Had the pleasure of driving a 5.0...

[DevilsReject97]

Originally Posted by 67rscamarovette

I agree with you except these two points. You must be about 5'4 to see out of a camaro, I'm 6'1 and my head hits the roof.

2: REMOVE displacement, are you crazy? The LS3 has huge potential, is lightweight and is cheap to mod. The performance upgrade will be best served by a weight loss. There's a guy I know with a mild cam LS3 in a '67 running consistent mid 10's. The power is there, the car is not optimized.

1.) I'm almost 6'3" with a size 15 shoe, trust me I can see just fine...you just gotta get that seat lowered and comfy.

2.) Displacement means squat to me. You don't have to have a huge block to make power. I do agree the LS3 is a great motor and the motor is not optimized, but I still think the new 5.5, with direct injection, with all the other options it's coming with, and the HP boost, is a good point to go towards...

[GMRULZ]

Originally Posted by thePill

As long as Chevrolet keeps the Camaro 10,000 units above the Mustang, you won't see any big dollars put into the LS3. However, since sales of the 5th Gen Camaro are worse than the 4th Gen at this point, upgrades might be needed... The 6th Gen isn't an option until September 2016 at the earliest for a 2017 Anniversary model (still not comfortable with Camaro anniversaries). The question is, how long can the 5th Gen last at the current sales pace and with a future sales slump associated with an aging model? The 3rd year into production is usually the drop off point as seen throughout the past 50 years in the Mustang, Camaro and Firebird.

...

As long as they are selling more than Ford sells Mustangs and double Chrysler sells of the Challenger, it will be around a long while. Economic conditions were much different in the 90`s, not a fair comparison w/ today`s economic conditions. Comparing it w/ today`s sales of the direct competition is more appropriate.

[2012 IngotSilver 5.0]

Originally Posted by 67rscamarovette

Anyone who uses hp/L as an argent should receive an instant 3 day ban. It's a typical ignorant import owner argument, and worthless.

I don't drive an import, and my point was pertinent relative to the post that I was addressing. What isn't pertinent was your post.

Please stick to the "late 60's" Camaro forums, as you're not really adding to anything here.

[2012 IngotSilver 5.0]

Originally Posted by DevilsReject97

... I've driven several Camaros and Mustangs in various rentals and test drives. I had a good feel for both cars and both are good cars to buy.

Having said that, I'll throw my .02 into the ring here as well..
Space: Camaro. Obviously the Camaro is a bigger car, built on a bigger platform, so it's going to have more space. However, the space I'm referring to is the front seats, not the rest of the car. In the Mustang, I felt very crowded around the steering wheel as well as I felt like I was sitting too close to my passenger. I want a little room between me and my passenger. I don't want to have to hold hands to shift my car.

Blind spots: PUSH. I always laugh when people talk to me about how bad the blind spots on the Camaro are. Then I see them get into a Mustang. Both cars are horribly bad when it comes to blind spots, and yes, the Mustang is just as bad. The difference is how the cars sit, and how tall you are as to how bad they are. In the Mustang, I really had to sit low in the car to see anything, as I was always too high. In the Camaro, I actually can sit pretty normal and see mostly everything. The trunk still sits way too high so backing up can be tricky since you can't see anything.

Nice writeup, pretty accurate too (I had a 10 V6 Camaro, now an 11 V6 Stang). The only 2 things I disagree with are Blind Spots and Space.

Compared to the Camaro, the Stang makes you feel like you're driving in a green house. Regarding space, being 6 ft tall my head was almost hitting the headliner in the Chevy. Not so with the Ford, as when I wear a helmet at the drag strip I still have room to spare.

[67rscamarovette]

Originally Posted by '11BlackV6Stang

I don't drive an import, and my point was pertinent relative to the post that I was addressing. What isn't pertinent was your post.

Please stick to the "late 60's" Camaro forums, as you're not really adding to anything here.

Says the V6 mustang guy (more likely girl?). My 67 has the same engine trans platform as a SS 5th gen, and I own 2 LSX vehicles (have owned 14 total). Both of which will beat your mustang by well over 3 seconds in the 1/4. Not to mention I wrench on these cars daily. I know more about late model GM performance than you ever will.

Now for your Hp/liter ricer bullshit math (specific output) if I had a nickel for every mathematically and mechanically inept Honda owner that said "well gee my S2000 makes 120 hp/L why did I get pulled by thirty carlengths?" 600cc crotch rockets make over 200hp/L, model airplane motors make 3000+ hp/L. see a trend?

HP = TQ * RPM / 5252

Because HP numbers can be inflated if an engine spins to a high RPM range, regardless of the fact that it may be a gutless wonder.

In other words, by spinning an engine higher, you will "make" more horsepower without actually increasing its power output. It is a way to "cheat" with the numbers.

So HP/L is a figure that selects for high-revving engines with low displacement.

Since there is no rational reason why you would WANT to select for low displacement outside of class racing and the land of taxes-on-displacement, this is a nonsense measurement for most situations.

You could probably get your engine to make more HP/L by de-stroking it so that it makes less power but has less liters and maybe revs higher. But what would that accomplish besides getting you your ricer certification? NOTHING.

So stop talking about HP/L. Put away the ricer math! Take time out of the equation and you have TQ/L (instant measurement, not over time) or BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) for engine efficiency, and are realistic measurements.

[2012 IngotSilver 5.0]

Originally Posted by 67rscamarovette

Says the V6 mustang guy (more likely girl?) ...

Nice try at getting me angry. But unlike you, I'm an adult.

You know, when I had my 10 Camaro LS I participated in many events with other Camaro owners. I found them to be wonderful, intelligent, fun loving people.

Why is it that you seem to lack in every one of those qualities?

[08-G35s/6MT]

Originally Posted by 67rscamarovette

Says the V6 mustang guy (more likely girl?). My 67 has the same engine trans platform as a SS 5th gen, and I own 2 LSX vehicles (have owned 14 total). Both of which will beat your mustang by well over 3 seconds in the 1/4. Not to mention I wrench on these cars daily. I know more about late model GM performance than you ever will.

Now for your Hp/liter ricer bullshit math (specific output) if I had a nickel for every mathematically and mechanically inept Honda owner that said "well gee my S2000 makes 120 hp/L why did I get pulled by thirty carlengths?" 600cc crotch rockets make over 200hp/L, model airplane motors make 3000+ hp/L. see a trend?

HP = TQ * RPM / 5252

Because HP numbers can be inflated if an engine spins to a high RPM range, regardless of the fact that it may be a gutless wonder.

In other words, by spinning an engine higher, you will "make" more horsepower without actually increasing its power output. It is a way to "cheat" with the numbers.

So HP/L is a figure that selects for high-revving engines with low displacement.

Since there is no rational reason why you would WANT to select for low displacement outside of class racing and the land of taxes-on-displacement, this is a nonsense measurement for most situations.

You could probably get your engine to make more HP/L by de-stroking it so that it makes less power but has less liters and maybe revs higher. But what would that accomplish besides getting you your ricer certification? NOTHING.

So stop talking about HP/L. Put away the ricer math! Take time out of the equation and you have TQ/L (instant measurement, not over time) or BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) for engine efficiency, and are realistic measurements.

You should try asking Civic Si and/or RSX owners about their torque curve... The look on their face is , "That doesn't matter." But they get all giddy when talking hp/liter...

[Shu71]

Torque is not a performance measure on it's own. You must have the speed at which that torque is being applied to be meaningful. You can take a drill motor and with gear reduction make thousands of foot lbs of torque at 1 rpm. If you do the same with a car engine and gear it steeper you can make huge torque but you aren't going to be going anywhere fast. Well guess what, there is a performance measure that uses torque (twisting force) and speed (rpms) that is meaningful. It's called Horsepower. Horsepower itself doesn't describe how it is made up though (what amount of HP is from Torque and what amount is from RPM), but that really doesn't matter since we have gearing to dictate the ratio of TQ to RPM and to keep the engine geared in it's power band to deliver the best combination of TQ and RPM for the performance we want. Here is the thing...HP/Cubic Inch or Liter is important as long as you know the makeup of that HP and can gear the vehicle to take advantage of it. You must look at the hp curve (torque over rpm) and then gear correctly to maximize the propulsion effect of that HP. Just because an engine makes it's peak HP at 10000 rpms does not make it a gutless wonder if you have it geared correctly.

Since someone already brought up sport bikes, let's say you have a sport bike that makes 40 ft lbs @ 15000 rpms and you are up against a VTwin that makes 80 ft lbs at 6000 rpms. The Vtwin has twice the torque of the sport bike, but the sport bike is turning 2.5 times as many rpms. So the sport bike could gear his bike 2.5 time steeper and that would increase his torque 2.5 times. At the rear wheel which is where it matters, the sport bike would have 25% more power when geared for the same rear wheel speed. Point is torque is not a performance measure without speed (rpms and gearing) to give drive wheel speed.

[67rscamarovette]

Originally Posted by Shu71

Since someone already brought up sport bikes, let's say you have a sport bike that makes 40 ft lbs @ 15000 rpms and you are up against a VTwin that makes 80 ft lbs at 6000 rpms. The Vtwin has twice the torque of the sport bike, but the sport bike is turning 2.5 times as many rpms. So the sport bike could gear his bike 2.5 time steeper and that would increase his torque 2.5 times. At the rear wheel which is where it matters, the sport bike would have 25% more power when geared for the same rear wheel speed. Point is torque is not a performance measure without speed (rpms and gearing) to give drive wheel speed.

Change your formula to HP, and you've got the right idea, but you're still incorrect.
Like you said, torque has no acceleration figure on its own

HP and Torque are always connected. The only way that the sport bike would be quicker in that situation, is if its horsepower was significantly higher than that of the Vtwin. RPM's DO NOT MATTER. (here is hp/L again, haha) I have an engine that peaks at 5200rpm in my T/A.. It made about 400 ft-lbs at 4800-ish RPM. Here comes Mr. S-2000 with his 200 ft-lbs at 10,000 RPM, in a LIGHTER car. There is no possible way he could match the acceleration, regardless of gearing. (maybe the first two feet of the race). I have raced bikes in the past, and you can gear it to have incredible wheel torque (100:1) all day long, but you aren't going anywhere fast, either.

[wbt]

Originally Posted by 67rscamarovette

Change your formula to HP, and you've got the right idea, but you're still incorrect.
Like you said, torque has no acceleration figure on its own

HP and Torque are always connected. The only way that the sport bike would be quicker in that situation, is if its horsepower was significantly higher than that of the Vtwin. RPM's DO NOT MATTER. (here is hp/L again, haha) I have an engine that peaks at 5200rpm in my T/A.. It made about 400 ft-lbs at 4800-ish RPM. Here comes Mr. S-2000 with his 200 ft-lbs at 10,000 RPM, in a LIGHTER car. There is no possible way he could match the acceleration, regardless of gearing. (maybe the first two feet of the race). I have raced bikes in the past, and you can gear it to have incredible wheel torque (100:1) all day long, but you aren't going anywhere fast, either.

Explain to us how one can take a 302 CI motor that puts out less TQ than a 376 CI motor but produces more HP and makes it to the end of the quarter mile first?

There is a lot more to drag racing than simplifying down to cubic inches. Gearing, RPM vs. peak power, shift points, suspension, weight, etc...

[Shu71]

67,

Actually the way I said it is right. I'll change the math to make it a little easier to explain what I am trying to say. Sportbike makes 40 ft lbs at 12000 rpm. vtwin makes 80 ft lbs at 6000 rpms. In order for the sportbike to have the same rear wheel speed (assuming the tire circumference is the same on the two bike which is another variable here), the sportbike would need twice the gearing as the vtwin. This woudl equalize the revolutions per minute of the rear tire on the sportbike at 12000 rpms to the vtwin at 6000 rpms. In that case, those two bikes would run very similarly.
HP = TQ x RPM / 5252
so for the sportbike HP = 40 x 12000 / 5252 = 91.39 hp @ 12000 rpms
for the v twin; HP = 80 x 6000 / 5252 = 91.9 hp @ 6000 rpms
So like I said, if the sportbike is geared at twice the gear and all the other variables are the same (weight, clutch, rider ability, etc) those two bikes would run very close.

To help a little more. On a dyno sheet, ignore the torque curve for performacne evaluations. It is ENGINE torque, not rear wheel torque. Rear wheel torque can be manipulated by gear ratio's. The only way a dyno can calculate torque is by using the tach lead to back out (using the HP formula) rpm from the horsepower (rear wheel) that the dyno is measuring.

[Shu71]

Originally Posted by wbt

Explain to us how one can take a 302 CI motor that puts out less TQ than a 376 CI motor but produces more HP and makes it to the end of the quarter mile first?

There is a lot more to drag racing than simplifying down to cubic inches. Gearing, RPM vs. peak power, shift points, suspension, weight, etc...

Exactly right, Gearing. Not only the rear gear, but each transmission gear ratio in conjuction with the rear gear. Use the gears to maximize the hp through the rpms in each gear.

[wbt]

Originally Posted by Shu71

Exactly right, Gearing. Not only the rear gear, but each transmission gear ratio in conjuction with the rear gear. Use the gears to maximize the hp through the rpms in each gear.

Indeed.

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by 67rscamarovette

Change your formula to HP, and you've got the right idea, but you're still incorrect.
Like you said, torque has no acceleration figure on its own

HP and Torque are always connected. The only way that the sport bike would be quicker in that situation, is if its horsepower was significantly higher than that of the Vtwin. RPM's DO NOT MATTER. (here is hp/L again, haha) I have an engine that peaks at 5200rpm in my T/A.. It made about 400 ft-lbs at 4800-ish RPM. Here comes Mr. S-2000 with his 200 ft-lbs at 10,000 RPM, in a LIGHTER car. There is no possible way he could match the acceleration, regardless of gearing. (maybe the first two feet of the race). I have raced bikes in the past, and you can gear it to have incredible wheel torque (100:1) all day long, but you aren't going anywhere fast, either.

An s2000 making 200 ft lbs at 10,000rpm would be putting down about 380hp at redline in a 2800lb car and would walk all over that trans am. Average horsepower in the usable rpm range, along with how well the gearing optimizes it, is what's going to matter.