(http://o.aolcdn.com/dims-global/dims3/GLOB/legacy_thumbnail/750x422/quality/95/http://www.blogcdn.com/slideshows/images/slides/383/263/0/S3832630/slug/l/2017-chevy-camar-zl1004-1.jpg)
(http://o.aolcdn.com/dims-global/dims3/GLOB/legacy_thumbnail/750x422/quality/95/http://www.blogcdn.com/slideshows/images/slides/383/263/3/S3832633/slug/l/2017-chevy-camar-zl1007-1.jpg)
(http://o.aolcdn.com/dims-global/dims3/GLOB/legacy_thumbnail/750x422/quality/95/http://www.blogcdn.com/slideshows/images/slides/383/263/7/S3832637/slug/l/2017-chevy-camar-zl1011-1.jpg)
QuoteDan Ammann is president of General Motors. He oversees the company's vast industrial empire. Everything from sales figures to factories to door handles on the Chevy Cruze lands on his desk when it reaches critical status.
But on this evening in the Nevada desert, he's GM's ace test driver, a role he's sharing with the company's executive vice president of product development, Mark Reuss. They're giving hot laps (that's us riding shotgun in the video above) around the twisting road course at Spring Mountain, showcasing the raw power and track capability of the company's newest sports car, the 2017 Camaro ZL1. GM's corporate officers don't usually give joyrides, but the Camaro ZL1 isn't a typical car.
Its runs a supercharged 6.2-liter V8 cranking out an estimated 640 horsepower and 640 pound-feet of torque. Codenamed LT4, you know this engine from the Corvette Z06. That power allows the 2017 ZL1 to outgun the '15 model by 60 hp and 84 lb-ft. "This is the hammer in the Camaro lineup for Gen Six," Reuss said. It will go on sale late this year.
All of that power will be hooked to GM's first use of its long-awaited 10-speed automatic transmission with paddle shifters, which is tuned for the prodigious output of the ZL1. More significantly, the gearbox will be in eight vehicles by the end of 2018. Enthusiasts, rest assured: the ZL1 will also offer a standard six-speed manual transmission with rev matching.
The powertrain is the attention-getter, but the chassis is also tuned for performance. It has a Magnetic Ride suspension, an electronic limited-slip differential, and performance traction management. It rolls on 20-inch forged aluminum wheels wrapped in Goodyear Eagle F1 Supercar tires with a special compound developed for this car. Stopping comes from six-piston Brembos with two-piece rotors.
The exterior design is all about aerodynamics, and a larger lower grille provides more airflow than the one on the SS. There's also Chevy's "flow-tie" badge, which is simply a cutout of the iconic Bow Tie to let more air pass through. Chevy also added a new hood with a carbon-fiber insert, a larger front splitter, and a wing in back. Wider fenders and unique rocker panels punctuate the look. The cabin has Recaro seats, a suede flat-bottom steering wheel, and an optional Performance Data Recorder. Other nifty features include 11 heat exchangers to cool the powertrain, a drive-mode selector, and dual-mode exhaust.
While the ZL1 is more powerful and more sophisticated, it will weigh considerably less, in line with the rest of its Gen Six siblings. Chevy estimates the ZL1 will be 200 pounds lighter than its predecessor thanks to the Camaro's lighter architecture that promises better handling.
We can confirm the Camaro is beyond track capable. After our hot lap with Ammann, he kept flogging the ZL1 around Spring Mountain with other media members aboard. Finally, he and Reuss passed the keys to another set of engineers, who kept running laps until the sky was dark and the brakes glowed bright orange.
"It was terrible, he quipped in his New Zealand accent. "I'd rather be at the Ren Cen [GM headquarters]."
Clad in a sweaty black Camaro vs. Everybody T-Shirt, a Shinola watch, and blue jeans, Ammann sipped a bottle of water and took casual questions from journalists. Why do this? Obviously, the president of GM has a lot on his plate. "It shows that we're paying attention to what's going on," he replied. Right now, that's clearly the Camaro ZL1.
Cliffs:
LT4
10 spd auto or 6MT
FLOWTIE
200 pounds lighter than its predecessor
Doesn't overheat
200 lbs lighter is still ~3,900 lbs. Still gonna be a world beater though - take the current SS and turn it up to 11, plus I can't think of any 600+ hp cars under 4,000 lbs this side of a $170k+ R8 V10. I wouldn't be surprised if it about ties the Z06 in overall performance and exceeds it in driving experience.
Still not totally appealing to me. I am far more interested in a livable ~$50k Z28 with a N/A ~550 hp "LT7," MagneRide and M/T.
GT350 time on top is gonna be short lived! :cheers:
10 speed auto is dumb, but I guess that doesn't really matter since you should get the stickshift anyway.
Lol 10 speed, this thing would curb stomp everything with a Powerglide
It does not look attractive, design just seems incoherent in some way, at least that's the vibe I get looking at the pictures.
I see it's running the LT4, hopefully with that gaping maw it won't overheat all the time like the vette's, but that might be offset by the extra 500lbs this car has to carry.
Which brings me to the weight, unacceptable. There is NO rationalizing a 4000lb 2 seat sports car to anyone with half a brain.
This isn't a sports car though, it's a magazine test time generator
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on March 15, 2016, 11:47:14 PM
GT350 time on top is gonna be short lived! :cheers:
With 120 more horsepower, it better be a lot faster than the GT350. Although the GT350R is 300 lbs lighter than this car.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 16, 2016, 09:29:12 AM
Although the GT350R is 300 lbs lighter than this car.
From what I've learned in the past few years, weight no longer matters and a 5000 lb X6 can handle as well as anything. I don't know how, but engineers no longer follow the laws of physics.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 16, 2016, 09:29:12 AM
With 120 more horsepower, it better be a lot faster than the GT350. Although the GT350R is 300 lbs lighter than this car.
The SS is nipping at the GT350s heels with LESS horsepower. This car will destroy it.........
Quote from: CaminoRacer on March 16, 2016, 09:55:16 AM
From what I've learned in the past few years, weight no longer matters and a 5000 lb X6 can handle as well as anything. I don't know how, but engineers no longer follow the laws of physics.
You're right! It's crazy how these High performance SUVs/CUVs handle!
If I'm honest, people who complain about weight are ignorant of both engineering and history.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 15, 2016, 10:50:48 PM
200 lbs lighter is still ~3,900 lbs. Still gonna be a world beater though - take the current SS and turn it up to 11, plus I can't think of any 600+ hp cars under 4,000 lbs this side of a $170k+ R8 V10. I wouldn't be surprised if it about ties the Z06 in overall performance and exceeds it in driving experience.
Still not totally appealing to me. I am far more interested in a livable ~$50k Z28 with a N/A ~550 hp "LT7," MagneRide and M/T.
Just remembered the selling-10-a-month Viper, and it's even cheaper, at like $90k, but sadly, it's such a purposefully awful car to live with, not sure it's in the discussion.
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on March 16, 2016, 10:05:33 AM
The SS is nipping at the GT350s heels with LESS horsepower. This car will destroy it.........
Like I said, with 120 more horsepower it better be a lot faster.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 16, 2016, 10:10:57 AM
If I'm honest, people who complain about weight are ignorant of both engineering and history.
No, weight is a problem regardless of how fast a heavy car is. Even a heavy car that handles well feels different than a light car that handles well. I drove a GT-R on a track and even though it went around corners like it was defying gravity and the handling was fantastic, the car still
felt heavy. I'm not a big fan of that feeling.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 16, 2016, 10:10:57 AM
If I'm honest, people who complain about weight are ignorant of both engineering and history.
God you're stupid.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 16, 2016, 10:21:15 AM
No, weight is a problem regardless of how fast a heavy car is. Even a heavy car that handles well feels different than a light car that handles well. I drove a GT-R on a track and even though it went around corners like it was defying gravity and the handling was fantastic, the car still felt heavy. I'm not a big fan of that feeling.
Show me a production ~3,200 lb GTR and I'll show you a car that doesn't exist at any price. There's a reason for that.
An automotive chassis these days is a ginormously complex dynamical system that must meet requirements for size, performance, safety and comfort. As the years march on those requirements will continue to advance and it will be a constant battle to do that yet to keep weight in check. As we've seen the last ~10 years, weight has been losing out, and we're all better off for it - cars are higher performance, safer and more comfortable than ever before. There may be some weight improvements as materials and design improves, but it's going to be a slow process and improvement is going to be more likely along the lines of more advanced/integrated/targeted product planning (not using the battleship Zeta chassis for a performance coupe) or changing tastes (morphing the GTR into a small 2 door sports car rather than a midsize 2+2 GT).
We're not stupid. We know why the cars are so much heavier today, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing. A 4000 lbs Camaro would be a helluva lot more fun at 3300 lbs. I hope they can find a way to do that. Less weight should take priority over more power.
Carbon Fiber.
A 3300lbs Camaro does exist :lol:
I think the new 4-banger model is about 3300 lbs.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 16, 2016, 12:18:22 PM
Show me a production ~3,200 lb GTR and I'll show you a car that doesn't exist at any price. There's a reason for that.
An automotive chassis these days is a ginormously complex dynamical system that must meet requirements for size, performance, safety and comfort. As the years march on those requirements will continue to advance and it will be a constant battle to do that yet to keep weight in check. As we've seen the last ~10 years, weight has been losing out, and we're all better off for it - cars are higher performance, safer and more comfortable than ever before. There may be some weight improvements as materials and design improves, but it's going to be a slow process and improvement is going to be more likely along the lines of more advanced/integrated/targeted product planning (not using the battleship Zeta chassis for a performance coupe) or changing tastes (morphing the GTR into a small 2 door sports car rather than a midsize 2+2 GT).
Actually, weight has been winning out in aggregate. C-segment cars (Focus, Civic, Corolla etc) have the space and performance of D-segment cars of the past, with better performance, safety, etc etc. My car matches my old Accords in interior volume but is 200-300lb lighter and about a foot shorter :huh:
So the idea that cars like the Mustang and Camaro HAVE to be as big and heavy as they are is ridiculous IMO. We have been through this too many times to count. Last 2 M3s have been roomier and lighter than Mustang GTs and Camaros while having smaller bodies. The Camaro's heft and size 100% comes down to size. Functionally it is about as practical as a BRZ, but it has the footprint and weight of a 5 series. It just doesn't make any sense in the context of a performance car built on a brand new platform.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 16, 2016, 12:43:33 PM
We're not stupid. We know why the cars are so much heavier today, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing. A 4000 lbs Camaro would be a helluva lot more fun at 3300 lbs. I hope they can find a way to do that. Less weight should take priority over more power.
Not saying anyone is stupid, just implicitly pointing out the fact that there is this complaining but no material information or data to back it up.
With the advent of modern performance traction management, active suspension and CF brakes, you'll not convince me it'll make any material difference. Sure, with the same power the lighter car will be quicker but that's about where it'll end.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 16, 2016, 03:21:59 PM
Not saying anyone is stupid, just implicitly pointing out the fact that there is this complaining but no material information or data to back it up.
With the advent of modern performance traction management, active suspension and CF brakes, you'll not convince me it'll make any material difference. Sure, with the same power the lighter car will be quicker but that's about where it'll end.
Isn't that the whole point of performance cars, to be quicker?
Quote from: FoMoJo on March 16, 2016, 03:31:06 PM
Isn't that the whole point of performance cars, to be quicker?
Sure, but front engine + RWD + 640 hp = traction is the major problem for acceleration, not weight. Besides, that's not what he was talking about.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 16, 2016, 03:42:49 PM
Sure, but front engine + RWD + 640 hp = traction is the major problem for acceleration, not weight. Besides, that's not what he was talking about.
Weight is a factor in every aspect of a performance vehicle, at least it is on a race track.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 16, 2016, 03:21:59 PM
Not saying anyone is stupid, just implicitly pointing out the fact that there is this complaining but no material information or data to back it up.
With the advent of modern performance traction management, active suspension and CF brakes, you'll not convince me it'll make any material difference. Sure, with the same power the lighter car will be quicker but that's about where it'll end.
No. It's about the feel of the car. A lighter car feels better. It's more tossable. It's livelier in the corners. It has better steering feel. The opinion that you have is one of the biggest problems I see with people these days, "Faster is better". Faster isn't necessarily better. It's not better if the car is numb and heavy as shit. Mustang, Camaro, M3, etc would most definitely benefit from a good amount of weight reduction. The problem is, just as you said, all the crash regs and shit the government mandates makes a big reduction virtually impossible unless they start heavily using aluminum and carbon fiber. That will eventually happen as carbon fiber gets cheaper and cheaper to make as it's more widely used, but for now the only way I see big reductions in weight is to reduce the overall size of the cars. I also don't see that happening.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 16, 2016, 04:03:25 PM
No. It's about the feel of the car. A lighter car feels better. It's more tossable. It's livelier in the corners. It has better steering feel. The opinion that you have is one of the biggest problems I see with people these days, "Faster is better". Faster isn't necessarily better. It's not better if the car is numb and heavy as shit. Mustang, Camaro, M3, etc would most definitely benefit from a good amount of weight reduction. The problem is, just as you said, all the crash regs and shit the government mandates makes a big reduction virtually impossible unless they start heavily using aluminum and carbon fiber. That will eventually happen as carbon fiber gets cheaper and cheaper to make as it's more widely used, but for now the only way I see big reductions in weight is to reduce the overall size of the cars. I also don't see that happening.
The Camaro is at least LOSING weight! Not gaining like the M4 and Mustang.
Latest M3 and M4 are lighter than the previous generation.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 16, 2016, 03:21:59 PM
Not saying anyone is stupid, just implicitly pointing out the fact that there is this complaining but no material information or data to back it up.
With the advent of modern performance traction management, active suspension and CF brakes, you'll not convince me it'll make any material difference. Sure, with the same power the lighter car will be quicker but that's about where it'll end.
I'll take the lighter car that doesn't need all those nanny aids to compensate for weight.
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on March 16, 2016, 06:02:29 PM
The Camaro is at least LOSING weight! Not gaining like the M4 and Mustang.
True, but it really had no place to go but down. I wonder if everyone rationalizing the weight would have defended a 4200 lb curb weight.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 16, 2016, 07:17:01 PM
True, but it really had no place to go but down. I wonder if everyone rationalizing the weight would have defended a 4200 lb curb weight.
The CTS-V does fine :lol:
http://youtu.be/wLDSlYvprTM (http://youtu.be/wLDSlYvprTM)
Still seems to lag behind DCT in response times on downshifts but those upshifts look money.
The Super Charger whine is wicked! Porsche would charge 170K for a car like that!
Quote from: Rockraven on March 16, 2016, 07:09:03 PM
I'll take the lighter car that doesn't need all those nanny aids to compensate for weight.
Lol. In six weeks cars will drive themselves anyway. Bring on the behemoths. I want to get to work faster while texting and making coffee and watching Keeping up with the Kardashians.
When the Mustang and Camaro were slower but still have fun sounding V8s and a fun driving experience, people complained and wanted them to be faster. Now they're hella fast and people complain and want them to be more "fun".
Quote from: CaminoRacer on March 16, 2016, 11:28:20 PM
When the Mustang and Camaro were slower but still have fun sounding V8s and a fun driving experience, people complained and wanted them to be faster. Now they're hella fast and people complain and want them to be more "fun".
I like my sportscars light. But I'm not bothered by the weight of these cars because they aren't sportscars. My pick is still a Scat Pack Challenger, and that thing weighs some 4100 lbs. They're really cruisers that happen to go fast. I'm sure this Camaro can tear up a track just fine, but my enthusiasm for pony cars fade fast beyond the $45,000 mark.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 16, 2016, 03:21:59 PM
Not saying anyone is stupid, just implicitly pointing out the fact that there is this complaining but no material information or data to back it up.
People need information & data to back up their personal preferences for lighter cars? :confused:
Quote from: Raza on March 16, 2016, 10:20:12 PM
Lol. In six weeks cars will drive themselves anyway. Bring on the behemoths. I want to get to work faster while texting and making coffee and watching Keeping up with the Kardashians.
:pee:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 17, 2016, 06:26:08 AM
People need information & data to back up their personal preferences for lighter cars? :confused:
Asian chicks make me horny, but I'm not posting a pic of my aroused dick.
Quote from: 68_427 on March 16, 2016, 09:14:52 PM
Still seems to lag behind DCT in response times on downshifts but those upshifts look money.
Mercedes, and others, have tried the whole "faster than a DCT" BS with regards to non DCT automatics. It's all marketing BS, they say it because they didn't get a REAL DCT so they pretend that theirs is "better" anyway.
Mercedes pulled that, then immediately within a year or two they switched to actual DCT's on their serious sports offerings.
It's just hyperbole until they actually get around to getting a true DCT.
Quote from: Rockraven on March 17, 2016, 05:32:21 AM
I like my sportscars light. But I'm not bothered by the weight of these cars because they aren't sportscars. My pick is still a Scat Pack Challenger, and that thing weighs some 4100 lbs. They're really cruisers that happen to go fast. I'm sure this Camaro can tear up a track just fine, but my enthusiasm for pony cars fade fast beyond the $45,000 mark.
See, I want my performance cars to actually handle half decently, so Challenger is out.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 17, 2016, 07:30:53 AM
Mercedes, and others, have tried the whole "faster than a DCT" BS with regards to non DCT automatics. It's all marketing BS, they say it because they didn't get a REAL DCT so they pretend that theirs is "better" anyway.
Mercedes pulled that, then immediately within a year or two they switched to actual DCT's on their serious sports offerings.
It's just hyperbole until they actually get around to getting a true DCT.
I'm not sure why you really need faster upshifts than that, to be honest. Improving driving skill is going to get 100x better results than decreasing shift times by .02 of a second.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 17, 2016, 08:52:34 AM
See, I want my performance cars to actually handle half decently, so Challenger is out.
Unless you're going racing, the point is largely moot. Below 7/10ths, the Challenger is far more comfortable, has better sightlines, and looks much better inside and out than the previous gen Camaro. Brother has both, and I've driven them both. Can't compare with the new Camaro, which I realize is a vast improvement, but as it stands for me the Scat Pack Challenger with 465 hp for $40,000 is hard to beat.
Quote from: Rockraven on March 17, 2016, 09:11:28 AM
Unless you're going racing, the point is largely moot. Below 7/10ths, the Challenger is far more comfortable, has better sightlines, and looks much better inside and out than the previous gen Camaro. Brother has both, and I've driven them both. Can't compare with the new Camaro, which I realize is a vast improvement, but as it stands for me the Scat Pack Challenger with 465 hp for $40,000 is hard to beat.
Rustang is and for the last ~3 decades always has been the better "car car" so that's what it would be for me. I drove my buddy's Challenger R/T... lot better than I thought it would be, but still like driving a submarine
Quote from: CaminoRacer on March 17, 2016, 09:02:38 AM
I'm not sure why you really need faster upshifts than that, to be honest. Improving driving skill is going to get 100x better results than decreasing shift times by .02 of a second.
It's really not about that, it's about offering a better product. When everyone else is using a superior technology, it becomes a norm, DCT's will be(are?) the norm for a performance self shifting transmission.
Spending time to develop an inferior product, and then marketing it as better is just foolish, and to some people, sad.
A 8-10 speed traditional automatic is a fine transmission, possibly top of it's class, but for cars like the impala/malibu/cruze or for it's half ton gas trucks.
I'm actually not a fan of DCTs. I like torque converters if I can't be in control of the clutch.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 17, 2016, 09:25:33 AM
It's really not about that, it's about offering a better product. When everyone else is using a superior technology, it becomes a norm, DCT's will be(are?) the norm for a performance self shifting transmission.
Spending time to develop an inferior product, and then marketing it as better is just foolish, and to some people, sad.
A 8-10 speed traditional automatic is a fine transmission, possibly top of it's class, but for cars like the impala/malibu/cruze or for it's half ton gas trucks.
What is superior about a DCT over a planetary auto? Other than super quick shifts I would say they are about equal. DCTs still grumble and judder from a stop and there was that whole Ford DCT fiasco that still hasn't really been resolved. No such problems from autos
I think Acura's DCT coupled with a torque converter is a good solution. Torque converter smoothness when taking off from a stop, DCT shift speed and crispness once rolling.
Gah I meant to mention that. Even still though, autos lock up a lot more than they used to. I read somewhere Mazda pretty much locks up the torque converter on their cars from like 10 MPH onward between shifts.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 17, 2016, 10:12:29 AM
What is superior about a DCT over a planetary auto? Other than super quick shifts I would say they are about equal. DCTs still grumble and judder from a stop and there was that whole Ford DCT fiasco that still hasn't really been resolved. No such problems from autos
:hesaid:
Quote from: CaminoRacer on March 17, 2016, 09:02:38 AM
I'm not sure why you really need faster upshifts than that, to be honest. Improving driving skill is going to get 100x better results than decreasing shift times by .02 of a second.
I believe shifts should only be as fast as you can physically do it. I was timing shifts in my car the other day. Using a stopwatch, it came to "fast enough".
DCTs are inherently superior - esp. no solenoids, no valves and no fluid coupling and the newer crop seem to be much better at the slow speed stuff.
But I will say, the new crop of slushies such as the ZF8 and the GM10 are monster. Their only real major detriment is no legit launch control, but then again, LC is a bit artificial, given how much rigamarole goes on in actually using it (press this, step on this, then step on that, then wait for revs to build, blah, blah).
My car has launch control. Once you turn it on in the menu, it stays engaged until you turn it off. After that, the steps to use it are easy. Depress clutch, engage first gear, push throttle to the floor, sidestep clutch.
Quote from: Raza on March 17, 2016, 11:38:02 AM
I believe shifts should only be as fast as you can physically do it. I was timing shifts in my car the other day. Using a stopwatch, it came to "fast enough".
Why should everyone else have to adhere to your beliefs?
(I prefer stickshift to DCTs BTW)
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 18, 2016, 10:02:22 AM
Why should everyone else have to adhere to your beliefs?
(I prefer stickshift to DCTs BTW)
I didn't say they had to. :huh:
Love this color
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OWwiZp0xDRs/VvP5KHeZGfI/AAAAAAASIuo/wQOYqrvjyLkLd51CWiA08jbiCL2KcOcjQ/s1600/2017-Chevrolet-Camaro-ZL1-002.jpg)
Quote from: MX793 on March 18, 2016, 09:27:52 AM
My car has launch control. Once you turn it on in the menu, it stays engaged until you turn it off. After that, the steps to use it are easy. Depress clutch, engage first gear, push throttle to the floor, sidestep clutch.
That's spin control.
With launch control, for each launch, you press a button, then step on the brake, then floor the gas, then wait till revs reach max, and then release the brake. I suspect they make it a bit of a PITA 'cause it's hard on the clutches. But whatevs, it's good for specs but in day-to-day driving it isn't all the useful - too much time/planning to use.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 25, 2016, 07:35:03 AM
That's spin control.
With launch control, for each launch, you press a button, then step on the brake, then floor the gas, then wait till revs reach max, and then release the brake. I suspect they make it a bit of a PITA 'cause it's hard on the clutches. But whatevs, it's good for specs but in day-to-day driving it isn't all the useful - too much time/planning to use.
No, it's launch control. When activated, the system holds the RPMs at a preset level while the accelerator is to the floor and the clutch is in (somewhere between 3 and 4 thousand RPM, IIRC). Once you release the clutch, TCS manages torque to minimize wheelspin. Essentially the same except the driver holds the clutch pedal instead of the brake to use the system. And I don't have to go through a complicated routine each and every time I use it.
Quote from: 68_427 on March 24, 2016, 11:03:47 PM
Love this color
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OWwiZp0xDRs/VvP5KHeZGfI/AAAAAAASIuo/wQOYqrvjyLkLd51CWiA08jbiCL2KcOcjQ/s1600/2017-Chevrolet-Camaro-ZL1-002.jpg)
It is a great color though I've always quested why such cars (M4, GT500, etc.) come as 'verts...
Quote from: MX793 on March 25, 2016, 07:50:08 AM
No, it's launch control. When activated, the system holds the RPMs at a preset level while the accelerator is to the floor and the clutch is in (somewhere between 3 and 4 thousand RPM, IIRC). Once you release the clutch, TCS manages torque to minimize wheelspin. Essentially the same except the driver holds the clutch pedal instead of the brake to use the system. And I don't have to go through a complicated routine each and every time I use it.
Yes, I understand how it works, and it almost always holds a car back from max potential.
Launch control also manipulates the clutch(es) to huge benefit (which means it's kinda hard on the works, and probably at least partially why LC is purposefully a bit of a PITA to use).
Quote from: GoCougs on March 25, 2016, 08:07:37 AM
It is a great color though I've always quested why such cars (M4, GT500, etc.) come as 'verts...
Opens up visibility 1000%, they generally look great as convertibles, another choice for enthusiasts. If you're the 1% who buys it as a track car, stick with the coupe.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 25, 2016, 08:11:37 AM
Yes, I understand how it works, and it almost always holds a car back from max potential.
Launch control also manipulates the clutch(es) to huge benefit (which means it's kinda hard on the works, and probably at least partially why LC is purposefully a bit of a PITA to use).
Automated gearboxes have some added sophistication via clutch manipulation, but at the end of the day, "launch control" is just a system that holds a preset RPM prior to launch and then manages wheelspin once underway. Autoclutch systems are just better at "spin control" than less sophisticated systems.