Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
sjm autoprod
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 09-23-2012, 09:27 AM   #1
strych9
Gone Euro!
 
strych9's Avatar
 
Drives: 6spd Manual Mercedes
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 3,031
Drove a 2012 SRT8 392 Challenger Yesterday

I stopped by the local Dodge dealer yesterday and took out a new "Yellow Jacket" for a spin. It was an M6, like my Camaro.

We had them parked side by side, and the sizes are nearly equal. They had installed a factory aftermarket exhaust system on this car, and it was loud. I would compare it to a SW retro-chambered cat-back system.

The tires on the Challenger were Eagle F1. Same size as the the Camaro up front, but a narrower 255/45ZR20 in the back (ours are 275/45ZR20).

The factory "pistol-grip" shifter was nice. The seating was good, and even though the Challenger appears to be lower to the ground than our Camaros, the roofline is higher and you feel like you're sitting higher because of it.

I ran it hard, and it's a brute. Raw horsepower. It rode very stiffly just driving on the highway. We should really be thankful for the Camaro suspension, as ours has similar grip as the Challenger, but ours are much more "daily-use" friendly.

The Challenger was nicely equipped. As driven, $50,105 sticker + $2000 exhaust and $250 tint.

A very cool car, indeed. These cars are more overpriced than ours, and you pay dearly for the extra horsepower (+44). A $1000 or $1300 gas-guzzler tax applies, manual vs auto. My insurance would increase by $10 per month.

I'm sticking with the Camaro, but a 392 Challenger would be a great car to own.
__________________
Bye bye, Bumblebee!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
strych9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2012, 11:16 AM   #2
Bad70supreme


 
Bad70supreme's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 aqua blue SS/RS M6
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: plainfield, IL
Posts: 2,618
My friend has a 392 and when we park next to each other that thing looks like a tank next to mine! The hood is also higher, I think that car looks allot bigger. But I agree it is very nice, I love the seats, don't like the dash. He put a flowmaster cat back on it and it sounds great too.
__________________
217/228 .565 cam, th400 swap with 3600 stall, headers, GPI tune, VR intake, Bo white TB
11.63@ 118.6
11.66@ 119.5
Bad70supreme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2012, 11:28 AM   #3
jaysonstuart
 
jaysonstuart's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 Camaro 1SS
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Englewood, CO
Posts: 297
My brother has a 12 392 Challenger that I've driven a handful of times and TBH everytime I get back in my Camaro I'm thankful that I own it.

Don't get me wrong the 392 is a cool, fun car but it's definitely not worth the 50K+ price tag IMO. I feel the biggest failure in that car is the interior is just terrible and the nav looks like a garmon from 1998. For the price of that car the interior should be much nicer and user friendly.

Performance wise, the car is a blast to drive. Lots of pull and it feels like a hotrod.
__________________
<font color=Blue><font face=Arial Black>2012 1SS</font></font>
jaysonstuart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2012, 11:59 AM   #4
Stingray
just can't get enough
 
Stingray's Avatar
 
Drives: C7-Z06, Boss 302, Macan S
Join Date: May 2012
Location: SoFla
Posts: 3,358
I also checked out a few 392 Challengers earlier in May. They are attractive & massive but it's not worth the 50K+ price tag for me. IMO it's 10K too much. I ended up getting the Boss 302 instead. Here's the 392 I was looking at...
__________________
Just a few toys... and from a Z51 to the Z06!
Stingray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2012, 12:12 PM   #5
MBS

 
MBS's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 rs 2lt
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: wisconsin
Posts: 1,914
Yes i drove one last year, Love the looks and all, But still not as cool as the Camaro,And the price tag is way out of wack, I will leave them for the people that want to pay too much for a car.
MBS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2012, 02:14 PM   #6
alaskacamaro
 
alaskacamaro's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 2SS 45TH Anniversary
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Alaska
Posts: 607
Definitely took a hard look at "the big three" for over seven months before I went with the camaro. While the Dodge has the best "reto" appeal to it, it is the way too expensive and heavy. Up here they wanted 55K for a 392 (not even fully loaded vs the 37K I paid for mine. Trying to understand Dodge's sale logic on this one....
alaskacamaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2012, 09:35 PM   #7
Nessal


 
Drives: Lotus Exige
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: CA, Bay Area
Posts: 2,284
I orginally wanted the 392 but did not see 50k worth of car there. The Camaro was spot on at 32k. What can I say. I value bang for the buck.
Nessal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2012, 02:27 AM   #8
alaskacamaro
 
alaskacamaro's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 2SS 45TH Anniversary
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Alaska
Posts: 607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stiffy View Post
Heavy? What numbers do you have in mind?
The SRT weighs almost 4200 pounds as opposed to my car at 3800, as opposed to a mustang at 3600. 50hp more (stock) is not enough to overcome 400lb difference. My car is already too heavy to be a decent drag car and the mustang is just not a nice looking car IMO.
alaskacamaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2012, 05:36 AM   #9
VADER SS L99


 
VADER SS L99's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro SS L99
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Edmond, OK
Posts: 2,577
way over priced car for what you get. Hell you could get a gt500 or zl1 for 5k more. The more coparable car price wise is the RT and I think the SS is way better for the money between the RT and SS. I also don't understand Dodge's pricing for the cars when looking at the competition. I too shoped the big three in the fall of 09 and the SS was leaps and bonds better than the other 2 for the money.
__________________
BLK/BLK 1SS/RS Ordered 11-01-2009 Took delivery 12-22-2009.
VADER SS L99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2012, 08:23 AM   #10
Stew


 
Drives: 92 Luminadead/01 Dakota/97 F150 4x4
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Eastern, Ky
Posts: 3,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by VADER SS L99 View Post
way over priced car for what you get. Hell you could get a gt500 or zl1 for 5k more. The more coparable car price wise is the RT and I think the SS is way better for the money between the RT and SS. I also don't understand Dodge's pricing for the cars when looking at the competition. I too shoped the big three in the fall of 09 and the SS was leaps and bonds better than the other 2 for the money.
Are you comparing a base GT500 to a loaded Challenger? the SRT starts at around 44k. For what you get it is priced correctly, putting performance and pricing right in the middle of the GT/SS and GT500/ZL1.
Stew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2012, 12:18 PM   #11
newmoon

 
newmoon's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 5.0 Mustang, Brembo Track Pack
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NC
Posts: 1,763
You shouldn't be paying anywhere near 50k for a Challenger, I picked mine up for just under 45k for my fully loaded car months ago, it stickered for 51k. I imagine the price on the 12s have dipped even below that at this point with 13s hitting the lot soon.

Ran my car on the 1/4 for the first time Friday in less than ideal conditions and no cool-down time 3.5 hr ride to the track. Took a bit to figure out how to launch the car but it nailed a 12:76 at nearly 111-mph 100% stock. In comparison I raced a 5.0 stang 3 times and the best he could run was 13:40 at 107.

Weight was 4185 with me in the car.
__________________
Presently Car-Less
2012 Ford Mustang 5.0. Brembo, 3:73s
2012 Challenger 392 auto 12:40s 112 stock
2010 SS, LS3, Cammed, LTs, 12:20s
2004 Redfire Cobra, Pullied & Tuned
1986 GT, Ed Curtis 347ci, 11:20s motor. 10:30s 100-hp shot
newmoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2012, 12:34 PM   #12
Coyotekiller
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2012 AGM 2SS
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Beaufort, NC
Posts: 1,389
The OP's $50k quote was for a YELLOWJACKET, not a base SRT car. I think you all missed that part. The YellowJacket is the baddest challenger you can get from the factory. Google it.
Coyotekiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2012, 12:37 PM   #13
C5RocksC5
Banned
 
C5RocksC5's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sin City
Posts: 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stiffy View Post
haha 50hp is definitely enough to overcome the difference. The 392 has the SS man. You don't have to believe me, there are several testimonials from members on here.
his main point is it isn't as "pretty" as his camaro.
C5RocksC5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2012, 12:40 PM   #14
strych9
Gone Euro!
 
strych9's Avatar
 
Drives: 6spd Manual Mercedes
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyotekiller View Post
The OP's $50k quote was for a YELLOWJACKET, not a base SRT car. I think you all missed that part. The YellowJacket is the baddest challenger you can get from the factory. Google it.
This is correct. A stripped-down SRT8 392 (no stripes even) sells for $46.5k. The MSRP on the Yellow Jacket is $50,105 and is fully-equipped.
__________________
Bye bye, Bumblebee!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
strych9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2012, 01:35 PM   #15
Lou_Dorchen
 
Lou_Dorchen's Avatar
 
Drives: Jeep
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Tx
Posts: 269
$2k for an exhaust upgrade? What does that include? It better be more than just a set of aftermarket mufflers.
Lou_Dorchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2012, 01:41 PM   #16
Lou_Dorchen
 
Lou_Dorchen's Avatar
 
Drives: Jeep
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Tx
Posts: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by strych9 View Post
This is correct. A stripped-down SRT8 392 (no stripes even) sells for $46.5k. The MSRP on the Yellow Jacket is $50,105 and is fully-equipped.
The Dodge Challenger site says the base 392 starts at $45,125 and the Yellow Jacket stars at $46,620.

FYI, those are for the 2012 models. The site doesn't list the Yellow Jacket model on the 2013 models.
Lou_Dorchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2012, 02:23 PM   #17
motorhead
bars suck
 
motorhead's Avatar
 
Drives: ZL1
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: central, Pa
Posts: 7,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lou_Dorchen View Post
The Dodge Challenger site says the base 392 starts at $45,125 and the Yellow Jacket stars at $46,620.

FYI, those are for the 2012 models. The site doesn't list the Yellow Jacket model on the 2013 models.
You are correct. The Yellow Jacket was only produced as a 2012. It included stinger yellow paint, custom yellow Jacket stripe. yellow Jacket custom interior yellow stripe and stinger stitching. and custom stinger wheels. The challenger SRT8 392 is far more car than an SS Camaro and worth every penny if you ask me. I believe the interior is much nicer and more comfortable than the SS Camaro. It really has no competitor because it out classes the SS Camaro and 5.0 GT mustang ,but it gets out glassed by the ZL1 and 2013 GT500. I don't believe it was aimed to go the direction that the Camaro and Mustang has gone but rather to be a true muscle car through and through. This car is very nice to live with day in and day out and has more than enough power to get most people into a lot of trouble quickly.

If the Op thought the ride was stiff, I bet that he had in in sport or track mode without knowing. It rides very nice in auto. It has the same suspension as the 2013 GT500 and it handles a lot better than people think for it's weight
And speaking of the weight, Look at the true numbers comparing like options to like options and you will see that it's only about 180lbs heavier than a Camaro equip't that same way.
motorhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2012, 10:12 PM   #18
alaskacamaro
 
alaskacamaro's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 2SS 45TH Anniversary
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Alaska
Posts: 607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stiffy View Post
haha 50hp is definitely enough to overcome the difference. The 392 has the SS man. You don't have to believe me, there are several testimonials from members on here.

I should hope a muscle car with more HP and having a base price almost 10K over mine is going to be a bit faster. The price difference was a big reason I didn't go with the Challenger. While the Mustang can perform, I just don't like the look or the "live" axle. Plus, I have been told the Camaro is really easy to mod the LS3 engine. In fact, I think Chevy actually did itself a disservice when it released the SS when the design and engine have a lot of potential.
alaskacamaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2012, 01:25 AM   #19
alaskacamaro
 
alaskacamaro's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 2SS 45TH Anniversary
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Alaska
Posts: 607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stiffy View Post
Haha, you said 50 hp was not enough to overcome the difference between the weigh of the two cars. Obviously it is. "My car weighs 3800 and the challenger weighs 4200.... That 50 hp the challenger has can't overcome the 400 pounds difference" (you the saying the camaro is faster here). Now you're Saying
What?
(Sigh)

Most of the post in here are saying a SRT vs. SS are close and comes down to drivers skill, not the car. It has to be similar to the GT vs SS where the GT wins because it has almost exact HP and is lighter. I think most of the "novice" drivers like myself are really not going to notice a huge difference between these three vehicles.

I dont want to make this a vs thread. All three of these cars are really nice and I wont knock anyone for owning any of them. I just don't feel it is right to pay so much more for a vehicle and have similar characteristics...
alaskacamaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2012, 06:33 AM   #20
motorhead
bars suck
 
motorhead's Avatar
 
Drives: ZL1
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: central, Pa
Posts: 7,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by alaskacamaro View Post


(Sigh)

Most of the post in here are saying a SRT vs. SS are close and comes down to drivers skill, not the car. It has to be similar to the GT vs SS where the GT wins because it has almost exact HP and is lighter. I think most of the "novice" drivers like myself are really not going to notice a huge difference between these three vehicles.

I dont want to make this a vs thread. All three of these cars are really nice and I wont knock anyone for owning any of them. I just don't feel it is right to pay so much more for a vehicle and have similar characteristics...
If you want to split hairs, look at some of the 392 times posted compared to some zl1 times posted. There are several 392's that posted faster times and that car is 7 to 10 grand higher. The 392 is much more car and has a lot more performance parts than the SS. I'm not saying that it compares to the zl1. What I'm saying is, like I posted above. It has no competitor. That 's why it's more than an SS but cheaper than a zl1.
motorhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2012, 07:30 AM   #21
Camper
Banned
 
Drives: 10' 2SS LS3 M6
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Phoenix,AZ
Posts: 1,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorhead View Post
If you want to split hairs, look at some of the 392 times posted compared to some zl1 times posted. There are several 392's that posted faster times and that car is 7 to 10 grand higher. The 392 is much more car and has a lot more performance parts than the SS. I'm not saying that it compares to the zl1. What I'm saying is, like I posted above. It has no competitor. That 's why it's more than an SS but cheaper than a zl1.

I dont care to get involved in this argument, but stating that the 392 has a lot more performance parts available than the SS is just a flat lie...

the 392 ECU is locked , leaving you limited on your upgrades..
Camper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2012, 08:05 AM   #22
motorhead
bars suck
 
motorhead's Avatar
 
Drives: ZL1
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: central, Pa
Posts: 7,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camper View Post
I dont care to get involved in this argument, but stating that the 392 has a lot more performance parts available than the SS is just a flat lie...

the 392 ECU is locked , leaving you limited on your upgrades..
Calling facts a lie is very obtuse on your part. Look at the facts and you'll see that you're wrong.

It's foolish to use the modding argument to compare cars. When it comes down to it any car can be modded to beat another car if you spend enough money. I always love how people with lower model cars say that they can spend X amount of money and beat the Higher model. They fail to realize that the guy with the higher model can do the same and still be better than them. The modding argument is a joke and it has no influence at all for me on buying a car. I like to purchase them correctly from the factory.

Oh and another thing, the 392 can be modded. Do some research instead of blowing off. There are many 392's with superchargers and a few with twin turbos, and there is ways around the ECU. It just cost money as does modding any car. A simple B&G ECU upgrade that takes ten minutes to do will net the car another 3 tenth to 5 tenths with no other mod. That's huge in terms of quarter mile times.

Last edited by motorhead; 09-25-2012 at 09:46 AM.
motorhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2012, 08:09 AM   #23
Bob Cosby
 
Drives: 2010 Vette
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 572
If it were only 500 lbs lighter, I'd be interested. Love the look....
Bob Cosby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2012, 08:10 AM   #24
newmoon

 
newmoon's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 5.0 Mustang, Brembo Track Pack
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NC
Posts: 1,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camper View Post
I dont care to get involved in this argument, but stating that the 392 has a lot more performance parts available than the SS is just a flat lie...

the 392 ECU is locked , leaving you limited on your upgrades..
---------------------------------------------------------------------

The ECU being locked is a problem (not for me I plan on staying 100% stock, been the mod path in the SS) but there is an alternative where you can purchase another ECU for about $800.00 that is tuned, you can then swap back to the stock ecu for warranty. The tune is canned so it is limited. There is also talk that the ECU will be offered unlocked at SEMA this year opening up tuning.
__________________
Presently Car-Less
2012 Ford Mustang 5.0. Brembo, 3:73s
2012 Challenger 392 auto 12:40s 112 stock
2010 SS, LS3, Cammed, LTs, 12:20s
2004 Redfire Cobra, Pullied & Tuned
1986 GT, Ed Curtis 347ci, 11:20s motor. 10:30s 100-hp shot
newmoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2012, 08:18 AM   #25
Stew


 
Drives: 92 Luminadead/01 Dakota/97 F150 4x4
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Eastern, Ky
Posts: 3,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by alaskacamaro View Post


(Sigh)

Most of the post in here are saying a SRT vs. SS are close and comes down to drivers skill, not the car. It has to be similar to the GT vs SS where the GT wins because it has almost exact HP and is lighter. I think most of the "novice" drivers like myself are really not going to notice a huge difference between these three vehicles.

I dont want to make this a vs thread. All three of these cars are really nice and I wont knock anyone for owning any of them. I just don't feel it is right to pay so much more for a vehicle and have similar characteristics...
There are a lot of other reasons the 392 is more expensive than the SS than just the Motor. It has unique Alcoa lightweight wheels, Bilstien adjustable suspension, standard leather, standard touch screen stereo, SRT specific seats, srt specific heated, flat bottom steering, srt sopecific Brembo brakes which are larger and more powerful the SS brakes, automatic climate controls, and I know I am forgetting some, but the base SRT is basically loaded sans nav, sunroof, auto, and 3 season tires.
Stew 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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:08 PM.


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