EN_VY

Like alot of people said over 400hp for 30K!! Thats a steal.

LexBob2

Good points. That's why I still keep receiving a couple of select subscriptions.

Bean

iTrader: (1)

LOL. Aspire to own? Dude, you own a GS350, not a F430. Do you know the definition of 'aspire'? When your GS350 can be taken to power plant and other large properties and clear all the environmental hazards out there; let me know. I make enough cash to afford either of those vehicles; but I definitely don't define myself or how well I keep up with the times by what car I drive.

For now I'll keep my 'paid-for' SC300 and laugh at the smug 'modern' car owners as I blow by them, all the way to the bank.
Yeah ok their, hoss. ROFL. I guess you haven't driven many SCs before have you? When they are clean; they are every bit as nice as the G37 minus some technology features. No they dont have the wheels or suspension like the G37 does; but guess what? You can ADD those as aftermarket parts!!!

Many people don't have to own the newest/greatest car to feel great about themselves Some of us prefer to modify a car to make it faster than even the new cars and for many reasons.

Newer Infinitis have been improving; but they're still a Tier 2 brand and up to about a year ago; they were BORDERLINE. The prev-gen G35 interior was garbage, just like every other Nissan interior. The M35 interior was better, but still at the bottom of its class. Flashy chrome/brushed aluminum trim does not make a good interior. If you've ever sat in a clean (1992 even) SC before, you'd notice how much higher quality the materials are. If you've ever researched the JZ chassis for just a little while; you'd know the powertrain components are stronger than ANY Nissan/Infiniti part of the time or even now (minus the GTR tranny, tho the V160 6-speed blows it out of the water).

Throw some gixxerdrew suspension on the SC300 and run right by the G37 in great comfort.

Sorry for the OT, I'm baited by people spouting misinformation. I think the new Camaro will handle better than any before it (though thats not saying much, its a safe bet). Hell, the CTS handles well doesn't it? I heard a rumor that its the same platform?

Bean

iTrader: (1)

I dont think its shortened THAT much is it? I've seen several Challengers already and they are VERY long 2-door cars. I thought my SC300 was long, jeez.

IS-SV

It's shortened (wheelbase) 4 inches to 116 inches from 120 inches (Charger). Challenger is a very big and heavy car compared to Camaro and Mustang.

Mr. Jones

I'm pretty sure the Camaro is on the G8 platform, either way while 304 hp sounds great, because of its high curb weight (3750 lbs) and high drag 0.37 cd (V6 model), it's not all that. 29 mpg also sounds good until you realize how tall 5th and 6th gear are, and how you have to go WOT for 5 seconds for the transmission to finally downshift.

Threxx

Where did you hear it takes 5 seconds at WOT for the transmission to downshift from overdrive? There's not a chance that's true.

The coefficient of drag is surprisingly high... I guess it's a side effect of forcing the retro look on a front end.

How tall your overdrive gear is makes some difference in highway economy but not nearly as much as you probably think it does. The limiting factor for most cars is how much torque is available at that RPM to prevent lugging of the engine or constant downshifting when going up hills or against headwinds.

Regardless of the weight if you've look at the acceleration numbers this car is putting down it's extremely impressive for the money and fuel economy.

IS-SV

Not so true about the limiting factor, when you are trying to "game the system" for high EPA highway mileage ratings . Borderline lugging with tall overdrive gearing is quite fuel-efficient at steady highway speeds, that doesn't mean the car is pleasant to drive though (those are 2 different things).

It doesn't mean that you will actually achieve those high mpg numbers when bucking a headwind or dealing with uphill grades or driving in real world conditions, which is exactly his point.

Threxx

I'll bet you that if you see what RPM the engine is running at, at say 60-75 mph, then take a dynograph of the new Camaro V6 and plot out how much power it makes at the corresponding 6th gear RPM of that range of speed, that the power will be very comparable to its competition.

What exactly is the effective final drive ratio of the Camaro V6's 6th gear anyway? Is there a number out there or are we just assuming it's tall since GM typically uses tall overdrive gears on their LSX manuals (and rightfully so... punch a Vette or Camaro SS in 6th gear and I assure you power will not be lacking due to highly available low rpm torque)

IS-SV

I was mainly dealing with fuel economy ratings in my reply. I don't doubt what you are saying about power on tap with these huge displacement pushrod motors. Since none of us know the exact gearing of the new Camaros, oh well.

Threxx

OK so yes it's possible to gain fuel economy as a manufacturer by creating a ridiculously tall overdrive gear that causes the engine to lug anytime anything other than flat neutral highway cruising is required of it. However that's a bit assumption for anyone in this thread to make without any specs to prove it. My reply was saying it doesn't make that much of a difference as long as you stay within a reasonable amount of available power at cruising rpm (and effective torque after multiplication). If you have a Honda civic that turns 3k RPM at 65mph and a Chevy Camaro that turns 2.2k rpm at 65 mph... to try and criticize the Camaro or imply that it's 'cheating' is just stupid and shows a lack of understanding of how a car is optimized for the power profile and output of its engine.

So Mr Jones... where are these specs that back up your implication that GM has sacrificed significant overdrive gear flexibility and power availability to create this 29mpg rating, and where have you heard that it takes 5 seconds at WOT (or anything even close to that) for the transmission to downshift?

IS-SV

IMHO, the evidence is the 29MPG rating combined with the so-so aero number and high curb weight. IMHO, I suspect a very tall overdrive top gear is part of the formula to achieve this kind of EPA highway rating. It wouldn't be the first time a GM vehicle had EPA numbers that couldn't be duplicated by most of us, although the newer EPA ratings have more credibility of course.

Optimizing for flexibility and power availability in the real world of EPA fleet ratings for GM is a more difficult challenge today. Wasn't it the Camaro that had that stupid forced upshift 1-3 feature on their manuals in order to achieve or "game" a better EPA mileage number.

For comparision purposes a more aero IS350 with direct-injected 306hp V6 is rated at 25mpg highway.

Just speculation either way you look at it.....

Threxx

For what it's worth, vehicle weight makes very little difference in highway economy. Aero does... but what's the frontal area of the Camaro? We can't know total drag with only the coefficient of drag.

IS-SV

I agree about the weight. I agree that frontal area is needed to get total drag, but I know that retro front end and wide tires are not helpful. In short bringing the frontal area into the mix, just makes it uglier.

I wonder just how few revs this thing turns at 60mph? (kinda of a practical way to look at gearing in top gear), probably pretty slowwwwwwwwwwww.............................................


btw - I know Mr Jones was just being casual in his remark, but I actually got his basic point and spelled it out.

Threxx

His point is based on a huge assumption... that GM has engineered this engine to where it lugs on overdrive on the highway. An assumption I'm confident enough is wrong to bet against it.

Aside from that lower cruising RPM does not automatically equal better mileage. Talk to some engineers... all engines have their optimum load vs rpm point for mileage... do some tests in your own car too... drive 55 vs 65 in top gear despite the significantly increased wind resistance and higher cruising RPM some cars will get better mileage at 65. It all depends on how the engineers optimized the engine and gearing.

Now lugging, specifically, will tend to increase mileage since it reduced pumping losses, but that's not just lower RPM, it's dramatically lower RPM.

For additional evidence on the lower RPM doesn't always improve mileage thing, look at the trucks out there that offer towing rear end gear ratios and notice that most of them don't suffer any mileage decrease as a result even though they often turn 15-30% higher RPM on the highway. Now in reality they probably suffer a bit in mileage, but it's not even enough to drop their ratings by 1 full mpg.