Compare Chevrolet Camaro 4 Convertible vs Alpina Roadster V8 vs Chevrolet Camaro 4 Convertible
Variants
3.4
3.4 AT
3.8 193
3.8 203
3.8 203 AT
5.7 279
5.7 279 AT
5.7 344 AT
Z28
Z28 AT
3.4
3.4 AT
3.8 193
3.8 203
3.8 203 AT
5.7 279
5.7 279 AT
5.7 344 AT
Z28
Z28 AT
Capacity
Cargo Capacity
215 L / 7.6 cu-ft
215 L / 7.6 cu-ft
Fuel Capacity
73.0 L / 19.3 gal
Passengers
4
2
4
Payload
335 kg / 739 lbs
Chassis
Brakes | Front
Ventilated discs
Ventilated discs
Ventilated discs
Brakes | Rear
Ventilated discs
Power Steering
Hydraulic Steering
Hydraulic Steering
Hydraulic Steering
Suspension | Front
Double-wishbone
Double-wishbone
Double-wishbone
Suspension | Rear
Solid axle
Double-wishbone
Solid axle
Tire Size
255/35 R20
Construction
Body Style
2-door Convertible
2-door Convertible
2-door Convertible
Dimensions
Size | Height
1320 mm / 52.0 in
Size | Length
4400 mm / 173.2 in
Size | Width
1830 mm / 72.0 in
Track Width | Front
1550.0 mm / 61.0 in
Track Width | Rear
1570.0 mm / 61.8 in
Weight
1615.0 kg / 3560.5 lbs
Wheel Size
16 in
16 in
Wheelbase
2505 mm / 98.6 in
Performance
Acceleration | 0 - 100 km/h
5.3 sec
Acceleration | 0 - 60 mph
5.0 sec
Fuel Economy
9.3 L/100km / 25.3 MPG (combined) | 15.0 L/100km / 15.7 MPG (urban) | 7.5 L/100km / 31.4 MPG (highway)
Top Speed
260.0 km/h / 161.6 mph
Powertrain
Drivetrain Layout
Front-engine (longitudinal), Rear-wheel drive
Front-engine (longitudinal), Rear-wheel drive
Front-engine (longitudinal), Rear-wheel drive
Engine | Compression Ratio
10.5:1
Engine | Displacement
4.8 L / 295.2 cu-in / 4837.0 cc
Engine | Power
381.0 hp / 284.1 kW @ 5800 rpm
Engine | Specific Output
78.8 hp/L / 1.3 hp/cu-in
Engine | Stroke
89.0 mm / 3.5 in
Engine | Torque
520 Nm / 383.5 lb-ft @ 3800 rpm
Engine | Type
Naturally-aspirated multi-port injected petrol V8 DOHC engine with 4 values per cylinder
Transmission | Gears
5-speed
Transmission | Type
Manual
Production
Availability
2002 ~ 2006
Reviews
Neofiliac score
72%
83%
72%
Pros
- Good engine reliability
- Decent build quality
- Easy to work on
- Superb styling (but not better than the Z8)
- Good handling (but not better than the Z8)
- Good engine reliability
- Decent build quality
- Easy to work on
Cons
- Dated styling
- A downgrade from the standard E52 Z8
- Dated styling
Remove
Remove
Remove
Add up to 4 products to the comparison using the search bar above
Information on this page is provided on an as-is basis. No warranty on accuracy is implied. This page may contain affiliate links to third-party merchants such as Amazon and eBay. If you make a purchase using the supplied link, we may receive a commission. Neofiliac places the utmost respect for your privacy. We use no cookie whatsoever beyond that needed for the proper functioning of the website.