Homepage Garage Wiki Register Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
#Camaro6
Go Back   CAMARO6 > CAMARO6.com General Forums > 6th gen Camaro vs...


AWE Tuning


Post Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-21-2015, 01:11 PM   #71
IOMike

 
Drives: 2022 F150, 87 Monte Carlo
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: MN
Posts: 1,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecoswag1990 View Post
The whole point is that you can do it cheaply and easily with the turbo 4. Someone can spend not a dollar more than $400 for a good tune and have low 13s easy out of a bone stock EB. Throw in an intake and maybe a downpipe and 12s are easy. The same simply cannot be said for a V6 and we are not talking about cars from 2011 so idk why that was thrown in.

The EB will kill the 2.0 camaro stock for stock. I'm not even going to debate that. The base EB weighs 3,530lbs, the camaro is not going to have a significant weight advantage over that

But as I said, I would give it to the V6 Camaro over the stock EB
My point of "throwing in" a car from 2001 is that, what a car can do modified vs stock is irrelevant. Modifying throws out the warranty and changes the car. Most people don't modify, but of the people who do, most will be the v8 crowd.

I don't doubt the EB is faster than the 2.0T will be, but not by much based off the ATS 2.0 VS EB. I have every reason to assume the Camaro 2.0T will be a tad faster than the ATS 2.0T

Fact remains, for performance, Camaro has a clear edge. Handling and acceleration, model for model. Last gen, handling could go either way but due to IRS the Camaro was a better handler in the real world. Mustang was definitely faster.
IOMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2015, 01:16 PM   #72
IOMike

 
Drives: 2022 F150, 87 Monte Carlo
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: MN
Posts: 1,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by ztwentypoop View Post
Why would anybody interested in quarter-mile times purchase a V6 or t4 in the first place. Those trims are intended for the daily driving/commuter crowd. I know a lot of people looking to take their cars to the track/strip settle for them based on financial considerations, but I don't see why someone would purposely buy one if the v8 option was available to them.
T4 and v6 are now great options and offer a lot of performance. The v6 will compete with other performance, non daily driver type cars like the 370z and Genesis coupe. The v6 very well could end up being just as fast as a Challenger RT (5.7).

Personally, I wouldn't buy anything but the SS though.
IOMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2015, 02:00 PM   #73
NASTY99Z28

 
Drives: 99z28 with bolt-ons and a mwc fab 9
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,277
Some of you guys must be high if you think the ecoboost stang is "under performing"!!! Its a solid high 13 sec car that with a basic tune runs mid to low 13's. That's on par with most stock 5th gen SS's. Now the ats non turbo get down to about 3400lbs flat but with the turbo and other parts there's no way the camaro will weigh much less than an ecoboost stang. That means the v6 will weigh slightly more while making less torque. So unless the trans makes up for lack.of power I don't see a t4 or v6 6th gen beating a ecoboost by much if any at all.

For the ones that think quarter mile times are pointles because its not a " v8" I say stop being closed minded. People still want to enjoy the car but maybe don't want the added fuel cost or money spent to buy the bigger engine. Why hate?

I'm sure the turbo camaro will respond to mods just fine and be close to the ecoboost mod for mod even though its startong with a lower number. Simply up the boost.
__________________
I like my woman like my milk shakes, THICK!!!!
NASTY99Z28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2015, 02:18 PM   #74
ChefBorOzzy

 
ChefBorOzzy's Avatar
 
Drives: 2016 F150
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,196
ATS with a turbo is a 3,4xx pound car..
ChefBorOzzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2015, 02:19 PM   #75
ChefBorOzzy

 
ChefBorOzzy's Avatar
 
Drives: 2016 F150
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecoswag1990 View Post
The whole point is that you can do it cheaply and easily with the turbo 4. Someone can spend not a dollar more than $400 for a good tune and have low 13s easy out of a bone stock EB. Throw in an intake and maybe a downpipe and 12s are easy. The same simply cannot be said for a V6 and we are not talking about cars from 2011 so idk why that was thrown in.

The EB will kill the 2.0 camaro stock for stock. I'm not even going to debate that. The base EB weighs 3,530lbs, the camaro is not going to have a significant weight advantage over that

But as I said, I would give it to the V6 Camaro over the stock EB
What do you consider "kill"? It can't do that to the damn ATS as is.
ChefBorOzzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2015, 02:32 PM   #76
ecoswag1990
 
ecoswag1990's Avatar
 
Drives: 2015 Mustang EB Performance Pack
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Wilmington
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChefBorOzzy View Post
What do you consider "kill"? It can't do that to the damn ATS as is.
I'm not about to sit here and argue semantics. Stock for stock the 2.0T camaro will not beat the mustang ecoboost
__________________
Guard 2015 Mustang Ecobeast Auto
Livernois stage 3 tune/160° T-stat
Mishimoto Intake/Intercooler/Charge Pipes
Ford Racing Catback
ecoswag1990 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2015, 02:57 PM   #77
ChefBorOzzy

 
ChefBorOzzy's Avatar
 
Drives: 2016 F150
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecoswag1990 View Post
I'm not about to sit here and argue semantics. Stock for stock the 2.0T camaro will not beat the mustang ecoboost
Look, you said "kill" it. I'm asking you what that even means. It's pretty much neck and neck with the 2.0 ATS.

Car and Driver tested the ATS doing 1/4 in 14.1 at 101 mph. Ecoboost was 13.9 at 102 mph.

0-140 for Mustang was 31.4 seconds.
0-130 for ATS was 25.4..

Not sure why they don't run the cars up to the same speed.

Both of the cars were manual transmission.
ChefBorOzzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2015, 02:58 PM   #78
ChefBorOzzy

 
ChefBorOzzy's Avatar
 
Drives: 2016 F150
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,196
Maybe they should test it without PP and it'll be a bit faster.. Not sure.
ChefBorOzzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2015, 03:33 PM   #79
IOMike

 
Drives: 2022 F150, 87 Monte Carlo
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: MN
Posts: 1,267
Why can't weeeee be friends, why can't weeeee be friends....

Both cars are nice now. Let's pick on Toyota and Honda.
IOMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2015, 03:51 PM   #80
titanfan
Account Suspended
 
Drives: Several in a big garage
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Nashville
Posts: 628
Quote:
Originally Posted by NASTY99Z28 View Post
Some of you guys must be high if you think the ecoboost stang is "under performing"!!! Its a solid high 13 sec car that with a basic tune runs mid to low 13's. That's on par with most stock 5th gen SS's. Now the ats non turbo get down to about 3400lbs flat but with the turbo and other parts there's no way the camaro will weigh much less than an ecoboost stang. That means the v6 will weigh slightly more while making less torque. So unless the trans makes up for lack.of power I don't see a t4 or v6 6th gen beating a ecoboost by much if any at all.

For the ones that think quarter mile times are pointles because its not a " v8" I say stop being closed minded. People still want to enjoy the car but maybe don't want the added fuel cost or money spent to buy the bigger engine. Why hate?

I'm sure the turbo camaro will respond to mods just fine and be close to the ecoboost mod for mod even though its startong with a lower number. Simply up the boost.
I'm going to assume your reference was to me, so let me be clear here. I never said performance statistics were pointless for cars that do not have a V8. My point was, unless you sink a ton of money into aftermarket parts, achieving the same level of performance as a V8 car with the smaller engines is not realistic. I owned a t4 Mustang back when t4 cars were not cool (SVO), and a couple of t4 Mopars (GLHS, Shelby Charger) so there is no hate on my part.
titanfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2015, 03:53 PM   #81
titanfan
Account Suspended
 
Drives: Several in a big garage
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Nashville
Posts: 628
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChefBorOzzy View Post
Look, you said "kill" it. I'm asking you what that even means. It's pretty much neck and neck with the 2.0 ATS.

Car and Driver tested the ATS doing 1/4 in 14.1 at 101 mph. Ecoboost was 13.9 at 102 mph.

0-140 for Mustang was 31.4 seconds.
0-130 for ATS was 25.4..

Not sure why they don't run the cars up to the same speed.

Both of the cars were manual transmission.
I don't know. People say the 1LE "kills" the PP GT. The gap on performance between those cars is even less.
titanfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2015, 03:58 PM   #82
ecoswag1990
 
ecoswag1990's Avatar
 
Drives: 2015 Mustang EB Performance Pack
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Wilmington
Posts: 50
Well once we have the official weight numbers we'll be able to gauge these much better. A guy on m6g took out the rear and passenger seat (total about 85lbs) and ran a 13.2 on an otherwise stock setup so it does make a big difference
__________________
Guard 2015 Mustang Ecobeast Auto
Livernois stage 3 tune/160° T-stat
Mishimoto Intake/Intercooler/Charge Pipes
Ford Racing Catback
ecoswag1990 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2015, 06:14 PM   #83
NASTY99Z28

 
Drives: 99z28 with bolt-ons and a mwc fab 9
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChefBorOzzy View Post
ATS with a turbo is a 3,4xx pound car..
I believe a non turbo 4 is almost 3400lbs even so I would assume once you add a turbo,intercooler and other little stuff it would be at least 3500lbs. Even if its 3490 (aka 34xx) that's still less then 50lbs away from the ecoboost which has a lot more power. Guess only time will tell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ztwentypoop View Post
I'm going to assume your reference was to me, so let me be clear here. I never said performance statistics were pointless for cars that do not have a V8. My point was, unless you sink a ton of money into aftermarket parts, achieving the same level of performance as a V8 car with the smaller engines is not realistic. I owned a t4 Mustang back when t4 cars were not cool (SVO), and a couple of t4 Mopars (GLHS, Shelby Charger) so there is no hate on my part.
Well times have changed sir. A 1000 bucks worth of upgrades on a ecoboost mustang will run or beat a current SS camaro and maybe even 5.0. So if it only takes a 1000 dollars to go just as fast yet cost 10-15,000 less to buy is it worth it? I'd say so and that's why ford is selling them like hot cakes.
__________________
I like my woman like my milk shakes, THICK!!!!
NASTY99Z28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2015, 06:17 PM   #84
NASTY99Z28

 
Drives: 99z28 with bolt-ons and a mwc fab 9
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecoswag1990 View Post
Well once we have the official weight numbers we'll be able to gauge these much better. A guy on m6g took out the rear and passenger seat (total about 85lbs) and ran a 13.2 on an otherwise stock setup so it does make a big difference
Good prep,good weather and a solid driver helps with he hero runs. Now what does "otherwise stock really mean"? Was it completely stock minus the seats? Did it have a sticky tire or stock rubber? Either way that's a strong running car for what it is. Hell that's ls1 territory.
__________________
I like my woman like my milk shakes, THICK!!!!
NASTY99Z28 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Post Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.