2010 Camaro V6 vs 2002 Camaro Z28

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by songsj

I love the new Camaros but still have a lot of respect for some of the 4th generation f-bodies. My '97 Z28 is quite quick with the A4 and 3:23 gears. I've driven a 2010 V6 and I'm pretty sure I would spank it.

My brother ran 13.9 @ 101 in his exgf's 100% stock 97 2.73 A4 Z28. The LT1's had a lot of tq, it's going to be hard to beat those cars if they are running decently.

[SGOS252382]

Originally Posted by Georgie

haha yeah... 2010 wins in styling, MPG, resale, wheel size, valves per cylinder, electronics, leather quality, so on and so on... but not in speed.

and in picking up hot babes.

[songsj]

My brother ran 13.9 @ 101 in his exgf's 100% stock 97 2.73 A4 Z28. The LT1's had a lot of tq, it's going to be hard to beat those cars if they are running decently.

I agree, One thing I love about my LT1 with 3:23's is every time I punch it from a dead stop or a slow roll I always have this feeling " Am I going to survive this ?" The car just honks. We don't have a track close by so I have never run it for true times. I sure love the feeling when I get on her. If I get a new 5th I sure hope it makes me feel the same.
The V6 was quick but did not wow me.

[S8ER01Z]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

My brother ran 13.9 @ 101 in his exgf's 100% stock 97 2.73 A4 Z28. The LT1's had a lot of tq, it's going to be hard to beat those cars if they are running decently.

Nice time...wow... when I had my 1995 LT1 A4 3.23 car it only went 14.1 @ 97mph on a 2.1 60ft bone stock. (At Cordova dragway in the summer but it was all she had).

[nascarnate326]

I love the 5th gen, but the 4th gens were no slouch. Very under rated cars that still handle very well and can keep up.


If anything, 4th gen wins cuz of TTops

[7CAMARO7]

Originally Posted by Prospect20

who would win?

lol

btw I've counted 30.1mpgs on my heavy convertible SS and that's with mods

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by S8ER01Z

Nice time...wow... when I had my 1995 LT1 A4 3.23 car it only went 14.1 @ 97mph on a 2.1 60ft bone stock. (At Cordova dragway in the summer but it was all she had).

I think the 97's were just a LITTLE bit stronger (275 hp vs. 285 hp).

[djm96z28]

Yep, the horsepower was increased to 285 in 1996, for what that was worth. Respect the LT1 !

[radz28]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

on a bad day.

The manuals ranged from 300-320 RWHP and the autos in the 280's-290's RWHP in a 3450-3550 lbs. car.

The V6 so far has put down 240's RWHP and weighs in at 3750 lbs.

Comparing a 13.8 run from an LS1 fbody is the same as comparing it to a 15.0 run from a 5th gen v6.

Originally Posted by S8ER01Z

They were rated 310hp (but actually put that much to the tires)...

In reality they made 350+hp and were EASILY good for low 13s in the 1/4.

Mine has gone a best of 13.1 @ 108 on a 2.1 60ft with an ok driver behind the wheel... My fiancee has gone 13.1 @ 105 in it and I have dozens of 13.1 ~ 13.3 passes in the car in various conditions. (all 100% bone stock)

A stock 5th gen V6 would be NO CONTEST. Not trying to be an ass about it but there is no point in entertaining the thought that they are close.

My brother's '02, with a lid, Borla CB, and K&N put down almost 330 at the tire. It was an A4 with 2.73s. My car, with full exhaust, lid, tune, and a 100* day put down more than 360 to the tire. There's not a good chance for that V6 '10 to win unless the LS1 driver can't drive. Those LT1s were putting down from 230 to 260 RWHP too, and shouldn't be taken lightly either.

Originally Posted by matt55

2010 would












In crash up derby
In MPG
In resale
In transformers ...

LOL!

Originally Posted by djm96z28

Yep, the horsepower was increased to 285 in 1996, for what that was worth. Respect the LT1 !

Word.

[S8ER01Z]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

I think the 97's were just a LITTLE bit stronger (275 hp vs. 285 hp).

Yeah... I remember the dual cat thing adding power... it didn't help I was running in 2000+ DA the night I ran either.

I'm not sure if those crank numbers were accurate either..if memory serves the LT1s were all making ~300hp...

15% DTL on the 275 rating would be ~234rwhp
15% DTL on the 285 rating would be ~243rwhp

Most of the LT1 cars were seeing 250+ for the autos and 260+ for the manuals...
15% DTL on a 300hp rating would be 255rwhp.

[rickerda]

Here is a site that can add a little fuel to the fire http://www.zeroto60times.com/Chevrol...mph-Times.html

[Georgie]

2010 Chevrolet Camaro (V6) 0-60 mph 5.0 Quarter mile 13.7

really???

[roorback]

I wonder how a 2002 SS would rank with a 2010 SS? I wonder how much RWHP the 02 had.

[KarFan]

Originally Posted by roorback

I wonder how a 2002 SS would rank with a 2010 SS? I wonder how much RWHP the 02 had.

I had a '99 SS M6 put down 305/327 RWHP/Tq and a '02 Z28 A4 put down 286/320 RWHP/Tq in stock trim right down to paper air filter at low miles.

Best stock ET for the '02 Z was 13.33 @105 in good air.
I can't find the best stock time for the '99 SS.

The LS1 in 2000 had some updates and benefited from a revised cam and intake. It's hard to look at advertised power to compare an underrated LS1 with an SAE certified LS3 in the 2010 SS. So while it seems like the LS1 F-body on paper is way overmatched in reality the power to weight ratio was quite a bit closer.