Camaro: full blown sports car with modern aesthetics, high price tag, and huge emphasis track performance
Challenger: muscle yacht with classic design shaped after the original, for highway cruising and burnouts but not much else
Mustang: reasonably affordable pony car that mixes modern aesthetics and heritage, with decent but unexceptionable performance
They're pretty far apart at this point
G T R
T
R
>>15433984
Fuck off with your GTR Corvette lame shit.
And yeah OP>>15433972. These 3 have become so much different from each other. The choice is yours.
>>15433972
I agree they're no longer the "three flavors of the same food," bit, but the Camaro isn't expensive. You can get a new 16 SS for just over 30 and probably less than that if you wait until august or try and wiggle your way into incentives.
>>15433972
Im really disappointed that the mustang cannot compete with the camaro this gen. Although the more aggressive gearing in the stang beats the camaro up till 100 from a dig. From a roll it goes to the camaro.
I'm no GM fan but the camaro overall is the better performer stock vs stock, too bad about the price though. holy shit.
I would rather buy the stang and super charge it with the difference.
>>15434020
https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/inventorylisting/viewDetailsFilterViewInventoryListing.action?sourceContext=RecentSearches_false_0&newSearchFromOverviewPage=true&inventorySearchWidgetType=AUTO&entitySelectingHelper.selectedEntity=c24991&entitySelectingHelper.selectedEntity2=c24991&zip=49684&distance=50000&searchChanged=true&promotionsOnly=true&trimNames=1SS&modelChanged=false&filtersModified=true#listing=144271290
What price?
>>15433984
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqkyWhVBSKU
>>15434150
>not a nismo
lol
>>15433972
The challenger definitely has the old muscle car look, but it weighs what, 4200 pounds or so? How do you even make a 2 door weigh that much? My stang is 1000 pounds lighter and has an iron block.
I reckon it doesn't really compete when it comes to the track, at least a circuit course. So between the mustang and camaro you have the camaro finally getting lightened up, while the stang got IRS.
Camaro is rated 460, and the coyote is roughly 430 now. With headers, intake, exhaust, possibly an intake manifold and t/b, the massive dohc 5.0 (By massive, you'd know what I mean if you've ever seen dohc ford v8 heads) can do upwards of 420 wheel horsepower. When you consider an 18% drivetrain loss, that is pretty impressive. They actually make normal gains from cams too, believe I saw a 40whp dyno gain.
The new LT1 (is this the third LT1 they've made) seems to put about 400whp bone stock. That's impressive for sure, and really compounds with the new weight, which I think is from an aluminum chassis. With boltons it should make the same or more than a modded 5.0
Mustangs, however, are still not on an aluminum chassis. That is what most are expecting for the next gen, so we'll see. As far as handling goes, both have a huge after market for shocks w/ coilovers, springs, sways, control arms, k members, chassis bracing, and wide wheels. After watching general motortrend or general motorweek, you might think the camaro would handle better. I honestly think it'd come down to tire width and compound, and then the driver.
The new SS is expensive, seen one at the dealership for close to 50 grand. The gts start at 34k msrp, PP nice one is like 38k. You might get a 10% lower price too if they have the car listed on the internet for cheap to drag people in.
Back to comparing the 2, I'm sure the SS would make huge gains from a cam, which costs like ~100. Meanwhile, replacing the 4 cams of the 5.0 can cost over 1200$. I'd rather have the DOHC myself for FI...continued
>>15434564
...
Especially if I wanted to go forged crank, rods, and low cr pistons. The fastest LS trap speed in the 1/4 is like 200mph. Theres a stock bore stroke 4.6 and stock stroke 5.0 doing well over 240 and breaking 6.0s. I know that is extreme, and far from the typical DD turbo/SC car. But really, for me it comes down to that.
I have a v8 with 8.5:1 aftermarket pistons, 4340 H beams and legendary crank/block. I also know a couple others around here running similar combos. We're all around 20 PSI with twin screws as well. My car took the shitty stock pistons at 21 PSI on pump 93 for 134k miles. Now it should handle 800whp, possibly a hell of a lot more with turbo.
Plenty of LSx, LS1, LS2/3 motors and such with cams, sometimes heads and even pistons, doing 400-450whp. Then they get sprayed and do 600 or more. I guess my point is just that LS pushrods are simple to work on and mod, and reliable, great for realistic N/A builds.
But some of us want more and desire boost. I just like having heads that make power with boost much more efficiently
>>15434166
>excuses
>>15434608
Lastly, I feel as though it is important to mention the strain a S/C puts on a motor, and how turning it while it compresses air saps power as well.
For instance, to be quick and accurate here, a good new SC, Say a 2.9 whipple, 2.8kb or 3.6, and the surprising 2.3 TVS pack can do about 600 or so on pump 93, maybe more. A lot more with e85, BUT...A Turbo at the same limit of 93, say just 17 PSI~, does about 750whp. That's over 900 horse at the motor. And my car took that same strain to 134k miles cause everyone is well aware of the shitty stock coated pistons.
TL:DR, Fuck the coveted supra, bitches throw stock rods with a turbo at 400whp. The GT500 had flawed rods as well, lightening 5.4s had powederd rods, gt500s didn't have 4340 and way too much stroke and throw a rod at 6500 rpm. End of rant
>>15434608
Oh, and i meant stock stroke 5.4, not 5.0. The gt500 mod motor
>>15433972
"huge emphasis track performance"
>>15434655
It can have a huge emphasis on it and still be bad at it.
Like ricers.
>>15434655
I think relatively is the point here.
>>15434655
That's an incomplete mule for a trim level that's not even available yet.
>>15434655
I really don't understand where the fuel of hatred comes from these autistic posters
Is that how you converse in real life? Jesus Christ.
>>15434020
>straight line performance
OH
You're stupid then
