2010 - 2015 Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and Multimedia All 2010 - 2011 - 2012 - 2013 - 2014 - 2015 Camaro news, photos, and videos

NEWS: Consumer Reports: 2010 Ford Mustang Out-Blobs Camaro, Challenger [Muscle Car W

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-03-2009, 12:25 PM
  #16  
Registered User
 
azfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: arizona
Posts: 145
car and driver said the mustangtrackpack also had a better ride than the SS. Now that one is a bit hard to swallow , if true.
azfan is offline  
Old 09-03-2009, 01:03 PM
  #17  
Super Moderator
 
JakeRobb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Okemos, MI
Posts: 9,479
Originally Posted by CLEAN
When did this happen?
I'd like to know that too.

Originally Posted by guionM
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.
Do you mean 4 out of 5, or do you think CR counts for two?

Originally Posted by azfan
I do wonder how it would compare without the Track Pack option.
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.
JakeRobb is offline  
Old 09-03-2009, 06:27 PM
  #18  
Registered User
 
bossco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SeVa
Posts: 2,977
Originally Posted by JakeRobb
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.
Just google the Bullitt's numbers and that should be about right, maybe a tick slower in the 060 and 1/4 mile department. The '10 GT is supposed to be pretty close to the Bullitt in tune, the Track Pack cars a bit better.

The biggest difference is probably the tires (all season vs. summer) between the regular GT and the TP/GT.
bossco is offline  
Old 09-03-2009, 08:23 PM
  #19  
Registered User
 
Gold_Rush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,870
Originally Posted by JakeRobb
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.
Jalopnik tested one
http://jalopnik.com/5302090/muscle-c...ger-vs-mustang
Gold_Rush is offline  
Old 09-03-2009, 10:00 PM
  #20  
Registered User
 
WhiteHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 943
Originally Posted by guionM
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.
OK I will do the research since you seem to be good at spewing BS but soft on facts:

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.

Originally Posted by guionM
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.
So Consumer Reports is now a car magazine? I thought they rate soap and answering machines. Consumer reports has been so slanted against GM that GM's own executives even joke about it. Consumer's reports = anti-GM. That is all I am saying, and I am glad you agree.

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
WhiteHawk is offline  
Old 09-03-2009, 10:09 PM
  #21  
Registered User
 
SSbaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,123
Originally Posted by azfan
car and driver said the mustangtrackpack also had a better ride than the SS. Now that one is a bit hard to swallow , if true.
You know what's funny? When our journos test American metal, it's never flattering. The SRA is usually the main thing they dislike.

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/
EDIT: And here's another 'conflicting' opinion on ride, this time in Camaro's favor...

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

Last edited by SSbaby; 09-03-2009 at 10:36 PM.
SSbaby is offline  
Old 09-04-2009, 07:45 AM
  #22  
Registered User
 
Z28Wilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 6,166
Originally Posted by WhiteHawk
0-60 Mustang 5.1 Camaro 5.9

1/4 mile Mustang 13.6 Camaro 14.5

So within a second is an annihilation?
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.
Z28Wilson is offline  
Old 09-04-2009, 08:19 AM
  #23  
Super Moderator
 
JakeRobb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Okemos, MI
Posts: 9,479
Originally Posted by Gold_Rush
Nope, that's a Track Pack model. They're doing a pretty good job of hiding it there, but the base GT has 245 series tires, and the specs in that article say 255 (which is what the Track Pack has).

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.
JakeRobb is offline  
Old 09-04-2009, 09:44 AM
  #24  
Registered User
 
WhiteHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 943
Originally Posted by Z28Wilson
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.
I got all the numbers from the same mag (car and driver maybe?), so it is apples to apples. But if you really take a close look, after sixty MPH, the mustang only pulls .1 seconds. That is embarrassing if you are a mustang owner, because at 60 mph+, your $12,000 gives you a bumper width. The Comparison in Consumer's Report is strictly price based, is all I am saying. The cars aren't really apples to apples in any other measurable category.

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
WhiteHawk is offline  
Old 09-04-2009, 11:55 AM
  #25  
Registered User
 
Z28Wilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 6,166
Originally Posted by WhiteHawk
Consumer Report's said the mustang won based on its acceleration - yet the Camaro "annihilates" it in the acceleration test.
Fair enough, I don't understand it either. My only problem was the Mustang GT vs. Camaro V6 comparison you made.
Z28Wilson is offline  
Old 09-04-2009, 12:09 PM
  #26  
Registered User
 
Gold_Rush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,870
Originally Posted by JakeRobb
Nope, that's a Track Pack model. They're doing a pretty good job of hiding it there, but the base GT has 245 series tires, and the specs in that article say 255 (which is what the Track Pack has).
Could be a typo.Or maybe they had one equipped with the track-pack and didn't know it (kinda doubt it though).

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.
Gold_Rush is offline  
Old 09-04-2009, 05:25 PM
  #27  
Registered User
 
azfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: arizona
Posts: 145
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.
azfan is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ChrisFrez
CamaroZ28.Com Podcast
1
12-15-2014 03:09 PM
ChrisFrez
CamaroZ28.Com Podcast
2
12-07-2014 06:01 PM
PFYC
Supporting Vendor Group Purchases and Sales
0
12-04-2014 11:56 AM
NewsBot
2010 - 2015 Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and Multimedia
0
12-03-2014 12:30 PM
mjcent922
Car Audio and Electronics
10
07-27-2002 12:42 PM



Quick Reply: NEWS: Consumer Reports: 2010 Ford Mustang Out-Blobs Camaro, Challenger [Muscle Car W



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:08 AM.