magazines vs the track

[Todd15Fastback]

The test was performed by private parties on during '15 Nationals in Lincoln and not SCCA. It showed Mustang being slowest and small time differences are very typical and actually not small on autocross course that in this case was ~30-40 sec long. You should really research a little before quoting those results...
Street classes require maintaining stock wheel width, tires are whatever people can squeeze on. Until very recently, 1LE - which could fit significantly wider tire than anybody else, was limited by availability of Bridgestones RE-71R which everybody uses (widest 19" tire was 285). Now there's 305 available that doubt anybody could squeeze on 9.5" PP rear wheel.

In Wilmington Championship Tour earlies this year, '16 SS took first four spots in FS beating everybody else (few Mustangs and Boss 302) by wide margin, one of SS was automatic by the way. This is all autocross though, question was about drag strip.

If anybody thinks '16SS stock vs. stock is not faster than Mustang, than he lives in world of pure fantasy - like our buddy Pill. The question is - why the hell anybody cares ?

:cheers::cheers:

Sponsored

 

[16 GT MM/Auto]

While it's interesting to note new Camaro SS's performance figures, ultimately, they're of no consequence to me as those cars have never suited me ergonomically. That's why I've owned new GT's going back to 1982 and my current '16 is my 10th Stang.

Here are the S550 GT 0-60/quarter mile times (with links) taken from instrumented tests by the big three automotive journals:

CAR & DRIVER

2015 GT PP
4.4
13.0@112
http://www.caranddriver.com/compari...ng-performance-data-and-complete-specs-page-4

2015 GT Convertible Manual, 20 in wheels/Summer Tires
4.7
13.2@110
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-ford-mustang-gt-convertible-manual-test-review

2015 GT Automatic A/S tires
4.5
13.0@113
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-ford-mustang-gt-automatic-test-review

2015 GT Manual PP
4.5
13.0@113
http://www.caranddriver.com/compari...ng-performance-data-and-complete-specs-page-5

2015 GT Manual PP
4.5
13.0@113
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-ford-mustang-gt-instrumented-test-review

-------------------------------------------------------------

MOTOR TREND

2016 GT PP
4.6
12.9@110
http://www.motortrend.com/news/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-vs-2016-ford-mustang-gt/

2016 GT PP
4.6
12.9@110
http://www.motortrend.com/news/2016-ford-mustang-gt-first-test-review/

2015 GT PP
4.4
[email protected]
http://www.motortrend.com/news/2015-ford-mustang-gt-first-test/

-------------------------------------------------------------

ROAD & TRACK

2016 GT PP
4.7
[email protected]
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-car...-chevrolet-camaro-ss-vs-2016-ford-mustang-gt/

2015 GT PP
4.6
[email protected]
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-car...a6345/2015-ford-mustang-gt-first-impressions/

 

[Seceda91]

While it's interesting to note new Camaro SS's performance figures, ultimately, they're of no consequence to me as those cars have never suited me ergonomically. That's why I've owned new GT's going back to 1982 and my current '16 is my 10th Stang.

Here are the S550 GT 0-60/quarter mile times (with links) taken from instrumented tests by the big three automotive journals:

CAR & DRIVER

2015 GT PP
4.4
13.0@112
http://www.caranddriver.com/compari...ng-performance-data-and-complete-specs-page-4

2015 GT Convertible Manual, 20 in wheels/Summer Tires
4.7
13.2@110
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-ford-mustang-gt-convertible-manual-test-review

2015 GT Automatic A/S tires
4.5
13.0@113
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-ford-mustang-gt-automatic-test-review

2015 GT Manual PP
4.5
13.0@113
http://www.caranddriver.com/compari...ng-performance-data-and-complete-specs-page-5

2015 GT Manual PP
4.5
13.0@113
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-ford-mustang-gt-instrumented-test-review

-------------------------------------------------------------

MOTOR TREND

2016 GT PP
4.6
12.9@110
http://www.motortrend.com/news/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-vs-2016-ford-mustang-gt/

2016 GT PP
4.6
12.9@110
http://www.motortrend.com/news/2016-ford-mustang-gt-first-test-review/

2015 GT PP
4.4
[email protected]
http://www.motortrend.com/news/2015-ford-mustang-gt-first-test/

-------------------------------------------------------------

ROAD & TRACK

2016 GT PP
4.7
[email protected]
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-car...-chevrolet-camaro-ss-vs-2016-ford-mustang-gt/

2015 GT PP
4.6
[email protected]
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-car...a6345/2015-ford-mustang-gt-first-impressions/

12.8 from Motortrend is pretty impressive.. I mean it's only a tenth off from the S197's 12.7

I'm still debating a loaded S197 or a base, barebones S550. The S550 certainly looks better but one thing about the S197, it's just more RAW. Kind of like the first Gen Viper.

Don't know much about the new SS but I did drive a 5th Gen 1LE.. it felt just a tad slower than the S550 performance pack. Maybe because it was heavier :shrug:

 

[MRGTX]

I took my car to the track when it was new. It had 500 miles on the clock bone stock. It ran a 12.7 on a 90 degree humid day in August. The DA correction was a 12.4ish. I've seen Camaros run 12.4 stock in the same conditions without the DA correction. They are faster stock. A tune levels the playing field. And once mods are added the Mustang has absolutely no problem winning. A quick look at our fast list and there fast list tells the tale. I've yet to lose to a 6th gen Camaro in my bolt on Mustang. And I'm at the track more than most on this sight.

You ran a 12.7 in a stock S550?
Can we see your timeslip?

 

[Seceda91]

OK this is more in line with what I was thinking.

Didn't the SS claim an 11.9 in the 1/4 in magazine testing though? I gotta go look at the C6 page.

Are you serious?? No way the new SS can run that time unless the DA was super super low.

I did watch the video of the new SS vs the M4. They ran it 75x (SS won 68x) and 12.3 was the best they got with a an M6. Impressive sure but I'm just not drawn to the Camaro for some reason! But I haven't seen one in person nor test drove the new Gen yet.

I can't get over the body lines and the looks man.

 

[MRGTX]

12.8 from Motortrend is pretty impressive.. I mean it's only a tenth off from the S197's 12.7

I'm still debating a loaded S197 or a base, barebones S550. The S550 certainly looks better but one thing about the S197, it's just more RAW. Kind of like the first Gen Viper.
...

As mentioned in the other thread, I don't think you can go wrong. I have been extremely happy with my S197 (I've had two of them)...the S197 definitely feels a lot more like a real muscle car where the S550 is more of a sports car. A case can be made for either one...especially with the price differential.

Keep in mind that if you're planning on modding, the S550's verison of the 5.0L has a lot more potential. The '11-'14 Coyotes become fragile somewhere around 600rwhp which may be enough but the new ones seem to be good for way more than that.

 

[Todd15Fastback]

You ran a 12.7 in a stock S550?
Can we see your timeslip?

We have owners here that have ran a 12.5X bone stock.

 

[bluebeastsrt]

LOL the kid is a clown. He'll buy 11.9 out of a Camaro all day long. But a 12.7 in a Mustang is some kind of magic number that cant be done.

 

[MRGTX]

LOL the kid is a clown. He'll buy 11.9 out of a Camaro all day long. But a 12.7 in a Mustang is some kind of magic number that cant be done.

12.7 (corrected to 12.4???) is really great for a stock S550 Mustang...I'm really curious about your 60' and trap speed.
Usually when someone publicly makes a claim like that, they're proud to show proof. I'm willing to believe that you did it.

There is a guy over on the Mopar forums who also claims to have run a 12.9 in a stock 5.7L Challenger. I'm sure you would just take his word for it, right?

 

[PJR202]

Are you serious?? No way the new SS can run that time unless the DA was super super low.

I did watch the video of the new SS vs the M4. They ran it 75x (SS won 68x) and 12.3 was the best they got with a an M6. Impressive sure but I'm just not drawn to the Camaro for some reason! But I haven't seen one in person nor test drove the new Gen yet.

I can't get over the body lines and the looks man.

I forget where I heard first that it could get into the 11's. But, presuming none of the top 3 are liars? This is from the timeslips page on camaro 6.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rbhOb25NPRBooNL6PBN1S9dwBdZxDp8K1Ewy_QVhZGo/edit#gid=0

 

[bluebeastsrt]

I forget where I heard first that it could get into the 11's. But, presuming none of the top 3 are liars? This is from the timeslips page on camaro 6.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rbhOb25NPRBooNL6PBN1S9dwBdZxDp8K1Ewy_QVhZGo/edit#gid=0

Their not liars. Just lucky enough to run in negative DA. The Camaros trap 114-116 So it has plenty of trap speed to run those numbers with a decent sixty. In negative DA a stock Mustang will run 12.4. Trapping 113-114. It's been done by a couple of people at Atco.

 

[16 GT MM/Auto]

No 11's for a 100% bumper-to-bumper bone stock 16+ Camaro SS:


CAR & DRIVER

2016 Camaro SS Convertible Automatic
4.1 sec
12.6 sec @ 113 mph
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-convertible-test-review

2016 Camaro SS
3.9
12.3 sec @ 116
http://www.caranddriver.com/compari...ro-ss-vs-2015-ford-mustang-gt-comparison-test

2016 Camaro SS Automatic
3.9
12.3 sec @ 116 mph
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-automatic-test-review

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MOTOR TREND

2016 Camaro SS Arrival (fresh engine)
4.3 sec
12.5 sec @ 114.8 mph
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/chevrolet/camaro/2016/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-arrival/

2016 Camaro SS First Test Review
4.0
12.4 sec @ 114.6 mph
http://www.motortrend.com/news/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-first-test-review/

Comparison: 2015 BMW M4 vs 2016 Camaro SS
4.1
12.4 sec @ 115.8 mph
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/chev...ison-2015-bmw-m4-vs-2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss/

2016 Camaro SS vs. 2016 Mustang GT
4.0
12.4 sec @ 114.6 mph
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/chev...-chevrolet-camaro-ss-vs-2016-ford-mustang-gt/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ROAD & TRACK

2016 Camaro SS vs 2016 Mustang GT
4.0
12.4 @ 114.1
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-car...-chevrolet-camaro-ss-vs-2016-ford-mustang-gt/


2016 Camaro SS
4.2
12.5 @ 113.4
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/first-drives/a27066/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-first-drive/

 

[Todd15Fastback]

12.7 (corrected to 12.4???) is really great for a stock S550 Mustang...I'm really curious about your 60' and trap speed.
Usually when someone publicly makes a claim like that, they're proud to show proof. I'm willing to believe that you did it.

There is a guy over on the Mopar forums who also claims to have run a 12.9 in a stock 5.7L Challenger. I'm sure you would just take his word for it, right?

Why do we give a shit about a Challenger? Sounds like you like to make your rounds and visit all kinds of car forums. Might want to spend your time more wisely and do more constructive things with your time.

 

[MRGTX]

Why do we give a shit about a Challenger? Sounds like you like to make your rounds and visit all kinds of car forums. Might want to spend your time more wisely and do more constructive things with your time.

I'm really sorry about your rage problems. Hopefully your time on the forum means you're not road raging or getting into bar fights.

 

[MRGTX]

And still no timeslip?

Sponsored