2016 Camaro Official Specs!!!

[valentinoamoro]

1) Manufacturer wts are always lower than real optioned up weights. I expect trim for trim the SS to be within 50 pounds of the Stang (for the SS) from what I'm seeing
2) Where the Camaro will gain an advantage over the Stang is in the automatic gearing. Manuals are equivalent, and here the Camaro is probably slightly faster due to the more powerful engine. I expect the Coyote to be more of a screamer Vs the torquier and lazier LT1.
3) I expect it to handle better properly equipped Vs the GT-PP. Ford's given us all the goodies (Torsen, brakes, radiator etc) in the PP, however, they have left a lot of easy stuff on the table for us to fix (ex: shocks, struts, maybe springs, IRS bracing, sways, potentially wider wheels). A lot of people in the performance pony segment would do these anyway just to dial the car into their liking.
4) The price difference is quite large and I'm not sure if its justified at this stage, will have to wait to see the reviews. It's probably works cheaper to improve the Stangs handling and do a lot more like nicer wheels.
5) The LT1 doesnt have the storied reliability of the Coyote, and not sure about the ability to take on boost
6) For most people, the difference in the cars is negligible (other than price). A lot of people into handling/power will likely go aftermarket anyway in this segment (as long as the basics are good from the factory, which they are). They even look similar from some angles (look at the MOTM on the front page and the new SS :-))
7) They have not fixed the bunker like visibility of the Camaro. It's a huge deal breaker for me.
8) I like the interior of the Camaro. It's more nightclub Vs the sophisticated grown up Stang's look, but both are nice. I expect the Stangs one to age better.
9) The Mustang continues the tradition of being the peoples pony car (a solid all rounder but probably not the best at anything out of the factory) and the best platform to mod. However, until we hear more about the Camaro cant say that for sure.

Sponsored

 

[Ninjak]

Interesting numbers from the bowtie for sure. What I did not read in their release is what is what....

1. What is the weight of a 2SS with the options most want, like 6 piston and MRS ?
2. What is the performance of the manual ?
3. Will be interesting to see what the different trims do at a track, (Since GM fellas always fall back on that..ZL1 anyone)

Also nobody and I mean nobody who truly run their cars cares about what a stock car does.....When it comes to it, it run what ya brung and hope you brung enough. It will be more interesting to see what these new Camaro's do at my local track.

Also I am reading a 20lb difference in base weight........um......ok ? Somehow I do not think 20lb is a massive OMG its sooooo much lighter it will destroy us ! type of difference..

 

[neodark]

Numbers are nice, specially weight... But, what's the point? You still can't fit your head through the window.

When you do wreck, and you probably will with the visibility... You won't be able to get out

 

[DAGO GT]

The 1/4 mile times are about what I expected. The 12.5 for the manual is 0.2-0.3 faster than what a lot of manual GT's run. Not that big of a deal to me. Of course I hope Ford counters in 2017 regardless if the Mustangs are outselling the Camaro's.

 

[LOL WUT]

Well done Chevy, this new Camaro IMO looks fantastic and has some great performance to back up the aggressive looks. I am really excited to be alive and a car enthusiast today, looking forward to where the mustang goes from here!

 

[PRG3k]

Chevy keeps evolving a design that never looked good in the first place.

 

[RocketGuy3]

Considering that the outgoing 2015 Camaro SS 1LE was already a bit faster than the Mustang GT PP around a track, this is going to have a distinct advantage. (Although for the price difference, you could likely make the GT just about as fast -- especially considering that I think tires are probably the weakest link for the Mustang, and those are an easy upgrade)

Even though I'm impressed by the performance (good job Chevy -- Ford is going to need to step it up a lil), I don't regret my purchase since I still think the Camaro is kinda "meh" to look at, and the visibility is still suspect. Plus, I wasn't going to wait a year to buy a car, anyways, and this would have cost me a few grand more.

I wonder if they're going to tune-up the LT1 for the Corvette now, like they did with the LS3 in 2009... I have to think having the same power output (and relatively similar performance) between the two is going to cannibalize sales.



EDIT: Any word on the brake sizes for the 1LE package on the Camaro SS? Considering how undersized the brakes are in the Z51 Corvette, I'm not expecting too much. One of the things I loved most about the Mustang GT PP was the colossal size of the factory brakes. That is huge when you spend time at the track.

 

[Blk2015GT]

The base GT and base SS listed weights are 20 pounds difference- 3685 to 3705. NOT all that huge a deal here people. Add options to the Camaro it will be similar weight to a comparable GT. Not shocking or unexpected they were going to match the Mustang.

Sure it has a few more hp, but I seriously question a 4.0 0-60 auto.

If you look around I bet you'll find some best run GTs .1 sec behind (in fact Motortrend has the manual GT at 4.4 for manual vs 4.3 SS for manual) I have not seen many autos officially tested but we all know the auto is faster down the track than the manual so that tells me the auto can do below 4.4

So we're talking 20 pounds lighter and .1 sec 0-60 faster with a manual. Nothing earth shattering to worry about.

For the price difference in the car, the GT significantly cheaper, you can buy mods and negate that .1 sec very quickly- springs/suspension bits, CAI, tune, headers/exhaust- about $3k of parts WITH case in your pocket.

The price difference in base cars is $5k!!! hell you can throw in lighter wider wheels too and be at the $5k difference. For the price difference I can make a 460hp car too and lighten it up losing the exhaust resonator and lighter wheels.

 

[Asharus]

if i kept my wrx for another year and a half i think i'd have a 1SS instead of a GTPP.

 

[lazarus870]

I was originally more of a Camaro guy than a Mustang guy. I quite like GM's idea of keeping compact but big displacement pushrod engines for low end power. But when I sat in a Mustang and then sat in a Camaro, Ford got my money.

I can't see a damn thing out of the 5th gen, and the 6th gen doesn't look much better. Still looks very hard to see out of from the pictures.

In the last few years, Camaro has been the traditionally faster car. From 93 to 02 it was no contest, the Camaro was significantly faster. But the Camaro was a bitch to live with too.

I originally tried to like the Camaro when I went to look at it, but the cheesy interior and the visibility killed it for me. I would be scared to change lanes in that car. The Mustang could stand to lose a bit of weight. Then again, so could I, lol.

 

[Desmondo]

Ford better respond by '17...

Yeah, they "better" ... :lol:

I'm surprised Mustangs are still around, given that they are drop in the ocean in term of revenues for Ford. Not that I'm complaining... or I'd need to pick a new ride.

 

[RocketGuy3]

The base GT and base SS listed weights are 20 pounds difference- 3685 to 3705. NOT all that huge a deal here people. Add options to the Camaro it will be similar weight to a comparable GT. Not shocking or unexpected they were going to match the Mustang.

Sure it has a few more hp, but I seriously question a 4.0 0-60 auto.

If you look around I bet you'll find some best run GTs .1 sec behind (in fact Motortrend has the manual GT at 4.4 for manual vs 4.3 SS for manual) I have not seen many autos officially tested but we all know the auto is faster down the track than the manual so that tells me the auto can do below 4.4

So we're talking 20 pounds lighter and .1 sec 0-60 faster with a manual. Nothing earth shattering to worry about.

For the price difference in the car, the GT significantly cheaper, you can buy mods and negate that .1 sec very quickly- springs/suspension bits, CAI, tune, headers/exhaust- about $3k of parts.

Yeah, GM tends to not be at all conservative with their reported power output and 0-60 times (unlike, say, German companies). So those are probably just about the fastest times anyone could ever hope to see.

Nonetheless, like I mentioned above, even the 2015 SS 1LE was already beating the 2015 Mustang GT PP according to MotorTrend:

[ame]

It's hard to imagine that the 2016 will be anything but faster.

Still, I'm not saying that this suddenly makes the GT a bad purchase. For the reasons mentioned above (and more), I still think there is a strong case for the GT over the SS. It's all about your priorities. Plus, for the price difference, you could probably make the performance difference disappear if you wanted to.

On that note, I should also mention that even with the speed disadvantage, to me the 2015 Mustang was a no-brainer over the 2015 Camaro -- backup camera, push-button start, just a far better interior... there are other considerations with a car than just 0-60 time.

... Of course, we are still talking about sports cars here, so speed is still critical. Lots of magazine racers out there who want to know their car is faster than yours, even if they don't know how to drive it. So Ford will likely be motivated to step their game up a bit within a model year.

 

[Blk2015GT]

Yeah, GM tends to not be at all conservative with their reported power output and 0-60 times (unlike, say, German companies). So those are probably just about the fastest times anyone could ever hope to see.

Nonetheless, like I mentioned above, even the 2015 SS 1LE was already beating the 2015 Mustang GT PP according to MotorTrend:



It's hard to imagine that the 2016 will be anything but faster.

Still, I'm not saying that this suddenly makes the GT a bad purchase. For the reasons mentioned above (and more), I still think there is a strong case for the GT over the SS. It's all about your priorities. Plus, for the price difference, you could probably make the performance difference disappear if you wanted to.

The cars are close performance wise and weight wise. But that $3-5k price ($3k if you compare a PP) difference goes a LONG way into GT mods.

You could take a base GT no PP (the base SS only comes with 4 piston brakes to keep it comparable) and add $5k of mods (springs, suspension bits-braces/bushings etc, headers/exhaust, tune, CAI and lighter wider wheels) to the base GT non-PP making nearly identical performance around the same weight due to aftermarket part/wheel weight savings and around 460hp for the same price.

The price really kills the SS performance advantage.

 

[RocketGuy3]

The cars are close performance wise and weight wise. But that $3-5k price difference goes a LONG way into GT mods.

You could take a base GT no PP (the base SS only comes with 4 piston brakes to keep it comparable) and add $5k of mods (springs, suspension bits, headers/exhaust, tune, CAI and lighter wider wheels) to the base GT non-PP making nearly identical performance for the same price.

The price really kills the SS performance advantage.

Don't forget tires. Honestly, I think tires may be the single biggest reason for the difference in performance between these cars. The GT can't hook up very well. The tires are both skinny and just... not great IMO.

 

[Blk2015GT]

Don't forget tires. Honestly, I think tires may be the single biggest reason for the difference in performance between these cars. The GT can't hook up very well. The tires are both skinny and just... not great IMO.

For the $5k price difference you could do it. Take a base GT $32,500

$2k tires/wheels (my 20x10 275 Nitto square with TPMS was actually only $1850)

$750 tune/CAI
$300 springs
$500 misc bushings/subframe braces.
$900 Stainless Power headers
$750 Roush axlebacks/H pipe

$5k-ish right there. Your suspension is beefed up and you should run about 450hp to the wheels (MUCH more than the 465 to the crank in the SS- I aw about 415 to the wheels estimated based on the C7 dyno)

so for the same $37.5k you have a much more powerful and probably slightly lighter car

Sponsored