What was the performance differences between the V6 vs. V8 4-gen Camaro?

 

Numerically speaking...

93-95 V6 3.4L = 160hp 200tq
95-02 V6 3.8L = 200hp 220tq (?)

93-95 V8 LT1 = 275 hp (285 for Cali and NY) 325tq
96-97 V8 LT1 = 285 hp 325tq
98-02 V8 LS1 = 305 to 310hp (dont remember the tq)

I believe 3.4L's ran 16's stock, I've known 3.8's to do 15's. Most LT1s do low 14's stock though one of mine were an exception. LS1's of course nearly always did upper 13's stock. If I'm wrong guys please call me out, I'm just going off the top of my head.

 

In a nutshell, it's a night and day difference...

Your average LT1 (low low 14s) will run over a full second faster than your average 3.8l V6 (low/mid 15s) equiped Camaro in the 1/4 mile. The LS1 (low/mid 13s) chops at least another half second off on top of that at worst, in most cases nearly another full second... The 3.4l Camaro is hardly worth mentioning...

When looking at the rated horsepower numbers don't forget the LS1's 305-320hp rating is complete junk. They're 340+ hp engines in reality...

Several of my buddies have had V6 4thgens and moved up to LT1s/LS1s, not even remotely close in performance. If you're thinking of downgrading to a V6 model for some reason, don't....

 

I have a 3.8. Would I really notice the 1 second all that much? I ask this as I wished I could afford the extra 2 cylinders.

 

Avg driver, avg conditions, common options, stock, "rule of thumb type numbers"

L32 (3.4L)=16.5
L36 (3.8L)=15.5
LT1 (5.7L)=14.5
LS1 (5.7L)=13.5

Times could possibly drop up to another second given the right driver/track and options in the car.

 

If you are running 14.5 with an LT1, you need to work on it. L98's run mid 14's. LT1's will run low 14's to high 13's. LS1's will run high 13's to high 12's.

 

The V6 cars don't get enough credit. No they aren't as fast as the V8 version, but they are driving the correct wheels and can use the majority of the V8 aftermarket for mods. IMO the V6 cars are in a pretty good place mod-wise compared to many of the popular "import" choices.

The problem is, who wants to be inulted by their own community much less the competition? It doesn't exactly inspire sales of an otherwise good car.

The same goes for the V6 Mustang I guess.

 

I haven't had anything like that directed at me on this site. We seem to be pretty tight-knit as long as we like the f-body. However, I have seen a lot of V6 f-body smashing at other sites. It's horrible.

 

Quote:

Times could possibly drop up to another second given the right driver/track and options in the car.

I put in basic joe average numbers. I'm talking about real world, repeatable, everyday track times and not "It's in my sig best run times" The times I put should be hit by an avg driver and avg options stock car. This is why made sure to point out it was "average" first thing in my post and that times could be up to a full second faster afterwards. LT1s had more variation over the years than the LS1 and should have more variation in their tack times too.

Evan Smith got an LS1 F-body in the 12's stock not many humans could match that time, it's not common at all.

 

Yes, you'd definitely notice the difference. 75-85 hp and around 100 ft-lbs of torque is a pretty darn massive increase... Seat of the pants feel and anykind of measured performance is a night and day difference. And that's just if you upgraded to a LT1...

A second in the quarter doesn't sound like much on paper, but think of it more like the LT1 would be a couple bus-lenghts in front of the 3.8l car at the end of the quarter...

 

I've been here a long time, it's not as bad now due to some of the recent fast V6 guys...insults were part of the reason they started their own site.

 

Some G92 L98's run low 14's too. L98's and LT1's are pretty close. Especially the Auto cars obviously. Both have their own advantages and disadvantages. BTW, why is this on the 5th Gen Board?

 

Hah, you must be a heavy internet reader

I always seem to read about LT1's doing high 13's or low 14s on here, but in real life always see them do mid 14s...seen a stock LT1 do a 14.18 ONCE with an M6.

But yea, like they said, average Joe is only going to get 14.5....as he'll only get 13.5 in an LS1, etc etc....

 

95 Z28's sold in California had the dual catalytic converter setup that all the 96's had and thus should be rated at 285.

At least that's the thinking. I don't know if the window sticker on those said 275 or 285.

 

My old 95 Z28 sold here in Mass had the dual cat option. Also it ran a 14.0 @ 99 bone stock. Original tires, paper air filter yada yada on a 2.2 60' time. Plus it was an auto!