. Who doesn't love a scrappy underdog who triumphs against the odds type of story. That must be a good car with a good driver that is for sure.
ojannen said:In reply to Jaynen :
Just looking at weight, power, and tires, the Camaro is classed roughly correctly. I know this was a fairly fast course and many cars were on the limiter for a good chunk of it. Maybe the Camaro has a slightly taller second gear that helped there.
I put most of the blame on the driver.
Re: the bolded part.
People just don't realize there are excellent autocrossers and then there are people like Mark Scroggs.
No doubt that the latest Camaros are good cars but some drivers make them great cars.
Lugnut said:The weight difference is staggering. It's something like 410lbs lighter with the 2.0.
So apparently the (330lb according to GM) weight difference is more important than the suspension and power vs its big brother in FS, and the tire capabilities from the optional wheels are enough to overdog DS as well. I guess it kind of makes sense then that it would have taken the win in either class at Nationals, since DS and FS have virtually identical PAX multipliers.
From this vantage point and considering that it's still largely under-developed, it sounds to me like the 2.0T Camaro probably belongs in BS with it's (narrower powerband, 135lb heavier, and apparently-not-that-helpful SS suspension) V6 1LE middle brother, and along side the Focus RS it beat at both Nationals and in this test.
In reply to racerfink :
I have a 2014 Mustang and the visibility in this car is good. I remember cross shopping the equivalent year camaro and remembering the visibility in that being uniquely bad.
I am surprised the 2.0t camaro is this light, that is almost 370z weight.
This should be amusing, it weighs less than the STI yet has near the same power.
oldsaw said:ojannen said:In reply to Jaynen :
Just looking at weight, power, and tires, the Camaro is classed roughly correctly. I know this was a fairly fast course and many cars were on the limiter for a good chunk of it. Maybe the Camaro has a slightly taller second gear that helped there.
I put most of the blame on the driver.Re: the bolded part.
People just don't realize there are excellent autocrossers and then there are people like Mark Scroggs.
No doubt that the latest Camaros are good cars but some drivers make them great cars.
People like Mark us mortals generally refer to as "aliens"
It will be interesting to see if they let the car stay. They probably have the data now to justify a class bump.
I would not be surprised to see them all on the same line in FS over the off season.
David S. Wallens said:If I'm correctly reading my codes, the optional RS package for the four-cylinder car adds 20x8.5-inch front wheels and 20x9.5-inch rears. And as mazdeuce, notes, yep, then you can go up or down 1 inch in the SCCA Street classes. That's some big wheels.
I was playing around with the car configurator and ordering the 245 front/275 rear tire package automatically gives you the 3.6l engine too, for the 2018MY. The only tire/wheel packages I could find that allow you to keep the four cylinder are square setups.
Still, not bad. $31k got me a nicely optioned package.
You'll need to log in to post.
