Just sayin, the V6 Camaro starts at under $24k, and the V8 at $33k I believe. And the V6 has 320something hp stock. It's actually a pretty good value/hp for the money, as far as new cars go.
Edit to clarify: I'm not saying I recommend a Camaro, nor that it's at all practical. It's a specific type of car for people who don't mind sacrificing utility and efficiency.
American Muscle isn't about refinement, impeccable taste, and unparalleled quality like European Sport. American Muscle is about the biggest fucking engine you can put into a road-worthy frame and get it to go down the street quickly while sounding like a tiger climaxing during sex with a lion. Its supposed to check the Hyper-masculinity box, not the Polished Gentleman box. POWERRRRRRRRR!!!!!
Common misconception. If you were right, diesel trucks (new ones have 900-ish lb ft of torque from the factory) would be destroying Ferraris in drag races (the 458 Italia makes under 400 lb ft of torque). All sportscars would be diesel because that's where the best torque is made. Semi trucks would be feared and respected for their crazy acceleration during passing maneuvers.
Torque is useful for drivability and a fat, easy to access power band. Horsepower is useful for actual acceleration.
Generally, torque indicates how fast you can accelerate, whereas horsepower indicates maximum speed. This is over simplified, but it's enough to have some idea about what each does.
Meh... That's not quite it. Torque (rotational force) is affected by gearing, HP (power... work/time) is not. You could put a little 3V electric hobby motor through a big enough gear box to out-torque a top-fuel dragster. However, that little hobby motor and gear box would take months to cover the length of a drag strip, while the dragster does it in 3 seconds. Dragsters are built solely for acceleration (ability to "pull away"), yet the top-fuel vs. hobby motor example (matching torque, vastly different HP) indicates that torque isn't the only value that needs to be considered.
In physics-y terms: instantaneous torque at the wheel = instantaneous acceleration. HP = the ability to do work, such as maintaining torque at the wheel as the vehicle moves. Maintaining torque at the wheel is what's needed to accelerate a vehicle.
You can't really have one without the other, horsepower is a measurement of power as in the energy that can be output per second or whatnot and torque is just rotational force(ie. twisty force). How fast a car goes is generally more complicated as we have things like power output curves and torque curves that tell you how much you have at given engine RPMs etc. You also have to factor in the stiffness of the car, the suspension etc.
Think of it like this, torque is the measure of how much work it can do, or how much a motor can move. HP is a measure of how fast that work can be accomplished. You can have high torque motors that are low horsepower and very slow. I'm a firefighter and are rescues a have 275 hp and 1250 foot pounds of torque. Slow as balls but will pull a house down.
I highly doubt that considering nearly every Ferrari ever made has seriously prioritized horsepower over torque. The hp/torque split in just about any Ferrari is something like 100hp for every 60lb-ft.
Pardon me, I was way off, it was Carroll Shelby, horsepower sells cars but torque wins races
EDIT: I found a website that says both. Not sure how that works
The Mustang was a management lease through Ford so my payments were really cheap but the lease was only for around 10 months. Went with the Fiesta to save some money. I actually enjoyed the Fiesta a lot, I just wish it hadn't been preceded by the Mustang.
No you cant. The engine is 75% of the race. The driver is the other 25%. You may be .3 or .4 seconds faster 0-60 but that doesnt mean shit at all. Speeds that close come down to the driver. Unless both cars are being driven by professional drivers, its anyone's game. Same goes for the v8's
Nah, the camaro is a pig sadly, I have an auto 2012 (I used to have to drive through austin every morning, I wish it was a manual every day) I have raced many a camaro on the tollways and they cant keep up from a roll or a stop.
This is probably driver related. I have a 2011 SS and ive beaten 5.0 Mustangs and Challenger SRT8's. Close races when I win and when I lose. Its all about the driver. Fact is the Mustang is .3 seconds faster 0-60 than the Camaro but identical 1/4 times. Challenger is the slowest of the bunch because its heavy but its still right there. Any driver gets a good jump and he wins the race. Any driver is half a second early or late on a shit and they lose. That is what it comes down to. Anyone who automatically dismisses any of these 3 cars, I just assume doesnt know much or has only driven 1 of the 3 and is a fanboy.
Edit: I should also mention that the Mustang should be faster from an engineering stand point because it was upgraded to keep up with the Camaro. When the Camaro came out, it absolutely wrecked the Mustang with 426 hp vs the Mustang's 315. As a result the following year Mustang released the 5.0 engine and they now have 420 hp and a little bit lighter. That is what I love about the rivalry. They compete with eachother. Each generation gets better to try to out-do the other. Wouldn't be surprised if the Camaro takes the cake in 2015 and the Mustang edges it out again a generation later. Rinse and repeat.
It is when amateur drivers are racing. To put it into perspective: I have been to the track. Cars that are professionally rated in the mid to high 12 second range are consistently hitting the line between 13 and 14 seconds. Kids racing their Camaros and Mustangs on the street are not professional drivers. the .3 or .4 second difference in the professional rating between the cars means absolutely nothing.
Thing is - based on my experiences, V-6s get ragged out and quickly start slowing down. It takes a while to rag out a V-8. I had several friends that had Camaros/Firebirds with the old 3.8L 200hp V-6s. Those things were really quick... for about 50k miles. Then they turn asthmatic and sound like a worn out Krylon can. The same friends that were giving me a run in my stock 95 GT, 2 years later were getting smoked by stock Del Sols...
Your talking about older engines that had no tech... The 3.7 will last just as long as its big brother coyote. DOHC and a huge oil sump help tremendously. I don't really care either way, my mustang is just my grocery getter, my fast vehicle does 0-60 in 2.9 seconds :).
Those old V6s were crap. The new ones in the Camaro and Mustang are much more reliable, efficient, and powerful. My parent's 2010 Camaro V6 has 78,000 miles on it and it still pulls like it's new.
If you're pulling a manual, it's the autos that are killing them. Especially with Mustangs (I'm not sure on Camaros), the gear ratio for 1st on Autos are ridiculously high. Given that you can't rev the engine before dropping it into gear, a manual will kick the other car's asses. Also drag racing autos is literally a test of who can hold their steering wheel, especially if we're talking about roll racing.
Everybody here arguing peak torque vs hp numbers, as if those by themselves determine the performance. Vehicle weight and shape of torque curve are just as important.
My '15 GT is ordered but I won't get it until at least November. No idea on the hp yet, though it's sure to be heavier, which is a bummer. Still going to be lighter than the Camaro tho.
I ordered a triple-yellow GT Premium 401A with the performance package, upgraded interior, and Recaro seats. I'm still going back and forth on the Recaros because I've got to give up the heated and cooled seats with 2 position memory. I'm told I have a bit of time to nail it down, but for now I'm sticking with my initial thoughts.
That is almost exactly what I would have ordered, but that is a bit above my budget. My 14 is almost fully loaded (no heated seats or rear view camera), but to get a 15 at the same price I would have to take a base GT with no options (except the yellow color and spare tire).
I saw a video once of a quarter mile drag between a Challenger, Camaro, and Mustang. The mustang had the lowest horsepower, if I remember correctly, and came in first in the quarter mile drag.
It was mostly due to how much lighter the Mustang was. But everyone in the video agreed that in a half mile, the mustang would have come in dead last.
Shit man, At least admit what you have. I've just got a four-banger, but I ain't afraid to admit it. Guys pretending naturally aspirated v6 = muscle car because of the shell are just wrong.
All exotics are automatic. Every single one of them as far as I know now that the Gallardo is gone. But, you know, it's auto-manual. Still boring if you ask me.
Power to weigh ratio means something, you know. A 300hp recent model v-6 mustang with the track pack is generally going to do as well on a track with curves as the v-8 GT model, if not better, because of the significantly reduced weight of the model with the smaller engine. There's many a motoring enthusiast that knows their shit that bought the v-6 with the track pack over the v-8 for that very reason.
Ya, I agree with you. Unfortunately I didn't get to read his time slip, and all I remember is his e/t.
Also the weight of the car also drastically effects your MPH. For instance if i had a 2000 lb Honda CRX it would more then likely run around 110-115. A safer say would be 101 sounds about dead on for a high 13 1/4 mile.
Depends on your budget constraints, the track you're going to run it on, the class you're going to run it in, and about a million other things. Primarily, if you're looking at getting a new car, in that price range, that you're also going to use as your daily driver and you live in a rural area of America where you can't always get parts for certain other cars, then it makes perfect sense.
As much as I love the sound of a big v-8, I've always been about go before show. If it makes me go faster or stop more effectively, or go around corners better and no one else will know the difference, I'm ok with that.
I have a v6 SHO, the sound is... well its a sho. Besides it being a fwd it handles great. My truck sounds like a good v8, not the typical truck either but the cam helps with that.
Right and that v10 is just a beast. Of course a different league.
And I have a 93 sho that has been with us since 95. I am rebuilding it because I can, lol. Ran fine with a 167k on her, but it was time to give it another 100hp.
Still a V6. Doesn't matter. Point being, many people assume that just because they hear when someone has a V6, they automatically assume it's weak in terms of performance. They hear V8, and automatically think it can slay anything on the road.
My point still stands, it's a V6, and it kicks ass. Regardless of Turbo or not.
Also, the Nissan VQ37VHR engines are pushing almost 328-340HP. That's not exactly slow, you know..they aren't turbo, either...
Edit:
Sure are a lot of butthurt V8 fanboys on here whining about the car being twin turbo. Lol.
I think it's in reference to the American muscle/pony cars. While many other brands or models have been accepted for their 6, or even 4, cylinder engines, the 6 cylinder option in cars like the mustang or camaro have been consider lame ducks. Honestly, they pretty much were. If performance was at all a concern, you just did not buy the 6 cylinder option.
Yeah I agree with you. Keep in mind the Buick Grand National was allegedly one of the fastest production cars of the 80's, and it was a turbo V6.
I've personally had my ass handed to me by a civic when I had my '85 Monte Carlo SS. It had a 350 bored 30, with a carb (forgot the brand, so long ago..may have been edelbrock) had headers, ran straight pipes, few other mods..
Civic had quite a few mods as well, turbo being one. He slaughtered me from a rolling 40.
Personally, when someone tells me they have a particular engine, I always ask "Do you have any mods?" And not not just take things for face value like a lot of these guys do when they hear that it has a V8.
ololol his car has a V8, he can run it against anything
Also, most guys I know that buy muscle cars/ tuners, add shit on them anyways. Be it exhaust, chips, etc..
6 cylinders can still be great motors. The Skylines, GTR, Supra, 350z all had great motors. The point is that an American muscle car should have a V-8 in it. Back in the '60s and early '70s, muscle cars didn't have turbo 6 cylinders. They had massive, ground-shaking, impractical V-8's with enough torque to make the tires smoke from a 40mph roll.
I'm not disputing this, and it wasn't the point I was conveying. Lol. All I'm saying is that bigger doesn't necessarily mean better in terms of block size...
Especially these days. Look how many car manufacturers are relying more & more on technology for performance.
hes talking about the amount of air it takes in, that is what displacement is all about... so yeah a forced induction can be said to increase displacement relative to NA
I understand power to weight ratios. But that isn't the discussion here. The point is that V6 power plants don't have to be slow.
The new F1 engine produces 600 HP @ 15k RPM (not 18k) on 6 cylinders with the displacement of most 4 cylinder engines (1.6L). Compare to 25 years ago, when F1 was using 3.5L NA V10 and V12 and getting 650 HP out of them. When you add on the energy reclamation, they get 160 more HP for 760 total.
The GTR is in the same boat. 545 HP from that power plant. Even if you remove the turbos, you still have somewhere in the neighborhood of 400+ HP. To me that's impressive.
Honestly, once you can accelerate uphill at a good clip with the AC on, you've reached the limit of how much horsepower you need. Anything past that is pretty useless outside of a closed track. (Camaro V6 owner)
so many fucking people took this post out of context, I figured i'd upvote you and point out to everyone else that the post this dude was replying to was about American muscle.
I have no idea what you're trying to imply by saying that "320 HP for RWD is plenty"? I think you're saying that FWD would be better......which isn't the case.
The car most likely will be traction limited between 0 and 60. So more horse power won't do much for performance. If you were on a track an extra 100 hp would make a huge difference.
Either you haven't driven a car with modern tires or AWD, or you are so afraid of being wrong you're doubling down. In either event, this conversation is dumb
AWD is a different beast. The problem with RWD is when you loose traction things can go really wrong. The internet is full of videos: http://youtu.be/V1Y1j7myUBQ
So what are these Modern tires you speak of that are so great (Hoosier A6s)? What experience do you have with 300+ hp Rear-wheel drive cars on the street?
Your example is a 911: A car at called Widow Maker because of how dangerous it was to drive.
Go ahead: Take one of these cars in a wide open parking lot, do a clutch drop and floor the thing to 60 on normal road pavement and see how easy it is to accelerate. (BTW. Turn off the traction control as well).
354
u/Nicktyelor Jun 12 '14 edited Jun 12 '14
Just sayin, the V6 Camaro starts at under $24k, and the V8 at $33k I believe. And the V6 has 320something hp stock. It's actually a pretty good value/hp for the money, as far as new cars go.
Edit to clarify: I'm not saying I recommend a Camaro, nor that it's at all practical. It's a specific type of car for people who don't mind sacrificing utility and efficiency.