Stock 2010 GT500 vs. Magnuson 2SS

[garagelogic]

Originally Posted by pharmd

The real point of all this is that the vast majority of people are religating their car to a weekend (at best) car when you step to this level of performance. Sure there are case reports of folks daily driving their 600+rwhp car, but by and large it is and will not happen. People mod themselves out past the point of practicality. I encourage folks not to do this to their cars...from what I have seen across the boards the conservative consensus is 550rwhp is the max quasi safe level for stock short block LS3...I have nothing to back that up, that is just what I have heard quoted more than a few times. Their are exceptions to ever rule of course. JMHO.

Your points are well made and you're giving sound advice, but I'm not sure if I agree with the statements about 600+rwhp cars. Back in the old days of hot-rodding, having over 600+rwhp meant you had a car on the ragged edge of being streetable, but that is not so much the case these days. My car makes over 650rwhp on pump gas in the configuration I drive it in every day. (3" upper pulley). The car sounds, drives and tracks just like it did when I drove it off the showroom floor. I pull down a combined city/highway mpg average of about 18mpg and on long hauls, I can see 22-23mpg. In fact, unless you knew what was under the hood, you'd be hard pressed to believe it makes the power it does. No lumpy idle, quiet exhaust, etc.

I believe the same will be true for the new Camaro, especially if you go the s/c route. I do know a lot of GM guys who stay n/a and go the H/C/I route to make power, however, and I agree that in those cases, you are giving up some street manners for the additional power.

[blackedout010]

Originally Posted by garagelogic

Your points are well made and you're giving sound advice, but I'm not sure if I agree with the statements about 600+rwhp cars. Back in the old days of hot-rodding, having over 600+rwhp meant you had a car on the ragged edge of being streetable, but that is not so much the case these days. My car makes over 650rwhp on pump gas in the configuration I drive it in every day. (3" upper pulley). The car sounds, drives and tracks just like it did when I drove it off the showroom floor. I pull down a combined city/highway mpg average of about 18mpg and on long huals, I can see 22-23mpg. In fact, unless you knew what was under the hood, you'd be hard pressed to believe it makes the power it does. No lumpy idle, quiet exhaust, etc.

I believe the same will be true for the new Camaro, especially if you go the s/c route. I do know a lot of GM guys who stay n/a and go the H/C/I route to make power, however, and I agree that in those cases, you are giving up some street manners for the additional power.

agree 100%!!! i had an 03 with a kb2.6h with 644rwhp and it drove and sounded stock til you matted it to the floor. i loved that car. and yes you can with the ls3 but your gonna fork out some dough. in the end the price will be close to the same.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by pharmd

The new one @ 540...so you said the pre-2010 was good for 430rwhp, while the 2010 470-480...if it was rated for 40 more crank hp than the pre-2010, it certainly won't be putting all 40 to the tire...probably more like 450-465rwhp depending upon dyno and weather etc.

Most GT500's are in the high 430's to low 440's rwhp from what I've seen. When you add 40 hp (~35rwhp) that will be right in the 470-480 rwhp zone garagelogic said.

[pharmd]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

Most GT500's are in the high 430's to low 440's rwhp from what I've seen. When you add 40 hp (~35rwhp) that will be right in the 470-480 rwhp zone garagelogic said.

he said 40 fly wheel hp, equated to 40 rwhp which is not true...if the gt500's from 09' make 500fly wheel and the new ones make 540 fly wheel, you can't give them a 40 "wheel" hp increase...only "actual" dyno results done at a shop can validate what the 2010 mustang gt500 will put down...if the older cars put down 435 with 500 fly wheel hp, the new ones should be around 460-470....however, this is figuring a very general 13% drivetrain loss (2009 model 435 rwhp / 500 flywheel hp= 87% power so 13% loss)....which seems to me like an aggressive #, but I do not claim to be an expert on what the gt500 will put down or its usual drivetrain loss...I actually pm'd garagelogic sometime ago to ask him what they usually put down and what he expected the new cars to put down.

Although mags claim the 1/4 mile to not be much better than the SS, at higher mph's say 0-140, the gap SIGNIFICANTLY widens in favor of the GT500. Also the mph C&D got is down (alot) from what some of the other mags got...so it looks like stock for stock SS vs GT500 won't be as close as what some folks are hoping....

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by pharmd

he said 40 fly wheel hp, equated to 40 rwhp which is not true...if the gt500's from 09' make 500fly wheel and the new ones make 540 fly wheel, you can't give them a 40 "wheel" hp increase...only "actual" dyno results done at a shop can validate what the 2010 mustang gt500 will put down...if the older cars put down 435 with 500 fly wheel hp, the new ones should be around 460-470....however, this is figuring a very general 13% drivetrain loss (2009 model 435 rwhp / 500 flywheel hp= 87% power so 13% loss)....which seems to me like an aggressive #, but I do not claim to be an expert on what the gt500 will put down or its usual drivetrain loss...I actually pm'd garagelogic sometime ago to ask him what they usually put down and what he expected the new cars to put down.

Although mags claim the 1/4 mile to not be much better than the SS, at higher mph's say 0-140, the gap SIGNIFICANTLY widens in favor of the GT500. Also the mph C&D got is down (alot) from what some of the other mags got...so it looks like stock for stock SS vs GT500 won't be as close as what some folks are hoping....

again, the average GT500 puts down high 430's/low 440 rwhp. If the new GT500 has 40 more hp (~35 rwhp), how much is is 435-445 rwhp + 35 rwhp? it's not that hard. Both the outgoing GT500 and the new GT500 have SAE Certified engines, so we already know what they really make and based on the outgoing GT500, it is VERY safe to surmise what the typical driveline losses should be.

[pharmd]

Originally Posted by blackedout010

i understand that. and yes the ls3 is a nice motor no doubt!! i know it can make the power to win ive owned several lsx cars and even had an ss with a 418 tfs setup from vengeance alot like your tbss!! and like i said before the 2 shouldnt be compared they are not built on the same level the z28 would have been nice no doubt. besides the ls3 wasnt designed for boost either. so it just shouldnt be compared!!!

at the same time i understand your pricing here but ur gona get a shortblock and not touch up heads?? not throw in a blower cam? not upgrade rockers or head studs? go to high with boost got to worry about heads lifting off block. im pretty sure fuels system that comes with tvs prolly wont cover you with anything over 8ilbs of boost ( i could be wrong though). also your gonna need a clutch as well. also your gonna want exhaust!!

I factored that in...because to make the GT500 run with the built LS3 motor, you'll have to do headers, exhaust, ported blower etc...which can add up to $$ in the end...no you would not have to even touch the heads to make great power...these heads flow big cfm stock ~330cfm @ 0.600...head stud kit is $250...its not crazy $$, neither is a HVFP that will feed decent power...I personally have an auto ordered so at this point i'll risk it, several G8's have put 500+rwhp down with no issues and multiple passes, M6 guys will have to take that into consideration, but so will the GT500 guys as I would assume the stock clutch is not rated at 600rwhp?

I understand your point that the LS3 as it comes in the camaro is not actually designed for boost (being that its 10.7:1). Yes, the LSA would be a better comparison, but we don't have that, and may never have that so regardless of what may or may not be a good comparison, this was the comparison of the OP, and we are making it, and brass tacks suggest that if you strap on a TVS and CAI which would be 6K + $350 and that is ALL, you'd make 550 rwhp, which would for the $$ thoroughly plant a GT500 in your rearview....just saying.

$ for $ these cars are very close, stock for stock they are not...but as I've said, most guys that are enthusiast enough to follow these boards and argue pro-con are not leaving their cars stock, heck there are a number of guys that already have built shortblocks on engine stands just waiting for their car to get here.

Originally Posted by garagelogic

Your points are well made and you're giving sound advice, but I'm not sure if I agree with the statements about 600+rwhp cars. Back in the old days of hot-rodding, having over 600+rwhp meant you had a car on the ragged edge of being streetable, but that is not so much the case these days. My car makes over 650rwhp on pump gas in the configuration I drive it in every day. (3" upper pulley). The car sounds, drives and tracks just like it did when I drove it off the showroom floor. I pull down a combined city/highway mpg average of about 18mpg and on long hauls, I can see 22-23mpg. In fact, unless you knew what was under the hood, you'd be hard pressed to believe it makes the power it does. No lumpy idle, quiet exhaust, etc.

I believe the same will be true for the new Camaro, especially if you go the s/c route. I do know a lot of GM guys who stay n/a and go the H/C/I route to make power, however, and I agree that in those cases, you are giving up some street manners for the additional power.

Basically, just saying that once you get to that power level with rear and drivetrain, you just never know when you might break something the next time you hammer it. Driving it in the rain you have to be extra careful etc. I have a friend who modded his cobra, he never had a problem til he started modding, then it couldn't quit breaking stuff. I never had a problem with my TA, or my TBSS still I started modding, then the problems come. No matter how much research, quality parts, expert craftsmanship etc is put into a build the probability of part breakage and downtime raises with every jump in hp.

Sure with FI you are more likely to be able to make serious HP, without the impact on daily driving vs NA...no doubt. But even with FI, when you start getting into the 600-700rwhp range on stock parts you are rolling the dice. We all have stories of folks that have done it, but there are plenty of stories of folks that have had problems also.

I just don't want some of the younger posters to read this and think they can strap on a TVS, headers, exhaust, CAI and tune make 600rwhp on their SS then go have no problems because its that way for the GT500...

[Milk 1027]

One thing to remember is that the Camaro was made with forced induction in mind, to begin with.

[DeathChill]

Originally Posted by vega$

Camaro beats mustang.
SS IS the best bang for the buck. why is their comparison?

Whoever spends damn near 60k for a GT500 is a diehard ford fan.

Gm fans..yeah we could do heavy modding up to 60k for a camaro. but msot will just go with corvette.

so props to your gt500. too bad the other 99% of mustangs will not want to pull up to a camaro. even the GT500 IMO. Those skinny tires cant even grip a launch!

this is a GT500kr
4.9 0-60 12.8 1/4 mile?
doesnt seem much better to me..

Man, trying to find "bad" times for a GT500 is really stupid (I say "bad" because even this times are still great for any car).

The GT500 will eat the Camaro alive stock for stock. I don't have a problem with that because if I was competing in the power arena I'd be looking at a Corvette.

The GT500 is a powerful car that has A LOT of potential.

[fazm]

Originally Posted by Milk 1027

One thing to remember is that the Camaro was made with forced induction in mind, to begin with.

the camaro might have been, but the (stock) ls3 isnt going to handle big boost for very long.

[vega$]

I didnt know posting an edmunds review was trying to find "bad" times..

stock for stock there is no comparison. 10k more?

CamaroSS/Supercharged > stock GT500.
In both performance and price.

Within a few days we should have some real numbers. Keep your eyes open.
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21499

[jerrycecco]

sorry i did not read ALL the posts, but I think you should find a Chev dealer that is ALSO a Magnuson dealer, order the SS WITH the supercharger installed by dealer -- to keep ALL warranties in place.....

--Jerry

[Ninjak]

Hmm good luck with that though...A new car like the Maro's I doubt if dealers want to let people F/I their cars and they warranty it. The 05 had similar issues when they were first released, and Ford was the ones selling the parts !

But you never know..exp in these economic times...

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Milk 1027

One thing to remember is that the Camaro was made with forced induction in mind, to begin with.

Thats as true as it is misleading ...

The Camaro was (the chassis, engine bay, and under hood clearance pretty much prove that), however the SS itself wasn't intended to simply have a blower bolted on and whoop everything else on the road. The LS3 is a great natually aspirated motor.

Just thought of something ... has anyone though of doing the reverse of this comparison: remove the supercharger from a GT500 and compare it to an SS? Yes yes, I know the idea is absurd and I don't think anybody actually would do it, but its an interesting thought so long as we are bench racing here.

[Milk 1027]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Thats as true as it is misleading ...

The Camaro was (the chassis, engine bay, and under hood clearance pretty much prove that), however the SS itself wasn't intended to simply have a blower bolted on and whoop everything else on the road. The LS3 is a great natually aspirated motor.

Just thought of something ... has anyone though of doing the reverse of this comparison: remove the supercharger from a GT500 and compare it to an SS? Yes yes, I know the idea is absurd and I don't think anybody actually would do it, but its an interesting thought so long as we are bench racing here.

You're right. I never said anything about the engine though.

maybe I should have explained it better........