Regardless of the reasons (weight, tuning, tire, etc.) the question still stands - WHY?

The goal in development was to leave little doubt which car outperforms the other. A task seemingly made relatively easy considering the laggard Ford 4.6. Yet at least with C&D's test, we're left scratching our heads. So instead of just the weight issue, you've managed to point out several areas where an available Mustang has the advantage over Camaro SS. Wonderful. It isn't just fat, it's also lacking better performance hardware options (brakes notwithstanding).

Doesn't exactly make me feel better about the situation.

 

That's true. But OAL is only one dimension. I think the Camaro's cowl height, combined with it's width, and the requirement to package 20" wheels like they were 16's, combine to create mass. I also wonder if the pressure to recreate the concept's swoopy lines on the production bones added to this massiveness and very high beltline. To my eyes, the larger G8 seems almost more compact - especially around the front clip/cowl/a -pillar area.

I've seen acouple of Camaros parked next to Challengers already - and they could look like platform mates, dimensionally. Just as bulky. Just as massive. The exception being that the Camaro is shorter. I saw one with the 21" wheels and those ricer ground effects/mudflap thingies from the parts catalog. Holy smokes, that one looked like a Mack truck sitting there.

 

Gearing I will grant you as the Mustang does have a slight advantage.

Traction? How so? They're presumably both on the same same surface, at the same time. They have the same Pirelli compounds with the Camaro's being wider.

Or are we back to IRS cars can't launch? We've all seen very, very quick IRS Corvettes and other IRS cars so forget that.

Post 60 acceleration wasn't addressed because it really isn't pertinent here in a discussion of autocross performance attributes.

Right, the Camaro has too small of a tire for it's weight. I've already stated that and was told it simply isn't so. So it does need bigger tires?

Given the same pad compound, a heavier car will have difficulty with brake fade sooner than a light car. It may turn out to be a wash yet again due to the Mustang's smaller rotor. Maybe not. I'd rather stop less weight, wouldn't you?

Since you brought up road race conditions, a heavier car will also overheat its tires more quickly. You could compensate for this by running a harder compound but at the expense of grip.

As a somewhat related aside... GM should never wonder why people give them flak.... http://www.camaroblog.com/blog/10202...-brembo-brakes. Ugh. It's stuff like this that image problems are made of. Can you imagine? Wheel weights on your nice new Brembos because they didn't / couldn't fix a squeak in time for production? What mid level management boob signed off on that one? Sometimes I really feel badly for GM's engineers.

What are they? What are those of the Camaro? If you have the specs (including motion ratios), please post a link. I'd honestly be interested in seeing them.


No doubt, but it's the biggest problem because it contributes to every single one of the above.

 

The Track Pack option was a surprise from the Ford camp. GM benchmarked against the regular GT. It was a dirty little trick from the Ford guys, and it worked very well. Props to them for pulling it off. It was cheap and easy for them to do, because they already had a higher-performance suspension engineered for the GT500, and most of the parts had already been engineered and set up for production for that project.

IMO, we can only hope that GM comes back with a comparable Track Pack for Camaro. I started a thread on the subject here:

https://www.camaroz28.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=689867

 

Yeah, I'd love to see a Camaro "track pack" option. Question is, will the gains be worth it on this platform?

 

I think some here are not fully understanding my position. I am impressed with all three of the latest American muscle cars - the Camaro, Mustang and the Challenger. Each has their foibles, and advantages. Each has their own approach to performance and size. There are pluses and minuses to all three designs. I just happen to like the Camaro best



(from http://www.camaroblog.com/pictures )

 

How much does the IRS in the Camaro weigh vs. the SRA in the Mustang?

I mean the whole issue at hand really is that the Camaro is two door G8. Idealy I would want something smaller than the current Camaro..but bigger than the roided up CRX Charlie wants. Something roughly the size of the only Grand Am GT coupe would be about perfect.

 

That is funny!

 

That's not true at all Branden. GA GT coupe sized would be just about perfect for me too. Actually, anywhere in there ...SN95 Mustang sized, G35/37 coupe sized, 3 series sized....

 

I can overlook the weight issue somewhat (as much as it bothers me), but the interior design i can't ignore and i find it a huge turn-off. The packaging and use of space could also be better (the trunk opening is a joke) but i can live with that too. Those are my only gripes. However, the overall car i find pretty impressive...especially the v6 model and GM still delivers the best bang for your buck in terms of overall performance and refinement. It's not perfect, but it's damn good product imo.

But if i had to buy a pony car today, i think the GT would be a better fit for me. Cheaper entry price, lower weight, and a vastly more attractive interior imo. It's down in hp, but that'll be addressed soon with the Ecoboost v6 and/or Coyote v8 not to mention it's far easier to add hp than it is to remove weight so the hp deficit would be easier to address via aftermarket. I wouldn't mind parking a 2010 or 2011 GT next to my current z28.

 

I have to agree the "Track Pack" was genius marketing on Ford's part. Build a "production" option that reviewers love, but in practice is so constrained that hardly any Buffys will find one on the lot. That is how you maintain a wide audience.

Note that I'm waiting on the poll to actually see a Camaro. And I've probably seen a half-dozen '10 Mustangs. (I wonder if this because the local Chevy dealer folded.)

 

If we don't get that LSA powered Z28 maybe we will get Z28 parts minus engine.

 

It exceeded my expectations. It was so much better in person than pictures. It could be better, but that's what yearly differences are for and the aftermarket. If the car was only lighter and there was a Z28. I'd like one someday, but I'll never like them over 3rd and 1st Gens.

 

Exterior styling wise, it's a home run with me. It's aggressive, mean, and it still looks fresh even after being first shown in 2006. It doesn't seem much bigger than the 4th gen in person. The concept seemed much bigger, but the production Camaros I've checked out didn't give off the long and wide look of the concept. The interior styling isn't great to me, I'd rather see a thoroughly modern design, but the fit/finish/materials seem to be first rate. I've owned three 4th gens, so I can live with an interior that I'm not 100% on board with. I wish it weighed less, but I think it would still meet my driving expectations. I'm likely not going to autoX, but I may make a handful of passes at the drag strip. Granted, I recently just got a new vehicle, but if I were in the market for a new two door car, it'd be between the Camaro and Challenger. I'd have to see how a child seat fit in the Camaro. I know the Challenger has a bigger back seat. I remember seeing a picture of a 5th gen with a child seat in the back recently, but I'm 6'1, and I keep my seat pretty far back. Any vehicle I get (even toys!) will need to haul the wife and 2 year old daughter (plus any future Sixer-Birdlet). That may not be a deal breaker, but it would factor in for sure.

 

Amazing that simply retuning the shocks/struts, and adding 19" summer tires and a 3.73 gear to the lowly 315 hp Mustang GT, can so throw the Nurburgring tuned, Brembo braked, 426 hp, IRS, Camaro SS so off balance.