2016 Camaro Official Specs!!!

[saleen367]

That v6 0-60 time is pretty impressive. Wonder what you have to do to achieve that in real life and with a manual. According to the article the 2.0L is also quicker than the ecoboost 0-60 even though it has so much less power.

I find the following hard to achieve for a normal driver.....

v8: 4.0
v6: 5.1
2.0L: 5.4

Back in the late 60's Ford in particular under-rated their engine HP numbers because insurance rates were through the roof for young drivers. It helped get those buyer insured, plus the cars still performed admirably.

Not sayin GM is sandbaggin their ratings here, but it could be so, depending on the actual weight of the cars when they hit the street. Physics don't lie. We will see in time.

Sponsored

 

[saleen367]

Yep. I am done posting in these things. I piss everyone off because I love my Mustang and think Ford did an amazing job with the ENTIRE car and posting this on a 6G Mustang site. Yeah, I am the fan boy.

Some of the current Mustang owners are all butthurt with these specs being released. 2-3 weeks ago, they were LOL @ GM for the pricing of the car being too high. Now they love the Camaro.

I wouldn't buy GM if they were $1 ... goes against who I am as well. :cheers:

 

[genericuser1]

This is great news, tougher competition breeds better products for us.

 

[tmcbigblue]

So the camaro ss is 25lbs lighter than a mustang gt? who gives a shit. I could care less about the 4cly or the v6. you can do full exhaust and save probably 60-70lbs and tune it and lay down 450 to the tires. Probably still be cheaper also.

 

[Katastrophe]

The 0-60 Mph and 1/4 mile times are pretty damn good. I could see some "hero runs" with a factory stock 1SS making it in the 12.0's or very high 11.9's...easily with some better tires. You most certainly would have to click the A8 option box, though...

However...we are overlooking the braking numbers a little bit aren't we?

60-0 in 117 feet is pretty crappy. The junk RFT tires and small(ish) brakes would be the culprit for that number...I would be interested to know how repeated stops would fair. Once the brakes get some heat into them, how bad will they fade, etc...?

The handling number is quite good, but IIRC the 1LE (which was GM's benchmark) did better in handling and MUCH better in braking.

Then again...numbers only tell part of the story. I'm more interested in how the car drives. How will it perform overall?

Still, aside from polarizing looks, I think they did a good job. Hopefully we get a few comparisons to sink our teeth into.

 

[Falconetti]

Im not too concerned about the performance from the factory, If anyone wants their car to be faster they just need to upgrade it. But my question is will the chevy engine withstand the abuse the 5.0 has shown it can take? Im ok with my 2015 being whooped by a camaro by any amount of time, and I like the outside but the interior just doesnt fit my taste. I wonder if that remains the same as well

 

[chadmclark]

It's always been a leap frog event between Ford and GM, for decades ... This just happens to be the leap where GM appears to be in the lead; give it time, Ford will make the leap, again

Plus, until an independent magazine (like C&D or MT) review it, I take those numbers with a big pinch of salt ;)

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Kbreese]

2016 Camaro SS: 0-60 in 4 seconds flat and a 12.3 sec @116mph

Wow, that's impressive. Interior is much improved too, IMO.

Still prefer the looks of the mustang though (Inside and out)

 

[SILVER GT]

Oh boy. I must have offended you, that doesn't own a new 6G Mustang. Sorry about that. We are on a MUSTANG 6G site, go figure for my aligenicne to the car I bought and love to death. It delivers in every way possible. INCLUDING FIT AND FINISH. My car is perfect and was built in Nov 2014.

Offended nope, I actually found your post comical. I own two other Mustangs, and have nothing against the S550. I did test drive the '15, and wasn't impressed...yet. I am hoping for an improvement for '17. The '15 has basically no performance gain over the '14. If anything, it lost some performance which has been proven in many stock vs stock tests. If your car is "perfect" you are one of the lucky few with out misaligned hoods, fenders and bumpers. Or a rear window installed out of whack. I have looked at over twenty 2015, and five 2016 Mustangs (hoping for an improvement) and they ALL had fit and finish issues.

Those outlandish sales numbers also show that Ford dropped the ball, huh? Look how many BMW, Porsche owners have bought one of these cars? They are selling like hot cakes all over the GLOBE. Yet, you are telling me that Ford dropped the ball? Sorry, I cannot comprehend your statements. I am sure Ford is going to listen to your perceived threat, LOL.

Let's be honest about the sales figures. The only reason it has good sales numbers is because it is new, and the Camaro is being replaced. The Camaro has been the sales leader since it came back out in 2010. My gut tells me once the new one comes out and has a full sales year it will regain it's lead. Higher sales of anything don't mean that it's better per say, we need to remember that as well. Timex sells many more watches then Rolex...

Sales don't determine what I buy regardless.

How is the new SS the benchmark when these are just GM numbers that cannot be validated in any, shape, form or fashion? Any manufacturer can post what they want, we need 2nd and 3rd party verification. I have also replied "kudos to GM". Move along now.

GM actually was right on the money with the C7 figures, and I see no reason this won't be the same. We know the weight loss is legit by even looking at the ATS as the platforms are nearly the same, with the Camaro actually having more light weight aluminum parts being added. We know the engine makes the hp and tq numbers as it's the same as the C7. Nothing to validate there. Power to weight ratio tells you that the Camaro will be much quicker then the Mustang. I am not a Ford or GM guy, I have owned both, and will continue to do so. I buy whatever is the better car at the time and never let fanboyisim get in the way on either side.:cheers:

 

[Mr Monte]

However...we are overlooking the braking numbers a little bit aren't we?

60-0 in 117 feet is pretty crappy. The junk RFT tires and small(ish) brakes would be the culprit for that number...I would be interested to know how repeated stops would fair. Once the brakes get some heat into them, how bad will they fade, etc...?.

Better tires should shorten that braking quite a bit. The 14" Brembos on my 2010 Challenger SRT8 & 2014 SS Sedan held up well with no brake fade with over 100 miles /day of aggressive track time.

I would like to see 4 back to back 60-0 brake test to see how they hold up.

 

[DivineStrike]

also people.... let's wait for the REAL weights to come out, not the chevy marketing weights. Do you guys remember what happened with the S550?

You mean that actual weights confirmed Ford estimated curb weights? The only legitimate reason to hold off on accepting these weights is if there are no cts', or whatever the new caddy is, that weigh what gm says they will. I'm sure there are. GM raised the prices for a reason...they raised the performance bar. However I still don't think they will outsell the mustang.

 

[airjonny]

got to give credit where credit is due guys. It's a good time to be a car guy/gal.

 

[02gtnh]

You mean that actual weights confirmed Ford estimated curb weights? The only legitimate reason to hold off on accepting these weights is if there are no cts', or whatever the new caddy is, that weigh what gm says they will. I'm sure there are. GM raised the prices for a reason...they raised the performance bar. However I still don't think they will outsell the mustang.

I agree that the Camaro won't outsell the new Mustang. Most people and even some on this forum is all about price. And there's no doubt when someone sees a base Mustang at $33000 and a 1ss at $37000, most will go cheaper.

 

[S5fiddy]

I feel ashamed that there are guys on this MUSTANG forum that are going for this recycled look. Performance is impressive yes, but again... its a Camaro -___- For those of you so called "Mustang fans" all I have to say it....

 

[e30og]

The Mustang has been put on notice...

http://blog.caranddriver.com/2016-c...ates-and-more-detailed-curb-weights-revealed/

2016 Chevy Camaro

2.0t: 3,339lbs

3.6l: 3,435lbs

6.2l: 3,685lbs

haha yikes! Certainly not running to the dealership but well done Chevy, touche addle:

How about power bumps from Ford plz. And give it us EB adopters for free

Sponsored