Camaro SS vs SRT8 vs GT500?

[IcePickFreak]

I'm wondering how easy it is to find a Camaro at that $34k price point actually. I'm sure if you dig around you could find a dealer within reasonable driving distance, but my experience around here was a bit different. I stopped to check one out about 1 to 1-1/2 ago, really just wanted to see the interior - but was also curious as it did have my interest before I bought something else earlier this year. The windows do seem extremely small from the inside, but you could get to that. The interior itself I wasn't too crazy about, it was comfortable enough but didn't care for the styling at all. The kick in the nuts came after I looked at the sticker, which was $34k (2SS), and then asked the sales guy what price it was going for - he glanced at the sticker, then looked at me and said $44k. I am seeing them on the road fairly regularly now and I can't imagine people are paying $10k over sticker so there must be some dealers out there not robbing people.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
15k diff from bottom to top seems a little high.

The Corvette starts less then the Mustang went for.

The Corvette doesn't have a back seat.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Mermaidman

Originally posted by: Arkaign
The Camaro would do a ton better if it didn't weigh as much as my balls.

That may be true, but I found it interesting that the Shelby Mustang weighs MORE than the Camaro.
Mustang 3901 lb
Camaro 3894 lb

:laugh: By 7lbs? I'd hardly call that any difference at all. Maybe the Mustang had a couple more gallons of fuel in it when they were tested.

 

[Mermaidman]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Mermaidman

Originally posted by: Arkaign
The Camaro would do a ton better if it didn't weigh as much as my balls.

That may be true, but I found it interesting that the Shelby Mustang weighs MORE than the Camaro.
Mustang 3901 lb
Camaro 3894 lb

:laugh: By 7lbs? I'd hardly call that any difference at all. Maybe the Mustang had a couple more gallons of fuel in it when they were tested.

It's interesting to me because everyone harps on the Camaro for its weight. I didn't know Mustangs could weigh just as much!

 

[Homer Simpson]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: GoatMonkey
The regular Mustang GT won the Car and Driver comparison.

http://www.caranddriver.com/re...e_challenger_r_t-video

Yeah car and driver was also retarded. Cons for the Camaro - "looks angry" ? Give me a break!

lol. reminds me of the gto vs mustang article where the goat handily beat the stang in every test. but their final score added extra points to the stang for the "gotta have it factor" thus making it the "winner".

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
15k diff from bottom to top seems a little high.

The Corvette starts less then the Mustang went for.

The Corvette doesn't have a back seat.

And?

The only 2 things THEY said were...

"biggest guns Detroit has to offer."
and
"Our one stipulation is that each car must have a manual gearbox."

They even said their "one stipulation" was a manual gearbox. Both the Corvette and Viper have that. I do not see them say a stipulation is back seats?

 

[ayabe]

This is a fair comparison. What won't be fair is next year when the new Mustang powertrains come out and maybe(please, please) ditch the live axle.

After that, I think the Camaro is in big trouble across the line.

SRT8 is an also ran in this segment.

 

[evident]

Originally posted by: ayabe
This is a fair comparison. What won't be fair is next year when the new Mustang powertrains come out and maybe(please, please) ditch the live axle.

After that, I think the Camaro is in big trouble across the line.

SRT8 is an also ran in this segment.

its sad chrysler couldn't make the challenger competent, its very decent looking. pretty much sums up their entire life as a auto company

 

[JDub02]

didn't anyone read the article? From the very first section:

Action movie sequels always have bigger explosions and a faster-moving plot than the original film. They also have evil-er villains and bigger budgets. Which gave us an idea...

In our recent pony car comparison test, the retro-heavy ? and just plain heavy ? 2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS walked away with top honors in its debut. The big V8-powered coupe needed a new challenge. It was time to refocus the lens. Shoot from a different angle, so to speak.

So we squared the brooding visage of our SS-badged protagonist up against the cruelest bunch of savages we could find, the range-topping 2009 Dodge Challenger SRT8 and 2010 Ford Shelby GT500.

If one villain is good, two is better. Just ask Michael Bay.

They're giving the Camaro a bigger challenge because it won against the Mustang GT and Challenger R/T.

 

[SithSolo1]

Around here the SS is more than the SRT-8 because of dealer mark-ups. $5k on the v6 and $10k on the SS.

 

[lsd]

Well apparently the rags/e-rags like the Mustang because even the plain Jane Mustang GT beat the Camaro SS and Challenger (r/t) in a MT road test a few months back with much less HP than either two.

 

[canadageek]

car and driver: BMW always wins, even when they aren't in the test!

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: SearchMaster

Originally posted by: Mermaidman

Originally posted by: Arkaign
The Camaro would do a ton better if it didn't weigh as much as my balls.

That may be true, but I found it interesting that the Shelby Mustang weighs MORE than the Camaro.
Mustang 3901 lb
Camaro 3894 lb

Which begs the question, "just how big are Arkaign's pants?"

lol Well I know the GT500KR is heavy as hell, but that's a rare car. It's a lot heavier than the standard Mustang GT (which is a bit heavy but not insanely so at 3533lbs).

The Camaro SS is over 300lbs heavier than the regular Mustang GT.

 

[AdamK47]

And the Camry wins!

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: lsd
Well apparently the rags/e-rags like the Mustang because even the plain Jane Mustang GT beat the Camaro SS and Challenger (r/t) in a MT road test a few months back with much less HP than either two.

It's because driving a lighter, more connected car is more rewarding to a lot of enthusiasts. In pure muscle car history, handling was not really an issue, but now things are pretty competitive. A 2010 Mustang GT could probably outhandle most exotics from 20 years ago. And a Mustang 20 years ago couldn't outhandle a Taurus.

 

[geno]

Originally posted by: lsd
Well apparently the rags/e-rags like the Mustang because even the plain Jane Mustang GT beat the Camaro SS and Challenger (r/t) in a MT road test a few months back with much less HP than either two.

You have to admit the GT is a good car for the money. Dollar for dollar, it offers more performance than the other two, IMO.

 

[exar333]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: lsd
Well apparently the rags/e-rags like the Mustang because even the plain Jane Mustang GT beat the Camaro SS and Challenger (r/t) in a MT road test a few months back with much less HP than either two.

It's because driving a lighter, more connected car is more rewarding to a lot of enthusiasts. In pure muscle car history, handling was not really an issue, but now things are pretty competitive. A 2010 Mustang GT could probably outhandle most exotics from 20 years ago. And a Mustang 20 years ago couldn't outhandle a Taurus.

While 3500lb is "lighter" than 3800lb, it certainly isn't "light" by any means. 3200lb is my limit for any car purchase, unless I am getting a very big sedan. My Mazda 6 was ~3200, my prelude is 2800, and my Z is 3200.

I agree with the other posters here that the Challenger looks appealing, but drives like a pig. Since it is Chrysler, I am sure it is unreliable as well.

 

[reallyscrued]

Originally posted by: canadageek
car and driver: BMW always wins, even when they aren't in the test!

I fail to see the problem.

 

[BlackTigers]

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.c...d-test-flow-chart3.jpg

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Mermaidman

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Mermaidman

Originally posted by: Arkaign
The Camaro would do a ton better if it didn't weigh as much as my balls.

That may be true, but I found it interesting that the Shelby Mustang weighs MORE than the Camaro.
Mustang 3901 lb
Camaro 3894 lb

:laugh: By 7lbs? I'd hardly call that any difference at all. Maybe the Mustang had a couple more gallons of fuel in it when they were tested.

It's interesting to me because everyone harps on the Camaro for its weight. I didn't know Mustangs could weigh just as much!

The GT doesn't weigh just as much. It is 300lbs lighter in fact. It's not as though the non-SS Camaro is 300lbs lighter. The GT500 is just a much much better car.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: lsd
Well apparently the rags/e-rags like the Mustang because even the plain Jane Mustang GT beat the Camaro SS and Challenger (r/t) in a MT road test a few months back with much less HP than either two.

It's because driving a lighter, more connected car is more rewarding to a lot of enthusiasts. In pure muscle car history, handling was not really an issue, but now things are pretty competitive. A 2010 Mustang GT could probably outhandle most exotics from 20 years ago. And a Mustang 20 years ago couldn't outhandle a Taurus.

While 3500lb is "lighter" than 3800lb, it certainly isn't "light" by any means. 3200lb is my limit for any car purchase, unless I am getting a very big sedan. My Mazda 6 was ~3200, my prelude is 2800, and my Z is 3200.

I agree with the other posters here that the Challenger looks appealing, but drives like a pig. Since it is Chrysler, I am sure it is unreliable as well.

Yeah Mustang is not for me, and 3500lbs is only really 'light' in comparison to Challenger and Camaro.

 

[GoatMonkey]

Originally posted by: canadageek
car and driver: BMW always wins, even when they aren't in the test!

Except for most of the comparisons in the last few months, with the exception of the entry level sports sedan comparison. But, yeah, they historically pick the BMW most of the time when there is one there.

I can tell you that I would much rather read the writing in Car and Driver than Edmunds though. C&D is very upfront with their BMW bias. If another car DOES win it makes you pay attention.

Also, the testing methodology is fairly consistent with C&D. Their numbers are pretty well repeated when they go back to the same car again, and they point it out when the numbers are different.

But when it comes down to it, the reading is for entertainment value. The editorial pages are usually very good also.

 

[thomsbrain]

The SS is only 0.1 second slower than the GT500 to 60 MPH. Ford keeps claiming massive power figures for these GT500s, but they never put their performance where their mouth is.

As for the SRT8, a car with a 6.1 liter porker ought to be able to beat my 4-cylinder by more than 0.1 second to 60 MPH. What a fat tub of lard.

The SS is the car to have in this class, IMO.

 

[lsd]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
The SS is only 0.1 second slower than the GT500 to 60 MPH. Ford keeps claiming massive power figures for these GT500s, but they never put their performance where their mouth is.

As for the SRT8, a car with a 6.1 liter porker ought to be able to beat my 4-cylinder by more than 0.1 second to 60 MPH. What a fat tub of lard.

The SS is the car to have in this class, IMO.

0-60 is a horrible indicator for a high hp/tq car because driver ability to control the launch will affect the times greatly.
1/4 mile trap speed is where it's at, and the SS has been a solid 108-109mph while the GT500 has been around 113-118mph. That huge 5mph variance tells you there's traction problems.

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: lsd

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
The SS is only 0.1 second slower than the GT500 to 60 MPH. Ford keeps claiming massive power figures for these GT500s, but they never put their performance where their mouth is.

As for the SRT8, a car with a 6.1 liter porker ought to be able to beat my 4-cylinder by more than 0.1 second to 60 MPH. What a fat tub of lard.

The SS is the car to have in this class, IMO.

0-60 is a horrible indicator for a high hp/tq car because driver ability to control the launch will affect the times greatly.
1/4 mile trap speed is where it's at, and the SS has been a solid 108-109mph while the GT500 has been around 113-118mph. That huge 5mph variance tells you there's traction problems.

Most people don't know that MPH shows how fast a car really is cus everyone just talks about time.