Head to Head with: Ford Mustang GT, Dodge Challenger R/T & Chevy Camaro SS

Ford: 315hp 0-60=4.9 0-100=12.3 0-140=34.2 1/4= 13.6@105

Dodge: 376hp 0-60=5.1 0-100=12.2 0-140=27.7 1/4= 13.6@106

Chevy: 426hp 0-60=4.8 0-100=10.7 0-140=22.3 1/4= 13.0@111

Braking:
Ford: 70-0=162 200ft skid pad (g) .92
Dodge: 70-0=182 .78*
Chevy: 70-0=162 .85

The HIGH's:
#3 Dodge Challenger R/T
Classic bod, smooth controls, big inside, snick-snick 6spd
The LOW's:
Corners on custard, too heavy, drab cabin, tires off the church bus.
The VERDICT:
The most authentic '60-s re-spin of them all.

The HIGH's:
#2 Chevy Camaro SS
Fastest thru the trap, grip and zip in the gymkhana, fresh and inventive interior.
The LOW's:
Looks angry, tiny trunk, hard seats, nose-deep-in-the-hole feeling.
The VERDICT:
A neo-Corvette underneath the Deathmobile from Animal House.

The HIGH's:
#1 Ford Mustang GT
Lighter and tighter in every way, good visibility, fab 1-2-3 turn signals, the king of V-8 roars.
The LOW's: Only a 5 speed, capless fuel filler frequently spills, smallest fuel tank.
The VERDICT: Yeah, we're shocked too, but the Mustang rocks.

Final Scores:
Ford:209
Chevy:193
Dodge:190

 

Watch video here:
http://www.caranddriver.com/musclecars

 

Good article, but shouldn't this be in "General Automotive"?

Oh, and muscle cars suck. I don't see why anybody would buy one of those things.

 

nothing wrong with muscle cars.. lots of people like them. But I do agree this is the wrong forum for it.

 

This doesn't belong here...but less is always more in a sporty car...and it seems after all these years Ford is relearning for the 1st time since the Cobra that age-old message...and the 'tang could actually be on its way to be coming a Sports Car as it leans out and down....what is the world coming to!

 

I have this magazine

 

R&T has the 2010 Mustang GT at 5.3 to 60. Interesting...

 

Yah, I only use R&T numbers to do comparisons. I've read about what R&T does to ensure consistency, and I prefer their methods. R&T won't do anything to the car that will cause catastrophic failures. Their acceleration numbers are what a very good driver in very good conditions will get without harming the car. They wring it out, but not clutchless speed shifting.

Car and Driver, on the other hand, has to beat the **** out of their test vehicles to get some of the numbers they get. C&D typically has the best acceleration times of any of the big 3 magazines, but there are times when they turn in crappy numbers for some vehicle tests. That's what I don't like... R&T is more consistent.

Ford gave a R&T a factory freak for one of the comparison tests they ran. That thing cracked off a 4.9 0-60 and it was a 2005 (300hp, not 315hp). They never used those numbers for the comparison chart they include in every issue.

 

The mustang has been doing "with less" for quite a long time. Previous years continue to use suspension technology that was developed before I was born.

 

solid axle baby

 

it's truly sad that the 3500+ lbs that the mustang gt carries is actually the lightest of this trio... them challenger and camaro need to get on a diet...

 

Mustang sadly still looks the same as all the previous ones, and IMO still looks like ****. Camaro blows the Stang out of the water for first time being back in the field. Give it a year or two and it'll take the reigns.

 

Would agree. Industry-wide cars just get bigger and heavier with each generation. Mazda has done a pretty good job with trying to keep weight the same or less with redesigns.

What I can say from all these comparison tests is: the Dodge always ends up last and justifiably so.

 

Except with the Mazda 6 in the US. They just fucked that up completely.

 

I can only imagine next year when the rumored 5.0 coyote aluminium engine sits in the GT model. Same weight, extra 85 hp, it'll truly take 1st.

BTW, solid axle is old tech, but the skidpad numbers do look great, given the light weight and probably track suspension option on the stang.

 

i want the ecoboost in the mustang gt. all the mustang meatheads are crying foul 'cuz it's not a veeate, but the ecoboost is awesome

and +1 on the solid axle, but they've tuned the suspension so well that it pull crazy skidpad and slalom numbers and outhandles the camaro and challenger. heck, even i want this mustang. i saw a gt the other day here in ann arbor, w/ the hid headlights and spoiler delete. it looked mean and hunkered down. i liked it

but honestly, there're so many good products on ford's horizon, even if i were buying a new car, i'd have to wait for the fiesta or the taurus sho

 

I was actually pretty surprised when I read that article. The Mustang historically has always been a severe underachiever. Especially the GT. I remember the mid 90's GT couldn't beat my stock 146 hp '88 RX-7 and they had 225hp. Times have finally changed apparently. Obviously power has gone up since then. Then again ALL of these results can be attributed right back to the vehicle weight which has always been an issue with the American cars. I find it incredible that the Challenger weighs in well over 4000 lbs. That's sad although probably partly the fault of that heavy over rated disaster of a Hemi engine. It's a junk design people! Hell no I don't have a Hemi!

If you look closely at the acceleration numbers for each, the Camaro doesn't really start to pull away hard from the others until after about 120 mph or so. Up there it's really about power as aerodynamic drag is you biggest enemy. All of their fuel consumption was still comparable to each other.

My favorite engine of that bunch is still the LS. It's the lightest of them all as well which is nice. I've never had a thing for Ford engines. They've always needed to be boosted to keep up with their larger rivals yet could never match the economy of anything anyone else makes of a similar size. They have also historically been very heavy. Ford also needs to get rid of that solid rear axle. They did for one year on the Cobra and it was probably the only Mustang that anyone should have every considered owning. Too bad the backwood trailer trash didn't understand that rear wheels can in fact move indendently of each other and handling is affected as well. I guess simplicity is needed for simple people. When all you care about driving in is a straight line with no concern for unsprung weight then I guess it's fine.

I have a hard time claiming any outright winner in that comparison. It's like asking 3 different fat kids to compete in an agility challenge to determine who's best. I think each vehicle has different attributes which are cool but weight is the killer. Overall they are all fairly nice looking vehicles. The Challenger is actually kind of neat looking to me with my favorite being the Camaro. The Camaro has the best engine of the group with the Challenger's Hemi engine sinking as the anchor on the failboat. The Mustang engine is admirable for what it is though. My least favorite in terms of looks, design, and powertrain would have to be the Mustang. However that damned overly heavy gravitational mass from the Dodge just bothers me.

Some things never change!

 

^^ I remember those days well. I loved the look of the GT's back then, but they were slower than molasses. You'd have to opt for the LX model with the GT engine in order to get decent times. Although I am a Ford fan and have always been, I've also owned 2 Camaro's, a Nova and a Firebird. Personally, I like the look of all of them but I would rank them 1. Camaro 2. Mustang 3. Challenger. I don't really like the exterior at all.

 

My favorite lines from this article:

 

Once the 5.0 is back in the Mustang it's really going to beat up on them. I still prefer the Camaro for it's looks and engine. Teh only Mustang I like the look of is the GT500.

 

Dude, if they put the 5.0 in the car it's going to be godly! I imagine that they might call it the Mach1 again or something special.

 

heh heh... take the reigns.. heh heh...

 

Ahahahahahaa!
Thanks man, that was a good laugh!

 

Interestingly, here are the numbers for 2003 Mustang Cobra:

Curb weight, lb 3780

0-60 mph, sec 4.9
1/4 mile, sec @ mph 13.12 @ 109.58
Braking, 60-0 mph, ft 121
600-ft slalom, mph 64.1
200-ft skidpad, lateral g 0.85
EPA mpg, city/hwy 16/22

Max horsepower @ rpm 390 @ 6000
Max torque @ rpm 390 @ 3500

 

So looking mean is a low now? I guess all cars should look happy like Mazda's current design theme, or egg shaped like pretty much all current sedans.