2011 mustang v6 vs 2010-11 camaro v6

[1bad65]

They need to compare the Genesis vs the Camaro and the Mustang in terms of reliability. It will fininsh 3rd in that one without a doubt.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by 1bad65

They need to compare the Genesis vs the Camaro and the Mustang in terms of reliability. It will fininsh 3rd in that one without a doubt.

This is true, I almost bought a used 06 Sonata before my Jeep, then I researched some of the issues the owners were having on the forums, reports of something rattling around the gas tank just seemed a little disconcerting to me. THat said they have made strides, will just take a while to be completely trusted.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Stew

It's no ones fault GM doesn't offer a performance package on the V6 above what it already has. In any case tires make a HUGE difference. I would like to go back to Car and Drivers last lightning lap where the Mustang GT they got origionally came with the all season tires, when they got the correct Pirelli 3 seasons it knocked 5 seconds off of it's lap time. As for the 1SS vs Genesis, that is basically a choice same as the loded 2LT that had that was basically the same price as a 1SS. Do you want a loaded car capable of tackling the track or a base stripper? While it was not mentioned (except for the Mustang part where they mentioned the interior would have been better with the premium package). The offer lesser versions of the Genesis coupe, but the 2LT with RS is everybit the competitor to the Genesis track, in specs, performance, and pricing.

I might have to re-read the article but I don't remember them caring about which had the most content, they wanted performance. So if performance for roughly $30k is what they were looking for, why not use the V8 cars? Sometimes magazine comparisons do look at the total package where features and value and fuel economy and all those things figure in, in which case it makes sense to use an LT. But this isn't one of those times.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I might have to re-read the article but I don't remember them caring about which had the most content, they wanted performance. So if performance for roughly $30k is what they were looking for, why not use the V8 cars? Sometimes magazine comparisons do look at the total package where features and value and fuel economy and all those things figure in, in which case it makes sense to use an LT. But this isn't one of those times.

The cars also have to be somewhat even, if it was simpler performance and by the numbers the Mustang would have taken first, best lateral g, best braking, quickest acceleration and lower price by about 5k. Honestly now that you mention, WTF were they testing?

[mrray13]

Originally Posted by Stew

Ah, but the 20s are wider with a larger footprint, correct? I thought the 2LT had the 4 season PZero Neros, may be incorrect on that though. IMHO, the V6 Camaro does not need a tougher suspension and seems to work well that way and I would also buy it over the Genesis in a heartbeat, i do believe the comparison was fair though. THat said time to pay against the Genesis. It is a nice car and Hyundai did a fine FIRST EFFORT IMHO, but the interior is plasticky as hell (though surprisingly roomy) and the exterior and interior style seem rather generic. Also, I am sure their complaints about the ride from previous reviews SHOULD have applied here also, yes, it has great hndling number, but you pay for it, unlike the Camaro and Mustang.

Only the rear 20s have a wider footprint. The fronts are both 245's in both the 19s and 20s. The rear 20s are 275s, while the 19s are still 245.

And you are correct. The base LTs with 19s are all season P-Zero Neros, whereas the 20's are summer only P-Zeros.

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I might have to re-read the article but I don't remember them caring about which had the most content, they wanted performance. So if performance for roughly $30k is what they were looking for, why not use the V8 cars? Sometimes magazine comparisons do look at the total package where features and value and fuel economy and all those things figure in, in which case it makes sense to use an LT. But this isn't one of those times.

Exactly what I am trying to say!! Thank you for putting it in better words!!

Originally Posted by Stew

The cars also have to be somewhat even, if it was simpler performance and by the numbers the Mustang would have taken first, best lateral g, best braking, quickest acceleration and lower price by about 5k. Honestly now that you mention, WTF were they testing?

Which would be fine! As I have been trying to say, and DG pointed out above, it was performance oriented, both the Mustang and Camaro can come to the party with the upgraded GT/SS. The Genesis had it's upgraded performance package there, and the prices are very comparable, even if content isn't. Like DG, I thought the article was performance, so they handicapped the Camaro and Mustang by using the base model engines, IMHO.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by mrray13

Only the rear 20s have a wider footprint. The fronts are both 245's in both the 19s and 20s. The rear 20s are 275s, while the 19s are still 245.

And you are correct. The base LTs with 19s are all season P-Zero Neros, whereas the 20's are summer only P-Zeros.





Exactly what I am trying to say!! Thank you for putting it in better words!!





Which would be fine! As I have been trying to say, and DG pointed out above, it was performance oriented, both the Mustang and Camaro can come to the party with the upgraded GT/SS. The Genesis had it's upgraded performance package there, and the prices are very comparable, even if content isn't. Like DG, I thought the article was performance, so they handicapped the Camaro and Mustang by using the base model engines, IMHO.

One thing you have to wonder about though, if it was about performance, the Mustang beat the Genesis in every category related to perfor ance, why did the Genesis win? At least here that raises questions as to their reasoning.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Stew

One thing you have to wonder about though, if it was about performance, the Mustang beat the Genesis in every category related to perfor ance, why did the Genesis win? At least here that raises questions as to their reasoning.

I'll betcha $100 Hyundai pays more to them than Ford in advertising fees.....

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

I'll betcha $100 Hyundai pays more to them than Ford in advertising fees.....

That or I head Hyundais provides them with their own asian Massage parlor that provides them with happy endings

[mrray13]

Originally Posted by Stew

One thing you have to wonder about though, if it was about performance, the Mustang beat the Genesis in every category related to perfor ance, why did the Genesis win? At least here that raises questions as to their reasoning.

Because subjective performance feel pushed the Hyundai ahead. Which could relate to this....\/

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

I'll betcha $100 Hyundai pays more to them than Ford in advertising fees.....

But I would rather have this if I was the magazine, lol....\/

Originally Posted by Stew

That or I head Hyundais provides them with their own asian Massage parlor that provides them with happy endings

And we all lived happily ever after, lol

[Stew]

Originally Posted by mrray13

Because subjective performance feel pushed the Hyundai ahead. Which could relate to this....\/




But I would rather have this if I was the magazine, lol....\/




And we all lived happily ever after, lol

Hey, they have to use thier ASSetts to get ahead or giv........ Oh, I'll be here all week folks

[mrray13]

Ya know, I was just thinking...

The Hyundai won by feel, which is what a happens when you're at a massage parlor, which Stew thoughtfully brought up, which means.....





























nothing really, lol. But if the Hyundai won because of feel, maybe the massage parlor wasn't that far fetched

[Forrest80]

On the Video of the dude testing all 4, when talking about the mustang he says at second 4:15 to 4:24 "which makes this car in this group the quickest one here, and also the best handling"

Little bit later he says "This genesis coupe 3.8 is the only true sports car"

I call shenanigans because according to motortrend site the mustang weighs 10 pounds less and has a better front/rear weight balance. My definition of a sports car is a light weight 2 door car that is balanced well for great handling. The fact that the Genesis is heavier than the mustang is sad on their part.

I never sat in a mustang but is the hood on it really that long to where its obstructive?

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I might have to re-read the article but I don't remember them caring about which had the most content, they wanted performance. So if performance for roughly $30k is what they were looking for, why not use the V8 cars? Sometimes magazine comparisons do look at the total package where features and value and fuel economy and all those things figure in, in which case it makes sense to use an LT. But this isn't one of those times.

Wrong. They strictly stated that the reason why the Genesis won is because it "drives" better.

Originally Posted by a_Username

Of course, one could say after reading the article that MT's reviews of car are nothing more than another piece of evidence of it being too opinionated.



The whole reason why it won the comparison, it MT's eyes, is that it felt better to drive than the other three. Despite it being much of less of a performer than the Mustang V6 (and slightly above the Camaro V6 I might add) and costing more, they decided to give the Genesis coupe the win based on subjective opinions. These subjective opinions were steering feel, the height of the hood, and how close to the ground you felt lol.

So I might want to ask anyone who reads this comparison, how is this NOT unbiased?

I feel as my post was overlooked lol.

[bkkendrick]

who cares its still a POS ford!