TriShield

This thread contains all the test data the major review outlets have on the Camaro and repowered Mustang.

With all the test data in one place it gives everyone a better picture of how the performance of these cars compare to each other.

TriShield

Car and Driver

Camaro - March 2009



PRICE AS TESTED: $32,195 (base price: $30,995)

ENGINE TYPE: pushrod 16-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection

Displacement: 376 cu in, 6162cc
Power (SAE net): 426 bhp @ 5900 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 420 lb-ft @ 4600 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 6-speed manual

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 112.3 in Length: 190.4 in Width: 75.5 in Height: 54.2 in
Curb weight: 3859 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.8 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.0 sec @ 111 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 161 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.92 g



Camaro - July 2009



PRICE AS TESTED: $34,225 (base price: $30,995)

ENGINE TYPE: pushrod 16-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection

Displacement: 376 cu in, 6162cc
Power (SAE net): 426 bhp @ 5900 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 420 lb-ft @ 4600 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 6-speed manual

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.8 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.0 sec @ 111 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 162 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.85 g



Mustang - March 2010



PRICE AS TESTED: $32,980 (base price: $30,495)

ENGINE TYPE: DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection

Displacement: 302 cu in, 4951 cc
Power (SAE net): 412 bhp @ 6500 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 390 lb-ft @ 4250 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 6-speed manual

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 107.1 in Length: 188.1 in Width: 73.9 in Height: 55.8 in
Curb weight: 3580 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.6 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.2 sec @ 109 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 153 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.94 g

TriShield

Edmunds

Camaro - March 2009



Price as-tested - $35,380

Track Test Results
0-45 mph (sec.) 3.4
0-60 mph (sec.) 5
0-75 mph (sec.) 6.7
1/4-mile (sec. @ mph) 13.0 @ 110.9
0-60 with 1 foot of rollout (sec.) 4.7
Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.) 27
60-0 mph (ft.) 109
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) 68.6
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) 0.88



Camaro - August 2009



Price as-tested - As-tested MSRP $36,825

Track Test Results
0-45 mph (sec.) 3.4
0-60 mph (sec.) 5.0
0-75 mph (sec.) 6.8
1/4-mile (sec. @ mph) 13.1 @ 109.4
0-60 with 1 foot of rollout (sec.) 4.7
Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.) 27
60-0 mph (ft.) 111
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) 65.8
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) 0.86g



Mustang - April 2010



Price as-tested - $40,035

Track Test Results
0-45 mph (sec.) 3.4
0-60 mph (sec.) 4.8
0-75 mph (sec.) 7.0
1/4-mile (sec. @ mph) 13.0 @110.6
0-60 with 1 foot of rollout (sec.) 4.5
Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.) 27
60-0 mph (ft.) 109
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) 67.3
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) 0.91g

TriShield

Motor Trend

Camaro - March 2009



Price as tested - $35,380
Curb weight - 3859 lb

Acceleration
0-60mph - 4.7
0-70mph - 5.8
0-80mph - 7.3
0-90mph - 8.8
0-100mph - 10.5
45-65mph - 2.1
1/4 - 13.0 @ 111mph

Braking
60-0mph - 105 ft

Handling
Max lateral g - 0.90g
Figure eight - 25.8 @ 0.80g average



Mustang - March 2010



Price as tested - $39,750
Curb weight - 3620 lb

Acceleration
0-60mph - 4.3
0-70mph - 5.5
0-80mph - 6.9
0-90mph - 8.5
0-100mph - 10.3
45-65mph - 2.1
1/4 - 12.8 @ 110.8mph

Braking
60-0mph - 105 ft

Handling
Max lateral g - 0.94g
Figure eight - 25.3 @ 0.75g average



Camaro and Mustang - July 2010



Camaro

Price as tested - $36,465
Curb weight - 3859 lb

Acceleration
0-60mph - 4.7
0-70mph - 5.8
0-80mph - 7.4
0-90mph - 8.9
0-100mph - 10.7
45-65mph - 2.1
1/4 - 13.1 @ 110.8mph

Braking
60-0mph - 108 ft

Handling
Max lateral g - 0.92g
Figure eight - 25.2 @ 0.73g average

Mustang

Price as tested - $39,755
Curb weight - 3612 lb

Acceleration
0-60mph - 4.4
0-70mph - 5.6
0-80mph - 6.8
0-90mph - 8.4
0-100mph - 10.2
45-65mph - 2.1
1/4 - 12.7 @ 111.3mph

Braking
60-0mph - 104 ft

Handling
Max lateral g - 0.97g
Figure eight - 24.7 @ 0.77g average

TriShield

Road and Track

Camaro

April 2009





Road and Track has not yet tested the 5.0 Mustang GT.

WECIV

The Camaro's weight gives the well sorted out Stang chasis the win.

W

djsanchez2

iTrader: (14)

As much as it pains me to say it, the mustang has the W for this year. but that is good, it breeds competition

WECIV

"but that is good, it breeds competition"

Ditto!!!

W

TriShield

I wouldn't say that. The Camaro is faster through the slalom in a few of these tests. It's also not far off at all on MT's figure eight.

That's hardly running away from the SS which the Mustang should given the weight difference. If anything that speaks volumes about how competent the Camaro suspension truly is.

Irunelevens

Lighter car will still "feel" better, which is very important to me. I give the edge to the Mustang.

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

Neither seems to be a clear winner in the 1/4 mile category, I'd call it a driver's race (but I'd rather see comparasion data of auto vs auto to remove most of the driver error factor). As for 0-60, Mustang seems to be in front, they are either easier to launch/better set up for traction, and/or the gearing-to-weight & power ratio is in favor of the Mustang. But, with 1mph or less of trap speed difference between the two, in a typical street-style roll race they would be nearly equal.

I think they are excellent competition for each other. I don't see either as a clear-cut overall winner.

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

I agree.




Both appear to be AMAZING performance cars for the money and if I were in the market right now I would have a VERY difficult time deciding on one over the other. So yes, "competition" has definitely improved the breed here, both companies have done their homework.

Cole Train

iTrader: (30)

i think considering that the SS is CHEAPER than the mustang in all the tests(at least i'm pretty sure) i think it's safe to say it may be the better bang for the buck considering how close they are overall. Imagine what you can do with the money you saved It always seemed that in previous Gens the Mustang was always cheaper than the Camaro and now in order to get a decently equiped 5.0 it's gonna cost ya more.

TriShield

This is correct. The Mustang is now more expensive than the Camaro, which doesn't make much sense to me considering it's still the same car Ford has been producing since 2005 with some tweaks and a new powertrain.

The Camaro is entirely new from the ground up with modern engineering and a clean-sheet design inside and out. Also to have Brembo brakes on the Mustang (which it had for all the tests) you have to pay an addtional $1600 over the base price. They come standard on the Camaro SS.

If anything you'd think Ford would undercut the price of the Camaro big-time since they've been making this Mustang awhile.

Gaunt

iTrader: (11)

I would give the edge to the Mustang stock for stock no doubt about that.

Modded N/A, I have the feeling the LS3 is going to put a hurting on anything that 5.0 is going to pull out.

Boosted? Who knows. Probably the exact same ballgame we are playing right now (whoever has the deepest pockets, wins), except the mustang has a few more cubes.

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

I'm sure that they'd wanted to do that but the costs associated with these new motors and new transmissions likely prohibited it.

TriShield

It's not just the Mustang, I've noticed nearly everything on Ford lots is very exspensive now. 50k F150s, 33k Fusions, 40k Mustangs...

I have no problem paying for a 35k Camaro SS, but 40 large for a standard Mustang GT is a bit hard to swallow. Especially considering Ford was selling the same car with the 4.6 a few years ago for less than 30 grand.

ULTIMATEORANGESS

iTrader: (4)

slight slight edge to this mustang. its a good car though i still prefer an ls3 powered camaro.

Irunelevens

It might be a little more to get the Brembo brakes and whatnot to match to Camaro, but every Mustang test that I've seen the car has been LOADED. Glass roof, track pack, etc. So I imagine that they would be pretty close if they were equipped similarly.

bww3588

iTrader: (49)

for 2010, mustang gets the big loss....
this is the 2011 model and GM hasent answered back yet....