Car and driver Camaro vs Mustant GTPP numbers

[mustang_guy]

Exactly. I be the hellcat spins its tires all the way through a 0-60 run.

Without a doubt. My 14 gt500 had too small of tires for a summer compound. It should have came with a drag radial or super aggressive summers.

Why does Chrysler do this? My friend just bought a SRT Charger (the 485 hp version) and it has little 245s all around. What the hell are they thinking?

It cuts cost. Dont you think 235s is too small for a base gt? 275s rear should be standard.

Sponsored

 

[ridenfish39]

It cuts cost. Dont you think 235s is too small for a base gt? 275s rear should be standard.

Yup. I think the PP car should have had a square 9.5'' wheel and 285s at all 4 corners standard.

 

[1320']

I agree..... I further suggest that initial tests by these car magazines document performance numbers that seem to drop off in follow on testing. Not quite sure why this happens but it does seem to be the pattern.

I really cant see the Camaro lining up next to a 707 HP Hellcat and matching the launch from 0-60 :eyebulge:. I have to raise the BS flag here.

And the 911 GT3 RS does the 0-60 run in only 3.3 seconds with "only" 500 HP and 339 TQ...the 707 HP Hellcat should decimate it right?

People...power figures alone mean nothing..it's gearing and power to weight that matters.

The Hellcat is 707 hp, but it also is 4,400lbs.

The Camaro is 455 HP but weighs 3,700 lbs.

600 lbs is a huge weight difference..that's the difference between a C7 Z51 and a FRS/BRZ. That is the range we're talking about here.

The Challenger would absolutely run away from the Camaro in a top speed run where traction isn't as much of a factor...but down low, where inertia, resistance and weight are dominant factors? The story is different.

 

[mustang_guy]

Yup. I think the PP car should have had a square 9.5'' wheel and 285s at all 4 corners standard.

I personally think PP should have had 265-275 up front and 295 rears. Square set is overkill, it wouldn't be needed for most.

 

[mustang_guy]

And the 911 GT3 RS does the 0-60 run in only 3.3 seconds with "only" 500 HP and 339 TQ...the 707 HP Hellcat should decimate it right?

People...power figures alone mean nothing..it's gearing and power to weight that matters.

The Hellcat is 707 hp, but it also is 4,400lbs.

The Camaro is 455 HP but weighs 3,700 lbs.

600 lbs is a huge weight difference..that's the difference between a C7 Z51 and a FRS/BRZ. That is the range we're talking about here.

The Challenger would absolutely run away from the Camaro in a top speed run where traction isn't as much of a factor...but down low, where inertia, resistance and weight are dominant factors? The story is different.

Its more of the fact it has a pd blower and undersized tires. Its gearing is fine. Pd blowers have tons of traction issues. Its why centri and turbo setups dominate the nmra majority of the time

 

[eiva]

Been lurking for quite some time, figured it was about time to create a profile...

So much misinformation and so much benchracing :shrug:
First off, acceleration from rest has so much more to do with power application than total system power. As for saying that a camaro has no chance to do x because of y, speaking in absolutes is dangerous because there are always exceptions. Can't we just wait to see what happens in the hands of owners

For reference, I'm interested in an R allocation at some point, but I can't stomach paying over MSRP :lol:

 

[347CobraII]

Where did I say that the Camaro was better in everything? Ill wait why you find my quote that says the Camaro is better in everything...........

Well you have plus I'm not playing your game. This is Mustang Forum you're only in here to have fun as you say. You be better off in Camaro forum so you can brag to each other

 

[ZaneWayne]

Well you have plus I'm not playing your game. This is Mustang Forum you're only in here to have fun as you say. You be better off in Camaro forum so you can brag to each other

I have not, but I would love to be proven wrong. I am playing no games. I am here simply because I like discussion. No one is forcing you to read my posts. I am not calling anyone out or attacking them. But do not say that I said the Camaro is better in everyway, because it simply is not.

 

[1320']

Well you have plus I'm not playing your game. This is Mustang Forum you're only in here to have fun as you say. You be better off in Camaro forum so you can brag to each other

How dare he be here to have fun.

Here at M6G it's all seriousness all the time, right? He isn't rude and doesn't cause a fuss...let's not start something where there isn't anything

 

[Kbreese]

Top gear acceleration test are pretty useless seeing the top gear is all about gas mileage & not how quick you can go.

Completely agree. No idea why they test that. It's total Silliness.

If you are in top gear @ a mere 30 or 50mph, and you actually want to accelerate, you would obviously freakin downshift.

 

[Kbreese]

That weight is from the old 1LE...

But, did you see the weight distribution for the 1SS and 2SS? Right now it is just as front biased as the fully loaded GTPP Premium... The GTPP has the equipment it needs to survive... naming the 15 inch by 34 (or 36mm) rotors, 6 pots and a 255/19 up front.

The SS needs 15-15.5's and a 255/265-20 up front... That is 40-50lbs right on the axle... Unless the SS upgrades some stuff in the rear, the balance will be closer to 56/44...


I think the SS is in a bad situation as far as future compromise is concerned. The 19 gallon tank helps but think about it, a 1/4 tank is more front bias at 19 gallons than the ATS-V's 16 gallon tank.

OMG, enough about the gas tank. Who gives a shit. lol

 

[347CobraII]

I have not, but I would love to be proven wrong. I am playing no games. I am here simply because I like discussion. No one is forcing you to read my posts. I am not calling anyone out or attacking them. But do not say that I said the Camaro is better in everyway, because it simply is not.

No one is forcing you to read my post either but you did. You still in wrong forum this is mustang forum. Also too many posts to go through find it but you have. I know deep down you love Mustang's that why you're here

 

[eiva]

OMG, enough about the gas tank. Who gives a shit. lol

It looks like arguing with him is useless... None of the brakes on the cars being discussed in this thread would withstand abuse with a really good tire up front. And the gas tank... Please :lol: Pill, look what I track and talk to me about weight distribution.

 

[Kbreese]

To your other point... Yes the gen 5 interior is awful. But hey, I think the Mustang interior is awful too. I guess I have high standards. The new 2SS interior is a step in the right direction, but still just looks cheesy to me.

My 2012 GT Premium (saddle leather) is far from "awful" and I've honestly had many compliments on it, including one guy who saw it as a gas station when my door was open and said wow that's the nicest interior I've ever seen in a mustang.

The new mustang definitely has an even nicer interior, but I get tired of so many people bashing the previous interior. The base cars are kinda bland, but the premium cars have a nice interior, relatively speaking. (It's not a German luxury car)

/Rant

 

[347CobraII]

How dare he be here to have fun.

Here at M6G it's all seriousness all the time, right? He isn't rude and doesn't cause a fuss...let's not start something where there isn't anything

No one said that but real question why are you here. Do you have anything positive to say or anything that helps the topic. I don't think you have any interest in Mustang. Then members who thanked your post really have no interest in 2015-16 mustang either

Here what admin said not to long ago

" Thoughtful debate is fine but if you are here just to argue with other members and have no interest in the Mustang other than to troll these forums, your posts will be deleted and your account will be suspended."

Sponsored