In a discussion last week as to whether an automatic-trans 4th-gen could beat a 6-cylinder late-model Camaro, I responded that it 'would be a close race' and quoted the last road test times of 7.3 seconds to 60 for a 5-speed Camaro. We have a 98 5-speed Camaro and a 95 5-speed SE in our garage and I felt the cars would be pretty evenly matched. I've never raced the two cars, but I have a pretty good feel for how they compare in acceleration.

I was told by at least one poster here that the 0-60 time for my 5-speed Max was 6.6 seconds. That is very fast.

However, going through a back issue of Motor Trend, I see a 0-60 time of 7.25 seconds for a 2000 Max SE 5-speed, which is almost identical to the Camaro's published time. Since 2000s have 32 more horsepower than my 95, how is it that my car would be more than 1/2 second faster to 60? Are the early cars significantly lighter? Is the 6.6 seconds true?

 

yes, 6.6-6.8 are the published times for 95-96 5 speeds. i've looked them up myself... as far as why the 5G Maxs are slower 0-60 i dont know the answer, i suspect it has to do with a combination of weight, gearing, and where the engine makes power in the powerband.

Neal

 

the 95-96 is 6.6 to 60
the 97-99 is 7.1 to 60, allthough I don't believe it cause my car ain't no 7.1 to 60 more like 6.5 with the exhaust
the 2000+ is 6.7 to 60