Consumer Reports comparison: Camaro vs. Mustang vs. Genesis Coupe

[ifcar]

I've included just their introductions and a few specs. If you want more detail, just ask.


3rd: Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8 Grand Touring: 70 points ($28,375)
"On paper the Hyundai Genesis Coupe has a lot of potential, but several flaws prevent it from being a compelling sports coupe. It is powered by a good-sounding and punchy V6 engine, and its 23 mpg overall is quite impressive. The power is matched with sporty and agile handling, making the Coupe fun to drive. But the car is let down by a heavy clutch and a balky manual transmission that together require extra attention to extract smooth shifts. The ride is very stiff and can be unsettled. The front-seat occupants will find plenty of room, but the rear seat is very cramped. Like other Hyundais, it offers generous equipment for the price."
0-60: 6.2 seconds
60-0: 138 feet
Avoidance maneuver speed: 54 mph

2nd: Chevrolet Camaro 2SS RS: 71 points ($35,425)
"The long-awaited, new Camaro looks and sounds the part of the muscle car, but the driving experience falls slightly short. It's based on the Pontiac G8 sedan platform and is very quick, thanks to the 6.2-liter V8 engine. It also handles capably. However, the car's weight and size somewhat undermine its agility and sporty character. Braking performance is excellent and the car has a taut and controlled ride that is not punishing. The overall emphasis on exterior and interior styling impacts practicality, with severely hampered outward visibility; hard-to-decipher, overly stylized controls; and a cramped rear seat."
0-60: 5.1 seconds
60-0: 129 feet
Avoidance maneuver speed: 55.5 mph

1st: Ford Mustang GT Premium: 78 points ($34,725)
"The freshened 2010 Ford Mustang may not ride on a platform as new as the Chevrolet Camaro's or Dodge Challenger's, but it is the better car. Ford improved the Mustang with more refined handling, upgraded interior materials, better fit and finish, and the inclusion of standard electronic stability control. The Mustang is now a better driver's car, with agile handling and good, communicative steering. While the ride is decent, it doesn't feel quite as tied down and composed as it should. The transmission shifts very smoothly and the engine delivers a throaty V8 note, and the 20 mpg overall fuel economy is good for this level of power. The rear seat is still cramped, but the upright styling helps visibility and cabin access, making the Mustang a livable daily driver as well."
0-60: 5.7 seconds
60-0: 135 feet
Avoidance maneuver speed: 57 mph


Also, from their past review of a Challenger R/T, which would have finished a very distant fourth with 53 points:
"The Challenger recaptures essential parts of the classic American muscle-car experience: exhilarating straight-line acceleration; a brawny, burbling V8; and aggressive, stock-car styling. But agility and pinpoint cornering are not part of the mix, and braking is mediocre. The new Challenger is a big, heavy car that traces its roots to the Chrysler 300/Dodge Charger. It's also a fairly comfortable highway cruiser, something the old muscle cars never were. What we have in the end is a big, brash two-door that can seat five people in a pinch."
0-60: 5.9 seconds
60-0: 142 feet
Avoidance maneuver speed: 53.5 mph

[Vinsanity]

I wonder how the 3.8 GenCoupe would have compared against the V6 Camaro. I'm thinking the results would be the same, since the GenCoupe's flaws aren't addressed by which engine the Camaro has, if that makes any sense.

[ifcar]

I wonder how the 3.8 GenCoupe would have compared against the V6 Camaro. I'm thinking the results would be the same, since the GenCoupe's flaws aren't addressed by which engine the Camaro has, if that makes any sense.

The Camaro would presumably lose its acceleration advantage but keep its other problems. So the Genesis Coupe could have emerged the victor if this were a comparison of all V6s.

[MX793]

The Camaro would presumably lose its acceleration advantage but keep its other problems. So the Genesis Coupe could have emerged the victor if this were a comparison of all V6s.

Camaro would have lost points on acceleration, but it would have recouped some by way of fuel economy (IIRC, the V6 Camaro has better EPA ratings than the V6 Genesis).

[ifcar]

Camaro would have lost points on acceleration, but it would have recouped some by way of fuel economy (IIRC, the V6 Camaro has better EPA ratings than the V6 Genesis).

Maybe. Hard to say. Perhaps they'll rate the base engines of the three cars at some point.

[sportyaccordy]

Damn, the Camaro RS is a hell of a bargain. Ford really needs to move into the 21st century with it's Mustang engines. 4.0L DOHC V6, 5.4L V8

[SVT666]

 

[Schadenfreude]

Ifcar, what is the listed combined mpg of the Camaro with the V8? It doesn't say. And I'm presuming the Camaro also came with the stick? (the auto is optional if memory serves correctly).

Cue the Nethead with his rant about the Camaro soon I'd imagine. 

[CJ]

How the hell do they get those braking numbers?  Those are all kinds of messed up.

[ifcar]

Ifcar, what is the listed combined mpg of the Camaro with the V8? It doesn't say. And I'm presuming the Camaro also came with the stick? (the auto is optional if memory serves correctly).

18 mpg, and all were sticks.

[ifcar]

How the hell do they get those braking numbers?  Those are all kinds of messed up.

I'm guessing they hit the brakes from 60 miles per hour and then measured how far the car went before stopping. But that's merely a hunch.

[S204STi]

I'm guessing they hit the brakes from 60 miles per hour and then measured how far the car went before stopping. But that's merely a hunch.

lmao, did Ifcar just crack a smarty?

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

[SVT666]

[Xer0]

Thats about the order I'd pick them too.  The Genesis had a lot of hype going in but it looks like its still a bit undercooked.  However I expect the second generation car or even a midcylce refresh to fix a lot of those problems.  Still not much of a fan of the Camaro but who can say no to 422hp for 32k?  And I'm really digging the Mustang.

[565]

lmao, did Ifcar just crack a smarty?

I don't think so.  What Iffy described is different from how all other magazines test braking distances and probably accounts for the longer distances.  I think Iffy was being logical.

It may seem weird but usually 60-0 braking runs aren't tested from stomping on the brakes at 60mph.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=130988

"Stopping distance tests are a simple matter of accelerating to 70 mph or so, coasting until velocity drops to 65 mph and then stomping on the brake pedal to fully engage the ABS until everything comes to rest."
"The stopping distance we publish comes from looking at the 60-0 and 30-0 slices of the data and selecting the shortest runs."

So basically the 60-0 distance they measure is of a car already under heavy braking from 65mph.  This distance will ignore the distance traveled while the brakes are first being engaged.

If consumer reports is doing their 60-0 braking runs actually at 60mph and measuring their distances, the distances will be longer.

[SVT666]

If consumer reports is doing their 60-0 braking runs actually at 60mph and measuring their distances, the distances will be longer.

I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but CR's braking test (if it's done this way) makes much more sense.

[ifcar]

I don't think so.  What Iffy described is different from how all other magazines test braking distances and probably accounts for the longer distances.  I think Iffy was being logical.

It may seem weird but usually 60-0 braking runs aren't tested from stomping on the brakes at 60mph.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=130988

"Stopping distance tests are a simple matter of accelerating to 70 mph or so, coasting until velocity drops to 65 mph and then stomping on the brake pedal to fully engage the ABS until everything comes to rest."
"The stopping distance we publish comes from looking at the 60-0 and 30-0 slices of the data and selecting the shortest runs."

So basically the 60-0 distance they measure is of a car already under heavy braking from 65mph.  This distance will ignore the distance traveled while the brakes are first being engaged.

If consumer reports is doing their 60-0 braking runs actually at 60mph and measuring their distances, the distances will be longer.

I was actually just being a smartass, but I'll now go back and look up how they actually test.

I know Edmunds does tend to get much shorter distances than CR does, but I don't know which of them is testing in an unusual way.


EDIT: They just say "brake tests from 60 mph", so I assume that means they are actually going 60 mph.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/how-we-test/braking/braking.htm

[565]

I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but CR's braking test (if it's done this way) makes much more sense.

It's probably alot less consistant and reproducable due to pedal travel. Which is why the other magazines all match up and CR doesn't.

I think almost all the big magazines have some sort of way of extrapolating the starting point so the car is already braking when the measurement begins.

For example Road and Track doesn't start counting the braking run until the car reachs -.3g's of acceleration to avoid the factors like pedal travel.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=8155

"To eliminate multiple variables, such as pedal travel or even an advanced safety system that can apply some braking if it senses a panicked drop throttle, we use a deceleration threshold of -0.3g as a starting point in lieu of foot-to-pedal contact. Our braking distances are then interpolated/extrapolated from exactly -0.3g at 60 mph or 80 mph until the vehicle comes to a complete stop."

[S204STi]

Either method seems like it could be valid, though personally I think it may be more realistic to give you the distance from the actual application of the brakes.  The overall system is therefore reflected.

[SVT666]

Either method seems like it could be valid, though personally I think it may be more realistic to give you the distance from the actual application of the brakes.  The overall system is therefore reflected.

Exactly.  Pedal travel should be taken into account.

[Nethead]

Either method seems like it could be valid, though personally I think it may be more realistic to give you the distance from the actual application of the brakes.  The overall system is therefore reflected.

RingDude's right, as expected.  And so is Consumer Reports: "(The Mustang)...is the better car."  

Over on the Camaro5 website, they're now posting pics of lead weights that are falling off the calipers of Camaro SSs.  Looks like Chevy's "fix" of painting the weights the same color as the calipers leaves a little to be desired

Is it true that the Camaro Engineering staff all wear propeller beanies at work?  Do their propellers have lead weights on them?

[S204STi]

Over on the Camaro5 website, they're now posting pics of lead weights that are falling off the calipers of Camaro SSs.  Looks like Chevy's "fix" of painting the weights the same color as the calipers leaves a little to be desired

Is it true that the Camaro Engineering staff all wear propeller beanies at work?  Do their propellers have lead weights on them?

lol

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

RingDude's right, as expected.  And so is Consumer Reports: "(The Mustang)...is the better car." 

Over on the Camaro5 website, they're now posting pics of lead weights that are falling off the calipers of Camaro SSs.  Looks like Chevy's "fix" of painting the weights the same color as the calipers leaves a little to be desired

Is it true that the Camaro Engineering staff all wear propeller beanies at work?  Do their propellers have lead weights on them?

You've dragged this on longer than Micheal Jacksons burial!

[SVT666]

You've dragged this on longer than Micheal Jacksons burial!

I never get tired of reading it though.  It's funny.   

[GoCougs]

You've dragged this on longer than Micheal Jacksons burial!

LOL - just imagine the Nethead craziness should the Camaro yet again out-sell the Mustang...

I don't think he'll be able to handle it.

[Nethead]

LOL - just imagine the Nethead craziness should the Camaro yet again out-sell the Mustang...

I don't think he'll be able to handle it.

GoCougs:  Why would the Nethead here have a problem--I'm not one of the new Camaro owners

It's ALWAYS been about quality before quantity--it's a Mustang thing, you (and Chevrolet) wouldn't understand

[sportyaccordy]

This Netdude guy cracks me up, down to his screen name  

[Nethead]

You've dragged this on longer than Micheal Jacksons burial!

gotta-qik-z28:  No, qikDude, Chevrolet has dragged out fixing the goddammed POS Camaro longer than Michael Jackson's burial.  Ask the owners...

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

No Oldhead! Ford has drawn out making the Track Pack available to the public longer than MJs burial! I'm starting to think the TP is just a new name for "Ringer"!