Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 designed for maximum downforce

[playstation123lover]

jeremy is not going to like this car

[TheMatheus902]

k fodaa

[03IMPALASS]

this is like watching hardcore porn...

[TheGrassyBatter2]

since when did americans know about aerodynamics?

[TheBulldawg4life]

@TheGrassyBatter2 Some guy tried to fly about a hundred years ago and starting thinking about it.

[03IMPALASS]

@TheGrassyBatter2 since the BMW M3 got ass fucked by a BOSS 302

[jiffiz]

Generate downforce improve handling...they're taking us for idiots right?

[cardude1992]

so it produces more downforce than the zr1? thats bull

[surgemeister01]

There's a lot more to a car than just raw horsepower, that's all good for a straight line, but that's all people are fixated on.

[TheBulldawg4life]

@AdverbAdjective I don't ever remember saying anything negative about the N/A nature of the engine, or the size. Like most intelligent people I understand the differences between engine designs. You're proving MY point listing the cars the 302 LS has beaten..because the ZL1 has beaten the 302 LS and better cars than that. The GT500 has no lap times, no production runs, and as of yet no proof the car can even put the power down.

[TheBulldawg4life]

@AdverbAdjective I like how you mention price for the ZL1 but not for the Boss 302 LS..I guess in perspective $48k and $55k are rather close in price. Either way the base price for a GT500 is 49K, so price is moot. Whose problem is it Ford's best car is the 302 LS, certainly not mine.

[surgemeister01]

Guess we'll just have to wait and see what the new gt500 does when it hits the first turn??

[surgemeister01]

Boss mustang was 2.45 sec slower per lap at inde motorsports ranch in Az., according to motortrend magazine. Also the zl1 weighs in at 4,051 lbs-facts

[TheBulldawg4life]

@AdverbAdjective How bout this...for some perspective to allow you to fully understand how bad the Boss 302 LS got beat. The ZL1 beat it by 2.5 seconds on the 2.2 mile Inde configuration, in a test done a couple days later the 2012 Nissan GTR managed to beat the ZL1 time by another 2 seconds.

[TheBulldawg4life]

@AdverbAdjective Hm..funny you should say something. I distinctly remember you posting all over the video of a GT500 struggling with a Camaro SS lol.

By "new model" I was thinking something less than 7 years old.

[TheBulldawg4life]

@AdverbAdjective I like how the Vette is a "track car" but the Boss LS is just a standard muscle car...ignore that they both only have two seats, and the Mustang is the one with the cage inside. How bout a NEW model vehicle? POS ZL1 beat the hell out of the Boss 302 LS lol.

[TheBulldawg4life]

@AdverbAdjective LOL. 2012 Boss 302 LS against 2005 Z06. The 2011 Z06 Z07 ran Laguna Seca 2 seconds faster on a slow lap, just like the ZL1 did at Inde. Also the Boss 302 LS is a 2 seater, track car. I hope you're still talking crap when the GT500 loses the overall competition.

[TheBulldawg4life]

@AdverbAdjective Look at that...fastest laps dot com mods fixed the error. It now shows two lap times for the ZL1. Nurburgring at 7:41.27 and Inde at 1:41.29. The only other lap at Inde is the Boss 302 LS at a sad 1:43.74.

[TheBulldawg4life]

@AdverbAdjective Too bad the ZL1 hasn't run at Laguna Seca...maybe do some research next time champ.

[TheBulldawg4life]

@AdverbAdjective Like the other guy who was smart enough to do some research, I think the poster of that time made a mistake. The dating/lap time are for when the ZL1 and 302 LS results came out. Once the Camaro comes out I'll be shocked if it runs in the 1:40's at Seca. Check your sources next time you want to act like you know something.

[TheBulldawg4life]

@AdverbAdjective GTR = 520 hp 3,800 pounds. ZR1 = 638 hp 3,200 pounds. 100 hp disadvantage, and 600 pounds. In case you didn't know the GTR does well against the ZR1..that's because Nissan built great technology into the car. ZL1 follows the same basic principle. Screw hp, make the car FAST the right way. The "all new" suspension equates to some Boss 302 parts, and a new fuel cutoff "launch control" all still running to 285 crap rear tires.

[TheBulldawg4life]

@AdverbAdjective So basically you claim the 2013 GT500 will destroy so and so and yet you never provide proof. Fact's are fact's, and the facts prove the ZL1 dominates.

[TheBulldawg4life]

@AdverbAdjective Oh really, who did the comparison? Are you seriously this slow?

[TheBulldawg4life]

@AdverbAdjective The Boss 302 LS beats the GT500 too, and the ZL1 destroyed it. What now, since you want to speculate and not actually provide evidence.

[TheBulldawg4life]

@AdverbAdjective Oh would you like to PROVE that the GT500 beats the ZL1?? I'd love to see this.

[TheBulldawg4life]

The GT500 SVTPP pulls 1.00 at best on the GPad and probably 1.3 in turn. The ZL1 stock pulled 1.01 and at the 'Ring was pulling 1.5+ in turns. If you're going to be serious about running your GT500 even with the SVTPP you'll have to get engine, tranny, and differential coolers that come on STOCK with the ZL1, that cost's less money. Oh and get MRC.

[TheBulldawg4life]

@AdverbAdjective Quit crying about displacement...you sound like a Honda owner. Go do some research kid. Google "ZL1 beats 302 Boss LS" and shut the hell up.

[TheBulldawg4life]

@AdverbAdjective Yes they did..the '10 GT got embarrassed by the '10 SS, the '11 GT caught up to the '10 SS, and Ford knew the '12 302 had to be noticeably better than the '10 SS. The ZL1 comes out and destroyed the Boss 302 LS, Ford's most proud vehicle build in decades. 4 cam's to 1 cam...that's sad. LRA to IRS..that's sad. Your lack of education, formal or not is sad.

[TheBulldawg4life]

@AdverbAdjective 3 new engine's and 1 new engine tune and pieces in 4 years...that's sad. You're a moron. Go research the 2012 GT500 engine and the 2010-11 GT500 engine. FBody Camaro's and TA's stomped Mustangs..ALL Mustangs until Ford starting using a supercharger. FI was the only way Ford could beat the Camaro, so they did it.

[TheBulldawg4life]

@AdverbAdjective You don't even know your own fanboy engine? The 5.0 was tweaked significantly to get 444 hp and 380 ft. lb of torque (less than the GT lol). The GT500 motor was changed with the switch to aluminum which you'd know if you knew something.

[TheBulldawg4life]

@AdverbAdjective Changed engines in the GT in '11, changed the engine in the GT500 in '12, retuned and redid parts for the 5.0 in '12 with the Boss. Now for 2013 they're switching the GT500 engine again with a new supercharger borrowed from GM lol. Ford has to continuously redo their engines to keep up with the already old LS3/LSA/LS9.

[TheBulldawg4life]

@AdverbAdjective This was before switched engines in the GT, not to mention the block change for the GT500. Seriously...how many times is Ford gunna rebuild the same tired engines?

ZL1 is a failure...yet it dominated the manually operated roman cart suspension Boss 302 LS in every handling category INCLUDING BRAKING? Makes sense to me.

[MustangDMAN]

Slllloooowwwww

[TheBulldawg4life]

@AdverbAdjective Motortrend also compared the SS to the GT500 3 or so years ago and the SS did very well as you know. Get off your high horse you tool. The ZL1 is a car that has numbers better than C5 Z06's and close to that of the C6 Z06. The GT500 will be outclasses much like the Boss 302 the first time anyone tries to take a corner hard.

[plateofshrimp]

Designed for maximum mulletude

[elr456]

Awesome car. Everyone is saying it's an American POS yet it has excellent times at the Nurburgring.

[MotorsportsUnplugged]

So everyone knows...I've rebuilt, modified, and suspension tuned many Porsches. An early 930 Turbo at 145 MPH is a scary car....it is VERY light in the front end. So no one should go overboard on what the early supercars really drove like. They were scary and the people that drove them fast had balls bigger than a brass monkey. The racing versions were completely different.

[esurfer26]

Unfortunately, it is still a very high drag car.

[wonderbreadkw]

im so stoked for this and the new mustangs. this is gnna be awesome. 

[albodude93]

car is shaped like a fucking brick fuck down force!

[bangskeetband]

Say... this down force business could really catch on !

[davewhodavedunn]

so a spittler side rocker and spoiler makes that much of a difference lol nice vid but american cars can't handle lol

[Inklebonker1]

@davewhodavedunn What happend when chrysler put a splitter and a spoiler on the viper? They made the car that holds a 7:12 nurburgring lap time and still holds the record at laguna seca, miller motorsports, button willow 13, and spring mountain. Saying american cars cant handle is just ignorant. So what does that make you?

[mowych]

@davewhodavedunn

american cars can't handle by sissy

[iCHARRLZ]

@davewhodavedunn

No car can handle if you drive like a bitch.

[MotorsportsUnplugged]

@davewhodavedunn They handle so much better than the old days that now they're at least able to put up a fight. A Camaro totally packed from the factory is still a long way from costing what a 911 Turbo does.

[banddude121]

They had to hire a retired F16 pilot to figure out that downforce creates more handling. GM is behind on everything now a days.

[hyperv69]

"we made the car go faster" Well u had a fucking supercharger fitted in.. what do u expect? Slower?

[strikefr12]

LOL the camaro ss has 200 pounds of lift??!!!!

[Portaytoe]

Very interesting video!

You can clearly see the flow seperation occuring after it passes the spoiler... It also looks like the flow is turbulent throughout the entire car! Less overall drag on a very boxy looking car! Well done :)

[alldayjay502]

Now only if they can make a quality interior!

[maranello33]

Retired F16 Pilot Woooow That's a Bonus to CHEVROLET <3

[FidiAdrianosTV]

I wouldn't buy this car for lap times , but for fun !!!

[jsponson]

Good job, GM. The fact is, not many mainstream sports cars have zero-or-negative-lift aerodynamics. Even the Corvette Z06 has some lift at high speeds. GM needs to work on that next!

[ivanlai0225]

if i were to do all the talking, i would just said, "yea we added all these aero kits just to make it look cool."

[Doedelzzakspeler]

110 KP/H?? Are americans finnaly understanding it?!?! Does he even know what he just said

[Doedelzzakspeler]

The GT-R sees this and laughs... Hard! xD

[sid203]

and possibly generate downforce........

uh ........POSSIBLY ?!!!!!

fucking morons

[CAJFB]

This is interesting and I am a motorcycle guy.I mean I'll stick to the crotch rockets but I think its a good video showcase!

[ReflexEight]

New Mustangs, Camaros, Challengers and what not can never compete to the originals. Quit posing and gtfo.

[ChrisMHutchins]

ford is still better

[auditwaht]

sweet ;)

I wonder how the flow of the air particles would look like with rotating wheels!

[luizbrturbo]

Amadores

[blood117]

Lets see this go against the boss 302 on the track.

[InfinityFofus]

@blood117 Isn't it supposed to be competing with the Shelby? The boss has 440hp

[TheBulldawg4life]

@blood117 It just murdered the Boss 302 LS in Arizona.

[mrchristian87]

first solution to aerodynamics is don't design it to look like a brick :/

[jaijoedougwatt]

What a load. That's just another Chevy P.O.S., one of a long line.

[sdstig]

@ratmtbola

And despite that, Porsche still lost to many American cars like the C1 and C2 Vette

[MikeBR92]

@sdstig lolwut? Corvettes weren't good until the C5, unless you talk about straight line speed, you are right then.

[ratmtbola]

@sdstig In what category? Being cheap? Until this day GM hasn't manufactured a single car that can outhandle a Porsche 911. Fact. And actually the same goes for straight line speed.

[MotorsportsUnplugged]

@ratmtbola You're wrong. The Corvette ZR1 can take on all but the most extreme Porsche. Fact.

[ratmtbola]

@MotorsportsUnplugged Yep, but there's still always some version of the 911 that faster than the ZR1. In fact now there are actually 4 versions, the Turbo, Turbo S, GT3 RS and GT2 RS. Of course those are the most extreme versions of the 911, but so is the ZR1 the most extreme version of the Vette.

[maestroadam]

@ratmtbola haha I'll take a GT-R with a 0.26CD plus downforce, and I'll pocket the change ;)

[EndofDays213]

I could imagine the camaro being a super car it has the motor and design now it needs a weight reduction and techs

[Bahamuttiamat]

@ratmtbola haha, that is exactly what i was thinking. Where have they been for the pass 50 years? "Down force increases handling;" completely absurd. 

[MotorsportsUnplugged]

@ratmtbola You've obviously never driven an early 911.....or, in particular, an early 911 Turbo.

[ratmtbola]

@MotorsportsUnplugged Of course early 911's didn't handle as great (or rather: weren't as easy to control) as todays cars. But even the very first 911's (as well as models before the 911) already created some downforce which GM finally managed to do as well 60 years later ...

[jsponson]

@ratmtbola Yes and no. The 997 GT3 had some downforce, but the regular Carreras actually had aero lift. Porsche says the new 991 has almost zero lift, which means there's still some.

[SirGarforth]

@ratmtbola Why in the hell would you compare a Camaro to a Porsche?They're not even in the same category! You may as well be comparing a Corvette to an M5!

[ratmtbola]

@SirGarforth Not in the same category? Last time I checked they're both RWD sports cars. Something completely different as your stupid comparison of a Vette (a RWD sports car) and an M5 (a big, performance orientated, luxurious full-size sedan).

[SirGarforth]

@ratmtbola Oh, well since you put it that way, you could also compare a Ford F-150 with a Ferrari 458 Italia only on the fact that they are both RWD. Look, the Camaro is a muscle car. MUSCLE CAR. Not a sports car.It's bulky design and massive V8 engine make its stats closer to an M5 or a C63 AMG. The only reason it exists is so Americans can fee nostalgic about cars of the '60s. Oh, and it's not the first time GM has ever used this technology. They've used it on the Corvette for years

[ratmtbola]

@SirGarforth So according to your definition a Mercedes SLS AMG would also be a muscle car and not a sports car. Bulky design and a massive V8. And a Corvette too. And many other cars too. Give it up, the Camaro IS a sports car. Muscle cars can be regarded as a sub-category of sports cars.

[SirGarforth]

@ratmtbola That's exactly what I'm saying! The Camaro is not on the same level as a Porsche or a Ferrari or an Audi (Well, some Audis) and it never will be! The Corvette, however is a different story entirely. It was actually designed for speed and agility more than anything else. The Camaro is just a fashion statement. The same can be said for the Mustang and Challenger.

[ratmtbola]

@SirGarforth Yeah sure. The Camaro (as well as the Mustand and Challenger) are more about the looks than anything else. But still, with a relatively high power output (especially in the case of the Camaro ZL1 and the high-performance versions of the Mustang & Challenger) and more or less low weight (compared to 'normal' cars), it's considered a sports car. So yes, you can very well compare it to a 911.

[SirGarforth]

@ratmtbola No you cannot. The only thing a Camaro and a Porsche have in common are that they have four wheels. They are on completely different sides of the automotive spectrum.The Camaro's design puts it closer to a sports sedan that anything else. And besides, you were making a completely unfair generalization of an entire company. This is the first time that GM has used this technology on a MUSCLE CAR.They've been using it on the Corvette for decades.

[ratmtbola]

@SirGarforth What? Sports sedan? Last time I checked sedans had 4 doors. How many doors does the Camaro have again? Oh yeah, right, 2. And the whole backend is also way closer to a sports car or coupe than to a sedan.

And no they haven't used this technology on the Corvette 'for decades'. First sentence in this video: 'This car is the first performance car that GM has done that's gonna have either zero neutral lift or negative lift'.

Stop making up some shit and deal with the facts.

[SirGarforth]

@ratmtbola Why can't you get it through your empty fucking head that there is a difference between American muscle cars and other sports cars? First off, I never said the Camaro was a sedan. I said it was closer to a sedan than an actual sports car like a Porsche. And exactly what shit did I make up? You quoted the video yourself, so I thought that meant that you at least paid attention to it, but apparently not. Let me help you. Key words: "Zero neutral lift or negative lift"...

[SirGarforth]

@ratmtbola But let's just pretend for a moment that you're right. Throw the whole argument out the window. Porsche has made 1000 different versions of the same car since the 60s. And aside from one SUV and one sedan, that's it. Whereas GM has been making literally every other kind of car in the market. The fact that they (and the same can be said of Ford) can essentially make a cinder block go 200mph without drastically changing its shape in any way says a great deal.

[SirGarforth]

@ratmtbola ...that means that it has the lowest drag coefficient than any other "performance" car from GM. That's it. No new technology, just applied to a new(ish) division. I genuinely do not understand how you are not getting this. Think about it. I mean literally think. You don't buy an M5 or a C63 AMG purely for performance reasons. The exact same can be said for the Camaro, Mustang, and Challenger etc. Pull your head out of your ass and plant it in a fucking book.

[ratmtbola]

@SirGarforth No, you don't buy an M5 or C63 purely for performance reasons. Nor do you buy a Porsche or any other car purely for performance reasons. So according to your 'logic', that would mean that there aren't any sports cars. Because there's no car that you buy purely for performance.

How 'bout YOU getting your head out your sorry ass and trying to stop pulling some shit out of nowhere trying to prove your point without any actual facts. What a fucking idiot ...

[SirGarforth]

@ratmtbola And yet again, you miss the fucking point. Man, for someone who says "Last time I checked" so much, you sure haven't been doing so. How about instead of concentrating on one minute detail and bitching about how you're right and I'm wrong, you actually do some research, (if your underdeveloped brain is capable of that) because I'm done trying to explain this to you.

[ratmtbola]

@SirGarforth Fact of the matter is that a Camaro IS a sports car (even though it's in the 'muscle car' sub-category, just like a Mercedes SLS AMG could be considered a 'grand tourer', but it's still a sports car). And it's also a fact that this is the first time that GM has managed to create zero or negative lift, which others like Porsche have accomplished half a century ago.

Those were my original arguments. And your attempts to defy them are fucking ridiculous & without any facts

[SirGarforth]

@ratmtbola And my original arguments were that A) Comparing a Porsche to a Camaro is like comparing a cheetah to a grizzly bear, and B) You are making an unfair generalization about an entire company based on a single car. Like I've said, this isn't the first time GM has ever used this technology. They've been using it just as long as Porsche has. This is just the first time they've applied it to a Muscle car.

[ratmtbola]

@SirGarforth That's exactly the point. They have N-O-T used this technology before. This IS the very first time in company history that they've used it. If you're so sure that GM already had a car with this technology before, then please show it to me.

And I never compared a Porsche to a Camaro, all I said was that a Camaro is a sports car. And not 'closer to a sedan than to a sports car' as you claimed, which is fucking ridiculous.

[SirGarforth]

@ratmtbola Are you fucking kidding me? Have you not understood a word I've said? Of course this isn't the first time GM has ever used this technology!!!! Apparently it takes a few tries for information to sink in with you, so I'll say it again. This is a Camaro. Not a Corvette. A Muscle car. It has been built around the same basic design since the '60s. Which was originally a sedan. The only difference is that now, they're focusing more on performance than anything. >

[ratmtbola]

@SirGarforth Sorry, but are you mentally retarted or something?

Again: NO, they have >NOT< used this before, EVER, in ANY car, not even the Corvette. And that's a FACT. Got it now? Damn ...

First sentence in the video: "This car is the first performance car that GM has done that's gonna have either zero neutral lift or negative lift". WHY do you think, Mr. Genius, why he said that? Because it's not true? He wanted his own company look worse that it is?

[SirGarforth]

@ratmtbola Fine. If you want to be a fucking idiot for the rest of your life and roll around in your little fanboy fantasies and ignore the facts, that's fine. Just leave me out of it.

[ratmtbola]

@SirGarforth Ignore the facts? That's pretty much what you're doing.

You didn't bring up a SINGLE fact to this discussion. I did. The first sentence of the very video we're commenting on proves my points to be true and renders everything you said to be complete bullshit. And you can also read that on Wikipedia.

What now? Will you still act like you're the smart guy here even though there's absolutely no substence to your so called 'arguments'?

[SirGarforth]

@ratmtbola Ohhhhh, that's right! YOU'VE presented all the facts, haven't you? Facts like "This happened half a century ago" and "GM has never used this technology before". And the FACT that things like "computers" and "wind tunnels" were a complete mystery to GM until very recently. All the while giving completely credible sources. I'm so sorry, but until now, I had you pegged as a complete dipshit. Please forgive me... And as for Wikipedia, they're more full of bullshit than you!

[ratmtbola]

@SirGarforth Dude, how fucking ignorant are you?

I never said that GM didn't have wind tunnels before, did I? Of course they had. All I said was that, before this, they didn't have a single car that creates zero or negative downforce. And that's a goddamn FACT.

How about just listening to the fucking first sentence of this video? "This car is the FIRST performance car that GM HAS DONE that's gonna have EITHER ZERO NEUTRAL OR NEGATIVE LIFT". Got it now? Jeez ...

[SirGarforth]

@ratmtbola .....what? What fucking technology are you talking about then?!?!?! And if Porsche's had it since the '60s, then why the fuck would GM just now be discovering it?! And for that matter, since YOU'RE the one with all the facts, name the EXACT year that they achieved said zero neutral or negative lift and with which model. I'd love to know. Note: concept cars DO NOT COUNT. I'm actually wondering why you haven't brought it up yet.

[ratmtbola]

@SirGarforth Technology? I never even used that freaking word a single time. I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

Now get your head out your ass AND FINALLY LISTEN TO THE GODDAMN FIRST SENTENCE OF THE VIDEO. What do you hear there? A freaking GM EMPLOYEE saying that THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THEY'VE EVER CREATED A CAR WITH ZERO OR NEGATIVE DOWNFORCE. Goddamn it. How fucking ignorant can you be? Are you seriously trying to tell me that he's wrong by saying that? Really?!

[SirGarforth]

@ratmtbola Okay, A)That's absolute bullshit because you've used the word "technology" in almost EVERY SINGLE REPLY. And B) You still haven't answered my question, which was "What was the exact year that Porsche allegedly reached zero or negative downforce and with which model and with what 'technology'?". Which leads me to believe that you are indeed a dipshit who blurts out random absurdities before actually thinking. If you can come up with the answer you might just prove me wrong.

[ratmtbola]

@SirGarforth Ran a quick google search, first thing I found was that the Porsche 911 GT3, which was first released in 1999, already created downforce. So that's a good 11 years before GM created their first car with downforce. Which basically proves everything you said to be wrong. And I'm quite positive that there were other Porsche models before the 911 GT3 that already created downforce, but I'm not going to waste more of my time to find that out for some ignorant troll.

[TheBulldawg4life]

@ratmtbola Did a quick google search...found out the C3 Corvette's ('68-'82) produced negative lift, thanks in part to a slight rear spoiler. They didn't even use a wind tunnel. You don't seem to understand the what you're actually talking about.

[ratmtbola]

@TheBulldawg4life What you're talking about are custom, aftermarket spoilers. A minivan would create negative downforce too with one of those..

And now don't act like a huge ignorant, narrowminded GM fanboy like that dude SirGarforth. Why do you think does a GM employee on a GM video say that this is the first car in GMs history that 'created zero or negative lift'? Because it's not true? They want to make themselves worse than they already look? Yeah, right ...

[TheBulldawg4life]

@ratmtbola No, I'm talking about a standard equipment lip spoiler that anyone could've put on their C3 Vette.

I don't know why they said this is the first GM performance car to create zero/negative lift. Perhaps they haven't done the testing on every model of performance car they've ever made, and don't realize others before this made negative lift. Perhaps they mean it as "this is the first car we've ever intentionally designed to have negative lift."

Either way, it's not the first.

[ratmtbola]

@TheBulldawg4life Could have ... blabla. Stock Vette C3 didn't create any downforce, end of discussion. In fact a C3 has a very, very poor drag coefficient.

Either way, do you really want to argue against a GM employee and GM themselves? Okay ... if you say so, gotta be true.

[TheBulldawg4life]

@ratmtbola I'm sorry, but the wind tunnel tester that's used by NASCAR teams is a far more trustworthy source than you are. Are you talking about the coefficient of drag or the coefficient of drag area? Either way, it doesn't change the fact that the C3 produces negative lift.

I'm not arguing with a GM employee or GM...I'm arguing with you. I'm quite certain GM hasn't wind tunnel tested every vehicle they've ever produced, and that to the best of their knowledge this is the first.

[ratmtbola]

@TheBulldawg4life Sorry, but do you really believe the bullshit you're writing here? Yeah sure, the C3 creates downforce and GM doesn't know about it ... but some whack dude who posted it on his website does. Gotta be true, eh?

Whatever, you're just acting like some narrowinded fanboy, going against all odds and facts. Good day.

[TheBulldawg4life]

@ratmtbola Do you actually believe your own nonsense? "Some whack dude" that is one of the VERY few private owners of a wind tunnel, and owns multiple tunnels, and is used almost exclusively by NASCAR, and is a well respected tester. As opposed to you, who has no training what so ever.

You call me a fanboy, because you don't have the knowledge to have a logical discussion. You dismiss facts, because you're too ignorant to research them yourself.

Get a life.

[SirGarforth]

@ratmtbola Did......did you just say what I think you said? "Drag coefficient has nothing to do with downforce"? DRAG COEFFICIENT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH DOWNFORCE, YOU IDIOT!!!!!! The formula for down force is as follows: D= 1/2 x (S x H x AoA) x F x p x V squared. D= downforce in newtons, S= span of the car, H= height of the car, AoA= angle of attack (incline of the car), F= DRAG. COEFFICIENT. p= air density and V= velocity.

[TheBulldawg4life]

@SirGarforth I always thought of S as area (be it front/side/back/under), just helped me see the problem in a real world picture in my head. I'm actually quite enjoying this. I never actually knew the C3's created 13.9 pounds of down force, even with the lights up.

[SirGarforth]

@ratmtbola You haven't PROVEN anything other than your ignorance of not only cars, but physics in general. I'm actually glad you've brought that to my attention. Now, I can stop wasting my time with you.

[SirGarforth]

@ratmtbola Let me get this straight. You originally made a comment criticizing GM for their supposed lack of advancement, (based entirely on your own opinion) then got into an argument about where you basically repeated your opinion all while bringing absolutely 0 credible facts to the table. But it wasn't until AFTER said argument that you actually looked up the "facts" that you were so adamant about knowing only to find out that not only were you wrong about the date...

[SirGarforth]

@TheBulldawg4life I'm sorry you had to get involved in this. I just don't think there's any talking to this guy...

[SirGarforth]

@ratmtbola ...but you also seem to have overlooked the decade or so that GM spent using the same technology to produce the VOLT. Which, while not a performance car, has a drag coefficient of 0.29 to the ZL1's 0.35. And I'm the troll.

[SirGarforth]

@ratmtbola < But without even taking my word for it, Look at this video. Do you see anything new here? Where do you think all of these testing facilities, tracks and laboratories came from? Did GM suddenly pull all of it out of their asses? Of course not! It's been in existence for years being used on the CORVETTE. What kind of company do you take them for anyway? Some company that exclusively to rednecks and soccer moms? There is absolutely NO NEW TECHNOLOGY HERE!!!!!!!

[SirGarforth]

@ratmtbola And as far as facts go, you've been doing exactly what you claim I've been doing. So far, you haven't presented any "facts" from anything other than your own opinion.

[R8Prototype]

wow looks very slick in white

[fire20014]

Top Gear is surely gonna review this ! :)

[rainofthepast]

nice car

[EASiedlecki]

Wow, actually generating downforce? That's a HUGE leap over here in America!

[DvDPlaya]

Air brake spoiler huh

[NewSimpleadams]

sweet