05-21-2015, 01:11 PM | #71 | |
Drives: 2022 F150, 87 Monte Carlo Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: MN
Posts: 1,267
|
Quote:
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. |
|
05-21-2015, 01:16 PM | #72 | |
Drives: 2022 F150, 87 Monte Carlo Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: MN
Posts: 1,267
|
Quote:
Personally, I wouldn't buy anything but the SS though. |
|
05-21-2015, 02:00 PM | #73 |
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!!!!
|
05-21-2015, 02:18 PM | #74 |
Drives: 2016 F150 Join Date: May 2014
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,196
|
ATS with a turbo is a 3,4xx pound car..
|
05-21-2015, 02:19 PM | #75 | |
Drives: 2016 F150 Join Date: May 2014
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,196
|
Quote:
|
|
05-21-2015, 02:32 PM | #76 |
Drives: 2015 Mustang EB Performance Pack Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Wilmington
Posts: 50
|
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 |
05-21-2015, 02:57 PM | #77 | |
Drives: 2016 F150 Join Date: May 2014
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,196
|
Quote:
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. |
|
05-21-2015, 02:58 PM | #78 |
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.
|
05-21-2015, 03:33 PM | #79 |
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. |
05-21-2015, 03:51 PM | #80 | |
Account Suspended
Drives: Several in a big garage Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Nashville
Posts: 628
|
Quote:
|
|
05-21-2015, 03:53 PM | #81 | |
Account Suspended
Drives: Several in a big garage Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Nashville
Posts: 628
|
Quote:
|
|
05-21-2015, 03:58 PM | #82 |
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 |
05-21-2015, 06:14 PM | #83 | |
Drives: 99z28 with bolt-ons and a mwc fab 9 Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,277
|
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:
__________________
I like my woman like my milk shakes, THICK!!!!
|
|
05-21-2015, 06:17 PM | #84 |
Drives: 99z28 with bolt-ons and a mwc fab 9 Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,277
|
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!!!!
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|