Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
Hurst Shifters
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > General Camaro Forums > Chevy Camaro vs...

Chevy Camaro vs... Comparison of Chevy Camaro versus its competition. *NO STREET RACING STORIES*

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-23-2012, 09:06 PM   #151
hunt
 
Drives: 10 SS 08 Triumph 675
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by MauriSSio View Post
from what ive seen, the LS3 starts choking and running out of steam at only 6000rpm and really should be shifted by 6400 or so. so thats a 600rpm difference. The coyote benefits from removing the redline and increasing the shift point rpm


This mustang starts to "choke out" just a few hundred RPMs later.. What's your point?
__________________
Never put up with something high maintenance, unless it's high performance.
hunt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2012, 09:09 PM   #152
Coyotekiller
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2012 AGM 2SS
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Beaufort, NC
Posts: 1,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by hunt View Post


This mustang starts to "choke out" just a few hundred RPMs later.. What's your point?
That must be a dyno of a bone stock 5.0. If it had the boss manifold and proper tune it could make power all the way up to 7,800 rpm.
Coyotekiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2012, 09:27 PM   #153
hunt
 
Drives: 10 SS 08 Triumph 675
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 209
Well comparing apples to apples, that's stock vs stock. Do you have any dyno graphs of just the boss intake?
__________________
Never put up with something high maintenance, unless it's high performance.
hunt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2012, 11:15 PM   #154
8cd03gro


 
Drives: 2005 STi corn fed
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyotekiller View Post
Heads/cams make little difference to the coyote.
500+rwhp is attainable with a good h/c setup on the 5.0.
8cd03gro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2012, 11:17 PM   #155
cbass

 
Drives: .
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 986
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8cd03gro View Post
500+rwhp is attainable with a good h/c setup on the 5.0.
H/C ?????
cbass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2012, 11:21 PM   #156
8cd03gro


 
Drives: 2005 STi corn fed
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbass View Post
H/C ?????
heads and cams.
8cd03gro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2012, 01:10 AM   #157
goodtime
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2012 Mustang GT;2010 Challenger R/T
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: TX
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by hunt View Post
De-tuned and power from bolt ons aren't the same thing. Aren't cam/heads not worth much in the 5.0? What about intake/exhaust (other than LTs)? I'm not being facetious i'm actually curious.
They go hand-in-hand. You made reference to the 5.0 being maxed out from the factory which led to my statement of being de-tuned and gains to be had with bolt-on's.

Ported heads aren't worth much over the stock heads using the stock cams. Move into larger cams in combination with ported heads and there is between 40-50HP to be had. If I were in the market to do this, I would use the Boss heads and go with custom grind cams with phase lockouts or use the FRPP cams.

LT's will get you about 25WHP over the stock exhaust. CAI's on a N/A motor aren't worth much. 4-5HP at most.

Putting the right combination of parts together with the proper tune = the times I have run with my auto and it still has more in it with the stock long block.

This is no different than the LS3 for example. Wrong cam, head porting, etc. may not produce the best results. The disadvantage the LS3 has is no VVT. You are forced to running an aftermarket cam to get gains that a 5.0 can achieve with simply having a good tune without having to open a valve cover, worry with exhaust springs, etc...

Combine TiVCT with the head flow on the 5.0 and that is why you have a motor that is 1.2 liters less in displacement at least equaling what the LS3 can in output.
goodtime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2012, 01:12 AM   #158
goodtime
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2012 Mustang GT;2010 Challenger R/T
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: TX
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by hunt View Post
Well comparing apples to apples, that's stock vs stock. Do you have any dyno graphs of just the boss intake?
Here is a comparison of my 2011 with stock intake vs. Boss:

goodtime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2012, 07:59 PM   #159
cbass

 
Drives: .
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 986
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8cd03gro View Post
500+rwhp is attainable with a good h/c setup on the 5.0.
Looks like the camaro can get 500 rwhp with a G6x3 cam. Doesn't look like headwork is needed to achieve that?

cbass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2012, 08:07 PM   #160
cbass

 
Drives: .
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 986
Quote:
The disadvantage the LS3 has is no VVT. You are forced to running an aftermarket cam to get gains that a 5.0 can achieve with simply having a good tune without having to open a valve cover, worry with exhaust springs, etc...
I am a big fan of VVT, but I don't really see it as a disadvantage compared to the coyote. Like I showed the LS3 makes more hp up until 6200 rpm and then the coyote motor matches the peak hp output of the LS3, but at higher rpm. So even with VVT the LS3 beats the coyote for most of the rpm range and then the coyote manages to match peak power output of the LS3 from 6200-6500 rpm before dropping off. A very narrow range.

That's a benefit of the larger displacement with no practical disadvantages. Almost the same fuel economy and the same engine weight. Actually I think the LS3 is a few pounds lighter.
cbass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2012, 08:12 PM   #161
8cd03gro


 
Drives: 2005 STi corn fed
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbass View Post
Looks like the camaro can get 500 rwhp with a G6x3 cam. Doesn't look like headwork is needed to achieve that?

Displacement makes the difference, nobody is arguing that. Here is a dyno for a 5.0 with ported heads and cams



Those numbers would probably be a bit higher on your typical dynojet. My local dyno dynamics puts down about 6-7% less than our local dynojet.

Fact of the matter is though, the idea that cams and heads, "make little difference" for the 5.0 is just wrong. A good h/c setup is worth quite a bit. When talking n/a performance, displacement is king. On the other hand, 500rwhp in the 2011+ gt is going to be considerably more deadly on the track than 500rwhp in a fifth gen.
8cd03gro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2012, 09:06 PM   #162
cbass

 
Drives: .
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 986
Quote:
Fact of the matter is though, the idea that cams and heads, "make little difference" for the 5.0 is just wrong. A good h/c setup is worth quite a bit. When talking n/a performance, displacement is king. On the other hand, 500rwhp in the 2011+ gt is going to be considerably more deadly on the track than 500rwhp in a fifth gen.
I think heads and cams would always make a difference. There is a reason they cnc ported the boss heads and gave those motors more valve lift. However, can't you do a pretty good job tuning the stock cams on the coyote because the VVT allows for up to 50 degrees in duration tuning or something like that? Like I said before. I'm a big fan of VVT.

Usually that is correct, but there is a replacement for displacement and that is RPM and happens to be where the mustang motor shines. Just not stock. According to Ford and from the dynos I have seen it is true after 6500 rpm the hp falls fast because of the intake. It seems the boss intake is the solution:

Quote:
Coyote cannot make power any higher than 6,500--the intake manifold shuts it down. This one (the Boss 302 intake) won't shut it down until 7,750. And the reason that I picked 7,750 is that there are actually... you've seen the torque curves on Coyote, there are three very distinct peaks, wiggles in the curve, and I call those 'teeth on a sprocket' So they are tuning modes of the runner; if you change the length of the runner enough, you can actually move one whole tooth."
Hp is hp and at the strip it doesn't matter where you make it even if it's at high rpm and the higher the rpm the more hp you can make from less displacement. You are going to be in the lower rpm's for a very short time at the strip and then it will all be high rpm's. However, since most of my driving is on the street and not the strip I prefer the motor with more hp in the lower rpms. Having a big advantages at below 3 or 4K rpm makes me enjoy an engine more while driving daily. It's just the types of motors I tend to like based on how I use cars. Your preference may vary.

500rwhp is going to be more deadly in a 2011+ mustang because it is lighter than a camaro and because the live axle is a better setup for drag racing. It suffers over pot holes in ride quality, but shines at the strip.
cbass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2012, 09:15 PM   #163
sschevybear11
 
sschevybear11's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 Black 1SS
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: moline,il
Posts: 504
Ran a guys new '12 auto with 3.15's at the track 2 times saturday. He ran 13.22@109.5 and 13.09@110.2. 2K miles and bone stock. Impressive but still a drivers race with an SS.
__________________
2011 Black 1SS M6 12.75@110.91 bone stock
Now: Coated Dynatech LT's/!Cats/Hurst Shifter/Roto-fab/SLP SS badges/JRE 415HP Tune, Scoop & Washer Relocation Bottle,Hurst Stunner 20X9 Wheels, Moroso Catch Can, ASP pulley, Magnaflow X-pipe, GTO remote clutch reservoir
1989 Silver 5.0 Mustang LX Coupe
1999 Pewter Tahoe LT
2011 Blue Camry SE
sschevybear11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 07:23 AM   #164
Coyotekiller
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2012 AGM 2SS
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Beaufort, NC
Posts: 1,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8cd03gro View Post
Displacement makes the difference, nobody is arguing that. Here is a dyno for a 5.0 with ported heads and cams



Those numbers would probably be a bit higher on your typical dynojet. My local dyno dynamics puts down about 6-7% less than our local dynojet.

Fact of the matter is though, the idea that cams and heads, "make little difference" for the 5.0 is just wrong. A good h/c setup is worth quite a bit. When talking n/a performance, displacement is king. On the other hand, 500rwhp in the 2011+ gt is going to be considerably more deadly on the track than 500rwhp in a fifth gen.
I'll let you tell that to the guy that installed $4000 worth of heads and cams and only gained 50 peak horsepower. He cars has full bolt ons and this is the first internal work he'd had done to the car. He was livid about it too.
Coyotekiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 08:37 AM   #165
big hammer

 
Drives: 2002 ws6
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: manitoba
Posts: 990
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8cd03gro View Post
Displacement makes the difference, nobody is arguing that. Here is a dyno for a 5.0 with ported heads and cams



Those numbers would probably be a bit higher on your typical dynojet. My local dyno dynamics puts down about 6-7% less than our local dynojet.

Fact of the matter is though, the idea that cams and heads, "make little difference" for the 5.0 is just wrong. A good h/c setup is worth quite a bit. When talking n/a performance, displacement is king. On the other hand, 500rwhp in the 2011+ gt is going to be considerably more deadly on the track than 500rwhp in a fifth gen.


from the site that pic came from

Quote:
The Mustang enthusiast is going to have to realize that the red line on your tachometer just means "keep going" after these items are installed. The Coyote engine will be very happy at 6,500rpm+ once all of the induction items are installed and it will love every minute of it. If 3,000rpm grunt is what the end user is looking for, install a Whipple.
unfortunately i agree. after all that expense you are left with a very peaky ricer engine. for the money and driveability, i would rather put a blower on it.

they wouldn't even post hp figures below 4000 rpm. going by the curve on the graph, i bet it's pretty terrible.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black GT View Post
Couple months ago we a few of us were at the track playing with one of my buddies 2010 Z06 automatic.Between 4 of us NO ONE was able to get out of the 12's.

I believe torque managnent was killing us that night, when launching the car would take off and fall flat on it's face.
big hammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 10:40 AM   #166
MauriSSio
Banned
 
Drives: 1968 Ford Galaxie
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: San Jose
Posts: 630
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8cd03gro View Post
Displacement makes the difference, nobody is arguing that. Here is a dyno for a 5.0 with ported heads and cams



Those numbers would probably be a bit higher on your typical dynojet. My local dyno dynamics puts down about 6-7% less than our local dynojet.

Fact of the matter is though, the idea that cams and heads, "make little difference" for the 5.0 is just wrong. A good h/c setup is worth quite a bit. When talking n/a performance, displacement is king. On the other hand, 500rwhp in the 2011+ gt is going to be considerably more deadly on the track than 500rwhp in a fifth gen.
i agree. Ive seen way too many races with light bolt-on 5.0's vs cammed camaros end up with the LS3 camaro either getting pulled or barely running even at best.
MauriSSio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 11:38 AM   #167
goodtime
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2012 Mustang GT;2010 Challenger R/T
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: TX
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by big hammer View Post
from the site that pic came from



unfortunately i agree. after all that expense you are left with a very peaky ricer engine. for the money and driveability, i would rather put a blower on it.

they wouldn't even post hp figures below 4000 rpm. going by the curve on the graph, i bet it's pretty terrible.
LOL @ calling the 5.0 a "ricer" motor.

I guess my 11.00@124 pass, bolt-on only, stock long block, 5.0 is nothing more than ricer material..... Find me another bolt-on only 2010+ LS3 Camaro SS that can match it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MauriSSio View Post
i agree. Ive seen way too many races with light bolt-on 5.0's vs cammed camaros end up with the LS3 camaro either getting pulled or barely running even at best.
It's all about where you live when racing which is at the top of the RPM train.
goodtime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 12:54 PM   #168
big hammer

 
Drives: 2002 ws6
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: manitoba
Posts: 990
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodtime View Post
LOL @ calling the 5.0 a "ricer" motor.

I guess my 11.00@124 pass, bolt-on only, stock long block, 5.0 is nothing more than ricer material..... Find me another bolt-on only 2010+ LS3 Camaro SS that can match it.
keep up the good work. you're getting closer to the old bolt on ls1's.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black GT View Post
Couple months ago we a few of us were at the track playing with one of my buddies 2010 Z06 automatic.Between 4 of us NO ONE was able to get out of the 12's.

I believe torque managnent was killing us that night, when launching the car would take off and fall flat on it's face.
big hammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 01:56 PM   #169
goodtime
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2012 Mustang GT;2010 Challenger R/T
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: TX
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by big hammer View Post
keep up the good work. you're getting closer to the old bolt on ls1's.
Here is the list from ls1:

Board ID - 1/4 ET @ MPH (60ft), Yr & Type of car, Converter/Clutch, Gear, Race Weight, Date
RUQWIKR -------- 10.685 @ 122.91 (1.37), 01 Formula T400, ATI4600, 4.56, 3060, 03/08
Project_SS ----- 10.866 @ 122.14 (1.45), 98 Camaro SS A4, TCI4400, 3.73, 2840, 03/07
Magnus --------- 10.987 @ 119.31 (1.42), 97 Firebird A4, YPT4400, 4.10, 2920, 12/04
Promod1955 ----- 11.030 @ 124.18 (1.45), 00 Camaro SS A4, YPT4400, 3.73, 3085, 04/09


Looks like I would fit in at #4. I am 500+ lbs. heavier then those cars. Not sure what DA those times were run in. I was at 1,400' above SL.
goodtime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 04:49 PM   #170
8cd03gro


 
Drives: 2005 STi corn fed
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by big hammer View Post
keep up the good work. you're getting closer to the old bolt on ls1's.
Where does he fit compared to your bolt on times, or are you just talking the talk like usual? Is he allowed to do 400+ lbs of weight reduction and a stalled auto like a few of the ls1 cars listed above?

You're probably the only person on the planet to believe a 5.0l v8 making 510rwhp @ 7,500rpm all motor is a, "ricer" motor.
8cd03gro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 05:02 PM   #171
ULTRAZLS1

 
ULTRAZLS1's Avatar
 
Drives: Black 2010 1SS M6
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Posts: 1,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8cd03gro View Post
Where does he fit compared to your bolt on times?

You're probably the only person on the planet to believe a 5.0l v8 making 510rwhp @ 7,500rpm all motor is a, "ricer" motor.
It is a bit peaky. At 5k rpm it is only making ~380 rwhp. My H/C car is making right under 450rwhp at 5k rpm. ~70rwhp behind. My car is at 7200rpm rev limiter. So I am not revving quite as high...but all around I would say the ls3 is a bit better in H/C form if revving high with a large cam.

I wouldnt call the 5.0 ricer...somewhere in between...probably the best of both worlds honestly.

No trash talking here...
__________________
Performance Mods: PRC 250cc Aftermarket Casting Cylinder Heads, G6X3 Cam, Fast 102 Intake, Nick Williams 102 TB,Stainless Works 2" Long Tubes, Flowmaster AT Cat-Back, C.A.I. CAI/ADM Scoop, SLP UD Pulley, PFADT Springs/Sways/Rear Trailing Arms, Pedders Subframe Bushings, Energy Differential Mounts, Spohn Toe Links, BMR 2-Point STB, LSR Tunnel Brace, Hurst Short Throw, COR Velocity V3 Wheels, 305/35/20 Nitto NT555R's
Finishline Performance Dyno Tune-505 RWHP 464 RWTQ
ULTRAZLS1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 05:06 PM   #172
MauriSSio
Banned
 
Drives: 1968 Ford Galaxie
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: San Jose
Posts: 630
Quote:
Originally Posted by big hammer View Post
...unfortunately i agree. after all that expense you are left with a very peaky ricer engine. for the money and driveability, i would rather put a blower on it.

they wouldn't even post hp figures below 4000 rpm. going by the curve on the graph, i bet it's pretty terrible.
thats funny, the 5.0 makes the same or morque torque than a 5.7 LS1, AAAAND revs higher (faster).....
MauriSSio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 05:08 PM   #173
ULTRAZLS1

 
ULTRAZLS1's Avatar
 
Drives: Black 2010 1SS M6
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Posts: 1,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by MauriSSio View Post
thats funny, the 5.0 makes the same or morque torque than a 5.7 LS1, AAAAND revs higher (faster).....
And has 4 cams and 32 valves and is physically larger AAAND has TI-VCT. Let alone being designed 15 years later. Displacement is only one part of the equation.

Different approach...both are great.
__________________
Performance Mods: PRC 250cc Aftermarket Casting Cylinder Heads, G6X3 Cam, Fast 102 Intake, Nick Williams 102 TB,Stainless Works 2" Long Tubes, Flowmaster AT Cat-Back, C.A.I. CAI/ADM Scoop, SLP UD Pulley, PFADT Springs/Sways/Rear Trailing Arms, Pedders Subframe Bushings, Energy Differential Mounts, Spohn Toe Links, BMR 2-Point STB, LSR Tunnel Brace, Hurst Short Throw, COR Velocity V3 Wheels, 305/35/20 Nitto NT555R's
Finishline Performance Dyno Tune-505 RWHP 464 RWTQ
ULTRAZLS1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 05:32 PM   #174
cbass

 
Drives: .
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 986
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1 View Post
It is a bit peaky. At 5k rpm it is only making ~380 rwhp. My H/C car is making right under 450rwhp at 5k rpm. ~70rwhp behind. My car is at 7200rpm rev limiter. So I am not revving quite as high...but all around I would say the ls3 is a bit better in H/C form if revving high with a large cam.

I wouldnt call the 5.0 ricer...somewhere in between...probably the best of both worlds honestly.

No trash talking here...
When compared to the competition the coyote motor is peaky. That's just the truth. When compared to all motors on the roads, then it's still a 5.0 L V8 so compared to those motors it's a different story. Out of the camaro and Challenger it is the smallest motor with the least hp with the hp peak at higher rpm. Those are just facts on the motor.

Remember the coyote vs LS3 dyno chart? Well here is a LS3 vs a 392 HEMI. I like the 6.4L Dodge motor much better than the LS3.



The problem with the SRT8 Challenger with the 392 is it's around 45K, which is more than I am willing to spend. That and a car is more than just the motor so although it's my favorite motor it's not my choice out of the mustang, camaro and challenger based on other factors.

But when it comes to just engines my choice is...

1. 392 HEMI
2. LS3
3. Coyote
cbass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 05:32 PM   #175
MauriSSio
Banned
 
Drives: 1968 Ford Galaxie
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: San Jose
Posts: 630
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1 View Post
And has 4 cams and 32 valves and is physically larger AAAND has TI-VCT. Let alone being designed 15 years later. Displacement is only one part of the equation.

Different approach...both are great.
i know you want to come in and defend everything LS (i used to own an LS1 Camaro BTW) but power is power. tq is tq, and hes labeling the 5.0 a peaky ricer engine. this has nothing to do with valves, cams or age of engine. im talking about the power output,perceptions and putting it into perspective
MauriSSio is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2011 5.0 vs 2012 45th SS Deki Chevy Camaro vs... 26 12-05-2012 01:16 PM
my 95 5.0 vs 4th gen camaro z28 or ss lil_red_v6 General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion 31 01-26-2012 10:23 AM
You tube Idea 5.0 vs SS suzbndt Chevy Camaro vs... 45 09-20-2011 04:18 AM
Camaro SS vs Mustang GT 5.0 (no arguements please) SamSS Chevy Camaro vs... 52 09-15-2011 08:29 PM
Stock SS Parts – AZ Available edneyens Local Marketplace 5 05-16-2011 07:58 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.