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

[hotrodalex]

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.

Bah! Don't bring logic and perspective into this debate!

[Eye of the Tiger]

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

Ayn Rand isn't a car person 

[GoCougs]

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

So the guys who pay $10k, $40k, or $100k+ for iconic cars from the '50s, '60s, or '70s (= things like "steering feel" and "handling" were more or less suggestions) aren't "car people?"

[the Teuton]

A lot of publications are saying the Camaro has a "cool" factor going for it that the Mustang doesn't, somewhat having to do with the Transformers movies and really good marketing (go figure that one out). I can't say that's too far from the truth. The Mustang strikes me as a much more livable car, though. It's a lot less bulky feeling, more practical, and just as fast. And it comes with a better exhaust note from the factory.

[sportyaccordy]

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.

Most car buyers don't buy pony cars either

[GoCougs]

A lot of publications are saying the Camaro has a "cool" factor going for it that the Mustang doesn't, somewhat having to do with the Transformers movies and really good marketing (go figure that one out). I can't say that's too far from the truth. The Mustang strikes me as a much more livable car, though. It's a lot less bulky feeling, more practical, and just as fast. And it comes with a better exhaust note from the factory.

The last statement I wholeheartedly agree with. I think Ford has always built a better sounding small block V8. I'm not exactly sure of the how or the why either.

[hotrodalex]

So the guys who pay $10k, $40k, or $100k+ for iconic cars from the '50s, '60s, or '70s (= things like "steering feel" and "handling" were more or less suggestions) aren't "car people?"

Those cars make up for it by being fun in other ways, plus they're 10x cooler than new cars so it evens out.

[MX793]

Those cars make up for it by being fun in other ways, plus they're 10x cooler than new cars so it evens out.

On top of that, some of the people who drop big dollars on some of those old muscle/pony cars don't even drive them.  They park them in their own personal car museums and maybe take them, by trailer, to a car show or two.  So, in other words, they couldn't care less about how the car drives.

[GoCougs]

Those cars make up for it by being fun in other ways, plus they're 10x cooler than new cars so it evens out.

There is really no "evening out." Muscle cars have only a hint of handling and steering feel yet they are immeasurably fun to drive for those that own them. And of course owners drive 'em; simply search amongst literally millions of youtube vids.

One can add other enthusiast communities from Harleys to diesel pickups whereby handling and steering feel are marginal to suggestive. Pretty much they'll all say their rides are "fun to drive."

The overarching point is one doesn't get to define what constitutes "fun to drive" for the guy down the street, and certainly one can't logically use subjective "fun to drive" as a yardstick to declare one car superior to another.

[Vinsanity]

A lot of publications are saying the Camaro has a "cool" factor going for it that the Mustang doesn't, somewhat having to do with the Transformers movies and really good marketing (go figure that one out). I can't say that's too far from the truth. The Mustang strikes me as a much more livable car, though. It's a lot less bulky feeling, more practical, and just as fast. And it comes with a better exhaust note from the factory.

That's definitely it. Simply put, people love a good comeback, and the Camaro is a textbook example of that. If anything, people see the new Camaro as a welcome departure from the shoddily assembled mullet mobiles of the past, even though the styling pays homage to the original. Another part of the story is that people see the Mustang as yesterday's muscle car, and the Camaro as today's. They're bored of Mustangs, and want something fresh and new.

As ridiculous as Cougs sounds, he's kind of right. Even if the Mustang is the objectively better car (which I won't argue against), then there must be some reason that the Camaro has been a more successful seller.

[Onslaught]

So the guys who pay $10k, $40k, or $100k+ for iconic cars from the '50s, '60s, or '70s (= things like "steering feel" and "handling" were more or less suggestions) aren't "car people?"

Times have changed. If Ford can make the modern Mustang do these things well then all the others can too.
I'm not a Mustang fan. To tell the truth I've Hated all Mustangs for the last 30 years. Always liked the Camaro more. But if I was going to pick one today it be the Ford.

Oh, and I can think of some great "feel and handling" cars from those days.

[GoCougs]

Ridiculous?

No offense but you guys really need to work on your Internetry - specifically - how to read objective test data and how to contextual subjective criteria ("fun to drive").

[2o6]

You guys make it sound like the Camaro is camry-esque in driving manners.




Honestly, people buy these cars for style and speed.



I honestly do not think anyone actually comparison shops a Camaro or Mustang with anything, really.

[GoCougs]

Times have changed. If Ford can make the modern Mustang do these things well then all the others can too.
I'm not a Mustang fan. To tell the truth I've Hated all Mustangs for the last 30 years. Always liked the Camaro more. But if I was going to pick one today it be the Ford.

Oh, and I can think of some great "feel and handling" cars from those days.

Times really have not changed. Some of the technologies certainly have just by virtue of the market as a whole - to get 4WDB, rack-n-pinion steering and F&R independent coil suspension in the '60s and early '70s you had to look at exotics - but now even Camcords come with that stuff standard.

People don't buy pony cars because of handling or steering feel. They're buying on legacy, styling, and straight line performance, just as they did 40+ years ago. Sure no one wants a floaty wandering boat, which no car on the road is today; certainly not the Camaro or Challenger.

[Onslaught]

Times really have not changed. Some of the technologies certainly have just by virtue of the market as a whole - to get 4WDB, rack-n-pinion steering and F&R independent coil suspension in the '60s and early '70s you had to look at exotics - but now even Camcords come with that stuff standard.

People don't buy pony cars because of handling or steering feel. They're buying on legacy, styling, and straight line performance, just as they did 40+ years ago. Sure no one wants a floaty wandering boat, which no car on the road is today; certainly not the Camaro or Challenger.

I know people from those days who picked the small blocks because they handled better then the big block ones.

[GoCougs]

I know people from those days who picked the small blocks because they handled better then the big block ones.

Have you ever driven or owned such small block cars? I have owned two - trust me when I say handling was still quite suggestive, especially the front torsion sprung Mopars.

[Onslaught]

Have you ever driven or owned such small block cars? I have owned two - trust me when I say handling was still quite suggestive, especially the front torsion sprung Mopars.

I drive RX and MX cars, I think all these cars we're talking about "feel" like shit. I was just saying what people I know who grew up in those days did and felt. In the end I could really care one way or the other.

[hotrodalex]

Have you ever driven or owned such small block cars? I have owned two - trust me when I say handling was still quite suggestive, especially the front torsion sprung Mopars.

Have you ever driven a big block car? It's worse.

[Rupert]

I think I would buy and then modify the Challenger. I had a total five-year-old in awe moment the other day when some dude in a Challenger swung tail-out around the corner next to my house and spun tires down the block. Sounded amazing, looked better.

[Atomic]

as i always say, competition is good for business, but with these two beauties, not unlike the old 70's caprice/impala vs. the LTD, there are ford guys and there are chevy guys, plus, those pontiac fans longing for a new firebird/trans am need to turn somewhere... thinking to the closest thing to their old pontiacs, another gm product.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

You guys make it sound like the Camaro is camry-esque in driving manners.

Rite! I'm pretty sure all 3 of these Pony Cars handle well enough to keep us car nuts happy.

[Atomic]

as i always say, competition is good for business, but with these two beauties, not unlike the old 70's caprice/impala vs. the LTD, there are ford guys and there are chevy guys, plus, those pontiac fans longing for a new firebird/trans am need to turn somewhere... thinking to the closest thing to their old pontiacs, another gm product.

i failed to say (but implied, i think) above that with the loss of pontiac and even saturn might be the reason chevy is ahead of fmc when comparing the sales numbers of the camaro and mustang. i think the recently dissolved gm divisions should lead many of those customers to their brethren: chevy, buick, cadillac or gmc stores. however, i see a lot of pre-owned "one owner" saturns at the local honda dealership, with a smaller but still significant number at toyota-scion.

according to automotive news, the majority of mercury owners are not moving up to lincoln or "buying down" by purchasing a ford... much to my surprise, they, too are moving into "foreign makes". nissan ranked pretty high, #1 in conquest sales, as i recall. i find that perplexing. once those currently driving a mercury grand marquis or lincoln town car are ready to trade, i am interested in seeing if they will move towards the new 2011-12 chrysler 300/300c or dodge charger, being that they are awd; moving into a cadillac or buick; or continue to obtain a nissan product or similar sized vehicles than what i imagine are altimas, maximas and muranos... from honda or toyota (i.e., spacious accords, smooth riding camrys, more lavish avalons)?

[SVT666]

You guys make it sound like the Camaro is camry-esque in driving manners.

No not at all.  I quite enjoyed my drive.  I didn't like the interior at all, or the steering wheel, or the steering feel (lack thereof), or the horrendous sightlines, but it was fun as hell and faster than anyone needs any car to be on public streets. 

The Mustang is simply better, and that is something I can honestly say as someone who has driven both.  Even as a Mustang whore, I have to admit that despite the horrible sight lines, terrible seats, and shitty shitty interiors, I would rather drive an F-Body Trans Am than an equivalent year Mustang GT.  They were far and away a better car.  Not this time around though.  Hell, Motor Trend even placed the Mustang GT, Challenger SRT-8, Hyundai Genesis Coupe, and Mustang V6 ahead of the Camaro SS in one grand shootout.  The Camaro is a very fast and very fun car that has concept car looks, and that's why it sells.  The Mustang has looked relatively the same for 7 years now, and despite being the better performer and better drive, it's not selling as well. Styling is what this comes down to, because it's certainly not performance numbers.

I honestly do not think anyone actually comparison shops a Camaro or Mustang with anything, really.

I don't even think they comparison shop them with each other.

[SVT666]

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!

You and Cougs keep saying this as if it's fact.  It has only ever occurred in one comparison test.  That comparison test had an unusually slow Mustang GT that was beaten by the SS to 60 mph and the 1/4 mile as well.  Every other comparo, including the convertible test I quoted earlier, has the Mustang ahead by 120 mph by at least 1 second.  Now, no matter which car is faster to 120 mph, I don't care about that number anyway.  This is a number that means absolutely nothing in the real world.  They won't even hit 120 mph at a drag strip in stock form and you will certainly never have a drag race on public streets that will hit 120 mph...will you?  

[Byteme]

So the guys who pay $10k, $40k, or $100k+ for iconic cars from the '50s, '60s, or '70s (= things like "steering feel" and "handling" were more or less suggestions) aren't "car people?"

A pretty good percentage of them are buying for investment purposes.  Those guys are more money people than car people.  They buy the car for status, or pride of ownership  (read that as bragging rights) reasons.

[Byteme]

On top of that, some of the people who drop big dollars on some of those old muscle/pony cars don't even drive them.  They park them in their own personal car museums and maybe take them, by trailer, to a car show or two.  So, in other words, they couldn't care less about how the car drives.

It's sameful how much of that goes on.  I did my final concours, as a participant, last month.  I've been very active in the concours scene for the past 14 years and can tell you trailer queens are alive and well, not just European exotics but American cars as well. 

[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!

R&T, Insideline, and C&D all showed the Camaro SS out gunning the 2011 Mustang GT at higher speeds. The C&D comparo had the Camaro ahead by almost 2 seconds 0 - 130 mph.

[GoCougs]

A pretty good percentage of them are buying for investment purposes.  Those guys are more money people than car people.  They buy the car for status, or pride of ownership  (read that as bragging rights) reasons.

Nah. The VAST majority of muscle cars from that era are not owned for "investment" purposes (leaving till another thread the foolish ideal that it is an "investment"). They're the ho-hum Pontiac Lemans, and the Camaro LTs, and the Charger SEs, et al., worth no more than $5k - $10k, that some guy hopped up with headers and an alumninum intake. They handle and steer not much better than a Bayliner yet they are infinitely fun to drive for those owners.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

  They won't even hit 120 mph at a drag strip in stock form and you will certainly never have a drag race on public streets that will hit 120 mph...will you? 

Actually I've seen the better side of 140 mph (rolling freeway starts around 60 mph) more than a few times! And MOST test I see have the SS well ahead by 130 mph. And thats the number I use to judge wich car is faster. But for the drag racers I fully understand why those top speed/high speed number don't matter. 

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

You and Cougs keep saying this as if it's fact.  It has only ever occurred in one comparison test.   

Here's what I've found. C&D has the SS ahead by 1.8 secs to 130! 0-60 was a wash! The SS was faster through the 1/4 mile also.
http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/b9bae4325b6d27dbfefe2c07775a541f.pdf

Heres what The Inside Line guys got. The SS was faster through the 1/4 mile by a hair here too. But it was running 3 mph faster than the GT.
http://www.insideline.com/ford/mustang/2011/comparison-test-2011-ford-mustang-gt-vs-2010-chevrolet-camaro-ss.html

MT has the GT ahead by half a second all the way through the quarter but the Stangs trap speed is only .4 mph higher than the SS.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_1006_2011_mustang_gt_2010_camaro_ss_2010_challenger_srt8_comparison/test_numbers.html

I didn't check anymore sites because I'm about to have some