Who would win: 67 Jaguar or 2012 Camaro?

heycal · Jan 1, 2013

I know nothing about cars, but have some questions for those who do: which is faster, a 1967 XKE convertible in excellent condition or a 2012 Camaro? Are they similar in performance, or vastly different? Assume typical engines in each, so whatever they come with (nothing souped up). Which handles better? What would happen if a 67 Jaguar was trying to chase down a Camaro through suburban streets?

And how much might a 1967 Jaguar in excellent condition cost?

Bonus question: which is faster, new Dodge Challenger or new Camaro?

Please refrain from too much car mumbo-jumbo in your answers. Remember, I am not a car guy.

krz · Jan 1, 2013

New cars are almost always faster than old cars.

Grandma's 2013 Camry is pretty much as fast as most of the 90's performance cars.

Mick · Jan 1, 2013

2012 camaro is faster than 2012 dodge challenger
and 2012 dodge challenger is faster than 1967 Jaguar XKE.

heycal · Jan 2, 2013

Thanks for the info, fellas. But remember, we are talking about a chase through suburban streets, so top speeds of 100 plus wouldn't matter much. I guess it would be more about pick-up and quickness and handling.

What might the 0-60 be on these two cars?

heycal · Jan 2, 2013

gavna said:
Is it a coupe, 2+2 or a rag top?

What are the differences? I was thinking of the one with two doors and a convertible.

Mister drool · Jan 2, 2013

Man... i wish i had the money to participate in this discution...

that said, any of those cars you'll get will be the center of attention for a lot of females eyes

but

if you just want speed for the streets, then with 1/6 or less of the cost of those priced cars, get a yamaha r6 and blow them awwwwway

heycal · Jan 2, 2013

Mister drool said:
Man... i wish i had the money to participate in this discution...

that said, any of those cars you'll get will be the center of attention for a lot of females eyes

but

if you just want speed for the streets, then with 1/6 or less of the cost of those priced cars, get a yamaha r6 and blow them awwwwway

You can participate in this discussion without money, though an attempt at basic spelling is always appreciated. So is sticking to the question asked -- 67 Jag v. 2012 Camaro -- and not introducing other vehicles into the mix.

Mick · Jan 2, 2013

heycal said:
Thanks for the info, fellas. But remember, we are talking about a chase through suburban streets, so top speeds of 100 plus wouldn't matter much. I guess it would be more about pick-up and quickness and handling.

What might the 0-60 be on these two cars?

Not sure about the Jaguar but a 70's V-8 ferrari would reach 60 in about 7 seconds when it was new. However it can no longer do that today. I saw a TOP GEAR episode where they tested old exotic cars and they all were much slower today.
So, Jaguar XKE 0-60 time most likely would be over 8 seconds.

a Challenger R/T V-8 would reach 60 in about 5.3 seconds
a Camaro SS V-8 would reach 60 in about 4.7 seconds.

But a Mustang Boss V-8 would beat them all. It would reach 60 in about 4.0 seconds.

Dedans Penthouse · Jan 2, 2013

The XKE's 0-60 times were never that 'wow' to begin with, between 6.8 sec. and 7.2. That said if you want to snatch (no pun intended) some gum-snappin' guidette snapper, go with the Camaro (preferrably in black or "speeding ticket" red). The '67 Jag is a lot more "eye candy" - problem is, it's definitely not a winter car (rear wheel drive) and you would definitely want to garage it.

Mister drool · Jan 2, 2013

why these particular two vehicles?
Are you getting a good deal on one of these used?
Being serious now and attempting to help the thread a bit, I have to admit I do admire the design of the jaguar. I have a soft spot for classical automobiles, and of course the jaguar is just sublime in taste. Quite like a Casa Ferreirinha wine its for experts only. Regarding both cars performance… can’t help you there, sorry.

goran_ace · Jan 2, 2013

heycal said:
But remember, we are talking about a chase through suburban streets, so top speeds of 100 plus wouldn't matter much. I guess it would be more about pick-up and quickness and handling.

Racing/chasing through the suburbs is always a bad idea so let's assume the streets are closed off to pedestrians and other traffic.

Depends on the skill of the drivers. Without a long straight the Camaro wouldn't be able to take advantage of the power difference and won't be able to pull away from the Jag without getting aggressive in the turns. That's a lot of power for an average driver to handle and it's more than likely he won't be able to keep it between the curbs. That said, the Jag has a reputation for overheating and might not be able to stand up to the rigors of a spirited chase.

LuckyR · Jan 2, 2013

heycal said:
I know nothing about cars, but have some questions for those who do: which is faster, a 1967 XKE convertible in excellent condition or a 2012 Camaro? Are they similar in performance, or vastly different? Assume typical engines in each, so whatever they come with (nothing souped up). Which handles better? What would happen if a 67 Jaguar was trying to chase down a Camaro through suburban streets?

And how much might a 1967 Jaguar in excellent condition cost?

Bonus question: which is faster, new Dodge Challenger or new Camaro?

Please refrain from too much car mumbo-jumbo in your answers. Remember, I am not a car guy.

Which is better at impressing the womenfolk? I'd go with the Jag...

Bowtiesarecool · Jan 2, 2013

Ridiculous threads like this are ridiculous.

dParis · Jan 2, 2013

In order to effectively chase your girlfriend's lover around the neighborhood, you probably want the car to start, so the Camaro will get the nod over the Jag which will have ignition failure sooner rather than later, most likely. But for guys sporting the skinny jean look, a fixed gear Schwinn is most appropriate.

heycal · Jan 3, 2013

Dedans Penthouse said:
The XKE's 0-60 times were never that 'wow' to begin with, between 6.8 sec. and 7.2. That said if you want to snatch (no pun intended) some gum-snappin' guidette snapper

Too bad the Trans Am is gone...

Mister drool said:
why these particular two vehicles?
Are you getting a good deal on one of these used?

I have a reason for asking, but not because of possibly purchasing either of them.

goran_ace said:
Racing/chasing through the suburbs is always a bad idea so let's assume the streets are closed off to pedestrians and other traffic.

Depends on the skill of the drivers. Without a long straight the Camaro wouldn't be able to take advantage of the power difference and won't be able to pull away from the Jag without getting aggressive in the turns. That's a lot of power for an average driver to handle and it's more than likely he won't be able to keep it between the curbs. That said, the Jag has a reputation for overheating and might not be able to stand up to the rigors of a spirited chase.

You win the "best answering the actual question asked" award. Thank you.

LuckyR said:
Which is better at impressing the womenfolk? I'd go with the Jag...

What about the aforementioned guidettes?

dParis said:
. But for guys sporting the skinny jean look, a fixed gear Schwinn is most appropriate.

Indeed. If a man can pull off the skinny jean look, a snazzy car is uneccesary for snatching the aforementioned lady folk.

heycal · Jan 3, 2013

Bowtiesarecool said:
Ridiculous threads like this are ridiculous.

Whoa there. You don't see me trashing your dreary "low tension kevlar" thread, do you?

Dedans Penthouse · Jan 3, 2013

heycal, my serious take? An XKE wins hands down in the ownership department particularly one that is in (as you said) "excellent" condition. What color btw?

I would only hope that this could be your 'other' (cruising) ride vs. your every day car especially since it's a convertible - I wouldn't want that bad boy subject to ice/snow and the body subject to de-icing salt.

Bowtiesarecool · Jan 3, 2013

heycal said:
Whoa there. You don't see me trashing your dreary "low tension kevlar" thread, do you?

Ok, I apologize for upsetting you.

So then, precisely which '67 jag are you referring to, because they made 3 different cars that year.

The fact that just about any street car from 40+ years ago will have a huge disadvantage mechanically when compared to something made now notwithstanding, a new Camaro will most certainly beat any of the cars Jaguar made back then, off-the-line, because American muscle cars are designed to A: look pretty, B: have a very low manufacturing cost, using as many parts from other models as possible, and C: go fast in a straight line.

European cars are designed for small, winding roads. Assuming drivers of equal skill, the 67 XKE would probably be able to keep up with the much larger and heavier new Camaro in your suburban street race scenario.

As far as the Challenger vs. Camaro, it's kinda tough to say which would be faster. They each have 4 different engines to choose from, and various other suspension and drivetrain options. Chevy's engines are bigger, heavier and more powerful but the Dodge weighs less. There's no way to accurately compare them without actually racing the two cars head to head.

heycal · Jan 3, 2013

Dedans Penthouse said:
heycal, my serious take? An XKE wins hands down in the ownership department particularly one that is in (as you said) "excellent" condition. What color btw?

I would only hope that this could be your 'other' (cruising) ride vs. your every day car especially since it's a convertible - I wouldn't want that bad boy subject to ice/snow and the body subject to de-icing salt.

Oh yeah, the Jaguar is way more desirable than the Camaro. Obvi. And yes, I agree it's a car meant for a weekend spin on the Sprain as opposed to every day Central Ave slugging.

What color? I don't know. What color do you like? (The Camaro is red).

Bowtiesarecool said:
Ok, I apologize for upsetting you.

I was very upset to read that. Thank you for apologizing.

Bowtiesarecool said:
So then, precisely which '67 jag are you referring to, because they made 3 different cars that year.

European cars are designed for small, winding roads. Assuming drivers of equal skill, the 67 XKE would probably be able to keep up with the much larger and heavier new Camaro in your suburban street race scenario.

Sounds about right.

As for which Jag, which one is the convertible rag top? That one.

Bowtiesarecool · Jan 3, 2013

heycal said:
As for which Jag, which one is the convertible rag top? That one.

The XKE (or, E type) came in coupe and convertible. I consider them to be different cars because convertibles in general, handle very different than their hardtop counterparts and must be built with more structural reinforcements, making them heavier. There is also the MK2, which is the "sedan" that many getaway drivers of the time preferred. An excellent car as well.

LuckyR · Jan 3, 2013

heycal said:
What about the aforementioned guidettes?

Well if you are into gum snappers like DP, then I will defer to his expertise in this area but I prefer women who know quality.

heycal · Jan 3, 2013

Bowtiesarecool said:
The XKE (or, E type) came in coupe and convertible. I consider them to be different cars because convertibles in general, handle very different than their hardtop counterparts and must be built with more structural reinforcements, making them heavier. There is also the MK2, which is the "sedan" that many getaway drivers of the time preferred. An excellent car as well.

This post is useless without pictures.

Bowtiesarecool · Jan 3, 2013

heycal said:
This post is useless without pictures.

How so? You asked which was the convertible. I just explained it was the XKE.

heycal · Jan 3, 2013

Bowtiesarecool said:
How so? You asked which was the convertible. I just explained it was the XKE.

Why can't you provide pictures too?

Separate question: I assume the Jaguar is a polluting gas guzzler of sorts? Yay or nay?

Mike Bulgakov · Jan 3, 2013

heycal said:
What would happen if a 67 Jaguar was trying to chase down a Camaro through suburban streets?

heycal said:
I have a reason for asking, but not because of possibly purchasing either of them.

Heycal, are you writing a screenplay? You are not stalking a woman who drives a Camaro, I hope.

Bowtiesarecool · Jan 3, 2013

heycal said:
Why can't you provide pictures too?

Because you have internet and fingers. Google it yourself.

Mick · Jan 3, 2013

when I was younger, I loved the Ferrari Testarossa. I told myself, one day I would buy that car. Now that I can afford it, I am against the idea of buying a 25 year old car but you are contemplating about buying a 46 year old car :shock:

heycal · Jan 3, 2013

Bowtiesarecool said:
Because you have internet and fingers. Google it yourself.

Are you nutso? I don't know how to google something like that.

Bowtiesarecool · Jan 4, 2013

heycal said:
Are you nutso? I don't know how to google something like that.

You knew how to click my name and read through my threads to find something boring when you were upset that I initially called this thread ridiculous but, don't know how to google, "1967 Jaguar"?

heycal · Jan 4, 2013

Bowtiesarecool said:
but, don't know how to google, "1967 Jaguar"?

I'm fearful. Will you please talk me through it?

dParis · Jan 4, 2013

heycal said:
I'm fearful. Will you please talk me through it?

What are you afraid of? That you might stumble across a website for horny middle-aged Latinas?

heycal · Jan 5, 2013

gavna said:
2 + 2 - was a four seater with a second row of seats

Coupe - pure two seater

Rag top - its a convertible Coupe

Thanks. Is there a convertible 4 2x2 version?

dParis said:
What are you afraid of? That you might stumble across a website for horny middle-aged Latinas?

This reads like it's intended to refer to something previously discussed, or is somehow specific to me. But I don't get it ether way. Explain yourself, dParis!

pvaudio · Jan 7, 2013

This thread is absurd. The XKE is a beautiful piece of design and that's about it. It was never fast, it never handled well and it never stopped well. In the 60s, magazines verified the 0-60 times of the 4.2 to be a bit over 7 seconds. However, it was later found that these test cars were specially set up by Jaguar themselves to give better than normal performance (I'm not joking, a quick google will verify this). Now while not exactly a b-road bomber, the 2012 Camaro is going to be faster, easier to drive, handle better, stop better and steer better. The E-type was never meant to be a legitimate sports car or roadster, it was a GT car.

pvaudio · Jan 7, 2013

Bowtiesarecool said:
European cars are designed for small, winding roads. Assuming drivers of equal skill, the 67 XKE would probably be able to keep up with the much larger and heavier new Camaro in your suburban street race scenario.

No, just no. Even if you're talking about the XKE, it is not a sports car. It is a GT car which rolls about in the corners. It was not a fantastic handling car.

NLBwell · Jan 7, 2013

Yeah, but the XKE was the coolest looking car ever.
British Racing Green, of course.

Dedans Penthouse · Jan 8, 2013

LuckyR said:
Well if you are into gum snappers like DP, then I will defer to his expertise in this area but I prefer women who know quality.

lol, from whence did thou come to this conclusion Lucky? ...I'll have you know that outside of this board I'm called by my real name: Biff.

Rgroves · Jan 8, 2013

This has to be one of the strangest threads ever, but here goes.

As a car guy and someone who is involved in the racing industry, the modern Camaro wins without even a serious challenge. In fact a new Honda Odessy minivan wins without much of a fight. XKE is one of the best looking designs in history, period! However, 46 years of technology and tire development have completely eclipsed the older cars. In a way the old stuff is more "fun and charming" to drive but will not beat them in competition. Don't forget about the tires. Jaguar was meant to run on bias ply tires and even though the suspension was great in the '60's, the Camaro with 19" radials will dance around the Jag.

Here is a video from Top Gear testing an all original '65 Aston Martin and an XKE with upgraded tires and suspension. The Aston did it in 1:46 and the updated Jag was 1:32:8. The "Stars in a Reasonably Priced Car" go around that track in a '12 Kia C'eed in 1:43ish. Can't trump modern technology.

http://youtu.be/iwiO_bYe3Po

FastFreddy · Jan 8, 2013

2013 Ford Mustang Shelby GT 500 662@6250rpm HP 600@4000rpmTQ 11.6 in the quarter mile(54k). 2013 Porsche 911 Turbo S 10.9 in the quater mile(162k) and last but not least Bugatti Veyron 9.9 in the quarter mile.(2.2 M)

dParis · Jan 8, 2013

pvaudio said:
This thread is absurd.

Rgroves said:
This has to be one of the strangest threads ever

You guys don't get around here much, do you?

heycal said:
This reads like it's intended to refer to something previously discussed, or is somehow specific to me. But I don't get it ether way. Explain yourself, dParis!

Well, when I read your post I thought, 'Pretending such a statement was sincere, what would make one fearful of googling 1967 Jaguar?' and the first thing that popped into mind was a website featuring 46 year old Latina versions of the North American "cougar". So, no historical reference there, just an odd, spontanious thought commited to bandwidth - but hardly out of place in this absurd, strange thread. Hope that cleared things up.

LuckyR · Jan 11, 2013

FastFreddy said:
2013 Ford Mustang Shelby GT 500 662@6250rpm HP 600@4000rpmTQ 11.6 in the quarter mile(54k). 2013 Porsche 911 Turbo S 10.9 in the quater mile(162k) and last but not least Bugatti Veyron 9.9 in the quarter mile.(2.2 M)

Anyone who uses a Porsche 911 in the quarter, doesn't know what Porsches are for...

Who would win: 67 Jaguar or 2012 Camaro?

Hall of Fame

Professional

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Legend

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Legend

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

Legend

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

New User

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Legend

Similar threads