5.0 is Confirmed

[TehMac]

yea the challenger was majorly FUD.

 

[exdeath]

Camaro and Challenger are pretty portly though (particularly the Challenger).

Have you seen a Challenger up close? It's obvious immediately why it's so heavy; it's a BIG car. I mean the seats look like lazyboy recliners.

I'd drive one for a cruiser, they are pretty nice. I just wouldn't make any aspirations of having a fast stoplight bruiser.

 

[Arkaign]

Have you seen a Challenger up close? It's obvious immediately why it's so heavy; it's a BIG car. I mean the seats look like lazyboy recliners.

I'd drive one for a cruiser, they are pretty nice. I just wouldn't make any aspirations of having a fast stoplight bruiser.

That's a fair point, but I think the primary reasons were that Dodge basically didn't design the car from the ground up to be what it was, they adapted the Charger to suit a desire to cash in on a perceived retro craze.

The new Maxima is also a very large car, but the 290HP 3.5L DOHC V6 Maxima weighs a couple hundred pounds less than the 250HP V6 Challenger, even with two extra doors (which are really heavy these days due to safety reasons) and a lot of extra features. Interior space is actually roomier in the Maxima, although it's 7 inches shorter due to the hood and trunk being stretched out on the Challenger to give it the classic 'look'.

I can't fault Dodge entirely, considering the difficult financial spot they've been in. It just would have been nice to see them drop in at a fairly competitive weight. About the only Dodge I'd seriously consider would be one of their trucks/vans, which are really quite competitive with the competition.

 

[TehMac]

I have seen the Challenger, and I keep thinking "what a great concept, screwed to such great lengths."

 

[Pariah]

The 2010 GT500 isn't exactly a lightweight at 3900+ lbs. And at $46,000 base, if Ford decides to keep the GT in the $28,000 range, why would anyone want a GT500? Surely you should be able to slap a supercharger/turbo on a new 2011 GT and add less than 500 lbs while spending less than $18,000 and getting more HP than 540. Setting aside $10k for such a project, the remaing $8000 should more than pay for the cost of any repairs the warranty would have covered.

 

[Arkaign]

The 2010 GT500 isn't exactly a lightweight at 3900+ lbs. And at $46,000 base, if Ford decides to keep the GT in the $28,000 range, why would anyone want a GT500? Surely you should be able to slap a supercharger/turbo on a new 2011 GT and add less than 500 lbs while spending less than $18,000 and getting more HP than 540. Setting aside $10k for such a project, the remaing $8000 should more than pay for the cost of any repairs the warranty would have covered.

Definitely! The GT500 is a pretty portly beast. The new 5.0L at 410hp+ makes the GT500 (540hp) kind of superfluous, particularly for the price. Particularly for sub-120mph speeds, and not using drag slicks, I'd expect the 5.0L to easily match the GT500's performance as it is now.

 

[alkemyst]

Have you seen a Challenger up close? It's obvious immediately why it's so heavy; it's a BIG car. I mean the seats look like lazyboy recliners.

I'd drive one for a cruiser, they are pretty nice. I just wouldn't make any aspirations of having a fast stoplight bruiser.

QFT...most that are buying at that level aren't looking for motorcycles disguised as cars.

My wife wants a 300...

 

[alkemyst]

what's really fucking funny is most here bitch about racing on the street and never make it to the track.

They buy performance because they can and just want to show it off.

hence why garage/trailer queen came to be.

 

[DivideBYZero]

what's really fucking funny is most here bitch about racing on the street and never make it to the track.

They buy performance because they can and just want to show it off.

hence why garage/trailer queen came to be.

I don't think I've ever seen any regular posters in here go on about street racing, but nice troll post.

 

[alkemyst]

I don't think I've ever seen any regular posters in here go on about street racing, but nice troll post.

That's what I had said...you will find them crying about how some dude in his 500HP 'stang was going 5-10 miles over the limit endangering the lives of everyone and others that have more than $10-20k in mods done, but never set foot on a track nor did anything more than a spirited green light launch.

posers.

 

[BenSkywalker]

The '90s Camaros were really competitive with Mustangs, neither was all that fast stock, particularly the V6 models.

In what country? The US spec cars it wasn't really close throughout most of the 90s, the Camaro obliterated the Mustang. In 1995 as a general example the Mustang was pushing 215hp while the Camaro had 275hp. By 1997 the Camaro's V6 was pushing 200hp, while the Mustang GT still was pushing 215hp. The Stang throughout most of the 90s topped out in the mid 130s, the Camaros were speed limited at 155(and would bounce of it- for the era it matched the Turbo Supra in that metric for perspective). In the quarter the Camaro was in the 13s while the Stang was about a second behind it throughout most of the decade. Certainly not that impressive by today's standards, but for its time the mid to late 90s Camaro trounced anything south of a Vette in performance- the Mustang not so much.

 

[Zargon]

As I can recall Mustangs always owned Camaros in stock form but I could be mistaken.

Either way I'm happy ford stepped up, as their mustangs and GTs were relative under performers these past few years.

you must not remember much about 1994 to 2003 then

 

[Arkaign]

In what country? The US spec cars it wasn't really close throughout most of the 90s, the Camaro obliterated the Mustang. In 1995 as a general example the Mustang was pushing 215hp while the Camaro had 275hp. By 1997 the Camaro's V6 was pushing 200hp, while the Mustang GT still was pushing 215hp. The Stang throughout most of the 90s topped out in the mid 130s, the Camaros were speed limited at 155(and would bounce of it- for the era it matched the Turbo Supra in that metric for perspective). In the quarter the Camaro was in the 13s while the Stang was about a second behind it throughout most of the decade. Certainly not that impressive by today's standards, but for its time the mid to late 90s Camaro trounced anything south of a Vette in performance- the Mustang not so much.

Well, just for example :

1999 Mustang GT

260HP/300TQ, 3237lbs, 5.5 0-60, 14.1 1/4

1999 Camaro Z28

305HP/335TQ, 3439lbs, 5.2 0-60, 13.8 1/4

Earlier years there was more of a gap, but the extra ~200lbs of the Camaro slightly penalized the performance. Ford OTOH seemed to take a long time to figure out how to make good power from the 4.6, outside of the Cobras which did pretty decently :

http://www.pbs.org/mpt/motorweek/reviews/cobraz28.html

Given the relatively small price difference, I think most people that wanted a fast Mustang went with the Cobra.

The V6 versions of both the Camaro and Mustang were just totally not performance oriented whatsoever. Results I can find for both are over 8 seconds, which is slower than a lot of V6 sedans of the time, such as the '95-'99 Maxima

I won't argue that the Camaro Z28 was faster than the GT, but for the most part, they performed pretty similarly stock, and the people that really cared went for SS or Cobra anyway (or aftermarket mods, of which there are gobs for both).

 

[alkemyst]

In what country? The US spec cars it wasn't really close throughout most of the 90s, the Camaro obliterated the Mustang. In 1995 as a general example the Mustang was pushing 215hp while the Camaro had 275hp. By 1997 the Camaro's V6 was pushing 200hp, while the Mustang GT still was pushing 215hp. The Stang throughout most of the 90s topped out in the mid 130s, the Camaros were speed limited at 155(and would bounce of it- for the era it matched the Turbo Supra in that metric for perspective). In the quarter the Camaro was in the 13s while the Stang was about a second behind it throughout most of the decade. Certainly not that impressive by today's standards, but for its time the mid to late 90s Camaro trounced anything south of a Vette in performance- the Mustang not so much.

Problem was the 5.0 Camaro/Firebird was in line with the Mustang GT, the Cobra was the 5.7's line up.

The main problem most had was the Camaro/Firebird were hard to drive as aggressively due to poor visibility of their noses.

 

[Arkaign]

Problem was the 5.0 Camaro/Firebird was in line with the Mustang GT, the Cobra was the 5.7's line up.

The main problem most had was the Camaro/Firebird were hard to drive as aggressively due to poor visibility of their noses.

Very true about the visibility, especially in the 'vert Camaro/Birds good luck seeing anything at all Not as bad as the old Eclipse Spyder, but close.

I'm confused by the first statement somewhat though. What 5.0 Camaro/Firebird?

I can understand the last part of the statement though, the Cobra wasn't much more back then, and it was more than the equal of the Z28, and hung pretty tough against the SS. The GT was a little step back, and the V6 versions of both were totally pathetic.

 

[alkemyst]

Very true about the visibility, especially in the 'vert Camaro/Birds good luck seeing anything at all Not as bad as the old Eclipse Spyder, but close.

I'm confused by the first statement somewhat though. What 5.0 Camaro/Firebird?

I can understand the last part of the statement though, the Cobra wasn't much more back then, and it was more than the equal of the Z28, and hung pretty tough against the SS. The GT was a little step back, and the V6 versions of both were totally pathetic.

To 92 they had a 5.0 option, in 93 they went to an equal powered 3.8 V6.

The cobras were generally faster than the Z28's and pretty equal to the SS's stock.

 

[Arkaign]

To 92 they had a 5.0 option, in 93 they went to an equal powered 3.8 V6.

The cobras were generally faster than the Z28's and pretty equal to the SS's stock.

Ah, my mistake, I was only thinking of the '94 (?) and up redesign when they had the 5.7L for the V8 models.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Problem was the 5.0 Camaro/Firebird was in line with the Mustang GT, the Cobra was the 5.7's line up.

They had a Cobra in '92? I thought they brought that back in '93(although I may be mistaken). The 5.7 IROCs were easily the superior of the old Fox Mustangs, the '93 and newer cars chewed up and spit out the Mustang GTs and even tended to edge out the Cobras which were considerably more expensive(Cobras played with Firehawks/SSs- and lost).

I won't argue that the Camaro Z28 was faster than the GT, but for the most part, they performed pretty similarly stock

No, for the overhwhelming majority of the decade the Mustang GT got smoked- a couple of years(90, 99) it wasn't embarassed. For most of the decade the Z28 had ~20MPH greater top speed, .5 or more to 60 and ~1 second through the quarter advantage, it really was't close. Of course, anyone can accurately point out that the Stang was outselling the F Body cars by ~2:1 during the era they were getting their teeth kicked in at the track- which is the more important victory when all is said and done

Results I can find for both are over 8 seconds, which is slower than a lot of V6 sedans of the time, such as the '95-'99 Maxima

The 3.8L V6 Camaro did decently for what it was(the 3.4L was the 8 second plus to 60, 3.8L was in the mid 6s which given its' era wasn't too bad), the rest were dogs.

 

[Arkaign]

They had a Cobra in '92? I thought they brought that back in '93(although I may be mistaken). The 5.7 IROCs were easily the superior of the old Fox Mustangs, the '93 and newer cars chewed up and spit out the Mustang GTs and even tended to edge out the Cobras which were considerably more expensive(Cobras played with Firehawks/SSs- and lost).



No, for the overhwhelming majority of the decade the Mustang GT got smoked- a couple of years(90, 99) it wasn't embarassed. For most of the decade the Z28 had ~20MPH greater top speed, .5 or more to 60 and ~1 second through the quarter advantage, it really was't close. Of course, anyone can accurately point out that the Stang was outselling the F Body cars by ~2:1 during the era they were getting their teeth kicked in at the track- which is the more important victory when all is said and done



The 3.8L V6 Camaro did decently for what it was(the 3.4L was the 8 second plus to 60, 3.8L was in the mid 6s which given its' era wasn't too bad), the rest were dogs.

Interesting info, but the numbers I see for the 3.8 are in the mid/high 7s with the manual, and 8+ with that god-awful 4-speed auto.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/112_9505_1995_chevrolet_camaro/mustang.html

Still far better than the totally horrendous Mustang V6 of the time I wouldn't be caught dead in either though.

 

[casiotech wants a new accord]

so how is Ford able to offer these Camaro killers for even cheaper prices. I was under the impression costs are so high there is no way to offer a base for $21.5k

 

[cbrsurfr]

All I care about is when I can order one... You guys stay here and argue about the past.

 

[casiotech wants a new accord]

if this car stays under $23k for automatic.. I'm def down.. but I think it will cost more

not to mention the price gouging that will occur for the first year

 

[Pariah]

so how is Ford able to offer these Camaro killers for even cheaper prices. I was under the impression costs are so high there is no way to offer a base for $21.5k

Have you ever seen the interior of a Mustang? Mustangs aren't exactly renowned for their build quality either. The base Camaro is only about $1k more which isn't that big a deal.

 

[Howard]

It appears that both the new engines are 'Boss'- ie they both are DOHC and hence hemispherical combustion chambers, or is the new use of Boss just a generic marketting moniker?

Eh, DOHC doesn't necessarily indicate a hemispherical combustion chamber.

 

[exdeath]

Eh, DOHC doesn't necessarily indicate a hemispherical combustion chamber.

No but it does mean a pent roof combustion chamber which is superior to hemispherical. A true hemi with domed pistons doesn't even have a quench region, has poor flame propagation and lacks optimal valve angles, among other problems. It's really a pretty bad design, I'm not sure why there is so much fuss over "Hemi"; even the modern hemis like the 6.1 aren't really hemis.