Edmunds Mustang vs Camaro vs Challenger

[565]

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=144526?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..1.*


Edmunds is just full of performance car comparos recently.

[GoCougs]

Very cool - the results were what I expected.

Since the Camaro SS tested is preproduction, was it a ringer, or a laggard?

Time will tell with follow-on tests - 13.0 1/4-mile still sounds a bit slow.

[Nethead]

Back off, GoCougs!  It's got a fake hoodscoop and gills, gauges behind the floor-mounted shift knob, and an extra 300 pounds of ballast to keep it upright, no doubt.  As you've told us all along--definitely the superior car! ROTFLMAO! 

[the Teuton]

I want to like the Camaro, but I can't.  I'll go with number two in this test, please.

Also, no one mentioned the Chevy's 0-60 time, or did I miss it?

[r0tor]

i don't think i could care less then i care about either car... oh well

[SVT666]

If the Challenger is a tank, the Camaro is a bunker. Visibility stinks. Its imposing cowl meets a beltline that would deliver a wedgie requiring surgery if you tried to emulate it using your trousers. And reversing from a parking stall? Forget about seeing around the C-pillar. Your best bet is to be proactive and clear the area with a reverse burnout.

So it's hard to see out the front?  

[SVT666]

[SVT666]

I would like to see how the Camaro would compare to the Challenger SRT-8 since that's almost a dead ringer performance and power wise.

[TBR]

Back off, GoCougs!  It's got a fake hoodscoop and gills, gauges behind the floor-mounted shift knob, and an extra 300 pounds of ballast to keep it upright, no doubt.  As you've told us all along--definitely the superior car! ROTFLMAO! 

Yeah, good thing the Mustang has never had a fake hood scoop, fake gills, or any other over the top retro-cues.

I am not a big fan of those things either, but they don't change what is the superior performing car.

[SVT666]

I am not a big fan of those things either, but they don't change what is the superior performing car.

Not by much.  In fact the Mustang out-braked the Camaro, pulled the most g's, and had the sharpest handling.  The Mustang's performance was close enough they called it a driver's race with the Camaro.  In a straight line, there's no question which is faster, but the Camaro's weight becomes a problem when the corners come.

The Mustang's 3,572-pound curb weight undercuts the fatty Dodge by nearly 500 pounds and the Camaro by almost 300, and you know it the first time you bend the Ford into a corner. It feels lithe and trim, and its front end bites into the tarmac with tenacity.

At the skid pad, the Mustang's 0.91g result is the grippiest in this comparison. It stops the shortest at 107 feet from 60 mph. And while its 68.4-mph slalom result cedes the smallest sliver of speed to the Camaro, there is no sharper car in this test than the Mustang. It boils down to a driver's race versus the Camaro on our continuously winding drive loop.

[565]

Not by much.  In fact the Mustang out-braked the Camaro, pulled the most g's, and had the sharpest handling.  The Mustang's performance was close enough they called it a driver's race with the Camaro.  In a straight line, there's no question which is faster, but the Camaro's weight becomes a problem when the corners come.

The Mustang's 3,572-pound curb weight undercuts the fatty Dodge by nearly 500 pounds and the Camaro by almost 300, and you know it the first time you bend the Ford into a corner. It feels lithe and trim, and its front end bites into the tarmac with tenacity.

At the skid pad, the Mustang's 0.91g result is the grippiest in this comparison. It stops the shortest at 107 feet from 60 mph. And while its 68.4-mph slalom result cedes the smallest sliver of speed to the Camaro, there is no sharper car in this test than the Mustang. It boils down to a driver's race versus the Camaro on our continuously winding drive loop.

Yeah but Edmunds still had gripes about the live rear axle.

"Ironically, the Mustang's whippy chassis is also the source of its biggest limitation ? the live rear axle. The independent rear suspensions of the Dodge and Chevy offer superior ride quality without compromising traction. As good a job as Ford has done in refining the live axle's execution, the Mustang drives like a relic compared to the other two."

"Yes, this Camaro handles. You can throw it into a corner and not worry about the front end washing away like in the Challenger. There's surprising agility on tap for a 3,857-pound car. As your entry speeds increase, it leaves you wanting for a bit more steering feel, but the poise with which it takes to corners is eye-opening. At 68.6 mph, it pips the Mustang's slalom speed despite having a bit less grip and packing hundreds more pounds. That, friends, is talent.

In 1967, you got four-wheel drum brakes. Today, all V8-powered Camaros come standard with biggie-size four-piston Brembo brakes and summer tires that halt the Camaro from 60 mph in just 109 feet. Bonus: The pedal feels nothing like stepping on a taxidermied raccoon. In fact, the Camaro's is the most solid pedal in this trio."

[SVT666]

Also, no one mentioned the Chevy's 0-60 time, or did I miss it?

Camaro
0-60 mph = 4.7 seconds
1/4 mile = 13.0 seconds
60-0 mph = 109 ft
skidpad = 0.88
slalom = 68.6 mph

Challenger
0-60 mph = 5.3 seconds
1/4 mile = 13.9 seconds
60-0 mph = 128 ft
skidpad = 0.83
slalom = 64.7 mph

Mustang
0-60 mph = 4.9 seconds
1/4 mile = 13.5 seconds
60-0 mph = 107 ft
skidpad = 0.91
slalom = 68.4 mph

[SVT666]

Yeah but Edmunds still had gripes about the live rear axle.

"Ironically, the Mustang's whippy chassis is also the source of its biggest limitation ? the live rear axle. The independent rear suspensions of the Dodge and Chevy offer superior ride quality without compromising traction. As good a job as Ford has done in refining the live axle's execution, the Mustang drives like a relic compared to the other two."

Which is a total contradiction to the paragraph I posted.  It's almost like it was written by two different people.

"Yes, this Camaro handles. You can throw it into a corner and not worry about the front end washing away like in the Challenger. There's surprising agility on tap for a 3,857-pound car. As your entry speeds increase, it leaves you wanting for a bit more steering feel, but the poise with which it takes to corners is eye-opening. At 68.6 mph, it pips the Mustang's slalom speed despite having a bit less grip and packing hundreds more pounds. That, friends, is talent.

Impressive yes, but 0.2 mph isn't even noticeable by the human eye.

In 1967, you got four-wheel drum brakes. Today, all V8-powered Camaros come standard with biggie-size four-piston Brembo brakes and summer tires that halt the Camaro from 60 mph in just 109 feet. Bonus: The pedal feels nothing like stepping on a taxidermied raccoon. In fact, the Camaro's is the most solid pedal in this trio."

Big deal.  The seats in the Mustang are best of the 3 and that's more important then brake pedal feel.  You get used to whatever brake pedal feel your car has after a few drives, whereas the seats never become more comfortable or more supportive.  Visibility doesn't get any better with time either.

[GoCougs]

Not by much.  In fact the Mustang out-braked the Camaro, pulled the most g's, and had the sharpest handling.  The Mustang's performance was close enough they called it a driver's race with the Camaro.  In a straight line, there's no question which is faster, but the Camaro's weight becomes a problem when the corners come.

The Mustang's 3,572-pound curb weight undercuts the fatty Dodge by nearly 500 pounds and the Camaro by almost 300, and you know it the first time you bend the Ford into a corner. It feels lithe and trim, and its front end bites into the tarmac with tenacity.

At the skid pad, the Mustang's 0.91g result is the grippiest in this comparison. It stops the shortest at 107 feet from 60 mph. And while its 68.4-mph slalom result cedes the smallest sliver of speed to the Camaro, there is no sharper car in this test than the Mustang. It boils down to a driver's race versus the Camaro on our continuously winding drive loop.

No racetrack however is a "continuously winding drive loop." The Camaro SS will simply outgun the Mustang GT on virtually any road course. Further, the braking difference was 2 ft (109 ft for Camaro vs. 107 ft for Mustang), and my bet, probably statistically insignificant.

And let's not forget that Edmunds admonished the Mustang for its live axle and flexy chassis:

Mustang's whippy chassis is also the source of its biggest limitation ? the live rear axle. and As good a job as Ford has done in refining the live axle's execution, the Mustang drives like a relic compared to the other two.

No matter how you rack it or stack it, the Camaro SS is the best overall performer of the trio by a healthy margin, and at least in the test, also has the lowest MSRP to boot. The Camaro SS is the better overall car by objective measures, and there's no getting around it.

[r0tor]

from the reviews i've read so far it seems like the Camaro is suffering from some solstice-syndrome... the thing was meant to be looked at and not actually be driven in the real world when things like sightlines, interior design, ergonomics, practicality, ect ect comes into play


the solstice did real well until owners actually got their cars and found out how unpractical they became in the real world with zero storage space... hopefully the camaro won't suffer the  same fate when owners and future buyers figure out you can't see shit out of it to drive


...that ironically is why the camaro died while the mustang lived on last time around...
... you'd think they would have figured out where they went wrong...

[the Teuton]

I have a funny feeling the CTS coupe will suffer from the same problem still.

[565]

b

from the reviews i've read so far it seems like the Camaro is suffering from some solstice-syndrome... the thing was meant to be looked at and not actually be driven in the real world when things like sightlines, interior design, ergonomics, practicality, ect ect comes into play


the solstice did real well until owners actually got their cars and found out how unpractical they became in the real world with zero storage space... hopefully the camaro won't suffer the  same fate when owners and future buyers figure out you can't see shit out of it to drive


...that ironically is why the camaro died while the mustang lived on last time around...
... you'd think they would have figured out where they went wrong...

And there's nothing wrong with Solstice syndrome from GM's point of view

http://forum.miata.net/vb/showthread.php?t=315271

"US Calendar Year Sales Data from Automotive News (Must be a subscriber to access)


C.Y........Miata...........Solstice..........Sky
2005.......9801*...........5445...............0
2006.....16897*..........19710..........8671
2007.....15075............16779.........11263
2008.....10977............10739..........9162

*No distinction is made between sales of the NB and NC models"


Solstice sells very similarly to the much better Miata.  Add Sky sales into that and the GM twins outsell the much better Miata nearly 2 to 1.

What did GM learn?  It doesn't matter if your car isn't as good as the competition.  If it looks like a concept car, it doesn't matter how retarded the roof is or how much worse it is to drive, people will buy it, and continue to buy it.  Looks are everything in this world.

[SVT666]

...it doesn't matter how retarded the roof is or how much worse it is to drive...

I've heard good things about how the Solstice / Sky drives.  That it's nearly as good as the Miata.

[the Teuton]

No one's questioned the driving credentials of the hodge podge that is the Solstice.  It's a legitimately good car.  But in terms of livability, it sucks compared to the Miata.

I don't know how much more livable people expect muscle cars to be, but the high beltline may turn off shorter drivers like me or anyone Asian. 

[NomisR]

b
And there's nothing wrong with Solstice syndrome from GM's point of view

http://forum.miata.net/vb/showthread.php?t=315271

"US Calendar Year Sales Data from Automotive News (Must be a subscriber to access)


C.Y........Miata...........Solstice..........Sky
2005.......9801*...........5445...............0
2006.....16897*..........19710..........8671
2007.....15075............16779.........11263
2008.....10977............10739..........9162

*No distinction is made between sales of the NB and NC models"


Solstice sells very similarly to the much better Miata.  Add Sky sales into that and the GM twins outsell the much better Miata nearly 2 to 1.

What did GM learn?  It doesn't matter if your car isn't as good as the competition.  If it looks like a concept car, it doesn't matter how retarded the roof is or how much worse it is to drive, people will buy it, and continue to buy it.  Looks are everything in this world.

Asstek is a perfect example on how that's true.  No matter how good a car is, if it's ugly, it won't sell.

[GoCougs]

from the reviews i've read so far it seems like the Camaro is suffering from some solstice-syndrome... the thing was meant to be looked at and not actually be driven in the real world when things like sightlines, interior design, ergonomics, practicality, ect ect comes into play


the solstice did real well until owners actually got their cars and found out how unpractical they became in the real world with zero storage space... hopefully the camaro won't suffer the  same fate when owners and future buyers figure out you can't see shit out of it to drive


...that ironically is why the camaro died while the mustang lived on last time around...
... you'd think they would have figured out where they went wrong...

And it all depends what GM's goals are. If they're shooting for 150,000 units annually, I agree that this probably won't cut it. Pony cars have historically relied on chick sales to be successful, and this new Camaro just doesn't look like much of a chick car at all. If GM is looking at 30,000-50,000 units annually, I think they can hit that.

[SVT666]

No one's questioned the driving credentials of the hodge podge that is the Solstice.  It's a legitimately good car.  But in terms of livability, it sucks compared to the Miata.

I don't know how much more livable people expect muscle cars to be, but the high beltline may turn off shorter drivers like me or anyone Asian. 

Asians buy muscle cars?

[SVT666]

And it all depends what GM's goals are. If they're shooting for 150,000 units annually, I agree that this probably won't cut it. Pony cars have historically relied on chick sales to be successful, and this new Camaro just doesn't look like much of a chick car at all. If GM is looking at 30,000-50,000 units annually, I think they can hit that.

How can that be profitable though...especially at such a low price.

[the Teuton]

Asians buy muscle cars?

Maybe the Genesis.

There are some here and there.

The best example of a muscle car buyer I can find is my friend from back home.  He's on his second Firebird (Trans Am).  He's about 6'2" and somewhere over 300 lbs.  He is a fan of football and lots of beer, and he comes from an upper middle class blue collar family.  He enjoys all things American, especially beer, and likes hunting.

Multiply his age by two or three and think you will get the typical buyer for the new Camaro.  If your his height, you shouldn't have a problem.  If you're my height, you're probably going to get a Genesis.

[NomisR]

Asians buy muscle cars?

I've seen a bunch with the newer model Mustangs.  They're typically the ones driving around at night with no headlights on.  Speaking of which, why the hell do the owners of newer model Mustangs drive around with no headlights on.. I see it all the time.. much more than even Toyotas.  Any reason for that? 

[Vinsanity]

Asians buy muscle cars?

This new batch is quite tempting...

I've seen a bunch with the newer model Mustangs.  They're typically the ones driving around at night with no headlights on.  Speaking of which, why the hell do the owners of newer model Mustangs drive around with no headlights on.. I see it all the time.. much more than even Toyotas.  Any reason for that? 

They're busy fiddling around with the adjustable-color gauges?

[GoCougs]

How can that be profitable though...especially at such a low price.

Hard to say, but unlike the Mustang the Camaro leverages a global chassis whereas the Mustang sits on its own.

[r0tor]

b
And there's nothing wrong with Solstice syndrome from GM's point of view

yet its having an on and off again love affair with the chopping block while the miata will live on. 

[SVT32V]

Hard to say, but unlike the Mustang the Camaro leverages a global chassis whereas the Mustang sits on its own.

Well those numbers (30K-50K) are about what the last f-body sold or less and it was unsustainable then with a decades old bought and paid for chassis.

The mustang having sold at least 400K copies with the chassis is probably in the black a long time ago.  Plus it shared a floor pan with the S-type/LS so the mustang is not a ground up chassis built for a single model.

As a mustang fan, I am glad that Ford may be forced to finally up the hp and produce a 400 hp mustang GT.  However, they sold fine being handily beaten by LS1s, like the last time GM put together a pony car that lacks female appeal and had poor ergonomic design but plenty of power.

[SVT32V]

Asians buy muscle cars?

The current mustang was headed up by a vietnamese guy.