[apexit53]

The camaro is just on a different level handling wise. Its left the mustang and the dodge twins behind. That said they do look good, are relatively cheap and I think thats why they keep selling.

[metros11]

I like the Challengers, for what they are. But in my book these are two different types of cars.

[doc7000]

You can call the Challenger a muscle car and the Camaro a pony car, the Challenger T/A is a cool looking car and I have yet to see any in depth review of that car.

[Cgocifer]

Originally Posted by doc7000

You can call the Challenger a muscle car and the Camaro a pony car, the Challenger T/A is a cool looking car and I have yet to see any in depth review of that car.

Nah, I consider the Challenger a muscle car in the tradition of the original definition. I consider the Camaro, at least the 6th gen, a sports car, a true sports car. People like to argue that sports cars don't have back seats, but those same people think the 911 Porsche is the ultimate sports car. Uh, 911s have back seats.:-p

[davef]

Agreed. The 6th gen Camaro is a true sports car. The mustang is still a pony car and the the Dodge twins are muscle cars.

[Cgocifer]

Originally Posted by davef

Agreed. The 6th gen Camaro is a true sports car. The mustang is still a pony car and the the Dodge twins are muscle cars.

I agree with that; however, I never really could figure out the difference between a muscle car and a pony car except I guess pony cars are smaller and can kinda go around corners. Modern mustangs are pretty darn close to all out sports cars; just not quite as well as the Camaro.

[motorhead]

Originally Posted by Cgocifer

I agree with that; however, I never really could figure out the difference between a muscle car and a pony car except I guess pony cars are smaller and can kinda go around corners. Modern mustangs are pretty darn close to all out sports cars; just not quite as well as the Camaro.

Those old sayings dont fit any of these new cars if you really get into the true meanings. Call them what you want. It doesnt mean anything. Its what you feel they are these days.
Most people that argue this dont even understand where or why the terms came to be. Both were from magazine writers ,and the therm "pony" car was describing the Mustang when it was coined. The Camaro was actually late the in the pony car world if you look at it. The Barracuda came out two weeks after the Mustang. You guys argue over the term pony car like that was a good thing to have when in reality the pony car was condersidered the V6 or basic V8 models because to be a "pony" car it had to be affordable for one. Once the manufacturers started offering big blocks with over 400HP these "pony" cars were then considered muslce cars again. The lines were crossed. This is why the terms dont work today. The cost alone keeps them from being considered pony cars unless you are taking about a 4banger, V6 or basic V8 version. The term "pony" had nothing to do with a car that could handle on a track as far as where is came from. It turned into that with the Trans Am series from 66 to 72. The funny thing is the actual term "muscle" car didn't get coined until the late 70's. Nobody called them that in the 60's and early 70's. Anyhow, they were the big high performance motor option in any two door american car from the mid 60s to early 70's. They only thing that mattered to make it a muscle car was that it required "muscle" under the hood which back then meant a big block making over 400HP.
This is why some models of pony cars got the muscle car name when they started putting big blocks in them.
None of these terms work in todays performance based or sporty cars. Call them what you want it doesnt matter.

When it cost north of 70K to get big power and the only way to purchase that power is with every option in a finely tuned car for both comfort and world class handling its no muscle car.

If I was a GM designer of the Gen6 Camaro I would be insulted if someone called my desgin a muscle car or pony car. In reality those cars werent that great. Outside of the big motor models being fast. There were much higher quality cars available back then.

[newmoon]

Originally Posted by Cgocifer

Any comparos out there of a 1LE vs a challenger 392 T/A? I know the 1LE will kill it on the track, but curious to read an article about the pros and cons of each car from an auto writer.

My coworker just bought a TA and paid $45k for it.

I did a search on here but nothing came up.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I came very close to pulling the trigger on a Charger Daytona about 6-months ago. I actually test drove it on two different occasions. I really loved the sound, looks, and performance. The best I could do on pricing was $45k off of a near 50k sticker.

I imagine the Challenger TA is similar but I thought that the Charger's ride was a little to stiff, I thought that the car would be fun but the harsh ride would get old quickly. Having owned a 12 SRT Challenger I missed the adjustable Bilstein suspension. That and spending 45k on something that would depreciate 20% or more after the 1st year kept me out of it.

[JamesNoBrakes]

Pony car is supposed to be a car named after a horse, the direct competitors offered by like-manufacturers are usually referred to as "pony cars".

Muscle car is a little broader IMO, Aston Martins and even Mercedes have been given this designation, as some of the high HP mercedes in the past weren't much for the turns and more about that straight-line power, and old Aston Martins were just as big-block-V8 as many of the US cars. There were a few other British cars that followed this same idea. This seems to be applied whenever a V8 is inserted into a car for acceleration without as much regard for the handling and other dynamic properties.

As for the challenger, tons of reviews have been done on the chassis against many other cars, enough to cross-reference to determine how it stacks up. It's a muscle car, through and through. You can make them handle better, but starting out that heavy it's much harder and usually requires a lot more HP to make them competitive in anything other than straight line. It quickly gets into the "adding HP(which adds weight) to make up for adding weight to increase handling, which requires even more HP" and it tends to go in a circle from there. Some cars are the opposite of this, trying to minimize chassis weight and go with an engine other than a hellcat-type, and for this they go around tracks and turns much faster.

[Cgocifer]

Since there have been so many debates about interior quality, just want to say that I got to check out my buddy's brand new 2018 Challenger 392 T/A and I am a little shocked. Recent FCA vehicles have had some really nice, quality interiors so I was surprised yet again at how nice the Camaros interior is. The challenger 392 TA is very similar to the 1LE as far as interior goes. Leather and alcantara seats, some bells and whistles, but not too many, etc.

The TAs seats are bigger and softer of course, but the rest is a bit boring. Also, the plastic hexagon shifter surround feels cheaper than any plastic in the camaro.

In my opinion, the Camaros alcantara/faux suede is nicer, the recaros are more supportive, the leather is about the same, the colors and textures of the interior are more engaging, the design and shapes are more intriguing, the shift knob is nicer, and I just think the Camaro cockpit is a nicer, more special place to be.

I felt like I was in a car when sitting in the big Challenger. I feel like I'm part of the car when in the camaro. Then again, I've always liked the high sill, slit window, cockpit style cars.

[Casalino]

We all know challengers are for bigger people. Whether you're taller or wider. They appeal to the crown who wants a good sounding/good looking muscle car, but they want that feeling that their Tahoe gives them....besides the ride height. The challenger rides smoother, has that truck feel, and is big and comfortable (compared to others in its class)

[mjk3888]

Put it this way, if my old man was still around, this is the car I would have chosen for him. He would've loved my 1LE on occasions, but less about AutoX and Track capabilities and more about the boulevard cruiser appeal and comfort. This would've been the car for him. He was nostalgic about his Barracuda and a bit of a Mopar guy at my age and he would've loved the T/A's appeal and power with a bit of the old school T/A flavor.

[Vintage]

I like the T/A - looks good, comfy, straight line fast, super American and cool . . . BUT I am a track guy and my SS 1LE punches so far above its price point on the track it is ridiculous. AND, I have gotten to the point that I really only evaluate sports cars based on their on-track ability. Silly, I know.

[Cgocifer]

Originally Posted by Vintage

I like the T/A - looks good, comfy, straight line fast, super American and cool . . . BUT I am a track guy and my SS 1LE punches so far above its price point on the track it is ridiculous. AND, I have gotten to the point that I really only evaluate sports cars based on their on-track ability. Silly, I know.

I don't track my car, but it sure is fun on twisty roads and to know that it could trash almost every other street car under 100 grand on a road course.