From the Motor Trend article about the Camaro, "But on the negative side of the ledger, most editors agreed the styling of this car has grown old quickly, or at least it isn't compelling enough to make us forgive the huge penalties the cartoonish proportions exact on the packaging." "the Mustang feels like a scalpel; the Camaro a hammer." Loh concurs "The Camaro feels like a concept car or a toy. Fun in a big plastic Lego blocks kinda way, but certainly not the kind of place you'd like to spend a lot of time.

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz0kE9j3Hse

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz0kE7pkmft

 

I wouldn't think the weight difference between the Mustang and Camaro would make that much of a difference, but I guess it does. One porky friend in the passenger seat would make the Mustang weigh more.

 

[quote=PaulVincent;5841100]From the Motor Trend article about the Camaro, "But on the negative side of the ledger, most editors agreed the styling of this car has grown old quickly, or at least it isn't compelling enough to make us forgive the huge penalties the cartoonish proportions exact on the packaging." "the Mustang feels like a scalpel; the Camaro a hammer." Loh concurs "The Camaro feels like a concept car or a toy. Fun in a big plastic Lego blocks kinda way, but certainly not the kind of place you'd like to spend a lot of time.

Taste is subjective. While I agree completely with MT's take on the Camaro's looks, my wife and son are big fans of it. Will this take away form C5 fans argument, "But the GT is still ugly"?

 

Great job Ford! Nice to see this test done so fast!

 

Not that it matters at all, but would have been cool if the stang was tested in yellow blaze, just to see it paired against the other yellow color schemes.

 

Nice test!!! Now something for you 'math' guys.........The Mustang won by .4 tenths of a second in the 1/4 mile..........How many feet did the Mustang win by?

 

The Challenger would be the only other one I would consider. The Chevy is butt-ugly!

 

I think a car length or a little more is considered a .10....

 

Since I work in metric...

For simplicity - assume both cars' trap speeds are 111mph -> 178.64 km/h
178.64 km/h / 3.6 = 49.62 m/s * 0.4 s = 19.85m
19.85m / .3048 m/ft = 65.1 feet

65.1 feet / 15.83 feet/car length = 4.1 car lengths.

EDIT: this confirms the above rule of thumb

 

Throwing a SRT/8 in against the SS and GT is a ridiculous comparison. The fact that the SRT/8 couldn't beat the GT is downright pathetic.

Its fairly obvious to me that the 2011 GT > Camaro SS > Challenger R/T in terms of $ / performance. The SS is still a great car. Aesthetically there's something to like about all 3 cars. My preference is the more modern look of the current mustang interpretation, but that's just me.

I'd be interested in a GT500 = Camaro Z/28 = Challenger SRT/8 comparison in the future, should the Z/28 actually get released in 2011.

FWIW if someone was a camaro fan, i don't think the difference between the GT and the SS is significant enough to persuade people to change their minds. The great thing about competition is that it pushes the companies harder, i doubt we'd be seeing the 5.0 this year if not for the Camaro so we all have to thank GM for raising the bar. That said, Ford rose to the challenge and met it beyond what our wildest expectations were.

 

here is the video link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB4vf...layer_embedded

 

I think the glass roof adds 40 to 50 pounds to the car.

 

According to this thread the roof adds only 28lbs -

https://themustangsource.com/showthread.php?t=480910

 

Sweeeeet!!! gave it a thumbs up.. those comments made me lol

 

I can't wait to see how Camaro5 spins this one. This time it's manual vs manual under the same conditions.

 

Actually it only adds 28lbs.

 

LOL, I actually signed up over there this morning...couldn't take it anymore .

They seem to be giving the mustang praise except a couple say "why not test the 2011 GT vs the 2011 Camaro and Dodge...

 

Good review! The hard numbers are about what I expected, but the real interesting take away, I think, is as I always harp on, it's not how fast a car goes that matters most, but how well a car goes fast. So while the Stang did rack up enviable numbers, it is the overall driving experience that really stands out. That includes more intangible elements like the view out of an airy cabin, tidier dimensions and just to overall feel of a car. This also explains why the Challenger bested the Camaro, even if slower by the numbers and steeper in in price, it was the more interesting and enjoyable driving experience in a multitude of subtle ways.

Other interesting points:

The 5.0 isn't peaky nor weak on torque. The received wisdom is that all smaller, revy, 4V motors are peaky up high and wimpy down low while the big, old-school pushrod motors are all about low end oomph and tractor-like torque. So which has the lowest RPM torque peak? The big lump 'o iron Hemi? Nope. The evergreen small block 6.2 Chevy? Nope. It's the little, high-techy 5.0. And another slap at orthodoxy, which puts down the most torque where it matters, at the rear wheels? Again, the fleeting 5.0 with its wispy 390ft/lbs.

Weight does matter. And is the mortal enemy of performance. Why this should be a revelation to some baffles me as this is but physics 101. Yet, still, in some of the comments on this thread are people surprised that "just" 250 lbs can make such a difference in all aspects of performance. Weight is the enemy and must be more aggressively vanquished in the future.

That the "Pony Car" wins over the "Muscle Cars." I've always argued both the distinction and advantages of the light, trim and balanced Pony Car ideal over that of the over powered, over weight and uni-dimensional "Muscle Car" ideal and I think that is clearly born out here. The smallest, lightest least powerful car wins over its big, fat competition.

Erkel-waisted, gun slit styling sucks for a drivers car. I've often railed against the high-waisted, slab-sided, rather fat and flabby styling that seems so much the vogue the past 10+ years, reaching its inane apogee with the Camaro, which clearly reveals what is so wrong about that style in true drivers (vs. poseurs) cars. Mainly, you can't see out of the damned things. Performance driving is all about communing with the road and scenery, not hiding away from it. A light, airy cabin is far better for menacing a back road than a Camaro's, which is good for appearing menacing but little else. Give me a cabin green house that has more glass area than a real greenhouse because I want to see every inch of the road rather than coping some adolescent thug pose. I want to be able to rest my elbow out the window without rotator cuff damage.

Best styling: Personal choice of course, so here's mine:

Exterior:
Challenger: This car simply nails it. Clean, well proportioned with great, balanced volumes and lines. Voluptuous without looking all lumpy and pudgy. A triumph of good design over a lot of design. Tasteful and restrained yet dynamic and compelling, this is the thinking man's pony car.
Mustang: A rolling and driving thesis on keeping things (generally) trim and light. Enough contouring to look athletic without devolving into muscle-bound cartoonishness. It is only really let down by some clumsy aspects, mostly the lumpy, bumpy, droopy lower rear valence. This is the driving man's pony car.
Camaro: More interesting and cohesive in some aspects than the Stang (side plan and rear quarters), forms trumps function in the high waist and de riguer gun bunker look. The tail light treatment and associated bumper cut lines are a bit of a jumble too, lacking a tight integration. Works better as a show car than a road car. This is the trailer park fashionista's pony car.

 

Camaro5 guys are the dumbest nuts in the box

Duh? Really? What's density altitude? What's weather? What's track condition? What's different drivers? What's different car?

 

The weight difference is worth 2 tenths all by itself. Combine it with better gearing and this test is the result.