Chevrolet Camaro vs. Ford Mustang: Camaro's Ahead...

[hounddog]

I have a question; is the sequential turn signal on the new Mustang something that is aftermarket, or is it factory?

Was behind an odd gold colored convertible early today, top down beige-ish interior with very lovely 30something blonde, and it had that.

It also had a very lovely exhaust sound, not really a note per se, that made me smile.

[dazzleman]

My uncle had a '65 Mustang convertible, with a stick shift, but he had to give it up because he lost his right arm to cancer when he was 21.  Luckily he survived, but that would have been a great car to keep and hand down (though I'm sure he drove it like a maniac and didn't take great care of it).

[MX793]

I have a question; is the sequential turn signal on the new Mustang something that is aftermarket, or is it factory?

Was behind an odd gold colored convertible early today, top down beige-ish interior with very lovely 30something blonde, and it had that.

It also had a very lovely exhaust sound, not really a note per se, that made me smile.

For 2010 models and newer, the sequential turn signals are a standard feature from the factory.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

Camaro is hideous, heavy and not in the Rustang's league performance wise (where are the Camaro SS vs M3 lap comparisons?). Rustang GT 5.0 all the way.

Are you  ?

[hotrodalex]

The Mustang is not as authentic as the original, but still looks pretty good.  Of the three, the Camaro is my least favorite reproduction.  I think it looks a bit like a fake or cheap imitation of the original.  I loved the Camaro from the late '60s until the late '70s, after which it became a giboni-mobile mainly for guidos, and later it slid even further down the social scale.  But in its heyday, it was a great car.  I had the sister car, a '73 Firebird.

The Camaro isn't trying to exactly copy the original, like the Challenger did and Mustang does to a degree. It's supposed to be a modern car that has a few similar styling cues. It does a great job of it, IMO.

I like all 3 cars and I think it'd be a tough decision for me to buy just one. All of the weaknesses (except the weight of the Camaro and [especially] the Challenger) can be overcome for the most part with a few aftermarket tweaks, which I would do. I think a Camaro convertible might win out, though.

[565]

Motor Trend

M3 Competition
0-60 mph = 4.4
1/4 mile = 12.8
Lap Time = 1:32.07 (author)
Lap Time = 1:27.67 (pro)

Mustang GT
0-60 mph = 4.4
1/4 mile = 12.7
Lap Time = 1:31.52 (author)
Lap Time = 1:27.76 (pro)

Okay that doesn't say anything about how fast the Mustang GT is against the Camaro SS at all.  To my knowledge there has only ever been one direct laptime test of the Camaro SS and the Mustang GT 5.0 at the track and it's this one.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/comparison/2010-chevrolet-camaro-ss-vs.-2011-ford-mustang-gt

Camaro SS 1:37.7
Mustang GT  1:37.6

Wow a whole 1/10th of a second!   I don't know where this delusional idea that the Mustang GT is substantially faster around the track came from, but it's complete moonshine only believed by idiots and not in anyway supported by any data.  This test and the Lightning VIR test (which was not a direct test) pretty much show the cars are about even on the track.  This is more of an accomplishment for the Camaro considering it's that much heavier and pulls less lateral G's with its narrower front tires.

[GoCougs]

Yup. Been point that out since the beginning. Test after test after test shows the 2011 Mustang GT is no quicker and no faster in a straight line or around a track than the Camaro SS. Actually, more often than not comparison test put the Mustang GT slower (in a straight line).

Not only is the Camaro heavier and pulls less lateral Gs, the Camaro hasn't benefited from 7 years of tweaks. Another interesting conundrum is not only does the Mustang GT have a slightly better power/weight ratio and a slightly wider power band, it has far lower gearing:

Mustang GT max speed in gear:
1st: 40 mph
2nd: 60 mph
3rd: 86 mph
4th: 110 mph
5th: 146 mph
6th: 146 mph

Camaro SS max speed in gear:
1st: 52 mph
2nd: 77 mph
3rd: 110 mph
4th: 157 mph
5th: 157 mph
6th: 157 mph

And yet the Camaro SS pulls it off. Imagine if the Camaro had the Mustang GT gearing. Sure people might not like the looks or the legacy or sacrifice in utility, but if you think the Camaro isn't as good or better a performer you're simply wrong

[SVT666]

More often than not Cougs?  How about one comparo.  Just one has ever shown the Camaro to be faster.  Only one.  But I guess that is enough for you to claim victory. 

[ifcar]

Who cares which one is faster? I can't think of a single review that doesn't say the Mustang is more fun.

[GoCougs]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's "complete moonshine only believed by idiots" but I do agree (that it has been proven) that it's "not in anyway supported by any data."

The problem is Mustang fanboys, even evidenced by this fairly innocuous thread, got mega bent that the Camaro turned out as good as it did; not only on the merits of the car itself but that it was far more successful than anticipated in the market place, completely dominating sales of the Mustang.

[ifcar]

Who cares which one is more fun? These cars don't sell on "fun." They sell on legacy, styling, and (straight line) performance, and in that order.

I would say it is practically indisputable that more pony car customers care about whether their car is fun than, say, 2005 Accord LX V6 customers care about their track times.


EDIT: Whoah! I haven't seen time traveling since the Car and Driver days!

[GoCougs]

Who cares which one is faster? I can't think of a single review that doesn't say the Mustang is more fun.

Who cares which one is more fun? These cars don't sell on "fun." They sell on legacy, styling, and (straight line) performance, and in that order.

[sportyaccordy]

Who cares which one is more fun? These cars don't sell on "fun." They sell on legacy, styling, and (straight line) performance, and in that order.

This gets the of the year. I think the sig has been replaced.

Are you....  .... you really think the driving experience, and by extension FUN of a muscle car doesn't factor into people's heads when they buy them?

You think the strong aftermarket & racing history of the Mustang isn't borne out of people enjoying pushing their performance envelopes? Why would someone get into the expensive sport of auto racing if it wasn't fun?

Are you from this planet?

[GoCougs]

I would say it is practically indisputable that more pony car customers care about whether their car is fun than, say, 2005 Accord LX V6 customers care about their track times.

Then why are "more pony car customers" buying fewer "more fun" Mustangs?

Logic is logical.

[ifcar]

Then why are "more pony car customers" buying fewer "more fun" Mustangs?

Logic is logical.

Perhaps because it only takes two sales for there to be twice as many pony car customers who care about fun than Accord LX V6 sedan customers who care about track times.


But seriously, if the market didn't care about about fun-to-drive characteristics, the sales race between the Mustang and Camaro wouldn't even be close.

[GoCougs]

Perhaps because it only takes two sales for there to be twice as many pony car customers who care about fun than Accord LX V6 sedan customers who care about track times.


But seriously, if the market didn't care about about fun-to-drive characteristics, the sales race between the Mustang and Camaro wouldn't even be close.

Mega Internetry fail on the Accord there iffy. Or, maybe, that is automaton humor and I'm not picking up on it.

The sales race isn't too close really; the Camaro is up 33% YTD (40.2k vs. 30.2k). Does this mean that the logic holds - that "fun to drive" isn't a factor (even if it's an improvable if false premise)?

[ifcar]

Mega Internetry fail on the Accord there iffy. Or, maybe, that is automaton humor and I'm not picking up on it.

The sales race isn't too close really; the Camaro is up 33% YTD (40.2k vs. 30.2k). Does this mean that the logic holds - that "fun to drive" isn't a factor (even if it's an improvable if false premise)?

How can the fact that 30,000 people in five months chose the Mustang over the Camaro mean that the Mustang's prime advantage isn't a widespread factor?

[MX793]

Yup. Been point that out since the beginning. Test after test after test shows the 2011 Mustang GT is no quicker and no faster in a straight line or around a track than the Camaro SS. Actually, more often than not comparison test put the Mustang GT slower (in a straight line).

Not only is the Camaro heavier and pulls less lateral Gs, the Camaro hasn't benefited from 7 years of tweaks. Another interesting conundrum is not only does the Mustang GT have a slightly better power/weight ratio and a slightly wider power band, it has far lower gearing:

Mustang GT max speed in gear:
1st: 40 mph
2nd: 60 mph
3rd: 86 mph
4th: 110 mph
5th: 146 mph
6th: 146 mph

Camaro SS max speed in gear:
1st: 52 mph
2nd: 77 mph
3rd: 110 mph
4th: 157 mph
5th: 157 mph
6th: 157 mph

And yet the Camaro SS pulls it off. Imagine if the Camaro had the Mustang GT gearing. Sure people might not like the looks or the legacy or sacrifice in utility, but if you think the Camaro isn't as good or better a performer you're simply wrong

Of course, the downside to shorter gearing is that you have to shift more often.  This is one reason why the current Mazda3 isn't any quicker to 60 than the previous generation despite having a better power/weight ratio.  The new car needs 2 shifts to hit 60 (I think it taps out at ~54 mph in 2nd) while the old car could hit 60 in 2nd gear.  I believe this also contributes to the regular WRX being quicker to 60 than the more powerful STI.  Every shift is ~.4 seconds of time when you're basically coasting.  The Mustang needs 3 shifts to clear the 1/4 mile while the Camaro only needs 2.

[GoCougs]

How can the fact that 30,000 people in five months chose the Mustang over the Camaro mean that the Mustang's prime advantage isn't a widespread factor?

Because 40k of the same types (i.e., pony car customers) bought the Camaro.

Again, most pony car customers don't care about "fun to drive" as defined by fanboys and wanker auto mags. "Fun to drive" for the most pony car customers is saying they drive a Camaro, Mustang or Challenger. 

[ifcar]

Because 40k of the same types (i.e., pony car customers) bought the Camaro.

Again, most pony car customers don't care about "fun to drive" as defined by fanboys and wanker auto mags. "Fun to drive" for the most pony car customers is saying they drive a Camaro, Mustang or Challenger. 

To answer your question: "Who cares which one is more fun?" 30,000 people cared in the first five months of 2011.

[GoCougs]

Of course, the downside to shorter gearing is that you have to shift more often.  This is one reason why the current Mazda3 isn't any quicker to 60 than the previous generation despite having a better power/weight ratio.  The new car needs 2 shifts to hit 60 (I think it taps out at ~54 mph in 2nd) while the old car could hit 60 in 2nd gear.  I believe this also contributes to the regular WRX being quicker to 60 than the more powerful STI.  Every shift is ~.4 seconds of time when you're basically coasting.  The Mustang needs 3 shifts to clear the 1/4 mile while the Camaro only needs 2.

True, but ultimately it's a balance between more shift time and quicker acceleration. I don't know where the trade-off is but I'd say on balance is on the side of quicker acceleration. After all, why would Ford go with such low gearing? They certainly didn't do it for improved MPG or road noise.

In the (majority) comparison test showing the Camaro to be the quicker car the gap only widened as speeds increased; depending on the test; Edmunds, C&D, R&T, et al. the Camaro is ahead by up to 1.5-2 seconds by 130 mph.

[GoCougs]

To answer your question: "Who cares which one is more fun?" 30,000 people cared in the first five months of 2011.

Do you really think 30,000 people said to themselves, "the Mustang is 'more fun to drive' so I will buy it" ?

[ifcar]

Do you really think 30,000 people said to themselves, "the Mustang is 'more fun to drive' so I will buy it" ?

Considering that's the Mustang's primary advantage over the Camaro, I think that extreme is more plausible than your suggestion that it's a factor for none or nearly none of them.

[GoCougs]

Considering that's the Mustang's primary advantage over the Camaro, I think that extreme is more plausible than your suggestion that it's a factor for none or nearly none of them.

In lots of previous years whereby the Camaro was the better performer and arguably "more fun to drive" the Mustang way outsold it. The 2010 Mustang was clearly the inferior car in objective regard, yet, plenty of people bought it over the 2010 Camaro. Thus, the "fun to drive" logic just doesn't hold.

The #1 reason why people buy Mustangs it because it is a Mustang. (And same for the Camaro and Challenger.)

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

Then why are "more pony car customers" buying fewer "more fun" Mustangs?

Logic is logical.

As a pony car owner Straight line speed was the MAIN deciding factor (performance wise) in my purchase. Now I wouldn't be caught dead in another Mustang but a Challenger RT would be in the hunt if was just as fast as the Camaro SS. IMHO Pony/muscle car buyers would prefer more straight line speed than the nimbleness everyone harps on in the Mustang. Now don't get me wrong, No one wants a wallowing boat but as the numbers show the SS is dead even with the 5.0 around most tracks and once speeds get over 100-120mph it flats outruns the Mustang! And thats what guys like me like when it comes to these types of cars. Just y .02!

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

The #1 reason why people buy Mustangs it because it is a Mustang. (And same for the Camaro and Challenger.)

Well said! Brand loyalty is the second deciding factor!

[Atomic]

I prefer the Dodge Challenger, which by most accounts is the "cruiser" amongst this crowd.

I like the 21st century design and I love the 1970s Challenger. Seeing the movie Vanishing Point is a must for Mopar fans. 

i love the dodge challenger, but hope the rumors of the next sporty dodge are true: smaller, but still very roomy inside (a plus); new sport car inspired seats with better support for increased comfort and sex appeal; awd option; ragtop convertible availability; bigger departure from its sedan brethren; and better (8 or 9 speed) gated automatic (with the continuation of the 6 spd. manual).

[GoCougs]

As a pony car owner Straight line speed was the MAIN deciding factor (performance wise) in my purchase. Now I wouldn't be caught dead in another Mustang but a Challenger RT would be in the hunt if was just as fast as the Camaro SS. IMHO Pony/muscle car buyers would prefer more straight line speed than the nimbleness everyone harps on in the Mustang. Now don't get me wrong, No one wants a wallowing boat but as the numbers show the SS is dead even with the 5.0 around most tracks and once speeds get over 100-120mph it flats outruns the Mustang! And thats what guys like me like when it comes to these types of cars. Just y .02!

Absolutely. Things like "steering feel" and "handling" and other factors become deciding factors for some once auto mags felt they should be. Most buyers don't care about that stuff - pony cars or otherwise. If buyers cared what auto mags said, they wouldn't be buying many of the class sales leaders - Camaro, Corolla, Camry, etc.

[Onslaught]

Absolutely. Things like "steering feel" and "handling" and other factors become deciding factors for some once auto mags felt they should be. Most buyers don't care about that stuff - pony cars or otherwise. If buyers cared what auto mags said, they wouldn't be buying many of the class sales leaders - Camaro, Corolla, Camry, etc.

Normal people don't care or know about these things. "Car people" should need/want these things.

[Xer0]

This whole "fun to drive" argument is stupid.  At the end of the day, the Camaro is fun enough so that whatever advantage the Mustang has over it, the market doesn't seem to really care for since it already meets the expectations.