Motortrend G8 GXP first drive - Not to shabby

[radz28]

Good news for the SS, I think. Great stock numbers and to think SS should be a bit faster. I think, now, that it's possible for good drivers to dip mid-12s. If MT can run this car to bottom 13s, I'm not confident it's possible.

I'm preparing to eat my crow

[Camaro_Corvette]

Originally Posted by Rekt

Well, I'm sure you have already seen MT's review of the Z. No sense in posting it again.

I didn't mean to be mean. I was just saying that the two cars are soooo different, that they would be hard to compare fairly. Two door/Four door, Sedan/sportscar, 3900+lbs/whatever that thing weighs(cant be much), 2seater/4 seater They are just totally different cars.

[Rekt]

Originally Posted by camaro_corvette

I didn't mean to be mean. I was just saying that the two cars are soooo different, that they would be hard to compare fairly. Two door/Four door, Sedan/sportscar, 3900+lbs/whatever that thing weighs(cant be much), 2seater/4 seater They are just totally different cars.

Yeah, I know bud

[Crowley]

Originally Posted by Rekt

Only good in a straight line...

That's why I want a 370z =)

LOL ... it is a sedan and still pulls .9g .. not too shabby ....

I say if you only need 2 seats and 2 doors .. go for the 370z ....


Wheelbase 100.4 in
Track, f/r 60.6/61.6 in
Length x width x height 167.21 x 72.86 x 51.98 in
Turning circle 34.1 ft
Curb weight 3355 lb
Weight dist., f/r 55/45%
Seating capacity 2
Headroom 38.2 in
Legroom 42.9 in
Shoulder room 54.65 in
Cargo volume 6.9 cu ft

EST DATA
Acceleration to mph
0-30 1.8 sec
0-40 2.7
0-50 3.6
0-60 4.7
0-70 6.2
0-80 7.9
0-90 9.6
0-100 12
Passing, 45-65 mph 2.4
Quarter mile 13.3 sec @ 105.7 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph 106 ft
Lateral acceleration 0.99 g (avg)
MT figure eight 24.9 sec @ 0.73 g (avg)
Top-gear revs @ 60 mph 2300 rpm


Only 1.5 sec off of the figure 8 times for the sedan that is 600lbs heavier ... I'd say that people will be surprised as to how the G8 GXP handles ..

Crowley

[Crowley]

Lets compare to more cars that it may have a little more in common with ..

2006 BMW M5 2006 Mercedes-Benz CLS55 AMG
Powertrain/Chassis
Drivetrain layout Front engine, RWD Front engine, RWD
Engine type 90° V-10,aluminum block/heads Supercharged 90° V-8, aluminum block/heads
Valvetrain DOHC, 4 valves/cyl SOHC, 3 valves/cyl
Displacement 305.1 cu in / 4999cc 331.9 cu in / 5439cc
Compression ratio 12.0:1 9.0:1
Redline 8250 rpm 6500 rpm
Power (Sae Net) 500 hp @ 7750 rpm 469 hp @ 6100 rpm
Torque (SAE net) 383 lb-ft @ 6100 rpm 516 lb-ft @ 2650 rpm
Specific output 100.0 hp/L 86.2 hp/L
Weight to power 8.3 lb/hp 9.2 lb/hp
Transmission 7-speed auto-clutch manual 5-speed automatic
Axle/final-drive ratios 3.62:1 / 3.00:1 2.65:1 / 2.20:1
Suspension, front; rear Struts, coil springs, adj shocks,anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar Multilink, air springs, adj shocks,anti-roll bar; multilink, air springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar
Steering ratio Variable (12.4:1 avg) 14.7:1
Turns lock-to-lock 2.4 2.7
Brakes, f;r 14.7-in vented/drilled disc; 14.6-in vented/drilled disc, ABS 14.2-in vented/drilled disc; 13.0-in vented/drilled disc, ABS
Wheels, f;r 19 x 8.5-in; 19 x 9.5-in cast alum 19 x 8.5-in; 19 x 9.5-in cast alum
Tires, f;r 255/40ZR19; 285/35ZR19 Continental ContiSportContact 2 255/35ZR19 96Y; 285/30ZR19 98Y Bridgestone Potenza REO50A
Dimensions
Wheelbase 113.7 in 112.4 in
Track, f/r 62.2 / 61.7 in 62.7 / 63.1 in
Length x Width x Height 191.5 x 72.7 x 57.8 in 193.5 x 73.7 x 54.7 in
Turning circle 40.7 ft 36.7 ft
Curb weight 4130 lb 4307 lb
Weight distribution 52 / 48 % 52 / 48 %
Seating capacity 5 4
Headroom, f/r 37.7 / 37.8 in 36.9 / 36.1 in
Legroom, f/r 41.5 / 36.0 in 42.1 / 35.0 in
Shoulder room, f/r 57.3 / 57.2 in 56.2 / 56.0 in
Cargo volume 14.0 cu ft 15.8 cu ft
Test Data
Acceleration to mph optimized mode / default mode optimized mode / default mode
0-30 2.0 / 2.4 sec 1.8 / 1.9 sec
0-40 2.7 / 3.3 2.5 / 2.6
0-50 3.7 / 4.8 3.3 / 3.4
0-60 4.5 / 6.0 4.4 / 4.5
0-70 5.7 / 7.9 5.4 / 5.6
0-80 7.0 / 9.6 6.7 / 6.8
0-90 8.4 / 11.3 8.3 / 8.4
0-100 10.0 / 13.9 10.1 / 10.2
Passing 45-65 mph 1.8 / 2.8 sec 2.1 / 2.1 sec
Quarter mile 12.9 sec @ 114.9 mph /14.4 sec @ 101.9 mph 12.7 sec @ 113.6 mph / 12.8 sec @ 113.5 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph 114 ft 117 ft
Braking, 100-0 mph 326 ft 331 ft
MT Figure Eight 25.8 sec @ 0.74 g avg 25.5 sec @ 0.76 g avg
Lateral acceleration 0.87 g avg 0.90 g avg
600-ft slalom 67.7 mph avg 66.6 mph avg
Top-gear revs @ 60 mph 2750 rpm 1800 rpm
Consumer Info
Base price $85,595 $89,075
Price as tested $94,965 $92,475
Stability/traction control Yes/yes Yes/yes
Airbags Dual front, front sides, front/rear curtain Dual front, front/rear sides,front/rear curtain
Basic warranty 4 yrs / 50,000 miles 4 yrs / 50,000 miles
Powertrain warranty 4 yrs / 50,000 miles 4 yrs / 50,000 miles
Roadside assistance 4 yrs / 50,000 miles Unlimited
Fuel capacity 18.5 gal 21.1 gal
EPA city/hwy econ 12 / 18 mpg 14 / 20 mpg
MT fuel econ 14.8 mpg 15.5 mpg
Recommended fuel Premium unleaded Premium unleaded

[rayhawk]

This car has a gearing advantage over the Camaro, 3.70 vs 3.45, and it has quite a bit smaller tires, 26.7" od versus 28.7" of for the camaro. It has the same gearing in the trans. It is enough to allow it to use 4 gears (for the manual) instead of 3 in the 1/4 mile run. I think the gearing will make up for the weight difference and will make for a very close race between the camaro and the GXP. At that mph, you have to think 12's are pretty reasonable though for this car.

And how is this motor tuned for regular gas? Do they mean you can put in regular, or that regular is recommended? That seems hard to believe.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by rayhawk

And how is this motor tuned for regular gas? Do they mean you can put in regular, or that regular is recommended? That seems hard to believe.

The first one. If you want, you CAN put in regular. But it'll retard the timing, and you'll notice a drop in power. Most of GM's V8s can run on regular if they need to.

[GatorBlue371]

Originally Posted by Rekt

Only good in a straight line...

That's why I want a 370z =)

Just try to ignore the fact that this car lapped the Ring' only 2 seconds slower than the 80k BMW M5...

[camaro5]

Originally Posted by Hylton

Yep. It will smoke most cars out there. Remove the GXP emblems and you are going to take a lot of guys who have spent 2 to 3 times as much by surprise. This car might become factory sleeper of the year!

I'll tell ya, the G8 GT and GXP are sleepers. I mean, they're semi-boring looking sedans. The problem with Vettes is everybody is watching. These things are the opposite, but go like Hell when you stomp 'em. Get a dark color, and it's over.

Originally Posted by kdbolt70

I've been pondering the GXP over the SS for a while now, but I think with the $40k+ price tag, I'm going to stick with the camaro. I love the "sleeper" effect the GXP buys you, but I can't help but love the loud looks of the 'maro.

The internal debate continues...Still holding off the G8 -so far.

Originally Posted by camaro_corvette

I didn't mean to be mean. I was just saying that the two cars are soooo different, that they would be hard to compare fairly. Two door/Four door, Sedan/sportscar, 3900+lbs/whatever that thing weighs(cant be much), 2seater/4 seater They are just totally different cars.

c_c, just remember there are people deciding whether to buy a 370Z or a Camaro or Mustang, Challenger, G37, Genesis, Corvette, the list goes on and on. It's like, they're really different, but appeal to a lot of the same people.

Originally Posted by rayhawk

This car has a gearing advantage over the Camaro, 3.70 vs 3.45, and it has quite a bit smaller tires, 26.7" od versus 28.7" of for the camaro. It has the same gearing in the trans. It is enough to allow it to use 4 gears (for the manual) instead of 3 in the 1/4 mile run. I think the gearing will make up for the weight difference and will make for a very close race between the camaro and the GXP. At that mph, you have to think 12's are pretty reasonable though for this car.

And how is this motor tuned for regular gas? Do they mean you can put in regular, or that regular is recommended? That seems hard to believe.

Good point about the gearing. That's why the G8 GXP gets the gas-guzzler tax, and the Camaro will not.

On the other hand, that's going to even the two Zeta kids up at the lights. Sounds like fun to me!

Regular gas? Piezo-electric microphone listens for detonation (ping), generates a voltage back to the PCM, PCM retards ignition timing until the level of detonation is acceptable.

Premium fuel creates more power, and pays for itself with better fuel mileage. See Corvette Forum for confirmation.

[96CAMaro]

Originally Posted by Crowley

Given the platform etc ... should be at least what to expect of the camaro ...


http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...est/index.html

2009 PONTIAC G8 GXP
Base price $39,900 (est)
Price as tested $41,500 (6M, est), $40,800 (6A, est)
Vehicle layout Front-engine, RWD 5-pass, 4-door sedan
Engine 6.2L/415-hp*/415-lb-ft* OHV 16-valve V-8
Transmission 6-speed manual
Curb weight (f/r dist) 3969 lb (52/48%)
Wheelbase 114.8 in
Length x width x height 196.1 x 74.8 x 57.7 in
0-60 mph 4.5 sec
Quarter mile 13.0 sec @ 109.6 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph 117 ft
Lateral acceleration 0.90 g (avg)
MT Figure Eight 26.4 sec @ 0.70 g (avg)
EPA city/hwy fuel econ Not yet rated
On sale in U.S. February 2009
*SAE certified

Wait, wait, wait. Let's think about this for a second. This vehicle has 7hp less and roughly 6 ft-lbs tq more than the 2010 Camaro SS 6M. This car also weighs...109lbs more (3969-3860lbs) than the Camaro 6M SS - yet the 0-60 time is 0.1 seconds faster than what is expected from what is to be expected for the SS, that is, 4.6 seconds. The thing here that bother me is the 1/4 time of 13.0 sec @ 109.6 mph. I mean, heck, the 2002 Camaro SS could do that with an intake and a very good driver. The mustang (2005-2008) GT with a very good driver is more than capable of running 13.4ish with a 1.6L difference and 115-122hp difference. I for one will be dissappointed if the Camaro SS (6M or A6) averages anything less than a 12.5-12.8ish (with a slightly better than average driver). Do I have a legit beef here or is it just me? I just "assumed" that the Camaro SS 6M will perform ever so slightly better than the GXP for <$11K difference. I don't want to have to do a single mod to spank a 2005-2012ish Mustang GT with mods such as: full exhaust, gears, intake, and tune. Perhaps that is unreasonable. Ok, feel free to flame me if you think my rant is unreasonable.

[Crowley]

Originally Posted by 96CAMaro

Wait, wait, wait. Let's think about this for a second. This vehicle has 7hp less and roughly 6 ft-lbs tq more than the 2010 Camaro SS 6M. This car also weighs...109lbs more (3969-3860lbs) than the Camaro 6M SS - yet the 0-60 time is 0.1 seconds faster than what is expected from what is to be expected for the SS, that is, 4.6 seconds. The thing here that bother me is the 1/4 time of 13.0 sec @ 109.6 mph. I mean, heck, the 2002 Camaro SS could do that with an intake and a very good driver. The mustang (2005-2008) GT with a very good driver is more than capable of running 13.4ish with a 1.6L difference and 115-122hp difference. I for one will be dissappointed if the Camaro SS (6M or A6) averages anything less than a 12.5-12.8ish (with a slightly better than average driver). Do I have a legit beef here or is it just me? I just "assumed" that the Camaro SS 6M will perform ever so slightly better than the GXP for <$11K difference. I don't want to have to do a single mod to spank a 2005-2012ish Mustang GT with mods such as: full exhaust, gears, intake, and tune. Perhaps that is unreasonable. Ok, feel free to flame me if you think my rant is unreasonable.

I do think that if you are expecting 12.5 1/4 mile stock, you will be disappointed. There may be a few select who may reach that after getting used to the car .. however, I do think the average driver may get to around a 12.8. I'm going to say that MPH will be around 111 maybe 112 with a good driver. It will also depend on conditions ..

It will be interesting to see what the magazines can get out of the car though

Crowley

[Hylton]

Originally Posted by 96CAMaro

Wait, wait, wait. Let's think about this for a second. This vehicle has 7hp less and roughly 6 ft-lbs tq more than the 2010 Camaro SS 6M. This car also weighs...109lbs more (3969-3860lbs) than the Camaro 6M SS - yet the 0-60 time is 0.1 seconds faster than what is expected from what is to be expected for the SS, that is, 4.6 seconds. The thing here that bother me is the 1/4 time of 13.0 sec @ 109.6 mph. I mean, heck, the 2002 Camaro SS could do that with an intake and a very good driver. The mustang (2005-2008) GT with a very good driver is more than capable of running 13.4ish with a 1.6L difference and 115-122hp difference. I for one will be dissappointed if the Camaro SS (6M or A6) averages anything less than a 12.5-12.8ish (with a slightly better than average driver). Do I have a legit beef here or is it just me? I just "assumed" that the Camaro SS 6M will perform ever so slightly better than the GXP for <$11K difference. I don't want to have to do a single mod to spank a 2005-2012ish Mustang GT with mods such as: full exhaust, gears, intake, and tune. Perhaps that is unreasonable. Ok, feel free to flame me if you think my rant is unreasonable.

I'm with Crowley - show me another 35K car that will do 13 flat, including Mustang. If you want to go low 12's, just put a hot cam and 3.90 gears in her.

[96CAMaro]

Well, I wouldn't say "low 12's"...just mid to high 12's stock. 12.6-12.8ish.

[pharmd]

^x2

Gonna say full bolt-ons low 12's high 11's dep on DA, weight removal and tires...I mean there are bolt-on LT1's running well into the 11's.

BTW...who's removing the rear seats on theirs??