The Rivals

For all of you out there who put "pi$s on ford" decals on the back of your camaro's (and vise-versa), here are a few spec's that might help you (keep your pride).

I believe these specs are from 98 models.

Camaro 3.8 - 200HP @ 5200RPM
Mustang 3.8 - 150 @ 4000RPM

Camaro 3.8 - 0-60 5.9
Mustang 3.8 - 0-60 6.3

Z28 5.7 - 305 @ 5200RPM
GT 4.6 - 225 @ 4750RPM

Z28 5.7 - 0-60 5.7
GT 4.6 - 0-60 5.9

SS 5.7 - 310 @ 5500RPM
Cobra 4.6 - 305 @ 5800RPM

SS 5.7 - 0-60 5.1
Cobra 4.6 - 0-60 5.9

SS 1/4 mile - 13.4 @ 107.3MPH
Cobra 1/4 mile - 13.99 @ 101.6MPH

I also have the torque, breaking, and top speed if anyone is interested.
I know that the 99(i believe) -02 SS has 320 HP stock though. Also, other specs say that the (2002) SS runs 5.3-5.5's and 13.7's. I got these specs from doing research for the camaro and mustang. I hope this doesn't start a big arguement, some of this could be incorrect.

some of this could be incorrect.
Boy is that ever true.

How is the V8 Camaro only faster 0-60 over the V6 Camaro by .2 seconds?? :lol:

A lot of those numbers aren't right. LS1 cars 0-60 are right around 5 seconds. I can't see the V6 getting to 60 until about 7 seconds.

Yeah I'd have to agree, I don't think much of that is correct. Where did you get those numbers???

mines does....lol without spraying out the hole too!

Talking about unmodded here, Philly :slap:

well damn nobody said that....(pouts in corner)

so many things worng im nto even gonna bother

Well atleast it has the camaro beating the mustang in all.

well we can at least beat them all the time

I'm pretty sure that the Ls1 Z28's are putting out more than 320 at the crank bone stock. My 99Z put 283 to the rear wheels bone stock. If you figure about a 20% drivetrain loss with an A4, that puts it right at 340ish. I generally get about 13.75 at 102.8 in the 1/4 (On street tires with a horribile 2.02 60') I run regularly with stock SS Camaros and WS6 TA's and can beat them depending on the driver. I have found that similar year Camaros and Mustangs are egnerally close enough in times at the track that it depends on the driver (Stock cars only, and forget about the first couple of years of the sn94 chassis 'stang GT)

ooops, please excuse the typo's. Bud light and keyboards just don't seem to mix!
:-)

Well not really, automatic transmissions take about 20 HP not 40, so you DO have 300 HP if it were a manual and that's the announced HP that GM says anyway. SS has 320 only because of the SLP stuff, btw you got to keep in mind that all engines are different in HP ratings, so you may have a little more or less..

There is really no difference in hp to the wheels whether it is an auto or a manual, they both suck up a bit of hp because rwd is more innefficient than fwd, but the fact that it's an auto or manual doesn't matter except that with a manual you decide when it goes to a new gear instead of the computer. That is why manuals are better not because they take more HP...

So explain this is fwd better than rwd because the fact that the power doesnt have to go all the way from the engine through the driveshaft and all? Or what else..?

I didn't say fwd was better, I said it was more efficient. fwd cars only have to have gears to drive the two small driveshafts the engine is already spinning on the same axis so there is not a need to change the direction of the power. Whereas a rwd car the engine is spinning along a different axis so the transmission has the gears and they turn the big heavy driveshaft (if it's steel it's heavy, aluminum is considerably lighter) which is still turing the wrong way so the gears in the diff. have to change the direction of the power which means more gears and more parts to move which robs power... simple physics.

so many things worng im nto even gonna botherSame could be said about what is written above :screwy:

okokok...

why is it that HP, Torque and all that other BS is not posted at the same RPMS???? If your saying one is 150HP at 4000 RPMS and the other is 200HP at 5000 RPMS I'm getting no usable information from the statement.

you are if thay're measuring peak HP, it's not like every engine makes its peak hp and tq at the same spot

oh to RS and CRS, 1) autos have about 20% drivetrain loss whereas manuals have about 15%, it goes by percent not aflat amount of HP

2) there's a reasonb that FWD engines are mounted one way and RWD are mounted the other... in FWD the powers going in one direction until the wheels, in RWD it's going in one direction till the axles... although now that i think about it it never changes direction...

you are if thay're measuring peak HP, it's not like every engine makes its peak hp and tq at the same spot


See... now you made me go and learn something. Soooo.. Those numbers are the MAX torque / hp output and the engine's rpm level to attain them. Right???

See... now you made me go and learn something. Soooo.. Those numbers are the MAX torque / hp output and the engine's rpm level to attain them. Right???

Correct, so when you say your 454 produces around 500 HP at 6,500 RPM.. it IS pushing 500 HP at that RPM level. BUT until then it's only pushing about half of that until it builds up in the RPM range.

just proof that the mustang sucks the big one