Camaro VS Mustang Mega Thread

[Sleestack]

Originally Posted by porcupinekiller

Really, you're too funny. Even a V6 Mustang or Camaro would rape that 66 442 stock. Lol
All you've proved is your lack of automobile knowledge. But hey if trying to insult others makes you feel better about yourself, then go for it. You just make yourself look like a fool.
The 1966 Oldsmobile Cutlass 4-4-2
Specifications
Wheelbase, inches: 115.0
Weight, lbs: 3,600
Number built: 21,997
Base price: $3,500

Top Available Engine
Type: ohv V-8
Displacement, cid: 400
Fuel system: 3 x 2bbl.
Compression ratio: 10.5:1
Horsepower @ rpm: 360 @ 5000
Torque @ rpm: 440 @ 3600

Representative Performance
0-60 mph, sec: 7.0
1/4 mile, sec. @ mph: 15.28 @ 94

That's a rolling traffic barrier . Better watch out for the new V6 Camry.....

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by thePill

One of my troops has a 2007 CS that he bought new, added suspension (no control arms) and tuned and runs with the Track pack guys at the Ring. He still has not spent the total amount I have for his car, and I outweigh him by 120lbs... Displacement and torque account for almost nothing when consecutive curves are present.. ask the M3 guys.. they have only 275-290ft lbs and weight 3600lbs.. but they destroy the Camaros here by almost 10 seconds a lap...

Edit... Ultra, you and I have discussed C&D/R&T before... I know you can't come to Germany for a field trip, but.. Look at Stevensons Motorsports lap times from last year Koni Grand Am cup... Look at each race, you will see that it is far from consistent race to race... Some tracks are good... most tracks are bad.

I see.

Maybe some of the problems with the stock camaro will be addressed in the rumored suspenion changes for 2012.

One of the biggest lap times I put stake into is what pedders accomplished with the camaro. Shows just how good the platform is. GM will get it worked out in time...trust me. It is only the first iteration. The mustang didnt handle as good as it does now from day one.

Ford upped the ante again and Im sure GM will respond.

[assasinator]

i havent given the SS much thought really, but it is a cadillac. theres no reason it cant perform like one.


and gm IS giving the Z28 mostly cadillac tuning. the Z28 is a CTS-v with a funny body.

[thePill]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

I see.

Maybe some of the problems with the stock camaro will be addressed in the rumored suspenion changes for 2012.

One of the biggest lap times I put stake into is what pedders accomplished with the camaro. Shows just how good the platform is. GM will get it worked out in time...trust me. It is only the first iteration. The mustang didnt handle as good as it does now form day one (hint 2005 model)

Ford upped the ante again and Im sure GM will respond.

I completely agree, but for road racing, the car is just a fraction of the team.. RRing is physically exhausting for the driver, I know a driver that wears a mouth guard because he grinds his teeth.. I do that too but never thought about a mouth guard... I went on turns the other day and my hands and knuckles ached from the grip I had on the wheel I guess...

[66olds442]

Originally Posted by porcupinekiller

Really, you're too funny. Even a V6 Mustang or Camaro would rape that 66 442 stock. Lol
All you've proved is your lack of automobile knowledge.

Ok well I'd love to show you how much a 23 year old would make you feel like an idiot when it comes to classic muscle cars, but instead I'll just show you a video of a member from my club who helped me restore my 442 running mid 12's.

Originally Posted by oldlugs

You must be on drugs... Since when is a 14 second '66 442 considered quick?

Watch and promptly

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by FastEddie

CORRECTION: The Camaro has hit 12.4 BONE STOCK (Someone PLEASE call me a liar!- lol)

Who did 12.4 stock? Still ever so slightly behind the 5.0 if someone did. I'm not doubting you because I think it's very possible, just wondering who was driving.

[porcupinekiller]

Originally Posted by 66olds442

Ok well I'd love to show you how much a 23 year old would make you feel like an idiot when it comes to classic muscle cars, but instead I'll just show you a video of a member from my club who helped me restore my 442 running mid 12's.



Watch and promptly

That's a very nice car and all but I guess you missed the part where I said STOCK. Benchmarks of the day had those cars running high 14's at best in stock trim. So......
You do know that that epic fail of a 2010 GT500 (as you call it) can run faster than a 12.50 in 100% stock trim even on the crap stock tires and the fastest stock 2010 GT500 on drag radials is just under 11.50 (fastest stock 2011 GT500 on drag radials is in the 11.16 range) Just sayin'.

But I guess my 30+ yrs of building and racing cars can't compare to your brilliance.
I give up. You win. Lol

[66olds442]

So you can't give a 45 year old car even DR's to beat the 2010 GT500? Thats ok because as we've compared over 1000 times on this forum, even when we compare ANY car to the mustang, there is always something you pony car fanboys will claim as unfair.

So how does a car with a supercharger, onboard computer, fuel injection, and 45 extra years to perfect engineering only pull 1 second faster? Plus you're talking the fastest time, this is just an old guy who loves cars 2 runs. I'm only a decent driver running mid 12's.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by porcupinekiller

That's a very nice car and all but I guess you missed the part where I said STOCK. Benchmarks of the day had those cars running high 14's at best in stock trim. So......
You do know that that epic fail of a 2010 GT500 (as you call it) can run faster than a 12.50 in 100% stock trim even on the crap stock tires and the fastest stock 2010 GT500 on drag radials is just under 11.50 (fastest stock 2011 GT500 on drag radials is in the 11.16 range) Just sayin'.

But I guess my 30+ yrs of building and racing cars can't compare to your brilliance.
I give up. You win. Lol

Nice.

But the vid says racestar rims and 26 inch slicks.

[BigDan]

Originally Posted by 66olds442

So how does a car with a supercharger, onboard computer, fuel injection, and 45 extra years to perfect engineering only pull 1 second faster?

First off its 1.5 seconds and there is a HUGE freakin difference between 12.5's with your 442 vs 11.1's trapping 124 mph on a stock powered GT500. It takes more power to gain the 1/10ths the quicker you go, I bet will be seeing 10.9x's this spring for stock powered GT500's, and if you can't see the difference between the two car's then there's no way you're a real racer but probably a 13 year old kid with an internet connection.

Hopefully that answered your question

[oldlugs]

Originally Posted by 66olds442

...So how does a car with a supercharger, onboard computer, fuel injection, and 45 extra years to perfect engineering only pull 1 second faster?..

Sadly/Gladly, most of those 45 years were spent battling air pollution, and increasing overall safety, braking, handling and fuel efficiency...not drag racing. The EPA and other government agencies actually forced American automakers to give us better cars, but caused factory performance levels to suffer for all this time. Right after '74, any new, stock car going 14s was a rocket... For years, it got even worse.

Not an excuse; a STOCK 2010 GT-500 is still quicker than your (slightly modified) 45 year old classic (even though you say it fails)...AND can get 22 mpg on the highway, plus pull over .9 Gs on a skidpad. Pretty amazing engineering feat, if you ask me. Laws of physics today, are identical to what they were in '66... What were they thinking?
BTW - Where's the new Oldsmobile W-30? Oh, that's right... OLDS FAILED. I guess their 442 was such a good seller, they "over-profited" on it.

W-30 was the Olds top speedy offering, and in its day managed (now pathetic) 14s...STOCK. About the only thing it had over a modern musclecar of any make, is the floaty ride. Steering was vague, braking non-existant, fuel mileage...don't ask. There's a good reason 442s weren't road raced.
Yes, '60s 442s are a nice, classic musclecar. Yes, my GT-500 is quicker, safer, handles and stops better. It can also be driven cross country and back without issues.

Calling the GT-500 a FAIL because it can't get all it's 500 HP to the ground on factory tires, is just stupid. A 14 second Olds W-30 didn't hook up on factory tires, either...!

What's that; I'm just a fanboy..? Yeah; I guess you're right.

[porcupinekiller]

Originally Posted by BigDan

First off its 1.5 seconds and there is a HUGE freakin difference between 12.5's with your 442 vs 11.1's on a stock powered GT500. It takes more power to gain the 1/10ths the quicker you go, I bet will be seeing 10.9x's this spring for stock powered GT500's, and if you can't see the difference between the two car's then there's no way you're a real racer but probably a 13 year old kid with an internet connection.

Hopefully that answered your question

I'm with you. The fact that some guys shrug off a factory stock car that weights close to (or over) 4000 lbs with the driver and has a 331 cui engine that can run low 11's with nothing more than a wheel/tire swap as a fail is pretty amusing. Any car and driver that can turn in that kind of performance(no matter what brand) has my respect.
But hey forget about the GT500. Lets just compare a 2011 Camaro SS and 2011 Mustang GT to the invincible 1966 olds 442. Both of those cars have run faster than 12.50 in bone stone stock trim. Now throw all 3 on a road coarse and watch the carnage begin. I'm betting that on a 3 lap race a just about any road course in the USA that the olds would get lapped by the SS and GT.
With the crap cars that were built from the mid 1970's until the current muscle car resurgence most guys are happy that we can buy new hi-po cars once again. I love vintage muscle cars and give a hats off to those that continue to build and maintain them. But I'm pretty excited by the horsepower and handling that's coming from the (formerly) big three right now. Long live the new horsepower wars!!

[St33lsinger]

Originally Posted by assasinator

.......the Z28 is a CTS-v with a funny body.

[66olds442]

Originally Posted by oldlugs

Sadly/Gladly, most of those 45 years were spent battling air pollution, and increasing overall safety, braking, handling and fuel efficiency...not drag racing. The EPA and other government agencies actually forced American automakers to give us better cars, but caused factory performance levels to suffer for all this time. Right after '74, any new, stock car going 14s was a rocket... For years, it got even worse.

I agree with that point completely. After '72 performance cars practically disappeared. I never said the W-30 was an end all be all of cars. Otherwise I wouldn't of bought the new Camaro. But when I run into ford fanboys who act like there was never any car that could touch even their beloved shelby's, I love to point them towards Doctor Olds.

Now remember with this W-30 it was the first W-30 produced and there were still 6 years of muscle cars being developed that still could barely touch it.

As for the 2010 GT500 (I am in no way talking about the 2011GT500 as that is a completely different beast.) it is a sad fact that when designing a car like that they would skimp out on the tires. If you can't agree with that fact then you have no clue about cars. For 50K the GT500 is a great bargain for what you get, I have said this probably 100 times but I don't think any of you pony lovers have read any of my other posts.

Lastly, if you're going to come onto a CAMARO forum and talk about how great your pony is, but refuse to acknowledge your cars weaknesses, then stop acting like you know a thing about cars. Not knowing your own cars weaknesses is to not know your car at all. If we show the pony is weaker in x, y, z you'll say: "but she pulls great on the slalom!" It's fine being a fanboy, as I obviously am to a dead franchise, but a blind and ignorant fanboy is what makes for great youtube videos of stangs getting beat by a car they should easily win against.