Review: Challenger R/T vs Camaro vs Mustang GT (Face off Link)

Discussion in '2010 - 2014 Specific Tech' started by fox1x, Mar 23, 2009.

  1. Amazing how close the times were. And the Mustang's weight to power ratio was not quite what I expected. But a few hp and it's got the same as the Camaro. Then it's domination.
  2. Once again Ford knows what they are doing keeping the weight of the stang under 3,600lbs. Hands down the stang is the better car.
  3. Thanks for your opinion, but the numbers speak for themselves...

    Camaro...more power, faster, better brakes, better gas mileage, and 10% cheaper. Yes, Ford kept the weight under make up for a lackluster, 315 hp, engine package. Its a shame that Ford didnt have a 350hp mustang.

    Remember, this stang also had a few options on it....including the track pack. Put that $3000 that was put in the stang into a gear swap and traction into the camaro, then see what happens.
  4. Yeah the camaro is a faster car, better brakes, etc. Ford's mustang has dominated their camaro for 6 years now.... oh wait, my bad, there wasn't a camaro for the last 6 years. GM got to plan out exactly what they needed to beat the mustang, Ford's answer to the new camaro with the 2010 stang was sheetmetal and upgraded interior. Wait till all the cards are on the table with the stang's engine refresh then we'll really see what happens.

    Until then, i'll keep my 07 and enjoy the fact that I'm a tune and gear away from keeping pace with GM's big boys.

  5. Are we looking at the same stats? Sure, the Camaro was the quicker between it and the Mustang, but the braking is virtually identical (105ft vs. 108ft) despite who's were bigger....the drawbacks of owning the heavier car. The Mustang also got the better as tested fuel economy of the two, despite the EPA rating. What you also failed to mention was that the Mustang out handled both the Camaro and the Challenger handily on both the skid pad and figure 8. And although this particular tester was of the lesser equipped variety and as such cheaper of the bunch, all other publications I've seen shows a similarly equipped Camaro SS runs the same MSRP as the GT with Track Pack and more than the GT without it. Not to mention the Mustang was the only car of the bunch that runs on regular unleaded.

    Yes, it would have been nicer if Ford brought more power to the party, but as it sits, it seems the Mustang is still every bit as competative from most standpoints and the clear victor in others. :shrug:
  6. I think the new camaros styling is terrible, but numbers dont lie, and the numbers the camaro put down are nothing but impressive. I thought chevy was gonna tank the new camaro.
  7. I guess it all depends on how you look at it. Yes, 426hp is a pretty impressive figure, but not exactly ground breaking when you consider it’s coming from nearly 380ci. I'd be more impressed if they made those numbers with a much smaller engine....but Chevy has always been hung up on displacement. The fact that its only knocking down a string of low-13-second passes would put me off a little, but I'm sure the car has more in it.

    Either way, I would implore those of you who are dazzled by horsepower figures to take a step back and really look at exactly what it took to get there and how that horsepower is actually being put to the pavement. Thus far, the new Camaro doesn't seem to perform a whole lot better than the previous model and they added 100hp to the deal. :shrug:
  8. I couldn't agree more with this statement.

    I can't remember where I read it, but GM's intent with this car was to compete in the luxo sports car arena (370z, G37, IS350, etc). Not in the low dollar sports car arena. I think it's already been humbled a bit by the mustang's "archaic live axle" on the cornering tests put on by motortrend.
  9. That's Chevy sticking their nose up at us Mustang guys and saying, "We're too good for you now," when clearly it's not that much better if at all. And we all know sadly, the 370Z would school us in just about everything except having 4 seats. It's a different type of car for a different type of person.

    Like Gearbanger said, it's not just about the numbers. It's the total package. And I think once the 'awe' of the performance numbers wear off in a year, the Camaro will once again be shown to be a pretender as opposed to a contender.

    Everything about the Camaro is a step behind the Mustang, since the day it was introduced! Yes, the power got there first but it's not the whole story. Who's idea was it to do the retro styling in the first place?

    I just hope the mullet doesn't come back with the thing. :notnice:
  10. Instead of quoting everyone, I'll just a few commnts.

    1. Yes, the braking distances are nearly equal, but braking distance is a horrible way to judge the brakes of a performance car. The Camaro's Brembo's will stand up to heat a lot better than the Mustang's. Check out C&D's lightning lap - the Mustang's brakes were fried after one lap.

    2. GM's engine has more displacement, but it's NOT a bigger engine. The 6.2 LS3 is smaller and lighter than Ford's 4.6L. This is why those engines are so popular to put in other cars.

    3. The 0-60 difference may not seem like much, but look at the MPH. The Camaro crushes the Mustang. The GT keeps up until about 50mph (thanks to the track pack), but after that, the Camaro passes it like it's standing still.

    When it comes to ride quality or handling on non-smooth roads (most roads?), the Camaro has the edge. Regardless, the SS's suspension was made to compete with the base Mustang GT suspension (i.e. non-track pack) - they are both made with a balance of ride quality and handling in mind.
  11. lets wait till the stang gets the 5.0 in it and see who turns better numbers...also, since the SS is the "top end" of the camaro, shouldnt it be up against the top end mustang as well? oh wait, it doesnt look as impressive if they compare it to the GT500. 426hp looks like childsplay when matched against 540.

    also, motor trend has always been very biased towards GM in these "accurate" tests, always managing faster than normal times with GM but slower than what most people can do with ford...
  12. The GT500 is about $48k after you include the gas guzzler tax. That's a huge difference in price. The base GT is $29k whereas the Camaro SS is $31k.....very similar prices. As far as bias, there has been 3 comparison test done so far and the SS won them all. I don't think all 3 mags are biased.
  13. He wasn't taking about the bias against the specific Mustang vs Camaro story; he means in general. And I agree, Motor Trend can't drive a Ford for ***** and always manages to "passive aggressive" knock FoMoCO. I mean come on; WITH the track pack installed and with the supercharger; Motor Trend only managed a 13.4 @108 with a 400HP 2010Mustang??? Let's be serious here. There are guys and IMBOC driving there stock Bullitts to a 13.1 and Evan Smith drove a '06 to a 13.3.... and they manage only 1/10 of a second better with an extra 100 ponies and a track pack. Motor Trend does have a bias for the General.
  14. Did anyone else find that the guy kept saying the Mustang has the Track pack.. but it say that the Mustang had a 3.55 rear end ... but on Fords site the track pack has a 3.73 .... so wouldn't the ET come down a little ???
  15. Yeah, I caught that too. And really, the Track Pack enhancements aren't that extensive besides the gear upgrade. Other than 3.73 gears, the Track Pack apparently includes carbon fiber clutch plates in the limited slip, slightly better than stock brake pads, stabilizer and rear lower control arms from the GT500 and 19” wheels with Pirelli PZero rubber.

    No horsepower enhancements and very minimal handling enhancements.

    If it were the Drag pack, handling Pack or Super Pack, then we'd see a noticable (and in some cases much noticable) difference, but the Track Pack improvements seem minor at best. :shrug:
  16. Ya know, I know most of the time a lot of stress is placed on the 1/4 mile times and horsepower numbers. Scroll down a couple more rows and check out the lateral acceleration and MT figure eight numbers...HHhhhhhmmmmmm! Wait a minute...The Mustang with it's solid axle can possibly handle more lateral g than the new Camaro and it's IRS???? Also note that the Mustang is run on unleaded REGULAR and the Camaro and Chally are run on unleaded PREMIUM???? Just taking note of a few details I'm reading in their report. I knwo we always complain that Ford didn't do this or that with the Mustang especially when we see quarter mile times...but there's one thing that's always made the late model Mustangs more popular and outsell F-bodies and the competition....they build an all around well balanced Pony car for a great price!!!! I still strongly believe that if Muscle cars go extinct in the future the Mustang will be the last Pony standing and possibly always find a way to survive!

    Just my 2 cents,
  17. I did notice that the Mustang did have more wheelspin than the Camaro.. And of course after about mid track that 400+ Hp is going to kick in ...I dont know if some wider tire might help the Mustang .. I notice all the big HP cars .. Roushe and Saleen really dont get that much better 1/4 mile times ...