2010 camaro v6 m or a versus a 1968 or 69 camaro

[bigted83]

Alright everybody who would win? A 2010 camaro versus a 68 or 69 camaro with a 327 or 350 with a 4 speed

[THE EVIL TW1N]

what are the mods on the 68 or 69?? stock im guessing the v6 might edge out the old one

[mr02Z/28]

it would be interesting to see.. not sure what a "stock" 5th Generation 3.6L can do and I forget what a 1st Gen 327/350 did "stock"(thinking 14s 1/4 mile)..

[bigted83]

Stock factory engines in the first generation

[usa1camaro1969]

Stock verses stock? You've got to remember everything's better these days, especially tires. I know it's '67 Camaro, but they didn't have numbers of the 327 or 350 posted for the '68, '69. They did do a little better with the wheel-hop when they staggered the shocks in '68, '69. But who leaves them stock?

Model 0-60 mph Quarter Mile Time Engine Source
1967 Camaro 10.7 sec 18.2 sec @ 77.0 mph 327ci/275hp Motor Trend
1967 CamaroSS396 6.0 sec 14.5 sec @ 95.0 mph 396ci/325hp Motor Trend 5/67
1967 CamaroZ28 6.7 sec 14.9 sec @ 97.0 mph 302ci/290hp Car & Driver 3/67
1967 CamaroSS 7.8 sec 16.1 sec @ 86.5 mph 350ci/295hp Car & Driver 11/66
1967 CamaroSS/RS350 8.0 sec 15.4 sec @ 90.0 mph 350ci/295hp Motor Trend Dec 66
1967 Camaro SS n/a 14.9 sec @ 95.7 mph 350ci/295hp Hot Rod

[a_Username]

V6 should edge it out. IIRC, stock they were mid to high 14s. I believe the problem back then was that tires sucked.

[DGthe3]

Stock vs sock? V6, unless its a ZL-1. Even assuming the old cars are running in mint condition (not happening 40 years down the road, unless the engine has been recently restored) they'd have a hard time keeping up with a new V6. The closest race would probably be between a SS396 (high output version) but I'd still give the new Camaro the edge.

Originally Posted by a_Username

V6 should edge it out. IIRC, stock they were mid to high 14s. I believe the problem back then was that tires sucked.

And the hp numbers were completely meaningless. A typical SAE gross test (pre-1972 testing) involved removing most the driven accessories, running it under ideal environmental conditions, pulling off the air cleaner, occasionally replacing the exhaust, and doing whatever else they could to get a bigger number. Then, whatever it was that they got, they'd frequently scale it back (often by quoting the power at a lower rpm than what it really peaks at. So if you could somehow run a brand new 396 big block straight on the current SAE test standards, I wouldn't be surprised if it would be rated at under 300 hp, despite the fact that it was 'officially' rated at 375 hp in the 60's.

[bigted83]

Ok, let's say headers, a decent size cfm holley 4 barrel, a free flowing exhaust and modern tires on the first generation and a high performance air induction system

[usa1camaro1969]

The first-gen camaro if it's been updated could spank the v6. The cars were a couple hundred pounds lighter to begin with, if they had the right tires they'd have the torque all over the v6, if prepped right.

[Bad70supreme]

A set of modern tires and exhaust and its all over for the v6! The 396... dont even think about it

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Stock vs sock? V6, unless its a ZL-1. Even assuming the old cars are running in mint condition (not happening 40 years down the road, unless the engine has been recently restored) they'd have a hard time keeping up with a new V6. The closest race would probably be between a SS396 (high output version) but I'd still give the new Camaro the edge.


And the hp numbers were completely meaningless. A typical SAE gross test (pre-1972 testing) involved removing most the driven accessories, running it under ideal environmental conditions, pulling off the air cleaner, occasionally replacing the exhaust, and doing whatever else they could to get a bigger number. Then, whatever it was that they got, they'd frequently scale it back (often by quoting the power at a lower rpm than what it really peaks at. So if you could somehow run a brand new 396 big block straight on the current SAE test standards, I wouldn't be surprised if it would be rated at under 300 hp, despite the fact that it was 'officially' rated at 375 hp in the 60's.

i agree. the old ratings are a joke. they seem to have been overrated by 25-35% in most cases!!!!

[ULTRAZLS1]

I thought private owners had driven 396/375hp cars to a best of around 13.7 @ 105 last time I checked when stock. Mag tests have them at mid 14's....which is no surprise given the stock tires and the history of mag numbers.

Considering a gross rating of 375 would put them around 300hp SAE. They weigh about 3400lbs. I would say that should be slightly faster than a new v6 car.

The 350 cars would lose to the 5th gen 6 for sure if completely stock.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by bigted83

Ok, let's say headers, a decent size cfm holley 4 barrel, a free flowing exhaust and modern tires on the first generation and a high performance air induction system

In that case, I'd say that the 1st gen has the advantage.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

I thought private owners had driven 396/375hp cars to a best of around 13.7 @ 105 last time I checked when stock. Mag tests have them at mid 14's....which is no surprise given the stock tires and the history of mag numbers.

Considering a gross rating of 375 would put them around 300hp SAE. They weigh about 3400lbs. I would say that should be slightly faster than a new v6 car.

The 350 cars would lose to the 5th gen 6 for sure if completely stock.

Still doesn't account for the fact that tires sucked back then, too; that would obviously have a bad effect on ET and MPH.