LS1GTO.com Forums banner

1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Admin
Joined
·
9,705 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Acceleration, sec

0-30 mph, sec 2.0

0-40 mph, sec 3.0

0-50 mph, sec 4.1

0-60 mph, sec 5.3

0-70 mph, sec 7.0

0-80 mph, sec 8.7

0-90 mph, sec 10.7

0-100 mph, sec 13.1

1/4-mile, sec @ mph 13.62 @ 104.78

Braking, 60-0 mph, ft 120

600-ft slalom, mph 63.5

200-ft skidpad, lateral g 0.80


3,725 lbs. (not specified if dry or curb weight, I expect it is curb)

The car is a manual 6 speed. I also hear the bottom of the car sports many bash plates for unimproved Australian roads. This car is built to last on dirt roads, but looks to be a few hundred pounds heavier than a Trans Am.
 

·
Sewell Pontiac
Joined
·
300 Posts
Those are some good numbers even with the weight of the car. Looks impressive and with some mods look out 12's. Can't wait to get one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,255 Posts
Excellent Post!!! Looks like it is coming in as advertised or a little better (as we figured it might). Very cool. Can you devulge your secret sources? Will this be in the Dec. issue? Inquiring minds want to know!

:drink: :drink: :drink: :drink:
 

·
LS1GTO Traitor
Joined
·
442 Posts
Great scoop DevilYellow! I hope these numbers are correct. The skid pad number (.80) seems a bit low but the rest are about what I was expecting/hoping they would be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
459 Posts
Finally we have something to go by. Great post!!
 

·
Old GTO Owner
Joined
·
2,812 Posts
Wonder if it was a pre production car. What tires were on it. And what will happen when GMHTP gets to road test one. Should be interesting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
524 Posts
The 0-60 time looks about what has been suggested but the 1/4 time is of quite a bit from some. (high 12's at least 13.0-13.2)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
386 Posts
How about Car & Driver Devil? They usually test about the same time as M/T and R&T. Any word on what they have? Sounds like the car will live up to the billing, great stuff.
 

·
^^^^^^^^
Joined
·
434 Posts
the clubsport R8 here in aussie does 13.5 in the quarter, it weighs a bit more , and has the standard Holden or F-body Ls1.

whats this high lift cam , GM was talking about ??

its still a good result, you can't say its bad, if Motor Trend can get a 13.6, the a very good driver should be able to get low 13s.

we need to read the MT review to get the full story.
 

·
13 year owner
Joined
·
16,379 Posts
Looks like the first portion of my car's diet will be to remove those shields. :)

You also need to figure that if you let the guys at GMHTP and MM&FF at it, they'll twist off at most an extra half second.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
CMNTMXR57 said:
Looks like the first portion of my car's diet will be to remove those shields. :)



Why on earth would you want to remove the stone shields???

You may not have the need to protect from stones and the occasional bottoming the suspension due to poor roads, BUT they DO give the car extra torsional stiffness.

With the way cars are computer modelled these days, the stone shields are incorporated into the overall strength of the design. Good torsional strength equals to good stability. So my suggestion is don’t do it.

I would not worry too much about the 0.8 skidpan result unless you live on ultra smooth roads. American drivers will probably find that the suspension, while firm, has very generous travel. This is due to the car’s peerage. Believe me, on the typical Australian road, you want the suspension to control the tyre over the rough stuff and not try to pound through it. In typical day to day driving the car has a far more practical suspension set up (hence ultimate grip) then a harshly sprung sports car.

(I have driven the Australian version of the Monaro and I love it.)
 

·
Old GTO Owner
Joined
·
2,812 Posts
http://forums.performanceyears.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=7286011111&f=278600434&m=943600734

SHAME ON PONTIAC!

The cars put in the media's hands have been detuned and the traction control button "disabled" so that it cannot be turned off.

The result is that timing is being taken away and the cars can barely turn the tire!

This all done so that the magazines don't distroy the car.

Poor, poor, poor. The cars should have been left alone...or event juiced up a bit. The magazines had to sign waivers that they would not have one of thier techies enhance things with LS1edit, etc.

Pontiac let out a GTO to a magazine knowing full well it was going to be run side by side with a Mach I in a drag test and the car was still left in the detuned state.

Come on Pontiac...I love the car, but how can the world know how capable the car is if we don't let the press have only "the best" of what is to be offered!

John DeLorean would have had a fit!
From one of the editors of Pontiac Enthusiest Magazine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
227 Posts
DevilYellow said:
Got it thru the grapevine from my magazine guys :cool:

I'm fairly positive this will be the info published with the article.
That is the 1/4 mile times and MPH the I got from my source for the Motor Trend article. I would say that is the information we will see in the article in about 3 weeks.
 

·
13 year owner
Joined
·
16,379 Posts
me_whynot said:
Why on earth would you want to remove the stone shields???

You may not have the need to protect from stones and the occasional bottoming the suspension due to poor roads, BUT they DO give the car extra torsional stiffness.

With the way cars are computer modelled these days, the stone shields are incorporated into the overall strength of the design. Good torsional strength equals to good stability. So my suggestion is don’t do it.

I would not worry too much about the 0.8 skidpan result unless you live on ultra smooth roads. American drivers will probably find that the suspension, while firm, has very generous travel. This is due to the car’s peerage. Believe me, on the typical Australian road, you want the suspension to control the tyre over the rough stuff and not try to pound through it. In typical day to day driving the car has a far more practical suspension set up (hence ultimate grip) then a harshly sprung sports car.

(I have driven the Australian version of the Monaro and I love it.)
Because my car will be a garage queen. It'll sit right next to another garage queen. My Camaro which for a '98 only has 16,000 miles on it. My Harley has more miles! When I take it out, I only take it out on nice days. I only drive it on nice roads, avoid any construction whatsoever. It may occasionally get driven to work (on a nice day only of course). It will not be subjected to the regular abuses of beatings of a common day vehicle. For that I have a single rear axled 1 ton pickup truck.

Oh, and before lecturing me on what I can remove and what I can't, I worked on, under and inside just about virutally every GM car for about 6 years. I know GM's "engineering" quite well. I've built my Camaro, my brother-in laws Camaro, co team my friends 8 sec Chevelle, and used to build off-roading trucks. So I did learn a thing or two along the way. I won't lose any sleep removing something that adds unnecessary weight when it WON'T be needed for it's intended purpose of protection.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,255 Posts
me_whynot said:
Why on earth would you want to remove the stone shields???

You may not have the need to protect from stones and the occasional bottoming the suspension due to poor roads, BUT they DO give the car extra torsional stiffness.

With the way cars are computer modelled these days, the stone shields are incorporated into the overall strength of the design. Good torsional strength equals to good stability. So my suggestion is don’t do it.

Hmm might have to wait on the shields until I get more facts and data.

:drink: :drink: :drink: :drink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Oh, and before lecturing me on what I can remove and what I can't, I worked on, under and inside just about virutally every GM car for about 6 years.

Oh … Ok…

So that means that you have a supercomputer in your garage as well so you can model the effect of your changes?

One of the GTO’s strengths is that it is based on a car that has good torsional stiffness. That said, even the Aussies resort to improving chassis strength when adding bulk horsepower. You can go faster in two ways. One is to remove unnecessary weight. The other is to improve how the power gets down to the ground.

For the small amount of weight that you are removing you could be making big comprises in two ways. You could be allowing increased chassis twisting which does not help in getting power down to the ground (which the metal stone guards assist in). Or disturbing the under car aerodynamics at top end speed (which the plastic stone guards assist in).

[edit] There is no such thing as too much chassis stifness !!!!!!!!


Then again, I may not know what I am talking about because I only have engineering qualifications and twenty years post grad experience.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
524 Posts
Hmmm... I'm not an engineer nor worked on bunch of race teams, but have designed and built a car that has been 270+ on 4 cylinders. I'll let the pros figure whats under my GTO. I do spend a lot of time listening to people though and I detect some testiness and a bit of sour grapes. No offense intended here.
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top