2010 GT500 v Challenger SRT8 v Camaro SS comparison

[Formula51]

ALL in all gt500 and 03-04 cobra owners have been owning shit for the past 5-7 years in the muscle car department, U cant say we havent! And from the looks of it now ford is making the best performer rightnow. Mod for mod a on any of the three cars in the video the gt500 cant be touched. Cut and dry that is how it is. Im not sayin that the chevy and the dodge r bad cars but they just arent on the level of the gt500.

Absolutely. All I am saying is they are not at the same price point.

One of the best bang for the buck cars out there right now is a Camaro 1SS. At $31,040 you get all the performance, a nice set of cloth seats (not like the olds ones), and a lot of nice standard equipment.

Just wait another year and those cars will be available below $30k. That is a serious deal! One the new Mustang will be hard pressed to beat.

 

[ChiSVT]

Absolutely. All I am saying is they are not at the same price point.

One of the best bang for the buck cars out there right now is a Camaro 1SS. At $31,040 you get all the performance, a nice set of cloth seats (not like the olds ones), and a lot of nice standard equipment.

Just wait another year and those cars will be available below $30k. That is a serious deal! One the new Mustang will be hard pressed to beat.

I agree they are not the same price point, but it's hard to call the Camaro the best bang for your buck, it only has one aspect of performance covered with a lot of other areas sacrificed.

If Ford can put more power in the Mustang it will be an easy feat IMO. The current Mustang GT gets better gas mileage, brakes the same distance as the new Camaro, has a nicer interior, in a smaller & lighter car with better visibility.

edi

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZhNTDiPTFA"]YouTube - 2010 Chevy Camaro SS vs. 2010 Ford Mustang GT, 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T - Car and Driver[/ame]

The only bang for your buck attribute is straight line performance, and IMO that's only when compared to the underpowered Mustang GT that has the same motor from 6 years ago. Other than that, .85Gs vs .92Gs, 66mph slaloms in the Camaro vs 69mph in the Mustang?!? Those are HUGE differences, that's like the difference between a Vette and Mustang! (the Z51 08 LS3 Vette does 70mph in the slalom and pulls .95gs on the skidpad).

 

[DD2000SS]

owning shit in the what category? 50k or less club? In their own category for the majority of those years? Pretty sure there's a few factory vettes they don't own (idk about vipers):banana:

 

[A*aron]

Can someone explain to me why the SS has 425hp and does 0-60 in 4.6 but has a 1/4 mile of 13.5?

 

[Formula51]

I agree they are not the same price point, but it's hard to call the Camaro the best bang for your buck, it only has one aspect of performance covered with a lot of other areas sacrificed.

If Ford can put more power in the Mustang it will be an easy feat IMO. The current Mustang GT gets better gas mileage, brakes the same distance as the new Camaro, has a nicer interior, in a smaller & lighter car with better visibility.

edi

YouTube - 2010 Chevy Camaro SS vs. 2010 Ford Mustang GT, 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T - Car and Driver

The only bang for your buck attribute is straight line performance, and IMO that's only when compared to the underpowered Mustang GT that has the same motor from 6 years ago. Other than that, .85Gs vs .92Gs, 66mph slaloms in the Camaro vs 69mph in the Mustang?!? Those are HUGE differences, that's like the difference between a Vette and Mustang! (the Z51 08 LS3 Vette does 70mph in the slalom and pulls .95gs on the skidpad).

First of all, I didn't say THE best bang for you buck, I said ONE OF the best.

As for sacrifices, the Camaro rides nicer than the Mustang, has more standard features, and MUCH better brakes. They may have ROUGHLY the same stopping distances in tests, but the Brembo units are MUCH better when put to work. That's like saying the Mustang GT's brakes are as good as the GT500's.

As for fuel mileage, the Camaro is 16/25 and 16/24 auto/manual. The current LIGHT Mustang with ONLY 315hp is 17/23 and 16/24 auto/manual. That is NOT better. And the new Mustang will only gain weight and power so I don't expect it to improve on those numbers much, if at all.

Interior is subjective. I would give the Mustang the win on the dash and console, but the Camaro has nicer seats.

Now lets get to handling. Everyone has decided the Camaro cannot handle because some tests have been poor and because all the mags have raved about the Mustang TRACK PACKS handling. Remember that what they rave about is mostly "turn-in" and "feel". You also quoted the best Mustang numbers and the worst Camaro numbers.

Camaro's have been tested as high as 0.92G's and the Mustang's as high as 0.95G's. As for slalom, the Camaro's have been tested as high as 69mph as well. The two cars have also been within one or two tenths of each other on several of the mags figure 8 courses. Again, this is the Mustang TRACK PACK 9 out of 10 times.

There was also the most recent review I read where they had professional drivers familiarize themselves with the cars (Mustang GT, Challenger RT, and Camaro) and then run lap times. The Camaro posted the FASTEST lap times. Convincingly!

Perhaps the near 50/50 weight distribution, Brembo brakes, and 426 horsepower helped to overcome the excessive weight. Hmm, all for $31k if you like cloth interior. Sounds like pretty good bang for the buck.

The Camaro is heavy, but it is a very capable car, especially considering its weight. We will see how much heft the Mustang GT gains in 2011, plus what size tires and brakes Ford gives it.

 

[Snagged]

owning shit in the what category? 50k or less club? In their own category for the majority of those years? Pretty sure there's a few factory vettes they don't own (idk about vipers):banana:

And they are Vettes which are not muscle cars but rather a two seater sports car. oke:

 

[WeeZee]

Not even a comparison imho, it should have been 2009 C6 Corvette Z06 vs 2010 Shelby GT500 vs 2009 Dodge Viper SRT-10 (top of the line vs top of the line) only !!!

 

[ChiSVT]

First of all, I didn't say THE best bang for you buck, I said ONE OF the best.

As for sacrifices, the Camaro rides nicer than the Mustang, has more standard features, and MUCH better brakes. They may have ROUGHLY the same stopping distances in tests, but the Brembo units are MUCH better when put to work. That's like saying the Mustang GT's brakes are as good as the GT500's.

What standard features does it have over the Mustang? If you're referring to the brembo brakes and IRS, that would be something worth considering if it put up better numbers. That's like arguing a base Corvette has leaf springs and inferior brakes, it doesn't matter because overall it still performs and drives better.

I also disagree that the Camaro rides nicer than the Mustang, it's bigger, heavier and way sloppier with poor visibility. The only way the brembos will outperform the Mustang GTs brakes is on a track after repeated braking, where it's less prone to brake fade. As far as I'm concerned those brakes are needed to stop that 3900lb land yacht within a reasonable distance.

As for fuel mileage, the Camaro is 16/25 and 16/24 auto/manual. The current LIGHT Mustang with ONLY 315hp is 17/23 and 16/24 auto/manual. That is NOT better. And the new Mustang will only gain weight and power so I don't expect it to improve on those numbers much, if at all.

In every comparison the Mustang GT got better overall gas mileage, not by my much but it did.

Interior is subjective. I would give the Mustang the win on the dash and console, but the Camaro has nicer seats.

I think the Camaro has a shit interior, but I agree it's subjective. The entire dash, gauges, large boulders, radio, small back window all contribute to it.

Now lets get to handling. Everyone has decided the Camaro cannot handle because some tests have been poor and because all the mags have raved about the Mustang TRACK PACKS handling. Remember that what they rave about is mostly "turn-in" and "feel". You also quoted the best Mustang numbers and the worst Camaro numbers.

Camaro's have been tested as high as 0.92G's and the Mustang's as high as 0.95G's. As for slalom, the Camaro's have been tested as high as 69mph as well. The two cars have also been within one or two tenths of each other on several of the mags figure 8 courses. Again, this is the Mustang TRACK PACK 9 out of 10 times.

In every test the track pack Mustang GT was pitted against the Camaro SS in the same conditions, at the same venue, with the same driver the Mustang GT pulls higher skidpad and higher slalom times.

It's not about quoting the best against the worse, I'm quoting numbers when both cars are tested together. It goes for handling, driving experience and straight-line performance, (the Camaro is CLEARLY faster than the Mustang GT, I'm not about to justify the Mustang inadequacies by trying to find the best recorded numbers).

I'd like to see the results of the race of where the Camaro won against a track pack Mustang GT. Post a link, must have had a shitload of straights! :banana:

Anyways, my whole point being it's not going to be hard for Ford to create a pony car that is a way better overall car than the new Camaro. If Ford does make the Mustang GT 400hp it's game over IMO.

For now, both cars are :sleeping:

 

[The Sinner]

Not even a comparison imho, it should have been 2009 C6 Corvette Z06 vs 2010 Shelby GT500 vs 2009 Dodge Viper SRT-10 (top of the line vs top of the line) only !!!

I hope your kidding? First off the top of the line would be the ZR-1 and Viper ACR, Why would the GT500 fit in that compaison? Two seater sports cars that go twice the amount of a GT500. The Ford GT would fit in there if they still made it, but since they dont make it, ford no longer has a spot in the high end sports car market.

 

[Formula51]

What standard features does it have over the Mustang? If you're referring to the brembo brakes and IRS, that would be something worth considering if it put up better numbers. That's like arguing a base Corvette has leaf springs and inferior brakes, it doesn't matter because overall it still performs and drives better.

Ahh, I have done this before and really don't feel like taking the time. Do so yourself, compare a Mustang GT Deluxe Vs. a Camaro 1SS or a Mustang GT Premium against a Camaro 2SS. You will see that the Camaro comes standard with things like USB port, information center, auto dimming mirrors, heated seats, power seats, etc. These are things that have to be added to the Mustang in the form of a Comfort Package for example and or just plain aren't available.

I also disagree that the Camaro rides nicer than the Mustang, it's bigger, heavier and way sloppier with poor visibility. The only way the brembos will outperform the Mustang GTs brakes is on a track after repeated braking, where it's less prone to brake fade. As far as I'm concerned those brakes are needed to stop that 3900lb land yacht within a reasonable distance.

Visibility has nothing to do with ride. Sounds like you are clinging to BS. It's pretty much a given that a proper IRS rides nicer on PUBLIC ROADS than a solid rear axle.

As for brakes, are you joking man? Are you seriously trying to compare the Camaro and GT500 Brembo brakes to the factory Mustang GT brakes?

In every comparison the Mustang GT got better overall gas mileage, not by my much but it did.

Umm, bullsh!t bullsh!t bullsh!t is all I hear, haha (love that movie line). The EPA numbers say Camaro gets equal or better gas mileage. How someone drives a car is suggestive. Those test drivers were obviously having too much fun romping the gas pedal on the Camaro!;-)

I think the Camaro has a shit interior, but I agree it's subjective. The entire dash, gauges, large boulders, radio, small back window all contribute to it.

Well, I'm not a huge fan, but certainly wouldn't all it shit. The seats are about the only thing I truly LIKE though.

In every test the track pack Mustang GT was pitted against the Camaro SS in the same conditions, at the same venue, with the same driver the Mustang GT pulls higher skidpad and higher slalom times.

Believe it or not, skid pad numbers don't win races. The numbers I were quoting all came from Mustang vs. Camaro comparison tests.

Anyways, my whole point being it's not going to be hard for Ford to create a pony car that is a way better overall car than the new Camaro. If Ford does make the Mustang GT 400hp it's game over IMO.

I disagree. The Mustang GT will not have the advantages of IRS in 2011. It does not appear it will have the advantages of quality Brembo brakes in 2011. It does not appear it will have as large of tires. It WILL gain weight.

And lastly that last statement you made is certainly correct. "IF" the Mustang GT gets 400hp. I doubt it will and will happily eat my words if I am wrong.


Disclosure: I am not buying either as I think there are much better cars for the money (used that is).

 

[Formula51]

I'd like to see the results of the race of where the Camaro won against a track pack Mustang GT. Post a link, must have had a shitload of straights! :banana:

Here you go buddy. It's an absolutely great read that echo's some sentiments that will sound all too familiar.

Chevrolet Camaro vs Ford Mustang - Great Rivalries - Automobile Magazine

Some quotes:

For the Mustang, we started with the GT model, built around a 315-hp, 4.6-liter twin-cam V-8 mated to a five-speed manual transmission. To this, we added the $1495 Track Pack, which features a limited-slip differential with a 3.73:1 final-drive ratio, nineteen-inch wheels shod with Pirelli PZeros, more aggressive brake pads, carbon-fiber clutch plates, a strut tower brace, and upgraded suspension components.

Each driver gets one session to familiarize himself with the cars and the circuit, and being pros, they're up to speed almost immediately. Then, they each do a series of timed hot laps.

In reference to the CAMARO: "The engine's a stump-puller," he says. "It doesn't matter what gear you're in. And the brakes are excellent." Almost too good, in fact. "Under hard braking," he says, "it almost feels like axle hop. There's so much weight on the nose that the rear lifts up and the ABS kicks in."

In reference to the MUSTANG: Jones's major gripe is the brakes. Also, the gearing is such that he was caught between second and third in several corners--an annoying problem because the engine didn't seem to come on the cam until about 4000 rpm. But the big picture looks awfully appealing. "The Mustang is very predictable and real forgiving," he says. "It's a car that you can hustle."

Fun? We're not here to have fun. This is a racetrack test, and the measure of success is speed. To our surprise, and based on the lap times posted in each car, the Camaro is 0.7 second quicker than the Mustang, which translates into an average speed of 80.9 versus 80.3 mph on the 2.25-mile Thunderbolt circuit. (Comparative lap times suggest that this isn't too far off the speeds that Trans-Am racing cars would have posted back in 1969.)

0.7 seconds a lap adds up quick. Especially when the car posting the better lap times has the BETTER BRAKES.

The Mustang eats the Camaro alive in midcorner but never threatens to get by. "The only way I could pass him," Jones acknowledges, "is if he makes a mistake--or I don't mind bruising a door." (Sounds like Parnelli's son, all right.) But vastly superior torque (420 to 325 lb-ft) allows the Camaro to pull clear on acceleration. And on the fast corners in the last segment of the circuit and honking down the front straight, the Camaro runs away and hides.

More power and better brakes mean the Camaro is consistently faster than the Mustang, while nearly 300 pounds less weight, higher grip, and more tossable handling make the Mustang more rewarding to drive.

Again, numbers vs. feel. To me, "feel" might sell more cars. Let's hope GM isn't making the same mistake they did before.

In the meantime, its good to have the Camaro back right where it left off....hehe:beer:

 

[ChiSVT]

Here you go buddy. It's an absolutely great read that echo's some sentiments that will sound all too familiar.

Chevrolet Camaro vs Ford Mustang - Great Rivalries - Automobile Magazine

Thanks for the link, looks like the biggest problem is the Mustang is underpowered! When it came to handling looks like the Mustang was superior, but couldn't pass because of the 111hp disadvantage.

Again, numbers vs. feel. To me, "feel" might sell more cars. Let's hope GM isn't making the same mistake they did before.

Skidpad & slalom times ARE numbers. The Camaro is faster but it doesn't handle as well as the Mustang. It's a big, heavy slop of goo.

Anyways, I don't want to get into the Mustang vs Camaro debate, again like I said both cars are disappointing IMO. However, if Ford can pickup their balls and add a 400hp motor to the Mustang GT, it's game over for the Camaro. :beer:

 

[ChiSVT]

Ahh, I have done this before and really don't feel like taking the time. Do so yourself, compare a Mustang GT Deluxe Vs. a Camaro 1SS or a Mustang GT Premium against a Camaro 2SS. You will see that the Camaro comes standard with things like USB port, information center, auto dimming mirrors, heated seats, power seats, etc. These are things that have to be added to the Mustang in the form of a Comfort Package for example and or just plain aren't available.

I see what you're saying. Those are nice little features, admittedly I don't know about every little option that's included in the Camaro. The base Mustang that starts at $28,000 has a couple features like a tire Pressure Monitoring System, MP3 cd player, satellite Radio, etc.

Visibility has nothing to do with ride. Sounds like you are clinging to BS. It's pretty much a given that a proper IRS rides nicer on PUBLIC ROADS than a solid rear axle.

Since you posted a million quotes, I'll post one that's used a lot, in more than a couple reviews it's been said the Camaro feels rough on the roads despite having an IRS. They also say the Mustang's solid rear axle manages to "devour bumps" like an IRS.

Visibility goes to the driving experience, who wants a $31K+ daily driver that performs mediocre with poor visibility, and a terrible interior?

An IRS doesn't say everything about ride quality, you can have an IRS in a heavy car but add a stiff suspension to improve it's handling characteristics while significantly reducing the ride quality.

If we are talking all things equal, yes an IRS will provide a better ride, that's not the case though. We are talking about a car that's bigger with an almost 400lb weight handicap.

As for brakes, are you joking man? Are you seriously trying to compare the Camaro and GT500 Brembo brakes to the factory Mustang GT brakes?

Yeah, I'm saying unless you're racing on a track those brakes don't stop any quicker. It's just like a GT500 having better brakes than a Corvette. Like I said the only advantage you will see is when it comes to brake fade after repeated hard braking.

Well, I'm not a huge fan, but certainly wouldn't all it shit. The seats are about the only thing I truly LIKE though.

Nice seats I agree, the rest is complete garbage, (in my opinion).

Believe it or not, skid pad numbers don't win races. The numbers I were quoting all came from Mustang vs. Camaro comparison tests.

No it doesn't win races, but combined with the slalom times it shows the Mustang handles significantly better, whether on a race track or driving around town. The Camaro does out power it by 111hp, so yes that helps win races, (not by as much as it should with such a power advantage I'm sure).

I disagree. The Mustang GT will not have the advantages of IRS in 2011. It does not appear it will have the advantages of quality Brembo brakes in 2011. It does not appear it will have as large of tires. It WILL gain weight.

And lastly that last statement you made is certainly correct. "IF" the Mustang GT gets 400hp. I doubt it will and will happily eat my words if I am wrong.

Where does it say the Mustang GT will get an IRS? As for brembo brakes, probably not, I agree it would be nice though. I personally hope it does not get one.

Unless they do something like add an IRS it's not going to gain much weight IMO. The motor will still be aluminum, and if they add a 6spd, the T56 is actually lighter than the 5spds used in GTs, (according to people who do the swaps).

I'm not comparing features, like tires, brakes, suspension, etc. I'm looking at the big picture, the current Mustang GT does everything better but straight-line acceleration. Add a new powerplant and it's the clear winner.

Disclosure: I am not buying either as I think there are much better cars for the money (used that is).

I agree.

 

[Formula51]

Anyways, I don't want to get into the Mustang vs Camaro debate, again like I said both cars are disappointing IMO. However, if Ford can pickup their balls and add a 400hp motor to the Mustang GT, it's game over for the Camaro. :beer:

It will certainly be AWESOME if Ford delivers the goods. The Mustang GT would likely become the performance leader (although I bet by less than you think) and that would force GM to respond on the Camaro. And back and forth they go. That is what we ALL want.

2010 Mustang GT Track Pack = 3,572 pounds @ 315hp = 11.34 lbs/hp
2010 Camaro SS = 3,860 pounds @ 426hp = 9.06 lbs/hp
2011 Mustang GT = ??? @ ???

Will Ford still offer 3.73 gears with a 400hp motor? That is the question. And if they do, will GM respond by doing the same?

Let us also not forget one very important fact and that is the torque curve of the 5.0L will almost certainly not be as good as the torque curve of the 6.2L. Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races.

 

[SWAMPMODULAR]

I would pay the extra for the ford all day long!!

 

[black Robra]

owning shit in the what category? 50k or less club? In their own category for the majority of those years? Pretty sure there's a few factory vettes they don't own (idk about vipers):banana:

Did u read anything I wrote? I said in the muscle car class.