[whiteboyblues2001]

If it were RPM's and the engines that make the difference, then the Mustang would win the 1/4 mile as well. After first gear, both the Mustang and Camaro are in the meat of their respective power bands.

Lesson1: 1/4 mile trap speeds are directly proportional to power to weight ratio.
Lesson2: In a 1 mile race, AFTER the first 1/4 mile, the top speed is directly proportional to power to aerodynamic drag ratio.

Since both cars have nearly identical power ratings, it can easily be deduced that the Mustang has a lower coefficient of drag than the Camaro. It has NOTHING to do with the engine. Gear ratios have a say in all this as well, but it definitely is NOT the engine. It's just that the Mustang has less aerodynamic drag.

[GuywithL86]

Originally Posted by ChefBorOzzy

Nobody is saying the 5.0 is shit as far as I'm aware. Point is there is a difference in gearing on the top end and it's not 8mph faster in 1 mile simply because of engine. Look at at the gearing.

I don’t think so either, yeah camaro was definitely impeded by the gearing past 135mph. Doubtful its reason for the entire 8mph though. Mustang would maybe be 3-4mph faster without the gear advantage from 135-155

[GuywithL86]

Originally Posted by whiteboyblues2001

If it were RPM's and the engines that make the difference, then the Mustang would win the 1/4 mile as well. After first gear, both the Mustang and Camaro are in the meat of their respective power bands.

Lesson1: 1/4 mile trap speeds are directly proportional to power to weight ratio.
Lesson2: In a 1 mile race, AFTER the first 1/4 mile, the top speed is directly proportional to power to aerodynamic drag ratio.

Since both cars have nearly identical power ratings, it can easily be deduced that the Mustang has a lower coefficient of drag than the Camaro. It has NOTHING to do with the engine. Gear ratios have a say in all this as well, but it definitely is NOT the engine. It's just that the Mustang has less aerodynamic drag.

Eh

They run nearly identical 1/4 mile times yet the camaro crushes it on the launch. Seriously drive them, the camaro hooks up sooooo much better, and it has absurd low end power to take advantage of it.

Also in these vehicles, i’d say aero doesn’t play much of a roll until 150ish. Most cars with tons of downforce don’t really suffer in high speed acceleration until 150-160ish, then it falls off a cliff.

[ST1LE]

Originally Posted by GuywithL86

I dont think anybody is saying the mustang is a better car, it’s just got a helluva motor. Infact as a mustang owner, I think compared to the camaro the mustang is a big hunk of shit. It just has an amazing motor. The coyote would be at home in something like an m3.

+1 to everything you just said!!!

Give me an Alpha Chassis with a Coyote in it any day. GM's current engine offerings is BORING.

[whiteboyblues2001]

Originally Posted by GuywithL86

Eh

They run nearly identical 1/4 mile times yet the camaro crushes it on the launch. Seriously drive them, the camaro hooks up sooooo much better, and it has absurd low end power to take advantage of it.

Also in these vehicles, i’d say aero doesn’t play much of a roll until 150ish. Most cars with tons of downforce don’t really suffer in high speed acceleration until 150-160ish, then it falls off a cliff.

I haven't driven a 2018, but I understand that they fixed the hooking up issue. The numbers seem to agree as well because the 0-60 times have been greatly improved, and pretty close to the Camaro.

Also remember that you don't need any downforce to have drag (but most of the time, creating downforce does increase drag, but not always). And drag increases with the square of the speed. So at 100MPH you have four times as much drag as 50MPH, and 150MPH has nine times as much. So, as you start to get to higher speeds, drag becomes the determining factor. Just as an illustration, take your car on the highway on a flat straight piece of road, set the cruse control to 55MPH and watch your instantaneous MPG's. Then bump up the speed in 5MPH increments and watch what happens to the MPG's. That's all drag.

[torqueaddict]

Meh, give me the grunt down low. If I wanted a to rev high for torque, I'd buy any one of the turboed compacts with lawn mower engines. V8 muscle should be about brute force off the line, not ricer flybys. Plus, right now, I'd trust the Lt1 to hold together better than the Coyote.

[whiteboyblues2001]

I have nothing against the Coyote, I think it's a fine engine. Love the dual injection (helps with valve gunk, and makes it easier to go high HP with mods).

But the win in the 1 mile race in the Motor Trend article is due to HP/Drag ratio. A 5 HP difference is not enough. It doesn't matter where you make the power, so long as you can adjust the gear selection to be in the meat of the power band, there is no difference. None.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by newmoon

It is moot in a venue under a 1/4 mile, after that the extended power-band is an advantage.

Has the GT had a 1/4 mile win against the Camaro in any comparison? I think not...

Originally Posted by newmoon

Believe me I have always been a low rpm high horsepower and torque proponent until I purchased my Boss, now I realize the advantage of being able to pull the shifter at 7300-rpms and the car pulling harder and harder right up to that line. Folks who have tuned and bumped the rpm limit up say the car will continue pulling to 7800-rpms even harder.

My Boss gives up hp and 70-lbs of torque to a new manual SS, yet according to reviews it will run 0-60 in under 4 seconds and run right with the manual Camaro in the 1/4. Likely pulling on it after the 1/4 mile is over why is that?

I can appreciate that on a road course, where you can keep the rpms above 4,000, the coyote would be a hoot. However, you literally have to beat the piss out of the engine to get any joy from it and that's not conducive with the environment on my ride to work. You feel the intensity of LT1 in your gut with minimal effort.

You're the first guy to mock the Aplha Camaro's handling advantage as unusable by "most people" on the street. An advantage from 115 to 158 mph on the highway is way more unusable...in the real world.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Wow

I’m surprised it was even that close.

The SS is done after 135. It’s in highway gear after that. GT is perfectly matched to that race and ended at 158 at the top of 5th.

Like I said weeks ago. Congrats the GT can beat an SS rolling in highway gear. Impressive !

[newmoon]

Originally Posted by hotlap

Has the GT had a 1/4 mile win against the Camaro in any comparison? I think not...


I can appreciate that on a road course, where you can keep the rpms above 4,000, the coyote would be a hoot. However, you literally have to beat the piss out of the engine to get any joy from it and that's not conducive with the environment on my ride to work. You feel the intensity of LT1 in your gut with minimal effort.

You're the first guy to mock the Aplha Camaro's handling advantage as unusable by "most people" on the street. An advantage from 115 to 158 mph on the highway is way more unusable...in the real world.

Yes but the Boss runs 0-60 under 4-seconds a tad quicker than the 2016+ SS manual, and quarter mile time of 12:30s also a tad quicker than a manual SS. So I don't understand your lack of intensity comment. Both cars pull really hard for n/a offerings and arrive at essentially the same numbers in the end with venues 1/4 mile or less. After that who knows as I don't think they have ever lined up.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by newmoon

Yes but the Boss runs 0-60 under 4-seconds a tad quicker than the 2016+ SS manual, and quarter mile time of 12:30s also a tad quicker than a manual SS. So I don't understand your lack of intensity comment. Both cars pull really hard for n/a offerings and arrive at essentially the same numbers in the end with venues 1/4 mile or less. After that who knows as I don't think they have ever lined up.

Lets take a trip in the wayback machine... I thought we were talking about the GT.?.?.

Originally Posted by newmoon

Yeah kinda like the SS being done at 6500 rpms, vs 7500 rpms for the GT. Bottom line is the GT seems to be trapping better mph in the 1/4 and it has been stated in review it walks away from the SS after the 1/4 mile. Pick your poison.

[DevilsReject97]

Originally Posted by ST1LE

+1 to everything you just said!!!

Give me an Alpha Chassis with a Coyote in it any day. GM's current engine offerings is BORING.

No thanks... I can understand the appeal...but too much effort to enjoy outside of the track...and I'd rather enjoy it all the time..

[DevilsReject97]

Originally Posted by newmoon

Yes but the Boss runs 0-60 under 4-seconds a tad quicker than the 2016+ SS manual, and quarter mile time of 12:30s also a tad quicker than a manual SS. So I don't understand your lack of intensity comment. Both cars pull really hard for n/a offerings and arrive at essentially the same numbers in the end with venues 1/4 mile or less. After that who knows as I don't think they have ever lined up.

And we're still talking about a car that cost almost 10-11 grand more than a standard SS.... so I mean, really?

And the Boss was essentially a 1LE Camaro....so it benefited from upgraded suspension and other things to boot. Granted, the new SS is essentially the old 1LE, so it is kind of a wash.

[SpeedIsLife]

Originally Posted by DevilsReject97

And we're still talking about a car that cost almost 10-11 grand more than a standard SS.... so I mean, really?

And the Boss was essentially a 1LE Camaro....so it benefited from upgraded suspension and other things to boot. Granted, the new SS is essentially the old 1LE, so it is kind of a wash.

10 grand more than the base SS in 2012 or now?