Dimensional difference between 2016 Camaro & Mustang

[thePill]

Pill,

So the camaro ss won't run 3.9 s to 60's and low 12's in a quarter mile with 3672 lbs of weight? Is this what you are getting at? If this really is the case and then the six gen camaro buyers are in for a treat, but i highly doubt it.

If it's in a Motor Trend article, I would probably just ignore it. Sure, maybe an Auto LT1 can run 12.3@114 but it's not going to weigh what MY's Magic manual does.

Will some be in the low 12's? Yeah, but they won't be faster than an ATS-V.

Will one be under 3700lbs?

No, unfortunately that will not happen. As the ATS-V experienced, advertising Pre-Production numbers backfires.

Everyone thought the ATS-V was soooooo fast BUT, it's no faster than a Boss 302 at LS. Only the automatics are quick really, the manuals are right where they should be.

MT is posted the best advertised numbers in each category. The acceleration data IS the Auto's advertised times. But, the curb weight, MSRP and MPG's are all manual.

Sponsored

 

[ZaneWayne]

C/D has posted the fastest times. Are you taking our bet off the table?

 

[thePill]

C/D has posted the fastest times. Are you taking our bet off the table?

C&D in fact had an Auto, 3.9 and 12.3@114... That is as fast as it gets...


Somehow, Motor Trend managed to match the Auto's performance in a manual.

Color me doubtful... I had to wade through years of fast Camaro 1/4 mile times from Motor Trend. I doubt it will change now...

Things to take away here...

The Auto Camaro is roughly 0.2 slower than an ATS-V Auto. The manual will realistically fall between 12.5 and 12.7 on average.

Nothing to really be concerned about BUT, interesting since the ATS-V is 130lbs heavier than the Camaro, same Trans and gearing and nearly the same 26 inch overall diameter tire. Rotational mass in the Camaro should be aweful vs. the ATS-V.

 

[ZaneWayne]

C&D in fact had an Auto, 3.9 and 12.3@114... That is as fast as it gets...


Somehow, Motor Trend managed to match the Auto's performance in a manual.

Color me doubtful... I had to wade through years of fast Camaro 1/4 mile times from Motor Trend. I doubt it will change now...

Things to take away here...

The Auto Camaro is roughly 0.2 slower than an ATS-V Auto. The manual will realistically fall between 12.5 and 12.7 on average.

Nothing to really be concerned about BUT, interesting since the ATS-V is 130lbs heavier than the Camaro, same Trans and gearing and nearly the same 26 inch overall diameter tire. Rotational mass in the Camaro should be aweful vs. the ATS-V.

Are you saying that 0-60 in less than four seconds and low 12s in the 1/4 isnt good for a $40k car from the factory?

 

[thePill]

Are you saying that 0-60 in less than four seconds and low 12s in the 1/4 isnt good for a $40k car from the factory?

No, it's great!!!


If it holds up consistently outside...

The ZL1 was a miserable display of promise. The manual SS is really nothing to fear. I personally would just go S197 for 1/4 mile and not pay any attention to IRS and half shafts... or 20 inch tires :lol:

 

[ZaneWayne]

No, it's great!!!


If it holds up consistently outside...

The ZL1 was a miserable display of promise. The manual SS is really nothing to fear. I personally would just go S197 for 1/4 mile and not pay any attention to IRS and half shafts... or 20 inch tires :lol:

What about our bet? If my loaded 2SS is below 3,780 you openly apologize. If its more, I'll say you were right and not post here anymore. Sound good?

 

[lisandra]

Passionate debate can be done without declaring people or companies as stupid. Further posts of this nature will result in this thread being locked.

Wow!! An actual mod!!!!

 

[lisandra]

What about our bet? If my loaded 2SS is below 3,780 you openly apologize. If its more, I'll say you were right and not post here anymore. Sound good?

This. I wanna see this happen [MENTION=6383]thePill[/MENTION]

Sponsored