"Jayhawk Jake" (jayhawkjake)
01/24/2016 at 08:42 • Filed to: None
0
18|
"Jayhawk Jake" (jayhawkjake)
01/24/2016 at 08:42 • Filed to: None | 0
| 18 |
Ecoboost Mustang vs. Turbo Camaro
Let’s look at some numbers
Ecoboost Mustang:
Curb Weight: 3,532 lbs
Power: 310 HP
Lbs/HP = 11.39. I prefer this metric, each horse has to carry 11.39 pounds. The lower the number the better
0-60: Seems to depend who you ask. With a manual Car and Driver saw 5.5, while Motortrend saw 5.6
1/4 Mile: 14.4 @ 97 mph (Motortrend), 13.9 @ 104 C&D (huh?)
Maybe motortrend used regular gas? The numbers are quite different. Anyways, that’s not my confusion. I’m confused at how the Camaro (theoretically) compares.
Turbo Camaro. Keep in mind no one has reviewed it yet, so these are published numbers
Curb Weight (with manual): 3319 lbs. (! DAMN !)
Power: 275 hp
Lbs/Hp = 12.1. Slightly worse than the Mustang. Should be slower, right?
0-60 (as told by Chevy): 5.4
1/4 mile (as told by Chevy): 14.0 @ 100 mph
The Camaro is down on the mustang in power, but just as fast or faster. Could it be gearing, or will the Camaro likely underperform in real world conditions?
banjo cat ghost of oppo past
> Jayhawk Jake
01/24/2016 at 08:53 |
|
Whut about the that there V6 Camaro or is it a non starter. Sure sounds perdy. Although with these two F.I. options it would be easier to turn up the wick.
Id go with the Mustang. Look at all the upmarket ones they look great gussied up
JR1
> Jayhawk Jake
01/24/2016 at 09:03 |
|
I would say here lightness not horsepower is key and the Camaro wins that hands down. Also it probably has mag ride which would make it preform even better.
TractorPillow
> Jayhawk Jake
01/24/2016 at 09:16 |
|
This is simply a debate about which car you like better. I don’t like GM (for no reason other than “jut because”) so I’d get the boostang. I think the camaro looks cooler though.
Jewish Stig
> Jayhawk Jake
01/24/2016 at 09:44 |
|
In my opinion, the stick Ecoboost mustang sound like a crappy econobox.
it sound exactly like any other focus.
bryan40oop
> JR1
01/24/2016 at 09:49 |
|
It doesn’t have magnetic suspension. Only the camaro SS and up gets that option.
Dusty Ventures
> Jayhawk Jake
01/24/2016 at 10:04 |
|
I would wait until one of the mags puts out actual test figures for the 0-60 and quarter mile. Usually the manufacturer numbers come from a computer simulation with idealized conditions and “driver” performance (perfect shifts, etc). Real world results, with real variables, give numbers closer to what you can actually expect. (Those variables also explain the difference between Motor Trend and C&D’s numbers. Different launch, different temperatures, different tire pressures, and different track could all factor into that .5 second diferent result.)
K-Roll-PorscheTamer
> Jewish Stig
01/24/2016 at 10:09 |
|
That’s because it does. :p
|
Jayhawk Jake
> Dusty Ventures
01/24/2016 at 10:51 |
|
I agree. I just want to know when the turbo will get with journalists. It’s been almost oddly quiet, in theory it should be a pretty darn good performance car but it’s almost like Chevy is pretending it doesn’t exist.
|
Jayhawk Jake
> JR1
01/24/2016 at 10:53 |
|
Lightness and aero maybe? It doesn’t have magnetic suspension.
Of course we’re talking 10ths of seconds, the tires might be slightly stickier and that would make a difference. Where I question it is the Camaro is quite a bit down on power compared to the Mustang, even in HP/Weight ratio, but it theoretically outperforms it in a straight line
|
Jayhawk Jake
> Jewish Stig
01/24/2016 at 10:54 |
|
Ford’s whole sound symposer thingamajig makes it sound decent inside. It’s no V8, but it has a nice noise when you drive it.
|
JR1
> Jayhawk Jake
01/24/2016 at 10:54 |
|
Chevy might be a bit hopeful with their claims. I was thinking the lightness might make the car more fun through the twists.
|
Jayhawk Jake
> banjo cat ghost of oppo past
01/24/2016 at 10:54 |
|
Price is an issue. The loaded Ecoboost ‘stang is expensive, and the V6 Camaro gets up there.
|
Jayhawk Jake
> TractorPillow
01/24/2016 at 10:57 |
|
Sure. Really I had this thought because I’m trying to get a feel for how the Camaro will perform. No turbos have gotten into anyone’s hands outside of GM as far as I know.
I really liked the Mustang, but I generally like GM as well. The lightness of the Camaro is intriguing though...
Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies
> TractorPillow
01/24/2016 at 10:57 |
|
I was sold on it in pics, buy in person the Camaro looks a bit too cartoonish to me. I’d probably get a Challenger, but between the two, I think the Mustang looks a lot better in person.
|
Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies
> Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies
01/24/2016 at 10:58 |
|
*but
DoYouEvenShift
> Jayhawk Jake
01/24/2016 at 11:21 |
|
Even if it is slower than the Mustang, it should drive better overall. Plus it would be cheaper/easier to make the Camaro as fast or faster than the Mustang. As compared to making the heavier Mustang drive as nice as the lighter Camaro. My opinion.
Also, you can do some reading on the ATS 2.0 turbo, which should have similar performance numbers. From what Ive seen it weighs around 34o0 lbs, and 0-60 is in the high 5s and 1/4 in the low 14s at about 100mph.
|
Jayhawk Jake
> DoYouEvenShift
01/24/2016 at 12:41 |
|
I agree. I briefly drove an ATS a while ago and found it nice to drive. I fully expect the Camaro to be the better car, both as it is and with regards to its potential.
TheD0k_2many toys 2little time
> Jayhawk Jake
01/24/2016 at 13:12 |
|
what time of year did test take place for motortrend and car and driver cause they are based in two different locations. One is souther cali and one is in Ann Arbor MI