Thoughts on matching up the Camaro, Challenger, & Mustang

Had an extra hour or so to mess around here before going to dinner, so wanted to engage in a bit of bench racing, or more accurate, bench comparisons & observations


Current Mustang GT gets 15 & 23 with a maunual. It's expected to improve by at least 1 mpg in both city & highway in addition to growing to at least 390 horsepower when the new 5.0 comes out this fall. Torque should be around 320-350 range.

The Pontiac G8 GXP LS3 is now rated at 13 & 20 mpg city/ highway. It has the identical rear axle the Camaro SS will have (3.27) weighs roughly 150-200 pounds more, but the Camaro will have more aggressive tuning which will likely more than wash out any weight advantage. Camaro will have 422 horsepower to the GXP's 415. The L99 Camaro should come very close to matching the G8 GT's 15 & 24 mpg despite having a bigger engine because save the bore, it is the same engine as the L76 in the G8. The L99 Camaro should have 400 horsepower. LS3s will have 408 ft/lbs torque, L99s, 395.

Dodge Challenger 375 horse R/T gets 16 and 25 mpg with both manual and automatic according to the EPA. The 425 horse SRT8 gets 14 & 22 with a manual, despite being in a bigger car. 408 lbs torque on the 5.7, 425 on the SRT8.




1. Fuel Economy

No one is buying these cars for fuel economy. However, it's worth these to an LS1 F-body. By the new standards, an automatic LS1 gets 16 & 23 mpg. Manual gets 17 & 26. Unless the new Mustang does better than expected, ironically, it's likely to be the Hemi Charger R/T to get the best mileage. It should top the L99 Camaro by 1 mpg on both city & highway. The SRT to LS3 comparison's gap is much bigger... in favor of the Chrysler.




2. Interior

Chrysler's build quality of the Challenger is a long way from the Sebring & Avenger, and is almost very good. Camaro is the most highly styled, Mustang seems the most well made. Personally, I'd pick the Mustang, but staying objective, I'd have to say it's a wash. What are you after? High style? Camaro. Comfort and solidity? Mustang. Room, comfortable seats, and a business like driving enviroment Challenger.

3. Exterior

The Challenger looks fantastic, the Mustang not as much so. However, it's obvious that there was far more work put into the Camaro. While all 3 reached back to their history for inspiration, Camaro essentially looks like one would expect it to look if it never branched off in 1971 and went towards a "European" look that over the years morphed into a 4 passenger Corvette. Chrysler took the old Challenger, and gave it a throughly modern look, and it works exceptionally well. The new Mustang takes all of what was wrong with the old one and fixes it. But while the Challenger looks fresh, and the Camaro looks futuristic, the Mustang looks like an evolution of what we've been seeing the past 5 years. Not bad, but the other 2 stand out far more.




4. Performance.

First of all, there are no slow cars here. Anyone thinking that one or the other is simply is delusional or spent too much time racing F16s. One might look at Camaro's power output, and automatically think it will simply blow everything away. But it's not quite that simple. Mustang has 3.73 gears that will no doubt carry over to the new car. Those gears should be enough to run with an L99 Camaro SS.

The Challenger also has very aggressive gearing. Camaro SS buyers opting for the automatic might want to be a bit careful picking races with the competition. Manual buyers will have a bit of breathing room. But not much. 350 lbs/ft of torque, 3.73 gearing, and a 3500 pound Mustang should be taken seriously when you're driving a 400 lbs/ft, 3.27, 3850 pound Camaro. The Mustang may be down 50 ft/ibs, but at 350 lbs lighter & packing that axle, it's not a hands down race. SRT8s carry 25 more lbs ft and about 150 more pounds. The advantage is that Holden is better at making dragracing capable IRS than Mercedes Benz, therfore enough power should get to the pavement to counter an SRT8.

Where the Camaro should shine is in top speed. All Mustangs (even the 540 horse GT500s) are governed to a Europe-like 155 mph. SRT8s are ungoverned, and should run all the way to 170 if not a bit higher. Camaro SS should reach at least 175.




5. Value

This is where things get tricky. In all cases, what each manufacturer is trying to get you to do is buy alot of options and add-ons. A loaded Challenger can go over $40K. You can price a Camaro right up to $45K if you want everything available.

Looking at starting price, Mustang is the best value. At $28K, it's hands down the best bang for the buck. But the Camaro SS & Chalenger R/T both have IRS. That almost mandates the $1400 Mustang "Track Pack" that sends the price to nearly $30,000. That puts you a breath away from the Challenger R/T base model which undercuts the Camaro 1SS by less than $100. But Camaro SS includes the manual which is a $850 option in the Dodge (Chrysler Financial wipes that out with a $1K discount).

In short, if you just want a V8 sports coupe or you intend to tweak it for your own taste, Mustang GT.

If you want the quickest, best handling manual shift sporty car and fuel economy is down around #50 on your list of important stuff, Camaro SS.

If you want a traditional muscle car where you can actually fit people in as well as their luggage, Challenger R/T.



6 Final thoughts

Of the 3, it's not how far one car is better, it's how far behind one car is. Mustang.

The Mustang has always been in the fight, and very competitive. But with the Challenger and Camaro offering IRS, and Mustang with a new nose & rear that's going to take some getting used to, it's almost as if Mustang is in a different class. What it initially had in it's favor (price) isn't that big a pull because prices creeped up the past couple of years, plus you need to spend an additional $1400 just to play with the big boys. Wouldn't be a big deal if it wasn't for the fact that that one option puts the Mustang GT in the same price range (a few hundered dollars) of these heavy hitting handling. The question then becomes: "For a few hundred more, I can get alot more power, IRS, and in the case of the Challenger, alot more room or in the case of Camaro, alot more style". That one question will cost Mustang many sales.

They should make the Track Pack package standard, even if they jack up the price another $500 (probally still less than what the package costs Ford). That would cure the problem.


For all practical purposes, choosing between a Camaro SS and a Challenger R/T is like choosing between a Chevelle SS and a Camaro SS. Both are fast, both can handle, both have traditional profiles, and both are priced almost identically. It's just one is bigger than the other. Camaro's going to handle a little bit better and be a little bit faster, but what would you expect from a full sized car. And there in lies the dilema.

While I can say the Mustang clearly doesn't win in this group, there is no clear undisputed loser between the Challenger & Camaro IMO.

I'm leaning toward the Mustang - mainly because I feel that it will have the nicest interior.

Man oh man....



The Pontiac G8 GXP LS3 is now rated at 13 & 20 mpg city/ highway. It has the identical rear axle the Camaro SS will have (3.27)

You stated the automatics gearing. The manual Camaro SS has a 3.45 rear gear and the G8 GXP has a 3.70 rear gear.

Let us also not forget that the Camaro has a 28.6" tall tire and the G8 GXP has a 26.9" tall tire.

GM is not estimating 23mpg for the SS so that it can come out and only make 20mpg. They are not stupid. It will be 23mpg or higher I think. Atleast equal to the Challenger SRT8's 22mpg.



The SRT to LS3 comparison's gap is much bigger... in favor of the Chrysler.

Highly doubt it.



3. Exterior

The Challenger looks fantastic, the Mustang not as much so. However, it's obvious that there was far more work put into the Camaro. While all 3 reached back to their history for inspiration, Camaro essentially looks like one would expect it to look if it never branched off in 1971 and went towards a "European" look that over the years morphed into a 4 passenger Corvette. Chrysler took the old Challenger, and gave it a throughly modern look, and it works exceptionally well. The new Mustang takes all of what was wrong with the old one and fixes it. But while the Challenger looks fresh, and the Camaro looks futuristic, the Mustang looks like an evolution of what we've been seeing the past 5 years. Not bad, but the other 2 stand out far more.

Have you seen all the plastic on the rear of the new Mustang? Even Mustang fans don't like it. Other than that, I think it is an improvement.



The Challenger also has very aggressive gearing. Camaro SS buyers opting for the automatic might want to be a bit careful picking races with the competition. Manual buyers will have a bit of breathing room. But not much. 350 lbs/ft of torque, 3.73 gearing, and a 3500 pound Mustang should be taken seriously when you're driving a 400 lbs/ft, 3.27, 3850 pound Camaro. The Mustang may be down 50 ft/ibs, but at 350 lbs lighter & packing that axle, it's not a hands down race.

Ahh, the last Mustang tested weighed 3572 with the track pack (much likely to be factory in a 400hp Stang) and that was with the 4.6L and a 5-speed.

Say it with me now, "there will not be a 400hp Mustang GT weighing 3,500 pounds." 400hp and 360tq is already starting to look more like 390hp and 320-350tq and the current Mustang already weighs more than 3,500 pounds.

Also, 3.73 gears are optional, so are 3.55 gears. Not all GTs are going to have these.


This is where things get tricky. In all cases, what each manufacturer is trying to get you to do is buy alot of options and add-ons. A loaded Challenger can go over $40K. You can price a Camaro right up to $45K if you want everything available.

This is so misleading. Would you stop counting dealer installed options or GM performance parts. A Camaro SS with all the factory options is less than $40k. You can option a SRT8 Challenger to almost $46k.


Looking at starting price, Mustang is the best value. At $28K, it's hands down the best bang for the buck. But the Camaro SS & Chalenger R/T both have IRS. That almost mandates the $1400 Mustang "Track Pack" that sends the price to nearly $30,000. That puts you a breath away from the Challenger R/T base model which undercuts the Camaro 1SS by less than $100. But Camaro SS includes the manual which is a $850 option in the Dodge (Chrysler Financial wipes that out with a $1K discount).

This is going to be the real competition, but I am not sure how the Challenger R/T will fit in here. It is just so much bigger and slower than the other two. Seams almost like it is going to reach a different type of buyer. I can see people cross shopping a Mustang and Camaro, but now Challenger.


If you want the quickest, best handling manual shift sporty car and fuel economy is down around #50 on your list of important stuff, Camaro SS.

This is so wrong.



For all practical purposes, choosing between a Camaro SS and a Challenger R/T is like choosing between a Chevelle SS and a Camaro SS. Both are fast, both can handle, both have traditional profiles, and both are priced almost identically. It's just one is bigger than the other. Camaro's going to handle a little bit better and be a little bit faster, but what would you expect from a full sized car. And there in lies the dilema.

What are you calling a little? I have seen around 13.8 for the Challenger R/T and I think the Camaro will be running very low 13's and high 12's. That's not a "little" in my book. And it is going to handle a LOT better I think. Again, I just think they are different cars. I would not cross shop the two.

Challenger is an SUV...does not belong in this comparo.

challenger is an suv...does not belong in this comparo.


+1!

:)

Challenger is an SUV...does not belong in this comparo.

+2!

It should be sold with oars, and life preservers available for each passenger.

Challenger is an SUV...does not belong in this comparo.

Wasn't it you that called a Trailblazer SS a "muscle car" last week, and mentioned it in the same post as a Dodge Viper?? ;) :p

Good post guionM. Though I think Chevy will have the option of offering better gearing and hopefully the gas mileage will be a little better, you make some very valid points. I like the comparo of the Challenger to a Chevelle, I was thinking the same.

I like all three, and hope all these cars sell well!!! As I would like to be having these same discussions 10 years from now!!! :thumb:

Largely a good comparison but I think you're underestimating the performance difference between the Camaro SS and the similarly priced Challenger R/T. Of course it's bench racing at this point but w/ over 50 extra HP (in LS3 form) and 150 or so pounds less weight the Camaro SS should lay a pretty serious whooping down on the R/T both in acceleration for sure, and I would wager in handling as well.

Sure, the R/T is still fast, but 50+ hp and less weight should make a pretty massive difference IMO.

And I think that when taking that into consideration it changes the overall findings you came up with for this comparison, as it does indeed make the Camaro stand out above the Challenger. Price is similar, MPG is similar, styling is good, interiors are both good in their own ways, yet the Camaro SS performs significatnly better. The SS performs more on par w/ the SRT8 but sells for R/T prices, that is a major plus point for Camaro.


The Challenger also has very aggressive gearing. Camaro SS buyers opting for the automatic might want to be a bit careful picking races with the competition.

Oh and on the performance category for the L99 SS, what it lacks in HP vs the LS3 I think it makes up for in the aggressively geared A6 tranny. It has significantly more aggressive gearing than the Challenger actually, I think the L99 should be pretty secure especialy vs the R/T auto. For the L99 SS, think G8 GT w/ 40 more HP and 100lbs less weight, plus an even more aggressive rear gear ratio (3.27 for the SS vs the G8 GTs 2.92). I see that as definitely no slouch, heck it may outgun the LS3 especially when you consider the potential for shifting errors w/ the manual...


I really cannot wait to see some direct testing of these cars. Honestly I really think the Camaro SS, both L99 and LS3, will rip the Challenger R/T up pretty good. Will be really interesting to see the true numbers.




Not to add more fuel to the fire but I'll believe a 3500 lb 390hp 6spd tranny Mustang GT at the same current GT price when I see it. (my feeling is it'll either gain weight, gain in price a good bit, be a special edition non-GT level car, or a combo of those). I hope they can pull it off as a GT though cause that will be a mean ass package for Mustang fans.

Blah, blah, blah... (seriously, nice comparison Guy... no, I really do mean it.) That said, I really could care less which is the better car of the three. I'm purchasing a Camaro because it is a Camaro. Price, fuel economy and styling have no bearing on my decision process. If there were no Camaro I wouldn't purchase a Mustang or a Challenger. Heck, if there were no Camaro, I'd probably buy a new truck! :D

Wasn't it you that called a Trailblazer SS a "muscle car" last week, and mentioned it in the same post as a Dodge Viper?? ;) :p

Considering just before that you said the Charger reminded you of driving a chopped truck;)

How was dinner?

2. Interior

Chrysler's build quality of the Challenger is a long way from the Sebring & Avenger, and is almost very good. Camaro is the most highly styled, Mustang seems the most well made. Personally, I'd pick the Mustang, but staying objective, I'd have to say it's a wash. What are you after? High style? Camaro. Comfort and solidity? Mustang. Room, comfortable seats, and a business like driving enviroment Challenger.
i wouldn't say a mustang is comfortable. i know the challenger is way more comfortable then the mustang. unless ford redid the seats.

That said, I really could care less which is the better car of the three. I'm purchasing a Camaro because it is a Camaro.

And a slew of folks will do the same as you.

Mustang guys (and girls) will buy a Mustang.
Challenger folks will buy a Challenger.

The big pull needs to be the young crowd that is buying their FIRST car and has ni bias or preconception of the vehicle they want - they just know they want something that looks good, doesn't cost much, and "suits" them and their lifestyle.

you're gonna want to throw in there that the new 5.7ltr motor for the R/T has been proven to be at least15-20hp UNDER RATED. there are dyno runs that show this. its in the range of 390-400. something chrysler didnt want to flaunt since its even closer to the srt power levels.

you're gonna want to throw in there that the new 5.7ltr motor for the R/T has been proven to be at least15-20hp UNDER RATED. there are dyno runs that show this. its in the range of 390-400. something chrysler didnt want to flaunt since its even closer to the srt power levels.

Hp ratings are done by a 3rd party now. Unless you have a link to one?

Hp ratings are done by a 3rd party now. Unless you have a link to one?

let me do a little digging to see where i saw that...

here is the link showing the results of a 3rd party vendor running a stock 5.7 R/T:

http://www.challengertalk.com/forums/f37/dyno-s-bmcs-100-stock-challenger-r-t-5-7l-4948/

RWHP: 334.5
RWTQ: 352.4

I think the best value in 2009 is going to be the Camaro V6. 304HP and a 6 speed manual for $22K, you can't beat that. I've also read 27mpg is the expected hwy mileage rating. You can't get a 300HP+ car with that high of mileage or for that kind of money any were else.

If I was buying a brand new car this year it would be a Camaro RS.

here is the link showing the results of a 3rd party vendor running a stock 5.7 R/T:

http://www.challengertalk.com/forums/f37/dyno-s-bmcs-100-stock-challenger-r-t-5-7l-4948/

RWHP: 334.5
RWTQ: 352.4

i can vouch for that...a buddy of mine threw his stock R/T auto on the dyno to get base numbers before he started modding and got about the same results. i can see why they underated them...so close to the SRT...

i can vouch for that...a buddy of mine threw his stock R/T auto on the dyno to get base numbers before he started modding and got about the same results. i can see why they underated them...so close to the SRT...what do SRT-8 challengers put at the wheels?

what do SRT-8 challengers put at the wheels?

good question...

I read of a couple 375 ish rwhp dynos for stock 6spd SRT-8s. Not so sure a 330-335 rwhp dyno for the R/Ts is really significantly underrated... They both should lose around 40-50 ponies through the drivetrain which seems to be about where both are at.

I read of a couple 375 ish rwhp dynos for stock 6spd SRT-8s. Not so sure a 330-335 rwhp dyno for the R/Ts is really significantly underrated... They both should lose around 40-50 ponies through the drivetrain which seems to be about where both are at.thanks. i like the SRT-8's but for 50k no thanks!

i've always gone by the average of about 17% loss through the drivetrain to calculate hp/tq numbers.

Maybe for an automatic, but that seems high for a standard rwd 6spd car IMO.

Didn't someone from GM post one time that they figured the Vette or Fbody standard T56 drivetrain sucked about 12-13% out?

Even if the RT puts down near SRT8 type HP numbers, the Camaro is still several hundred lbs lighter then it, as well as packs more REAL power.

And did you say that the Chevelle SS was a good handling car? Compared to what? A 1969 C10 pick up?
Just read the G8 GT vs Charger RT comparo, or the G8 GXP vs Charger SRT8 and tell me how the Challenger will even be close to the Camaro's handling and poise on the road?
Untill the Mustang steps into the 21st century, a big honkin engine and a flimisy chassis wont do much but make it a great drag racer.
IF the Mustang gets this mystical 5.0 V8, it wotn make more then 380hp without a signifigant increase in weight.
Id say that a comperable Mustang GT with a 370-390hp V8, 6spd manual or auto, loaded like a Camaro SS or Charger RT, will come damn near 3700lbs.
Mustang will match the two in a race down the strights...just dont want to be near the guard rail on turn one.

Even if the RT puts down near SRT8 type HP numbers, the Camaro is still several hundred lbs lighter then it, as well as packs more REAL power.and has the brakes and suspension to match.:yes:

Who says the Mustang has a flimsy chassis? :think:

As for being near a guardrail, I suppose I can see the point there, if the road is bumpy... Solid axle cars can handle quite well on decent roads though.

Even if the RT puts down near SRT8 type HP numbers, the Camaro is still several hundred lbs lighter then it, as well as packs more REAL power.

not to come off harsh here, but what do you mean by "REAL" power? low 13's in the 1/4 for a 4000lbs car isnt real power? and thats bone stock. i'm not going by mags here either. there are timeslips posted for stock R/T autos hitting 13.1, 13.2, 13.4. if you really want, i will dig up links for the scanned slips of the guy that ran 13.12. someone who can drive a manual could probably equal or better those by 1 or 2 tenths.

i'm not looking to get into a bench racing war with a car that isnt even out yet, but i will state the facts. i'm sure the ss will be quicker out of the box too so dont take this as a "i have a challenger so i automatically think its faster than every car in its class" replies. i consider myself a GM and Chrysler guy and i just think people should realize the gap isnt going to be as wide as you think it will be between them.

...They both should lose around 40-50 ponies through the drivetrain which seems to be about where both are at.

Concur 100%. If there is any 'under-rating' going on, then it is only 5-10 HP, and that is well within the margin of error for one dyno to another (or even one car to another).

If there was one to be out of the competition it should be the challenger. It was a last ditch effort after Chrysler pissed off all there charger fans. Now I see challengers getting in the hands of DUB just like the charger and 300, making them look ridiculous with 26" rims and plastic body kits molded to the floor

FWIW, I drove a Challenger R/T yesterday. I was underwhelmed. I really liked everything "visually" about the car (the looks), but after driving one I felt it was soft, the steering numb, and it felt relatively slow and unresponsive. I was really considering an R/T after checking out the great incentives available. Now not considering one at all. IMHO, G8 GT drives, handles and "goes" so much better. Then I happened to be finishing up my latest R&T last night and noticed in their "spec" pages toward the back listed 2009 Challenger R/T 0-60 a time of 6.2 seconds. Toyota Camry SE listed 0-60 of 6.1 seconds. G8 GT listed 0-60 of 5.0 seconds. So my seat-of-the-pants feelings were confirmed.

Then I happened to be finishing up my latest R&T last night and noticed in their "spec" pages toward the back listed 2009 Challenger R/T 0-60 a time of 6.2 seconds. Toyota Camry SE listed 0-60 of 6.1 seconds. G8 GT listed 0-60 of 5.0 seconds. So my seat-of-the-pants feelings were confirmed.:eek: thats not good.

FWIW, I drove a Challenger R/T yesterday. I was underwhelmed. I really liked everything "visually" about the car (the looks), but after driving one I felt it was soft, the steering numb, and it felt relatively slow and unresponsive. I was really considering an R/T after checking out the great incentives available. Now not considering one at all. IMHO, G8 GT drives, handles and "goes" so much better. Then I happened to be finishing up my latest R&T last night and noticed in their "spec" pages toward the back listed 2009 Challenger R/T 0-60 a time of 6.2 seconds. Toyota Camry SE listed 0-60 of 6.1 seconds. G8 GT listed 0-60 of 5.0 seconds. So my seat-of-the-pants feelings were confirmed.

are you sure that 6.2 wasnt for the SE? either that or someone doesnt know how to drive. this is why i dont go by mags anymore. journalists that know how to write, but cant drive.

just more bad press fueling the fire that they are slow cars. chrysler must have done something to pi$$ them off!:D

i know i said i dont go by mags, but i know MT got a 5.1 0-60. ive seen pictures posted of a few sub 5sec sprints with the built in EVIC display as well, so basically 6.2 is waay off.

are you sure that 6.2 wasnt for the SE? either that or someone doesnt know how to drive. this is why i dont go by mags anymore. journalists that know how to write, but cant drive.

just more bad press fueling the fire that they are slow cars. chrysler must have done something to pi$$ them off!:DThey did comment that the 6.2 sec 0-60 for the R/T six speed was partially due to the 2-3 upshift occurring just before the 60 mph mark. But the 1/4 mile time was a low/mid 14 sec, if I recall correctly, at ~99 mph I think.

Of course, R&T typically displays slower times than the other mags b/c they don't correct for standard conditions (though they test near sea level in California).

But the Camaro SS is going to slaughter the R/T, I think. I also think it will dispatch the SRT8 (dipping into the high 12s in mag testing).

By the way, I'm testing at Milford today, and just drove by a gaggle of new Camaros in various colors, both RS and SS. MMMMMMMmmmmmm

first off, i'll say it again...i have no doubts the SS will be quicker than the R/T out of the box. i'm just posting these from another board to show that its not going to be a "slaughter" that some people think...and no hard feelings guys, just a friendly debate...

this is from the dodgechallenger.com message boards:

look at the entire thread here: dodgetony is the ones to look for. hes got a stock R/T automatic:
http://www.dodgechallenger.com/forums/m_56535/mpage_3/key_/tm.htm


Here are my results from today at Dragway 42. It was mid 50''s air temp, corrected baro of 30.12 hum at 80%. Overall incredible air to race in.
First, the traction control is a royal pain. Second, I could not hit the tree at all. After a few runs I got better, but I am used to racing a low 10 sec car....when I left on the last bulb I was horribly late.
Anyhow, I ran 5 times. The first 3 were all in the 13.10''s. The last two 13.30''s. The car is all stock! I raced it with the air in the rear tires at 20 psi, and removed the air filter. Here are the incrementals from the best pass:
60'': 1.942
330'': 5.501
1/8 mile: 8.47 @ 80.65 mph
1000'': 10.977
1/4 mile: 13.12 @ 108.16

If some-one can tell me how to post a time slip I will post it.

and goes on to add this with a link to another site with the slip posted:

Taylor...I reguarly dragrace 250~300 passes a year, so I am sure that helps. Plus the air was great. Heres a link to a different website where I posted the timeslip.
http://board.moparts.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4788103&page=0&fpart=1&vc=1&nt=2

First, the suspension likes to be shocked...dead idle and floor it. I also made sure I followed slick cars into the lanes. This way I could avoid driving through any dirt from the other street cars. Lastly, no burnout. These tires get greasy when hot. I only spun them off a split second to get the dirt off and that was it. No smoke if I could avoid it. Then the rest is pay real close attention for wheel slip and ease off a little. I always ran with the traction control off as I knew it would slow the car. My next outing will be with slicks and the traction control bypassed. I think based from the MPH this car will go mid 12''s with slicks.

Then there''s old saying....some are faster than others.

again, guys, i want to keep it friendly and just want to show what the car is capable of in the hands of someone who can actually drive it right.

i bet the SS goes 12.6-12.8 range.

Agreed. Mid to high 12's should not be that hard to obtain.
Ill even make this claim. Within the first year, perhaps 6 months of the first tuning software for the car is set and someone gets crazy with it, some DR's and a really good driver, I would not be surprised to see 11.99 in a near stock SS.
There are more and more G8 GT's hitting high 12's with nothing more then a tune and some very minor bolt ons, and I personally know someone who has and saw it with my own eyes. He has a tune, Pypes experimental axle back, and I belive a custom CAI, and hit 12.95, down from his mid 13's.
Thats a heavier car with 60-80hp disadvantage over a Camaro SS.
I know ZZtop posted up a bunch of info based on gears and power ratings, but I think that people hitting low 13's with an Camaro SS will be like 01-02 LS1 cars hitting high 13's.

Lightly-modded LS1 F-bodies were hitting 11.9x many years ago. I have no doubt the 2010's will do it very soon too.

Camaro, fastest and probably quickest. LS3 offers best bang for buck.

Mustang, most appealing interior and sales leader. GT500 highest performance but highest cost in the pony car game.

Challenger, largest capacity, take the family for a thrill ride- modern muscle car.