[laynlo15]

Better brakes and tires would probably have done the job for the Camaro. Its still faster by a bunch at the drag strip.

[MiamiBlueCamaro]

This is already posted in the 6th gen Camaro vs...
Forum

[PYROLYSIS]

I agree they should have used premium fuel in the Mustang but really the comparison we should have seen was the turbo 4 Camaro vs the rental grade V6 Mustang. That's the way they are positioned in the lineups. The V6 1LE won't even have a muscle car competitor when it's released. I expect it to perform just below a Mustang GT on the track. (Not drag strip).

[ThatRedFirebird]

What a stupid article.

Handicapped the Stang with 87 (I don't care what EPA ratings say). Look at those awful acceleration numbers.
Picked wrong Camaro (should have been V6)
Not apples-to-apples in tires (all-seasons vs summer)

Also had some sort of "hero" Camaro 2.0T? It was fast, or faster, than many V6's tested. Not sure how they produced those acceleration numbers. Even a fluke 0-60 shouldn't have given them the quarter mile time they pulled.

C&D's comparison of "base" pony cars was a thousand times better.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by Bongos2U

Bingo. I've said for awhile that Ford is pulling a fast one. Using 87 octane for it's fuel economy numbers, which pretty much destroys performance, and 93 octane (which is kind of like trying to find a unicorn, most gas stations do not carry it, at least here in California) for it's performance numbers.

It's deceiving, hardly anybody reads what that little asterisk, * , means next to the HP / Torque numbers...

The 2.3L EcoBoost engine delivers 310 hp* and 320 lb.-ft. of torque.*

*Tested with 93-octane fuel.

I don't really know where I stand on the Ecoboost and its octane rating. It's awesome that for the cheap people they can just fill it up with 87 and save 50 cents a gallon, but it also sucks that its going to be down on power.

I know 93 isn't available everywhere, its easily available here in Illinois. One of the few good things about this state lol.

[aestil]

Heh, they put summer tires on just to see and the 4 cyl camaro [the bottom trim] is faster by quite a bit.

Camaro 4 cyl on summer tires - 1:25:75
Mustang 4 cyl on summer tires - 1:27:32

I find this amusing because should the Camaro 6 cyl be compared to the Mustang 4?

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by aestil

Heh, they put summer tires on just to see and the 4 cyl camaro [the bottom trim] is faster by quite a bit.

Camaro 4 cyl on summer tires - 1:25:75
Mustang 4 cyl on summer tires - 1:27:32

I find this amusing because should the Camaro 6 cyl be compared to the Mustang 4?

That's really cool info regarding the tire swap. Definitely proves some things...Is there a link to that update you can share?

Chevy states that the Camaro 4 cyl is pitted best against Mustang V6. And that the Camaro V6 is pitted best against the Mustang T4.

But many of the media types at the event dismissed this concept, which I thought was a little arrogant of them to do...but, I suppose there is some truth to the idea that customers may shop engine v engine in dealers...

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by ThatRedFirebird

What a stupid article.

Handicapped the Stang with 87 (I don't care what EPA ratings say). Look at those awful acceleration numbers.
Picked wrong Camaro (should have been V6)
Not apples-to-apples in tires (all-seasons vs summer)

Also had some sort of "hero" Camaro 2.0T? It was fast, or faster, than many V6's tested. Not sure how they produced those acceleration numbers. Even a fluke 0-60 shouldn't have given them the quarter mile time they pulled.

C&D's comparison of "base" pony cars was a thousand times better.

Don't remember C&D doing a comparison of the base cars. They compared a 2LT V6 and a EB PP Premium I believe. Which the numbers in that review were quite different than when they reviewed the cars individually.

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

That's really cool info regarding the tire swap. Definitely proves some things...Is there a link to that update you can share?

Chevy states that the Camaro 4 cyl is pitted best against Mustang V6. And that the Camaro V6 is pitted best against the Mustang T4.

But many of the media types at the event dismissed this concept, which I thought was a little arrogant of them to do...but, I suppose there is some truth to the idea that customers may shop engine v engine in dealers...

The part about swapping tires was at the bottom of the main article when I saw it.

[aestil]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

That's really cool info regarding the tire swap. Definitely proves some things...Is there a link to that update you can share?

Chevy states that the Camaro 4 cyl is pitted best against Mustang V6. And that the Camaro V6 is pitted best against the Mustang T4.

But many of the media types at the event dismissed this concept, which I thought was a little arrogant of them to do...but, I suppose there is some truth to the idea that customers may shop engine v engine in dealers...

It's at the bottom of the article after their conclusions. I think it's fair to say that the Mustang is better overall in stock shoes, considering most people don't buy new cars so that they can also replace the tires right away.

I mean look at the 2SS vs M4 comparison. If the 2SS was on Michelin Pilot Super Sports instead of run flats, you know that the 2SS would have eaten the M4 up on the track. But people don't typically buy a $45k car and then replace the tires, so the 'stock' comparison is the most valid.

It does tell you though that even the base Camaro, when wearing the same shoes as the mid-range Mustang, is significantly faster. I am actually surprised about that.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by SuperSound

The part about swapping tires was at the bottom of the main article when I saw it.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by aestil

It's at the bottom of the article after their conclusions. I think it's fair to say that the Mustang is better overall in stock shoes, considering most people don't buy new cars so that they can also replace the tires right away.

I mean look at the 2SS vs M4 comparison. If the 2SS was on Michelin Pilot Super Sports instead of run flats, you know that the 2SS would have eaten the M4 up on the track. But people don't typically buy a $45k car and then replace the tires, so the 'stock' comparison is the most valid.

It does tell you though that even the base Camaro, when wearing the same shoes as the mid-range Mustang, is significantly faster. I am actually surprised about that.

Yes, I agree. I've been flying the stock is stock banner for a while with regards to tires. The manufacturers made those choices and the cars should be judged as such.

Many people moaned and complained in the 5th generation when the RS package added summer tires to V6 cars because they wanted to drive it all year, and they had to go get different tires. This was obviously the solution: a high-performance all-season to try and please everyone. But it sucks down lap times and handling characteristics.

Where I have a problem with this is the turbo v turbo. Just the same as the manufacturer chooses the tires...they also choose the market segment and price-point. Chevy chose to position the turbo 4 as the entry-model car, targeting the Mustang's V6. Motor Trend is ignoring that for the sake of the engine comparison.

I would be interested to see both of those cars on the track and compared. I think the results might be different...

[aestil]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

Thanks!



Yes, I agree. I've been flying the stock is stock banner for a while with regards to tires. The manufacturers made those choices and the cars should be judged as such.

Many people moaned and complained in the 5th generation when the RS package added summer tires to V6 cars because they wanted to drive it all year, and they had to go get different tires. This was obviously the solution: a high-performance all-season to try and please everyone. But it sucks down lap times and handling characteristics.

Where I have a problem with this is the turbo v turbo. Just the same as the manufacturer chooses the tires...they also choose the market segment and price-point. Chevy chose to position the turbo 4 as the entry-model car, targeting the Mustang's V6. Motor Trend is ignoring that for the sake of the engine comparison.

I would be interested to see both of those cars on the track and compared. I think the results might be different...

I tend to agree with you also, but I think there is value in this particular comparison as well. Basically, I'm curious about both. I think the best comparison would be all 4 cars, both 4 cyl and both 6 cyl. Do a full comparison on both and then see how they all shake out taking everything into account, price/performance/interior/sound etc.

This to me looks like the mid-range mustang is actually slower in a straight line and on a track than the 4 cyl Camaro. That is very surprising to me, and if I was someone who might like to autocross this car then the 4 cyl Camaro is a way better value. If you go autocrossing you probably do have regular 'street' tires and 'fun day tires'. You might actually prefer the car come with all seasons for your normal commute and you have your own personal preferences as to what tires you want to autocross on.

[RLHMARINES]

The 2.0T is the base engine but the 2LT is not the base model, that is the 1LT. This is not too difficult to understand that Chevy let's you choose your engine in the non SS range.

1LT=base 2.0T or 3.6 V6
2LT=premium 2.0T or 3.6 V6
1SS=base V8
2SS=premium V8

I want to see the 4 cylinders go head to head for reference since Al did say we would be pleasantly surprised by the turbo and that its' cross town rival would be a little uneasy with a direct performance comparison between the EB and the 2.0T.

[RLHMARINES]

I can only see reference to the EB being tested with premium to obtain the higher hp/tq ratings but I have not found or seen anything that says premium is required. I do not see it on the dash anywhere or the monroney sticker from the ford website. So I would like to know how would any non enthusiast or regular Joe know to add premium?

[AZCamaroFan]

they've gotten completely track-centric. Neither of these cars are aimed at the track, nor will people buying them be tracking them. it's one thing with the performance models, but come on.