Dimensional difference between 2016 Camaro & Mustang

[thePill]

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

Yes, the rear rotor and caliper need to be added to the Performance Package. I say use the standard GT's 13.9 inch front rotor and caliper. The cost to swap said rotors would be fairly cheap. I think a 15fr/13.9rr is a good start. The 255/275 needs to be standard as does the extra cooling and support.

The GT350 has maybe 30lbs of structural losses, that needs to come over as well. There is also plenty of weight to be lost in the whees, rotor and caliper. I'm not sure if it's feasible without some pretty decent $$$$. Easy in the aftermarket...

So yeah... rear rotor needs the base GT's 13.9 front rotor for sure.

Sponsored

 

[Aussie MustangGT]

Gee, this thread has certainly evolved from the original dimensions I gave between the Camaro and Mustang......lol.
Ian.

 

[thePill]

Gee, this thread has certainly evolved from the original dimensions I gave between the Camaro and Mustang......lol.
Ian.

I think it's a great topic and all great topics evolve. I think that it is great you brought this up. As you can see, it is not as cut and dry as it first appeared. The Mustang sits on a superior footprint, in more relation to the C6/C7 Corvette. With the exception of the wheelbase, the Mustang has some advantages in geometry against both the C6 and C7...


...and in my opinion, it's a topic I am eager to see evolve...

 

[Davy_Baby9]

ITT I learned the Mustang has the best footprint in the history of mass produced cars. Multiple comparisons be damned.

 

[thePill]

ITT I learned the Mustang has the best footprint in the history of mass produced cars. Multiple comparisons be damned.

That wouldn't even be close to accurate unless you are talking about the S550 Mustang.

Both the Mustang and Corvette pretty much lead the way on engineering platform geometry in the US and for the most part, front engine, rear drive configurations. You literally can't buy a better setup unless you opt for the GT350 or Z06.

The Camaro doesn't have this to worry about. Chevy used the 2006 Camaro Concept car's wheelbase of 110.7 inches. I feel the Camaro didn't compete with the Mustang simply because the Corvette was already at 107 inches, the same as the Mustang.


Just FYI, the 2006 Camaro Concept had a 110.5 inch wheelbase on a 63.8fr/63.3 rear. I had seen another source claim it is 110.7 as well.

I think the 2016 Camaro was simply an attempt to modernize the 2006 Concept. It fell short of those dimensions though.


http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=137060

Please note his math is incorrect on the wheelbase to track ratio. I may need to question every number on there... It seems he is trying to inflate the WB:T Ratio on the car for whatever reason. It is 1.73fr/1.75rr based on the measurements he provided.

 

[Kevin08]

Holy shit Pill. Stop acting like you're a detective and trying to prove something in the court of law. I feel like you come up with a new argument against the Camaro every time a previous argument fizzles out. The Camaro will probably be faster than the Mustang. "But the Mustang is closer to the Golden Ratio!"

No one fucking cares.

 

[Todd15Fastback]

Holy shit Pill. Stop acting like you're a detective and trying to prove something in the court of law. I feel like you come up with a new argument against the Camaro every time a previous argument fizzles out. The Camaro will probably be faster than the Mustang. "But the Mustang is closer to the Golden Ratio!"

No one fucking cares.

You sure? You replied as have thousands that hang off his nut sack. They follow him wherever he posts. So again, you say, no one cares?

I think you need to understand what it is you type.

 

[BmacIL]

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

FYI - the widths listed on the link you posted are overall widths, not track widths. Track width is the distance between the centerline of the left and right tires.

Also, in regards to race cars, the wheelbases are strictly regulated to an exact number or a tight range.

 

[Todd15Fastback]

Here ya go...

 

[02gtnh]

FYI - the widths listed on the link you posted are overall widths, not track widths. Track width is the distance between the centerline of the left and right tires.

Also, in regards to race cars, the wheelbases are strictly regulated to an exact number or a tight range.

That site showed WB and most would realize a good 10" could be subtracted from width to get track width. :cheers:

 

[02gtnh]

Here ya go...

Impressive. I wonder if that is with or without NPP.

 

[BmacIL]

That site showed WB and most would realize a good 10" could be subtracted from width to get track width. :cheers:

True, it would get you close. I think many of those cars have wider than 10" tires, though.

 

[ZaneWayne]

Impressive. I wonder if that is with or without NPP.

I would assume all the mag cars were equipped with NPP.

 

[ZaneWayne]

http://www.hotrod.com/videos/0-60-mph-in-a-2016-chevy-camaro-ss-25207/25207/

quick 0-60 run. Nothing scientific

 

[Todd15Fastback]

About 4-4.2 seconds in the A8. Not bad at all. Nice performance.

Sponsored