Mustang vs Camaro (valve, navigation, trucks, buy)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In a comparison of the newest Camaro and Mustang, we'd be remiss if we didn't include a look at their V6 offerings. Until now, Ford's produced a 4.0 liter V6 that by today's standards is dreadful. Low horsepower, coarse sound, and no manual tranny option. The Camaro's 3.6 liter V6, on the other hand, puts out 306 horsepower (on regular unleaded, no less!), or fully 96 more horses than the Mustang's 4.0. It comes with a standard 6-speed manual and gets 29 MPG on the highway.
So when I read the March 2010 Car & Driver, I was thrilled to see that the Blue Oval folks are putting the 4.0 out to pasture at last, and replacing it with a new 3.7 liter V6 good for 305 horsepower (also on regular unleaded!) and 6-speed stick that gets 28 MPG highway. Ford's 6-speed slushbox actually gets an additional 1 MPG city and highway, but unless you're going to be yakking on a cell phone while you're driving, I'd opt for shifting my own gears!
Both V6s put out some darned serious power considering they don't require 91-octane and they don't use turbocharging or supercharging. It's amazing that the V8 Camaros and Mustangs of a quarter century ago only put out barely half this much horsepower.
For the whole package, if I were going to buy one of these cars (V8 or V6), I'd have to go with the new Mustang V6 with the 6-speed stick. But I give credit to the Bow Tie guys for being the first to put a 300+ HP V6 under the hood of their pony car. Will GM ever become a fully private car company again? We can only hope.....
Ill invite you to read the last issue of Car & Driver (or was that 2 months ago?) where they compared the GT to the SS and Challenger SRT8. Guess which one they picked, and for obvious reasons?
Mustang GT.
Despite being over 100 hp down on the SS, it only finished 0.1 seconds to 60 behind the SS. Thats embarrassing, aint it? The Mustang matched the SS in braking, and wiped the Camaro's ugly arse all over the road course, too. It was also praised for being much more solid in feel, and built better. It also costs less, gets better gas mileage, and hasnt been discontinued or bailed out by taxpayers.
Once again, Mustang FTW.
yea Steve, I forgot about that article. Imagine how bad the new 5.0 will whup the Camaro and Challenger????
Is the Super Snake not done when you send your bone stock GT500 off to Shelby?
So what if you had to send off your Camaro to Lingenfelter to have it upgraded? Not really a big deal unless you're one that likes to brag about "well my BONE STOCK car puts out THIS much hp"...but we all know most performance cars don't stay stock for long anyways.
Also I checked into the GT500....around here that's a $48k car, then another $29k to have the 630 hp Super Snake version done to it, and $33.5k if you want to 725 hp (not quite 750 hp) version.
A new 2010 Camaro SS around here is $38k. The base Lingenfelter set up that is good for 550 BHP/550 torque starts at $9k, a 650 hp version will set you back $20k, The 750 hp will set you back $48k and if you really wanna go big with the 800 hp/800 torque running you're looking at $65k.
So it looks to me like if you want something up to 650 hp, the Camaro is cheaper, but it does get more expensive than the Mustang when you get into the 750 hp on up territory.
anyway you cut it.. It ain't cheap to make big HP Ya know... Any number of Tuners(2 within 25 minutes of me) can make any GT500 a 700 hp beast for very cheap. Heres one shop that builds 7 second New GT500's. They have a package that gives you 700 REAR wheel hp and it costs $2400. So grab yourself a used GT500 for $35k http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/2008-...item19ba25fef6
In a comparison of the newest Camaro and Mustang, we'd be remiss if we didn't include a look at their V6 offerings. Until now, Ford's produced a 4.0 liter V6 that by today's standards is dreadful. Low horsepower, coarse sound, and no manual tranny option. The Camaro's 3.6 liter V6, on the other hand, puts out 306 horsepower (on regular unleaded, no less!), or fully 96 more horses than the Mustang's 4.0. It comes with a standard 6-speed manual and gets 29 MPG on the highway.
So when I read the March 2010 Car & Driver, I was thrilled to see that the Blue Oval folks are putting the 4.0 out to pasture at last, and replacing it with a new 3.7 liter V6 good for 305 horsepower (also on regular unleaded!) and 6-speed stick that gets 28 MPG highway. Ford's 6-speed slushbox actually gets an additional 1 MPG city and highway, but unless you're going to be yakking on a cell phone while you're driving, I'd opt for shifting my own gears!
Both V6s put out some darned serious power considering they don't require 91-octane and they don't use turbocharging or supercharging. It's amazing that the V8 Camaros and Mustangs of a quarter century ago only put out barely half this much horsepower.
For the whole package, if I were going to buy one of these cars (V8 or V6), I'd have to go with the new Mustang V6 with the 6-speed stick. But I give credit to the Bow Tie guys for being the first to put a 300+ HP V6 under the hood of their pony car. Will GM ever become a fully private car company again? We can only hope.....
a 5 speed manual trans was indeed available with the 05-up v6 Mustang. And I agree. The v6 with 6 speed would be a great lil combo..
you have never seen a GT for over $40k. You could not option one that high. My convertible loaded to the gills was $36k list. Right now base GT's are $27k all day.
Except between 3 and 4 they're $26,999.99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deez Nuttz
Is the Super Snake not done when you send your bone stock GT500 off to Shelby?
So what if you had to send off your Camaro to Lingenfelter to have it upgraded? Not really a big deal unless you're one that likes to brag about "well my BONE STOCK car puts out THIS much hp"...but we all know most performance cars don't stay stock for long anyways.
Also I checked into the GT500....around here that's a $48k car, then another $29k to have the 630 hp Super Snake version done to it, and $33.5k if you want to 725 hp (not quite 750 hp) version.
A new 2010 Camaro SS around here is $38k. The base Lingenfelter set up that is good for 550 BHP/550 torque starts at $9k, a 650 hp version will set you back $20k, The 750 hp will set you back $48k and if you really wanna go big with the 800 hp/800 torque running you're looking at $65k.
So it looks to me like if you want something up to 650 hp, the Camaro is cheaper, but it does get more expensive than the Mustang when you get into the 750 hp on up territory.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Battle of the V6s....
The Mustang matched the SS in braking, and wiped the Camaro's ugly arse all over the road course, too. It was also praised for being much more solid in feel, and built better. It also costs less, gets better gas mileage, and hasnt been discontinued or bailed out by taxpayers. 
