View Single Post
  #22  
Old 03-24-2010, 02:41 PM
BBC69Camaro's Avatar
BBC69Camaro BBC69Camaro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 572
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyGMachine View Post
The new Camaro isn't running circles around a GT500. Just because it has IRS doesn't automatically make it handle better than the Mustang with it's solid rear axle. Currently the new 2010+ Mustang GT (not the GT500) is superior to the new Camaro SS in both handling AND braking. Again this is just the GT we're talking about. I think the GT500s are comparable if not exactly the same as the SS since the GT500s are heavy too. Matter of fact according to Road and Track test Data the 2010 Mustang GT scores better in the slalom than both the GT500 and the SS. Be interesting to see how much better the GT500 is in 2011 when it debuts with it's all aluminum block!

Road and Track test data:

2010 Camaro SS
Braking from 60 mph, ft: 121 ft.
Braking from 80 mph, ft: 212 ft.
Skidpad, g: 0.89 g
Slalom, mph: 66.4 mph

2010 Mustang GT
Braking from 60 mph, ft: 115 ft.
Braking from 80 mph, ft: 202 ft.
Skidpad, g: 0.93 g
Slalom, mph: 69.1 mph
Every magazine I have read that has done a comparison so far has handed the lead to the Camaro in almost every category.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog...s/4309423.html

Popular Mechanics:
2010 Camaro SS (3900lbs) - ~$35,000
0-60 4.9
1/4 13.0 @111mph
60-0 107.8ft

2010 Mustang GT (3500lbs) - $35,626
0-60 5.6
1/4 13.9 @102mph
60-0 110.8ft

Car and Driver ratings:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take_road_test
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

And I think the skid pad will only get better as people figure out how to drive the Camaro *harder*.

So yes the Camaro is less fat than the Mustang despite weighing more and costing less.
Reply With Quote