autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SS/WS6 stock classification

To: <Andrew_Bettencourt@kingston.com>,
Subject: Re: SS/WS6 stock classification
From: "Steven Eguina" <seguina@unionfundingusa.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 10:46:05 -0700
Re: The Camaro SS 1996 and 1997 Level 2 suspension.  I own a Red 96 SS that
came with the Level 2 suspension.  At least on the rear, the springs were
so stiff that it had min. traction coming out of the turns. I changed the
rear springs to VERY soft.  The difference in the stock torsen and a race
version is night and day.  The stock version works OK  but has no big
advantage over the Auburn unit. IMHO I don't think this is a big issue.

I'm sure their are lots of 96 and 97 SS owners who would gladly agree to a
spec spring designation, or a level 1 suspension so they don't have to run
in ESP or SS. ESP is very expensive and takes lots of testing and continual
up grading. Even if you purchase a National Championship car.

Good luck to all you STOCK Camaro SS drivers. I Hope you can get you point
across.  Steve Eguina #86 ESP----------
> From: Andrew_Bettencourt@kingston.com
> To: kdeja - Kenneth Deja <Kenneth.Deja@acxiom.com>
> Cc: 'autox@autox.team.net'
> Subject: Re: SS/WS6 stock classification
> Date: Thursday, July 06, 2000 1:30 PM
> 
> 
> 
> Kenneth,
> 
> You make all valid points.  These points are ones that the SCAC and SEB
have
> considered for years.  The early cars are the ones that will have
documentation
> issues but the problem becomes separating cars into classes based on
years AND
> option packages?  I don't think there is any precedent for having the
same MODEL
> car in two different classes with different options.
> 
> Write a letter with your best explanation on how to solve the
aforementioned
> problems.  How does the SEB divide the cars so that the 'tuner' piece
gets
> minimized?
> 
> How about all SS's and WS6's with LS1's get into FS...what year was that?
 1998
> and up?  Can't quite remember...
> 
> AB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kdeja - Kenneth Deja <Kenneth.Deja@acxiom.com> on 07/06/2000 04:32:26 PM
> 
> Please respond to kdeja - Kenneth Deja <Kenneth.Deja@acxiom.com>
> 
> To:   "'autox@autox.team.net'" <autox@autox.team.net>
> cc:    (bcc: Andrew Bettencourt/FIELD SALES/Kingston)
> 
> Subject:  Re: SS/WS6 stock classification
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a biased WS6 owner, I'd like to add my 2 cents on the SS/WS6
> reclassification topic (yeah I can hear the groans now).  With all due
> respect, I don't think people or the right people know or have the
> information accurate (except for those of you that agree it should be
moved
> to FStock :-) ).  I know and understand that the 96-97 SS/WS6 were built
by
> SLP and could be had with different springs and an Auburn diff. and the
> classification made sense then, but the 98 to current ones are factory
built
> with only the hoods and wheels being added at SLP (ASC for the WS6).  The
> 1998 to current WS6 and Camaro SS with the level I suspension is the SAME
as
> the 1LE suspension (F & R springs and swaybars) without the Koni DA's or
the
> stiffer bushings, but with 17 inch wheels.  The fresh air hood scoops
could
> hardly be considered a performance gain on an autocross course, and
others
> have said it's a toss up between the 17 in. and the 16 in. wheels, with
some
> even saying the 16 inch wheel and tire is the preferable one to have. 
Why
> couldn't we sub-categorize this car like we do other cars  (98-current
WS6
> and 98-current SS with Level I suspension - Fstock)?  This sport polices
> itself pretty strongly, and I believe any cheaters would be spotted and
> protested.  I think those sitting 1.5" lower with 0 lean would be pretty
> easy to pick out.
> 
> >> Mark Sipe wrote - Further, the fully developed, Stock class capability
of
> the SS/WS6 F-body has yet to ever be demonstrated, so suggesting a class
> move with this circumstance generally appears to be considered
premature.<<
> 
> That's because no one has been crazy enough to run it in SuperStock.  I
run
> mine in ESP because of the better index.  I don't think the SS and WS6
will
> do any better in the "Class 2"..... class.  Looking at some of the
results
> from this year's Tours, AStock was always ahead of FStock, and sometimes
by
> a huge margin.
> 
> I think it will eventually become a better fit, with the 99+ Mustang
Cobras
> being sorted out and the f-bodies getting the new heads and intake from
the
> new LS1 in the Corvettes.  Wouldn't the SS/WS6 be good competitors
against
> these cars?  If it's ok to class the Mustang Cobra with the Mustang GT's,
> why is it a problem to class the SS (Level I suspension) and WS6 with the
> Z28 and the Formula/Trans Am?
> 
> KD (I'm reluctant to send this, but.......)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>