A/W: Performance numbers out for 2016 Camaro

[kevm14]

http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/12 ... dailydrive

Embargo on driving impressions until Wednesday.

So the 455-hp, 426-lb-ft V8 does the sprint in 12.3, very quick for a factory car. We’ve seen the 2015 Mustang GT knock it down in the 12.9-second range, by the way, at about 113 mph, in case you’re keeping track. The V6 Camaro (335 hp, 323 lb-ft) gets down the 1,320-foot strip in 13.5 seconds at 103 mph with an automatic transmission and the turbo four (275 hp, 295 lb-ft) does it in 14 seconds flat at 99 mph.

Translation: SS getting within range of the CTS-V2, V6 within range of my CTS-V and the turbo approximating 1993 LT1 F-body performance. Or in Mustang terms, a 2004 GT (lol).

This biggest news though, in our opinion, is the weight loss. All of those performance numbers, most of which are now better than the Mustang--including power to weight—are due to the hundreds pounds of savings in the chassis and body. The V6 is 294 pounds lighter than the last model, the V8 is 223 pounds lighter and the turbo four, which we haven’t driven yet, is a whopping 390 pounds less than last year’s V6.

Annoyingly, they make us do the math on weight. Don't feel like looking up the curb weights of the Gen 5, so maybe I'll try another news source who did do the math. I actually didn't expect an SS to be faster than the new Mustang GT but it appears that it is.

[kevm14]

Also 426 lb-ft doesn't sound right. The LT1 in the Corvette has like 460 lb-ft. In fact 426 is barely more than the LS3. That must be a typo.

[kevm14]

http://blog.caranddriver.com/2016-chevr ... -revealed/

Much better list of specs. Looks like they did pretty good on weight.

Oh, and the roughly 200-pound weight savings Chevy touted at the Camaro’s initial reveal? As it turns out, that was a conservative estimate.

The weight of the base car is unreal. That one actually might have some interesting advantages in terms of feel even though I'd take the V8 every time. Either way, go Alpha!

Also I think I was right about the torque. This shows 455 lb-ft.

[kevm14]

What's also interesting in light of the base price debate, the base Camaro probably has performance parity with the EcoBoost Mustang, at a lower price of entry. And it's like 200 lbs lighter.

[kevm14]

There's not a single slow model in the lineup, even the base, automatic will run 14 flat. Sounds like either gearheads won a round vs accounting, or perhaps marketing finally understood that a non-turbo 4 option would hurt the more profitable models.