INSIDE LINE

2010 Ford Shelby GT500 vs. 2010 Hennessey Performance HPE550 Camaro

Media Player

  • 2010 Ford Shelby GT500 vs. 2010 Hennessey Performance HPE550 Camaro Comparison Test Video

    Brute supercharged force meets brute supercharged force in the Hennessey HPE550 Camaro vs Ford Shelby GT500 Comparison Test Video. | October 26, 2009

3 Videos , 50 Photos | See more photos in this gallery »

Comparison

2010 Ford Shelby GT500 vs. 2010 Hennessey Performance HPE550 Camaro

Brute Supercharged Force Meets Brute Supercharged Force

    4 Ratings

    These are the heavy hitters. The big dogs. They're not playmakers or finesse artists and they don't dish out assists. If the 2010 Ford Shelby GT500 is Dick Butkus snuffing out a Jim Brown thrust up the middle, then the 2010 Hennessey Performance Engineering Chevy Camaro SS HPE550 is Lawrence Taylor with radar lock on Joe Theismann's right leg. And it's not just that they're powerful and merciless, but intentionally provocative and intimidating, too. On looks alone, either of these cars is enough to make the drivers of other machines cower like a three-legged Labradoodle.

    They are, of course, muscle cars in the rawest, most vicious sense of the term. And they're quicker, faster, meaner and flat nastier than anything built back when Ol' Shel and Don Yenko were just guys. And not by a little bit either.

    But which is the better beast? To find out, we drove these two all-Americans on the street, at our test track and on the Dynojet chassis dyno at MD Automotive in Westminster, California. Then we did some big smoky burnouts just to piss off the Sierra Club. By the time we were through, Greenpeace had threatened to blockade the Inside Line garage and the Obama administration was seriously considering a unilateral deployment of the fun police. Didn't matter. By then the tires were shot and we had our winner.

    Overwhelming
    Both the GT500's and HPE550's power plants are familiar concoctions. The GT500's engine is essentially the same 5.4-liter DOHC, 32-valve iron-block beast used in the 2007 Shelby GT500. It's still topped by an intercooled, Eaton-made, Roots-type supercharger thumping up to 9 pounds of boost. Recalibration and the inclusion of the cold-air induction system from last year's GT500KR have, however, boosted output from the original 500 horsepower to 540. Despite drinking California 91-octane pump gas, the 2010 Ford Shelby GT500 made big numbers on the chassis dynamometer. We measured 511 hp at the rear wheels.

    To create the HPE550, Hennessey conspired with Magnusson Products and adapted one of that company's Eaton-based MP2300 Roots-type superchargers to the Camaro SS's 6.2-liter single-cam 16-valve all-aluminum LS3 V8. It's similar to the system Magnusson had earlier developed for the Camaro's brother, the Pontiac G8 GT sedan and includes interesting elements like a small driveshaft that runs along the side of the supercharger case to drive the blower, but no intercooler.

    Hennessey added its own cold-air intake and bolted on a Corsa cat-back exhaust before tweaking the engine control computer's fuel map for maximum thrust (but the heads never came off the LS3 and all the internal parts are as GM assembled them). Hennessey claims 562 hp is the result — and we measured a gob-smacking 559 hp on the chassis dyno, although it was running on an unspecified witch's brew of high-octane fuels during the test.

    Those are numbers. And they don't tell much of the story.

    Walloped
    The 2010 Hennessey Performance HPE550 Camaro starts with a sledgehammer thump to your sternum. Even at idle there's menace in this car's growl; it's up to no good and it's inviting you to go along with its dastardly scheme. It's evil, but the fun kind of evil.

    In contrast, the 2010 Ford Shelby GT500 seems tame on ignition. After all, it's a product of the Ford Motor Company and it complies with every unreasonable noise law on the books. But this is hardly a timid car; it sounds flat wonderful, and happens to bite more viciously than it barks.

    Both cars are equipped with versions of the Tremec TR-6060 six-speed manual transmission. There are some variations in the gearing (6th in the Camaro is a deep 0.57:1 overdrive; the GT500 is even deeper at 0.50:1), but finding 1st in either car takes a determined shove.

    Slammed
    Drop the HPE550's clutch and the engine slams to its 6,600-rpm redline as if it's just been head-butted by a rocket-propelled goat. The throttle is essentially an on/off switch; there's only a scant couple of inches of pedal travel before the throttle is wide open. Modulation? You want a nice progressive throttle? Hennessey Performance Engineering isn't in that business.

    Fortunately the HPE550 wears massive 315-millimeter-wide rear Pirelli P Zero tires that turn most of that insane engine speed into forward thrust. This car accelerates hysterically; there's so much momentum that you have to fight the G-forces to shift gears. And the sound is crushing. This is full-immersion acceleration — you could drown in the HPE550's sensory overload.

    The GT500's rear Goodyear F1 Supercar tires are "only" 285mm wide and it takes more skill to launch the Ford perfectly. Fortunately, Ford's SVT division has actually built some of that into the GT500's throttle. This isn't an engine on a runaway gallop to its redline; the first inches of pedal travel ease into the thrust gradually.

    Bottom line, however, is that the 2010 Hennessey Performance HPE550 Camaro is quicker. Still drinking that high-octane concoction, the Hennessey HPE550 stomped to 60 in only 4.3 seconds (4.0 ticks with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip) while the Shelby GT500 (on California 91 octane) took 4.6 seconds (that's 4.3 seconds with the rollout) to do the same trick. The quarter-mile screams by in 12.1 seconds at 120.1 mph in the Hennessey Camaro and 12.5 seconds at 115.3 mph in the Mustang.

    Sure, the Hennessey car bounces along its rev limiter during the run, while the GT500's engine is always composed. But quicker is, fundamentally and unalterably, quicker. Plus, the Mustang's shift quality just isn't up to the Camaro's — despite the fact that they run essentially the same transmission. Then again, the Camaro suffers from elephantitis of the shift knob. Feels like a leather-wrapped gourd. No thanks. We'll take the classic hard white ball offered by the Shelby.

    Stuck
    Acceleration is one thing, but living with a car is something else. And sometimes that involves going around corners.

    The HPE550's humongous 275/40R20 front tires are so big that they deaden the steering and there's no real payoff in instantaneous turn-in. Combine that with Hennessey's suspension package, which features springs that are too stiff and shocks that are under-damped, and the result is a car that never feels settled or comfortable over any surface. And that's despite the fact that the Camaro has a multilink independent rear suspension.

    Sure it looks bitchin' lowered like it is, but it doesn't really work. The car's ride is ruined and we were unable to find any handling improvement over stock. At our test track the HPE550's 0.87g performance on the skid pad and 68.7-mph slalom run are no better than what we've recorded in a regular Camaro SS.

    Meanwhile, the 2010 Ford Shelby GT500 handles shockingly well — particularly in light of what a pig the previous GT500 was. Always composed and always comfortable with extremely well-controlled ride motions, the 2010 GT500 ripped around the skid pad at 0.93g and bounded through the slalom at 69.3 mph. It's an astonishing performance from a car with a solid rear axle — though it would be better if the front 255/40R19 Goodyears were more communicative.

    But even those numbers understate how much easier the GT500 is to live with. The chopped-roof appearance of the Camaro means bunker-slit visibility, while the Mustang's loftier greenhouse allows the driver to actually see where he's going and where he's been. That alone makes it easier to drive the GT500 harder than the larger and heavier Camaro.

    Both Ford and Chevy chose Brembo as the brake supplier for the GT500 and Camaro SS. The HPE550 stopped from 60 in 109 feet while the GT500 took 112. Not bad considering that neither exhibited much fade during repeated stops, but cars with this much thrust and such lofty price tags should be stopping from 60 mph in 105 feet or less.

    Living Large
    Ford did a shockingly thorough job of improving the whole Mustang lineup for 2010. What seems at first to be a minor midcycle update of the 2005 car has, in fact, resulted in a much better-driving, much easier-to-live-with machine across the range. But no Mustang is more improved than the GT500.

    The wizardry performed on the 2010 Ford Shelby GT500's suspension is simply amazing. That's still a big iron lump of an engine up front, but somehow the suspension tuning (mostly) compensates for that weight. Pressed hard on our favorite mountain road, the GT500 will still plow its nose, but nowhere near as drastically as it did before. And with some precise throttle modulation (and the traction control system turned off), that understeer can be balanced with additional power. Could the 2010 GT500 be better? Sure. But as it stands, this is the best Mustang ever. And it's not even close.

    The 2010 Hennessey Performance HPE550 Camaro is a hot rod; more severely compromised in the pursuit of performance than any OEM would dare unleash on the public. Given some time, Hennessey should clear up the suspension issues and fine-tune the engine so it's easier to manage. But it's also a 2010 Camaro, and while there are advantages to that, there are disadvantages, too. You know, like the restricted visibility and a shallow trunk that's accessed by what amounts to a mail slot. This car's performance is almost religiously transcendent, but it's performance that is best appreciated by true believers willing to put up with hassles in exchange.

    Everyone here loves power. But all of us would give up the Hennessey's rocketry in exchange for the GT500's much better handling, easygoing livability and overall civility.

    Ka-Ching!
    Done up in Grabber Blue with race stripes across the seats and on the shift knob and wearing 19-inch wheels, the 2010 Ford Shelby GT500 looks good and thoroughly American. No Mustang looks like a $50,000 car, but this one comes closest. As it should, since it is a $50,000 car.

    Wearing Yenko drag and lowered over its 20-inch wheels, the 2010 Hennessey Performance HPE550 Camaro is both more dramatic and more sinister-looking. It attracts attention the way tall bridges attract suicide attempts. But at $62,500 through the doors of Hennessey Performance in Houston, it's dang expensive. And as intoxicatingly explosive as its performance is, the regular Camaro SS would be easier to live with.

    So it's the GT500 that gets the love here, even though the HPE550's thrust has a grip on our gonads. Brute force, it seems, is best when served in a more civilized container.

    The manufacturers provided Edmunds these vehicles for the purposes of evaluation.

    Comparison

    Second Opinion

    Senior Road Test Editor Josh Jacquot says:
    Nowhere is the stinking, deceptive hiss of bullshit heard louder than in the automotive aftermarket. I know this from experience, having retired from a magazine dedicated almost exclusively to the subject after seven years of being spoon-fed that putrid nonsense by advertisers who wanted coverage. Little has changed in the five years since.

    So I'm skeptical any time an aftermarket tuner car shows up at our track for flogging. If we're lucky, it will only overheat. But occasionally a crankcase will self-ventilate. Of course, it's always our fault. And this time, just to spice things up a bit, I was told the Hennessey Camaro I was about to hammer down the track was already sold. No pressure.

    Fortunately, it didn't blow up. Not even close.

    What did happen was much more enticing: The Camaro ripped through the quarter-mile in 12.1 seconds at 120.1 mph — a lifetime quicker than the GT500. Now that's what I'm talking about. At this task, it was stellar. And if going straight were the only sticking point in this evaluation, it would be the easy winner. It also stopped slightly shorter from 60 mph. But the GT500 is a solid contender on every other front, beating the Hennessey in the slalom and skid pad and offering the warranty-guaranteed durability of a production car.

    The GT500 was also the more comfortable of the two, with a completely livable ride to go with its better handling numbers. And it does all this with a solid axle. Go figure. This is the long way of saying that the suspension mods on Hennessey's Camaro are a pointless endeavor in aesthetics alone. That is, the car is lower. And lower looks good on the Camaro.

    Speaking of looks, there's no question Hennessey's Camaro wins on this front. In fact, it rolls down my street with the subtlety of an M-107 self-propelled Howitzer cruising through Times Square. There's just no contest here.

    The question, then, is what do you want? The foolproof but prosaic durability of a known performer or the outrageous speed and styling of a truly insane tuner car, which leaves you nothing but a handful of cooked rod bearings when it all goes south?

    I'm a sucker for orange cars that do burnouts. I might just take the cooked bearings this time.

    Comparison

    Top 2 Features

    Ask Hennessey Performance Engineering to cover your Camaro HPE550 in combed mouse fur with brass trim and it'll figure out how to get it done...as long as your check clears. After all, it's in the customization business and it'll keep on customizing until your home credit line glows red.

    But otherwise Ford and GM have very similar options lists for the Mustangs and Camaros churned out of their factories. After all, neither wants you shopping the other solely because there's some feature you can't get from them. With, that is, one glaring exception.

    Screen-based navigation systems haven't yet been installed on 2010 Camaros. Chevrolet has let it be known that a traditional nav system will be available on later production 2010 Camaros — that's sometime in "late 2009." And by the time you order up a 2010 Camaro SS of your own, the navigation system may be available. So that's soon to be available. For the time being, though, a turn-by-turn audio navigation system is available through GM's OnStar subscription service. Got it?

    The bottom line, though, is that these cars are muscle machines and one buys them for the frenzy in the engine bay, not the creature comforts in the interior or because the Bluetooth works particularly well.

    Features
      2010 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 2010 Hennessey Chevy Camaro SS
    Independent rear suspension N/A S
    Navigation system O O*

    Key:
    S: Standard
    O: Optional
    O*: Optional but not included on this test vehicle (fewer points awarded)
    N/A: Not Available

    Independent rear suspension: When our pioneer forefathers crossed the continent in Conestoga wagons, they did it on solid axles. But 160 years later, it's expected that all four of a car's tires will react independently to secure themselves to the pavement. The 2010 GT500's hind end, however, is still suspended on a solid beam axle between the rear tires. The HPE550, like all 2010 Camaros, has a modern multilink fully independent rear suspension that allows both rear tires to plant their contact patches no matter what's going on with the other one.

    Navigation system: Ford's touchscreen GPS-based navigation system works about as easily as any system from any manufacturer. While Chevy has promised a similar system for later production 2010 Camaros, currently buyers must make do with turn-by-turn directions downloaded through the car's optional OnStar system.

    Comparison

    Data and Charts

    Performance
    Performance Information
      2010 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 2010 Hennessey Chevy Camaro SS
    0-60 mph acceleration, sec. 4.6 4.3
    Quarter-mile acceleration, sec. 12.5 12.1
    Quarter-mile speed, mph 115.3 120.1
    60-0-mph braking, feet 112 109
    Lateral Acceleration, g 0.93 0.87
    600-ft slalom, mph 69.3 68.2

    Comparison

    Final Rankings and Scoring Explanation

    Final Rankings
      Item Weight 2010 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 2010 Hennessey Chevy Camaro SS
    Personal Rating 2.5% 100.0 50.0
    Recommended Rating 2.5% 100.0 50.0
    Evaluation Score 25% 76.3 69.8
    Feature Content 20% 33.3 66.7
    Performance 30% 93.7 96.2
    Fuel Consumption 0% 0.0 0.0
    Price 20% 100.0 77.2
           
    Total Score 100.0% 78.8 77.6
    Final Ranking   1 2

    Personal Rating (2.5%): Purely subjective. After the test, each participating editor was asked to rank the vehicles in order of preference based on which he or she would buy if money were no object.

    Recommended Rating (2.5%): After the test, each participating editor was asked to rank the vehicles in order of preference based on which he or she thought would be best for the average consumer shopping in this segment.

    20-Point Evaluation (25%): Each participating editor ranked every vehicle based on a comprehensive 20-point evaluation. The evaluation covered everything from exterior design to cupholders. Scoring was calculated on a point system, and the scores listed are averages based on all test participants' evaluations.

    Feature Content (20%): For this category, the editors picked the top two features they thought would be most beneficial to the consumer shopping in the sport-luxury sedan segment. For each vehicle, the score was based on the number of features it had as standard equipment (earning 3 points), optional and present on our test vehicle (2 points), optional but not included (1 point) or not available (0 points) on our test vehicles.

    Performance Testing (30%): For this particular comparison, we've weighted the vehicles' track performances greater than one for, say, minivans. Flat-out acceleration, braking and handling tests were performed in a controlled environment by the same driver on the same day.

    Fuel Consumption (0%): Normally, we'd assign a weight for the cars' EPA combined fuel economy ratings, appropriate to the segment in which these muscle cars play, but the Hennessey Camaro doesn't get an EPA rating. As a consequence, fuel economy did not figure into the scoring. Besides, if you buy a blown V8 monster do you really care about fuel mileage?

    Price (20%): The numbers listed were the result of a simple percentage calculation based on the least expensive vehicle in the comparison test. Using the "as tested" prices of the actual evaluation vehicles, the least expensive vehicle received a score of 100, with the remaining vehicles receiving lesser scores based on how much each one costs.

    Sort By:

    lt1boy says:

    03:32 PM, 12/14/2009

    @wlm26.  What's wrong with a focus on straight line performance?  It's the best selling point for performance cars, and for a good reason.  Not everybody lives next door to a track and can beat the crap out of it every weekend.  And even if you did live next door to a track, can you afford several hundred dollars in track fees and tires to race there every month?  Didn't think so.  Driving fast in a straight line is what muscle cars are all about - corners be damned.  If you don't get it, then you're not a muscle car fan.

    And you also have to remember that the SLP Camaro is a tuner car, and not a factory car.  Tuner cars are almost always overpriced, so you can't really compare them to factory cars.  Having said that, if GM ever decides to come out with a Camaro Z28, it will almost certainly be priced to compete with the GT500 (around $47k) which is $10k cheaper than the SLP car, and will blow the doors off any car near its price range.

    cobramanphil says:

    11:53 AM, 11/23/2009

    The BIG problem I see with this comparison is comparing a "tuner car" versus a regular production car.  I'd say to make this a better comparision we should through in a Shelby Super snake then then to do the comparisions...

    Sort By:

    Close

    Share on Facebook Share on Facebook
    Share on Twitter Share on Twitter

    Advertisement

    Tags

    Specs & Performance

    Vehicle
    Model year2010
    MakeFord
    ModelShelby GT500 2dr Coupe
    Style2dr Coupe (5.4L 8cyl S/C 6M)
    Base MSRP$47,175
    Options on test vehicleHID Headlamps (late availability), Electronics Package, Gas-Guzzler Tax ($1,000)
    As-tested MSRP$50,895
    Drivetrain
    Drive typeRear-wheel drive
    Engine typeV8
    Displacement (cc/cu-in)5,409cc (330 cu-in)
    Block/head materialIron block/aluminum heads
    ValvetrainDouble overhead camshaft
    Compression ratio (x:1)8.4
    Redline (rpm)6,000
    Horsepower (hp @ rpm)540 @ 6,200
    Torque (lb-ft @ rpm)510 @ 4,500
    Transmission type6-speed manual
    Transmission and axle ratios (x:1)I=2.97:1, II=1.78:1, III=1.30:1, IV=1.0:1, V=0.74:1, VI=0.50:1, final drive=3.55:1
    Chassis
    Suspension, frontMacPherson strut
    Suspension, rearSolid axle
    Steering typePower steering
    Steering ratio (x:1)15.7:1
    Tire brandGoodyear
    Tire modelEagle F1 Supercar
    Tire typePerformance
    Tire size, frontP255/40ZR19 Z
    Tire size, rearP285/35ZR19 Z
    Wheel size19-by-9.5 inches front and rear
    Wheel materialPainted alloy
    Brakes, frontVentilated disc
    Brakes, rearVentilated disc
    Track Test Results
    0-45 mph (sec.)3.2
    0-60 mph (sec.)4.6
    0-60 with 1 foot of rollout (sec.)4.3
    0-75 mph (sec.)6.3
    1/4-mile (sec. @ mph)12.5 @ 115.3
    Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.)29
    60-0 mph (ft.)112
    Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph)Stability on: 66.4/ stability off: 69.3
    Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g)Stability on: 0.92g/ stability off: 0.93g
    Sound level @ idle (dB)53.3
    @ Full throttle (dB)82.4
    @ 70 mph cruise (dB)71.4
    Test Driver Ratings & Comments
    Acceleration commentsBest launch produced by 2,500-rpm clutch drop, then pedaling engine to redline to avoid wheelspin. Short-throw shifter inhibits quick shifts because of high effort. Normal shifter would be better. We ground through the synchros on several occasions.
    Braking ratingVery Good
    Braking commentsConsistent stopping distance and pedal feel. Brakes feel more than up to the task of single stops. Track use might be a different story with 3,900-pound curb weight.
    Handling ratingVery Good
    Handling commentsBest handling solid-axle car I've driven. On a smooth road you'd never know this Shelby has an axle under the back -- it's that good. Rapid turn-in, good communication.
    Testing Conditions
    Elevation (ft.)1,121
    Temperature (°F)68.12
    Wind (mph, direction)1.75 mph crosswind
    Fuel Consumption
    EPA fuel economy (mpg)14 city/22 highway
    Fuel tank capacity (U.S. gal.)16.0
    Dimensions & Capacities
    Curb weight, mfr. claim (lbs.)3,924
    Curb weight, as tested (lbs.)3,905
    Weight distribution, as tested, f/r (%)57/43
    Length (in.)188.2
    Width (in.)73.9
    Height (in.)54.5
    Wheelbase (in.)107.1
    Track, front (in.)61.9
    Track, rear (in.)62.5
    Legroom, front (in.)42.4
    Legroom, rear (in.)29.8
    Headroom, front (in.)38.5
    Headroom, rear (in.)34.7
    Shoulder room, front (in.)55.3
    Shoulder room, rear (in.)51.6
    Seating capacity4
    Cargo volume (cu-ft)13.0
    Max. cargo volume, seats folded (cu-ft)N/A
    Warranty
    Bumper-to-bumper3 years/36,000 miles
    Powertrain5 years/60,000 miles
    Corrosion5 years/Unlimited miles
    Roadside assistance5 years/60,000 miles
    Free scheduled maintenanceNot Available
    Safety
    Front airbagsStandard
    Side airbagsStandard dual front with head protection chambers
    Head airbagsNot Available
    Knee airbagsNot Available
    Antilock brakes4-wheel ABS
    Electronic brake enhancementsElectronic brakeforce distribution
    Traction controlStandard
    Stability controlStandard
    Rollover protectionN/A
    Tire-pressure monitoring systemTire-pressure monitoring
    Emergency assistance systemNot Available
    NHTSA crash test, driverNot Tested
    NHTSA crash test, passengerNot Tested
    NHTSA crash test, side frontNot Tested
    NHTSA crash test, side rearNot Tested
    NHTSA rollover resistanceNot Tested
    CollapseSpecs and Performance Expand Collapse

    Specs & Performance

    Vehicle
    Model year2010
    MakeChevrolet
    ModelCamaro
    Style2SS 2dr Coupe (6.2L 8cyl 6M)
    Base MSRP$34,225
    Options on test vehicleInferno Orange Interior Accent Trim Package, Inferno Orange Metallic Paint
    As-tested MSRP$35,050
    Drivetrain
    Drive typeRear-wheel drive
    Engine typeV8
    Displacement (cc/cu-in)6,162cc (376cu-in)
    Block/head materialAluminum block w/iron cylinder liners/aluminum heads
    ValvetrainOverhead valve
    Compression ratio (x:1)10.7
    Redline (rpm)6,600
    Horsepower (hp @ rpm)562 @ 5,900
    Torque (lb-ft @ rpm)557 @ 4,200
    Transmission type6-speed Manual
    Transmission and axle ratios (x:1)I=3.01:1, II=2.01:1, III=1.43:1, IV=1.0:1, V=0.84:1, VI=0.57:1, final drive=3.45:1
    Chassis
    Suspension, frontMacPherson strut
    Suspension, rearMultilink
    Steering typeSpeed-proportional power steering
    Steering ratio (x:1)16.1:1
    Turning circle (ft.)37.7
    Tire brandPirelli
    Tire modelP Zero Corsa
    Tire typePerformance
    Tire size, frontP275/40ZR20 Z
    Tire size, rearP315/25ZR20 Z
    Wheel size20-by-9 inches front -- 20-by-11 inches rear
    Wheel materialPainted alloy
    Brakes, frontVentilated disc
    Brakes, rearVentilated disc
    Track Test Results
    0-45 mph (sec.)2.9
    0-60 mph (sec.)4.3
    0-60 with 1 foot of rollout (sec.)4.0
    0-75 mph (sec.)5.6
    1/4-mile (sec. @ mph)12.1 @ 120.1
    Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.)27
    60-0 mph (ft.)109
    Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph)68.2
    Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g)0.87
    Sound level @ idle (dB)55.8
    @ Full throttle (dB)88.5
    @ 70 mph cruise (dB)70.5
    Test Driver Ratings & Comments
    Acceleration commentsSurprisingly, this car has enough grip to manage a good launch, but getting the technique just right isn't easy. The best time was produced by reving to 3,200 rpm and quickly engaging the clutch. The engine bogs very briefly but pulls hard quickly without breaking the tires loose. Wheelspin launches were slower.
    Braking ratingVery Good
    Braking commentsOther than one anomalous braking run (probably caused by green pad fade) this car consistently stopped in less than 110 feet from 60 with good pedal feel.
    Handling ratingPoor
    Handling commentsToo low, too little compression travel and/or too high spring rates combine to compromise this car's handling. Sure, it looks great this low but its numbers aren't as good as a stock Camaro. Some improvement might be had on a perfectly smooth surface, but those don't really exist in the real world. Plus, its ride quality is embarrassing.
    Testing Conditions
    Elevation (ft.)1,121
    Temperature (°F)71.38
    Wind (mph, direction)2.1 mph headwind
    Fuel Consumption
    EPA fuel economy (mpg)16 city/24 highway
    Edmunds observed (mpg)N/A
    Fuel tank capacity (U.S. gal.)19
    Dimensions & Capacities
    Curb weight, mfr. claim (lbs.)3,860
    Curb weight, as tested (lbs.)3,872
    Weight distribution, as tested, f/r (%)53/47
    Length (in.)190.4
    Width (in.)75.5
    Height (in.)54.2
    Wheelbase (in.)112.3
    Track, front (in.)63.7
    Track, rear (in.)63.7
    Legroom, front (in.)42.4
    Legroom, rear (in.)29.9
    Headroom, front (in.)37.4
    Headroom, rear (in.)35.3
    Shoulder room, front (in.)56.9
    Shoulder room, rear (in.)42.5
    Seating capacity4
    Cargo volume (cu-ft)11.3
    Max. cargo volume, seats folded (cu-ft)N/A
    Warranty
    Bumper-to-bumper3 years/36,000 miles
    Powertrain5 years/100,000 miles
    Corrosion6 years/100,000 miles
    Roadside assistance5 years/100,000 miles
    Free scheduled maintenanceNot available
    Safety
    Front airbagsStandard
    Side airbagsStandard dual front
    Head airbagsStandard front and rear
    Knee airbagsNot available
    Antilock brakes4-wheel ABS
    Electronic brake enhancementsElectronic brakeforce distribution
    Traction controlStandard
    Stability controlStandard
    Rollover protectionN/A
    Tire-pressure monitoring systemTire-pressure monitoring
    Emergency assistance systemNot available
    NHTSA crash test, driverNot tested
    NHTSA crash test, passengerNot tested
    NHTSA crash test, side frontNot tested
    NHTSA crash test, side rearNot tested
    NHTSA rollover resistanceNot tested
    CollapseSpecs and Performance Expand Collapse

    Advertisement