The Official Sixth Gen Camaro Thread!

[MX793]

Also, the C7 is a bad example since GM changed up the suspension options so that in order to get MRC you have to get the Z51 package.  On C5 and C6, MRC was separate and incompatible with Z51.  Looking at the C6, there are 3 springs and 3 dampers (soft, R&H, and sport) but only 2 sway bars: one for soft/R&H and one for sport.

[MrH]

Wait, so what's even the argument anymore?

[Eye of the Tiger]

Cut the springs.

[MX793]

Wait, so what's even the argument anymore?

That MRC will not be a comprehensive performance suspension upgrade on par with what the 1LE provides and that there will be room for a 1LE package despite available MRC.

[MrH]

Slightly stiffer sway bars isn't the make or break distinguishing factor.

What makes the 1LE so competitive is largely such wide wheels. 

[SJ_GTI]

Cut the springs.

+1

[MX793]

Slightly stiffer sway bars isn't the make or break distinguishing factor.

What makes the 1LE so competitive is largely such wide wheels. 

The wheel and tire package is the single biggest performance adder, but the springs and sways make a difference.  Even when fitted with the same wheels and tires, the Z51 Vette lapped faster than the MRC car in the C&D article previously posted.  And I pretty much guarantee that, wheels and tires equal, the gen5 1LE outlaps a regular SS.

[FlatBlackCaddy]

Cut the springs.

I hear that GM actually has a hidden menu within their system on MRC equipped cars. It allows you to set the number of coils cut(from 0-Stock to 4-RaceCar), it's pretty hard to get to. GM only releases the information to high profile race teams.

[GoCougs]

In the C&D article comparing suspension options for Corvettes, the MRC option did have its own spring compared to the base to make up for the change from gas charged shocks, which adds a spring component to the damper.  Total spring rate at each corner was the same between MRC and base suspension.

I notice you didn't look for sway bars. (Hint:  there are only 2  )

So GM added more "spring" to the MR leaf to exactly match the base spring? Nah, c'mon, man, and not only because the spring rate profile of a transverse composite mono leaf is gonna be different than a coil. They couldn't match it if they wanted. Additionally, MR is available with both base and Z51 suspension, which logically eliminates the situation by having its own spring.

I had stated "and/or" in terms of what attributes may be modified to accommodate MR:

Chassis performance is a holistic, systemic design endeavor and IMO MR alters chassis character too much to simply be an add-on. I'd bet a handsome sum that MR-optioned vehicles have accompanying changes at least somewhere - chassis stiffness and/or sways and/or springs and/or bushings and/or suspension geometry.

However, to wit, let's look a the CTS-Vsport front suspension. Again, multiple options - "w/o sport suspenion" and "w/sport suspension" - and again looking at price for the struts (~$115 vs. ~$450) the latter is the MR strut. Now also note there are separate call outs for springs and sway bars for each suspension option.

In summary, MR is not an "add-on" option to existing suspension. It is a complicated subsystem that works in concert with the whole of suspension - tires, springs, shocks/struts, sways, geometry, chassis stiffness. It requires unique/additional attributes in at least some of these areas as demonstrated in both the Corvette and CTS-Vsport.

[GoCougs]

Wait, so what's even the argument anymore?

The allegation was MR was simply an add-on to an existing suspension setup, and as such wouldn't/couldn't easily match or exceed the performance of a non-MR version of the same car equipped with a more focused hi-po suspension. I think that unlikely.

MR is complicated and capable - it is not just an "add-on" to an existing suspension as shown, at least with the Corvette and CTS-Vsport. I do not think the current 1LE could match or exceed a MR-equipped SS.

If the 1LE exists for the 6th gen, it will be a trim level (and in effect a different car a la GT350, ZL1, Z/28, etc.) OR it will exist but will require MR.

[MX793]

So GM added more "spring" to the MR leaf to exactly match the base spring? Nah, c'mon, man, and not only because the spring rate profile of a transverse composite mono leaf is gonna be different than a coil. They couldn't match it if they wanted. 

It's unfortunate that the facts don't support your opinion.

Since you apparently don't bother to read linked material, let me post the pertinent bits from the article, provided to C&D by GM's engineers.

From the C&D article:

Base and MSRC suspension hardware are functionally identical except for the shocks. The base car's high-pressure monotube gas-charged shocks contribute to the overall spring rate, so to compensate and make the two packages behave the same, the base car's front transverse leaf spring is softened slightly.

Suspension specs between the base, F55 (MRC), and Z51 on the C5 Corvette (F/R/FSway/RSway)
Base:  440/577/.91x.15/.68x.10
MRC:  457/577/.91x.15/.68x.10
Z51:  525/634/1.13x.18/.93x.14

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/suspensions-of-disbeliefsuspensions-of-disbelief-specs.pdf

This carried through the C6 generation as well.  Check 2005 Corvette suspension parts ('05 chosen because there were no Z06 or ZR1 models to muddy the waters in GMParts, more on that later) and you'll see 3 springs (base, R&H, and Sport), 3 dampers (base, R&H, and Sport) but only 2 sway bars (Base/R&H and Sport).

Additionally, MR is available with both base and Z51 suspension, which logically eliminates the situation by having its own spring.

On the C7, yes.  On C5 and '05-'09 C6, you could not get the MRC with the Z51 suspension.

http://www.c6registry.com/facts/2005.htm
http://www.c6registry.com/facts/2009-order-guide.pdf

Note how next to the F55 MRC option is says "Not available with performance handling package" or "Not available with Z51 Performance Package".  When the Z51 package was replaced by the Grand Sport, MRC became available across the board.

However, to wit, let's look a the CTS-Vsport front suspension. Again, multiple options - "w/o sport suspenion" and "w/sport suspension" - and again looking at price for the struts (~$115 vs. ~$450) the latter is the MR strut. Now also note there are separate call outs for springs and sway bars for each suspension option.

The problem with the GMParts website is that it doesn't give you trim-specific parts.  You need to be careful when looking at the parts it turns up to make sure they actually go with your model and trim level.  Select the CTS V-sport and you get all parts for all CTS trims.  All V6 CTS models, including the V-sport, have MRC as standard equipment (only 2.0T models come with the cheaper, regular struts), so the fact that the cheaper, regular struts show up at all is a big red flag that you're not only seeing V-sport parts.  Also, the V-sport only comes with the uprated performance suspension with no other suspension options.  Another red flag that you're seeing more than V-sport parts in the listing.

While all V6 CTS models get MRC, not all of them have the uprated performance suspension (base 3.6 is only available with the standard suspension, V-sports come with the performance suspension by default).

In summary, MR is not an "add-on" option to existing suspension. It is a complicated subsystem that works in concert with the whole of suspension - tires, springs, shocks/struts, sways, geometry, chassis stiffness. It requires unique/additional attributes in at least some of these areas as demonstrated in both the Corvette and CTS-Vsport.

Facts don't quite back that up.

[GoCougs]

Actually, the C&D article is for early gen MR, and well, MR even then it had its own spring (?). Unless you can cite a GM suspension engineer who works on the Corvette, I cannot believe that the spring rate profile of a shock with some inherent springiness used with transverse leaf A can be exactly modeled with a standalone transverse leaf B, nor can I believe that is what best suits MR performance even if it were possible.

Okay, so its shown that for current-gen MR its own unique suspension components, but what if that couldn't be proven? IMO basic control theory tells us.

MR is much more than "stiffness." It's about making the endeavor of damping a high bandwidth dynamical system, which in addition to dynamically changing damping based on road and vehicle conditions, it also begets such issues/concerns as bandwidth, resonance, and transients. So, as I look into my crystal ball, I probably see MR-specific springs not only having a unique rate progression, my hunch is there are some other properties to the springs as well.

To speak further to the MR as not an "add-on" system, I see that the Corvette's MR option also requires Performance Traction Management. Thinking about it a bit it's not a surprise. PTM turns stability control into a high bandwidth dynamic system too, courtesy of the high bandwidth effect and feedback of MR.

In summary, MR is a complex high performance system that requires unique suspension components and is integral in other performance systems.

[afty]

C&D has a review up: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-automatic-test-review

TL;DR: It's fast.  0-60 in 3.9 seconds and the quarter in 12.3 at 116.  Those are Corvette numbers.

[GoCougs]

Not only C7 numbers but also 5th generation ZL1/Z28 numbers, 2nd gen CTS-V numbers and M4 numbers, etc., etc.

Any surprise it's class leading/world class given the LT-1, new Alpha chassis underpinning the ATS and higher price point ($47k as-tested!)? Hell, no!

[Rich]

1SS M/T
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-first-test-review/

V6
http://www.autoblog.com/2015/10/16/2016-chevrolet-camaro-first-drive-review-video/

[MX793]

C&D's is a bit more comprehensive.  The highlights:
-Impressively fast (well faster than the Mustang)
-Good handling without compromising ride quality (theirs had Magneride)
-Interior quality is improved but still with some notable cheapness (their tester stickered at over $47k).  Also some minor ergonomic issues with the layout.
-Interior feels much more cramped than the Mustang.
-Outward visibility is still "abysmal".  According to them, just as bad as the outgoing model.

[SJ_GTI]

Not only C7 numbers but also 5th generation ZL1/Z28 numbers, 2nd gen CTS-V numbers and M4 numbers, etc., etc.

Any surprise it's class leading/world class given the LT-1, new Alpha chassis underpinning the ATS and higher price point ($47k as-tested!)? Hell, no!

Sounds like it was loaded to the hilt. The MT test car was ~38k.

[12,000 RPM]

C&D has a review up: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-automatic-test-review

TL;DR: It's fast.  0-60 in 3.9 seconds and the quarter in 12.3 at 116.  Those are Corvette numbers.

Impressive, indeed.

I'm still wondering if the C7 Z51 is a better value though. I feel like it will be more practical and that much better to drive. Just like with the ATS GM delivered the goods WRT hauling the mail........................................... but they dropped the ball on a lot of other stuff.

Still though. Fuck. 12 second quarter mile for $35K. If performance per $$$ is your guiding metric this thing delivers in spades

[MX793]

Base price for a 1SS is over $37k now.

[GoCougs]

Dating back to the first Camaro of 1967, I think it's always been the better car (or at least the one I prefer more) than the Corvette and it's even more so today - better styling, more practical, fantastic driving experience (esp. the ZL1, which was simply a better car than the C6 for the same money) and will hold up better over the years.

This new Camaro just rewrote the book on budget performance let alone the "pony car" class. I'm still hopping for a N/A equivalent to the GT350 but nothing official yet from GM. The ZL1 was the best of the bunch but it was a bit too much of a dreadnought for my tastes. Give me an SS with a N/A "LT7" w/550-575 hp and call it a day. 

[SJ_GTI]

Base price for a 1SS is over $37k now.

I wonder if that was always the target price or if they became the target after the Mustang was released (and they realized the performance from the new SS was enough above the Mustang GT to conceptually make it worth it).

[12,000 RPM]

Dating back to the first Camaro of 1967, I think it's always been the better car (or at least the one I prefer more) than the Corvette and it's even more so today - better styling, more practical, fantastic driving experience (esp. the ZL1, which was simply a better car than the C6 for the same money) and will hold up better over the years.

This new Camaro just rewrote the book on budget performance let alone the "pony car" class. I'm still hopping for a N/A equivalent to the GT350 but nothing official yet from GM. The ZL1 was the best of the bunch but it was a bit too much of a dreadnought for my tastes. Give me an SS with a N/A "LT7" w/550-575 hp and call it a day.

I think this might be the first Camaro that is less practical than the Vette. Only thing it has on the Vette is the rear parcel shelf they call a back seat.

[GoCougs]

I wonder if that was always the target price or if they became the target after the Mustang was released (and they realized the performance from the new SS was enough above the Mustang GT to conceptually make it worth it).

Takes 4-5+ years to design a car (which includes design of the pricing structure) so my bet is that was price point from the beginning. Plus, the Camaro has almost always cost a bit more than the Mustang.

[GoCougs]

I think this might be the first Camaro that is less practical than the Vette. Only thing it has on the Vette is the rear parcel shelf they call a back seat.

Have you ever been within 10' of a modern Corvette? I can't imagine anyone that has agreeing with your statement.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

I think this might be the first Camaro that is less practical than the Vette. Only thing it has on the Vette is the rear parcel shelf they call a back seat.

You bugging! LOL!! The Vette can hold a lot of stuff but it will always be less practical than the Camaro!

[giant_mtb]

Camaro less practical than Corvette?  Whaaaaa?

[Eye of the Tiger]

Vette has better visibility, better MPG, and is a hatchback

[Rich]

Road and Track test of a ?SS 8AT

http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/first-drives/a27066/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-first-drive/

[Rich]

V6 2LT 6MT

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-chevrolet-camaro-v-6-manual-test-review

[12,000 RPM]

Vette has better visibility, better MPG, and is a hatchback

Exactly.

I suppose if you need a back seat more than you need a trunk the Camaro may be better, but only if you need that back seat for children and midgets. Vette has more headroom, will be easier to park if you live in a city or go into one a lot, etc. etc. I'd rather have no back seat than a back seat that is not 100% usable.