NEWS: Priced: 2010 Ford Mustang Undercuts Base 2010 Chevrolet Camaro
12-05-2008, 10:13 AM
#47
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Regarding gear ratios - remember that the Camaro has a 29" diameter tire to turn, so I wonder what the effective ratio would be.
I'm sure the 2010 Camaro SS will outaccelerate a 2010 Mustang GT by afew tenths. Ford obviously is not that concerned about it, seeing as they're holding back the new powertrains for 1 year.
Rather than simply focusing on power differences in a vacuum, we should be looking at the cars as a whole. The Mustang has it's own advatages, (cost, mass, established market). The bottom line here, is who will buy what.
I'm sure the 2010 Camaro SS will outaccelerate a 2010 Mustang GT by afew tenths. Ford obviously is not that concerned about it, seeing as they're holding back the new powertrains for 1 year.
Rather than simply focusing on power differences in a vacuum, we should be looking at the cars as a whole. The Mustang has it's own advatages, (cost, mass, established market). The bottom line here, is who will buy what.
12-05-2008, 11:55 AM
#48
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 2,576
Back to the origin of the thread, in the end, it's not about who is fastest out of the showroom, it's about making money (ie. selling cars). Once you get past the leghumpers (on both sides) and get into the folks who are actually cross shopping the cars, the price differential is going to hurt.
12-05-2008, 12:00 PM
#49
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 2,576
true, but......
Sales numbers are going to decide whether the Camaro is a success (and sticks around more than a few years), not hp numbers.
How I wish we could have gotten our mid level L76 or so V8 as an option in the base car. Leave out the Brembos and price it w/in a grand of the Deluxe GT, then we'd have an apples to apples comparison that the Camaro could clearly win.
but we think the GT's cut-rate pricing should be more than enough to keep Ford's pony at the top of the sales charts.
How I wish we could have gotten our mid level L76 or so V8 as an option in the base car. Leave out the Brembos and price it w/in a grand of the Deluxe GT, then we'd have an apples to apples comparison that the Camaro could clearly win.
Last edited by CLEAN; 12-05-2008 at 03:28 PM.
12-05-2008, 01:20 PM
#50
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 801
And an edmunds commentator said this:
"At any rate, the new Mustang base model starts at $21,845, whereas the base Camaro starts at $22,995.
It also just undercuts the new Dodge Challenger, which starts at $21,995. Winner Ford."
...But what's more interesting is the comments found the local peanut gallery. Check out the responses to the edmunds article:
http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightlin....html#comments
10 out of 13 comments looked favorably [directly] on the Camaro despite the price difference. Many of them said they'd pay the extra couple thousand to get what the Camaro is offering. And these types of people usually never say anything good about anything!
Last edited by Dragoneye; 12-05-2008 at 01:22 PM.
12-05-2008, 02:47 PM
#51
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 141
With the info we currently are privy to about the new Camaro's and Mustang's I personally think that with the weight of the 2010 GT being around the same as the 2009 and having 315hp it will probably have little problem dispatching the V6 Camaro, in a straight line. Remember the Mustang's torque is around 345 lb/ft. and the V6 Camaro is around 273 lb/ft. so thats academic. But once you come to any corners I'm pretty sure that if the Camaro has the RS package, with bigger wheels and summer tires, it would very likely make up quite a bit of ground lost the the GT. But most likely still won't best the Mustang.
Now when we compare what we know of the SS Camaro with the current Bullitt Mustang, stand-in for the 2010 GT, you can see a clear edge given to the Chevy. The Bullitt pulls 0-60 in 5.4 seconds according to Edmunds Inside Line comparison between the Challenger SRT-8 and did the quarter mile in 13.7 seconds. This sounds pretty accurate since I have a 67 Camaro that weighs close to the new GT's weight with a 300 hp LT1 that pulled a best time @ Sears Point/Infininon Raceway of 14.1 in the 1/4.
In this Edmunds comparison the HEAVY SRT-8 with just 4+ hp and 12+ torque than the 300 lb. lighter SS Camaro pulled 13.2 @ 107.5 mph, and a 0-60 of about 5.0 seconds (found elsewhere on their site). Take the SS's weight figures into account, it's excellent 52/48 weight distribution, and what Chevy engineers have already confirmed about the SS (0-60 in 4.6 sec. with launch control, an option the GT doesn't have) and the Camaro looks poised at competing not with the standard GT Mustang, but more like it's setting it's aim at the venerable GT500/GT500KR!
If this sounds absurd, check out the figures from this Edmunds video between a Z06 and a GT500KR. Pay close attention to the results of the $80,000 Shelby!
Now when we compare what we know of the SS Camaro with the current Bullitt Mustang, stand-in for the 2010 GT, you can see a clear edge given to the Chevy. The Bullitt pulls 0-60 in 5.4 seconds according to Edmunds Inside Line comparison between the Challenger SRT-8 and did the quarter mile in 13.7 seconds. This sounds pretty accurate since I have a 67 Camaro that weighs close to the new GT's weight with a 300 hp LT1 that pulled a best time @ Sears Point/Infininon Raceway of 14.1 in the 1/4.
In this Edmunds comparison the HEAVY SRT-8 with just 4+ hp and 12+ torque than the 300 lb. lighter SS Camaro pulled 13.2 @ 107.5 mph, and a 0-60 of about 5.0 seconds (found elsewhere on their site). Take the SS's weight figures into account, it's excellent 52/48 weight distribution, and what Chevy engineers have already confirmed about the SS (0-60 in 4.6 sec. with launch control, an option the GT doesn't have) and the Camaro looks poised at competing not with the standard GT Mustang, but more like it's setting it's aim at the venerable GT500/GT500KR!
If this sounds absurd, check out the figures from this Edmunds video between a Z06 and a GT500KR. Pay close attention to the results of the $80,000 Shelby!
12-05-2008, 03:04 PM
#52
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Brighton, IL
Posts: 694
Really?
You think a 3700lb car with a 300hp no torque V6 is going to run anywhere close to 13.2@106?
Cuz that's what '08/'09 Bullitts run. And the '10 GT is the Bullitt drivetrain.
Actually, the '10 GT is going to give quite a few '10 SS owners a run for their money.
You think a 3700lb car with a 300hp no torque V6 is going to run anywhere close to 13.2@106?
Cuz that's what '08/'09 Bullitts run. And the '10 GT is the Bullitt drivetrain.
Actually, the '10 GT is going to give quite a few '10 SS owners a run for their money.
12-05-2008, 03:09 PM
#53
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 141
This is the closest thing I could come to HP/TQ curves for the SS Camaro: 
As for the 2010 Mustang GT, here's the 2008 Bullitt specs:
Looks like the bottom is rear wheel dyno results, unless someone else can find Bullitt engine dyno specs.
As for the 2010 Mustang GT, here's the 2008 Bullitt specs:
Looks like the bottom is rear wheel dyno results, unless someone else can find Bullitt engine dyno specs.
Last edited by Logansneo; 12-05-2008 at 03:13 PM.
12-05-2008, 03:14 PM
#54
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Brighton, IL
Posts: 694
Nope, it doesn't. Not even close.
I would love to have been a fly on the wall when Camaro's pricing was worked out. Like I said previously, if the new Camaro appealed to me and met my specs, I'd pay the 4 grand premium in a heartbeat. In fact, I've been a proponent of the Camaro moving slightly upmarket, my reasoning being that it would theoretically allow the car to be better.
The curious thing for me here though, is that GM so painstakingly benchmarked the Mustang in agonizing detail. Even, in my opinion, compromising the 'ponycar' formula during/because of said benchmarkiing. And we've been force fed the notion that using, what some of us may consider an inappropriate architecture, was necessary in order for the car to be "affordable".
But in in the end, the Camaro was priced, essentially a whole price class higher.
I would love to have been a fly on the wall when Camaro's pricing was worked out. Like I said previously, if the new Camaro appealed to me and met my specs, I'd pay the 4 grand premium in a heartbeat. In fact, I've been a proponent of the Camaro moving slightly upmarket, my reasoning being that it would theoretically allow the car to be better.
The curious thing for me here though, is that GM so painstakingly benchmarked the Mustang in agonizing detail. Even, in my opinion, compromising the 'ponycar' formula during/because of said benchmarkiing. And we've been force fed the notion that using, what some of us may consider an inappropriate architecture, was necessary in order for the car to be "affordable".
But in in the end, the Camaro was priced, essentially a whole price class higher.
12-05-2008, 04:00 PM
#56
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: City of Champions, MA, USA
Posts: 1,214
12-05-2008, 04:15 PM
#57
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: City of Champions, MA, USA
Posts: 1,214
You mustang leghumpers are funny. If the stats were reversed I would have no problem admiting the Mustang were a better car, but its just not the case. Forget stupid options on the inside the major facts are:
Camaro has a better chasis rated a much higher rate of speed
also more power(quite a bit)
another gear
and
a better rear suspension
Don't forget we are talking about 107 hp that means all the parts that are going to get abused for 100K miles are going to have to be that much stronger than the Mustang. If you still don't see a $4K charge as justified you better go to the eye doctor.
Camaro has a better chasis rated a much higher rate of speed
also more power(quite a bit)
another gear
and
a better rear suspension
Don't forget we are talking about 107 hp that means all the parts that are going to get abused for 100K miles are going to have to be that much stronger than the Mustang. If you still don't see a $4K charge as justified you better go to the eye doctor.
12-05-2008, 05:34 PM
#58
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 619
Gah!!! I knew I was forgetting something!! Thanks, Elie!
And an edmunds commentator said this:
"At any rate, the new Mustang base model starts at $21,845, whereas the base Camaro starts at $22,995.
It also just undercuts the new Dodge Challenger, which starts at $21,995. Winner Ford."
...But what's more interesting is the comments found the local peanut gallery. Check out the responses to the edmunds article:
http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightlin....html#comments
10 out of 13 comments looked favorably [directly] on the Camaro despite the price difference. Many of them said they'd pay the extra couple thousand to get what the Camaro is offering. And these types of people usually never say anything good about anything!
And an edmunds commentator said this:
"At any rate, the new Mustang base model starts at $21,845, whereas the base Camaro starts at $22,995.
It also just undercuts the new Dodge Challenger, which starts at $21,995. Winner Ford."
...But what's more interesting is the comments found the local peanut gallery. Check out the responses to the edmunds article:
http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightlin....html#comments
10 out of 13 comments looked favorably [directly] on the Camaro despite the price difference. Many of them said they'd pay the extra couple thousand to get what the Camaro is offering. And these types of people usually never say anything good about anything!
I sold cars before as a job. I've seen deals break apart over a $50 difference over a clearly superior vehicle, it's stupid. People will shop a Camaro but want Mustang pricing.
Buyers NEVER see value in a car, they only see $$.
12-05-2008, 05:46 PM
#59
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 619
With the info we currently are privy to about the new Camaro's and Mustang's I personally think that with the weight of the 2010 GT being around the same as the 2009 and having 315hp it will probably have little problem dispatching the V6 Camaro, in a straight line. Remember the Mustang's torque is around 345 lb/ft. and the V6 Camaro is around 273 lb/ft. so thats academic. But once you come to any corners I'm pretty sure that if the Camaro has the RS package, with bigger wheels and summer tires, it would very likely make up quite a bit of ground lost the the GT. But most likely still won't best the Mustang.
Now when we compare what we know of the SS Camaro with the current Bullitt Mustang, stand-in for the 2010 GT, you can see a clear edge given to the Chevy. The Bullitt pulls 0-60 in 5.4 seconds according to Edmunds Inside Line comparison between the Challenger SRT-8 and did the quarter mile in 13.7 seconds. This sounds pretty accurate since I have a 67 Camaro that weighs close to the new GT's weight with a 300 hp LT1 that pulled a best time @ Sears Point/Infininon Raceway of 14.1 in the 1/4.
In this Edmunds comparison the HEAVY SRT-8 with just 4+ hp and 12+ torque than the 300 lb. lighter SS Camaro pulled 13.2 @ 107.5 mph, and a 0-60 of about 5.0 seconds (found elsewhere on their site). Take the SS's weight figures into account, it's excellent 52/48 weight distribution, and what Chevy engineers have already confirmed about the SS (0-60 in 4.6 sec. with launch control, an option the GT doesn't have) and the Camaro looks poised at competing not with the standard GT Mustang, but more like it's setting it's aim at the venerable GT500/GT500KR!
If this sounds absurd, check out the figures from this Edmunds video between a Z06 and a GT500KR. Pay close attention to the results of the $80,000 Shelby!
Now when we compare what we know of the SS Camaro with the current Bullitt Mustang, stand-in for the 2010 GT, you can see a clear edge given to the Chevy. The Bullitt pulls 0-60 in 5.4 seconds according to Edmunds Inside Line comparison between the Challenger SRT-8 and did the quarter mile in 13.7 seconds. This sounds pretty accurate since I have a 67 Camaro that weighs close to the new GT's weight with a 300 hp LT1 that pulled a best time @ Sears Point/Infininon Raceway of 14.1 in the 1/4.
In this Edmunds comparison the HEAVY SRT-8 with just 4+ hp and 12+ torque than the 300 lb. lighter SS Camaro pulled 13.2 @ 107.5 mph, and a 0-60 of about 5.0 seconds (found elsewhere on their site). Take the SS's weight figures into account, it's excellent 52/48 weight distribution, and what Chevy engineers have already confirmed about the SS (0-60 in 4.6 sec. with launch control, an option the GT doesn't have) and the Camaro looks poised at competing not with the standard GT Mustang, but more like it's setting it's aim at the venerable GT500/GT500KR!
If this sounds absurd, check out the figures from this Edmunds video between a Z06 and a GT500KR. Pay close attention to the results of the $80,000 Shelby!
Im guessing the camaro will only be .1 / 1mph faster than that in the manual version. if that.
btw, the GXP has identical front brakes to the Camaro. They noted noticeable brake fade after 3 stops. Weight hurts.
Last edited by TrickStang37; 12-05-2008 at 05:48 PM.
12-05-2008, 06:05 PM
#60
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
