[ron123]

Bought the often talked about Car and Driver December issue and see that acceleration times for Camaro SS are amazing vs. Mustang GT:

0 - 150 MPH
Camaro SS = 25.1 seconds
Mustang GT = 29.0 seconds

Mustang is 3.9 seconds slower

3.9 / 25.1 = 15.53 %

The Camaro SS acceleration is 15.53 % faster than the Mustang GT in the zero to 150 MPH time as tested? Small weight advantage plus 6.2 Liter vs 5.0 Liter and HP/Torque advantage looks like it means a lot.

Before Camaro Gen 5 and 6 came along I was a Mustang fan. Ford seems to have sidelined most of their "Ford Performance" division models over recent years.
Ron

[Blackdevil77]

The new SS is certainly impressive. It's funny looking at those numbers though, my current car spoiled me with speed. My car gets to 150mph in about 15 seconds lol

[SpeedIsLife]

Thus probably belongs in the Vs section, fyi.

[vtirocz]

Originally Posted by ron123

Bought the often talked about Car and Driver December issue and see that acceleration times for Camaro SS are amazing vs. Mustang GT:

0 - 150 MPH
Camaro SS = 25.1 seconds
Mustang GT = 29.0 seconds

Mustang is 3.9 seconds slower

3.9 / 25.1 = 15.53 %

The Camaro SS acceleration is 15.53 % faster than the Mustang GT in the zero to 150 MPH time as tested? Small weight advantage plus 6.2 Liter vs 5.0 Liter and HP/Torque advantage looks like it means a lot.

Before Camaro Gen 5 and 6 came along I was a Mustang fan. Ford seems to have sidelined most of their "Ford Performance" division models over recent years.
Ron

This C&D test of the '15 GT shows 0-150 taking 25.4s, which is shockingly close to the camaro's time. Not sure why there's such a discrepancy in the results.

http://m.caranddriver.com/comparison...e-specs-page-5

[Imp]

Because 0-150 is used every day and means so much in my car purchase.

--kC

[raptor5244]

How about 5mph to 45mph? Or 35mph to 65mph? Both cars are way overpowered for the street, both will shove you back in the seat when you mash the pedal. The only way to fully enjoy them without getting arrested is on a track.

[pdoherty972]

Originally Posted by vtirocz

This C&D test of the '15 GT shows 0-150 taking 25.4s, which is shockingly close to the camaro's time. Not sure why there's such a discrepancy in the results.

http://m.caranddriver.com/comparison...e-specs-page-5

Well you know that test showing 25.4 has to be wrong. Why? Because we already know the SS is beating the GT by about .7 second in the quarter (with both cars ending the quarter at 110-116 MPH), not terribly far from 150MPH. So unless one thinks the Mustang gets faster at those speeds, enough to knock more than half a second off the gap developed by the end of a quarter mile there's no way it's within .3 of the SS to 150. That gap will likely grow LARGER after the quarter not smaller; it's just more time for the power differential to take ever more effect (the same differential that handed the GT its butt in the quarter and 0-60).

[mt3130]

Originally Posted by pdoherty972

Well you know that test showing 25.4 has to be wrong. Why? Because we already know the SS is beating the GT by about .7 second in the quarter (with both cars ending the quarter at 110-116 MPH), not terribly far from 150MPH. So unless one thinks the Mustang gets faster at those speeds, enough to knock more than half a second off the gap developed by the end of a quarter mile there's no way it's within .3 of the SS to 150. That gap will likely grow LARGER after the quarter not smaller; it's just more time for the power differential to take ever more effect (the same differential that handed the GT its butt in the quarter and 0-60).

To piggy back this thought, at the time, the Challenger had the best power to weight ratio of the bunch (despite its size), and did the 0-150 in 27 seconds. There's no way the Mustang did it faster than that. Everything I have seen says 29+ seconds on the 0-150 for the GT, except that one article.

[NASTY99Z28]

Maybe the gear ratios at those speeds are more favorable for the stang?

[vtirocz]

Originally Posted by pdoherty972

Well you know that test showing 25.4 has to be wrong. Why? Because we already know the SS is beating the GT by about .7 second in the quarter (with both cars ending the quarter at 110-116 MPH), not terribly far from 150MPH. So unless one thinks the Mustang gets faster at those speeds, enough to knock more than half a second off the gap developed by the end of a quarter mile there's no way it's within .3 of the SS to 150. That gap will likely grow LARGER after the quarter not smaller; it's just more time for the power differential to take ever more effect (the same differential that handed the GT its butt in the quarter and 0-60).

I don't think we can just discount that 25.4 datapoint based on assumptions. Here's some other data on the GT (all significantly quicker than the 29.0 time in the latest C&D issue). With that said, the latest C&D comparison was on the same track, same day, and probably same driver. I just don't think the delta between the two will always be that big to 150.

R&T 0-150 = 26.4
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars...t-impressions/

C&D (Auto) 0-140 -= 21.5 (no data above 140 for the auto)
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...mustang-gt.pdf

C&D (manual) 0 - 150 = 25.4
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...mustang-gt.pdf

[IOMike]

Temperature elevation and track. If they're not tested on the same day same place it's irrelevant. The 4 second difference between the two was the same day, same place.

[Cody6.2]

Lets be honest the discrepancy in Mustang GT 1/4 performance in all these vs 2016 Camaro tests is ridiculous. The exact same magazines were getting 12.6-12.7 out of the GT in their last comparisons in 2015. So seeing the same issues in something like 0-150mph is no surprise.

[mt3130]

Originally Posted by IOMike

Temperature elevation and track. If they're not tested on the same day same place it's irrelevant. The 4 second difference between the two was the same day, same place.

Best post so far.

[SS 1LE]

Originally Posted by Cody6.2

The exact same magazines were getting 12.6-12.7 out of the GT in their last comparisons in 2015.

They did? I have never seen a 2015 GT test that was a 12.6 or 12.7? Best I have ever seen in print was 12.8. Please post the link...