95 v6 Camaro vs. 95 v6 Mustang: who wins?
Octane
Ron Eramya wrote:
>
> Who would win between a 95 Camaro with the 3.4 liter V6 (160hp) vs. the 95
> Mustang with the 3.8 liter V6 (145hp)? I have a bet on this one so an help
> would be appreciated.
I couldn't find any comparisons in my back issues of various car mags,
but I remember seeing a comparison on Motor Trend Television once. I
only recall the 0-60 numbers, the were pretty close - both in mid to
high 9 sec. range with the Camaro slightly quicker 0-60. The 3.8L V6
however produces performance numbers dangerously close to those of the
Mustang GT.
--
Octane - 1994 25th Anniversary T/A
Edelbrock Headers / Flowmaster Exhaust
Ram Air Kit with K&N Filter
160 Degree Thermostat
Ron Eramya
Rexven
Octane <luin...@mach1.wlu.ca> thought they knew what they meant when they
stated...
> I couldn't find any comparisons in my back issues of various car mags,
>but I remember seeing a comparison on Motor Trend Television once. I
>only recall the 0-60 numbers, the were pretty close - both in mid to
>high 9 sec. range with the Camaro slightly quicker 0-60. The 3.8L V6
>however produces performance numbers dangerously close to those of the
>Mustang GT.
Horsepower to horsepower, the Camaro V6 should be pitted against the Mustang GT
(200 vs. 215) but the GT makes more torque (225 vs 285). (measurements taken
against the 5.0 mustang. 4.6 unavailable). The weight and torque throw the
favor to the mustang, the handling and balance favor back toward the Camaro. If
the Camaro has a the (rare) 5-speed, it would be a pretty good match-up against
the GT. If the Camaro takes on the Base Mustang 3.8liter (145hp, 215 torque)
the ballgame shifts dramatically.
Specs taken from the aft section of motor trend:
Mustang GT 215hp, 285lbft, 0-60: 6.7 (stick)
Mustang 145hp, 215lbft, 9.9 (stick)
Camaro 3.8 200hp, 225lbft, 7.4 (auto)
Camaro Z28 285hp, 325lbft, 5.7 (not sure)
Hope that sheds some light??
"By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation."
Tim
> Who would win between a 95 Camaro with the 3.4 liter V6 (160hp) vs. the > 95 Mustang with the 3.8 liter V6 (145hp)? I have a bet on this one so > an help would be appreciated.
Well in looks, the Camaro wins :)
But, really it would depend on the transmission and the driver. I would
give the nod to the Camaro.
Tim
Gerald Yen-Wei Chen
Ron Eramya (rer...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Who would win between a 95 Camaro with the 3.4 liter V6 (160hp) vs. the 95
: Mustang with the 3.8 liter V6 (145hp)? I have a bet on this one so an help
: would be appreciated.
I think C&D did a test of these two cars a couple of years back. The
Camaro won by a few tenths of a second in both the 0-60 and 1/4 mile
times.
bloo...@aol.com
So can I have the winner ? HE! HE! I'm always looking to sharpen my
skills on those reaction times. :)
Tom
'96 Firebird from Hell! 3.8l - [slightly] modified:)
SlotKing5
The 95 camaro has 200hp and would smash a ford mustang with only 145. The
camaro runs a 0-60 time in the 7's where as the mustang runs it in around
9 flat. Trust me on the 7-seconds because my cousin has a 95 V-6 and it
even puts up a strong fight against a 5.0 mustang.
Octane
I believe the comparison was between the previous 3.4L V6 in the f-bods
before the 3800 was made standard issue.
Gary H
On 11 Jan 1997 23:23:01 GMT, slot...@aol.com (SlotKing5) wrote:
>The 95 camaro has 200hp and would smash a ford mustang with only 145. The
>camaro runs a 0-60 time in the 7's where as the mustang runs it in around
>9 flat. Trust me on the 7-seconds because my cousin has a 95 V-6 and it
>even puts up a strong fight against a 5.0 mustang.
Yup, you are right. My first car was a '90 V6 Cougar. Same engine
thats in the V6 Mustang, a 3.8. Granted the Cougar weighed about 300
more pounds but it was real real slow. No power at all. The Ford 3.8
is pretty gutless.
WasteMaste
I HAVE HAD A V-6 COMARO FOR TWENTY YEAR, ITS THE MOST RELIABLE CAR I HAVE
EVER OWNED. I HAVE ABOUT 260,000 MILES AND ITS ALMOST IN SHOW ROOM
CONDITION... THANKS TO ABOUT $25,000.00 IN UP KEEP.
ITS VERY UNCOMFORTABLE BUT YOU GET USE TO IT AFTER AWHILE.
Dave Waters
> > The 95 camaro has 200hp and would smash a ford mustang with only 145.
The
> > camaro runs a 0-60 time in the 7's where as the mustang runs it in
around
> > 9 flat. Trust me on the 7-seconds because my cousin has a 95 V-6 and it
> > even puts up a strong fight against a 5.0 mustang.
>
> before the 3800 was made standard issue.
The 95 was the first year for the 3800 in the Camaros and Firebirds. With
experience in this area, the 3800 (or 3400 for that matter) will outperform
a V6 Mustang from 95 and up, and I imagine 94 and down. My personal 3800
with exhaust modifications will give a 5.0 or 4.6 a VERY close run for the
money. In fact, I'd venture to say it could overtake the V8's with intake
modifications (Which are my next priority). Hope this helps add some more
concrete evidence to the platform.
--DaVe
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
Dave Waters (ban...@email.unc.edu)
-'96 Firebird "ShadowHawk" - Black - TTops - 1SC Option Group
- 10 Speakers - In Dash CD - Mobil 1 - Dynomax Super Turbo Muffler
- Dual 2.5" Exhaust Outlets - Four 2.5" Chromed Exhaust Tips
- A4 3.08 - Factory Chromed Rims - 235/55R16 Eagles
- 104+ Octane Boost - Front-Mounted Red "Knight Rider" Scanner
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
Chris Bonisa
Dave Waters wrote:
>
> The 95 was the first year for the 3800 in the Camaros and Firebirds. With
> experience in this area, the 3800 (or 3400 for that matter) will outperform
> a V6 Mustang from 95 and up, and I imagine 94 and down. My personal 3800
> with exhaust modifications will give a 5.0 or 4.6 a VERY close run for the
> money. In fact, I'd venture to say it could overtake the V8's with intake
> modifications (Which are my next priority). Hope this helps add some more
> concrete evidence to the platform.
>
The 3800 v6 was only an option in 95 and only with the auto tranny. The
3.4l was standard from 93-95. The 3800 was standard from 96-97. Yeah,
even a 3.4l with 160hp would probably better the 3.8l v6 Mustang from
94+... The 3800 would destroy it though... BTW, I have had one 95 3.4lv6
auto, one 95 3800v6 auto, one 94 Z-28 auto, and my current 94 Z-28
6-speed...
--
Chris Bonisa
Email: chr...@cent.com Web: http://cent.com/~chrisb
94 Z-28 M6 - B&M "Ripper", Moroso Cold-Air, Borla Cat-Back,
Poly Trans & TA mounts, PFCM pads, !CAGS, TB bypass, fan switch,
Future plans: cam, nitrous?...
Chris Baker
Chris Bonisa wrote:
Did they send you the Frequent Chevy Buyer Card yet? :)
> BTW, I have had one 95 3.4lv6 auto, one 95 3800v6 auto,
> one 94 Z-28 auto, and my current 94 Z-28
> 6-speed...
>
> --
> Chris Bonisa
> Email: chr...@cent.com Web: http://cent.com/~chrisb
> 94 Z-28 M6 - B&M "Ripper", Moroso Cold-Air, Borla Cat-Back,
> Poly Trans & TA mounts, PFCM pads, !CAGS, TB bypass, fan switch,
> Future plans: cam, nitrous?...
--
Chris
94 Z28 6 Speed
95 Corvette LT1
"Speed Is Life"
Chris Bonisa
Chris Baker wrote:
>
> Chris Bonisa wrote:
> Did they send you the Frequent Chevy Buyer Card yet? :)
>
> Chris
> 94 Z28 6 Speed
> 95 Corvette LT1
> "Speed Is Life"
No, dammit! I musta been cheated! ;)