I understand the point of the whole post, but in a 0-100 run the SS will flatten a GT.

Motor Trend got an SS to run over a half second faster through the 1/4. In a 100mph race, that distance will be sizable. HP is at a state of diminishing returns, but not that diminishing.

 

What? I really don't know what you're trying to say here. With shorter gearing, fuel economy will be worse on EPA tests, but in real world driving, where the driver adjusts to the gearing, it won't make a difference in town. However, driving down the interstate at a constant 75 in top gear, the Mustang will get worse mileage, due to it's gearing.

If one is too lame to downshift two gears, then just don't go into 6th in a Camaro or Challenger. Better yet, get an automatic. Since the Camaro has a taller axle ratio and larger tires, you might go to 3rd in the Camaro to have a gear similar to 4th in the Mustang (I haven't looked it up).


"***** numbers"? The sentence doesn't make sense if I assume a typo and substitute "horse" for "*****".




BTW, I really haven't seen any people arguing that what the Camaro really needs is 500hp in the base V8. So I don't know whom you're trying to convince.

 

Yeah, to go 1/4 mile in 1/2 the time, you need 4x the horsepower, assuming you keep weight the same, and disregarding aero and traction.

 

The cars are getting heavier. This is the uncontestable fact.

It would be nice to go back to 3300lb pony cars, but I, like many people, prefer the new found ability to walk away from a major wreck a price worth its WEIGHT in gold.


SO I want my 400+(500 preferable) HP packaged up and delivered for my $30K-$40K.

And it better be faster than the 350hp stuff from 10 years ago. And get comparable or better mileage. Yeah.

 

That sums it up right there, I want to walk away from a wreck and odds are almost everyone on here is gonna be in one someday. I'll take my chances in a newer vehicle that might be heavier but has side curtain airbags and better strength to withstand the impact.

 

Okay, I take this back.

 

mustang has 255/40R19 (27.03" tall) tires, camaro has 275/40R20 (28.66" tall) tires. mustang has 3.73s vs the camaro's 3.45s.

in order to have similar gearing when taking the tires in to consideration the camaro would need 3.95:1 gears, or about 14.5% more gear.

at 60 mph in 5th the mustang is doing 1900 rpm, the camaro is doing just under 1400 rpm in 6th. I would bet the camaro makes more torque at 1400 rpm than the mustang does at 1900 rpm. hell it probably makes more torque at 1400 rpm than the mustang does at any rpm point. camaro downshifts to 5th and now the rpms are a little over 2000 rpm at the same speed. 5th gear gearing is very similar for both cars.

shifting at red line in the camaro in 1st will get you up to 54 mph, the mustang will be at 41.

3rd and 5th gear are similar for both cars, but the mustang has the gearing advantage in 1st gear, 2nd, and 4th. camaro has the advantage in 6th

in comparing to an LS1 f-body, it has the same basic gearing as a 3.42 equipped stock car, except 4th gear in the 2010 camaro will last a bit longer.

going for optimum 1/4 mile gear ratios the 2010 camaro would need something in the neighborhood of a set of 4.88s to wind out 4th. 4.88s would put 4th ending at 115. 60 mph in 6th gear would be a hair over 2000 rpm, or close to what a 3.23 equipped A4 LS1 f-body would do.

 

What?

HP is cheap. Chromemoly is not.

 

What about CAFE and CO2 regulations?

 

The fact that the Challenger SRT-8 has to up the displacement to about 6.4L, and the Hp to over 450 - just proves how much heavier it is - compared to the new Camaro SS.

Still given how strict the New Fuel Economy standard for 2016 are - one would expect both Camaro & Challenger to go on diet and lose weight, as well as possible some cubic inches in the next 5 years. To make them more fuel efficent.

To be in the same weight class as the current Mustang GT - The Camaro needs to trim about 200-275 lbs. While the Challenger SRT-8 would need to go a very serious diet plan and drop at least 600 lbs. But it's also very logical to expect the Mustang to increase it's horsepower & performance of the base model & GT in the next 5 years.

Ideally - it would be nice to see the Challenger SRT-8 with a curb weight of 3,840 lbs with about 450 hp, the Camaro SS with a curb weight of about 3,600 lbs with about 426 hp, and the Mustang GT with a Curb weight of 3,575 lbs with 400-410 hp. Now that would be a nice setting for a true Modern Pony Car Showdown.

 

Well there are affordable alternatives to the HP solution in heavy pony cars.

1) 350-400hp heavy pony cars that are slower than an LS1 Fbody.

2) 350-400hp Solstice/370Z sized pony cars that are faster than an LS1 Fbody.


I suppose I'd at least take a look at option 2, but it sure doesn't sound appealing.

 

What is unappealing about it?

Or maybe the better question is, what do you (or someone) buy a performance car for?

If overall "performance" is the goal then is HP/Tq going to be the primary measure or is it a balance of such things as handling, braking, turning, acceleration, comfort, etc.?

I love HP but what good is HP if, in a relatively similarly sized but lighter car hands you your hat in competition?

 

This is is a retarded comparison. A car won't magically accelerate 33% better with 33% more power, why? Because you'd also have to shed 33% of it's weight, give it 33% steeper gear, and make it 33% more aerodynamic.

This is true about ANY car with ANY power.

 

Can you hold your breath?








for 7 months?