Coyote vs ls motor's

[GTSpartan]

Those are all GPS recorded times and I believe C&D used MTs test result which was from a GPS.

I'd like to wait and see, but I agree it's a bottom 13 second car with a great driver in good conditions. The mags usually underrate a car, but the ETs they listed for the Camaro are above average, (unless you're in like -2000DA conditions), and the trap speed is faster than I've ever seen at an actual track.

I was just pointing out that your mid 13 time on most real tracks wasn't entirely accurate. And no, C&D certainly would not use MT performance numbers. They are competing publications.

Most of the mags use a GPS type data logger called a VBox, which is a VERY accurate tool.

The new GT should be faster, but I highly doubt it will "kill" the SS like some here think. That aggressive gearing and little 255's could make it plenty tricky putting the power down for the average driver.

 

[ChiSVT]

I was just pointing out that your mid 13 time on most real tracks wasn't entirely accurate. And no, C&D certainly would not use MT performance numbers. They are competing publications.

Most of the mags use a GPS type data logger called a VBox, which is a VERY accurate tool.

The new GT should be faster, but I highly doubt it will "kill" the SS like some here think. That aggressive gearing and little 255's could make it plenty tricky putting the power down for the average driver.

I can't find the test where C&D actually ran the new Camaro. If you have it post it! There are only 2 videos of the red and silver car being run with GPS equipment.

If you look at the 1/4 mile list time none of them trapped 111mph, so I wouldn't call the times accurate..That's a "fastest" list I posted, meaning those are relatively good times. Take a look at how many are running 13.0s and 12s.

I agree it won't kill the Camaro, but it will be quicker by 3tenths or so IMO.

The Camaro is fairly tricky to drive as well, it has 20s and an IRS. That's why you always hear people saying things like they've never seen a Camaro run faster than 13.9s.

The GT will be difficult to drive, but like I said earlier the Mach1 did ok with 245 tires. The N/A modular powerband doesn't pound the tires like a bigger pushrod motor or like a blown GT500 or 03/04 Cobra.

 

[GTSpartan]

I can't find the test where C&D actually ran the new Camaro. If you have it post it! There are only 2 videos of the red and silver car being run with GPS equipment.

If you look at the 1/4 mile list time none of them trapped 111mph, so I wouldn't call the times accurate..That's a "fastest" list I posted, meaning those are relatively good times. Take a look at how many are running 13.0s and 12s.

I agree it won't kill the Camaro, but it will be quicker by 3tenths or so IMO.

The Camaro is fairly tricky to drive as well, it has 20s and an IRS. That's why you always hear people saying things like they've never seen a Camaro run faster than 13.9s.

The GT will be difficult to drive, but like I said earlier the Mach1 did ok with 245 tires. The N/A modular powerband doesn't pound the tires like a bigger pushrod motor or like a blown GT500 or 03/04 Cobra.

Here is a MT, GT500 vs SS = 12.9 for the SS

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C9zanLcpXY"]YouTube- Shelby GT500 Crushes Camaro SS! - Drag Race Showdown[/ame]

13.1 for the SS

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rJhgxyWVDo"]YouTube- Most Muscle? Camaro SS v Challenger SRT8 v Shelby GT500[/ame]

And the fastest stock SS is ~12.6. Definitely not typical.

 

[ChiSVT]

Here is a MT, GT500 vs SS = 12.9 for the SS

YouTube- Shelby GT500 Crushes Camaro SS! - Drag Race Showdown

13.1 for the SS

YouTube- Most Muscle? Camaro SS v Challenger SRT8 v Shelby GT500

I've seen those, none of them are from car and driver or at a real track.

And the fastest stock SS is ~12.6. Definitely not typical

I just saw that, it was in exceptional conditions and he trapped 111mph. The other 75% of the fastest times seem to be in the 13.3 range.

 

[GTSpartan]

I've seen those, none of them are from car and driver or at a real track.



I just saw that, it was in exceptional conditions and he trapped 111mph. The other 75% of the fastest times seem to be in the 13.3 range.

I don't know what to tell you:shrug: In 10 min, I found 3-4 vids from the auto mags running a SS to bottom 13's, but it somehow doesn't count???

It's basically the same scenario as the GT500. Everyone claims it's a 11 second car, yet how many people have actually done it? Most run high 12's 2 113 -115, or ~.3 -.5 seconds faster than the SS in head to head tests.

 

[ChiSVT]

I don't know what to tell you:shrug: In 10 min, I found 3-4 vids from the auto mags running a SS to bottom 13's, but it somehow doesn't count???

I'm not saying they don't count, I posted a list of the fastest Camaros you be the judge of what they will run on average on a real track.

All I'm saying is the Mustang GT isn't even out yet, C&D's "estimated" time and what a Camaro ran using GPS equipment is in no way an accurate way to compare them. I can't wait to see a heads up race between the two. :rockon:

It's basically the same scenario as the GT500. Everyone claims it's a 11 second car, yet how many people have actually done it? Most run high 12's 2 113 -115, or ~.3 -.5 seconds faster than the SS in head to head tests.

Anyone who says the GT500 is an 11 second car on average is retarded.

 

[bsmith782]

All I know is that my bolt on 11 year old Cobra (with 104k miles) took a 2010 SS Manual by a car from 20 to 80 so I think its safe to say that a 2011 Mustang will do much better.

My last name is Smith but my first isn't Evan.

 

[Formula51]

Wow guys.

There are now two documented stock 12.6 passes in Camaro's. One of those cars had a K&N filter, which you can take for what you want.

Hot Rod magazine also ran a 12.9 in the Camaro and I believe this was at a real track.

SBo3, the list you quoted is young. The car has not been out long, engines broken in, etc. LSx engines really free up after a few thousand miles.

MotorTrend and Chevy High Performance already went 12.9 and two owners have gone 12.6. I think the 12.6 passes trapped in the 110.xmph range.

If the Camaro is capable of 12.6 and many drivers are running low-mid 13's then what makes you think the Mustang GT will be any different? The Camaro is considered a pretty easy car to launch and drive do to its gearing, good weight balance (better than Mustang) and wide tires. The Camaro and Mustang have very similar power to weight ratio's and the Mustang has more aggressive gearing and skinnier tires. I don't see any reason we woulnt see a similar disparity of times from the Mustang.

What I am always interested in is what the car is capable of. That tells you the engineering, power, design, etc. behind the car.

The Cobra was capable of 12.4 stock. The Camaro has already gone 12.6 stock and it may go faster. Where will the Mustang GT fit in? How will a "Track Pack" Camaro do if it happens? Its going to be interesting to watch.

 

[bsmith782]

Thats bull shit. Modern engines are completely broken in producing maximum HP and fuel economy after 300 miles. Show me an owners manual that states otherwise.

Wow guys.

There are now two documented stock 12.6 passes in Camaro's. One of those cars had a K&N filter, which you can take for what you want.

Hot Rod magazine also ran a 12.9 in the Camaro and I believe this was at a real track.

SBo3, the list you quoted is young. The car has not been out long, engines broken in, etc. LSx engines really free up after a few thousand miles.

MotorTrend and Chevy High Performance already went 12.9 and two owners have gone 12.6. I think the 12.6 passes trapped in the 110.xmph range.

If the Camaro is capable of 12.6 and many drivers are running low-mid 13's then what makes you think the Mustang GT will be any different? The Camaro is considered a pretty easy car to launch and drive do to its gearing and wide tires. The Camaro and Mustang have very similar power to weight ratio's and the Mustang has more aggressive gearing and skinnier tires. I don't see any reason we woulnt see a similar disparity of times from the Mustang.

What I am always interested in is what the car is capable of. That tells you the engineering, power, design, etc. behind the car.

The Cobra was capable of 12.4 stock. The Camaro has already gone 12.6 stock and it may go faster. Where will the Mustang GT fit in? Its going to be interesting to watch.

 

[Formula51]

Thats bull shit. Modern engines are completely broken in producing maximum HP and fuel economy after 300 miles. Show me an owners manual that states otherwise.

I can tell you that LS engines often dyno higher after a few thousand miles and many run faster, not just quicker after a few thousands miles. This is pretty well accepted.

 

[ChiSVT]

The Cobra was capable of 12.4 stock. The Camaro has already gone 12.6 stock and it may go faster. Where will the Mustang GT fit in? How will a "Track Pack" Camaro do if it happens? Its going to be interesting to watch.

The Cobra never had a "fast list", one guy ran a 12.4@113mph right when the car was released and documented it, that's it.

I'm not going to call anyone out, but when you have a list on a forum, you just have to take their word for their times and how they accomplished them. The cars could have had sticky tires, they could have had tunes or they could have been truly stock. No one knows, it's just a list on a forum. It goes for every platform, from pullied Cobra owners who claim low 11s@125mph, to stock Z06s running 10s.

What I do know is it's a 3860lb+ car that makes 360-370rwhp, I also know that a Cobra a is 200lbs lighter with 360-390rwhp. Should they be running similar times when talking "capabilities"? Well it is the almighty LS. :banana:

 

[mebetter]

The Cobra never had a "fast list", one guy ran a 12.4@113mph right when the car was released and documented it, that's it.

I'm not going to call anyone out, but when you have a list on a forum people, you just have to take their word for their times and how they accomplished them. The cars could have had sticky tires, they could have had tunes or they could have been truly stock. No one knows, it's just a list on a forum. It goes for every platform, from pullied Cobra owners who claim low 11s@125mph, to stock Z06s running 10s.

What I do know is it's a 3860lb+ car that makes 360-370rwhp, I also know that a Cobra a is 200lbs lighter with 360-390rwhp. Should they be running similar times when talking "capabilities"? Well it is the almighty LS. :banana:

It doesn't matter suspension, rear end, transmission gearing, tires, and front to back weight. All come into play when talking about traction. You could take a stock 69 ss camaro that makes 300 rwhp and a stock 2001 ss camaro that makes 300 rwhp; they both weigh 3400 lbs and I could almost guarentee you the 01 ss camaro would win stock for stock is that just because of the mighty ls1? :idea:

Want another example please tell me the weight of GT 500's and find links of caranddriver and other similar magazines that have ran them in 1/4 mile and post up the data. Then find the weight and times of the average Nissan GTR and new Cadillac ctsv.

 

[S8ER01Z]

Wow guys.

There are now two documented stock 12.6 passes in Camaro's. One of those cars had a K&N filter, which you can take for what you want.

Hot Rod magazine also ran a 12.9 in the Camaro and I believe this was at a real track.

SBo3, the list you quoted is young. The car has not been out long, engines broken in, etc. LSx engines really free up after a few thousand miles.

MotorTrend and Chevy High Performance already went 12.9 and two owners have gone 12.6. I think the 12.6 passes trapped in the 110.xmph range.

If the Camaro is capable of 12.6 and many drivers are running low-mid 13's then what makes you think the Mustang GT will be any different? The Camaro is considered a pretty easy car to launch and drive do to its gearing, good weight balance (better than Mustang) and wide tires. The Camaro and Mustang have very similar power to weight ratio's and the Mustang has more aggressive gearing and skinnier tires. I don't see any reason we woulnt see a similar disparity of times from the Mustang.

What I am always interested in is what the car is capable of. That tells you the engineering, power, design, etc. behind the car.

The Cobra was capable of 12.4 stock. The Camaro has already gone 12.6 stock and it may go faster. Where will the Mustang GT fit in? How will a "Track Pack" Camaro do if it happens? Its going to be interesting to watch.

Some quick comments (educated ones unlike some you might find regarding the 2010 records)...

2 owners claiming 12.6 @ 110+ mph....
1. 2quick - 12.61 @ 111.60 mph, (LS3, M6)
2. nhra stocker - 12.62 @ 110.30, (LS3, M6)


2quick just recently posted his time and to be honest it all adds up.
-1615 DA
1.9 60ft
12.61 @ 111.60mph

nhra stocker has some 'mystery' surrounding his results.....
+1395 DA and proclaimed 10mph headwind.
1.9 60ft
12.68 @ 110.57mph

I know for some reason people keep thinking the stock 2010 SS is going 12.4 but I just can't see this happening. If you go by the guy who ran in less than ideal conditions and admits to some very minor changes (k&n, royal purple fluids) it would seem like they all should EASILY run 12.4 stock but if you look at the guy who ran in what most would consider 'once in a lifetime' conditions it would seem like even a 12.5 might be a stretch.

When you consider that only 5 people have managed 12s period in stock form I just can't see the 'terminator' comparisons that keep getting made. We will wait and see how the 2011 GT does but I wouldn't be suprised to see it pulling very similar numbers. If it does manage to match the old terminator numbers be prepared for many butthurt Camaro owners crying foul and hurling insults because it's going to get ugly really quick. haha

 

[ChiSVT]

It doesn't matter suspension, rear end, transmission gearing, tires, and front to back weight. All come into play when talking about traction. You could take a stock 69 ss camaro that makes 300 rwhp and a stock 2001 ss camaro that makes 300 rwhp; they both weigh 3400 lbs and I could almost guarentee you the 01 ss camaro would win stock for stock is that just because of the mighty ls1? :idea:

They all matter, I agree. As well as a lot of other important factors. Like 17inch wheels / tires vs 20inch wheels / tires, N/A powerband vs blown powerband, drivers, track conditions, aerodynamics, etc.

A car that runs 13.3 with a great driver over 75% of the time says a lot to how far you can stretch it's "capabilities". A car that traps 107mph on average to 111mph at it's absolute best in negative 1650DA conditions, again, says a lot about what it's capable of. A car with a certain power to weight ratio is only capable of so much, yes you can drive the piss out of it 60 times and get that one great timeslip in phenomenal conditions, but what does that really say? Does that mean it's on the same level as a lighter more powerful car that's consistently faster?

Want another example please tell me the weight of GT 500's and find links of caranddriver and other similar magazines that have ran them in 1/4 mile and post up the data. Then find the weight and times of the average Nissan GTR and new Cadillac ctsv.

The GT500 is a difficult car to pilot, I agree, it's gone anywhere from 11s@120mph to high 12s. A lot of the times are very unimpressive, it's got a hard hitting powerband and not enough tire. The majority of drivers won't get close to what it's capable of with the stock tires.

If you're comparing them to AUTOMATIC CTS-Vs, yes the CTS-V is consistently faster. Why? Because all you do is put your foot on the gas and go, hence why a magazine writer can run a time as fast as the car is capable of going. Now put him behind the wheel of a 6spd CTS-V and guess what? Not only is the fastest CTS-V automatic, the times for the 6spd ones are all over the map, from 12.4s to 13.3s.

The GT-R of course is AWD and has a sequential, no need to go into that.

 

[HEMI LOL]

First of all, the only Ford Modular engine that could ever hold a candle to an LSx engine was the 03-04 Terminator Cobra engine.....

Here are the reasons why an LS motor is superior to a standard Modular:

-LSx motors can reliably take 700+rwhp on the stock bottom end, 450 is pushing it on a Mod.

-LSx motors are SIMPLE to work on...a cam costs $300-$400, 4 Cams for a DOHC Ford cost nearly $1600 + Installation is 4x more work because the entire engine must come out.

-LSx motor still have a significant displacement advantage over even a 5.0 Modular.

-LSx blocks have been reliably taken to 1000+rwhp and nobody has found the limit of the cranks yet. The only Ford comparables to this are the Cobra Cranks and Teksid blocks.

-LSx is more reliable due to less moving parts. OHC & DOHC is just more shit to break and work on.

This is coming from a die hard Ford fan for 10 years. Ive owned and personally worked on 3 Cobras (all making 500rwhp+ via boost). I just bought my first Corvette last month and I will NEVER look back, unless Ford brings back the pushrod 5.0s in an aluminum version.

My vette makes just as much power as my cobra's did...WITHOUT USING BOOST, and its faster (but thats not a fair comparison).

While, the Coyote is a step up, its still got crap internals and an over-engineered valvetrain. It will not hang with an LS without boost or nitrous...as usual

-Geoff

bingo. im actually a long time bowtie guy, but im not so lost in fanboism that i cant realize where respect it due. the terminator cobras are flat out badass cars, and like mentioned the only mod motors that really compete with the LSx series. im sure the new motor will be a fine plant but i think that ford really needs to just use the terminator motor again. refresh it, newer blower, minor changes and it could be a reliable 500hp+ car.

its all fun and games, we can just be thankful we dont have moparsoke:...ah well back to terminator shopping. :coolman:

 

[Formula51]

The Cobra never had a "fast list", one guy ran a 12.4@113mph right when the car was released and documented it, that's it.

I'm not going to call anyone out, but when you have a list on a forum, you just have to take their word for their times and how they accomplished them.

For those lists and all the others I have ever seen on Corvette and Mustang forums, the owners have to post a scan of an actual timesheet. It is VERY easy to see if someone is running sicky tires or making significantly more power than others.

A car that runs 13.3 with a great driver over 75% of the time says a lot to how far you can stretch it's "capabilities".

First, you don't know those drivers. You don't know if they are great, average or bad drivers, how much track time they have, etc. Second, there is not a very large sample of times yet as the car has only been out a short time and new owners of a $30k+ car do not all rush out to the dragstrip.

A car with a certain power to weight ratio is only capable of so much,

True, but the Camaro has better weight balance and tires than other competitors, which gives it some advantage over them. Unfortunately, it is also heavy which negates some of that advantage. However, the Camaro is far from running what a car with its power-to-weight ratio is capable of. This is primarily due to gearing and of course traction.

With better gearing, similar aerodynamics and similar power, but worse tires and weight balance, we will see if the Mustang (very similar power-to-weight ratio as Camaro) can run closer to what a car of its power-to-weight ratio is ultimately capable of.

I'm hoping it does run faster and that GM responds with a Track Pack for the Camaro (ideally lower rear gears, something like 275/295 tires, and stiffer/better balanced sway bars, revised shock damping). That should then push the Mustang to finally offer some wider tires on its Track Pack and that will be awesome.

 

[S8ER01Z]

However, the Camaro is far from running what a car with its power-to-weight ratio is capable of. This is primarily due to gearing and of course traction.

What exactly do you think the Camaro is capable of?

 

[bsmith782]

Only on LSx forums and in the mind of Chevy nutswingers, not the real world.

I can tell you that LS engines often dyno higher after a few thousand miles and many run faster, not just quicker after a few thousands miles. This is pretty well accepted.

 

[S8ER01Z]

Only on LSx forums and in the mind of Chevy nutswingers, not the real world.

Oh come on... in a another year I know several guys who are claiming they are going to be running half a second quicker than they are now. :rolling::lol:

 

[bsmith782]

Yeah mine ran 13.0 when new... now its 6 yeas old with 80k on the clock and runs 10's!

Oh come on... in a another year I know several guys who are claiming they are going to be running half a second quicker than they are now. :rolling::lol: