The LLT also has ~1300 more rpms to work with than the LT1.

 

Nope, not dense..... the word for someone like that is literate.

Car and Driver, December 2004, Article: "Ford Mustang GT Road Test": 2005 Ford Mustang GT:
0-60 mph- 5.2 seconds
1/4 mile- 13.8@ 102 mph

Car and Driver, February 1999, Article: "Camaro vs Mustang GT Again" : Camaro Z28:
0-60- 5.2 seconds
1/4 mile- 13.8@104 mph

Again, I question weather or not you actually read or have a foot in what's actually going on in the market.

Mustang GT isn't a "middle" V8 as you are implying. Mustang comes in 2 versions: V6 and V8. Period. The Shelby GT500 is a special, high priced performance car. Camaro will also have a high priced performance version. If you call the GT a mid-level V8, then the V8 Camaro coming next winter is also a mid-level V8 as well.

Finally, once again, perhaps you actually should check out things for yourself as to what is actually selling, what is actually workable. I am aware of Ford's study on a "mid_V8 which didn't turn out favorable. People who would actually pay for a V8 option do so because of the percieved performance of the V8. Also, people who buy V8s tend to also load their cars up with options... in short, don't want strippers.

This is also likely the same result GM got that Scott is refering to. Of everyone involved with Camaro, Scott is a walking encyclopedia of Camaro knowledge and has access to literally every study, every figure, and every piece of data on what Camaro buyers want and what it's going to take to bring in more buyers.

If you want to blow me off, blow off the studies Ford did on this, blow off actual sales figures, blow off buyer preferences, and blow off $4+ per gallon fuel, you're pretty much dead in the area of credibility if you also blow off the studies Scott has as well.

This is frigging stupid!

A base Camaro shouldn't be as quick as a loaded, fastest, most expensive family sedan?!

Then you backpeddle by saying that "never said it was a manual, never said it was a "sports car", never said it handled good, never said it was faster than a Mustang GT, never said its cheap, never said it was fast, never said any of that." Did you eat lead paint as a kid?

Camaro IS NOT about having the fastest ride on the street no more than it is for Mustang. Never was the case. Name any base or mid level Camaro ever in history that was quicker than every family sedan on the market.

Also, being that cars are quicker today, that means more are going to be grouped together in 0-60. But it's downright stupid not to mention shallow to look at a 0-60 number and ignore cost, handling, market position, or even if the thing is sporty and hold it up as what a Camaro isn't.

Thankfully, it isn't.

1. I use my B4C Camaro as a commuter. I bought it for that purpose while I used my SC as the so-called "Garage Car".

2. Most Mustang buyers are younger adults who use it as their only car. Most Mustangs are V6s. Most V6 buyers are men.

3. We actually do have numbers. Engines are already in production in heavier cars, so we have a very good figures to base mpg numbers on.

4. The people buying EVOs are fairly well off. They cost more than a G8 GT, and insurence on them is astronomical. If anyone is dead set in concrete on a small Mitsubishi sedan, for 95% of them the better car is the Lancer. It shows in sales figures. Last I checked, only about 8-9000 Evos are sold annually. That's equal to 2-3 months of Corvette production.

5. The median age of a Lancer buyer is in the late 20s, so it's doubtful there's more than a couple of "little old ladies" driving them.

 

No one is asking, telling, making, or insinuating that you should buy a V6, but as someone who's considering one as a daily driver, you likewise can't tell me that there's anything wrong with that.

If I spend well over 20 grand on something, I'm going to drive it every day and enjoy it. I already have my 77 Trans Am that gets driven less than 2000 miles a year. I don't need another car I can't/won't drive all the time.

I haven't ruled out a V8, but with all the costs factored in, and the fact that I'm driving this car every day no matter what the powerplant, I'm leaning toward the 6 and I won't regret it if that's what I get.

 

Vs the super high production 2nd gens? By the early mid 70s most Camaros were 3600 plus. So the penalty will be more like a couple of hundred pounds. But those cars had 165, 175 horses.

No, what I'm saying that the extremely fast LS1s and LT1s made between 1993 and 2002 are only 270,000 cars. There were more BASE Camaros made than that in just 1977 and 1978.
-
I don't think that there's really much to see about. A CTS would handily best most of those cars and I expect the Camaro to run a little better.

This is not true. 1974 Z28: 245 horsepower, 1975, no Z28, top V8: 155 horsepower, 1976 no Z28, top V8: 165 horsepower, 1977 Z28: 185 horsepower, 1978 Z28: 185 horsepower, 1979 Z28: 175 horsepower, 1980 Z28: 165 horsepower or 190 horsepower, 1981 Z28: 165 horsepower or 175 horsepower.

I'm not disagreeing with you on that particular point, but that's 5 years out of the 11 year run of the 3rd gens, and even then not representative of the majority of the cars built.

1982 Z28: 145 horsepower or 165 horsepower, 1983 Z28: 150, 175, 190 horsepower available, 1984 Z28: 150 horsepower or 190 horsepower, 1985 Z28 155, 190, 215 (IROC-Z), 1986 Z28 165, 190, 220 (IROC-Z), 1987 Z28: 1709, 190, 215, 225 (IROC-Z), 1988 IROC-Z: 170, 195, 220, 230 (L98 350), 1989 IROC-Z: 170, 195, 220, 230 (L98), 240 (L98 w/ dual cat performance package), 1990 IROC-Z: 210, 230 (L98), 240 (L98 w/ dual cat performance package), 1991 Z28: 205, 230 (L98), 240 (L98 w/ dual cat performance package), 1992 Z28: 205, 230, 245 (L98)

Right, and I wasnt including these. I was using them as an example of a quarter million extremely fast Camaros out of several million built.

I spent the 1980s reading road tests of pony cars that were doing 16 second quarter miles and I remember when the TPIs and Mustang HOs got into the 15s, it was amazing. Performance was back! That doesn't look like anything now, but it was awesome then. Very few of the road tests of those cars had the cars breaking much lower than a 15 flat (and the Mustangs always won, much to my chagrin).

Then, I can remember being on a bus trip to New York and I had the issue of Automobile Magazine that had the spy shots and advance intel on the 1993 Camaro and Firebird (pretty much undisguised) a long time before they came out. They were saying that the V8 models were going to have 275 horsepower and 6 speeds and I just couldn't believe it would actually happen. ALL V8 Camaros and Firebirds were going to be 350s? We were finally going to beat Mustang. And we did!

I never thought at the time I'd be on a message board 16 years later with a bunch of folks lamenting the V6 Camaro only having 300 horsepower!

 

You probably never expected to see 300hp coming out of a V6 either, huh?

 

Hmm we are putting up a scenario of a camry racing a camaro... When has anyone ever had someone with a camry pushing his "performance" car and reving at you at a red? If so you really need to take stock of how rediculous that situation is.

Its like having a honda civic that can turn a 12.xx et... its surprising yet still looks fugly..

There is a market for the V6, and one for a V8. Be happy you can get your V8 becuase the V6 makes that possible.

 

I haven't read through this whole post so forgive me if someone's already done the calculations.

Since there's been some talk of area under the curve, I decided to do some approximate integration. If I did my calculations right, (and I hope I did because it was a pain) here is what I got...

Using these dyno charts:

http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en...mpala%20SS.pdf
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en...DI_LLT_CTS.pdf

LS4 830,900
LLT 764,400

Take it for what its worth... (if anything)

edit

LT1 809,620

If anyone has dynos for other engines let me know and I'll do 'em.

 

Can't agree. The other guys in the Challenger post have already said enough so I won't jump in on it here.

We can kinda call the GT and Camaro V8 next year a "base V8." I would just hope if the economy and gas prices change for the better that maybe both companies will give the idea a second look.

 

Ok, so for those of you arguing with me about this, you still dont get my point, and my point is the V6 Camaro is not going to be better than the V8 version. Maybe get better gas mileage and be cheaper, but that doesn't make it better. And as for my Camry being a rediculous comparison, the point was that the standards for fast have gone up (not talking handling or anything else). In the market, there are classifications and my guess is the Camaro will be classified as a sports car, in which case it should be faster than a Camry. Fast depends on who you ask, and fast for me isn't a stock Camry. Even if it is fast for a sedan. So a V6 Camaro is not fast if it runs mid 14s.

Oh and I'm not going to go find numbers or make it look like I found number to back up what I'm saying to validate what I stated and try to look smarter, because its an opinion and I dont need to make myself feel smart. lol


Lets see what you can pick apart and post up something about how your right and I'm wrong because you think you are and validate it with numbers which have nothing to do with my point. lol

 

Gas prices aren't going to be going down... at least not any time soon. My company is looking at running some sythetic crudes, but even when we run that, it still wont drop gas prices much, maybe keep it steady though. But anything can happen so cant say anything for sure.

 

The gas and economy simply can't stay this way, recessions bounce back. We're not all rich and something has to happen at some point to turn it around. (we hope)

 

I actually think everyone gets your point. I don't believe that anyone on this thread is arguing that they think that the V6 will be better than the V8 in any way other than, like you said, being cheaper and getting better mileage (and probably not a ton better). They're just saying that for some people it's enough car.

A stock Camry that runs 14s is fast. That Camry would have beaten pretty much every Camaro or Firebirds tested by the car magazines in the 80s and early 90s.

When Car and Driver did their "Fastest Cars under $25,000" the Camry V6 was number 2 after only the Subaru WRX.

Ninth Place (tie): 2007 Pontiac G6 GT 3.9
Ninth Place (tie): 2007 Saturn Aura XR
Eighth Place: 2007 Chevrolet Cobalt SS Supercharged
Seventh Place: 2007 Mitsubishi Eclipse GT
Sixth Place: 2007 Volkswagen GTI
Fifth Place: 2007 Saturn Ion Red Line
Fourth Place: 2007 Nissan Altima 3.5SE
Third Place: 2007 Mazdaspeed 3
Second Place: 2007 Toyota Camry V-6
First Place: 2007 Subaru Impreza WRX

They mention in the article that the Camry V6 is as fast as a 350z, which is a dedicated sports car. That's pretty fast. You're lucky to have a car that fast as your daily driver. I've never owned anything near that fast in my whole life.

 

The Camry accelerates with a 350Z to 60 and maybe even the 1/4mi but not after that. Additionally when the road starts to twist the Camry will have rolled over into the ditch and exploded if it tried to keep pace with the Z. I don't think Z car owners will be too sad about it. Anyone who bought a Z was not cross-shopping it with the Camry V6. And likewise Camaro buyers won't be either. They are looking for a driving experience you don't get in Camry and probably don't put all their stock in one dimension of performance.

 

We're only referring to straight line 0-60 and 1/4 mile. He says his Camry is not fast with 0-60 in the high 5s and 14s in the 1/4, so that means a 350Z is not fast in those measurements either. Handling is a whole 'nother dimension.

And I expect that the V6 Camaro will leave the Camry equally ditched, but will end up far behind a V8 Camaro on the same twisties.

 

I am quite aware that we are only referring to the acceleration, but my point was that there is more to a performance car than such a one dimensional measure. Not that the Camry isn't fast or not in a straight line. However, the Camry is certainly surprisingly quick but as I was getting at it hardly matters if the Camaro looks better, handles better, is probably a little cheaper, and provides the image that the buyers want. I mostly disagree that the V6 has to be "fast" compared to everything on the road. It would be nice if it was, but you can thank the large car basis for the performance robbing weight.