Official 2016 Camaro 0-60, 1/4-mile numbers and curb weights.
hotrod.com/cars/featured/1509-official-2016-c...
hotrod.comPosted Sep 14, 2015, 4:23 AM UTC
67121
hotrod.com0% chance we get a stock mustang gt that goes 0-60 in 3.9 and loses 150 pounds on its new platform
Chevy came through wow
I drive a stang but seriously considering an SS
22
Yea the mustang is way behind in adding lightness. I don't want a 3600-3800lb coupe.
1
I wonder if the next mustang will follow the same route as the f150 and switch to an aluminum body. That would shave off some weight.
1
My 4 door 328i is lighter smh
Yeah I have an 11 v6 stang
Was not interested in a heavier 15 gt that had the same garbage 6 speed and they basically added 0 new features to the car besides the irs. By 2011 the live rear axle had great reviews and Driving both I didn't see a difference worth adding 100+ pounds to the car.
You get cylinder deactivation/ 8 speed auto/ magna ride/ SS comes with brembos I believe/ etc
Really a no brainier at this point
0†
but they added 0 new features besides IRS
They increased chassis stiffness by ~15%, went crazy on safety features and doubled the amount of airbags (5 star rated), improved the interior a hell of a lot in every aspect and offer way more standard and optional features, includes bigger brakes and tires, etc.
When you see the real world testing of an S197 and S550 and have them equipped as close as possible, the weigh-in difference is less than 100lbs.
Considering that there's extensive use of aluminum used in the hood and some other parts, and making important note that the actual body in white LOST weight compared to the S197, that's pretty damn good. It's hard to lose weight if you want to add features to an outdated chassis while maintaining a low price--still 5k lower model-to-model compared to this 6G Camaro.
That being said, I'd probably be 50/50 right now on a 2SS versus my near-loaded GT if I didn't buy it back in January. I can see why it costs an extra 5k.
0
Except that it looks terrible compared to the mustang
-4
I don't think it looks terrible its a different look
One looks like a European car
While the other looks like a camaro
5
Wow. The new Camaro 2.0L Turbo is even faster than the Mustang 2.3L EcoBoost with less horsepower and less torque.
15
Here's a video of the 2.0L Turbo model being drifted. In other news, I'd like to know how I can become a "chassis control engineer."
13
. . and less weight.
7
Yeah, no kidding. It's almost a 200 pound difference.
Newly adding an independent rear suspension to the platform significantly increased its weight.
2
Imagine that 2016 turbo Camaro with a tune that makes it put out the V6 hp, 335 hp and even more torque probably! That would put in the less than 10 lbs per hp cars catagory and almost in line with the last gen SS!
9
Irs is a necessary weight gain.
7
Clearly not, look at the camaro
-3†
It's crazy to think that the Mustang was almost always considered the lighter of the pony cars, but now the Camaro has taken that claim (for now). This is why competition is good.
1
Now take that motor and put it in the Cruze.
2
A proper successor to the Cobalt SS. Or even better, put it in a Spark or Sonic with a better suspension and chassis and give the Fiesta and Focus ST a run for their money.
4
[deleted]
0
Also I heard they are going to make a wagon version of the next cruze. Put this engine in that? I'd buy it so fast.
And make it rwd. I'm so bummed they stopped making a CTS-V wagon, but this would satisfy that need.
1
I'm scared. Hold me.
13
Not too late to cancel that order
2
"It’s going to be ages before Chevrolet announces the high-performance models, but we won’t make you wait. Our little birds tell us that the Camaro is going big. Big and blown. Tired of pushing small displacements to their limits, Chevrolet decided to go with a more square bore/stroke combination and ended up with a familiar number, a big-block displacement of 396 ci. The extra inches allow for fast turbo spool-up—oh yeah, did we mention turbos? Now we have. It makes sense, with a turbo-four as a foregone conclusion for the base models, why wouldn’t they use the same tech in the top tier? With the snails and the space, the new LT6 small-block provides more torque than even the Z06 Corvette’s 650 lb-ft LT4, yet still allows for high-revving fun—as titanium rods, valves, and keepers reduce both reciprocating and valvetrain weight. We’ve heard that the LT6 uses twin Garrett GT3776 55mm inducer turbos, each good for up to 500 hp. The number we were quoted from an anonymous Pontiac, Michigan, dyno operator was 808 hp at about 8 pounds of boost. We’ve also heard from a supplier that the high-pressure, direct-injection fuel pump from the LT4 will be carried over and additional fueling at WOT comes from an extra set of injectors mounted way upstream to help cool the intake charge. Cylinder heads are the same casting as the LT4, but are CNC ported, a practice gleaned from Chevrolet Performance’s LS3 cylinder-head package for the fifth-gen Camaro."
-4
Hey, that was me. That April Fool's joke got some people.
4
Why would you do that and not have a disclaimer?!?!? Holy shit, here we are months later, and you still got me. Fuck.
2
fuck them for doing that. Seriously it's just unprofessional, not even funny.
-2
It appears that this über-Camaro will offer an automatic transmission, as Chevrolet brought in extra help from Allison Performance Research & Integration Logistics, a division that works closely with the Formula Optimization & Outright Lap Sector teams to test cars on the track and improve lap times.
1
Fuck. :/
11
If it makes you feel any better, I think your 2016 Mustang looks a lot nicer than the 2016 Camaro.
18
Absolutely. The new mustangs rear quarters are sexual and overall its much looking IMO.
5
Interior as well.
-5†
New Camaros interior looks way better than before. I would say they're pretty much equal with the mustang in terms of aesthetics but I don't know about quality.
10
Mustang quality is ehh
Not sure camaro is any better though
2
I've got a '15 GT. Can't lie, tempted to trade.
1
Damn. 20 hp more and 150 lbs less than a Mustang GT. Just felt a little twinge of buyer's remorse.
8
Hey, at least the mustang is prettier. Thats something
13
That's the only thing the mustang has going for it IMHO and that's coming from someone who wants a mustang very very badly.
8
That's a big deal through. The mustang is gorgeous, and that goes a long way, because at the end of the day it's about how a car makes you feel.
4
The Mustang doesn't have a good angle on the front, the headlights look off. The rear is quite nice though.
0
I've always thought the new headlights look more like NASCAR sticker headlights than real headlights.
1
Is it worth a $5k increase in base price though?
7
But the Mustang is cheaper, and you've gotten to enjoy it for a while already
3
It's only 20 lbs. lighter the base GT is 3705 lbs.
3
Still a pretty good advantage with how many more performance and comfort options the Camaro comes with in the standard model.
0
Your car looks much better imo. A few bolt ons could easily remedy that hp discrepancy.
3
[^(Mouseover to view the metric conversion for this comment)](#150 lbs = 68.0 kg "150 lbs = 68.0 kg Post feedback in r/ToMetric")
0
Get out you metric bastard!
4
Those 8sp auto SS numbers are amazing... Getting harder and harder for me to convince myself I will always drive a manual muscle/sports car.
7
The 6-speed does have rev match though. . .
6
I have rev match too, its called my right foot. But in all seriousness how does rev match work. Do you just downshift and instead of blipping the gas, it does it for you?
10
Yes, that's exactly it.
7
Yeah it does. The new vette has it currently, and it's pretty sweet.
5
Rev-matching my downshifts is one of the biggest joys I get out of driving a manual, though. I don't know if I would want the car to do it for me.
7
I'd feel much safer pushing a 400hp+ car to its limits with an automatic really.
I have a FWD Focus with 160 hp and if I drop the clutch too quickly by mistake with high revs, traction control needs to kick in. I'm not Lewis Hamilton, and I don't want to wrap myself around a tree. Manual is fine up to about 300-350 hp I think. Upwards of that, you can get in real trouble, real quick.
3
It is that very same tranny that has me starting to think about trying one out for a change.
2
I'd gladly give up a half second or more in the 1/4 mile to have three pedals. ..even with a heavy clutch in stop and go traffic
2
[deleted]
1
I think it sounds like a bargain for $40k-ish.
3
I think it was absolutely stupid for them to release the new mustang with the EXACT same motor as the year before it.
Why release a whole new car and keep the same motor when you know chevy is gonna make a whole new camaro and jump the HP by 25.
stupid stupid stupid ford
7
They do it so they can wait for the Camaro and then slightly edge it out the following year
17
Well, they did increase the HP of the 5.0L by 15, and though the Camaro has the performance advantage it's also somewhat more expensive. Plus, last time Ford had a major styling update to the previous gen Mustang the actual engine changes occured in the next model year so they might do something similar.
4
I think Ford did that with the last gen Mustang too. I remember really liking that body style, but the Coyote motor wasn't available yet.
3
Maybe they will put the 5.2L on the upcoming years in the GT? It seems unlike Ford to develop the engine to have only on a very limited run car like the Shelbys, they also might use some of the aluminum stuff they are using on the f150 on the mustang to shave some weight, that is the way they are planning to go from now on from what I have heard on interviews by Ford's people, with that said they might just supercharge the coyote and call it a day.
-1
Its very likely the 5.2 stays in the Shelby as Ford has never offered an SVT engine in the regular GT. Every single Shelby/Cobra motor was bespoke for the top model.
9
The 5.2 or a supercharged 5.0 are way too expensive for the GT. They will just stay NA with it and update it to be 10hp more than the camaro for 2016
3
because motors generally last longer than a single generation on cars. GM happen to move from the LS to LT family at the same time as developing the new camaro on the alpha platform.
3
Ford has done this with Mustangs since at least the fox body.
2
I think it was absolutely stupid for them to release the new mustang with the EXACT same motor as the year before it.
Except that they...didn't?
It isn't a new-generation engine by any means, like the LT1 that the Camaro is getting, but the Mustang's 5L has been heavily revised. It uses changes that were first seen in the Boss 302's 'Roadrunner' variant, including new head castings and some forged internals.
2
Remember that Ford is a much smaller company than GM. They can probably support less R&D at the same time. Also Ford is still fixed on a shitty strategy with Lincoln, so the Mustang shares nothing with anybody (or almost), compared to the Camaro/ATS/CTS which share a lot of stuff together.
1
Remember that Ford is a much smaller company than GM.
Could you elaborate on that? Not being snarky, just didn't know that was a thing.
A quick google search shows that they're pretty much on par in terms of finances and employees so I'm curious lol.
5
In the first half of 2015, Ford sold 3,264,000 vehicles.
In the first half of 2015, GM sold 4.8M vehicles.
I believe it's closer than it once was, but GM is still quite a bit bigger.
0
Definitely true, I hadn't thought of that!
0
I've got to imagine that Ford is going to update the Coyote with some of the changes they made for Voodoo, if not just entirely move the Voodoo downmarket from the GT350 to the GT for '18 or '19 MY
Still won't match the torque that the SS has, but will probably have a wider powerband.
Of course Ford could be working on an entirely new engine but I don't see how that would be cost effective for them when the current one is so good. The rumored 10spd auto will certainly help, and one positive from today's news is that comparing manual vs manual, the Chevy is only tenth quicker with all that extra HP and torque in comparision to current Coyote. That's worth noting.
0
Have you ever seen the competing history of these two brands? One always waits for the other and then releases theirs with about 10% more (or less if determining weight). Look at the new F-150, which was released one year after the new Silverado with better numbers. It's just fair competition and in pretty sure Ford will respond in the next year or so. Either way, I think the Mustang looks better anyways.
EDIT: Whoa where did these downvotes come from? It's just friendly competition that's all. Some years Camaro is better, some years Mustang is better.
-1
It's interesting that they do the tit for tat back at forth
1
Let's look at how each model compares for the Mustang and Camaro (I'm basing my numbers on the Motortrend instrumented tests, and the 2.3T Mustang is an automatic, while the GT is a manual.
| 2.3T Mustang| 2.0T Camaro| 3.6L Camaro | Mustang GT| Camaro SS ---|---|----|----|----|---- Weight (lbs)| 3658 | 3339| 3435 | 3814 | 3685 0-60| 5.6| 5.5 | 5.1 | 4.4 | 4.3 1/4 mile| 14.1 @ 98 mph| 14 @ 99 mph| 13.5 @ 103 mph| 12.8 @ 112| 12.5 @ 115 60-0 (ft)| 106 | 129 | 124 | 107| 117
All in all, it appears that the Camaro will be faster in terms of acceleration, and has the better powertrain. For the braking, either the Camaro is seriously under-equipped, or the tires are simply not up to snatch. Usually GM is pretty good at equipping its performance cars with brakes, so I put an asterisk next to that. In terms of cornering, looking at how the ATS-V and CTS-V are praised across the board, seems like it will have the complete advantage.
6
The SS did a 4.0 0-60 not 4.3
1
Yup but I wanted to put the manual since the Mustang GT was a manual.
3
So the camaro will barely edge out a Mustang in a line, but it doesn't look as good.
-5†
Impressive acceleration numbers. Braking figures on the SS are a little worrisome. 117ft to 0 from 60 MPH? IMO, this is somewhat poor for a modern muscle car.
I know they stuck with a 4-piston setup versus going 6-piston like the performance pack Mustang, they should offer some sort of track pack that will include the bigger brakes. Or maybe the tire GM is putting on these cars isn't a summer tire?
5
I'd rather wait and see actual 3rd party test results, they tend to be more standardized.
9
Recent Camaros and Corvettes have had stellar numbers in terms of braking, and the ATS/CTS (which share the Camaro's platform) have good numbers.
Either GM went full retard with the Camaro brakes, or those numbers are a serious underestimation.
2
[deleted]
1
[^(Mouseover to view the metric conversion for this comment)](#117 feet = 35.7 m "117 feet = 35.7 m Post feedback in r/ToMetric")
1
I don't think it's a tire issue since the article is claiming the SS pulls a 0.97G average on the skidpad - that's not really possible on all-seasons. The turbo 4 and V6 models might not come with summer tires though; their grip specs are significantly lower.
1
Those braking numbers sound massively underrated. I'd bet the loose change in my pocket that it brakes 60-0 in less than 110ft.
1
Man I love the '16 Camaro. Prices are higher this year otherwise I'd really consider picking one up
4
[deleted]
3
IMO just the fact that it comes with Android Auto and Apple Car is worth the price.
GM did a freaking home run on this car.
1
I'm saving up for a Corvette but now that this has come along, with those performance numbers, I'm not sure it's worth the extra money to jump up to a Corvette!
3
Ditto, I was saving for a C6 but this has the potential to be the performance bargain of this generation.
1
I can't wait to sit in one. The V8 is more car than I'd ever realistically want, but I'm definitely eyeing that 4 turbo or V6.
1
wow... the muscle cars are getting ridiculously fast. Here I was hoping to get my WRX just close enough to play with them, now it seems like it wont be that easy.
1
Everyone's talking about Camaro vs Mustang and I'm just sitting here wondering how it stands up to the Challenger.
1
The SS should handle everything but the Hellcat. But I think that's kind of what we expected.
5
May have to make a trip to a Chevy dealer then... Is the visibility still garbage?
3
Most likely yes. But oh well.
3
When the designed the car, they asked the current owners if they wanted more visibility. The majority didn't want to change the look so GM opted for more technology instead. So simply put.. Yes, it still sucks to see out of, but technology will help.
2
TBH I don't know why everybody cares so much about that. It's no harder to back up than an suv, and it's not as if you're totally blind or anything. I like me a narrow windshield, it feels like an airplane cockpit and looks better to.
-1
[deleted]
0
Good to see that the Camaro's price is justified. I was skeptical at first, but this thing looks like a serious contender.
1
Faster than a 911... nice
0†
What an awful thread. Look guys, Chevy is doing this as a response to the new Mustang, as always. GM and/or Ford will do this every once in a while especially with their trucks. I'm seeing some saying it is not worth it to buy a Mustang at all to others having "buyers remorse" just because the numbers are .1 seconds better for the new Camaro. Big deal. Ford will respond, then Chevy, then Ford again, then Chevy again as always.
EDIT: Chevy fanboys downvoting as usual.
-1
So the new SS is basically on par with the 2013 ZL1. Both go to 0-60 in 4.0 Seconds, and reach the quarter mile in 12.3 seconds. It will be interesting to hear that the new packages above SS provide.
I'm still hoping for a naturally aspirated V8 with a little more output. There's just so much to be had with a little more cam duration on the LT1.
Probably won't get that from GM... But that's whats so great about the good 'ol OHV, pushrod v8... Cam swaps are pretty much a breeze.
You don't even have to pull the intake on a Gen III, IV, or V GM V8 for a cam swap.
You mean OHV yes?
Whoops yes indeed
So y'all didn't scroll down to the part where they mention the ZL2 package and a Twin Turbo 396? Like... unholy fucker of mothers, what a time to be alive.
What are you talking about? I just read through the whole article twice and didn't see a single mention of either of the two things you talked about. Also, Chevy doesn't make a twin turbo 6.4, or any 6.4 for that matter.
It rounds to 6.5 liters, but it's in the section about the "Exclusive performance numbers on the ZL2". Apparently it was an April fools joke, and now I feel really dumb.
That was an April fools joke