When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Both have better 0-60 times than our C5s. For instance, the 0-60 for the C5 is 4.7 seconds while the Camaro's time is 4.0 seconds
Is that 4.7 for the A4? Seems a bit high to me...I seem to remember the 6M doing 4.2 or 4.3, which is still a tad slower than the Camaro...just saying...
Throwing Hp after weight is like throwing good money after bad.
Newer cars have a lot of convenience features that are nice but add weight.
Then to meet fuel economy and EPA regs they have to do things that can make a car seem sluggish. It's not for me.
The automatics in today's cars are especially annoying...they constantly have the engine lugging, or almost lugging and even the slightest bit of acceleration requires a downshift...
The C5 interior is only "ok" until you've experienced something better. The C6 interior is really no better, still feels cheap and basic. I think what lets both cars down the most would be the seats. And no, I'm not jealous of either platform, to assume someone is jealous based off criticism is silly.
0-60 is for magazines. Who wants a straight-line (one-trick pony) car these days?
Which is faster around a road course? C5 I'm sure.
I'm sure someone will chime in and say one, or both are faster on a road course, but I don't see how heavier MUSCLE cars will outhandle a much lighter SPORTS car...
I'm sure someone will chime in and say one, or both are faster on a road course, but I don't see how heavier MUSCLE cars will outhandle a much lighter SPORTS car...
posted this for the thread I want to buy a Camaro ???
not really a opinion, went to the SCCA Cam Challenge in Mineral Wells Texas over the weekend. The later model Camaros all built up could not get close to the times of some of the AS ZO 6's (stock) Have to admit my Gal's and other ZO 6's are BAD *** !!!!
I'm sure someone will chime in and say one, or both are faster on a road course, but I don't see how heavier MUSCLE cars will outhandle a much lighter SPORTS car...
Modern muscle cars are much closer to sports cars than they have been in the past... with the exception of the Challenger.
And if you want lightweight and power... get an LS swapped Miata or S2000.
I think the C5 engineers did a great job considering the car wasn't supposed to be built, and they didn't have a design budget allocated from GM. Could the interior be better, you bet. Could be a lot worse also. C6 interior not much better if any. Personally, I can't think of a 1990's designed car I'd rather own.
Road course speeds: The Nurburgring being the definitive road circuit, go look up the validated times posted by GM. Although not listed, a bit of research shows that the 2004 C5 Z06 "broke 8 minutes", having benefited from 'ring developed suspension tweaks compared to previous years.
That's a good time, BTW, but slower that the Alfa Quadrafogllo, the Camaro Z28 and the ZL1. All much newer cars of course. Wikipedia has a good list of validated timings. Tires play a big part, GM was quoted as saying the Micheline Pilot Super Sports, as in the Z07 package were good for 10 seconds a lap over the regular Pilot Sports.
Because much of it is the truth. The interior is cheap. Homelink was on many cars at the time, yet the Corvette didn't have it (granted, it is easy to add). Lack of GPS option (easily resolved nowadays), no heated seats option, the list goes on. Yes, it is unreasonable to expect an early 2000s car to have Bluetooth, but many of the other luxury amenities were never made available for the C5 Corvette, at least from the factory.
The BMW S62 engine of the same era generated 396 HP 369 ft-lbs from a 4.9 L engine, compared to the 350 HP 365 ft-lbs from a 5.7 L, bumping up to 405 HP 400 ft-lbs with the LS6. Mercedes M113 5.4 L generated 342 HP and 391 ft-lbs. So yes, the LS1 has relatively low output for its size even compared to engines of the same era. However, that also makes adding power to it much easier, the lower compression is more forced induction friendly.