NEWS: Consumer Reports: 2010 Ford Mustang Out-Blobs Camaro, Challenger [Muscle Car W
#17
I'd like to know that too.
Do you mean 4 out of 5, or do you think CR counts for two?
I've been wondering that too. I don't think Ford is sending any non-Track Pack GT's out for magazine comparisons. I don't blame them, but I'd sure like to see what the regular GT can do.
I've been wondering that too. I don't think Ford is sending any non-Track Pack GT's out for magazine comparisons. I don't blame them, but I'd sure like to see what the regular GT can do.
#18
The biggest difference is probably the tires (all season vs. summer) between the regular GT and the TP/GT.
#19
#20
I don't think you have been keeping up with things.
The Mustang GT will absolutely anniliate the V6 Camaro. Between the Mustang GT's 300 pound advantage, 50+ lbs/ft of extra torque, and agressive gearing, the GT will be in the next state while the V6 Camaro is still winding up. If you are looking at the V6 Camaro's 304 horsepower and the GT's 315 and thinking the 2 are close in performance, you're foolish.
The Mustang GT will absolutely anniliate the V6 Camaro. Between the Mustang GT's 300 pound advantage, 50+ lbs/ft of extra torque, and agressive gearing, the GT will be in the next state while the V6 Camaro is still winding up. If you are looking at the V6 Camaro's 304 horsepower and the GT's 315 and thinking the 2 are close in performance, you're foolish.
Weight: V8 Stang 3525, 1LT Camaro 3725. So I guess you were just making up the 300? Because that looks like 200 to me. But I guess you are well within the 50% margin of error that accompanies most BS.
0-60 Mustang 5.1 Camaro 5.9
1/4 mile Mustang 13.6 Camaro 14.5
So within a second is an annihilation? I think somebody needs a copy of Webster's (and maybe a spell checker because there are two 'g's in aggressive too). That seems reasonably close for $12,000 less.
Second, pick up a random car magazine that has run a comparison test that includes the 2010 Mustang GT and the 2010 Camaro SS. You have only a 25% chance of finding Camaro SS winning because 3 of the 4 rate the Mustang over the Camaro. Consumer Reports makes that number 5 out of 6.
Have you driven both? I have, and the Mustang had a nicer interior, but I thought the Camaro beat it in every other category. And yea I might be biased, but I am allowed that, because it is my opinion.
In fact, everything here is just a matter of opinion, whether mine, yours, or some random magazine. And I would like to point out that I am entitled to mine as much as yours. So maybe you should focus a little more on facts than making attacks on me - especially when the facts support my opinions, not yours. Because without facts, you just look like another keyboard commando / internet tough guy.
-Geoff
#21
Look at it another way... if they are basically saying the Mustang SRA rides better than Camaro, then they are also saying Mustang rides better than a BMW!
I say phooey!
EDIT: Here's an example of what I'm talking about...
Motor Trend’s Angus MacKenzie recently got some seat time in the new Shelby GT500, and calls it “a pretty impressive piece — fast, loud, and blessed with the best steering ever in an American Car.” “But,” writes MacKenzie, “the thing that annoys me most about the GT500 — about the whole 2010 Mustang range, for that matter — is the live rear axle. It’s the wrong technology, done for the wrong reasons; emblematic of the cynical ‘near enough is good enough’ attitude from Motown management that helped drive Detroit’s automakers into a ditch.” And thereby restarted a squabble that makes the global warming debate look like a lover’s spat.
MacKenzie claims that the Mustang was planned around the Autralian Ford Falcon’s independent rear suspension, but that “product development executive Phil Martens reportedly managed to convince Bill Ford Jr. he could save Ford $100 a car if the Mustang was switched to a live rear axle.” Plus, thanks to MacKenzie’s “well-placed sources” we learn “that once the noise, vibration and harshness, and driveline angle issues were solved, the S197’s live rear axle actually ended up costing Ford $98 per unit MORE than the low cost independent rear end originally developed for the car.” MacKenzie darns this boondoggle to heck, arguing that only “a tiny fraction” of Mustangs are drag raced regularly, thus justifying a solid rear axle. In the comments section, a horde of Mustang fanatics demurely dissent. And as embarassingly old-school as the live axle is, would the Falcon’s IRS really have improved the Mustang much?
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/mt-...ension-flames/
MacKenzie claims that the Mustang was planned around the Autralian Ford Falcon’s independent rear suspension, but that “product development executive Phil Martens reportedly managed to convince Bill Ford Jr. he could save Ford $100 a car if the Mustang was switched to a live rear axle.” Plus, thanks to MacKenzie’s “well-placed sources” we learn “that once the noise, vibration and harshness, and driveline angle issues were solved, the S197’s live rear axle actually ended up costing Ford $98 per unit MORE than the low cost independent rear end originally developed for the car.” MacKenzie darns this boondoggle to heck, arguing that only “a tiny fraction” of Mustangs are drag raced regularly, thus justifying a solid rear axle. In the comments section, a horde of Mustang fanatics demurely dissent. And as embarassingly old-school as the live axle is, would the Falcon’s IRS really have improved the Mustang much?
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/mt-...ension-flames/
http://jalopnik.com/5302090/muscle-c...ger-vs-mustang
EDIT: And lastly, Mr Angus McKenzie had this to say about Camaro...
The new Camaro is the best reinvention yet of the pony car. It captures the spirit of a uniquely American automotive genre (although we kept the notion of American muscle alive in Oz long after soaring insurance premiums killed it off in the US, the Aussie interpretation had moved to sedans rather than coupes by the 1980s) but wraps it up in genuine 21st century handling and refinement.
http://www.carsales.com.au/reviews/2...-of-time-15456
http://www.carsales.com.au/reviews/2...-of-time-15456
Last edited by SSbaby; 09-03-2009 at 11:36 PM.
#22
At any rate, in a drag race, yes, 1 second is an annihilation. It's sufficiently ahead by 60 mph, and it's a couple of bus lengths ahead by the end of the quarter mile. Why you would even assert that a car that is 200 pounds heavier, down 9 horsepower and 52 ft/lbs of torque and has worse gearing would be very comparable is beyond me.
No one would argue the Camaro LS/LT is a terrific performance bargain, but it's not in Mustang GT's league. Period.
#23
Jalopnik tested one
http://jalopnik.com/5302090/muscle-c...ger-vs-mustang
http://jalopnik.com/5302090/muscle-c...ger-vs-mustang
Am I the only one that can't figure out how to build a Mustang w/ Track Pack at Ford's website? I gather that you have to start with a GT Premium (which I think is a mistake on their part), but I still can't find the option anywhere.
#24
Not sure where you got your numbers but I have seen tests of the GT below 5 seconds 0-60 (Motor Trend, a mag that generally can't drive, ripped off a 4.9). Are we taking the slowest GT test and putting it against the quickest V6 Camaro test now?
At any rate, in a drag race, yes, 1 second is an annihilation. It's sufficiently ahead by 60 mph, and it's a couple of bus lengths ahead by the end of the quarter mile. Why you would even assert that a car that is 200 pounds heavier, down 9 horsepower and 52 ft/lbs of torque and has worse gearing would be very comparable is beyond me.
No one would argue the Camaro LS/LT is a terrific performance bargain, but it's not in Mustang GT's league. Period.
At any rate, in a drag race, yes, 1 second is an annihilation. It's sufficiently ahead by 60 mph, and it's a couple of bus lengths ahead by the end of the quarter mile. Why you would even assert that a car that is 200 pounds heavier, down 9 horsepower and 52 ft/lbs of torque and has worse gearing would be very comparable is beyond me.
No one would argue the Camaro LS/LT is a terrific performance bargain, but it's not in Mustang GT's league. Period.
I guess I am still stuck on the word "annihilation". So the mustang beats the V6 Camaro by about 147 feet in the 1/4 (yes I did the math based on the speeds). But the Camaro SS beats the Mustang GT by 100. So did the Camaro annihilate the Mustang then? Consumer Report's said the mustang won based on its acceleration - yet the Camaro "annihilates" it in the acceleration test. It seems biased to me that they praise the Mustang's acceleration as one of the reasons for its victory, when it was left in the dust by the Camaro. They are basically not crediting the Camaro for it's big horsepower advantage. But when you are used to rating vacuum cleaners and food processors, stuff like that just gets lost in the mix I guess.
My point is that you are never going to get anything unbiased out of Consumer's Report when it comes to GM. There are a ton of ways to spin this story, and they will always spin it against GM.
-Geoff
#25
#26
Under their overall in which the GT came in 2nd...
The lightest, least powerful and most involving to drive car here, it's nevertheless 111 HP down on the Camaro SS. If muscle cars are about muscle, that matters. Even though it's the cheapest base model, you have to spec it up to the base Camaro SS price if you want equivalent spec. Had we had the optional track pack, with its GT500-derived suspension, we suspect this result could have been even pricier, but the outcome may have been very different.
#27
I think it's pretty clear that even if the Camaro was the same weight as the mustang, the V6 would lose to the GT. It's got more torque, and better gear ratio's for a drag race . I've always been suprised it's as fast as it is actually. It's got less power than LS1 Camaro's, it weighs more, yet it's a couple ticks faster to 60mph.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ChrisFrez
CamaroZ28.Com Podcast
1
12-15-2014 04:09 PM
ChrisFrez
CamaroZ28.Com Podcast
2
12-07-2014 07:01 PM
PFYC
Supporting Vendor Group Purchases and Sales
0
12-04-2014 12:56 PM
NewsBot
2010 - 2015 Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and Multimedia
0
12-03-2014 01:30 PM