2013 v6 Camaro vs 2013 v6 Genisis coupe

[KMPrenger]

The 05 - 10 Mustang Gt versus Camaro V6 talks has been tossed around more than a few times, and the fact of the matter is the Mustang GT SHOULD be faster....mostly off the line and in lower rpms ranges where the Torque gets you to the upper rpms, but there has been more than a few V6 owners take the GT in the 1/4 for whatever reason.

GT is lighter, has more torque, and lower gearing which equals a win...but even if the GT driver makes a slight mistake off the line, it could go either way with today's V6s.

If only the Camaro weighed what the Mustang does....with little more than a tune and an intake, the V6 would make much more horsepower than the GT of those years and have 300+ torque....then I'd lean more towards the V6 being the faster car.

But I guess I can say "if only" this, "if only" that all day long and it won't get me anywhere lol

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by Forty5th

Back to topic... even though the 3.8L Genesis may perform better, I'd still take a Camaro V6 over any of the Genesis variants anyday anytime. The Camaro styling IMO wins hands down even when compared to the restyled 2013 Genesis models.

Yeah....back on topic.

I'd take my Camaro any day as well. I don't hate the Genesis...think it looks pretty sharp from certain angles...very sporty. But not sure how I feel about some of the styling in the front portion.

[Mazzoni1]

Originally Posted by Forty5th

Back to topic... even though the 3.8L Genesis may perform better, I'd still take a Camaro V6 over any of the Genesis variants anyday anytime. The Camaro styling IMO wins hands down even when compared to the restyled 2013 Genesis models.

i agree. The genesis may be faster, but overall wise i like the camaro more. Although one thing i have noticed, my back hurts after driving for a couple hours in the camaro... might just be me

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Mazzoni1

2010 should win. 2009 GTs are running 300 hp with the smart 4.6 ontop of that the torque is killed by their heavy live axle. Every camaro I've seen race a mustang wins off the line because of that. Rolling live axle is great. Dead stop, not so much.

The only difference between the 4.6 in the 05-09 is basically CAI and tuning, it has the 08-09 bullitt Modifications. Heavy live axle? What? Even the 13 Mustang still has the live axle and a live axle rear is one of the reasons the Mustang is LIGHTER than the Camaro. Also live axles are generally better for launching in a straightline dragrace.

Anyways, back on topic lol.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Mazzoni1

Neither is torque. And they're both automatics. Press the peddle and go.

Um, auto vs auto, the GT has 1/2 to a full second advantage in the 1/4 mile, sorry he must have really blew the launch......

[DarkneSS]

Originally Posted by Stew

Um, auto vs auto, the GT has 1/2 to a full second advantage in the 1/4 mile, sorry he must have really blew the launch......

Or just left late. 0.5 seconds goes by in well...0.5 seconds. Not rare at all to see someone beat another by a RT of .75 or better.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by DarkneSS

Or just left late. 0.5 seconds goes by in well...0.5 seconds. Not rare at all to see someone beat another by a RT of .75 or better.

THis is true if he is talking about who got to the end first.

[SGOS252382]

Off topic- but its a little scary when the Honda Accord is putting up 13s (bone stock).
In my new magazine (believe it's Motortrend) they ran 13.9 @ 101 mph in 2013 V6 Accord.

That's V6 Mustang territory and faster than the V6 Camaro.

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by SGOS252382

Off topic- but its a little scary when the Honda Accord is putting up 13s (bone stock).
In my new magazine (believe it's Motortrend) they ran 13.9 @ 101 mph in 2013 V6 Accord.

That's V6 Mustang territory and faster than the V6 Camaro.

Yep...well thats the 2 door sport coupe version. The others are doing 15.3 seconds and above.

That car weighs 3,367lbs. Right around 400 lbs less than the V6 Camaro. Take away that fat from the Camaro and we'd be seeing mid to high 13s being the norm for the V6. That is the one thing I truely dislike about this car.

A mustang V6 with bolt ons, 3.73 gears, tune, no internal engine work, a drive shaft, and drag slicks and no special weight reduction ran a 12.91 1/4 mile earlier this year. May be faster than that by now I'm not sure. It probably weights a good 150+ more lbs than the Accord.

[08-G35s/6MT]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

Yep...well thats the 2 door sport coupe version. The others are doing 15.3 seconds and above.

That car weighs 3,367lbs. Right around 400 lbs less than the V6 Camaro. Take away that fat from the Camaro and we'd be seeing mid to high 13s being the norm for the V6. That is the one thing I truely dislike about this car.

A mustang V6 with bolt ons, 3.73 gears, tune, no internal engine work, a drive shaft, and drag slicks and no special weight reduction ran a 12.91 1/4 mile earlier this year. May be faster than that by now I'm not sure. It probably weights a good 150+ more lbs than the Accord.

All V6 auto accords regardless of door count has ran 15's before the 13's(1998-2012), the 13' auto's run bottom 14 second 1/4 miles at 100 mph+ thanks to 6-speed auto.


Yeah but don't forget that Accord had 3.31 gears, no tune, no internal engine work, 215/55 series tires, open diff, and no weight reduction too. It's only a single cam 3.0 liter V6 too.... It weighs about the same as a 350Z.

[rock1962]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

Yep...well thats the 2 door sport coupe version. The others are doing 15.3 seconds and above.

That car weighs 3,367lbs. Right around 400 lbs less than the V6 Camaro. Take away that fat from the Camaro and we'd be seeing mid to high 13s being the norm for the V6. That is the one thing I truely dislike about this car.

A mustang V6 with bolt ons, 3.73 gears, tune, no internal engine work, a drive shaft, and drag slicks and no special weight reduction ran a 12.91 1/4 mile earlier this year. May be faster than that by now I'm not sure. It probably weights a good 150+ more lbs than the Accord.

That is impressive, I saw that video!

[jcsuddre]

lol why is it that the v6 camaro sucks against almost if not all modern v6s around. i mean come on i thought gm would take more pride in american muscle. i know it isnt a v8 but 324 hp is weak compared to some recent v6. Lol even luxury cars like lincoln mks higest base model pumps out like 30 or 40 more hp. i understand price is also a factor but dont put anamerican muscle legend to shame against non sport/ race cars.

[08-G35s/6MT]

Originally Posted by jcsuddre

lol why is it that the v6 camaro sucks against almost if not all modern v6s around. i mean come on i thought gm would take more pride in american muscle. i know it isnt a v8 but 324 hp is weak compared to some recent v6. Lol even luxury cars like lincoln mks higest base model pumps out like 30 or 40 more hp. i understand price is also a factor but dont put anamerican muscle legend to shame against non sport/ race cars.

I think the issue is weight and the fact that the a large chunk of the engines power is gone due to the high parasthetic drivetrain loss of the auto trans coupled with long gearing in manual and auto models. There was a dyno test of a stock "323 hp" 2012 llt at a local dyno and it made 251 to the wheels. My butt dyno says it's more around 290-300 ? A stock automatic 350z hr or auto hr g35 or auto 05-09 3v Mustang GT does 260-265 rwhp stock, but they are rated less at the crank- for example.

Here's a few
254 rwhp- modded



243 rwhp

[Mazzoni1]

Originally Posted by 08-G35s/6MT

I think the issue is weight and the fact that the a large chunk of the engines power is gone due to the high parasthetic drivetrain loss of the auto trans coupled with long gearing in manual and auto models. There was a dyno test of a stock "323 hp" 2012 llt at a local dyno and it made 251 to the wheels. My butt dyno says it's more around 290-300 ? A stock automatic 350z hr or auto hr g35 or auto 05-09 3v Mustang GT does 260-265 rwhp stock, but they are rated less at the crank- for example.