Almost 40 years later, the Ponycar Wars are fought again.

Pagan · Jun 22, 2009

For the first time since the early 70's, the big 3 US automakers each have a fire-breathing musclecar to pit against the others. How did they stack up in a comparison to each other? The result will surprise some....

We waited until we could get all three cars—with V-8s and manuals—in one place. The last previous-generation Camaro stocker we tested, eight years ago, was a shivery live-axle primitive from the Flintstone age. The all-new Camaro is now a bunker-top four-seater—long, low, wide, and draped over the big, independently sprung skeleton of the Holden-based Pontiac G8 sedan. The 426-hp, 6.2-liter LS3 V-8 of the SS, with 20-inch Pirelli P Zero rubber and Brembo brakes—forza *Italia!—starts at $31,040. Add the 2SS pack, which includes a Boston Acoustics stereo, Bluetooth connectivity, heated leather seats, and quad console gauges, and the sticker reaches $34,225.

Chrysler put a convex mirror up to its history and produced a two-door RV, a veritable magic bus of nostalgia. The prodigious Challenger is 9.7 inches longer than the relatively peewee Mustang and almost two inches wider, with a trunk big enough for a koi pond. The suspension is also all-independent, the underside derived from the Chrysler 300/Dodge Charger, which was fashioned from the toenail clippings of an older Mercedes-Benz E-class. Seeking price parity with the others, we asked for the mid-level R/T with its 376-hp, 5.7-liter semi-Hemi V-8. That one will follow you home for $30,945. However, this R/T arrived bearing $8675 in options, including a $995 six-speed manual; several leather, stereo, and luxury trim packs; navigation; and chrome-clad wheels.

Unlike the other two, the 2010 Mustang has an unbroken lineage going back to the rocket-age original. Astoundingly, considering the number of redesigns, the solid rear axle remains, protected by a ruthless cost calculus meant to hold the Mustang’s starting price about $1000 to $1200 under those of the Camaro and Challenger. A $1495 Track package is available, with stiffer springs, shocks, and anti-roll bars; very expensive Pirelli P Zero summer tires (again with the Italians); and a digger, 3.73 limited-slip rear end. Add it to the $28,845 GT with its 315-hp, 4.6-liter V-8, along with optional 19-inch machine-polished alloys, heated seats, and an anti-theft pack, and you’re talking $35,425.
Click to expand...

2009 Dodge Challenger R/T

Third Place:

The Challenger is a full-size sedan wearing a coupe costume. Chrysler’s designers did heroic duty scaling up the original Challenger’s shape to fit its big house, but ultimately, it’s a 13/10ths-scale caricature, heavy at the bottom, capturing the essence but not the delicate sexiness of the original.

***************

At 5.1 seconds to 60 mph, the Challenger is the test slowpoke, although its additional power enables it to match the 560-pound-lighter Mustang in the quarter-mile and outrun it at higher speeds. The Hemi is a late peaker—don’t go looking for any real firepower below 4000 rpm. It pulls out of the hole with a snorty rush in the lower gears, but acceleration pancakes sharply with the upshift to fourth and the start of the tall fuel-economy ratios. In sixth, the velocity delta practically stalls completely, especially on a grade.

It’s true—you can’t go back. But the Challenger has enough retro reverb to prove that you really wouldn’t want to anyway.
Click to expand...

2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS

Second Place:

It’s not a Camaro unless it can set fire to a burnout box. Frankly, we expected the 60-mph mark to arrive sooner than 4.8 seconds. That’s only a 10th better than the Mustang, which has 111 fewer horsepower (and is 300 pounds lighter). Still, the Camaro was quicker through the quarter-mile, and our low-miles test car may still have been tight. Even if true, the 6.2 socks it to you in the low and midrange revs much harder than either the peaky Dodge or the Ford. It also drains the tank quicker, returning 14 mpg to the Mustang’s 17. The LS3 makes a muffled, less enthralling grumble than the Mustang.

************************

To wit, its story is complicated: The stiff, insulated structure soaks up engine vibes and tire moaning, but the rear end discombobulates and dances while accelerating over rough pavement. The freeway chop-chop, though stiffest in this group, is still tolerably muted, but the clutch takeup is high and abrupt. Palming the Tremec TR6060’s short, precise shifter is satisfying, but the trunk is small and its opening smaller. You don’t load bags so much as push them through a mail slot.

Alas, most of history’s blockbuster cars had faults aplenty.
Click to expand...

2010 Ford Mustang GT

First Place:

The panel was shocked, shaken, and staunchly unanimous: This Mustang rules.

Why the low expectations? Look at the stats. Just 315 horsepower. Simple struts up front and a log axle out back. A five-speed pitted against two bolt-action sixes.

But look at the facts: At 3580 pounds, the Mustang is lightest by 300. A lively throttle reels in 60 mph nearly as quickly as the Camaro (the Mustang did have 6700 break-in miles, which may have helped), and the car pulls the highest skidpad g (0.92) by a wide margin. The Ford stops in the same distance as the megabraked Camaro (162 feet), and it returned the best fuel economy (17 mpg) despite having the shortest gear ratios of the three cars.

**********************

If the world is shrinking, so, too, perhaps, should our muscle cars. The Mustang makes it stick with less—less tonnage, less stare-at-the-dancing-bear flamboyance. We wish it was that much less expensive, too, but as with a Mini Cooper, it somehow doesn’t feel overpriced. If you’re searching for clues as to why Ford is suddenly on the pole in Motown, we found one.
Click to expand...

Looks like Ford really did it's homework....again. :D

Full Article.

DOLPHAN1 · Jun 22, 2009

I have read other articles where the Mustang has outperformed even some over seas competition. Just as the writers were in this piece, most are surprised as well. Long live Ford and the mighty Mustang!

Dolfan984 · Jun 22, 2009

Found
On
Road
Dead

Fix
Or
Repair
Daily

;)

Edit: The two cars I've owned in my life are a 68 GTO and a 78 Camaro Z28 so yes I'm bias. :D

Pagan · Jul 21, 2009

Just saw this last response, to which I reply - as proven by this article:

First
On
Race
Day.

:D

Zach13 · Jul 21, 2009

I like all three of these cars but I like the styling of the new Camaro the best

calphin · Jul 21, 2009

after reading those sounds as if camaro should be in first...It’s not a Camaro unless it can set fire to a burnout box. Frankly, we expected the 60-mph mark to arrive sooner than 4.8 seconds. That’s only a 10th better than the Mustang, which has 111 fewer horsepower (and is 300 pounds lighter). Still, the Camaro was quicker through the quarter-mile, and our low-miles test car may still have been tight. Even if true, the 6.2 socks it to you in the low and midrange revs much harder than either the peaky Dodge or the Ford. It also drains the tank quicker, returning 14 mpg to the Mustang’s 17. The LS3 makes a muffled, less enthralling grumble than the Mustang.

Crappy Tipper · Jul 21, 2009

I'll still take the Camaro hands down. I've owned a 79 & 98 Z28 and miss the 98 terribly.. the 79 not so much, it had issues aside of being canary yellow.

Pagan · Jul 21, 2009

calphin said:

after reading those sounds as if camaro should be in first...It’s not a Camaro unless it can set fire to a burnout box. Frankly, we expected the 60-mph mark to arrive sooner than 4.8 seconds. That’s only a 10th better than the Mustang, which has 111 fewer horsepower (and is 300 pounds lighter). Still, the Camaro was quicker through the quarter-mile, and our low-miles test car may still have been tight. Even if true, the 6.2 socks it to you in the low and midrange revs much harder than either the peaky Dodge or the Ford. It also drains the tank quicker, returning 14 mpg to the Mustang’s 17. The LS3 makes a muffled, less enthralling grumble than the Mustang.
Click to expand...

And that means what? With over 100 more horse, it had better ne quicker than the stock Stang...and only being a 10th quicker zero to 60 is an embarrassment.

A Stang with equal horsepower would clean the Camaro's clock.

calphin · Jul 22, 2009

Pagan said:

And that means what? With over 100 more horse, it had better ne quicker than the stock Stang...and only being a 10th quicker zero to 60 is an embarrassment.

A Stang with equal horsepower would clean the Camaro's clock.
Click to expand...

maybe, how much of that is driver error? slow reaction time on the lights ?

in his own words... the car may have been tight.

Dolfan984 · Jul 22, 2009

Pagan said:

Just saw this last response, to which I reply - as proven by this article:

First
On
Race
Day.

:D
Click to expand...

Fast
Only
Rolling
Downhill

Fancy
Oil
Recycling
Device

;) :)

Den54 · Jul 22, 2009

Flat
Out
Run
Dodge

Pagan Metal & a Mustang

DOLPHAN1 Premium Member Luxury Box

Dolfan984 Underrated Free Agent

Pagan Metal & a Mustang

Zach13 Season Ticket Holder

calphin deadly at 250 yards!!

Crappy Tipper AKA Hero13

Pagan Metal & a Mustang

calphin deadly at 250 yards!!

Dolfan984 Underrated Free Agent

Den54 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

Share This Page