Car and Driver 2016 Camaro vs C7 Corvette
12-14-2015, 02:54 PM
#1
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
Car and Driver 2016 Camaro vs C7 Corvette
Alright I had to do it, I see no thread.
Straight from Car and Driver:
http://blog.caranddriver.com/dyno-sh...-the-corvette/
Thoughts and opinions?
Straight from Car and Driver:
Dyno Shows 2016 Chevrolet Camaro SS Outmuscles the Corvette
If you go by manufacturer ratings, the Corvette Stingray makes 460 horsepower and the Camaro SS makes 455 horsepower. That’s not a big margin in the Corvette’s favor, but it at least gives Chevrolet’s halo car enough of an edge to say it’s more powerful than the quite-quick V-8 Camaro.
If you watch the video Hennessey Performance just uploaded, that might not be so true. On Hennessey’s dyno, it shows the Camaro SS making 431 horsepower at the wheels. In Hennessey’s dyno test of the 2014 Corvette Stingray, you see a significantly lower number. Specifically, that car put down just under 400 horsepower.
The car being tested had an automatic transmission and the Camaro had a manual, but Hennessey reportedly only got 410 horsepower out of a manual version.
There are obviously quite a few factors that can affect how a car performs on a dyno, but you wouldn’t expect the Corvette to make 21 horsepower less than the Camaro on the same dyno if it was actually a couple of horsepower more powerful.
2016 10Best Cars: Chevrolet Camaro
Comparison Test: 2016 Chevrolet Camaro SS vs. 2015 Ford Mustang GT
2016 Chevrolet Camaro Full Coverage: Tests, Reviews, Specs, Pricing, Photos, and More
Assuming Hennessey’s results are accurate, that makes the Camaro SS even more of a performance bargain than we thought. And if Chevrolet sees the Camaro being more powerful than the Corvette, the only solution will be to give the Corvette more power. Since when has adding more power been a bad thing?
If you go by manufacturer ratings, the Corvette Stingray makes 460 horsepower and the Camaro SS makes 455 horsepower. That’s not a big margin in the Corvette’s favor, but it at least gives Chevrolet’s halo car enough of an edge to say it’s more powerful than the quite-quick V-8 Camaro.
If you watch the video Hennessey Performance just uploaded, that might not be so true. On Hennessey’s dyno, it shows the Camaro SS making 431 horsepower at the wheels. In Hennessey’s dyno test of the 2014 Corvette Stingray, you see a significantly lower number. Specifically, that car put down just under 400 horsepower.
The car being tested had an automatic transmission and the Camaro had a manual, but Hennessey reportedly only got 410 horsepower out of a manual version.
There are obviously quite a few factors that can affect how a car performs on a dyno, but you wouldn’t expect the Corvette to make 21 horsepower less than the Camaro on the same dyno if it was actually a couple of horsepower more powerful.
2016 10Best Cars: Chevrolet Camaro
Comparison Test: 2016 Chevrolet Camaro SS vs. 2015 Ford Mustang GT
2016 Chevrolet Camaro Full Coverage: Tests, Reviews, Specs, Pricing, Photos, and More
Assuming Hennessey’s results are accurate, that makes the Camaro SS even more of a performance bargain than we thought. And if Chevrolet sees the Camaro being more powerful than the Corvette, the only solution will be to give the Corvette more power. Since when has adding more power been a bad thing?
Thoughts and opinions?
Popular Reply
12-14-2015, 03:48 PM
Team Owner
Interesting but I bought a Corvette because that is what I wanted. A dyno test report by Car and Driver would have no influence at all on my decision.
12-14-2015, 03:35 PM
#2
Alright I had to do it, I see no thread.
Straight from Car and Driver:
http://blog.caranddriver.com/dyno-sh...-the-corvette/
Thoughts and opinions?
Straight from Car and Driver:
http://blog.caranddriver.com/dyno-sh...-the-corvette/
Thoughts and opinions?
Their test of the 2014 C7 is over 2 years old. That's not significant in and of itself, but the tests weren't run back to back with identical environmental conditions. If you aren't creating the same conditions in both cases (ambient temperature, baro pressure, humidity, cooling, etc) then you will have results that are not apples to apples.
Same dyno? Same software? Correction factors? Too many unknowns.
The following users liked this post:
OLD_GOAT (12-14-2015)
12-14-2015, 03:41 PM
#3
Their test of the 2014 C7 is over 2 years old. That's not significant in and of itself, but the tests weren't run back to back with identical environmental conditions. If you aren't creating the same conditions in both cases (ambient temperature, baro pressure, humidity, cooling, etc) then you will have results that are not apples to apples.
Same dyno? Same software? Correction factors? Too many unknowns.
Same dyno? Same software? Correction factors? Too many unknowns.
12-14-2015, 03:48 PM
#4
Team Owner
Interesting but I bought a Corvette because that is what I wanted. A dyno test report by Car and Driver would have no influence at all on my decision.
The following 10 users liked this post by dvilin:
Bill17601 (12-16-2015),
billd1954 (12-14-2015),
John Micheal Henry (12-15-2015),
kenownr (12-15-2015),
meyerweb (12-15-2015),
and 5 others liked this post.
12-14-2015, 05:01 PM
#5
The Consigliere
Member Since: May 2006
Location: 2023 Z06 & 2010 ZR1
Posts: 22,252
Received 5,447 Likes
on
2,272 Posts
Looks like the tests weren't even done on the same day.
Which would be the minimum requirement of this having any meaning beyond just getting a baseline on the Camaro for purposes of tuning it.
Same day, same dyno, same operator, same conditions (DA/temp/humidity etc), same correction factors . . . then it would be interesting.
Absent that, it's just noise.
Which would be the minimum requirement of this having any meaning beyond just getting a baseline on the Camaro for purposes of tuning it.
Same day, same dyno, same operator, same conditions (DA/temp/humidity etc), same correction factors . . . then it would be interesting.
Absent that, it's just noise.
12-14-2015, 05:06 PM
#6
Melting Slicks
Not even same year, let alone within days of each other. I also doubt that they are splitting up the builds of the LT1 based on which car it's going into.
Last edited by Bucknut2006; 12-14-2015 at 05:07 PM.
I've been a Vette guy since 6 years old. I've been driving a 190hp C3 for 25+ years.... so HP numbers are not my concern. 
12-14-2015, 05:27 PM
#8
The Consigliere
Member Since: May 2006
Location: 2023 Z06 & 2010 ZR1
Posts: 22,252
Received 5,447 Likes
on
2,272 Posts
Yup - if it was a back-to-back dyno run with the purpose of getting conditions and test parameters as close as the same as practicable, then it would make for an interesting data point.
12-14-2015, 05:31 PM
#9
Drifting
12-14-2015, 05:53 PM
#11
'71 350 with a cam, Eddlebrock, Holly, headers and EI... maybe 275-300HP?... now that's painful!
Dyno pulls are BS IMHO... tuners are playing numbers games to sell over-priced parts to vulnerable suckers... too many variables.
Dyno pulls are BS IMHO... tuners are playing numbers games to sell over-priced parts to vulnerable suckers... too many variables.
12-14-2015, 06:03 PM
#12
Burning Brakes
The Camaro's engine has tubular exhaust headers instead of the equal-length cast iron exhaust manifolds that the Corvette's LT1 has.
Not sure where this puts them in power comparisons, but...
Additionally, if the wheels on the Camaro weigh less than the wheels on the Corvette, there could be a couple of HP going into the C7's rotating mass.
Not sure where this puts them in power comparisons, but...
Additionally, if the wheels on the Camaro weigh less than the wheels on the Corvette, there could be a couple of HP going into the C7's rotating mass.
12-14-2015, 06:09 PM
#14
Melting Slicks
Let's ignore all the valid facts about how dyno numbers can be skewed by unknown operator error and other conditions (like SAE vs STD correction, etc).
Considering that from here: http://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=432454
They had to tune + put on slicks and skinny tires to pull an 11.7x quarter mile, who cares? Lots of guys with bone stock LT1 Stingrays are much faster than that modded Camaro.
Then, if that's not enough we can talk about road courses.
Considering that from here: http://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=432454
They had to tune + put on slicks and skinny tires to pull an 11.7x quarter mile, who cares? Lots of guys with bone stock LT1 Stingrays are much faster than that modded Camaro.
Then, if that's not enough we can talk about road courses.
Last edited by HalfMoon; 12-14-2015 at 06:10 PM.
12-14-2015, 06:35 PM
#15
Let's ignore all the valid facts about how dyno numbers can be skewed by unknown operator error and other conditions (like SAE vs STD correction, etc).
Considering that from here: http://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=432454
They had to tune + put on slicks and skinny tires to pull an 11.7x quarter mile, who cares? Lots of guys with bone stock LT1 Stingrays are much faster than that modded Camaro.
Then, if that's not enough we can talk about road courses.
Considering that from here: http://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=432454
They had to tune + put on slicks and skinny tires to pull an 11.7x quarter mile, who cares? Lots of guys with bone stock LT1 Stingrays are much faster than that modded Camaro.
Then, if that's not enough we can talk about road courses.
12-14-2015, 06:56 PM
#16
Melting Slicks
12-14-2015, 07:13 PM
#18
Melting Slicks
Keep it simple, has any one seen a stock 14 or 15 C7 dyno anywhere near 430. There is another dyno test on the net for a 2016 Camaro @ 420+ at the wheels. Seems the Camaros are dynoing at little higher than the C7. Must be the exhaust?
12-14-2015, 07:16 PM
#19
12-14-2015, 07:20 PM
#20
The Consigliere
Member Since: May 2006
Location: 2023 Z06 & 2010 ZR1
Posts: 22,252
Received 5,447 Likes
on
2,272 Posts
What would be really fun is to do a chassis dyno on a new V6 Camaro and have it spit out numbers higher than the LT1. Which could be done just by manipulating the dyno - and then post that up along with some conspiracy theory to go along with it. LOL.