I test drove a 3.31 GT yesterday and then my buddy's Camaro SS today. Some quick thought,s Mustang first:

Overall great car, huge improvement over the 05-09 in terms of both performance and refinement. Feels much lighter and more nimble than it probably is. Had pretty good power in all gears even with just 3.31s. Not a huge amount of torque down low, but after 4000 RPM, look out. The thing freakin moves! Stock brakes seemed more than adequate for pure street/daily driving application. Really liked the shifter. Crisp, shorter throws than the 3650, and also does not have the "clang-clung" noise action that the 3650's shifter had. Definitely agree with Wes Siler when he said that the Mustang with it's high reving engine, short transmission gears, and light weight is more like a high-performance European sports coupe rather than a traditional muscle car. This is not a bad thing.

The Camaro: awesome car. Had much more of a brute, muscle car feel than the 5.0. 6.2 liters of displacement will do that. Lot has been made of the weight, here is my take. It may not feel as light and nimble as the Mustang, however, the suspension has been engineered and designed well enough that you never really feel as if you're driving a boat-like Caddy or something from the 70's. I actually thought it took corners very well and very tight. Oh, and the visibility is not as bad as people make it out to be. Is it kinda limited? Sure, but I had no issues at all.

Also thought I'd mention that the skip shift feature was a non-issue in both cars. You'll see it when you're rolling around a parking lot, etc, but it seems to be no biggie in actual driving.

All in all, both are great cars. Both offer fast and fun performance, they just go about it in two different ways. Cheers.

 

"you never really feel as if you're driving a boat-like Caddy or something from the 70's." Thanks for the review, but having driven plenty of 70's vehicles, I would hope that neither the automobile manufacturers nor the government would ever again allow a new car to fall to that level of performance.

 

Thanks for the write up. This absolutely has nothing to do with real life, but I played Forza 3 for the first time yesterday and my cousin has an 07 GT500 and a 10 Camaro SS. If they drive anything like they do in real life, the Camaro was absolutely a beast (like you say). Handled well, was downright nimble compared to the older 500. I only played one track the whole time, and I got the best lap times (with no electronic aids on except ABS) in the Camaro, beating the M5, GT500 and Exige 260S. It was a short, technical track so I didn't expect the high powered cars to do well, but if the Camaro really drives like it does in the game, well color me impressed.

I'd still get a 2011 5.0 though!

 

Everyone complains about the Camaro's weight, handling, and lack of visibility.

 

Aw, come on. Who wouldn't jump at the chance for a ride with 65/35 weight distro and 11 miles to the gallon?

 

I only test drove the Camaro V-6, but the visibility is TERRIBLE. I don't know what you're smoking but I was constantly straining to not only see the blind spots, but even my 2 and 11 o clock positions.

I find it hard to believe a car with 400 lb/ft of torque lacks "down low" torque, also. Compared to what, a ZR1?

 

Blind spots: didnt' have any, can be fixed on any car by setting the mirrors correctly.

Didn't say the 5.0 lacked torque (390 BTW). I said "not a huge amount of torque down low." From a 25mph roll to WOT the Camaro pushed me back into the seat, the 5.0 did not, that's all.

 

LMAO @ Patrick. . . I know FM3 isn't a factor in your decision making but I find it funny that it was brought up.

Now I need to go power up the XBox and try to beat him... what was your lap time and which track? LOL!

 

I test frove a V6 Mustang just last week and couldn't believe how fast it was in a straight line and how good the auto tranny was. It did push me back in my seat, so i'm wondering how can the 5.0 not push you back in your seat with it's 110 more horspower and 390 lbs/ft. My firend has a 2010 SS auto and did a few rides with him, it is a fast car indeed, but it just doesn't compare to a muscle car of the 60's or 70's. Absolutely right about the view from inside, it is not the best.

 

I think the new 'Stang's overall levels of sophistication and refinement trick some drivers' senses into believing the car is slow and devoid of low-end grunt. According to virtually every single head-to-head comparison review written pitting the 2011 Mustang against the 2010 Camaro, the Mustang accelerates just fine from a stop and has plenty of low-end torque.

 

Thanks for the great, unbiased write up.

 

Let me tell 'ya, that V6 is something else compare to that old truck 4 liter engine in previous Mustangs.

 

As for the 11 miles to the gallon, I got to re-experience that a few weeks ago in my '94 RX7 when I had filled it with a tankful of contaminated fuel. It was less than 10 miles to the gallon, and normally I can easily get 21-22 mpg. The only time I ever got worse mileage was in a '67 396 Impala that had a rebuilt engine-go-wrong. I was getting about 5 mpg (for two tankfuls before I unloaded it). It was so bad I had to drive with a gallon gas can of fuel. There simply weren't enough gas stations around (even in town) to safely venture forth without backup fuel.

 

Poll the Camaro crowd and they'll tell you that you "get used to" the visibility and it isn't a big problem once you have. I could probably say the same thing about herpes but that doesn't mean I want it.

 

Haha idk it was the first time I played (don't play many video games anymore...waiting on GT5). It's the first track on "free play". I'll ask my cousin for the time tomorrow...

 

This is very true. Maybe it was because of the base wheels/tires on the 5.0 but I felt as though the Camaro was more firmly planted, especially at higher speeds. The GTs suspension has of course been firmed up but I still think it's a little too soft. I'm eager to drive one with Brembo package. I didn't really get to experience the quietness of the interior since we had the AC on full blast since it was a little over 90 yesterday afternoon.

 

Modular engines don't have much bite below 3000 rpm's, and the 5.0 is no exception. What really helps the 2011 is the gearing of the tranny and diff getting it into the sweet spot (4-7k) quickly. TS, good unbiased review.

 

I don't know. I test drove a bare-bones 2011 Mustang GT with 3.31's on Monday, and I was thoroughly impressed with its low-end grunt and the fact that it had copious amounts of power all throughout its RPM range. I own a 2007 Mustang GT, so I know all about driving a car that need RPM's in order to "go"; the new 5.0L doesn't behave in that matter at all, IMO. I drove a new Camaro a year or so ago and, while it definitely had power, I wasn't really all that impressed.

 

 

I've never driven any OHC that below 3k was super strong - not just modular's.