Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com - View Single Post

vernal · 12-03-2009, 08:34 PM

As a life-long Ford person (except for an ill-fated Monte Carlo SS experiment) I think I find myself in a position to contribute here. I'm still shocked to see that I bought a Camaro, but I extensively drove the 2010 Mustang as well as an older Shelby GT500 and wound up going with the Camaro even though I knew Ford was moving back to my beloved 5.0. Since the pushrod V8 left the Ford lineup I think they have joined in the paper numbers game that all manufacturers seem to like. "Wow, 300 hp, that'll sell." Well, my 225hp 5.0 (with discrete mods but stock heads) has been beating up on those 300hp cars for years. I'm talking on the street here, not a prepped-track 1/4 mile. The peaky modular engines that Ford has been using since 96 just don't have torque until you get to about 3000 rpm, and even the lighter-than-Camaro 2010 Mustang w/3.73s didn't get up and go unless you were willing and able to keep it in the powerband. Stoplight to stoplight makes that a difficult proposition. My guess is that the new 5.0 will basically behave like a stroked 4.6. If I was to be extensively using this car on the track I might have had a decision to make, but there was no question about a daily driver. There really is no replacement for displacement unless you have a much larger budget than I do. In order to get the 3-valve Mustang to behave like it should, a roots-type supercharger is the cheapest and easiest way I could think of to make it perform like a muscle car should. Heads and cams just trade low end for high end, as a general rule, and the Mustang already didn't have enough low end. 4.10s might have helped there too, but the steepest gear that Ford offers off the showroom floor is 3.73 and 4.10s would start to eliminate the "better mileage" argument. When you factor in budgetary constraints, in order to make the Mustang right in my eyes it would have cost close to the GT500. The Camaro comes from the factory that way, and for $15,000 less. If I want the Camaro to run with the GT500 I just have to supercharge it too, and I will still wind up having spent less money for more power. I'm guessing a centrifugal would be a treat on the Camaro once the exhaust gets opened up because of the torque already present, and they still cost about half the roots-type and are still probably easier to install. I do think the Mustang handles a little better, but handling is a lot cheaper and easier to change than the engine. You can't really put an M3 or a 911 in these discussions because the cost differential is so extreme. In my opinion, which I grant those who disagree that it is worth what you've paid to hear it, is that the Camaro gives the best bang-for-the-buck of ANY car currently made, and is an ideal platform for those of us without limitless funds to make into whatever type of car we desire.

12-03-2009, 08:34 PM	#3054
vernal Drives: 2010 2SS ABM 6M;1992 5.0 LX Hatch Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Gaithersburg, MD Posts: 247	As a life-long Ford person (except for an ill-fated Monte Carlo SS experiment) I think I find myself in a position to contribute here. I'm still shocked to see that I bought a Camaro, but I extensively drove the 2010 Mustang as well as an older Shelby GT500 and wound up going with the Camaro even though I knew Ford was moving back to my beloved 5.0. Since the pushrod V8 left the Ford lineup I think they have joined in the paper numbers game that all manufacturers seem to like. "Wow, 300 hp, that'll sell." Well, my 225hp 5.0 (with discrete mods but stock heads) has been beating up on those 300hp cars for years. I'm talking on the street here, not a prepped-track 1/4 mile. The peaky modular engines that Ford has been using since 96 just don't have torque until you get to about 3000 rpm, and even the lighter-than-Camaro 2010 Mustang w/3.73s didn't get up and go unless you were willing and able to keep it in the powerband. Stoplight to stoplight makes that a difficult proposition. My guess is that the new 5.0 will basically behave like a stroked 4.6. If I was to be extensively using this car on the track I might have had a decision to make, but there was no question about a daily driver. There really is no replacement for displacement unless you have a much larger budget than I do. In order to get the 3-valve Mustang to behave like it should, a roots-type supercharger is the cheapest and easiest way I could think of to make it perform like a muscle car should. Heads and cams just trade low end for high end, as a general rule, and the Mustang already didn't have enough low end. 4.10s might have helped there too, but the steepest gear that Ford offers off the showroom floor is 3.73 and 4.10s would start to eliminate the "better mileage" argument. When you factor in budgetary constraints, in order to make the Mustang right in my eyes it would have cost close to the GT500. The Camaro comes from the factory that way, and for $15,000 less. If I want the Camaro to run with the GT500 I just have to supercharge it too, and I will still wind up having spent less money for more power. I'm guessing a centrifugal would be a treat on the Camaro once the exhaust gets opened up because of the torque already present, and they still cost about half the roots-type and are still probably easier to install. I do think the Mustang handles a little better, but handling is a lot cheaper and easier to change than the engine. You can't really put an M3 or a 911 in these discussions because the cost differential is so extreme. In my opinion, which I grant those who disagree that it is worth what you've paid to hear it, is that the Camaro gives the best bang-for-the-buck of ANY car currently made, and is an ideal platform for those of us without limitless funds to make into whatever type of car we desire.