[marsh2o]

Question from another thread (http://www.teamshelby.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=50445):

The acceleration figures for the new SLP Camaro ZL575 (0-60: 3.8 s, 1/4-mile: 11.8 s) seem pretty amazing -- figures that were obtained in a road test by Motorweek using stock Pirelli P Zero P240/40ZR20 on a 9"-wide rear wheel (video and other info available at http://slpcamaro.com/).

What I don't understand is: how are these figures possible with such a narrow tire and wheel combination on a 575 HP car that weighs as much as a Shelby?

There are lots of Shelbys driving around with 10"-wide rear wheels and 275+-wide rear tires that don't get anywhere near these acceleration figures due to a lack of traction. How come the Camaro doesn't suffer the same problem?

[ironpeddler]

Because this is bs lol. Just some bs posted times.

[GT500_ROCKS]

marsh2o, on Nov 18 2009, 11:51 AM, said:

Question from another thread (http://www.teamshelby.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=50445):

The acceleration figures for the new SLP Camaro ZL575 (0-60: 3.8 s, 1/4-mile: 11.8 s) seem pretty amazing -- figures that were obtained in a road test by Motorweek using stock Pirelli P Zero P240/40ZR20 on a 9"-wide rear wheel (video and other info available at http://slpcamaro.com/).

What I don't understand is: how are these figures possible with such a narrow tire and wheel combination on a 575 HP car that weighs as much as a Shelby?

There are lots of Shelbys driving around with 10"-wide rear wheels and 275+-wide rear tires that don't get anywhere near these acceleration figures due to a lack of traction. How come the Camaro doesn't suffer the same problem?

independent rear helps, watch the video and look of the car squats and bites down...we dont have that kind of traction with the rear unless we modify the suspension back there...

[mmm208]

...58,000 ! for a souped up camaro....sorry, gt500 looks better, has much better resale value(numbered car), and can be upgraded to match or exceed the camaro with a 500 dollar pully tuner kit! plus its 10,000 less...

also note that they are using drag radials...that makes a huge difference in accleration times....

This post has been edited by mmm208: 18 November 2009 - 10:20 AM

[ItalianStallion]

mmm208, on Nov 18 2009, 12:19 PM, said:

...58,000 ! for a souped up camaro....sorry, gt500 looks better, has much better resale value(numbered car), and can be upgraded to match or exceed the camaro with a 500 dollar pully tuner kit! plus its 10,000 less...

also note that they are using drag radials...that makes a huge difference in accleration times....

Oh yea....drag radials and IRS...this does the trick.



ItalianStallion

[Grunnsetning]

Weight distribution could also be a factor but I haven't personally looked at any of the camaro's specs because simply I don't care about them.
Not to mention weight transfer like someone else said.

[tee2]

that number may not be that far fetched. i ran a 12.60 on stock tires in my 2008 gt500, add a drag radial and drop 3 to 4 tenths, add 75 more hp and you may very well be looking at an 11.80 quarter mile time

[bhcsteve]

marsh2o, on Nov 18 2009, 09:51 AM, said:

Question from another thread (http://www.teamshelby.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=50445):

The acceleration figures for the new SLP Camaro ZL575 (0-60: 3.8 s, 1/4-mile: 11.8 s) seem pretty amazing -- figures that were obtained in a road test by Motorweek using stock Pirelli P Zero P240/40ZR20 on a 9"-wide rear wheel (video and other info available at http://slpcamaro.com/).

What I don't understand is: how are these figures possible with such a narrow tire and wheel combination on a 575 HP car that weighs as much as a Shelby?

There are lots of Shelbys driving around with 10"-wide rear wheels and 275+-wide rear tires that don't get anywhere near these acceleration figures due to a lack of traction. How come the Camaro doesn't suffer the same problem?

Doubt they ran the car actually on a track. Probably ran it on a dyno. I don't think with those tires and h.p. they'd be able to hook up all that h.p. on a track.

Steve

[GT500_ROCKS]

bhcsteve, on Nov 18 2009, 07:27 PM, said:

Doubt they ran the car actually on a track. Probably ran it on a dyno. I don't think with those tires and h.p. they'd be able to hook up all that h.p. on a track.

Steve

nope car was run on the track, its in the video.

[marsh2o]

mmm208, on Nov 18 2009, 12:19 PM, said:

also note that they are using drag radials...that makes a huge difference in accleration times....

Actually, for the track test that Motorweek did, they ran on the stock tires. SLP quotes time that are 0.2 s quicker to 60 mph and the 1/4-mile using drag radials. So the 3.8 s and 11.8 s times that Motorweek got seem to be the real deal.

It's the traction issue that really puzzles me. How can they possibly do this with a 240-wide tire?

[GT500_ROCKS]

marsh2o, on Nov 19 2009, 09:06 AM, said:

Actually, for the track test that Motorweek did, they ran on the stock tires. SLP quotes time that are 0.2 s quicker to 60 mph and the 1/4-mile using drag radials. So the 3.8 s and 11.8 s times that Motorweek got seem to be the real deal.

It's the traction issue that really puzzles me. How can they possibly do this with a 240-wide tire?

check the pic, the car is really hunkering down and hooking, what can you do, a 5 link hooks a lot better than the solid rear, my CTSV hooks amazingly better than the gt500 and my suspension is modded! see how the rear wheels are cambering in, there is some initial wheelspin then it bites and goes.
The camaro and ctsv share a similar layout except the cts gets aluminum components

Attached File(s)

•  camaro.jpg (57.84K)
  Number of downloads: 70

This post has been edited by GT500_ROCKS: 19 November 2009 - 06:34 AM

[ghodge]

[quote name='marsh2o' date='Nov 19 2009, 07:06 AM' post='850986']
Actually, for the track test that Motorweek did, they ran on the stock tires. SLP quotes time that are 0.2 s quicker to 60 mph and the 1/4-mile using drag radials. So the 3.8 s and 11.8 s times that Motorweek got seem to be the real deal.

It's the traction issue that really puzzles me. How can they possibly do this with a 240-wide tire?


I just pulled up by a new SS Camaro and talked to the guy. He has launch control on his. His comment to me was "I wouldn't want to race because I know what you have under the hood. I could take you off the line, but you would catch and pass me one your car grabbed the road."
Our problem is simple-lack of traction due to the poor weight distribution and the Goodyear tires combined with so much power.

[rsfdiver]

Most dragsters have solid rear axles...

[GT500_ROCKS]

rsfdiver, on Nov 20 2009, 08:28 PM, said:

Most dragsters have solid rear axles...

ya and traction bars and wheelie bars and....

[VNMOUS1]

ItalianStallion, on Nov 18 2009, 12:26 PM, said:

Oh yea....drag radials and IRS...this does the trick.



ItalianStallion

IRS= Fail.

bj

[marsh2o]

GT500_ROCKS, on Nov 19 2009, 08:33 AM, said:

check the pic, the car is really hunkering down and hooking, what can you do, a 5 link hooks a lot better than the solid rear, my CTSV hooks amazingly better than the gt500 and my suspension is modded! see how the rear wheels are cambering in, there is some initial wheelspin then it bites and goes.
The camaro and ctsv share a similar layout except the cts gets aluminum components

I thought the whole reason Ford decided to stick with a solid axle was because that was what everyone preferred for drag racing?

This post has been edited by marsh2o: 22 November 2009 - 02:49 PM

[GT500Tow]

marsh2o, on Nov 22 2009, 05:48 PM, said:

I thought the whole reason Ford decided to stick with a solid axle was because that was what everyone preferred for drag racing?

Independent rear suspension works well on any track. They just wont handle a lot of HP, or slicks. This isnt a big deal anyway. My car ran 11.50's with Pulley, Tune, CAI, UCA, on DR's. Cost about 1200 dollars total. They spent 23K

[GT500Tow]

Check this out. 14K kit to make less HP then a stock 2010 GT500 Mustang. I think Ford's holding its own right now. http://www.fastlanet...ge3package.aspx
http://musclemustang...test/index.html

[bullittmansparts]

I ran this fall at local track (Leister New York) . I ran 11.6 @125 with stock tires and with the traction control on, so the time is doable. I only have rear lowering springs and stock gears. You can run good times IF you can launch on a GOOD prepped track. I do have about 620hp at the wheels.

This post has been edited by bullittmansparts: 22 November 2009 - 04:24 PM

[marsh2o]

GT500Tow, on Nov 22 2009, 06:01 PM, said:

Check this out. 14K kit to make less HP then a stock 2010 GT500 Mustang. I think Ford's holding its own right now. http://www.fastlanet...ge3package.aspx
http://musclemustang...test/index.html

Hi Tow, I agree -- I think that, on the HP side of things, the GT500 definitely gives you the most bang for the buck -- I'm just puzzled by the ability of the SLP ZL575 to transmit this power to the ground with such a (comparatively) narrow tire. I've read so many tests, and heard so many stories, about GT500s and Super Snakes overwhelming their tires at the track, with tires >275 wide, that I'm really baffled by how it can be done with a 240.