SIZE
Camaro's length is 190", width is 75.5", height and wheelbase is 54.2 & 112.3" respectively.

Camaro is 7" shorter than the Challenger, and 2" longer than Mustang. Camaro is 1.6" wider than the Mustang, but is just as wide as the Challenger (75.7"). Camaro is 1" lower than Mustang (55.3") and just under 3" lower than Challenger (57"). Challenger's wheelbase is just under 4" longer, Mustang's is 5.2" shorter.



WEIGHT

Camaro's V6 base weight is 3741 with a manual. V8 manual is 3860. Automatics adds 9 pounds on the base model, 53 pounds on the V8.

Get ready for a shock.

The V6 Camaro is 118 pounds heavier than the automatic only V6 Challenger's (3623). Camaro is also exactly 400 pounds heavier than the V6 Mustang (3345).

Still sitting down?

V8 to V8, Challenger R/T is a mere 77 pounds heavier (3937) than the Camaro SS. Add an automatic and the Challenger R/T's 10 extra pounds of weight and Camaro SS's 53 extra pounds makes both cars almost a dead heat with mere 30 pound spread (3947 Challenger R/T vs. 3913 Camaro SS).

Mustang isn't even in this match with a weight of 3345 for a premium V6 manual, 3356 for a entry level GT manual. A 600 pound difference from V8 Challengers and Camaro.

All talk of Challenger being a pig is now a bit less credible since it's actually lighter than a V6 Camaro and about as identical as you can get won the V8s. Independent rear suspension, an industrial strength body, and avoiding the "cheapness" of Mustang's interior and sound deadning materials didn't do any favors.



INTERIOR ROOM

Camaro front seats measure 37.4" and 42.4" headroom legroom. In the back, the respective measurements are 35.3" & 29.9".

Mustang's is 38.6" & 42.7" up front, 34.7" & 30.3" in the rear. Challenger's is 39.5" & 42" up front, 37.4" and 32.6 out back.

Shoulder room up front: Camaro: 56.9", Mustang: 55.4, Challenger: 58.2. Out back, 42.5", 53.4", & 53.9.

Camaro has an 11.3 cubic foot trunk. Mustang's is 13.1 & Challenger's is 16.2.

Raises questions as to Camaro's packaging. Despite a long wheelbase, rear legroom and shoulderroom is worst in class.


POWERTRAIN

Camar's base V6 is a 3.6 V6 putting out 300 horsepower and 273 lbs/ft of torque. Two V8s. Autotranny gets a 400 horse, 395 torque L99 (essentially a hardly revised L98 from the G8). Manual gets you a LS3 of 422 hp and 408 torque.

Challenger's 3.5 V6 puts out 50 less horsepower and 23 less torque. Mustang's 4 liter has 210hp and 240lbs/ft.

V8s. Mustang's 4.6 has 320 both hp & torque ratings. 5.7 Challenger R/T has 380 horsepower, but matches Camaro SS' torque with 404 lbs/feet. Automatic R/Ts make due with 370 and 398, again nearly identical to the Camaro.




POWER TO WEIGHT RATIO

Horsepower to weight ratio is common, but TORQUE to weight ratio is what REALLY counts. Included below is first HP/weight then weight for each ft/lb of torque (and axle ratio w/ manual transmission).

V6:
Camaro: 12.47 hp/lbs......... 13.70 lbs
Mustang: 15.9 hp/lb........... 13.93 lbs
Challenger: 14.88 hp/lbs..... 14.49 lbs

V8 (manual):
Camaro SS: 9.14 hp/lbs........... 9.46 lbs (3.45:1)
Challenger R/T: 10.77 hp/lbs.... 10.00 lbs (3.73:1)
Mustang GT: 11.18 hp/lbs....... 10.48 lbs (3.31:1)

For comparison, a base manual stripped Z28 (the kind you almost certainly don't have ) weighs 3411 and has an actual horsepower rating of 335 (not the 310 it says in press releases), giving it a power to weight ratio of 10.18 pounds per in both torque and hp with a 3.45 axle.

6.0 GTOs have a power to weight ratio of 9.47 and 3.55 axles.

Translation:
If you have a stock LS1 F-body, you might barely edge out the occasional Mustang GT, but if you go gunning for Challenger R/Ts expecting an easy fight, you'll likely be pretty embarassed.

.....and those of you who are whining that the new Camaro is no quicker than an LS1, if the fact that the new Camaro SS runs 4.6 0-60s and 13.3 quarters hasn't sunk in yet, if you need perspective, LS1 Camaros ran 5.2 to 60 and a 13.5 quarter mile.

In short if you drive an LS1 Camaro, this new Camaro SS will simply hand you your head.


(...and yes, LS1 flyboys, LS2 GTOs are quicker than you as well... 4.8 to 60, quarter at 13.3)


http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/sp...maro&trimid=-1
http://www.leftlanenews.com/dodge-ch...specifications

 

Nice effort Guy. Again, don't be surprised if Camaro's 0-60 and 1/4 mile times improve by the time it hits the streets.

 

Excellent post. Thanks for doing what the rest of us were too lazy to do!

 

Nice comparisons. Just want to clarify something. The L99 is 6.2L and the motor in the G8 is 6.0L, but I thought it was the L76 whereas the Holden version without AFM hardware is the L98. I imagine that the L99 is an LS3, more or less, with AFM and also solid stem valves, unlike the LS3 which accounts for the difference in max RPM and a less aggressive cam which reduces the power output.

I think one thing that is a bit interesting is the quoted performance numbers that show that the L99 6 speed automatic is quicker than the LS3 manual car, as is the V6 auto compared to the manual. The fuel economy advantage and performance advantage with only a 9 lbs penalty nearly makes the manual redundant in the base car, but I am certainly glad it is available for those that prefer them.

 

Guy, I’m personally getting sick and tired of your illogical view on the performance of the LS1 f-bodies.

First, an LS1 F-body runs low 13’s and more than a few have dipped into the 12’s, especially the 01-02s. There’s been tons of proof put up on this board that you refuse to recognize. And it doesn’t “barely edge out the occasional Mustang GT.” It beats the GT, plain and simple. You can even go to any Mustang Forum and members are willing to admit this.

Second, Scott has already said (in regards to the performance numbers released for the 2010 SS)…
So there’s no point in comparing them. I’ll wait for some better numbers to come out and more importantly, see what they do on the strip. Do I think the 2010 SS will hand the LS1 its head? HELL YEAH, but not based on the numbers published by Edmunds.

And this is coming from someone who owns a lowly LT1. I’m more than willing to accept that my car was probably good for a 14.2 at best when it was new. Heck, at my elevation, miles, etc. I’d be well in the 15s.

 

I'm trying to confirm the weights you used for the 09 Challenger lineup and I keep turning up.

SE 3,720 lb
R/T 4,041 lb
SRT8 4,170 lb

Are these old numbers?

 

cool post, but isn't that weight to power ratio? I could be wrong...

3741 lbs / 300hp = 12.47lbs / 1 hp

so lower weight per HP is better.

 

I Don't think those are old numbers I have not seen anything about a V-8 challenger being under 4K.

 

I'm glad i wasn't one of those that sold my 4th in preperation for a 5th.

 

Ford says you're off by 20 hp.

http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/mus...=ford|vehicles

 

That's way off. I watched my brothers base GT scale in a 3540 and all the mag reviews I've seen of an 07+ say 3500+.

C&D says 3575 - http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ang_gt_feature

 

This is also very interesting when looking at the concept dimensions. Here you go:

Wheelbase 110.5
Length 186.2
Width 79.6
Height 53.0

This info was on this site and I printed it a while ago, but now I can't find it on the site. The article was about 4 pages in length and was out shortly after the debut of the Concept.

 

Its beyond hilarious now...

we'll all see the truth soon enough.

course with Guy, he'll let the mags do the talkin

 

First and formost TORQUE per lbs. means nothing.

At stall, the electric motors in an EV1 generate infinite torque. EV1's didn't exactly set the world on fire in the quarter mile. What matters, and always has, is power.

The other, crucial part of what is going on, and is missed in the analysis above, is the fact that the rated engine power is NOT what gets the car down the track. RWHP is a much better indicator.

Trap speed is a phenominally accurate measure of the combination of power, weight and aero that are involved with getting the car down the track.

Trap speed also tends to stay very, very consistent in a given car at a given power level- regardless of whether you nail the launch or spin.

What we have right now is an indicated trap speed from a GM source for the F5 at 108mph. If it was fudged or pedalled or bad air is one thing, but the fact of the matter remains this:

If that trap speed is accurate, then this car is NOT a large improvement over a late 4th gen in the quarter mile, and has a whole lot to worry about when faced with a dead stock M6 SS or WS6 - which were perfectly capable of trapping 108 mph, and did so on many, many occasions.

And no, the automatics WERE NOT quicker than the manuals in the F4's... more consistent, but not quicker.

Nor were the stripper Z28's the quickest of the F4's. The SS and WS6 cars were, not due to a Ram Air hood, but because of the TIRES.

If the 108 mph trap is accurate, and I honestly hope it isn't, it's coming down to the driver between the two cars.

 

I have seen the 3356 number a few places:
http://www.themustangnews.com/carnew...08dodge341.htm

It does seem odd that it's only 11 pounds more than the V6, but if Ford can get out a stripper GT at that weight, more power to them.