Latest Road & Track (October edition) came in this weekend, and they have a comparison road test of the SS, GT, and R/T that follows the pony express route.

They really had nothing bad to say about any of the cars, and the things they point out has been beaten to death in other tests and the results aren't surprizing at all:

Mustang GT was the handling champ.
Challenger R/T was their number one choice for a cross country trip.
Camaro's engine packs alot of power and the car attracts attention.

Things that they brought up:

Mustang got about 3-4 mpg more than the Camaro or Challenger, but because it has a smaller fuel tank, it needs to fill up sooner.

Camaro's seats were the least comfortable or supportive of the group, and it's the first magazine I read that came out and called Camaro's guage setup ugly.

Strangely, there wasn't a single negative word about Challenger.

On scoring, in the performance catagory, the Challenger came up with no wins. However, it was almost a total sweep for the Mustang. It maxed out in points in handling, braking, and fuel economy catagories. Camaro unsurprisingly, on acceleration. Of 7 performance catagories, Camaro aced 2, Mustang 5. Challenger got high points, but didn't max out any, so it came in last.

In the subjective area, Challenger fared a whole lot better, coming up between the last place SS and 1st place GT. Camaro maxed points on engine and brakes. Challenger maxed out on transmission, ride, styling, and luggage space. Mustang on Driving excitement, steering, brakes, handling, interior, seats, and ergonomics.

What seems to be the norm in all these tests (besides praises for Mustang's handling and Camaro's power) is that while Camaro SS starts off as the most expensive of the 3 (the Challenger R/T is about $40 cheaper, Mustang GT a whopping $2,200+ cheaper) it seems there are a ton of options for the Challenger and Mustang's options and some of them are pretty steep in price.

Challenger has at least 2 stripe options, charges a grand for the 6 speed, and has quite a few "packages" that will send the price to $40 grand in no time. Mustang seems to have every option known to man on the option list, including Sync, "MyColor guages, at least 2 trim packages, not to mention the Track Pack. The Track Pack probably costs Ford about $100-200, but it's sold for $1500.

In most tests, the Camaro SS seems to have nothing more than the sunroof and stereo box checked off on the options list (devious plan by Chevrolet marketing to throw test results, since...like the Challenger R/T...Camaro SS can also be easily optioned up to 40 grand?)

One final note about the Road and Track magazine test. They currently have the best Camaro SS times (4.6 0-60) in print. R&T usually winds up with the slowest times because unlike Car & Driver, they aren't willing to break a car to get the best times (C&D will do neutral drops in automatics if that helps). Apparently, there is a competition mode that you can set a SS in. I believe everyone else turns off all electronic aids when doing acceleration runs.

Challenger R/T's weak acceleration runs seem to be limited by their crappy (and relatively skinny 245 width) tires.

Both Mustang GT and Challenger R/T ran 3.73 axles. Camaro's was 3.41.

Seems there is a competition mode the SS can be set

 

Seems like a familiar story so far for Camaro.

Strong motor and brakes. Unloved interior. Too much mass to outhandle Mustang.

 

This test is obviously biased as well.

 

Sounds like a fair assessment of all the cars involved.

 

I scanned through this at Walmart the other day, it seemed the track pack Mustang didn't perform as well as in other magazines which is the norm for any R/T test but the Camaro actually performed better.

 

 

Yeah I don't suppose this is ground shattering news or anything, but it is a new sort of comparison for the three.

I suppose for me personally I still think the Chally is the one that is the most underwhelming. But I am willing to sacrifice comfort for performance. The biggest problem I have is that the if I had to buy one today it would be hard for me to choose between a Mustang and a Camaro whereas in the past it was a no-brainer (nevermind that I have actually owned 2 Firebirds not Camaros ).

I like the 2010 Mustang a lot more than previous iterations, especially with this updated interior. Plus even forgetting about the powerplant upgrade for next year, it isn't like it would be too hard to get some more power out of the 4.6L if you really needed some more straightline acceleration.

On the other hand, I still like the Camaro more in the external design and the drivetrain. With some relatively simple suspension tweaks you could probably fix the handling (considering I have had 2 4th Gens that have I "fixed" I am sort of used to that anyway). You can also make a lot more power if you need to. The mass thing has been rehashed a million times but it will mean that you will probably continue to lose on fuel economy and you don't get quite as much kick for each horsepower you add. I am not too enthusiastic about the interior either.

 

Olny sorta related (and I didn't feel like starting a new thread), but the not breaking stuff did remind of the current MM&FF '10 GT500 test, they managed 11.95 @ 120 with the stock tires and 11.59 @ 118 with MT ET Streets bolted on. Article didn't really say what the weather was except for mild weather at Englishtown in May.

 

Frankly, it's impossible for me to choose any of the 3 coupes. Not because they are bad, but because each car has clear and very strong advantages over the others, they all have clear and strong drawbacks, while all 3 are are very, very quick.... just to varying degrees.

I love the Challenger R/T's look. The interior and trunk space is exacly what I need in a car that's going to serve as my only and all purpose car. I do alot of driving, and alot of long distance driving, and the car is perfect for that. The pistol-grip shifter is cool as hell, and the interior (while not as fancy) is actually very solid. The car gets unexpectedly high fuel economy. But the Challenger's top speed governer is a ridiculously low 142 mph. The car is grossly under-tired. Spending a grand for a manual (regardless as to how good they reason is) in a car like this is crazy.

The Camaro SS looks downright agressive. It's built like a tank, so short of driving off a cliff into the Grand Canyon, you're going to be safe in most collisions. Finally, you simply can't buy this type of horsepower and speed from anyone else for this end of 30 grand. But.... That dash looks worse and worse every time I see it. The car's as big as the last edition GTO but the interior has less leg and headroom than the smaller Cobalt. The trunk space looks downright puny. Not that it matters anyway, because you won't get too much through that slot of a trunk opening.

Mustang has a perfect interior. Perfect design, comfort, fit and finish. The car handles not just well, but as well as alot of the far more serious hardware out there costing perhaps twice the price and reputation. The Mustang has alot of little cool features. The hood bulge. The lit "Mustang" door sills. The trick rear turn signals. Engine music piped in and an exhaust that sounds great. But I can't warm up to the rear end design. The beak would look good if it wasn't for the plan good looks of the Challenger's nose or the shark-like Camaro. Both make the Mustang's nose look... well... not that exciting.

There's always been a clear winner in the pony car contests. Not in the drag strip contests, but in one that is clearly better than the other overall. In this instance, all 3 are fast, and all 3 handle. But all 3 are specialist in areas where the others aren't. Mustang GT handles. Camaro SS accelerates like no body's business. The Challenger R/T is the one you can live with every day and take on road trips with family and friends.

Both Camaro and Challeneger draw crowds the Mustang can't. Both Camaro and Mustang handle in ways a Challeneger can't. Mustang and Challenger have interiors that are less controversial, and feel like they are made of far better (and longer lasting) stuff than Camaro's.

It all boils down to what your priorities are as to which car is better (or loyalties as to which car is the "best").

 

They need to really fine tune that handling for next year. Racking up these losses in that area is like blasphemy to the Camaro especially.

 

Yup, it is. Totally and completely.

 

I'm really wondering about the fuel economy. That's the second magazine test where the mustang has gotten much better mileage, and yet the numbers from the factory are supposed to be better.
Unfortunately the weight of the car handicaps it. I really don't understand why more thought wasn't put into that, oh 3 years ago. If ford really does put a more powerful engine in the mustang, they'll just be nothing GM can do.

 

I give up already. I am just going to keep my GTO for a while.

 

I'm sure they did, but the difference is a nearly 100% dedicated platform (and having a show car based on the production car) versus a car adapted almost entirely from another larger car as well as slavishly following the show cars appearence (not a bad thing mind you as the Camaro certainly is a handsome car). Had GM gone the same route as Mustang I'm sure it would have been several pounds lighter, but given the constraints of the time (and I guess betting the farm) and the need to make sure the F5 was a money maker using Zeta was a smart choice.

 

The Mustang platform started from the Lincoln LS/Jag S-type, right? With a lot of changes. There were also a lot of changes made to Zeta for Camaro. The bigger, more powerful engine, 20" wheels, IRS, and styling probably should account for the majority of the 290 pounds (tested) difference between the Camaro SS and the Mustang GT. Even if Alpha had been approved in 2005 and Camaro based on it instead of Zeta, unless wheels, engine, or appearance (pushing forward front axle) had been sacrificed, it's hard to see how it would have been much lighter, without some sort of magic Alpha Pixiedust.

Maybe Hyundai will stuff a V8 into the Genesis coupe without gaining 300 pounds and prove me wrong.