[JimGnitecki]

I got curious about why my 2022 Camaro LT1 feels so different to me than a 2022 Mustang GT felt to me when I test drove it sometime before buying the LT1.

So I did some comparisons using the specs from the Chev and Ford 2022 model websites. The results were pretty interesting:

2022 Camaro LT1 vs 2022 Mustang GT (differences):

Length 188.3" vs 188.5" (same)

Width (w/o mirrors) 74.7" vs 75.4" (Camaro is 0.7" narrower)

Height 53.1" vs 55.1" (Camaro is 2" lower!)

Weight (manual) 3619 lb for manual vs 3730 lb (Camaro is 111 lb =3% lighter. Camaro LT1 is also 2% lighter than Camaro SS. I used the "manual" trans numbers because Chevy does not provide a weight difference for the auto versus manual. But the Ford difference on manual vs auto is only 22 lb, so it is not as significant as it was years ago. The LT1's 2% weight advantage over the SS is also noteworthy.)

Wheelbase 110.7" vs 107.1 (Camaro is 3.6" = 3.4% longer)

Front headroom 38.5" vs 37.6" (Camaro is 0.9" higher, despite exterior height being 2" lower)

Rear headroom 33.5" vs 34.8" (Camaro is 1.3" lower, and BOTH are ridiculously unusable but ok in what is primarily a sports car with kid rear seating and emergency adult seating)

Passenger volume 2633 L vs 2346L (Camaro is 12% higher despite exterior height being 2" lower and exterior width being 0.7" narrower!! THIS was a real surprise to me)

Trunk volume 258L vs 383L (Camaro is 33% smaller, and pretty inaccesssible also for large objects due to the tiny and narrow trunk lid opening!)

For a sporty car, the Camaro LT1's better weight and its better front seat accommodations are noteworthy.

And although I did not compare peak engine power, because both cars are virtually identical, the TOTAL area under the power curve is much better for the Camaro versus the Mustang because it's got 24% more displacement. That makes it more responsive at low rpm, although the multi-speed automatics available in each car make that less important, because they shift down so aggressively with even modest throttle applications, because they give superior acceleration than that of the manuals, and because their weight penalty is so small nowadays.

Jim G

[LT1ornothing]

All I can add on to this, is that I drove a new 2020 mustang gt and a new 2020 LT1 and I ended up buying the LT1. LT1 handled much better to me, and the LT1 low end torque that doesn't exist on the 5.0. Lastly, the MT-82 felt awful to shift in the mustang gt, compared to the blissful TR-6060 in the LT1. The only thing I envy about the mustang gt is that is comes from the factory with both port injection AND direct injection from the factory AND a more boost friendly SBE motor, which is extremely appealing to me. I still choose the LT1.

[metalhead79]

I recently drove a HPP Ecoboost w/HP w/10spd back-to-back with a GT PP1 w/10spd and came away really unimpressed with the GT. The lack of low-end torque and extra weight really makes the car unenjoyable to drive for me.
The HPP on the other hand was a blast to drive. It felt more like my SS did, plenty of torque, eager to rev and light on its feet when tossing it into a turn. The GT was none of this.

[tlr3715]

The 2017 mustang GT I owned felt very underpowered before about 3,500 RPM (although still had traction problems for some reason) power would surge once the second cam came into play (which would often cause the tires to break free if they didn’t off the line) didn’t really enjoy that at all.

The GM V8s I have owned were all superior in my opinion. You get immediate linear power at any time and that is wonderful. LS2 is still my favorite out of all of them but have not experience the LT1 so am not sure how that compared to the LS1-3 I have driven.

[JimGnitecki]

Both of you have identified the very reason that GM made a key decision when designing the C5 Corvette: the desire for low end torque. I recall reading at the time that GM had a sort of "track day" for GM executives where they were allowed to drive two different C5 prototype ideas: one had a higher revving engine and the other had a torquier engine. The execs strongly preferred driving the torquier version cars.

Ford initially went the other way with their V8 engines, going with rpm and smaller displacement. I, like you both, think that was an error. Americans and Canadians like torquey engines.

But then Ford started to also, concurrently, produce turbocharged small displacement engines, the "Ecoboost" series, which they use even in their TRUCKS. Those engines are fantastic. I owned an F-150 with just the small 2.7L Ecoboost, and when you put that HEAVY pickup truck into "Sport" mode, it felt more like a hotrod than like a pickup. The 3.5L Ecoboost I test drove earlier was even better: you'd swear you were driving a late 1960s big block.

The all-time most exciting car I have ever driven was a 2016 Alfa Romeo 4C. It had an engine whose displacement was only about 2 liters, but it was turbocharged, AND the car only weighed 1800 lb. Driving it was like driving a go cart - you just "flicked it" and it FLEW in the right direction FAST.

The combination of turbo and light vehicle meant lots of apparent torque even at low engine rpm.

Both turbocharging and supercharging can give you that low end torquey feeling, regardless of engine displacement, if done WELL. My 2016 Mustang GT with its 4.6L V8 was utterly transformed by the installation of a Roush supercharger kit.

Jim G

[LT1ornothing]

Originally Posted by JimGnitecki

Both of you have identified the very reason that GM made a key decision when designing the C5 Corvette: the desire for low end torque. I recall reading at the time that GM had a sort of "track day" for GM executives where they were allowed to drive two different C5 prototype ideas: one had a higher revving engine and the other had a torquier engine. The execs strongly preferred driving the torquier version cars.

Ford initially went the other way with their V8 engines, going with rpm and smaller displacement. I, like you both, think that was an error. Americans and Canadians like torquey engines.

But then Ford started to also, concurrently, produce turbocharged small displacement engines, the "Ecoboost" series, which they use even in their TRUCKS. Those engines are fantastic. I owned an F-150 with just the small 2.7L Ecoboost, and when you put that HEAVY pickup truck into "Sport" mode, it felt more like a hotrod than like a pickup. The 3.5L Ecoboost I test drove earlier was even better: you'd swear you were driving a late 1960s big block.

The all-time most exciting car I have ever driven was a 2016 Alfa Romeo 4C. It had an engine whose displacement was only about 2 liters, but it was turbocharged, AND the car only weighed 1800 lb. Driving it was like driving a go cart - you just "flicked it" and it FLEW in the right direction FAST.

The combination of turbo and light vehicle meant lots of apparent torque even at low engine rpm.

Both turbocharging and supercharging can give you that low end torquey feeling, regardless of engine displacement, if done WELL. My 2016 Mustang GT with its 4.6L V8 was utterly transformed by the installation of a Roush supercharger kit.

Jim G

Your 2016 mustang did not have 4.6L V8. The 2016 mustang GT has a 2nd gen 5.0L coyote V8.

[Joshinator99]

Originally Posted by JimGnitecki

Both of you have identified the very reason that GM made a key decision when designing the C5 Corvette: the desire for low end torque. I recall reading at the time that GM had a sort of "track day" for GM executives where they were allowed to drive two different C5 prototype ideas: one had a higher revving engine and the other had a torquier engine. The execs strongly preferred driving the torquier version cars.

Ford initially went the other way with their V8 engines, going with rpm and smaller displacement. I, like you both, think that was an error. Americans and Canadians like torquey engines.

But then Ford started to also, concurrently, produce turbocharged small displacement engines, the "Ecoboost" series, which they use even in their TRUCKS. Those engines are fantastic. I owned an F-150 with just the small 2.7L Ecoboost, and when you put that HEAVY pickup truck into "Sport" mode, it felt more like a hotrod than like a pickup. The 3.5L Ecoboost I test drove earlier was even better: you'd swear you were driving a late 1960s big block.

The all-time most exciting car I have ever driven was a 2016 Alfa Romeo 4C. It had an engine whose displacement was only about 2 liters, but it was turbocharged, AND the car only weighed 1800 lb. Driving it was like driving a go cart - you just "flicked it" and it FLEW in the right direction FAST.

The combination of turbo and light vehicle meant lots of apparent torque even at low engine rpm.

Both turbocharging and supercharging can give you that low end torquey feeling, regardless of engine displacement, if done WELL. My 2016 Mustang GT with its 4.6L V8 was utterly transformed by the installation of a Roush supercharger kit.

Jim G

Agreed! My Expedition uses the 3.5L twin turbo and the torque on that thing is crazy. For a massive truck she absolutely hustles! And my wife’s Alfa Romeo Giulia uses a turbocharged engine in a light car with AWD…I tend to drive that faster on the street than I do my Camaro.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by JimGnitecki

Both of you have identified the very reason that GM made a key decision when designing the C5 Corvette: the desire for low end torque. I recall reading at the time that GM had a sort of "track day" for GM executives where they were allowed to drive two different C5 prototype ideas: one had a higher revving engine and the other had a torquier engine. The execs strongly preferred driving the torquier version cars.

Ford initially went the other way with their V8 engines, going with rpm and smaller displacement. I, like you both, think that was an error. Americans and Canadians like torquey engines.

But then Ford started to also, concurrently, produce turbocharged small displacement engines, the "Ecoboost" series, which they use even in their TRUCKS. Those engines are fantastic. I owned an F-150 with just the small 2.7L Ecoboost, and when you put that HEAVY pickup truck into "Sport" mode, it felt more like a hotrod than like a pickup. The 3.5L Ecoboost I test drove earlier was even better: you'd swear you were driving a late 1960s big block.

The all-time most exciting car I have ever driven was a 2016 Alfa Romeo 4C. It had an engine whose displacement was only about 2 liters, but it was turbocharged, AND the car only weighed 1800 lb. Driving it was like driving a go cart - you just "flicked it" and it FLEW in the right direction FAST.

The combination of turbo and light vehicle meant lots of apparent torque even at low engine rpm.

Both turbocharging and supercharging can give you that low end torquey feeling, regardless of engine displacement, if done WELL. My 2016 Mustang GT with its 4.6L V8 was utterly transformed by the installation of a Roush supercharger kit.

Jim G

The combination of direct injection, variable valve timing, and turbocharging delivers a tall, flat torque curve, where near max torque is reached in the 1,200 - 1,500 rpm reach and remains on tap out beyond 6,000 rpm, depending on the engine. This is what makes the BMW inline 6 so awesome and what birthed a slew of 2.0T engines with 120 - 200 hp/l.

[PizzzzzaForPresident]

Before buying I rented through Turo a 2016 Mustang GT, 2019 GT and a 2020 SS. I obviously liked the Camaro more overall because that's what I now have, but I really liked the Mustang too, especially the 3rd gen coyote. I know people like the abundance of low end torque of the LT motors, but it's not like the coyote is on par with a 4 cylinder. I thought the coyote was more fun and has more character, but everything else I like more about the Camaro, especially the handling and steering feel.

The TR-6060 without a doubt feels better, and while I don't know how truly widespread the shift lockout issues are on the MT-82 it felt acceptable and not the junk that people make it out to be. I banged through all the (low) gears without problem on both of the Mustangs I rented. I'm sure it matters more if you've added forced induction, but I didn't experience shift lockout once.

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

The combination of direct injection, variable valve timing, and turbocharging delivers a tall, flat torque curve, where near max torque is reached in the 1,200 - 1,500 rpm reach and remains on tap out beyond 6,000 rpm, depending on the engine. This is what makes the BMW inline 6 so awesome and what birthed a slew of 2.0T engines with 120 - 200 hp/l.

I'm calling BS on the "typical V8" torque curve, the LT1 has a very similar one depicted here for the EcoBoost, the only differences are that 1) there is no tiny peak at 1750 rpm and 2) it has more torque in the midrange, 3) it only revs to 6500-6700 rpm.

[Aragorn]

This for the stingray I believe, but close enough.

[tlr3715]

Originally Posted by PizzzzzaForPresident

Before buying I rented through Turo a 2016 Mustang GT, 2019 GT and a 2020 SS. I obviously liked the Camaro more overall because that's what I now have, but I really liked the Mustang too, especially the 3rd gen coyote. I know people like the abundance of low end torque of the LT motors, but it's not like the coyote is on par with a 4 cylinder. I thought the coyote was more fun and has more character, but everything else I like more about the Camaro, especially the handling and steering feel.

The TR-6060 without a doubt feels better, and while I don't know how truly widespread the shift lockout issues are on the MT-82 it felt acceptable and not the junk that people make it out to be. I banged through all the (low) gears without problem on both of the Mustangs I rented. I'm sure it matters more if you've added forced induction, but I didn't experience shift lockout once.

I can also state the manuals in the Camaros are superior to the Mustang. The transmission in the mustang GT is placed way forward in the engine bay and is connected to the shifter by long thin rods. After a few years I could feel the rods bend and snap gears into place. I also had a lot of trouble shifting quickly from the get go. Seemed like it needed a tiny pause to sync before going into gear. With the V6 Camaro I have now, the transmission is actually the same as the GT350 is vastly superior and I actually am teaching myself to shift quicker after slow shifting for so long. The V6 revs up and down so much faster than the coyote and seems to reward you the quicker you can row through the gears. I am sure the SS transmission is a similar experience. The transmission on them is an older design from tremec but is capable of handling more torque.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

I'm calling BS on the "typical V8" torque curve, the LT1 has a very similar one depicted here for the EcoBoost, the only differences are that 1) there is no tiny peak at 1750 rpm and 2) it has more torque in the midrange, 3) it only revs to 6500-6700 rpm.

Probably the 5.0 Coyote 1st Gen torque curve before dual injection. Not the best engine for torque. Or even worse, it could be one of their SOHC V8 engines.

[JimGnitecki]

Originally Posted by LT1ornothing

Your 2016 mustang did not have 4.6L V8. The 2016 mustang GT has a 2nd gen 5.0L coyote V8.

Sorry, I have had 4 or 5 mustangs and may have got confused. But the 2016 DID get transformed by the Roush supercharger!

Jim G