Dimensional difference between 2016 Camaro & Mustang

[thePill]

F1 cars have gone well over 1.7, some of them are 2+, fyi they have more in common with the Chevrolet Tahoe than any current production sports car. If you haven't noticed their wheelbase is over 120" and their track width is obviously more narrow than the Mustang or camaro. Any normal person looking at an F1 car can see this, so please stop making stuff up. You also didn't address the high CG that is going to be a much bigger penalty than being a little longer in the wheel base. The only F1 team that has run a short car since they went to the longer wheelbase was Mercedes and that ended poorly.
Again, you can find all the formula for weight transfer and the mustang's high cg will always give it the worst numbers compared to the camaro and especially the vette.

Sorry, most F1 platforms settle between 1.60 and 1.70. That is the window for an optimal handling ratio... Circle track would be 1.70-1.80... Drag racing platforms such as Funny Car and Dragster are even longer... Sorry, you are incorrect... You are most likely thinking of Indy cars set up for an oval track like... Indy...

Some F1 and Indy cars were actually under 1.60, as is some Ferrari's due to wonderful aerodynamics and weight distribution. However, simply making a square wheelbase and track ratio will slow the car down. The wider track creates resistance and would damage your ability to accelerate. It would also destroy your top speed and aero...


There is an optimal ratio and it is under 1.65... The 2016 Camaro simply misses this engineering achievement by a fair margin.

Sponsored

 

[Davy_Baby9]

Word on the street is the Alpha platform is pretty terrible.

 

[BayouDude82]

A V6 6th gen camaro is in base GT territory

 

[02gtnh]

Sorry, most F1 platforms settle between 1.60 and 1.70. That is the window for an optimal handling ratio... Circle track would be 1.70-1.80... Drag racing platforms such as Funny Car and Dragster are even longer... Sorry, you are incorrect... You are most likely thinking of Indy cars set up for an oval track like... Indy...

Some F1 and Indy cars were actually under 1.60, as is some Ferrari's due to wonderful aerodynamics and weight distribution. However, simply making a square wheelbase and track ratio will slow the car down. The wider track creates resistance and would damage your ability to accelerate. It would also destroy your top speed and aero...


There is an optimal ratio and it is under 1.65... The 2016 Camaro simply misses this engineering achievement by a fair margin.

You have no clue and again making up numbers with no proof behind them. Here is a nice list of race cars with there wheelbase to see none of them are even close to your golden ratio. So one last time, the golden ratio has Nothing to do with cars on how there are built. There are no facts that back any of your dribble on this subject.
http://www.indycar.com/Fan-Info/INDYCAR-101/The-Car-Dallara/Car-Comparisons

 

[Davy_Baby9]

Werd. There's still a decent gap between the two in price. Over $5k.

 

[thePill]

You have no clue and again making up numbers with no proof behind them. Here is a nice list of race cars with there wheelbase to see none of them are even close to your golden ratio. So one last time, the golden ratio has Nothing to do with cars on how there are built. There are no facts that back any of your dribble on this subject.
http://www.indycar.com/Fan-Info/INDYCAR-101/The-Car-Dallara/Car-Comparisons

You are a fool... the Golden Ratio pertains to everything in the universe that has two corresponding dimensions. It is applicable to ALL...

The Golden Ratio is 1.618 however, in this industry (and you are welcomed to look yourself), Sports Cars and Sports Coupes strive to be between 1.60 and 1.70. Or, as close to that 1.618 ratio as possible.

There are many reasons OEM Sports cars/coupes CANNOT settle at that ratio... and here is why...

Package, mostly rear seat and trunk space are to blame. But, packaging is typically the reason a wheelbase is pushed beyond 109 inches. After the wheelbase goes beyond 109, it becomes difficult to match Track due to overall width, weight, aero, road resistance and noise, fuel mileage, parasitic losses, highway speed stability and high speed turning.

Please, do some research and look at today's top Performers.

The magic number is 1.618... anywhere close to that is near optimal for handling. Period...



The Mustang has a far better footprint than the Camaro. However, the Camaro will have an advantage in Drag Strip stability after 45mph.


Here are some examples in the U.S. Market.

The base Mustang GT has a 107.1WB on a 62.3fr/64.9rr Track for a 1.71r/1.65rr. That is pretty darn impressive. The base Corvette has a 106.7WB on a 63fr/61.7rr Track for a 1.69fr/1.73rr.

Now, the GT350 and Z06 come along to help even further. First the GT350... Ford says the front track increased by 35mm (about 1.3 inches). That takes the GT's 62.3 inch front track up to 63.6 (I'm rounding down, maybe 63.7). That means the base GT350 sits on a 63.6fr/64.9rr track with a 1.68fr/1.65rr ratio.

The Z06 uses a 63.5fr/62.5rr track with a 1.68fr/1.70rr ratio.


The old Z06 was insane... The Corvette increases the wheelbase for packaging reasons. A C7 with a C6 footprint would have been incredible. The C6 Z06 had a 105.7WB on a 63.5fr/62.5rr track (same as current) with a 1.66fr/1.68rr ratio. In my opinion, the C6's geometry, mostly the shorter wheelbase, is superior to the C7 Z06.



In my opinion, the battle for the best setup exist between the GT350 and the C6 Z06. The Mustang has a slightly better ratio overall. Even though the cars are similar in this aspect, the Mustang has a better rear geometry where the Corvette is designed to be more optimal in the front. It is a decision most likely made due to the completely different driving dynamics and weight distribution.

As you can see though, there seems to be a limit on how optimal a front engine, rear drive car can be. Many suggest it is a packaging issue to include a larger crush zone for safety.


The Miata carries a 90.9WB on a 59.9 inch rear track. They took the Ferrari approach BUT, only because the Miata has an overall performance cap. But, it is praised for its ability to Solo and handle very tight corners very quickly... It is agile in every sense of the word... yet will never have the output capability to ever consider a higher ratio. Nor is a longer wheelbase required due to the only engine choice and being a two seater. The Miata's advantage exist not only in a low curb weight (heavier than all other compacts), it also has a superior geometry for task such as Solo and quick, tight turns.

 

[02gtnh]

Your fooling yourself if you believe a car closer to the golden ratio will be better handling then a car that's further away. There's Way more to it then that. A longer WB car can get a better weight balance easier then a shorter one. A longer WB one can keep the CG lower then a shorter one. A longer WB will have less weight transfer then a shorter one during braking. So to say the golden ratio is optimal is a day dream.


The GT350 has a ratio higher then the GT, so the GT is better?

 

[thePill]

Your fooling yourself if you believe a car closer to the golden ratio will be better handling then a car that's further away. There's Way more to it then that. A longer WB car can get a better weight balance easier then a shorter one. A longer WB one can keep the CG lower then a shorter one. A longer WB will have less weight transfer then a shorter one during braking. So to say the golden ratio is optimal is a day dream.


The GT350 has a ratio higher then the GT, so the GT is better?

Oh dear... I'm afraid you are gravely mistaken, as we see the GT and Z51 strive for a wider track... and does so in the HALO versions.

Simply put, the 2016 Camaro is in a different league than the Mustang and Corvette when geometry is concerned. The Camaro isn't exactly stuck at a 63.1 inch track (some say it's a 62.9 inch track). The first thing any performance version of a Camaro will do is increase the track width for better handling. It will NEVER match the Mustang or Corvette BUT, it can always get better than the SS.

On dirt we go far below the Golden Ratio because we don't need to worry about stability and aerodynamics as much. Some Cart's are close to 1 and Drag Cars strive for over 2.

The optimal ratio for handling and specifically vehicles of this nature IS 1.618. It is the perfect balance for balance, handling, speed and stability. No matter how you feel about it, that is the truth... You can observe this first hand just looking at the C6 and C7 Corvettes.

The weak area on the Mustang was in fact the front track width so, Ford, in all their stupidity, increase the front track ONLY. The Mustang went from a sub-optimal 1.71 WB:T ratio in the front (107.1x62.3) and increase it by 1.3 inches to a 1.68.

 

[thePill]

According to a media source, the GT350 has a 63.3fr/63.7rr. I doubt the standard GTPP offset would clear the GT350's rear caliper. The ratio is around 1.69fr/1.68rr... which is very, very good considering it's other areas of advantage.

Saying a 1.60-1.70 ratio doesn't increase performance is like saying a wider track or wider tire doesn't help either.

A wider track helps the vehicle to handle, a wider tire offers a wider contact patch to maximize your footprints potential and a near optimal WB:T ratio offers the best balance by far.

Just think, a 50/50 weight distribution is good right? But what is the difference between two cars with a 50/50 but one car sits on a 1.71fr/1.65rr and the other a 1.75 all around? What about a 50/50 over a 107 and a 111 inch wheelbase?

What about WB:T Ratios and the effects on Under/Oversteer?

 

[02gtnh]

Oh dear... I'm afraid you are gravely mistaken, as we see the GT and Z51 strive for a wider track... and does so in the HALO versions.

Simply put, the 2016 Camaro is in a different league than the Mustang and Corvette when geometry is concerned. The Camaro isn't exactly stuck at a 63.1 inch track (some say it's a 62.9 inch track). The first thing any performance version of a Camaro will do is increase the track width for better handling. It will NEVER match the Mustang or Corvette BUT, it can always get better than the SS.

On dirt we go far below the Golden Ratio because we don't need to worry about stability and aerodynamics as much. Some Cart's are close to 1 and Drag Cars strive for over 2.

The optimal ratio for handling and specifically vehicles of this nature IS 1.618. It is the perfect balance for balance, handling, speed and stability. No matter how you feel about it, that is the truth... You can observe this first hand just looking at the C6 and C7 Corvettes.

The weak area on the Mustang was in fact the front track width so, Ford, in all their stupidity, increase the front track ONLY. The Mustang went from a sub-optimal 1.71 WB:T ratio in the front (107.1x62.3) and increase it by 1.3 inches to a 1.68.

Take the blinders off. The gen6 Camaro will never match the GT?:lol: the ATS V just put a woopen on the GTPP by 6 sec on one lap, and the ratio is the same as the Camaro.

 

[thePill]

Take the blinders off. The gen6 Camaro will never match the GT?:lol: the ATS V just put a woopen on the GTPP by 6 sec on one lap, and the ratio is the same as the Camaro.

Oh lord, listen to what I said man...

The 6th Gen Camaro will NEVER match the Mustang and Corvette's geometry, NEVER. The 110.7 inch wheelbase is mostly to blame because a 66 inch track on an OEM car is very difficult to do.

What Chevy WILL DO to fix this slight geometry shortfall is increase the width/offset on the wheels. As we seen with the GT350, in order to clear the rear calipers and not need to tack on any fender flares (see 2014 z28), the wheels offset actually set the centerline back in some. From 64.9 to 63.7 so, 1.2 inches total, 0.6 inches per side. Trust me, a 315 on a 64.9 inch track would outperform a 315 on a 63.7 inch track. But, as I said, real world requirements made things happen differently.




The ONLY tools available to Chevy to increase the Track width and, in turn, improve the WB:T ratio. First, they will require some sort of body extensions. The Mustang also needs unique front fenders to do this... the Camaro will too. That needs done... after that it's wheels, suspension links, hub... who knows...


Point is, no matter how wide they get, no matter how wide the tire is... The Mustang will always have an advantage. In fact, the whole reason a wider tire was ever needed was to increase traction. A better footprint is the very foundation the "needs more tire" is based on. When you seek out better tires, you are typically trying to increase the performance of a platform. Tires are the rule of thumb because track changes are usually harder to do. Unless you use an offset, go with a larger tire and increase the track that way... But, most states still require you to be within the fender.




As far as the ATS-V :lol:

I just seen Randy wring one out... Unfortunately, it was about the same time the 2012 Boss 302 Laguna Seca ran there :lol:

I am not at all concerned what a fully loaded, GTPP Premium did with heat soak (per the article). It is nice to know it is faster than the last one by a fair margin in such poor conditions but...


...yeah... the ATS-V is already slowing down. Usually they wait until everyone buys one but in the ATS's case, I'm betting they sold as many as they could :lol:

On a positive note, one of the ATS-V's they tested weighed 3754lbs (other was near 3790). Motor Trend weighed one before at exactly 3754lbs... It must be a very special car.

 

[thePill]

I think the ATS-V is a fine example of the Alpha's potential but, the Camaro has a better setup for handling. It's true the ATS-V has far more advantages over a 1SS but, don't let the V fool you. It is not what you would typically find in a Sports Car/Coupe. The V coupe has a 60.5fr/61.4rr Track on a Grandpappy 1.80fr/1.78rr... But, but... the ATS-V is so fast... Yeah, it sure is... about as fast as what is already offered in the U.S. Coupe genre. I will say that with its geometry, it would be more at home on larger tracks such as Nurburgring, VIR, Sebring ect... Just as the old CTS-V before it, there are other things to do to lay down a fast lap.

Now, the Camaro is on a longer wheelbase sure, 110.7 vs. the V's 109.3. That is going to take away from the vehicles ability to change direction and rotate. This could be a good or bad thing depending on the ATS-V's driving dynamics. Both track widths, front and rear will dictate even further. Do I consider a longer wheelbase to be a disadvantage? Yes... BUT, I consider the Camaro's Geometry to be superior to the ATS-V's. The ATS-V's 109.3 inch WB has far greater potential BUT, at the OEM level, the ATS's track is limited to within its overall width. It simply couldn't achieve its full potential without fender extensions/flares.

So, if Randy Pobst ran a 1:40.14 at Laguna Seca in an ATS-V, the '16 Camaro should do a lap faster right??? thePill said the Camaro was superior to the ATS-V!!!


Well... no... the ATS-V has a bunch of other areas covered. Brakes, wheel, tire, output, powerband, wheelbase and so on...

Now, if I'm not mistaken, the old Boss 302 was a 1:39.5-1:44 second car at Laguna Seca. The 2015-'16 GTPP is about as fast if not faster than the Boss 302. I am not 100% concerned that the SS is going to be too fast for the GT. There are some tracks that favor the Camaro and some that favor the Mustang. Both have a similar PtW based on their initial curb weight projections. The Camaro does have an output advantage and I'm sorry to say this but...


...the easiest way to overcome other areas you failed on is more power...


One thing Team Camaro is willing to do that Team Caddy (or Mustang and Corvette) isn't is tacking on fender extensions. The only remaining factor limiting the track width after the vehicle is out the door is the vehicles overall width. The tire can get wider but unless there was room left on the SS's fenders, the track will remain the same.

A great example was the 2014 z28... The 5th Gen Camaro had a poor WB:T Ratio. In order for the z28 to improve handling to such a degree over the 1LE/ZL1 was, the increase in track width. They very well could have just used the sticky 305's BUT, those tires coupled with the track increases put the z28 in another league as far as Camaro's go.

 

[Erik427]

The GTPP should be the base Mustang GT. Then a track package.....

 

[thePill]

The GTPP should be the base Mustang GT. Then a track package.....

I suspect that the Performance Package in its entirety will be standard eventually. Keep in mind, Ford says the Performance Package adds 75lbs, regardless if we weigh them at 3730-3750, they will need some GT350 lightweighting to get involved and that's money, money, money... I say keep undercutting the Camaro and drive them from the market. The Performance Car market isn't like it use to be. It's either they make it or get the axe...

 

[Erik427]

Well let's say that Ford needs to spice up the GTPP.

Sponsored