7th Dec 2009, 15:49

Chevy has always offered more performance than Ford. The last Camaro V-6 I test drove (in 2002) was faster than my 5.0 Mustang. I'm not saying the Camaro is better. BOTH are great cars. But let's be honest. The Camaro has ALWAYS outperformed Mustangs from 1967 to now. Chevy is more performance oriented than Ford.

10th Dec 2009, 14:38

Yeah, but for ten grand you could have that Mustang painted any color you like!!

10th Dec 2009, 14:50

"The Camaro has ALWAYS outperformed Mustangs from 1967 to now."

Not true. The Fox body Mustangs (79-93) were quicker than any Camaro of the same year up until they dropped the Vette engine in them in '93. Look up the old Car and Driver 0-60 and 1/4 mile times and you'll see these facts. Even the 5.7 IROC wasn't as quick as a 5.0 Mustang as it only had an AT.

The only way a 5.0 Mustang would be slower than a V-6 Camaro is if you had an AT in it. That option dropped a second or so off the 0-60 time so it was like 7.3. Even so I think the best the Camaro V-6 did 0-60 in was around 8 seconds, before the 2010 that is... This is an old debate that has been running for decades now, but researching the actual numbers the tests show in these cars tell the truth on their performance. Remember, the Mustang was generally tested with the no cost optional 3.08 Traction Lok axle and 5-speed manual. This was the factory stock set up that made those cars the fastest they could be.

11th Dec 2009, 06:58

14:50 that is a pretty broad comment. Are you talking the 1/4 mile or on a track. Take a look at 1969 racing... small blocks the lighter, powerful, better handling, small blocks Camaro 302 z/28 and the Boss 302, or are we 1/4 mile and talking Big block Mustangs and Camaros at the strip?

11th Dec 2009, 13:03

No, I was referring to the Fox body Mustang years, '79-'93. Stock vs. stock the Mustang was consistently quicker in 0-60 times and the 1/4 mile than any stock Camaro of the same year until they put Vette engines in the Z-28 in '93.

What is broad was the claim that Camaros have always beaten Mustangs since 1967. It has gone back and forth, but neither car can claim that for their entire existence.

11th Dec 2009, 15:56

I take magazine performance numbers with a grain of salt. Car and Driver comes up with numbers that don't always seem to reflect reality, and Consumer Reports must use 90-year-old grandmothers to test their cars, as the 0-60 times are unbelievably slow. I've owned several V-8 Mustangs and none came close to a V-8 Camaro. My Fox 5.0's were slower than a 2002 V-6 Camaro and slower than the 210 horsepower 4.0 V-6 Mustangs. I have to give the nod to Chevy in the area of performance. Both cars are great. I'd be proud to have either a Camaro or a Mustang (or a Challenger for that matter) in my garage. I currently own a Mustang because I've always loved the styling. Camaros are better in the area of performance.

12th Dec 2009, 17:41

I owned a Camaro for 29 years and it was a fantastic car with very nice styling, but I have to admit that 1965 Mustang Convertible would be the one pony car on my wish list.

Just a great looking car!

13th Dec 2009, 12:34

I'm giving serious thought to looking at Camaro or the Dodge challenger as my next new vehicle purchase in 2010 if my income permits. I'm VERY pleased with all three cars. All are great examples of what great vehicles domestic companies can build.

My ONLY complaint about my current Mustang is the harsh ride. I have yet to thoroughly test drive the Challenger, but given that it is heavier and built on the 300 platform, it SHOULD ride much better. My lower back can just no longer tolerate the Mustang's nearly non-existent suspension.

I will not get into the debate over power. I buy smaller engined cars now to conserve energy and lower my fuel and insurance costs. I've owned both V-6 and V-8 Mustangs, and found none of them even remotely close to the performance of a comparable Camaro. Yes, a V-8 Mustang with a 4:11 rear end and a 5-speed manual will generally beat a Camaro with standard rear gearing and an automatic. When both are EQUALLY equipped, it is simply no contest. I raced several Camaros with my factory stock 5.0 automatic. I even lost to one V-6 Camaro. Driver skill had nothing to do with it. With an automatic it takes very little "skill" to floor a gas pedal. The Camaro is no slouch in the area of performance, and GM needs to be commended for making it a great car then and now.

14th Dec 2009, 08:36

Sorry about the Mustang comments really. I do like the Camaro as well, but when people keep claiming false information such as V-6 Camaros being faster than V-8 Mustangs, you have to let them know the facts.

I know we all have favorites, and wish that they were the best performers, but facts are facts, and the test figures don't lie. Neither does my real world driving experience from way back in the 80's and 90's.

Honestly, this debate has been going on for a long time. Look at most of the Mustang threads and someone with a Camaro has chimed in here and there. I think of it as fun competition and not an annoyance. If everyone had the same car, we'd all be bored by now wouldn't we?

14th Dec 2009, 15:23

The 2010 Camaro is dynamic in style, performance and quality. There simply is no comparison. A real head turner and quite a feeling behind the wheel. This car makes you feel good, while you look good driving. I owned a Mustang for 18 years, but this car is a clear winner, hands down.

15th Dec 2009, 08:33

Not so sure on the quality issue. I know there were a lot of short cuts in order to get this car into production, and many of them came back around on these first year cars as problems. One thing I heard about was gluing wheel weights on the brake calipers to balance them, which resulted in failure when they broke free under the extreme heat from the brakes. Also the front end piece was under designed, causing it to break.

This is an awesome looking car, but it is definitely one I would have waited at least a couple of years until GM settles into producing it with less flaws that could be annoying to you down the road.

The Mustang is definitely more ordinary these days with so many of them on the road. I am still amazed at the 4.9 0-60 time with 111 less hp than the Camaro, which is at 4.8 0-60. It is an interesting competition once again. Performance, this time, is down to the driver in both V-6 and V-8 versions. We'll have to see what the numbers are when the 2011 comes out, with 305 hp for the V-6 and close to 400 for the V-8!

28th Dec 2009, 21:27

Numbers are out for the glory of the Mustangs fans who likes numbers.

The new 5 point oh's, will be fully aluminum, cast sleeves, twin cams, 32 valves, headers, 'cause without headers no over 400 HP!, 412 HP (128 less HP than GT500 and around 144 less than the maybe Z-28), 390 lbs-foot of torque, rev. limited to 7000 RPM and around 30 pounds heavier than Camaro engine LS3, Probably diff. geared to beat the Camaro (Ford's easy trick! We'll see by how much if ever!). But Camaro will still be heavier!

And by the pictures we've seen, not too many places left for working around the engine between the fenders, what the heck it's new!. Hope this will give GM a push to finally build the planned Z-28 who will have more than enough power, 556 HP, to blow the doors of any Mustangs, even the GT500, once and for all! Like its big brother Chevy Corvette ZR1 already does! and confirmed what some journalists asked in '67 about the name Camaro.. A vicious animal that kills and eats Mustangs!.. Let's be vicious!