The New Camaro

[QUICK91LX]

Does anyone know why all the new cars that are coming out today are so friggin huge? I find it funny how most people don't seem to realize how big an S197 is. It may look smaller compared to the new Camaro and Challenger but its still pretty damn big. Apart from the depreciation, cheapo plastic construction, and sky high insurance rates, that's one major reason why I HATE new cars.

The Challenger is so big because it is based on Chrysler's full size RWD platform that the 300 and Charger are built on, according to Car and Driver.

The Camaro is probably built on the same platform as the GTO, which would explain the size...

 

[QUICK91LX]

SHO is a 14 second car, 5.2 to 60

still pretty sweet...jury is still out on the looks from the b pillar back though

 

[Mustang5L5]

They have......I give you, the 2010 Taurus SHO


Officially Official: 2010 Ford Taurus SHO!

Powered by a 365hp Twin Turbo 3.5L Ecoboost V6, Torque sensing All-Wheel-Drive, Six-speed SelectShift automatic transmission....sex on wheels.

If I ever had an intent on buying a real domestic driver, I'd be setting my sights on this baby.

I like the SHO, but I don't think it's Ford's entry into the Luxury Sport coupe/sedan segment. Don't get me wrong, awesome car and I can't wait to see them on the road, but i think it's a different type of vehicle than what I'm looking for. I also beleive it's a Transverse AWD system, which renders it mostly a FWD car.

I just think the sport luxury offerings from the Domestic market are rather weak. It's why I chose to purchase a foriegn car for the first time ever. Chrysler's only sporty luxury car was the crossfire, and practicality just isn't in that car. The 300 is a boat and every interior reminds me of a dodge. Lincolns seem underpowered and FWD. The MKS has the potential to be a winner in 2010 when the 400HP ecoboost gets dropped in. But right now 270HP is a little weak when everyone else is over the 300HP mark. Caddy's are nice but didn't offer AWD until 2009. Now i'll be taking a good hard look at a CTS4 when it's time for a new vehicle.

 

[Duncan McDougal]

The Challenger is so big because it is based on Chrysler's full size RWD platform that the 300 and Charger are built on, according to Car and Driver.

The Camaro is probably built on the same platform as the GTO, which would explain the size...

Camaro is built on the Zeta Platform, the gto was on the V-body platform. Zeta is the v-body replacement GM Zeta platform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[skunk21]

The challenger has the retro look nailed, but it's just a main street cruiser. The challenger like already stated is a slug. The camaro falls short also, it looks like they where taking there time to design it then rushed the finish. Looking at pics of the dash layout, it's ugly as sin. It has the retro gauges in the console then this ugly radio/hvac set up hanging there like a set of buck teeth next to a huge steering wheel

I also think the square backup lights where a rushed after thought, they just don't look right to me.

If you look at all the #'s neither the challenger or camaro is a drivers car, The camaro taking 162ft to stop from 70mph with huge 14" front & 14.4" brakes, way to much mass & only pulling .85g's no fun to toss this thing around & forget the challenger 182ft to stop and .78g's, my Ford taurus could pull more g's.

The stang has always been a drivers car to me and '10 is by far the best corner carving off the shelf one yet. It stopped in the same 162ft but with 12.4" fronts & 11.8"rears would be nice with bigger brakes but it pulls an impressive .92g's. A car you can run on the 1/4 mile and a track day event , stock..Ford gets the win again

 

[Gearbanger 101]

SHO is a 14 second car, 5.2 to 60

still pretty sweet...jury is still out on the looks from the b pillar back though

Motor Trend got a 13.7@103mph out of it, so you can almost guarantee it's a tenth or two quicker than that in the hands of someone who can actually drive.

It tested about 4/10 slower than the 550i's, but I guess at $61,225 compared to the SHO's $39,285 I could learn to live with owning a slightly slower car. Incidentally, that's about dead nuts even with the 6.0L 400hp V8 powered Pontiac G8 GT and slightly quicer than the Charger R/T.

These numbers are probably all good for a couple of tenths in either direction considering the source, but its certainly a ballpark.

 

[blackened88lx]

Maybe if you strip down a coupe and run it on slicks within an inch of its life. Otherwise they're running anywhere from low-14's, to mid-15's. Now that may have been decent for the late-80's and early-90's, but its still considered family sedan performance by todays standards.

As far as the new Mustang goes. A bone stock full weight car running mid-13's, knocking down almost 30mpg and still putting out 315hp with only 4.6L of displacement. Heavy or not, that's impressive no matter how you look at it.



Its no uglier, slower, or less a piece of **** than the last generation of F-bodies.

I know most Mustangs go 14s-15s because they're old beat GTs with the worst driver on the planet. My full weight '88 LX Hatch with a couple bolt ons will go EASY mid 13s with junk gears, and get damn near 30mpg. Sorry, I just don't find it impressive when an expensive, 425hp car can only go 13.0.

It is much uglier than the last F-bodies imo. And you're right, it's not any slower. But it's not any faster, even with an extra 125hp.

I see your point with blackened88lx.

Throughout the years, there have been several fox articles about porting stock heads, t-bod, maf or no maf car with full aftermarket exhaust running high 12's to low 13's. However, this was when the cars were new, and also is what I think you were getting at in your post. Now that most of them are well over the 100K mark, most are tired and sloppy in stock form ,or slightly modified, and now, in this day and age, have a hard time holding a candle to the new S-197's; again agreed.

It cracks me up that some members on here will live and die by the 5.0. Certainly it was a great car for its time... like the 55 Chevy was, but to compare it to an S-197 is a hard feat. I can vow that my 93 coupe, even with welded in frame ties and with it only having 85K on the clock still does not feel any where near as tight as my uncle's 08GT. My 04GT does not feel as tight and it feels tighter than my coupe, which is why I enjoy it as a DD.

I hope this wasn't directed towards me. I am the last person on here to be considered 5.0 loyal. Hell I think every fox should have a sbc in it. I like anything that's cheap and fast. I just used the fox as a comparison. These new cars are only accomplishing what foxes were 20 years ago.

 

[Dino Dino Bambino]

6.2L 415hp Pontiac G8 GXP

There's another 400+hp car that can only muster a 13.0 @ 109.6 1/4 mile 'cause it weighs nearly 4000lb (without driver):

2009 Pontiac G8 GXP - Transmissions and Specs - First Test - Motor Trend

6.0L 361hp Pontiac G8 GT

What is supposed to be the "little" brother of the GXP is actually 127lb heavier at 4096lb! Therefore despite having a massive 6.0L V8 and 361hp, it can only muster a 13.8 @ 102.8:

2008 Pontiac G8 GT - Specs and Test Data - First Test - Motor Trend

My humble automatic Stang can do that and I haven't even bolted on my Edelbrock Performer intake yet. Mind you, my Stang's 800lb lighter so that does help a bit.
Here we are thinking our cars are too heavy. Today's new cars are friggin' gynormous!

 

[hsean]

The challenger has the retro look nailed, but it's just a main street cruiser. The challenger like already stated is a slug. The camaro falls short also, it looks like they where taking there time to design it then rushed the finish. Looking at pics of the dash layout, it's ugly as sin. It has the retro gauges in the console then this ugly radio/hvac set up hanging there like a set of buck teeth next to a huge steering wheel

I also think the square backup lights where a rushed after thought, they just don't look right to me.

If you look at all the #'s neither the challenger or camaro is a drivers car, The camaro taking 162ft to stop from 70mph with huge 14" front & 14.4" brakes, way to much mass & only pulling .85g's no fun to toss this thing around & forget the challenger 182ft to stop and .78g's, my Ford taurus could pull more g's.

The stang has always been a drivers car to me and '10 is by far the best corner carving off the shelf one yet. It stopped in the same 162ft but with 12.4" fronts & 11.8"rears would be nice with bigger brakes but it pulls an impressive .92g's. A car you can run on the 1/4 mile and a track day event , stock..Ford gets the win again

i have to disagree the taillights are the best feature on this car,overall if i had to rate them i would go the camaro then mustang then the challenger.

 

[Gearbanger 101]

Mind you, my Stang's 800lb lighter so that does help a bit.

A bit???? I would say it makes all the difference in the world. 800lbs is massive. Its why my car run's high-12's/low-13's in the quarter mile, instead of high-11's/low-12's like my same set up would, had I bolted it up to a Mustang instead of my Cougar.

 

[blackened88lx]

Yup, 400+ should go deeeeeep 11s in the right car.

 

[Mustang5L5]

Maybe if you strip down a coupe and run it on slicks within an inch of its life. Otherwise they're running anywhere from low-14's, to mid-15's. Now that may have been decent for the late-80's and early-90's, but its still considered family sedan performance by todays standards.

I gotta agree with that right there. A stock 5.0 today is pretty much V6 4-door sedan territory right there. Now i know clean, well kept modded 5.0's are fast cars, but every time i go to the track I see plenty of ragged out, 3" exhaust, stock 5.0's running 14's and 15's.

There are plenty of 250-350HP Family sedans out there...esp V6's that could give a stock 5.0 a run these days.

Here's my example (vid of me in the black family sedan )

YouTube - PFH Shootout qualifying

 

[Shaolin Crane]

ehh i dont really care about stock numbers anyhow, i have this disease that forces me to spend absurd amounts of cash on any vehicle i own

 

[Gearbanger 101]

ehh i dont really care about stock numbers anyhow, i have this disease that forces me to spend absurd amounts of cash on any vehicle i own

That same disease is prevalent in owners of newer Mustangs as well as older ones, as I'm sure you know.

 

[Shaolin Crane]

That same disease is prevalent in owners of newer Mustangs as well as older ones, as I'm sure you know.

ahhh i thought i was special

 

[Gearbanger 101]

I wouldn't exactly call a 35-40k G35 your average "family sedan".

I highly doubt that something like a Toyota Camry or a Honda Accord would be able to run with a stock, well kept Fox.

Oh, I don't know....the '09 Mazda6 at 3,600lbs runs a 14.7@96mph with an automatic transmission.

The '09 Accord EX weighing in at about the same runs a 15.6@91mph also with an automatic trans

And the '08 Nissan Altima ran a 15.0@95mph weighing in at 3,300lbs, backed with a slush box "variable automatic" trans. Hell, even the '09 Hybrid runs a 15.6

If I recall, even the Camry runs a mid/high-15 second quarter mile and jaunts from 0-60 in about 6.2 seconds with an auto as well.

Are we talking Mustang smoking power here....that's a little strong a term, but some of those times are as quick as I've ever seen a bone stock automatic go. In any case....you get caught napping at the light and you might not be able to reel them back in. So yes....old Fox stock Fox body times comparable to modern family sedan performance....absolutely.

 

[Mustang5L5]

I wouldn't exactly call a 35-40k G35 your average "family sedan".

I highly doubt that something like a Toyota Camry or a Honda Accord would be able to run with a stock, well kept Fox.

True, but Nissan puts the same motor in much cheaper Altimas Maximas and Sentras. They are a little lighter.

I bet you the average (usually cute) soccer mom driving a 3.5L Altima could give a stock 5.0 a good run, not necessarily beating one per say.



Good thing for us we all mod our 5.0s so we don't have to worry about that....right?

 

[Gearbanger 101]

Those times listed above are only as good (if not, worse) than a stock fox. Considering the Fox is RWD, lighter, and has much more torque in the lower end, my money will still be on the Fox (granted that its in good shape).

The torque fact is certainly an advantage provided you’re in a position to use it. On the other hand, it might almost work against the fox owner if he gets a little nervous at the tree, or get a little debris on the ash vault. Spin it coming out of the hole and say goodbye to your low-14-second run and hello to tire smoke and playing catch up.

These later FWD grocery getters are little more than plant your right foot as fast as you can and go. Tire spin in most cases isn’t even really and issue since most of their weight is over the front drive axles and they’re not putting out the majority of their torque down in the lower regions like the OHV 5.0L in the fox body.

The fact that they're running the same times as a stock Fox, with less jam out of the hole tells me that they're pulling harder in the mid and top end ranges....which brings me back to my original point.

Get caught napping, or blow the launch and you could find yourself running door to door…or worse yet staring at tail lights by the end of the track.

 

[Shaolin Crane]

True, but Nissan puts the same motor in much cheaper Altimas Maximas and Sentras. They are a little lighter.

I bet you the average (usually cute) soccer mom driving a 3.5L Altima could give a stock 5.0 a good run, not necessarily beating one per say.



Good thing for us we all mod our 5.0s so we don't have to worry about that....right?

so much to the point they're not even 5.0 anymore

 

[25thmustang]

A G35 isn't an average sedan? I guess that depends where you live. I see tons and tons of them day in and day out. Not to mention almost any new sedan with the top end engine will run with a stock fox...

I mildly modded fox is a 13 second car. The average stocker is probably mid 14s to mid 15s. I have seen 15s and 16s out of a lot of stockers. 2.73s and an AOD did wonders to making these cars dogs!