Edmunds Mustang vs Camaro vs Challenger

[SVT666]

Oh c'mon, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

You're supposed to accept cars the way they are every single time.

[Raza]

I'd bet more than one of those buyers has, surprise, more than one car.

Again, I've never needed to put stuff in the back of any sports car or GT I've ever had, even the ones with hatchbacks. Seriously, how often is it just you and nothing else in your car? I mean, you have a Lotus. I couldn't take my family anywhere in that Lotus. Is it a stupid car to have on the market because *I* need seating for 3 or more? Why we have to require cars to do things well out of their design intent in order to be considerd a viable product is beyond me.

Yes, but if you want a romantic top down weekend with your one and only, you can't just take a chainsaw to the minivan and call it a day. 

I never got to take a trip in the Boxster.  But had I been able, I would have used all of the ample trunk space in that car.  Its unusual level of practicality was one of the best windfalls.

[Xer0]

Motortrend did the same camparo and, not surprisingly, the results came out much the same.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0903_2010_chevrolet_camaro_ss_vs_2009_dodge_challenger_rt_vs_2010_ford_mustang_gt/index.html

Id be interested in seeing the 370Z and the Genesis mixed in aswell.

[SVT666]

Motortrend did the same camparo and, not surprisingly, the results came out much the same.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0903_2010_chevrolet_camaro_ss_vs_2009_dodge_challenger_rt_vs_2010_ford_mustang_gt/index.html

Id be interested in seeing the 370Z and the Genesis mixed in aswell.

In third place, the Dodge Challenger R/T.
Third of three, but hardly last. As MacKenzie well sums up: "Hugely endearing personality. Even though the Challenger starts to fall apart dynamically above 7/10ths you can't help but like the big guy. It's sorta like a Heritage Soft-Tail Harley; a carefully crafted and easy to own reminder of a simpler, sunnier America." Astutely executed, fast, and sit-back comfortable, the Challenger is the pony you'd ride for a 50-state tour. On the downside, the orange bruiser simply can't carve with the precision of its rivals, and though it starts with a mid-pack base sticker ($30,945), adding the good stuff (six-speed manual, 3.92 rear axle, limited-slip diff, 20-in. wheels and tires, etc.) pushed the price of our tester to a trio-topping $38,270.


Finishing in second place . . . the Ford Mustang GT.
Mind you, this was a photo-finish. The Mustang with Track Pack blew us all away with its sublime steering, incredible front-end grip, stylish cockpit, and beauteous V-8. As Loh notes, "That's what most impressed me: Ford's two competitors had the advantage of sampling 45 years of Mustang DNA, yet they still couldn't pull out a runaway win." The Mustang scores well on value, too: base price for the GT is $28,845, and with Premium package, Track Pack, security package, and the comfort group, our test car totaled $34,330. The Ford might even have scored an upset, except it cannot match the Camaro's unfailing poise, its breathtaking power, or its styling drama. Those quality issues sure didn't help, either.


And so . . . our winner, the Prime Pony of the 21st Century is . . . the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS.
Considering all the ways GM could easily have got this car wrong, it's nothing short of a triumph how unquestionably the company got it right. The Camaro might trail the Mustang in handling sharpness, and there's no doubt it finishes last for cabin and trunk volume, but, well, you don't pick your pony for the size of its saddlebags. Graced with massive power, excellent efficiency, unfailing refinement, and show-stopping looks, the Camaro SS nails every essential for its segment. What's more, it's priced to steal. Base sticker for the 1SS manual: just $30,995. With the Boston Acoustics audio package, our cloth-seat tester climbed only to $31,490. Go nuts with the options pencil -- adding leather, power sunroof, ground effects, six-speed auto, and more stuff you really don't need -- and you can nudge the SS just over $40K.

So there you have it: Chevrolet claims the ponycar title, circa 2009. Now, go to it, Hatfields, McCoys, and HatCoys. We've been waiting 35 years to witness once again perhaps the all-time greatest feud in Autoland. Where's my cigar? Ah, there's the opening bell!

[omicron]

Can I get a Challenger-bodied Camaro with a Mustang interior, then?

[GoCougs]

The Ford might even have scored an upset, except it cannot match the Camaro's unfailing poise, its breathtaking power, or its styling drama. Those quality issues sure didn't help, either.

Uh, so in other words, the Mustang wasn't even close to scoring an upset...

That's just bad writing there M/T.

[Lazerous]

Haven't read every post but some of you made note of the new Camaro's poor sightline issues. Kind of makes it sound like none of you have sat in any of the previous gen models.

I'll be damned if you find a single ding or scratch on mine (well that's before my sis got a hold of it). Yes, field of vision when in the driver seat is poor but you learn to adapt; I'm not saying it's OK for cars to have poor visibility issues like that but I wouldn't say it's a major deterrent. Parking in the really narrow spaces on campus didn't pose as much of a problem as getting out with the relatively long doors without touching someone else's car.

[SVT666]

Uh, so in other words, the Mustang wasn't even close to scoring an upset...

That's just bad writing there M/T.

I guess you missed this part...

"Mind you, this was a photo-finish."

[Nethead]

I guess you missed this part...

"Mind you, this was a photo-finish."

HEMI666:  HemiDude, Simon & Garfunkel wrote a song dedicated to GoGougs entitled "The Boxer":  Note the stanza "...A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest..." such as how effortlessly the solid-rear-axled Mustang outhandles the IRS Camaro, to say nothing of what the fanboyz are gonna do when the Mustang gets the new engines.   Think of it:  obsolescence in only one year after a four-year development effort by a now bankrupt company living off the dole funded by the incomes of you 'n' me.  Clearly, Socialists have found their vehicle: a waaay overweight imitation, funded by taxpayers, whose name means "shrimp" in French.  

I wonder how replicating 1969 results in "styling drama"?  Or how the Camaro's chassis ever got labeled "Zeta LIGHT"?  Zeta musta been one fat pig beforehand!  Or how "The Camaro might trail the Mustang in handling sharpness" gets translated into "unfailing poise"?  We know whose Marketing Department wrote that part of the comparo!

[GoCougs]

I guess you missed this part...

"Mind you, this was a photo-finish."

Yes, I saw that, and it's still an extension of the inherent paradox in the writing - I see that they had multiple writers who weren't exactly on the same page when it came to specifics. And FWIW, anytime I see a review that obsesses over steering as this one, I automatically knock its worth down a fair amount.

Anyone catch the video of the V6 Camaro? I swear it had a meaner exhaust note than the SS...

[NomisR]

Well, I guess none of the reviewers actually had a problem on the Camaro's styling either.  So the production version may actually be better?

[Raza]

Yes, I saw that, and it's still an extension of the inherent paradox in the writing - I see that they had multiple writers who weren't exactly on the same page when it came to specifics. And FWIW, anytime I see a review that obsesses over steering as this one, I automatically knock its worth down a fair amount.

Anyone catch the video of the V6 Camaro? I swear it had a meaner exhaust note than the SS...

You don't think steering is important?

[NomisR]

You don't think steering is important?

Well, Mustang steering isn't really that great.

[SVT666]

Well, Mustang steering isn't really that great.

WTF?  You didn't read the article, did you?

Angus MacKenzie: The best steering in an American car. Ever. Direct, linear, good feel. Astounding turn-in response -- helped in no small way by the PZero tires.

Ed Loh: Sharper more communicative steering (a result of that Track Pack?) gives the Mustang more confidence through corners. I felt more front-end grip and less lateral sway from the suspension -- especially under braking when approaching a corner.

[GoCougs]

You don't think steering is important?

Huh?

[Raza]

Huh?

[565]

WTF?  You didn't read the article, did you?

Angus MacKenzie: The best steering in an American car. Ever. Direct, linear, good feel. Astounding turn-in response -- helped in no small way by the PZero tires.

Ed Loh: Sharper more communicative steering (a result of that Track Pack?) gives the Mustang more confidence through corners. I felt more front-end grip and less lateral sway from the suspension -- especially under braking when approaching a corner.

That's probably more to do with the company it's being compared against.  The Dodge probably has more feel from the road from the radio dial than the steering wheel.

Against more worthy rivals the Mustang doesn't stand a chance in steering feel. For example:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=143666

"With that said, the Mustang's initial turn into a corner is immediate, almost disconcertingly so since the steering is lifeless and doesn't build effort commensurate with the movements of the chassis. The new car is an improvement over previous Mustangs, but it doesn't hold a candle to the way the 2009 Nissan 370Z responds to steering inputs."

So basically it's good for a Muscle car, and feels good compared to other muscle cars, but when compared back to back against a real sports car, it's no competition.  Normis R is completely on target with his comment.

[ChrisV]

Yes, but if you want a romantic top down weekend with your one and only, you can't just take a chainsaw to the minivan and call it a day. 

I never got to take a trip in the Boxster.  But had I been able, I would have used all of the ample trunk space in that car.  Its unusual level of practicality was one of the best windfalls.

But what if you wanted to tow a travel trailer for the weekend? You couldn't in the Boxster. Same if you had, oh, TWO girls to go to dinner with at the same time.

The point is, no matter WHAT car you choose, there is going to be a possible use that you can't do due to the design intent of the car. You chose not to look at, say, an an F250 crew cab dually because YOU have no use to put it to.

[SVT666]

But what if you wanted to tow a travel trailer for the weekend? You couldn't in the Boxster. Same if you had, oh, TWO girls to go to dinner with at the same time.

The point is, no matter WHAT car you choose, there is going to be a possible use that you can't do due to the design intent of the car. You chose not to look at, say, an an F250 crew cab dually because YOU have no use to put it to.

Sorry man.  That ain't the same thing.  If you can't even use a 2 seat sports car for a weekend getaway, then what good is it?

[NomisR]

But what if you wanted to tow a travel trailer for the weekend? You couldn't in the Boxster. Same if you had, oh, TWO girls to go to dinner with at the same time.

Towing?  Sure.. 2 girls?  They can sit on top of each other.. and caress each other and get ready while I drive.

[ChrisV]

Sorry man.  That ain't the same thing.  If you can't even use a 2 seat sports car for a weekend getaway, then what good is it?

I forgot that the ONLY fucking use for a sports car was taking two people and all their shit on an overnight trip. Autocrossing, regular top down driving, sporty 2-5 hour drives on a Sunday ('cause you work Saturday), or dozens of other uses arne't important. Only the ability to go on an overnight trip with someone else. Again, I've had many, many sports cars. Never went on a weekend getaway in one, and they still were used quite a bit. but I must have ben delusional since the only thing they SHOULD have been used for was overnight trips.



What a moron he is. Not another person in the car, and he may not even be many hours away from home. What a waste of a good sports car...

[ChrisV]

Towing?  Sure..

Dun look like a TRAVEL TRAILER to me.

[Vinsanity]

I'm with Hemi. If I can't use the sports car to take the lady on a weekend getaway up PCH, then it's a crying shame, if not a waste of a perfectly good sports car.

[SVT666]

I'm with Hemi. If I can't use the sports car to take the lady on a weekend getaway up PCH, then it's a crying shame, if not a waste of a perfectly good sports car.

It's the same reason I would never buy a Caterham.

[NomisR]

Dun look like a TRAVEL TRAILER to me.

But why would you tow that with a sports car?  That would rule sedans out too.  You're comparing apples to oranges.

[NomisR]

It's the same reason I would never buy a Caterham.

[NomisR]

I understand your point, people buy cars for different reasons, but reasons posted probably the biggest reason a lot of people buy Sky/Solstice, which would put it at Epic Fail. 

Again, you're arguing for the sake of arguing.. you still can't deny the fact that the trunk is too small which diminishes it's long term desirability. 

[Raza]

But what if you wanted to tow a travel trailer for the weekend? You couldn't in the Boxster. Same if you had, oh, TWO girls to go to dinner with at the same time.

The point is, no matter WHAT car you choose, there is going to be a possible use that you can't do due to the design intent of the car. You chose not to look at, say, an an F250 crew cab dually because YOU have no use to put it to.

Why would I tow a travel trailer?  What's a travel trailer? 

But the point isn't whether or not there are limitations of a body style.  It's whether or not there are limitations of a specific vehicle that has competitors that are more capable for the same or less money. 

Why would you buy a pickup truck with a useless bed?  Or an SUV with poor headroom?  Or a midsize sedan with poor trunk space?  You wouldn't, because all of those cars have competitors on the market which improve upon those failings, and manage to do everything else just the same or better. 

Why would I buy a sports car with a useless trunk if the MX-5 drives just as well, if not better, has a usable trunk, and costs the same or less? 

That's the argument.  Not "why do you need a trunk on a sports car?" 

[Raza]

I forgot that the ONLY fucking use for a sports car was taking two people and all their shit on an overnight trip. Autocrossing, regular top down driving, sporty 2-5 hour drives on a Sunday ('cause you work Saturday), or dozens of other uses arne't important. Only the ability to go on an overnight trip with someone else. Again, I've had many, many sports cars. Never went on a weekend getaway in one, and they still were used quite a bit. but I must have ben delusional since the only thing they SHOULD have been used for was overnight trips.



What a moron he is. Not another person in the car, and he may not even be many hours away from home. What a waste of a good sports car...

Caterhams likely have more trunk space than Solstices.  There's a covered box in the design, and you can add storage space as an option to the car.

No, weekend trips are not the only reason to have a sports car.  But if Car A can take you on a weekend trip and Car B can not, and they are identical otherwise, why would you choose Car B (logically, not irrationally, since the "I like it better" argument is as valid as anything to the person paying for the car)?

[Raza]

Dun look like a TRAVEL TRAILER to me.

That's a travel trailer?  Why would I want one of those?  They invented hotels a long time ago.

I mean, I have a house, I don't need to take it with me when I go away for the weekend.