C&D - Mustang vs Camaro Campro

[Oldswagon]

Just got the new C&D in the mail this week. There's a great article on the 2011 Mustang GT vs Camaro SS and the V6 Mustang vs V6 Camaro.

The SS actually pretty much out performed the GT on the acceleration runs (although they were tied 0-60 times). The GT had better skid pad numbers, but the SS had better lane change speeds. Overall, they still picked the GT, seemingly because the lighter weight makes it a more agile and fun car the Camaro (in their opinion).

The V6 Mustang looks like it hands down beats the Camaro in all categories and even pulled better skid pad numbers than the GT.

Check out the articles:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comp...omparison_tests

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comp...omparison_tests

 

[Johnny]

I would pick the Mustang just on looks alone.

 

[Hermann]

Originally Posted By: Johnny
I would pick the Mustang just on looks alone.


+1 The new Camaro was probably a decent looking car till something fell on it.

 

[Dave Hess]

The Mustang is a much better car

 

[BobsArmory]

I hate to disagree but I think the Chevy looks and sounds much better.

 

[cchase]

I was pretty impressed that the SS was able to pretty much outgun the GT in acceleration given it weighs quite a bit more and has an IRS in the back... those LS engines are monsters once they get going.

The segment is due to heat up when the SS responds to the GT.

Anyway, having been in a Camaro SS this past weekend and previously in a Mustang GT I would have to say I'd much rather have the Camaro... the ride and feel of the car is head and shoulders above the Mustang, especially on the rough roads in the Northeast....

 

[OVERKILL]

These results do not mirror those of Motortrend, which had the GT out-performing the SS.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/10-camaro-ss-vs-11-mustang-gt-drag-race.129041/

 

[Ben99GT]

Considering the GTs are 200 lbs. lighter and have been putting down 370-380 rwhp on average (more than the Camaro SS), it seems to me C&D just can't row the Mustang's new 6-speed to save their lives.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=12361851&id=262882950647

The car went 12.04 @ 117 mph with an Off-Road X-Pipe, Catback Exhaust System, K&N Drop In Filter, and a Custom Tune that isn't finished.

 

[SteveSRT8]

yeah but factory freak tuner cars on slicks being professionally driven aren't representative of the breed.

The simple fact is despite the driving expertise, the Camaro trapped out two mph faster. Same day, same track, same driver(s).And the advantages are ALL Mustang: weight to hp, shorter gears, and a solid axle. After having seen a bunch of their vids I would say the staff testers at C & D seem to know how to shift!

I'm sure after a good break in the Stang should be faster. But it simply wasn't.

Not the first time there have been disappointing results in C & D. Check out their previous 3 GT500's.

And in the fine print did anyone note the lane change results on the Stang V-6? Ford has some more development to do there!

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
yeah but factory freak tuner cars on slicks being professionally driven aren't representative of the breed.

The simple fact is despite the driving expertise, the Camaro trapped out two mph faster. Same day, same track, same driver(s).And the advantages are ALL Mustang: weight to hp, shorter gears, and a solid axle. After having seen a bunch of their vids I would say the staff testers at C & D seem to know how to shift!

I'm sure after a good break in the Stang should be faster. But it simply wasn't.

Not the first time there have been disappointing results in C & D. Check out their previous 3 GT500's.

And in the fine print did anyone note the lane change results on the Stang V-6? Ford has some more development to do there!


As I said in my previous post, these does not mirror the results achieved by Motor Trend, which saw:

[email protected] for the Camaro, 0-60 in 4.7 seconds
[email protected] for the Mustang, 0-60 in 4.4 seconds

Until we see a pile of these dropping regular ET's in a particular range, basing one's opinion on the "performance" of a certain car because of a bloody magazine test is simply silly.

 

[CROWNVIC4LIFE]

Originally Posted By: Johnny
I would pick the Mustang just on looks alone.


+1

 

[SteveSRT8]

and yet the topic of discussion is magazine tests.

Hmmmm....silly? At least be consistent.

The facts are the Camaro has been remarkably consistent in trap speeds from rag to rag, quite a "pile". Nothing "silly", just consistent performance. Trap speeds are way more accurate than ET's in predicting performance.

And another fact is that the Stang has gearing, hp to weight, and a solid rear axle! It should not even be a contest.

See ya at the strip!

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
And another fact is that the Stang has gearing, hp to weight, and a solid rear axle! It should not even be a contest.


Which is why it won't be in the hands of owners. Unless driver deficiencies come into play there is no way a car that weighs 200 lbs more and dynos 5-10 less at the wheels is going win, especially when the lighter and more powerful car also has better gearing.

C&D has consistently published sub-standard times for Mustangs, this is just another in a long trend.

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
yeah but factory freak tuner cars on slicks being professionally driven aren't representative of the breed.


You're right, with that trap it should be deep into the 11s on slicks with a professional driver.

Quote:
The simple fact is despite the driving expertise, the Camaro trapped out two mph faster. Same day, same track, same driver(s).


Same day, same track, same driver...

 

[SteveSRT8]

Thanks for that... that is exactly what I would have expected.

There is no question that the Stang should be quicker. But once again the trap shows that it is not really much faster than the Camaro, just quicker.

ET is all about the launch, I'm much more interested in trap as it is a more reliable marker of how the car will perform side by side with another (like mine).

BTW, it's almost comical the way you guys allude to C&D having some "bias" against mustangs!

Conspiracy?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
and yet the topic of discussion is magazine tests.

Hmmmm....silly? At least be consistent.


Notice the use of the letter "a" in my post, as in a SINGLE magazine test.

Let's put on our logic cap here, and think why I would link to ANOTHER magazine test, which yielded different results, and STATE that the results Motor Trend got were different if I was condemning the idea of discussing magazine tests in general?


Quote:
The facts are the Camaro has been remarkably consistent in trap speeds from rag to rag, quite a "pile". Nothing "silly", just consistent performance. Trap speeds are way more accurate than ET's in predicting performance.

And another fact is that the Stang has gearing, hp to weight, and a solid rear axle! It should not even be a contest.

See ya at the strip!



And for Motortrend, it wasn't a contest. The Mustang was significantly faster.

That's the part you seem to be missing. You are so immersed in the "hate the Mustang, root for the Camaro" love fest that you seem to be oblivious to the fact that, of the two magazine tests posted on this board, the results are remarkably different.

So until we have a LARGER base of comparisons from which to draw-on, we really DO NOT KNOW which car is consistently faster.

Mocking my post for pointing out this clear err in your judgment does nothing for your cause, especially given the fact that you misconstrued what I was talking about in the first place.

The idea that if a single data point leans in the Mustang's favour, that it is a factory freak/loaded car....etc

whilst if a single data point leans in the Camaro's favour, it is a perfect indication of real world results blah blah blah.

Why the double standard?

I ask because you took issue with my post first, so you obviously have more on your mind than a civil discussion about magazine testing.

 

[cchase]

I think we can all agree on inconsistencies and strange times with magazines when they review cars. Heck, my car I never saw a time in the mags below 13.5 despite the fact that a lot of guys put down 13 flat times stock.

Either way, the new Mustang is a great performance achievement. Is it as fast as it seems like it should be? It surprises me it's not faster than it is given the bump in power with minimal weight change over the previous generation.

I have heard (but cannot confirm) that it's going to be tough to eke more power out of the new 5.0 as its already tuned pretty hot, has headers out of the box, etc, or that it will be rather expensive, anyway. That's a big plus on the side of the LS3.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8


BTW, it's almost comical the way you guys allude to C&D having some "bias" against mustangs!

Conspiracy?


I don't know about conspiracy, but I have noticed over the years that C&D records times for the Mustang that my grandmother could beat.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: cchase
I think we can all agree on inconsistencies and strange times with magazines when they review cars. Heck, my car I never saw a time in the mags below 13.5 despite the fact that a lot of guys put down 13 flat times stock.

Either way, the new Mustang is a great performance achievement. Is it as fast as it seems like it should be? It surprises me it's not faster than it is given the bump in power with minimal weight change over the previous generation.

I have heard (but cannot confirm) that it's going to be tough to eke more power out of the new 5.0 as its already tuned pretty hot, has headers out of the box, etc, or that it will be rather expensive, anyway. That's a big plus on the side of the LS3.


That's the part I am confused about. We ALL know that results differ from rag to rag. But I get dumped-on because I point that out???

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: cchase
I have heard (but cannot confirm) that it's going to be tough to eke more power out of the new 5.0 as its already tuned pretty hot, has headers out of the box, etc, or that it will be rather expensive, anyway.


It's not. Evolution got 36 rwhp from a mid-pipe, drop in K&N, mufflers and an unfinished tune (I'm assuming they have yet to play with VCT tables), and those factory headers are garbage. Mike Harrison has said those headers were worth 5 flywheel HP over the 3V logs, and it's not uncommon for a proper set of long tubes to see 20 HP.

Drop in a JLT RAI, 110mm MAF housing, LT's, 3" exhaust, aluminum driveshaft, and a full on tune and these things will be laying down 430-450 rwhp. The car above with minimal mods already made 405 rwhp.

I think there are gains to be had from the intake manifold as well, note the Boss302Rs already have a different manifold. The factory 80mm TB is going to be marginal once everything else is opened up as well. The Coyote engineers already admitted the 80mm TB cost them 3 HP ([censored] near offsetting the "header" gains) over the Shelby TB, so once inlet, exhaust and the tune are improved that is likely going to turn into 10+ HP.