Why do Mustang owners have so much hate towards Camaro owners?

[scythezo6]

I have an idea:
Since this thread was started with a question, I think the moderators should go through and find the best answer among the posts and post up a quote.
Then just lock this thread

[alex33x]

Originally Posted by garagelogic

No surprise there. Torque is the name of the game in drag racing. What kind of supercharger did you run on your '07, centrifugal or roots/screw? The Maggie on the LS3 is going to make more torque and probably more of it under the curve given its cubic inches. What were the RWTQ differences between your '07 and the SS?

I think too many people get hung up on the peak horsepower numbers when looking at a dyno sheet instead of focusing on where the car is making iis power and for how long in the power band. I'd rather have a car that makes over 600rwtq from 3500-6500rpm than one that makes 750rwtq from 4500-6000rpm.

I had a vortech centrifugarl my torque was like 580rwtq its still higher than the camaro, I havent even dynoed the camaro but I think Im making around 500rwhp 480rwtq.

Who knows I wont have the car for another week, Im getting a SLP ram air hood and twin disc clutch installed. So I havent been able to dyno it. But even then I've never been so impressed with a engine output like I am with the LS3.

[REEFBLUE93]

[QUOTE=chevyss;1487923]The hate has gone on for 40 some years. I think is started when the first Z28 came out. Ford just could not keep up. That 302 was just to much for them stangs.[/QUOTE]

[Ninjak]

Originally Posted by chevyss

The hate has gone on for 40 some years. I think is started when the first Z28 came out. Ford just could not keep up. That 302 was just to much for them stangs.

Wow.....

[ULTRAZLS1]

Are you guys because the 302 was slow? or do you guys not realize that the older camaros came with a 302?

[Black GT]

Originally Posted by alex33x

Well I used to have a supercharged 07 mustang GT with a custom built engine making 638rwhp, My Camaro is running about half a second faster in the 1/4th with almost a 100hp disadvantage. And this is the stock engine at 6psi compared to running 11psi in a custom engine on my mustang.

So to me the camaro is just an amazing piece of engineering.

Well this can be interpited 2 ways
1) you suck at driving.
2)you never run the Mustang with sticky tires.

[alex33x]

Originally Posted by Black GT

Well this can be interpited 2 ways
1) you suck at driving.
2)you never run the Mustang with sticky tires.

Im still the driver in the camaro and its still about half a seconf faster in the 1/4th. So what you saying really has no point at all.

And yes I used to have BFG goodrich drag radials on the stang.

It's been shown in various publications that even with less horsepower the camaro is faster. Motortrend for one when they showed the Super Snake with 750hp the SRT8 with 700hp and the camaro which topped them with 650hp. Both in the 1/4th and in the twisties.

[Black GT]

Originally Posted by alex33x

Im still the driver in the camaro and its still about half a seconf faster in the 1/4th. So what you saying really has no point at all.

And yes I used to have BFG goodrich drag radials on the stang.

It's been shown in various publications that even with less horsepower the camaro is faster. Motortrend for one when they showed the Super Snake with 750hp the SRT8 with 700hp and the camaro which topped them with 650hp. Both in the 1/4th and in the twisties.

So your Camaro runs in the 9's with 6 lbs. boost?

[PA FAST]

I think hate coming from either group is totally foolish. I both love and respect the Camaro/Mustang. My dream garage would include a Mustang Convertible and a Camaro Coupe. Both cars have their strengths and weakness and I would be happy to own either car.

[garagelogic]

It's been shown in various publications that even with less horsepower the camaro is faster. Motortrend for one when they showed the Super Snake with 750hp the SRT8 with 700hp and the camaro which topped them with 650hp. Both in the 1/4th and in the twisties.

Hold on now, let’s go back an revisit that article. The HPE650 in that article made 612rwhp/593rwtq. The Shelby SuperSnake made 635rwhp/581rwtq. The Challenger made 454rwhp/429rwtq (wrong engine in place to support the 700hp tag. Ooops.) You cannot use the advertised numbers, 650, 750 and 700, respectively, to show that a lower horsepower rated car beat a higher horsepower rated car. It doesn’t work that way.

At the track, the HPE650 beat the Shelby by a margin of .1 seconds/1mph in the quarter mile. Considering just the torque differential between the two cars, that would seem about right given the numbers both cars were making and the tires each car was running. Not to mention all the other factors such as weight, gearing, etc. that also play into such an equation.

I agree that in a lot of cases a car making less power can beat a car making more power, but in this case, the foundation for your position is seriously flawed.

[Angrybird 12]

Off topic but it's about a ford ....

Today I saw a Ford Ranger pickup with Decepticon logos all over it.. I just started laughing....

Now back to your previous topic of discust...ion

[Ninjak]

Originally Posted by alex33x

Im still the driver in the camaro and its still about half a seconf faster in the 1/4th. So what you saying really has no point at all.

And yes I used to have BFG goodrich drag radials on the stang.

It's been shown in various publications that even with less horsepower the camaro is faster. Motortrend for one when they showed the Super Snake with 750hp the SRT8 with 700hp and the camaro which topped them with 650hp. Both in the 1/4th and in the twisties.

Was going to post this is very flawed, but Garage beat me to it. Also did you upgrade your suspension on the Mustang ? Because if you made that much power, and ran the stock suspension, yeah I see why your results were what you have.

Many people think just more power is the way to go, but fail to understand that as power goes up, so must all the other components involved get upgraded. Such as brakes, suspension, clutches, ect.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Ninjak...Did you delete your post about the 302? well I will reply anyway.

The 302 was in no way the same 302 as was in the mustang. The 302 was introduced in 67 for the camaro and in 68 for the mustang.

The mustang 302 engine was only 220hp. The z-28 302 was 290hp. They used a 283 crank in a 327 to produce a motor under 5.0 liters for the trans am racing series. It was a high revving and rather potent engine for its time for what it was. So in respect of 302 vs 302 he was correct.
It was too much for them stangs.

that is all.

[garagelogic]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Ninjak...Did you delete your post about the 302? well I will reply anyway.

The 302 was in no way the same 302 as was in the mustang. The 302 was introduced in 67 for the camaro and in 68 for the mustang.

The mustang 302 engine was only 220hp. The z-28 302 was 290hp. They used a 283 crank in a 327 to produce a motor under 5.0 liters for the trans am racing series. It was a high revving and rather potent engine for its time for what it was. So in respect of 302 vs 302 he was correct.
It was too much for them stangs.

that is all.

Actually, the 302 used by Ford in the TransAm series was the Boss 302, which made 290hp/290tq, just like its GM counterpart. I'll tell you what, though, Mark Donohue was a force to be reckoned with in 1968 driving the Camaro.