2010 V6 vs 1969 Z/28 0-60 time - Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums

joepitt · 08-24-2009, 10:45 AM

I saw an episode of 'Appraise My Car' from a couple of years ago that had an original '69 Z/28 with the 302 V8. Part of it listed the original specs and it was 7.3 seconds for 0-60. The 2010 LT is 6.6 seconds for 0-60. The Z/28 was fully restored and the guy said he wanted $140,000 for the car. It was nice, but my LT rides and handles better and I saved $110,000

PieNsky · 08-24-2009, 10:51 AM

It was spinning the tires.

UCI CamaroFan · 08-24-2009, 10:58 AM

Z/28 only had the 302... small block V8. It did better for higher speeds; that engine was designed to just sit at a high RPM for longer periods of time.

If you want fast 0-60 times, look at what it took for an SS 396 car.

calflan · 08-24-2009, 11:11 AM

Must be the Direct Injection that gets such a jump off the line.
The '69 302 was a rare and beefy engine. I'd bet the 302 would outrun the '010.
Not to take away from the '010, but the '69 302 was a bad A$$ engine.

rays · 08-24-2009, 11:41 AM

This has been hashed through several times but
The 1967 Chevrolet
Camaro SS 396
Specifications
Wheelbase, inches: 108.1
Weight, lbs: 3,720
Number built: NA
Base price: $3,046

Top Available Engine
Type: ohv V-8
Displacement, cid: 396
Fuel system: 1 x 4bbl.
Compression ratio: 11.0:1
Horsepower @ rpm: 375 @ 5600
Torque @ rpm: 415 @ 3600

Representative Performance
0-60 mph, sec: 6.5
1/4 mile, sec. @ mph: 14.5 @ 99

The v6 beats that. Yeah yeah with probably just the tire technology of today it would not beat it.

The point is the v6 is no slouch. And the z/28 was a slower car than the SS in that era.

SlingShot · 08-24-2009, 12:02 PM

Personally I think this 3.6 is highly under rated in it's possibilities. I'm thinking after they get the brains hacked and start reprogramming the EPROMS, a monster will be released ......IMO

GTengineer · 08-24-2009, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joepitt

I saw an episode of 'Appraise My Car' from a couple of years ago that had an original '69 Z/28 with the 302 V8. Part of it listed the original specs and it was 7.3 seconds for 0-60. The 2010 LT is 6.6 seconds for 0-60. The Z/28 was fully restored and the guy said he wanted $140,000 for the car. It was nice, but my LT rides and handles better and I saved $110,000

It's not all about the latest shiniest things with gadgets .... You are looking a 5 decades of technology

While we're at it let's brag our cars are faster than a 1902 Stanley Steamer.

SlingShot · 08-24-2009, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTengineer

It's not all about the latest shiniest things with gadgets .... You are looking a 5 decades of technology

While we're at it let's brag our cars are faster than a 1902 Stanley Steamer.

Faster yes, but not worth more ...

scrming · 08-24-2009, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlingShot

Personally I think this 3.6 is highly under rated in it's possibilities. I'm thinking after they get the brains hacked and start reprogramming the EPROMS, a monster will be released ......IMO

i was hoping that too... but some of my insiders say that the 3.6 is actually tune quite well, and there is not a lot to be gained by trying to retune it...

however I do think we could see some improvements if we could turn down/off the torque management!!! I know the shifts could definitely be improved!

John VS · 08-24-2009, 03:41 PM

Not sure where the stats came from, but several of the early reviews listed 0-60 times at 6.1 for the auto and 6.0 for the manual. A few even went as low as 5.7-5.9. It's definitely quicker than 6.6.

scrming · 08-24-2009, 03:43 PM

oh... 2010 V6 is rated at 6 seconds for 0-60... Mine works as advertised! LOL!

08-24-2009, 10:45 AM	#1
joepitt Drives: 2016 2SS Camaro, 2017 Acura Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Maryland Posts: 469	2010 V6 vs 1969 Z/28 0-60 time I saw an episode of 'Appraise My Car' from a couple of years ago that had an original '69 Z/28 with the 302 V8. Part of it listed the original specs and it was 7.3 seconds for 0-60. The 2010 LT is 6.6 seconds for 0-60. The Z/28 was fully restored and the guy said he wanted $140,000 for the car. It was nice, but my LT rides and handles better and I saved $110,000 __________________ 2016 2SS, Auto, Garnet Red, Black Interior, Magnetic Ride, Performance Exhaust, and Nav. Past highlights: 2013 2LT/RS, 2010 pre-order Camaro 2LT,1969 Chevy Malibu, 1972 Plymouth 'Cuda, 1972 Pontiac GTO, 1979 Turbo Buick Century. 'See the USA in your Chevrolet...' Dinah Shore, 1952: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGZvQoPxhNs

08-24-2009, 10:58 AM	#3
UCI CamaroFan Zot! Drives: Toyota 4Runner Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Orange County, California Posts: 1,317	Z/28 only had the 302... small block V8. It did better for higher speeds; that engine was designed to just sit at a high RPM for longer periods of time. If you want fast 0-60 times, look at what it took for an SS 396 car. __________________

08-24-2009, 11:11 AM	#4
calflan Drives: 1LT; IBM; 6 Spd Manual Join Date: May 2009 Location: Heath, Tx. Posts: 499	Must be the Direct Injection that gets such a jump off the line. The '69 302 was a rare and beefy engine. I'd bet the 302 would outrun the '010. Not to take away from the '010, but the '69 302 was a bad A$$ engine. __________________ 1LT; Airaid CAI; Flowmaster American Thunder Axelback; Int Floor Lts; RS Spoiler; Radio Controls; Sequential tail lights; Oil Catch Can; VMAX Throttle Body; MACE plenum spacer; Mace manifold insulator[/I]

08-24-2009, 11:41 AM	#5
rays V6 - It just isn't normal Drives: 2010 2LT M6, F250 7.3L Diesel Join Date: May 2009 Location: NH Posts: 266 View My Garage	This has been hashed through several times but The 1967 Chevrolet Camaro SS 396 Specifications Wheelbase, inches: 108.1 Weight, lbs: 3,720 Number built: NA Base price: $3,046 Top Available Engine Type: ohv V-8 Displacement, cid: 396 Fuel system: 1 x 4bbl. Compression ratio: 11.0:1 Horsepower @ rpm: 375 @ 5600 Torque @ rpm: 415 @ 3600 Representative Performance 0-60 mph, sec: 6.5 1/4 mile, sec. @ mph: 14.5 @ 99 The v6 beats that. Yeah yeah with probably just the tire technology of today it would not beat it. The point is the v6 is no slouch. And the z/28 was a slower car than the SS in that era. __________________ 2LT RS M6 RJT Black leather 4/29/2009 Ordered 6/24 6000 Delivered

08-24-2009, 12:02 PM	#6
SlingShot Drives: 2012 ZL1 - #670 Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Seminole, Fl. Posts: 8,009	Personally I think this 3.6 is highly under rated in it's possibilities. I'm thinking after they get the brains hacked and start reprogramming the EPROMS, a monster will be released ......IMO __________________

08-24-2009, 10:51 AM	#2
PieNsky Drives: Victory Red 1LS Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Louisville,KY Posts: 1,929 View My Garage	It was spinning the tires.

08-24-2009, 03:41 PM	#10
John VS Drives: 2010 Camaro 2LT CGM, IOM Int. Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 381	Not sure where the stats came from, but several of the early reviews listed 0-60 times at 6.1 for the auto and 6.0 for the manual. A few even went as low as 5.7-5.9. It's definitely quicker than 6.6.

08-24-2009, 03:43 PM	#11
scrming Red Brick of Vengeance! Drives: 12 Second Brick Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: at my pulpit Posts: 7,745	oh... 2010 V6 is rated at 6 seconds for 0-60... Mine works as advertised! LOL! __________________ 2011 Ford Flex EcoBoost Limited - 12.727 @ 109.790 MPH

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Think about this and the Z28 5th gen	13F20	Camaro ZL1 Forum - ZL1 Specific Topics	41	09-04-2010 12:59 AM
STOCK V6 2010 CAMARO	et7333	Dragstrip and Launch Techniques Discussion	2	07-14-2009 09:37 PM
1969 Camaro - Drool time	68vert	1st & 2nd Generation Camaros	18	03-15-2009 02:58 PM
Edmunds: 2010 Ford Mustang First Look	Scotsman	General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion	32	11-23-2008 09:55 PM
Motortrend: 2010 V6 vs 1967 350 SS	christianjax	Camaro Photos \| Spyshots \| Video \| Media Gallery	18	09-19-2008 05:25 PM