06-07-2016, 06:27 AM | #29 |
Drives: 2022 Lt1 A10 Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: clark, mo
Posts: 8,862
|
Better brakes and tires would probably have done the job for the Camaro. Its still faster by a bunch at the drag strip.
__________________
2022 Lt1 6.2 A10, Maggie 2300, THPSI Port Inj/10 rib, Rotofab, E, Nickey, SCOL, Griptech, RC Bandits, Hoosiers/MT 9.80@142.96 1.44 60ft, 6.34@112 707/669 RWHP/TRQ. 16SS Maggie 2650 9.41@147 1.35 60ft, 5.99@119. 16 C7 A8 10.90@128 Bolt on stuff
|
06-07-2016, 06:37 AM | #30 |
Drives: Gen 6 Camaro RS Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Miami FL
Posts: 1,725
|
This is already posted in the 6th gen Camaro vs...
Forum |
06-07-2016, 06:47 AM | #31 |
Remember the Charleston 9
Drives: 2004 KME PREDATOR, 2014 2SS/RS/1LE Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Summerv1LE SC
Posts: 5,381
|
I agree they should have used premium fuel in the Mustang but really the comparison we should have seen was the turbo 4 Camaro vs the rental grade V6 Mustang. That's the way they are positioned in the lineups. The V6 1LE won't even have a muscle car competitor when it's released. I expect it to perform just below a Mustang GT on the track. (Not drag strip).
__________________
BRING BACK THE B4C POLICE CAMARO!
2002 V-6 5 speed rally red (current camaro) Also driven:1992 Z-28 305 auto Red w/ black stripes (anniversary), 2001 V-6 auto light pewter metallic,1991 RS V-6 auto Black |
06-07-2016, 07:17 AM | #32 |
Drives: 2002 Pontiac T/Am, 2016 Camaro 2SS Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Michigan
Posts: 151
|
What a stupid article.
Handicapped the Stang with 87 (I don't care what EPA ratings say). Look at those awful acceleration numbers. Picked wrong Camaro (should have been V6) Not apples-to-apples in tires (all-seasons vs summer) Also had some sort of "hero" Camaro 2.0T? It was fast, or faster, than many V6's tested. Not sure how they produced those acceleration numbers. Even a fluke 0-60 shouldn't have given them the quarter mile time they pulled. C&D's comparison of "base" pony cars was a thousand times better. |
06-07-2016, 08:37 AM | #33 | |
Drives: 21 Bronco Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Carol Stream
Posts: 6,028
|
Quote:
I know 93 isn't available everywhere, its easily available here in Illinois. One of the few good things about this state lol. |
|
06-07-2016, 09:27 AM | #34 |
Drives: White Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 251
|
Heh, they put summer tires on just to see and the 4 cyl camaro [the bottom trim] is faster by quite a bit.
Camaro 4 cyl on summer tires - 1:25:75 Mustang 4 cyl on summer tires - 1:27:32 I find this amusing because should the Camaro 6 cyl be compared to the Mustang 4? |
06-07-2016, 09:30 AM | #35 | |
I used to be Dragoneye...
|
Quote:
Chevy states that the Camaro 4 cyl is pitted best against Mustang V6. And that the Camaro V6 is pitted best against the Mustang T4. But many of the media types at the event dismissed this concept, which I thought was a little arrogant of them to do...but, I suppose there is some truth to the idea that customers may shop engine v engine in dealers... |
|
06-07-2016, 09:34 AM | #36 | ||
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Current: '17 2SS Hyper Blue, A8, MRC, NPP
Past: '99 SS Camaro A4, '73 Camaro 383 A3 "Voices in your head are not considered insider information." 3800 Status - 6/16/16 (Built!) 6000 status - 6/29/16 (Delivered!) |
||
06-07-2016, 09:48 AM | #37 | |
Drives: White Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 251
|
Quote:
I mean look at the 2SS vs M4 comparison. If the 2SS was on Michelin Pilot Super Sports instead of run flats, you know that the 2SS would have eaten the M4 up on the track. But people don't typically buy a $45k car and then replace the tires, so the 'stock' comparison is the most valid. It does tell you though that even the base Camaro, when wearing the same shoes as the mid-range Mustang, is significantly faster. I am actually surprised about that. |
|
06-07-2016, 09:54 AM | #38 | ||
I used to be Dragoneye...
|
Quote:
Quote:
Many people moaned and complained in the 5th generation when the RS package added summer tires to V6 cars because they wanted to drive it all year, and they had to go get different tires. This was obviously the solution: a high-performance all-season to try and please everyone. But it sucks down lap times and handling characteristics. Where I have a problem with this is the turbo v turbo. Just the same as the manufacturer chooses the tires...they also choose the market segment and price-point. Chevy chose to position the turbo 4 as the entry-model car, targeting the Mustang's V6. Motor Trend is ignoring that for the sake of the engine comparison. I would be interested to see both of those cars on the track and compared. I think the results might be different... |
||
06-07-2016, 10:07 AM | #39 | |
Drives: White Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 251
|
Quote:
This to me looks like the mid-range mustang is actually slower in a straight line and on a track than the 4 cyl Camaro. That is very surprising to me, and if I was someone who might like to autocross this car then the 4 cyl Camaro is a way better value. If you go autocrossing you probably do have regular 'street' tires and 'fun day tires'. You might actually prefer the car come with all seasons for your normal commute and you have your own personal preferences as to what tires you want to autocross on. |
|
06-07-2016, 10:29 AM | #40 |
1st Civ. Div.
Drives: Camaroless for now...RIP "Big SexZ" Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Savannah, Ga
Posts: 2,726
|
The 2.0T is the base engine but the 2LT is not the base model, that is the 1LT. This is not too difficult to understand that Chevy let's you choose your engine in the non SS range.
1LT=base 2.0T or 3.6 V6 2LT=premium 2.0T or 3.6 V6 1SS=base V8 2SS=premium V8 I want to see the 4 cylinders go head to head for reference since Al did say we would be pleasantly surprised by the turbo and that its' cross town rival would be a little uneasy with a direct performance comparison between the EB and the 2.0T.
__________________
Swift....Silent....Deadly
|
06-07-2016, 10:41 AM | #41 |
1st Civ. Div.
Drives: Camaroless for now...RIP "Big SexZ" Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Savannah, Ga
Posts: 2,726
|
I can only see reference to the EB being tested with premium to obtain the higher hp/tq ratings but I have not found or seen anything that says premium is required. I do not see it on the dash anywhere or the monroney sticker from the ford website. So I would like to know how would any non enthusiast or regular Joe know to add premium?
__________________
Swift....Silent....Deadly
|
06-07-2016, 10:44 AM | #42 |
Camaro6 2016-2018
Drives: sometimes Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 18,457
|
they've gotten completely track-centric. Neither of these cars are aimed at the track, nor will people buying them be tracking them. it's one thing with the performance models, but come on.
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
|
|