*Subscription required. Will be available on YouTube in about a month*

2016 Chevrolet SS Sedan: The New Benchmark Sport Sedan - Episode 152 - Motor Trend OnDemand


Spoiler Alert:

Yes the SS is faster than the E39 M5 around Willow Springs - by 1.4 seconds.

However the 2016 SS is about 1.5 seconds slower than the 2014 SS MT tested. They claim its because the MR suspension is softer than the previous one.

Great to see they finally post a video about SS..The previous SS was pretty fast on Willow Springs tho.

 

Yes the SS is faster than the E39 M5 around Willow Springs - by 1.4 seconds.

However the 2016 SS is about 1.5 seconds slower than the 2014 SS MT tested. They claim its because the MR suspension is softer than the previous one.

Dafaq?

 

*

However the 2016 SS is about 1.5 seconds slower than the 2014 SS MT tested. They claim its because the MR suspension is softer than the previous one.

Yes! I knew the 14 was going to be faster. Old school engineering rules. Next we need to prove the white is the best color. (Disclaimer: I may be prejudiced)

 

Yes! I knew the 14 was going to be faster. Old school engineering rules. Next we need to prove the MYSTIC GREEN is the best color. (Disclaimer: I may be prejudiced)

I fixed your typo :grin

 

However the 2016 SS is about 1.5 seconds slower than the 2014 SS MT tested. They claim its because the MR suspension is softer than the previous one.

Dafaq?

Yes! I knew the 14 was going to be faster. Old school engineering rules. Next we need to prove the white is the best color. (Disclaimer: I may be prejudiced)

2014? They mean 2015, right? No MT or MR suspension on the 2014s...

 

Doh. Reading comprehension fail. MT for Motor Trend. I get it...


(Edit isn't working on my computer...)

 

Not able to see the video not a member

 

So the 2014 is almost 3 seconds quicker than the E39 M5? :notbad

 

I dont believe that the 2015 suspension in Performance mode is softer than a 2014. They must have left the MRC in Tour mode.

 

I concur. I hope they were aware of the 4 modes for the system. Tour,Sport,Perf and Track.

 

None of the reviews I've read have been aware of Track mode, so most likely that wasn't used. I would say the pass was probably made in Perf if they could work a simple dial and had any knowledge of the different settings, but sometimes people amaze me with how much easy stuff they mess up, so it is possible the run was made in Tour.

 

I would think unless tested by same driver, same conditions, back to back and average of multiple laps it would be hard to say any model year of the SS is faster/slower than any other, or that suspension alone is the difference in lap times. Too many variables to compare the two tests of the SS and make a declaration one is faster, other than in the specific conditions at the time they were tested.

 

Well I dodnt think Track mode was any stiffer than Performance. I was under the impression Track mode just made further adjustments to traction and stability control and throttle response.

 

Wait….. so the addition of MRC made the car handle WORSE???

 

Finally we get to see Pobst tear around a track in an SS. Great video!!! You can start a free trial and cancel if you want to watch the video.

 

Was the 16 test vehicle a manual? We know the 14 is an auto. The difference could just be that the auto shifts quicker than a manual.

If the 16 is an auto, then the difference could be cast vs forged wheels and lighter rear brakes on the 14.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Yep, Mystic Green manual.

 

Just watched the whole video. I can't believe the 2016 SS is that much slower than the 2014 SS. I would of thought it would of been the other way around with the MRC shocks. I guess they put them there for a more compliant ride as their main priority.

 

I knew the Holden engineers would throw us early adopters a bone. Hey 16 owners, nice rear brembos, mag rid and wheels. Whoops you're behind me, you can't hear me anymore! Sorry, see ya!

j\k... kind of! :devil

 

I wouldn't call 1.5 secs as being "that much slower." Weather, driver error, etc all play a big factor. People put too much emphasis on single numerical results that aren't easily repeatable. These types of tests don't give the drivers much time to truly get used to the vehicles anyways. Do both of them again and you might get the opposite. Now if they tested each 10 times around the same track with the same driver on the same days and the 2014 outdid the 2016 every time, then I would consider that conclusive evidence that the 2014 is probably faster, but one lap each on completely different days doesn't tell you really anything.

 

No kidding. Not to add fuel, but was any mention made of the tires' condition? Brand new tires on the '16 would likely have led to slower lap times versus a worn-in press car '14.

Has there been a thorough presentation of the differences is suspension from '14-'15/'16 in terms of the spring rates, bar thicknesses/diameters, etc? Just wondering about this. I'm sure there are some significant changes, but the overall sum of the changes would still be hard to quantify.

I just recall seeing all those reviews where each tester said, "Man this is great. If only it had MRC!" Hard to fathom the suspension would take a step backwards in capability moving to MRC, especially considering in other applications the progress was considered forward.

-N

 

There is no way a gas shock outperformed a mag set up on a road course. On top of the vector ability, just doesn't make sense. I'd wager they left it in tour or didn't take off any assists.

 

I doubt Randy Pobst would make the mistake to not eek out every drop of performance of whatever car he was driving.

Too many uncontrolled variables to make a direct comparison between 14 and 16 over two tests done 2 years apart. Regardless, 1.5 seconds is a huge gap at Streets for one lap, especially considering the 16 should probably be about a half to a full second faster on paper due to the new hardware.

 

That's what I'm saying. Either something was off with the test car, or the MRC shocks just have ride comfort as top priority without any setting able to match that of the 14.

 

... differences in ECM calibration ...

 

Between 2014 and 2016? I thought there weren't any changes...

:hidesbehindsofa:

Or just differences because of manufacturing tolerances/break-in of individual cars?

 

Is outhandling/outperforming a 13 year old car that big of a deal? Is the E39 M5 that great? Just trying to understand the comparison? By the way the E38 and E39 BMW's are my favorites of all BMW's to date (looks wise).

 

It may seem odd but what else is there to compare it to? What other sedans offer RWD NA V8 power with a manual transmission? As the video mentions, just 1. The E39 M5 is considered one of the greatest sport sedans ever made. So yeah...pretty good company to be in.

 

Considering MotorTrend did two tests of both the auto and manual and the tests gave a 0.3 sec difference for both in the straight-line quarter mile (auto: 13.3 and 13.0, manual: 12.9 and 13.2), it's not hard to see that with curves thrown in the results could be this different, especially when considering all of the other factors.

I don't know why people keep trying to argue which is faster or better. Auto or manual? FE3 or MRC? They are both freaking amazing for the price (and just amazing overall!) with the auto clearly having more repeatability due to obvious reasons. The more important thing is for people to look at all of the other amazing straight up performance vehicles with gobs of more hp that the SS keeps up with or beats out. That's the power of an overall driver's vehicle and not just a one trick pony.

 

I would have thought torque vectoring, available only in track mode, would have made a substantial difference to the times. Yet there is no mention of it?

 

Wait we have torque vectoring? I thought we only had a limited slip to manage the rear.

 

Mark one down for the 14 guys....

 

wasn't the E39 M5 the benchmark when developing the SS???...

Bill

 

One of the cars, yes. Did you know that Holden's performance arm was already handily beating the E39 back in the day? The E39 was easily the most complete package but was not the best handler in its category.

 

is there a video of the 2014 run?

 

Can anyone with subscription ask Motor Trend what suspension setting they used?

 

I tried asking Randy Pobst and Jason Cammisa on instagram, they never answered me. Maybe if a few more people ask them, they'll actually look into it.