Another shootout. This time: Popular Mechanics

[Rock36]

The mustang in all of its N/A 4.6L forms from 2005 (when it only had 300bhp) until present has consistently gone 0-60 in the 4.9-5.2 second range, and completed the quartermile between 13.5-13.9 seconds in the 101-105mph range. Clearly the Camaro SS is faster, I don't think anyone really believed otherwise.

There are far more than two tests over the last 4 years that indicate the drag capablilities of a stock Mustang GT. I don't know how many other tests would be necessary to show this.



As for the Challenger R/T..... 14.4 seconds at 97 mph is seriously off. It indicates to me a really sloppy launch from idle, probably bogged it off the line. The simple power to weight ratio and gearing would make the R/T an easy mid 13 second car in 1/4 mile and trap over 100 mph.

[AZCamaroFan]

Anyone notice they criticize cars for being too harsh, and then they turn around and criticize for being too civilized. auto reporters are as dumb as sports reporters.

[Mormegil]

Originally Posted by fierodeletre

I still say Chrysler should have made it a Cuda. But the Chally is still cool. I actually really like the '10 stang's lines. But they are just not quite as iconic as the new camaro. And those R/T numbers aren't V6 times, they're SLOWER than the camaro V6 times. Not a fair test. From what I've read, the R/T and GT are pretty neck and neck in acceleration. That comparo didn't even have them as close.

Plymouth is dead, and resurrecting the name wouldn't have made sense. I think part of the reason the Barracudas bring in so much money is because they won't ever be re-incarnated. Have you seen a 1970 Challenger Hemi convertible with a 4-speed generate multi-million dollar figures? I haven't.

That being said, I have seen some Challengers that have been fitted with aftermarket Barracuda style grills. They looked bad-ass. My $.02

[radz28]

Originally Posted by Bocephus

How about translating that into English?

Those numbers are way off from what everyone else is getting. Even you should be able to understand that.

Keep comments respectful or action will be taken.

Originally Posted by azfan

Anyone notice they criticize cars for being too harsh, and then they turn around and criticize for being too civilized. auto reporters are as dumb as sports reporters.

I was thinking that too! It seems like the rags' complain cars aren't civilized enough - a car comes out that is - the rag' complains it's too civlized, although it was a better performer. It's like they are just looking for something to complain about. Hey - if you don't like it because it's called a Camaro, then just say so; if you don't like it because it's dynamics and performance isn't good, then say so. Reviews start loosing credibility with me when they are not consistant. Why can't they be objective and just say I hate such and such even though it's a good (great) car?

It seems like the interior remains the biggest gripe of these reviews though. Oh well - I'm not buying a Camaro just for the interior

[ZombieEatsYou]

Originally Posted by radz282003

I was thinking that too! It seems like the rags' complain cars aren't civilized enough - a car comes out that is - the rag' complains it's too civlized, although it was a better performer. It's like they are just looking for something to complain about. Hey - if you don't like it because it's called a Camaro, then just say so; if you don't like it because it's dynamics and performance isn't good, then say so. Reviews start loosing credibility with me when they are not consistant. Why can't they be objective and just say I hate such and such even though it's a good (great) car?

Maybe they feel if they don't find *something* wrong they'll be accused of being in the tank for the car makers?

It seems like the interior remains the biggest gripe of these reviews though. Oh well - I'm not buying a Camaro just for the interior

I loved Edmund's opinion so much I had to make it my sig!

[Crowley]

Looks are always subjective. I think that in reviews they should state that it is our oppinion on the cars looks but shouldn't have looks as any part of a points review. I like the looks of the Mustang, Chally, and Camaro .... Hell I like the looks of my 135i but there are a lot of folks who don't ..

Crowley

[radz28]

Originally Posted by ZombieEatsYou

Maybe they feel if they don't find *something* wrong they'll be accused of being in the tank for the car makers?

I loved Edmund's opinion so much I had to make it my sig!

True. BTW - I love the sig', LOL!

Originally Posted by Crowley

Looks are always subjective. I think that in reviews they should state that it is our oppinion on the cars looks but shouldn't have looks as any part of a points review. I like the looks of the Mustang, Chally, and Camaro .... Hell I like the looks of my 135i but there are a lot of folks who don't ..

Crowley

Exactly! How do you give points for looks?! I'm not going to buy a car because some clown who doesn't know how to drive a car fast doesn't like how it looks; same with the interior. I'm reserving judgement until I put my hands in one. I don't like the looks and everyone always complains about some sort of problem with the materials or the feeling. That's just as subjective as looks, somewhat. Sometimes, I feel a cushy dash and don't think, "Ooo... high quality..."; I think, "WOW; it's going to be really easy to punch a hole right into that!" Eh - rules are like opinions, and everyone knows how that saying goes.