Camaros v6 VS Mustang Gt

[Mr. Wyndham]

Don't underestimate this V6 Camaro.
That's all I have to say.


EDIT: Especially when using not-official numbers.

[Shadowsong]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Don't underestimate this V6 Camaro.
That's all I have to say.


EDIT: Especially when using not-official numbers.

Quoted for TRUTH!

Edit: Especially when there is a video...somewhere of one of the disciples saying it felt like it outperformed his 02 SS

[MrGazinya]

[Max]

What diff. does it make weather or not it out runs the Mustang GT..You buy the car for what it is...You bow tie fans have got to get over it...Speed cost money how fast do you wont to go...There are rice rockets that can out run the new camaro and muatang gt...But you buy these cars for what they are..........AMERICAN MUSCLE...Sure my auto 2006 mustang gt puts down 429 rear wheel hp but not without a $6000 roush super charger....The new camaro i'll get will also get the same treatment....Best of both worlds lets have some fun.

[chevys]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Don't underestimate this V6 Camaro.
That's all I have to say.


EDIT: Especially when using not-official numbers.

I dont think anybody is but physics dont lie. Gm brought some big power to go with the extra 300 lbs. I say mid to low 14's will be average quarter times. Just be careful when you pull up to a v6 Camry because they are no slouch either these days.

[boxmonkeyracing]

still say everyone here is under estimating the camaro and over estimating a mustang. never seen them with out major mods below 13.8.

[Chocolate Apocalypse]

I have to agree w/chevys, unless the Camaro's V6 under-rated quite a bit the extra weight it will tote around will give a current-body style GT the edge. Previous years better watch out though.

[nester7929]

The current Mustangs aren't the slouches they've been in the past, so even if you're a Camaro fan you have to give credit where it's due. There's no way a heavier V6 will beat a lighter V8, it's just basic physics.

Keep in mind that this current generation of Mustangs will only be competing with the Camaro for about six months; the new generation of mustangs will arrive in fall of '09. If they have the 400-hp 5.0 in them like they're supposed to, the Camaro could be in real trouble (assuming the Mustang still weighs the same as the current model). I recently saw some spy shots of the updated interior and it is leaps and bounds above the current model.

What really interests me though is the twin-turbo V6 Ford has been developing. It's supposed to be good for 390-415 hp while getting impressive gas mileage to boot. I suppose it would be too much to ask for Ford to revive the Thunderbird and drop that twin turbo inside it...

Originally Posted by boxmonkeyracing

still say everyone here is under estimating the camaro and over estimating a mustang. never seen them with out major mods below 13.8.

Every review I've found (plus my own experience) puts the stock GT's in the mid 13s. I've got a Ford Racing catback w/ headers and CAI and it'll run about 13.3 on average.

[str8himalaya]

The point of the new mustangs is a good one. This is why i would assume we will see the DI V-8 Gen V engine come out very soon from GM. They don't want to be outdone, obviously. They will use the ls3 for a test on the car market and to work out the bugs. I am willing to bet that after all that they will be rolling that Gen V engine out, and we will see the camaro rule again. Very similar to what they did with the G8 gxp. Bring out the G8 GT as the top model, then drop the GXP a year or two later. The camaro will have the nice v-6 and the ss with the LS3, and then dare i say...the Z28 in the next two years after original release. Just a thought...?

[Max]

Remember the v6 turbo in the buick grand nat. 1983 that was and still is a bad @$$ motor..The grand nat. was a 3800 lb car.

[chevys]

Originally Posted by Max

Remember the v6 turbo in the buick grand nat. 1983 that was and still is a bad @$$ motor..The grand nat. was a 3800 lb car.

For the life of me I dont remember those cars weighing that much. Are you sure about that? Im starting to think a fairly light TTv6 mustang could have a lot of potential given how good those regals were.

3280 according to this link.

http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z..._National.aspx

[Rock36]

Just looking at some basic figures of what we know now, a current Mustang GT should have an edge.


'05-'09 Mustang GT vs. '10 Camaro V6

Power 300bhp vs 300bhp
Torque 320 ft-lbs @ 4500rpm vs 273 ft-lbs @ 5200 rpm
Weight 3450lbs vs 3741lbs
Live axle 8.8" rear vs. IRS (crappier handling, but excellent off-the-line launching ablility)

I originally assessed the differential gearing of 3.55:1 to 3.27:1 in the Mustangs favor, but that AY6 6 speed tranny in the Camaro RS is geared pretty aggressively compared to the Mustangs TR3650, so I consider that a wash.

Any Mustang GT from 2004 and earlier (good luck finding one stock) will probably lose.

In the future I would just caution some of you from comparing any "glory pass" 13.XX second Camaro V6 run (if/when it occurs) against the average Mustang GT run (mid to high 13s).

[Max]

chevys, your right 3280 was the wt.What was i thinking.I can remember test driving a new grand national.Man was it quick.when the torque No's are higher then the horsepower No's thats when it's fun..The new camaro v6 is going to have the same feel but without a turbo.The vaga and pinto days are gone.Thank god.

[Muscle Master]

Wait a second now, lets not forget " Theres no replacement for displacement" rule

Isn't a V8 engine faster than a V6 engine having the same horsepower are not and on top of that a six-speed MT

............idk