Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bliggida

2001 SVT Contour vs '98 Camaro V6

45 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Turbo, mentioned that the Contour sexually assault the Camaro base coupe.

 

I wonder how they would fair?

I'm so curious too. Because at my old job, I had some retard try to tell me he'd win because he could revv higher (I pretty much knew then he didn't know much about cars)...He had a 2000 SVT Contour. He was talking smack all day long about how he could beat me. But when it came down to the end of the day, ready to race, and I flashed my money. He shut up and drove home and never challenged me again. I even offered to race him in the '72 Mustang instead of the V6 Camaro. Wouldn't take that either.

 

Good car. Kurenai will probably jump in about now. I believe he owns a base Contour. The SVT really made a rather plain and bland car into a nice sporty coupe. I like the leather seats, and interior layout a lot. But that's my opinion, I know of people who love it's looks. And that's cool.

 

But I don't see how - this is kinda a long the lines of the RSX-S - how a front wheel driver - which isn't good at getting traction,

-runs smaller tires, 215's vs. 235's.

-not sure if it's a limited slip or viscous coupling etc, but I would lean toward not.

-Had 200 horsepower, like the V6 Camaro, yes, but loses by 71 ft-lbs. (@ 169 ft-lbs) to the Camaro's 240 ft-lbs.

-and only 202 lbs. lighter, weighing in a 3,129 lbs. vs the base coupes 3,331 lbs.

 

Given that both of them have a 5-speed, where one doesn't really have an advantage over the other as far as final drive ratio. At best it would be a draw.

The trade off being the 200 pounds will make the Contour go 2/10ths of second faster.

As will the 71 ft-lbs will kick in for the Camaro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was pretty close to my thinking.

 

I also forgot some other stuff. Price wise they are the exact same. Gas mileage is identical, towing weight, interior room, etc. ONly exception is that the Contour will seat 5...an note-worthy feat to pull off in a Camaro! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Saabman44

personally i woulld rather have the SVT, it has very nice looks in my opnion. Also, the seats in it are very comftorable and supportive. The camero is nice and all, but still the V6 factor turns me off when you could get a V8. I know, i know, the v6 is cheaper to maintan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Saabman44

The camero is nice and all, but still the V6 factor turns me off when you could get a V8.  

exactly how i feel. the svt contour is the top of line in its make. anyway, the svt v6 is a high output v6. the big differences i think they did to it was give it a beefier power band. you get more power through the whole power band, and its thicker. it also gets through each gear quicker because it has less friction in the engine. too much friction can hurt a cars performance pretty bad. it also had something to do with the first and second gears also, not just final drive, but the ratio through out the whole tranny. they are tall gears but the power gets through them quick, the second gear takes it almost to 75 or 80 at the red line i think. i dont remember for sure.

remember, its not the peak power that matters, you can make all the power that you want but if its only there for a second then it doesnt matter. the svt had its power through a big part of its revs, so the fact that it revs higher does not matter or mean anything, just that it revs stronger. the camaro isnt a high output 200 hp v6, its just a 200 hp v6. the high output svt motor breathes easier also to make it more responsive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct about the 2000. But Turbo, it doesn't make sense to me how you can say the SVT Contour is a more high performing V6, when it makes less power than the Camaro??? And at that, neither V6 is really high performance at all. A BMW M3 has a 300 horsepower 6 cyl., now that is a high performance 6 cyl.

 

Anyway, the Camaro pulls from 2500 to redline. And what it lacks down low it makes up for in torque. It simply rockets off the line given the engine size and vehicle weight. The 3.8L makes peak torque at 4,000, peak horsepower (200) at 5,200 and a 5,500 redline. When you shift into 2nd, 3rd, and 4th all 3 gears stay above 4,000 RPM under full throttle, so you are making all 225 ft-lbs. of torque 90% of the race, and the 200 ponies at least 70 to 75% of the race.

 

Here is a discrepancy I have not confirmed. www.carpoint.com lists the '96-'01 V6 Camaro as having 240 ft-lbs. of torque at 3,600 RPM and 200 horsepower at 4,900 RPM. That's 20 more ft-lbs. at 400 RPM LESS and the same amount of horsepower 300 RPM less. This could be the difference in dyno runs, or an actual change in engine characteristics. If the latter is true, the car will in fact be faster.

 

I'm not trying to argue it's win here, I am trying to just give more details, so I'm including the same info for the Focus...

 

200 Horsepower @ 6600 RPM

169 Ft-lbs. @ 5500 RPM

I don't know what the redline is, because that will make a difference in your shift points as to where you'll be RPM wise when you shift. Gearing also equates into this. If you can hit 80 at max RPM, in second. Wait, there is some math to this I am working on to figure the final drive ratio. But I'll need to do some homework first - I'll get back to you on that.

Found it! Here is an awesome website for anyone that likes SVT Contours

MTX-75 5-speed manual overdrive transaxle

4.06:1 Final drive ratio

Ratios:

1st... 3.42:1 = 35 mph

2nd... 2.14:1 = 56 mph

3rd... 1.45:1 = 82 mph

4th... 1.03:1 = 117 mph

5th... .77:1 = 143 mph (drag limited)

2600rpm at 60mph in 5th Gear

6,750 redline

 

ok, so, it does have the benefit of a much lower (numerically higher) final drive ratio. Much higher. 4.06 gears. Whew. As you can see 56 MPH is tops in second gear. If it were 80 MPH @ 6,750 RPM (now that I have the final drive info I can crunch numbers...

According to www.smokemup.com - best Car calculators I've seen on the web yet - with a 2.14:1 second gear to go 80 you'd need a 3.23:1 final drive ratio, which would obviously be pitifully slow to accelerate. Any time your first gear is deeper than your final drive ratio, that's bad...that's horrible. Especially for performance. But that's not the case, it has 4.06's...again, wow!

 

Suffice it to say the description you gave on the gears sounds wrong. If they are tall gears - that can do 80 in 2nd, then that is more of an autobahn car than an acceleration car. 80 in second means you are going to take an awfully long time to revv up and finally get to your peak power, no matter how hard you pull through your powerband. The SVT Focus still has a climbing powerband that peaks. What you are talking about is seen in pushrod V8's - the flat broad powerband that pulls hard from down low to screaming redline. Maybe your wording got you all switched around, but with tall gears and a final drive gear, it's not going to accelerate very well at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Saabman44

look, blig, i can see your point and all. An SVT should be faster, but personally i think its fast enough, and it can hang with a V6 f-body, but i can garuntee you if you go to a car show with stock version V6 F-body and a SVT countour, people are going to love the ford. You can throw out all the final ration number and everything, some of it is the magic of an SVT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mind you that the m3 is twice as much as an SVT Contour. and i never said high performance v6, high OUTPUT v6, its actually on the side of the contour on a badge "24V High Output"

i kept saying "i think" i remember the SVT Contour going that fast in second, but i wasnt even old enough to drive then. i knew nothing about gear ratios. i just know it has a better tranny. the power band, like i said, is longer and thicker, you get a good chunk of horsepower a lot longer in shorter gears. thats really what it comes down to. if you could make a car that could make between 180 and 200 hp through a good 300 rpms, you will beat something that peaks at 265 hp. im not saying the SVT does make the power like that, it was just an example. even though i couldnt drive when we had it i still remember beating camaros, firebirds, and mustangs in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saab, yes, at a car show a Special Vehicle will always attract more attention than a base coupe But, look at it this way. Which one is better off from the factory? The Contour had to be totally pimped out by Fords SVT division in order to be at the level of the stock base coupe Camaro. The base Camaro is the worst performing Camaro you can buy! It takes a wicked Ford just to run with the slowest Camaro, doesn't say much for Ford performance. That is not to say, the Zetec engine, and what they did do, they did fairly well.

 

Now if you compared the SVT vs. the RS, I think it might split the decision as to which looks better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats why the contour is better.

 

you cant compare models of these cars. sedan to rwd two door. doesnt work out like that. thats like saying that nolan ryan is better than big mac.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I'm sure that at the green light, you say to yourself, "well no wonder I lost, I have two extra doors."

 

No. :D

 

door number aside I'm saying the SVT Contour is without questions suppose to be considered a performance vehicle. While they are technically out of category, one is a performer, and one is not, I think that alone levels the playing field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the svt contour isnt a high performance car. thats a fact. we all know svt isnt some super tuner like saleen. they just make popular cars a little faster and boost sales. which there is nothing wrong with that. until up to the 01 cobra r and the focus, svt didnt mean much more than a body kit and 20 hp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Turbo_ZX3

the svt contour isnt a high performance car.

There are many people that would disagree with you on that, defending the honor of their little Ameri-rocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

haha, yeah, well they really dont know much about SVT then. because they really dont do much to engines up until the focus came out, and the cobra r. the contour was still a 4 door sedan with 200 hp. thats not high performance. it is quick yes, and pretty damn cool, but not high performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -

×
×
  • Create New...