Here's the official Performance Numbers od the Camaro from Motor Trend

Discussion in '2010 - 2014 Specific Tech' started by fox1x, Mar 21, 2009.


  1. fox1x

    fox1x New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    164
    Showcase:
    4
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. allcarfan

    allcarfan The Answer Man Founding Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2001
    Messages:
    3,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    56
    So the SS model for $30,995 runs .5 seconds faster in the 1/4 mile than a 2010 mustang with a factory installed supercharger ($28k + $5000? for supercharger?)

    The 14.4 out of the V6 is pretty impressive too.

    I dont care if you are a fanboy or not....those numbers are great
    #2
  3. OhOhGT

    OhOhGT New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It ran a 13.0.


    That sucks. A 2010 with a factory installed supercharger would run low 12s.
    #3
  4. DarkFireGT

    DarkFireGT Playing with my wife's really makes me want one. Mod Dude

    Joined:
    May 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,688
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    59
    So it took 1/3 more horsepower than the current S197 to make the car .5 faster in the 1/4?
    #4
  5. fox1x

    fox1x New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    164
    Showcase:
    4
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They said the V6 weighs in at 37xx lbs... still impressive numbers. I like the outside of the car a lot... But I really don't like that interior. Almost seems as they tried "to hard"... I think the Challenger and Mustang interior look way superior. Still though; very impressive performance numbers. Now let's see if the Camaro stays, or if it will be like the GTO they released a couple of years ago: "limited"... I just think they are in to much finacial trouble.
    #5
  6. ufnavy06

    ufnavy06 New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah the numbers aren't bad. But I'm pretty sure I can run high 12s in my car now. That weight just kills the car. My buddy and I were at a car show today and he's had 2 Camaros and now has a C6. He says the Mustang just looks heavy. I can't imagine how heavy the Camaro will look in person. I mean we won't need the HP to keep up if that weight is still there.

    I agree about the interior.... not nearly as nice as the SRT8 or the GT. Especially the new '10 GT.
    #6
  7. DarkFireGT

    DarkFireGT Playing with my wife's really makes me want one. Mod Dude

    Joined:
    May 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,688
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    59
    You think the Challenger's interior is better? Bleh. It's the Magnum/300/Charger interior.
    #7
  8. kyle_99gt

    kyle_99gt Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    still think 14.5 or what ever is really slow for 300 hp
    #8
  9. Nitrous03GT

    Nitrous03GT New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2008
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    wow a whole 426hp to run a 13.0? thats not extremely impressive to me..basically what i see is that for the same $35k as an SS you can have a factory S/C gt that will blow it out of the water...and just wait until the 2011s and the new engine, it wont even be a race at that point.

    I also like how the spout off about the "base " v6 having more power than last year's GT but yet it is a full second slower in the 1/4 and they call that impressive? uh no. hell stock NPI stangs with 215hp could match those times...i forsee the mustang again winning this battle with the camaro running 2-3 years and going extinct again.
    #9
  10. mattkimsey

    mattkimsey I've compiled a list to recap this thread:

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Guys....the Camaro trapped 111mph. That's FAST. The Camaro is an easy 12 second car with a decent driver.

    Also keep in mind that the Mustang that ran 13.5 had the $1200 track pack. Add a $5k S/C you're looking at a $6,500 investment to get performance numbers a little better than a stock Camaro.
    #10
  11. Nitrous03GT

    Nitrous03GT New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2008
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sure you may see some stock camaros run in the 12's, but the average joe isnt gonna be able to click off super fast times, and i'm also willing to bet that the factory charged GT's will be more than barely faster, i wont be suprised to see people running 12.50's with that package.

    another thing to consider is that parts for the GT's are readily available and are also inexpensive...prices for LS3 parts are through the roof, so also dont expect to see a bunch of modded up camaro's running around anytime soon either.
    #11
  12. mattkimsey

    mattkimsey I've compiled a list to recap this thread:

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Camaro traps 111mph - it's more than capable of running deep into the 12s....STOCK.

    As you can see from the R&T article, the Mustang with the blower trapped 108mph and ran 13.4. The trap speed shows that the Camaro is the faster car.

    As far as part costs, LSx parts are CHEAP. These engines have been around since 1997 and the aftermarket is huge. Just compare the number of aftermarket heads for the LSx to the number of heads for the modular engines. The LSx engines are modern day 5.0s - lots of parts and easy to work on. Aftermarket.....Camaro > Mustang.

    Regardless, who wants to drop $6500 on parts just to keep up with a stock Camaro? The supercharger will add weight and combined with gears, who knows what the gas mileage will be. And all the Camaro owner would need to do is add a few bolt ons and they have 450+hp.

    BTW, a Camaro SS is $31k not $35k.
    #12
  13. Nitrous03GT

    Nitrous03GT New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2008
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    well, we have to take into account laws of physics...trap speed shows that it has the "potential" to be faster, however since acceleration is inversely related to mass, the more massive the object the harder it will be to get to move...the weight of the camaro will probably have more impact on its ability to go faster than its power. it takes a good amount of it to get 3800lbs moving, which is why we see slower ETs compared to higher trap speeds.

    now given that, since the mustang is lighter it takes less force to start motion.. it goes to reason that it can attain faster ETs with slower MPH, and lets face it, 13.4@108 is lack of driving skill, especially when they were able to click off 13.5@104 in the GT
    #13
  14. Five Oh Brian

    Five Oh Brian New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    SS with 426 flywheel hp traps 111 mph. My lightly supercharged 07 GT has 439 flywheel hp and traps 111 mph, as well. I run 12.30's and I suspect that Camaro would be dang close to that with some traction and a decent driver. Impressive!

    The 2010 Mustang GT's are trapping 104-105 mph, so the SS is the definitely the faster car. However, you can get a new 2010 Mustang GT starting just over $27K (or just over $30K for a Premium GT) and supercharge it for just over $5K, so you're looking at very similar pricing and similar performance.

    Not everyone will be drag racing their car, so having the faster car isn't always the #1 priority when it's time to decide which to buy. But, at least you can have either car and rip 12-second 1/4 miles for about the same cash if you're so inclined.
    #14
  15. kyle_99gt

    kyle_99gt Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    hmm i wonder what the new roush runs since its a similar price to the camaro, also 108 trap supercharged seems low when the normal gt traps 104?
    #15
  16. fox1x

    fox1x New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    164
    Showcase:
    4
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nitrous03GT ,

    +1
    #16
  17. 69mach1-409

    69mach1-409 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16

    I'm sure the Camaro had traction issues with that IRS and street tires. It's a 12 second car, but it's also heavy so I doubt it'll be deep into the 12's.

    The guy driving the blown Stang just plain cannot drive... I've ran 13.1's and trapped 106-107mph with nothing more then a CAI and exhaust (stock manifolds) on street tires... Now I'm not an expert driver by any stretch, but he sucks. :nonono:
    #17
  18. Wolvrin704

    Wolvrin704 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    17

    How is the S/C equipped Stang only doing a 13.4 when a track pack equipped Stang is doing 13.5 with no blower?

    Besides as many keep pointing out in 2011 we have a motor with about as much power as the new Camaro and with the weight advantage of the Stang we'll be back on top.

    As for who wants to drop $6500 in parts on a Stang? Sheesh, guys are buying blowers all the time to put on these things. Its not a bad deal to have a factory warrantied blower and track package installed before you even get the car.
    #18
  19. fox1x

    fox1x New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    164
    Showcase:
    4
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wolvrin704,

    What the Heck? That's what I've been pointing out in another thread. How can a track pack blower equipped 400HP stang only do 1/10 of a second better than the N/A version? You would think even the Motor Trend idiots would comprehend an error here.

    Over on the Bullitt forums I'm a member of, there are several guys running 13.1's and 13.3's with the stock Bullitt which is essentially the same car as the 2010 Mustang (the stock 3.73's, extra 15HP, etc.) The N/A track pack Mustang should be better than a 13.5 considering Motor Trend tested the 2005 Mustang at a 13.5 when it came out. Something just isn't right about these performance numbers coming from them.
    #19
  20. Wolvrin704

    Wolvrin704 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Well ever since I can remember (and I'm getting up there now) in camparisons in MT between Camaro and Mustang they've always slanted considerably toward Camaro. I remember seeing comparisons between SS and GT when the Cobra was a 300hp car.

    I dunno, maybe they're giving actual numbers but maybe they need to learn how to drive these cars. I'll be more interested to see what 5.0 or MMFF show with the 2010. They run Mustangs all the time so should show a more real world result. To me personally it doesn't matter cause any of them can smoke me, the Camaro has almost double my hp and the V6 will probably give me a run for my money.

    But dangitt I'm a Mustang homer and I love the stallion. I take pride in my car brand.
    #20

Share This Page