2016 Camaro Official Specs!!!

[SILVER GT]

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.

The SS comes with run flats. They suck too LOL...

I wish both came with a Michelin Pilot Super Sport option...or something like that.

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

But, with no warranty. That is important to many.

Sponsored

 

[cosmo]

You cant go by the track apps. They are not accurate. I can tell you don't drag race at all. You have no proof there is going to be Camaros running faster then advertised. Don't speak in absolutes. That's just foolish. You sure like your peak numbers. 20hp and more torque doesn't mean its drastically faster. The 16 Camaro being a better buy is subjective, not factual, stop it. :tsk:

The track apps is the best tool the everyday man has to see how his car performs. It isn't accurate, due to needing a third gear shift to hit 60, however it is a good enough tool to see that the manuals aren't hitting the magazine's 4.4s number. So that leads to what is the actual disparity between the mustang and the camaro?

You should be glad I'm discussing peak numbers, and not discussing the fact the mustang is down 55 ft-lbs of torque, and is down on torque throughout most of the powerband. Which translates directly to horsepower. The rev limiter difference between the two engines can't compensate for the difference of the area under the power curve throughout the powerband. That leads to the current 5.0L being down on power quite a bit.

I do drag race, which is why the advertised 12.3s on the auto camaro shocked me as it is much faster than the quickest stock auto mustang I've seen (12.5). A difference of .2s at the speeds they're trapping is almost two car lengths between the two. That's not something to scoff at, that's substantial. I've known people who'd about kill to have their car automatically .2s above the competition.

 

[Blk2015GT]

But you need to remember, mods can void your warranty. Not everyone wants to lose that. Or deal with having to go to the aftermarket to have a competitive car.

I like the S550 a lot, but let's be honest here...Ford has some catching up to do.

Anyone concerned with performance numbers that much isn't concerned about their warranty. I've never seen a daily driver complain their car was .1 or .2 slower than the car in the next lane. Frankly putting your car on the track voids the warranty to begin with if you want to get technical.

And you can extend that slippery slope argument. It's ONLY another $5k to go from a GT to an SS. It's ONLY another few thousand to go to a GT350. It's ONLY another few thousand go up another segment.

Money matters in the equation.

 

[SILVER GT]

Anyone concerned with performance numbers that much isn't concerned about their warranty.

I care about performance AND my warranty. At least for the first few years...

 

[Blk2015GT]

I care about performance AND my warranty. At least for the first few years...

And you're an exception to the rule and not Ford's target. You can't appease everyone selling 10k cars a month across the globe. Worry about under 1/4 second difference on a bone stock car is a waste of breath.

The design is also at least 3 years old now (at least 2 years of pre-production) vs a car not even in production yet. Hard to compare apples to apples.

 

[RocketGuy3]

The SS comes with run flats. They suck too LOL...

I wish both came with a Michelin Pilot Super Sport option...or something like that.


But, with no warranty. That is important to many.

I'm talking about the 1LE v PP. I know the 2015 1LE had some very sticky tires with a wider tread. I assume the 2016 is the same. (Haven't actually checked the tire specs yet -- like the brake rotor size, I'm not sure that info is available yet)

 

[SILVER GT]

Unless I've missed something, Ford doesn't have any "official" 0-60 times for the Mustang GT. No magazine I've read ever even managed to hit Chevy's advertised 3.8-s 0-60 for the Corvette Z51

1-Pretty sure one of the first Mustang dealer posters said 4.8 seconds, I can check tonight as I have it hanging in my garage...

2-Pretty sure Autoblog got a 3.7, and Chevy High Performance (or something like that) got a 3.8. There were many 3.9's too, which is right there...

 

[RocketGuy3]

The Camaro started as a pig so it HAD to lose weight to stay competitive to the redesigned Mustang. The Mustang added IRS so gained a few pounds- well worth the few pound gain. They're STILL only 20 pounds apart- 3685 vs 3705.

Like I said before, the old Camaro was actually already faster than the new Mustang. Not by very much at all, but it was, at least according to MotorTrend. (And it was no faster at all in a straight line -- just around a track)

This weight loss and power gain could put a bit more separation between the two stock for stock, but we'll see. Will be interesting to see some comparison tests.

1-Pretty sure one of the first Mustang dealer posters said 4.8 seconds, I can check tonight as I have it hanging in my garage...

2-Pretty sure Autoblog got a 3.7, and Chevy High Performance (or something like that) got a 3.8. There were many 3.9's too, which is right there...

IIRC, all the sub-3.9 times were with the auto. Most people couldn't even break four seconds with the stick. There was one that was as high as 5.1 seconds (of course it was done at sea level in a humid climate with very cold tires).

Point remains that Chevy-reported times are best-case-scenario times. I would bet money that no verifiable times will be any faster than the 4.3 they are telling us. There will probably be the occasional Camaro owner claiming to have gotten 4.2 or 4.1, but you always have to take that stuff with a grain of salt. Even if the times are real, no telling what they did with the car (stripping out mats, spare tire/jack, 1/10th fuel tank, upgraded tires, etc).

I don't think the 0-60 time difference between these cars (with a stick) will ultimately be greater than about .1 to .2 seconds. That's still a measurable difference, for sure, but it shouldn't be a make-or-break for most people.

 

[SILVER GT]

I'm talking about the 1LE v PP. I know the 2015 1LE had some very sticky tires with a wider tread. I assume the 2016 is the same. (Haven't actually checked the tire specs yet -- like the brake rotor size, I'm not sure that info is available yet)

New SS is just Goodyear run flats. Same widths as the PP if I recall, 245's and 275's.

 

[mustang_guy]

The track apps is the best tool the everyday man has to see how his car performs. It isn't accurate, due to needing a third gear shift to hit 60, however it is a good enough tool to see that the manuals aren't hitting the magazine's 4.4s number. So that leads to what is the actual disparity between the mustang and the camaro?

You should be glad I'm discussing peak numbers, and not discussing the fact the mustang is down 55 ft-lbs of torque, and is down on torque throughout most of the powerband. Which translates directly to horsepower. The rev limiter difference between the two engines can't compensate for the difference of the area under the power curve throughout the powerband. That leads to the current 5.0L being down on power quite a bit.

I do drag race, which is why the advertised 12.3s on the auto camaro shocked me as it is much faster than the quickest stock auto mustang I've seen (12.5). A difference of .2s at the speeds they're trapping is almost two car lengths between the two. That's not something to scoff at, that's substantial. I've known people who'd about kill to have their car automatically .2s above the competition.

It can do the 4.4. Just because you and the average joe that drag races for fun cant do it, doesn't mean it doesn't. If you think the app is your best way to measure it, that's hilarious. :lol:

You clearly don't drag race enough. Get back to me when you've done over 10,000 passes and been doing it 25+ years. We'll revist this topic again.

 

[SILVER GT]

The Camaro started as a pig so it HAD to lose weight to stay competitive to the redesigned Mustang. The Mustang added IRS so gained a few pounds- well worth the few pound gain. They're STILL only 20 pounds apart- 3685 vs 3705.

Agree

I'm not talking users, the SS has no in-hand user testing yet since it's not out yet. You go hunt and peck the best media times and I pointed to my source where a manual GT ran a 4.4 0-60 clear as day. The SS best time they could find so far was 4.3.

That is one 4.4 out of how many dozens of tests though? The new SS will most likely be in the low 4's in all of it's tests...

So you're concerned about going as fast as possible, but warranty too? Oxymorons. Anyone racing their car trying to go faster and faster has already voided their warranty trying to go faster. It's irrelevant. Anyone concerned about their warranty aren't drag racing their cars so 0-60 and quarter mile mean nothing to begin with.

False. How do you void your warranty racing your car unless you call up your dealer and say "hey I am going to race my car"? Even then they have to prove the racing did whatever it is. I know many people in my car club who like to take their cars to the drag strip, but also care and use their warranty.

Did you not bother reading fully? The SS STARTS at $37,500. The GT STARTS at $32,500. Dollar for dollar you can mod the GT $5k before even hitting the base SS price point. DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR just as I clearly stated. Nothing is stopping a SS from being modded, if you have a VERY deep wallet. Loan means nothing, you have to pay that $5k price difference off eventually AND with interest. Irrelevant point.

I know you aren't talking to me, but the performace specs you quote are from a PP car, that is not $32,500. So you can add, what is it? Like $3000 to that. which brings you to about $35,500. That is only a two grand or so difference.

Just saying'...:cheers:

 

[Torsen]

blah blah blah. Who cares about Pepsi or Coke. I just am glad we live in a world where there is so much competition between the two at every platform V6 I4T and V8. Im excited to see how they stack against each other. From a tuner standpoint the ecoboost is still superior for 1 major reason alone..Cooling. How the hell you going to get enough air flow through a FMIC and to the Rad. The S550 has amazing ducting. I am interested to see what GM does. For me I still go with the ecoboost because Mazda/Ford have really developed up to this point over the years. I wouldnt be surprised if the GM I4T has some big hiccups as this really has not been their thing. Either way who cares? Im just glad to see more 4cyl turbo domestics out there.

 

[Todd15Fastback]

The track apps is the best tool the everyday man has to see how his car performs. It isn't accurate, due to needing a third gear shift to hit 60, however it is a good enough tool to see that the manuals aren't hitting the magazine's 4.4s number. So that leads to what is the actual disparity between the mustang and the camaro?

You should be glad I'm discussing peak numbers, and not discussing the fact the mustang is down 55 ft-lbs of torque, and is down on torque throughout most of the powerband. Which translates directly to horsepower. The rev limiter difference between the two engines can't compensate for the difference of the area under the power curve throughout the powerband. That leads to the current 5.0L being down on power quite a bit.

I do drag race, which is why the advertised 12.3s on the auto camaro shocked me as it is much faster than the quickest stock auto mustang I've seen (12.5). A difference of .2s at the speeds they're trapping is almost two car lengths between the two. That's not something to scoff at, that's substantial. I've known people who'd about kill to have their car automatically .2s above the competition.

You talking about John Force? Bob Glidden? Those would be the only folks that would kill to have that extra advantage. Well maybe, Warren Johnson and the other top tier NHRA drivers.


LOL at your first paragraph. That same logic applies to the Camaro #'s or the Vette's or the Viper's or the P cars, etc.

 

[SILVER GT]

Like I said before, the old Camaro was actually already faster than the new Mustang. Not by very much at all, but it was, at least according to MotorTrend. (And it was no faster at all in a straight line -- just around a track)

This weight loss and power gain could put a bit more separation between the two stock for stock, but we'll see. Will be interesting to see some comparison tests.




IIRC, all the sub-3.9 times were with the auto. Most people couldn't even break four seconds with the stick. There was one that was as high as 5.1 seconds (of course it was done at sea level in a humid climate with very cold tires).

Point remains that Chevy-reported times are best-case-scenario times. I would bet money that almost no verifiable times will be any faster than the 4.3 they are telling us. There will probably be the occasional Camaro owner claiming to have gotten 4.2 or 4.1, but you always have to take that stuff with a grain of salt.

Not sure about Autoblog, the Chevy mag was definitely a manual...

Going by ATS-V times, and how they have nearly identical power to weight ratios (with the Camaro being a little lighter) and use the same transmissions if I recall I can believe the SS numbers. ATS-V tests have shown the manual to run 4.2/12.6 and 4.2/12.5. Auto tests are 4.0/12.3 and 3.9/12.1.

Gotta just wait and see I guess....

 

[SILVER GT]

You talking about John Force? Bob Glidden? Those would be the only folks that would kill to have that extra advantage. Well maybe, Warren Johnson and the other top tier NHRA drivers.

Anybody who drag races would like that advantage. I do, and 1 or 2 tenths is a lot actually, as in car lengths. Guys who race do a lot just to gain .1, gaining .1 or .2 off that bat is actually a great advantage to have. On the track, or on the street...

Sponsored