January 2012 Mustang Sales Figures
2/4/12, 05:18 PM
#43
Bullitt Member
Originally Posted by Enator
Delivery (sales) Stats:
Mustang January 2012 Deliveries (actual sales): 3,736
Compared to Competition:
Camaro sold 5,709 units in January 2012.
Challenger sold 2,551 units in January 2012.
Mustang January 2012 Deliveries (actual sales): 3,736
Compared to Competition:
Camaro sold 5,709 units in January 2012.
Challenger sold 2,551 units in January 2012.
2/4/12, 05:27 PM
#44
Bullitt Member
Originally Posted by Stang4US
The Camaro interior is ugly and cheap looking. The dash and guages look like crap. The Challenger is by far better and would be my pick if I were buying something other than the 2013 Mustang GT. Actually, if the Challenger was lighter and Chrysler had not encrypted the PCM on the 12's it would be a hard choice between the Mustang and Challenger.
2/4/12, 05:59 PM
#45
Bullitt Member
Join Date: January 30, 2012
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think people that rage about how the camaro looks like ****, drives like ****, etc....are going a little overboard. Before i say why let me say I'm a mustang guy myself and I have a '13 on order.
That being said, the Camaro does not look ugly. It looks sexy, albeit in a different more futuristic style than the stang. This isn't necessarily better or worse than the stang, just different. Before I got into cars about 2 years ago, I likes the camaro exterior design better. Now I think with some minor exterior changes to the mustang (wheels, grill) it looks just as good next to a camaro. But the type of people buying a camaro just want to buy a car that catches people's eye. The stock camaro does that more than the stock mustang.
That being said, the mustang drives at least twice as good, with 5 times as good handling and feels more powerful do to the smaller size and lighter body weight.
I've driven both several times and the camaro will never be a legitimate comparison until they fix the atrocious visibility (not an exaggeration) and fix those ridiculous gauges (have the speedometer bigger than 2" x 1") and replace the generally cheep feeling/looking interior.
That being said, the Camaro does not look ugly. It looks sexy, albeit in a different more futuristic style than the stang. This isn't necessarily better or worse than the stang, just different. Before I got into cars about 2 years ago, I likes the camaro exterior design better. Now I think with some minor exterior changes to the mustang (wheels, grill) it looks just as good next to a camaro. But the type of people buying a camaro just want to buy a car that catches people's eye. The stock camaro does that more than the stock mustang.
That being said, the mustang drives at least twice as good, with 5 times as good handling and feels more powerful do to the smaller size and lighter body weight.
I've driven both several times and the camaro will never be a legitimate comparison until they fix the atrocious visibility (not an exaggeration) and fix those ridiculous gauges (have the speedometer bigger than 2" x 1") and replace the generally cheep feeling/looking interior.
2/4/12, 06:04 PM
#47
Legacy TMS Member
One of my first recollections for this type of engine in this car class...especially with it being all aluminum.
2/4/12, 06:14 PM
#48
Legacy TMS Member
Lets take 2 vehicles(this should start a pissing match);
2002 Mustang auto
2002 Camaro auto
and you were allowed to do the following mods only, headers, exhaust, stall, cam, and 3.73 gears.
Which in your mind would be cheaper and what kind of a time slip can be had out of the 4.6l. I know what the Camaro can run with the mods but I honestly dont know on the Mustang. Sorry guys, but I have seen plenty of slow Gt's out here in Phoenix from 1994-2002. Seen plenty of wicked Terminator's though.
The GTs from 1994-95 were the old 302s, rated at 215hp.
2/4/12, 06:17 PM
#49
Legacy TMS Member
Have you guys ever seen a new Challenger parked next to an original? The new car is like at least 25% bigger than the original. Chrysler just used whatever chassis hardware they had and replicated the Challenger body on top of it. Sorry, but in my opinion it isn't a pony car.
2/4/12, 06:34 PM
#50
Post *****
Join Date: December 14, 2007
Location: State of Jefferson Mountains USA
Posts: 20,005
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
The GTs used the 2V engines from 1996-2004, and yes, those were stock-for-stock, not in the same power range. They especially were not in the same power range from 1996-98 (225hp). For 1999, they were enhanced to 260hp.
The GTs from 1994-95 were the old 302s, rated at 215hp.
The GTs from 1994-95 were the old 302s, rated at 215hp.
The LS1 has 24% larger displacement than the 4.6L.
The closest displacement I found is the 2000 Chev 5.0/305 @ 250hp. Larger displacement than the 4.6/281 but lower HP.
***
Best apples to apples (displacement) I found is the 350 OHV pushrod vs the 350 DOHC in the Corvette, both NA.
The pushrod 350 LT4 peaked at 330 hp, 340#' torque ('96).
The DOHC 4V 350 LT5 (Lotus design) peaked at 405hp, 385#' torque ('95).
Make mine OHC please!
Last edited by cdynaco; 2/4/12 at 11:47 PM.
2/4/12, 07:22 PM
#51
I totally understand why someone might prefer the Camaro. I don't prefer it, but I get it. I think it's pretty **** good looking and it's really a throw back to the, "OLD DAYS."
It's got a big torque motor and the zl is going to be a great car. I have to believe that the better cars our beloved Ford makes, the more we push Chevy to improve. Conversely the more Chevy improves the better Fords will be. I can't wait til ford comes out with a new halo car which stomps the zr1 vette.
I absolutely don't get why Ford is continually behind Chevy in the muscle car sales. It seems like it should be a back and forth kind of thing. But, I'll just enjoy my lil' 5.0 and hope that those who choose brand x enjoy it.
It's got a big torque motor and the zl is going to be a great car. I have to believe that the better cars our beloved Ford makes, the more we push Chevy to improve. Conversely the more Chevy improves the better Fords will be. I can't wait til ford comes out with a new halo car which stomps the zr1 vette.
I absolutely don't get why Ford is continually behind Chevy in the muscle car sales. It seems like it should be a back and forth kind of thing. But, I'll just enjoy my lil' 5.0 and hope that those who choose brand x enjoy it.
2/5/12, 01:13 AM
#52
GT Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: April 24, 2010
Location: Stocholm Sweden
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2/5/12, 12:48 PM
#53
Cobra Member
GM has about twice the number of dealers than Ford. Ford has pretty much abandoned the small towns. To buy a Ford, you have to travel a longer distance. If one supports their local business, one will more likely buy from the dealer in ones town. Therefore, more Camaros are sold in a down economy. Sales of all pony cars are pathetic now. Nothing for the Camaro fans to be happy about outselling mustangs. 
2/8/12, 10:11 AM
#54
Member
Join Date: February 3, 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They can get there without a total rebuild. I think that was his point. Of course, there are some LS engines since the LS1(which CANNOT reliably do so) which can also see 700+ without full internal replacement.
This, I just don't get, for a few reasons. #1, why on EARTH are you comparing 1998-2002 engines? It's 2012... TEN YEARS LATER...
2nd, the 5L is WAY beyond the LS1 and is unquestionably more capable, period.
That said, the 4.6L was used to power a Mustang to around 7.20's in 2001... NO BODY has ever run 7.20's(or 7's at all from what I've seen) with an actual LS1 engine... It's never been done and NOW... Now the 4.6L has powered a Mustang into the 6.20's... No LS anything is doing the same in a door slammin' Camaro. The quickest "LS" Camaro I've ever heard of ran 6.8's @ 205mph, but the engine was NOT an LS in the end... It was an LQ (iron block) instead.
Those 6.20's I mentioned... B-head 1996 block and FACTORY crank engine! Show me an LS1 getting even close while using those factory parts built FOR the LS1... It'll never happen. Swap the pistons and rods... STILL won't happen! The block itself simply isn't strong enough.
So, while the stock LS1 F-body would trounce the stock Mustang GT for all 4 years of its production, the stronger, more capable engine was the DOHC 4.6L and nobody's proven otherwise, ever. Case in point, the aforementioned LS1 vs 4.6L in heads up power creation... At the drag strip: 8's with an LS1 and 6's with the 4.6L It's not even close. To get close, you'll need either an IRON block(LQ) or something far newer and far larger than the LS1.
Plus, back then, the COBRA cost about what the Z/28 did, new for new and in many cases, notably less. I knew guys spending well over 30 grand for their new T/A's, for example. One guy I know spent over 35k for his 2001, but it was a 10th Anniversary Firehawk.
Never knew anyone to pay that much for a Cobra before the 2003 model.
G'day...
I was comparing the LSx series back in 1998-2002. The anemic 4.6 was/is not in the same league imo. Like was said before, the terminator and Mach 1 changed the game. I like both cars and I like hp no matter where it comes from.
2nd, the 5L is WAY beyond the LS1 and is unquestionably more capable, period.
That said, the 4.6L was used to power a Mustang to around 7.20's in 2001... NO BODY has ever run 7.20's(or 7's at all from what I've seen) with an actual LS1 engine... It's never been done and NOW... Now the 4.6L has powered a Mustang into the 6.20's... No LS anything is doing the same in a door slammin' Camaro. The quickest "LS" Camaro I've ever heard of ran 6.8's @ 205mph, but the engine was NOT an LS in the end... It was an LQ (iron block) instead.
Those 6.20's I mentioned... B-head 1996 block and FACTORY crank engine! Show me an LS1 getting even close while using those factory parts built FOR the LS1... It'll never happen. Swap the pistons and rods... STILL won't happen! The block itself simply isn't strong enough.
So, while the stock LS1 F-body would trounce the stock Mustang GT for all 4 years of its production, the stronger, more capable engine was the DOHC 4.6L and nobody's proven otherwise, ever. Case in point, the aforementioned LS1 vs 4.6L in heads up power creation... At the drag strip: 8's with an LS1 and 6's with the 4.6L It's not even close. To get close, you'll need either an IRON block(LQ) or something far newer and far larger than the LS1.
Plus, back then, the COBRA cost about what the Z/28 did, new for new and in many cases, notably less. I knew guys spending well over 30 grand for their new T/A's, for example. One guy I know spent over 35k for his 2001, but it was a 10th Anniversary Firehawk.
Never knew anyone to pay that much for a Cobra before the 2003 model.G'day...
2/8/12, 12:49 PM
#55
GT Member
Join Date: January 10, 2010
Location: huntley, il
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For It'llrun: Go back to page one and that'll answer point #1 you made. Your 2nd point was never in dispute to begin with, don't know why you even brought it up. I agree with you about the 4.6: good motor for the street (not the best), very unappreciated.
2/8/12, 09:19 PM
#56
Member
Join Date: February 3, 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2/8/12, 11:41 PM
#57
GT Member
Join Date: January 10, 2010
Location: huntley, il
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dude, don't get your panties in a bunch. I wasn't trying to be rude at all, just pointing out why some of us were discussing 1998-2002 engines, which started on page 1. This is a very friendly Mustang forum, don't take it quite so serious.
2/10/12, 08:34 PM
#60
GT Member
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Orlando
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Far as I can tell, Camaro is winning the sales race at this time because GM is advertising better/more. When's the last time you remember seeing a Mustang commercial?
Auto sales are about advertising to make someone want the vehicle you're selling, not hp.
Camaros are selling better than Mustangs in America and the only thing I can say is, GM has made more people want their product, even though it isn't actually made in America.
Auto sales are about advertising to make someone want the vehicle you're selling, not hp.
Camaros are selling better than Mustangs in America and the only thing I can say is, GM has made more people want their product, even though it isn't actually made in America.