teal98

I'm too busy right now to do anything other than take your and Charlie's word for this. You both mention 4100, which is 250 more than the GT500. Oh well, at least it's a little closer percentage-wise. (I like to look for silver linings, what can I say?)

Bob Cosby

I always enjoy reading your posts, Guy. Just one point of clarification....

I did.

2010 Challenger 5.7L Manual = 15/24
2010 Camaro 6.2L Manual = 16/24
2011 Mustang 5.0L Manual = 17/26

2010 Challenger 5.7L Auto = 16/25
2010 Camaro 6.2L Auto = 16/25
2011 Mustang 5.0L Auto = 18/25

To add, the 5.7L Hemi is way down on power to both the Chevy and the Ford. Completely concur with the looks (it is my favorite of the 3 in that dept) and space.

I have not seen any 2011 Challenger numbers yet. I know some changes are in the works, so perhaps MPG will be one of them.

Sources:
www.fueleconomy.gov
media.ford.com (could not find 2011 numbers on the .gov site)

bossco

I was reading the old M/T Charger SRT8 vs. GT500 article and was surprised to see the GT500 beat out the SRT8 on fuel economy as well.

JakeRobb

I did too, the last time Guy made that claim, and I called him on it then. It was months ago.

Apparently this claim is something he just can't get out of his head. I don't think it's ever been true!

Z284ever

I agree with this part a whole bunch Proud. I hope we're on the verge of a new era for our pony cars. Smaller, lighter, lower, less bulky, easier to own and live with.

The bitter, bitter irony here...and I almost hate to type it....is that we can give the upcoming draconian CAFE alot of credit for this.

guionM

No, actually it was based on early estimates on the Camaro when it first came out. If you called me on it, I probably missed it since I don't visit here much anymore (I always recheck when there's a question like that brought up).

For the record, the EPA rates Camaro V8 automatic at 15 mpg, not 16. Plus, the paint on the new 5.0 Mustang is barely dry, so (as was the case with my early Camaro numbers) until the EPA posts numbers on the site, one should probably not go by the numbers (see...I do learn from mistakes ). I recall the Camaro's V6 numbers also got a bump after the car started showing up in showrooms, so I should have rechecked all 3 powerplants.

Otherwise, I stand corrected.

Bob Cosby

Dang I hate to be split hairs with ya, but EPA does indeed have Camaro 6.2L A6 at 16 mpg city. Here's a direct link: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008c...umn=1&id=26430

No offense intended.

snooter

for the record..the 1971 prototype boss 302 was located several years ago....personally i think challenger has the better outside looks but the interior is ghastly..hopefully that is corrected this fall...the camaro in my opinion suffers from crappy gut as well..the mustang looks pathetic in the rear.....i dont own anything *** but old vintage hodaka's and a few hondas thrown in for good measure...my dodge ram is now 9 years old and been paid for since day 1...i am not paying msrp with huge markup for any boss or z28..so with that looks like challenger is the winner..money talks with me and well you all know BS walks....course when 6.4L hemi arrives expect markup on that as well...i think i will just stick to trucks and my *** bikes..safer and cheaper that way..though i cant fault any of the above cars and am glad they are here...

Derek M

The initial vehicle cost to get us lighter, more fuel efficient pony cars will increase purchase price. So CAFE increases cost to own. The consumer is saddled with the cost simply to enter.

It's proven many times over, if it's cheap to drive people do a lot of it.

If the result in CAFE makes it more efficient to drive (ie cheaper to drive a given mile) people will end up driving more. We gain in efficiency, but yet drive more. We still us X barrels of oil. In the end CAFE fails on it's premise as in total we never use less.

Z28Wilson

Yeah, I don't think you'll find anyone here who likes or agrees with CAFE and its promises.

Cars are exponentially cleaner and more efficient today than they were 30-40 years ago, yet we're using more oil than we ever have and today's vehicles are blamed for "climate change".

Z284ever

I agree completely....

jg95z28

Add to that, not only are people driving more, but there are more vehicles on the road. Yes something needs to be done to decrease our dependency on oil. Yes there will be vehicles in the future using alternative fuels and or energy sources (e.g. biofuels and EVs). However, the majority of those vehicles making the biggest impacts will not be what we have traditionally called ponycars or muscle cars.

bossco

I'm fine with that, the blandmobiles are where the greatest improvement should be made and can be had.

ZZtop

Best handling relative to what? The times?

I have to believe pretty much any of the Cobra R's, especially the 2000 Cobra R were better. Honestly, with the advancements in brakes, chassis stiffness, steering, suspension design, etc. I would think even a 2001 Cobra would be faster (on a road course atleast). Maybe even a 97' or 98' Cobra?

On one of the hotrod shows years ago they ran examples of all the old muscle cars down the track and the Boss was the fastest of the bunch (not sure if it was a 302 or 351) but it still only ticked off a mid 13 second pass. These were fully restored orginial cars.

I think many times we make the old muscle cars out to be more than they are. Cars today are a completely different animal.

Bob Cosby

That would have been the Boss 351. And I agree, the 2000 R would be quicker/faster, though production was extremely limited