I don't see how this means there are more "douches" who drive M3s than anything other cars.

 

Extrapolate out far enough and almost every car carries a stigma for its driver.

BMW drivers are pompous d-bags.
Corvette drivers are gold-chainers or midlife crisis guys.
Camaro drivers most certainly have mullets and reside in mobile homes.
Hybrid drivers are smug hippies.
and on and on....

 

As far as any ridiculous stereotypes go....

I'm a big believer in the saying: Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

But you know what, most of those stereotypes are pretty spot on for a good portion of each car listed. I do see a ton of mullet driving 3rd Gen drivers, i do see a ton and I mean a ton of smug hippie types driving Prius's with COEXIST stickers, and most Corvette guys I see here are the mid life crisis guys, lol! Out of those listed the Prius is the most spot on, the Camaro is moving away from the mullet stigma just because the new cars are so expensive nobody living in a trailer park could afford one. Mustangs are driven mainly by young guys that listen to rap and think they are fast stock, I mean the Gt's not V6's. Sometimes stereotypes are founded in reality. The worst is the Dodge Ram redneck with flowmasters trying to race anything with wheels.

 

Some of those aren't necessarily stereotypes though.

9 out of 10 times I see someone driving like they own the road, they're usually in a BMW.

 

I'm not being a Camaro apologist. I've said many times that if I were about to go drop $30k on a coupe right now, the Mustang would have an advantage with me (pending test drives and such). I'm simply saying that I think there is more to be had from the Camaro, particularly in the chassis setup, and I'd like to see them offer it. It already boasts better weight distribution than the Mustang, so I'd like to see what it does with a better matched set of tires and some suspension aimed more at handling. Gears, too, as the Mustang has a rather significant gearing advantage, especially when you factor in the larger wheel/tire diameter of the Camaro.

You are right, looks are not a performance category (did I say that it is?). Neither is weight, by the way, except in the sense that it affects handling and acceleration / braking, which you already mentioned separately. Nor is visibility a performance metric. Not saying it doesn't matter; like styling, it matters quite a bit in the purchase decision. I'd also give the engine nod to the Camaro, especially if there is a desire to modify later, but all of that remains to be seen.

Please don't use Brembo as a general category of brakes. The characteristics you describe based on your own brakes may not apply to those on the SS. In fact, every article I recall reading about the new Camaro has nothing but praise for its brakes, in terms of both performance and feel, and I don't remember any complaints about squealing or poor wet performance.

Speaking of the weight distribution, I just thought about something interesting (to me, at least).

Using 3860 lbs with a 52/48 F/R split for the SS and 3600 lbs, 55/45 for the GT, the Camaro ends up with 2007 lbs up front, vs 1980 lbs for the GT. 30 lbs more. The rear ends up carring 230 lbs of the 260 lb weight difference. Just for the hell of it, I think the 4th gens were also in the 55/45 range for distribution. A 3500 lb Camaro would have had around 1925 up front and 1575 out back. Yet that car got 275s front and rear in SS trim, and the GT has 255s all around, while the new Camaro has 245s up front. They almost look like bicycle tires, because 245mm is so narrow for how tall they are at 28 inches (compared to 25.4 inches for the 275/40R17s on my car). I really think the could dial out some of the understeer and body roll from the current Camaro and make strides toward the car comparing more favorably in the handling feel department.



All that said, if nothing changes for the Camaro for 2011, then yes, the Mustang seems to have a small edge in overall performance.

 

well my 2 cents are as follows. GT v. M3 is a nice number comparison. I still say a back to back actual test drive is of more importance. People will gravitate to what they consider the "better" choice.


IMO, my choice would be the M3 everytime. Hell, i'd even consider the 335i.

 

Stereotyping sucks. Your maturity level is showing.

 

Actually I was thinking what he was describing had a whole hell of a lot more to do with pad compound than with the make of the calipers and disks.

 

F'n A. THANK YOU.

If you want to take a basic Mustang from the dealer's lot and turn your own wrenches to make it a BMW killer - I'm all for it and would love to see it... heck I do it myself... but to just go buy one is NOT the right recipe for the Mustang.

I've preached for years now that the car is going upscale, up-price, and out-of-class. This kind of article only fortifies my position.

A Mustang on a dealer's lot needs to be nothing more than a blank canvas, cheap and plain, that any artist can buy inexpensively and start turning it into whatever they want it to be. Some may in fact want to leave it "blank" and love it for it's simplicity.
(Putting money where the mouth is, I am now the owner of my first GTS - a '96 model with pkg 248A that is black with grey cloth interior and the 5-spd. Whomever ordered it only opted for premium sound and the rear spoiler - that's it. Manual windows and locks, fog-light delete, etc. With only two options, this car is as stripped-down as it gets - and I love it! My daughter is 12 now, and she wants me to unlock it with a key-fob, and I had to explain to her that this car doesn't even have a motor to unlock the doors - you have to pull te button with your fingers. You'd have thought she saw an alien or ate a lemon. Will have it in the GTS registry soon - 1 of 5479 made. )

All these HP wars and upscaling of Mustang and Camaro are the climb up the hill leading up to the leap off the cliff. It's NOT a good thing long-term for these cars IMO.

 

It's still all relative.

Adjusting for inflation, these cars are priced right where they've been for decades.

305 hp may sound like a lot (and it is not weak, for sure), but basic fwd midsize sedans are approaching that mark in V6 form. 260 - 280 hp is the norm.

Back when "normal" cars were making 130 - 150 hp in their highest form, a 225 hp V8 was a relative rocket, and a weak 4 cylinder or 6 cylinder was fine as a base pony car engine. Power has gone up across the board, however, and the pony cars have kept pace.

What did the VW bug come with? 45 hp or something? Can you even get a base econocar with less than 100 hp these days?



EDIT: Agree that the Mustang GT needn't be chasing the BMW M3 in terms of directly competing; that would be nuts. But as Charlie mentioned earlier, there's really nothing wrong with setting the bar high for things like steering and handling feel and overall performance, which is what Ford has apparently done here (benchmarking the M3 in certain areas).

 

I can understand your premise, but this exact attitude is what gave Mustang fans years and years of 215-260 horse milktoast 4.6 cars. I guess it worked well enough since they continued to sell them well, but personally, one of the reasons why I never considered a Mustang during the time the LT1s and LS1s were roaming the streets is because that "blank canvas" you pined for was a bit too blank for my tastes, and it was hardly any cheaper. To each his own though.

I think there can be a balance between good performance and good price. As was just mentioned, all of this is relative. If Mustang GT was still using the same 3V 4.6 and being outgunned by a friggen Camry, I don't care how "cheap" or moddable the car might be, there would be some problems. I guess in the end, I wouldn't at all lament the passing of the 4.6. "Blank canvas" aside, a car needs to stay competitive.

 

The point being... should Mustang GT (or Camaro SS for that matter) try to compete with BMW's M3? Perhaps as a performance comparison to see what an extra $25-30k will buy you. However as a direct competitor, absolutely not.

That said, we've already discussed in the past (at length) how stripper cars don't sell. Sure many enthusiast types (like us) will want the "blank canvas" approach, however the majority of buyers want all the bells and whistles, even if comes with a price; namely a higher cost and added weight. Proud's example '96 GTS may be rare as 1 of less than 5500, however from the manufacturer's perspective, is that enough to make it a profitable option in these economic times? Hardly.

 

In 1988, I couldn't buy a Mustang with every option in the book for $25k - not even close. A loaded LX 5.0 was had for the low-teen$, and a vert might push the $20k mark. But the Lincoln Town Car my folks bought was a $38k vehicle. TODAY, the Mustang V6 deluxe convertible plows deep into the $30s, but I can get a well-optioned Lincoln MKZ starting at $34.2k. The price gap between luxury cars and pony cars has vanished, but it used to be very significant. That is not parity IMO. If I'm going to spend major bucks for a ride, I'll probably go for the luxury and utility over a pony car, and just look for a used pony car to play with. In days gone by, that was not always the case. I know - I've lived it.

Besides that - it is utterly disgusting to think that after 45 years of technology, improvements in materials, processes, and manuafcturing, etc, etc, that it still costs me as much to produce/sell a comparable item as it did 45 years ago. If we still made french fries today like we did in 1929, McDonalds would either not exist, or they would have the world's largest army of people sitting around peeling potatoes by hand. Price-per-fry ratio from 1929 to 2010... ?

The rest of your post is totally understandable and appreciated - I just really disagree with this claim of "adjusted for inflation" argument that keeps coming out to play cover for rediculously upscaled and up-priced pony cars.

 

Lincoln MKZ is not the equivalent of the Town Car. I don't know if even the Continental would have been a fair equivalent. Possibly, as it was somewhat Taurus-based during that time, but the MKZ is very heavily Fusion-based.

The Town Car is still around. What does one go for loaded? And what does a loaded MKS or MKT go for? I just quickly got a Town Car up to $55k after clicking some options. MKT crests $60k when optioned up. Not to mention, the Navigator is arguably the flagship, sort of the spiritual successor / replacement for the Town Car. I just built one of those up to nearly $70k. Compare that to a well-optioned GT convertible in the $40k range.

Unfortunately, inflation is a real thing, affecting cars just as it affects prices of other goods.

BTW, I don't like it either. $40k for me is an insane amount of money to pay for a car. ANY car. That's why I buy used.