Personal Test drive review: 11 GT vs. 11 2SS vs 10 Challenger R/T

[ViperTomcat]

Now..keep in mind I do love my challenger, but I wanted to give a fair comparison. For the sake of making it the most fair I chose to test all three cars with the automatic transmission.

I will start with the Challenger as it is what I am the absolute most familiar with and I know all its dark corners:

2010 Challenger R/T Automatic(base model, 27F package):

The Challenger is the largest of the three in both weight and physical size. It also has the lowest rated HP at 372HP and second in torque at 398 pound feet. Visibility from within the car is average to "ok" at best. Black cloth makes the cabin dark and the white gauge faces are easy to read in any situation. That being said the interior, while very well made in both material and construction, is bland in design and uninspiring to the eye. The Challenger is the roomiest and easiest to ride in for long distances or when comfort is the desired trait. The trunk's 16 cubic feet of space make for plenty of room for two large suitcases and associated bags.

The Challengers long hood make for locating the front end of the car difficult, and the small rear quarter windows cause some blind spot issues, but that is not special or unique to the Challenger. The doors are large and heavy, and close with a sense of authority. The hood scoops were easily made functional and function more as heat extractors than ram air scoops. The handling of the Challenger, while a bit sluggish, was responsive and able to handle winding mountain roads with sufficient poise and grip to ensure confidence in the cars ability to manuver.

Low end power was strong and the Challenger R/T made the dash from 0 to 60 MPH, verified by Champion raceway, in 4.89 seconds. On a chassis dyno it produced 332 RWHP in stock form, and with a K&N CAI, 339 RWHP. Up top the Challenger finds its electronically limited speed of 142 easily, and with the limiter removed, the Challenger was continuing to pull strong past 155 MPH on its way to its mechanical top speed of 170+ MPH.

In stock from the Challenger took on the 1,320 and produced a stock
time for me, uncorrected for altitude, of 13.3seconds @ 104 MPH. The Challenger R/T tips the scales, without driver and with a full tank of gas, at 4,055 pounds. I averaged 23.3 miles per gallon. With a K&N CAI the Challenger R/T turned in a time of 13.266 @ 104.87 MPH.

2011 Camaro 2SS( L99 A6).

Last weekend I was fortunate enough to spend a day with the 2011 Camaro SS. The model I tested for the day was a 2SS in blue with white rally stripes. Getting into the car I noticed the compacted view as compared to the Challenger, owing primarily to the Camaro's much more aggressive and chopped profile.
I am 6'2" tall and just around 240 pounds and had to take some time to adjust the very form hugging, comfortable and well built seat to allow me to sit uncramped and with sufficient visibility out of the front and side windows. Upon adjusting the mirrors I instantly noticed the constricted rear visibility using both the center rear mirror and turning. The Camaro's strong haunches and c pillars make for a huge blind spot that took careful readjustment of the mirrors to help reduce. The rear window is small and would take a deal of getting used to.
Cranking the engine I was met with a much deeper, more baratone rumble out of the 6.2L L99 engine than the 5.7L Hemi. The two main gauges are more busy and cluttered than the Challengers 4 gauges and the black background makes for fast refrence of speed, tach and gas level difficult. That being said the gauges are far more pleasing to the eye and interesting than the Challenger and are distinctively more retro in layout.

Leaving the lot I noticed the mellow, but restrained power of the SS's engine. At cruising levels the noise is deep and rich. Now you could cruise like that all day and never have a problem and hear any roar. Or..you could poke it with a stick, which I did. The Camaro pounded to 60 in just over 4.8 seconds (4.83 to be exact) and turned in an uncorrected 1/4 mile run of 13.28 seconds at 105 MPH.

Down low the Camaro seemed to produce a bit less power than the Hemi in the R/T Challenger. However, the midrange power band was incredible and a 60-100 sprint was accomplished in 7.1 seconds, vs. the Challengers 7.5 seconds, this combined with the driverless weight of 3920 pounds no doubt contributed to the marginally faster 1/4 and 0-60 times.

Handling was commanding and firmly planted. The Camaro was clearly superior to the Challenger, however the turning radius was slightly larger.

The center stack layout in the cabin was cluttered and overly complicated. The climate controls are awkwardly placed and lack refinement. The radio's lack of ability to be replaced with a higher quality aftermarket unit may be a problem for those wanting to upgrade the head unit. However, the sound out of the B.A. system was crisp and strong, so an aftermarket unit may be pointless. The high dash and hood combined with a strongly swept back windshield and roof made for a bunker like feeling that could grow old very quickly. Interior materials were a mixture of great and horrid, with hard ABS plastic abounding and large, useless empty spaces. The interior is pleasing to the eye, but could have used more careful planning.

The Camaro however did run from 100 to 150 fastest, and I feel very confident taking it up over 170. The HUD was useful but small, feeling more like a gimmicky gadget than a critical or extremely useful component.

I averaged, on my day with the Camaro, 19.9 MPG

2011 Mustang GT 5.0 (Auto 6 spd)
This is a whole new pony. The Kona Blue vehicle I tested had the red interior and Shaker 500 audio system. The interior was smaller than the Challenger but larger than the Camaro. Visibility was the best of the three, however some adjusting was needed for my knees to fit well beneath the large, thin rimmed wheel. The interior is well laid out and is much improved from the 2005-2009 Mustangs. The materials are very good and the build quality is the best of the three. However, the gauges were even more busy and difficult to read than the Camaro, but much more classic looking and the center fuel, etc gauges were easier to read than the multi-piece Camaro gauges.

Cranking the 5.0L engine I was met with a very european, smooth sound than a loud, lopey American V8. Power down low (less than 1600 RPM) was soft, but above 1700, when even partial pedal was applied, the engine snorted and roared, blasting the new Mustang to 60 in just 4.45 seconds and ran the 1/4 mile, uncorrected, in 12.82 seconds at 113 MPH. The top end power is incredible and pins you back in your seat and doesnt let up past 120 MPH, and was still accelerating fast past 155 where I let off. The Mustang was also the lightest with it being 3680 pounds with a full tank and without driver.

The ride was harsher due to the live rear end, but was by far the most nimble and quick of three, but felt less planted than the Camaro. The Mustang very much felt like it was just itching to break loose and go running, very much feeling like you had to to watch it carefully. However it is easy to handle, but care had to be taken.

The Mustang now feels like it is in the quality catagory with Audi and Volvo, and performs and feels like a M3 BMW. I would safely say that I no longer consider it close to a Muscle car, instead, closer to a world class contender, something I cannot in fair mind, say about the Camaro and Challenger.

On my day with the 5.0 I averaged 23.8 MPG.


Conclusion:

All three are great cars, however, of the three the Mustang was the fastest and felt the most advanced and nimble. The Camaro was by far the best in handling confidence, but not performance, but was the most unique in interior and exterior design. The Challenger was the roomiest and most comfortable for driving and long distance driving, I wouldnt wantto spend a great deal of time doing a long drive in either the Mustang or the Camaro.

The Challenger as I have it and tested was the cheapest at 31,585 and the Camaro the most expensive at over 36,000. The Mustang was 35,000.
In this drivers opinion, having spent quality time with all three, I rank them:

1: Mustang
2: Camaro
3: Challenger.

Lets bring on 2011 and continue the tests!!

[MaroSS]

Nice write up

[Bob Cosby]

Nice write-up.

How did you measure the 0-60 mph times? Also, just to be clear, you took 3 brand new cars to the drag strip? Was this on the same day?

Thanks.

[CamaroBelarus]

3920 sounds like a biggest wheels on?... Mistake, which will correct some perfomance times.

if ur rank is about perfomance, then it should be like:

1. Mustang, Camaro equal.
2. Challenger R/T
or
1. , Camaro, Mustang, Challenger Srt-8. Equal.
or
1. Camaro stick
2. Mustang stick
3. Challenger stick.

If its about driving DD
1. Camaro
2. Challenger
3. Mustang

If its about exterior

1.Camaro
2.Challenger

9.Mustang

I cant understand, even if mustang is better in perfomance with auto, why to place challenger after it, when u own it and chose it to buy... Its more comfortable, the WAY better looking, then mustang... Only cos of perfomance? Thats strange.


Anyway, thanks for an opinion!

[RedJewelSS]

i commend you for your honesty. most owners wouldnt rank their car behind its fiercest competitors.

[ViperTomcat]

Originally Posted by Bob Cosby

Nice write-up.

How did you measure the 0-60 mph times? Also, just to be clear, you took 3 brand new cars to the drag strip? Was this on the same day?

Thanks.

I own the Challenger, the Camaro was a buddies that he had just bought and the 5.0 is owned by my neighbor. The Camaro and Mustang are both only a week old.

The Camaro and Mustang drives were on Saturday and Sunday of the same weekend, with virtually no change in weather between the two.

The 0-60 times were timed with a radar gun synched to a electronic trip watch.

[chopss]

Very nice write up

[spyderbuddy]

Vipertomcat great writeup, glad for some honest opinions.
personlly I like the cars in this order:

Camaro
Challanger
a
n
y
t
h
i
n
g

e
l
s
e

Mustang

[Michael_Js]

Well written, thanks!
Haven't driven the other two, but your comments about them seem to be in line with what I've seen, heard, and read. I think Ford has done a great job with the '11 Mustangs! Very good competition...

[1bad65]

Nice objective post. Thanks.

[Stew]

Good writeup! One thing I noticed about the 11 Mustnag GT tfrom your writeup with the 10 I drove is that eagerness to just want to go. I really liked that and just imagine it is even greater with the new motor hardware 3 cars with 3 different and big personalities for sure!

[ViperTomcat]

If I can give a proper analogy:

A Challenger is a Clydesdale Draft Horse. Powerful, large and heavy, takes a bit to get moving but once it is..look out, its fast. Often overlooked as a speed contender because of size, but it can and will surprise you.

A Camaro is a American Quarter Horse. Good all around, fast and doesnt need alot of prodding to get going in a hurry, overall very well balanced.

A Mustang is a Arabian Stallion. Mildly crazy, hard to control, but when reigned in, mind numbingly fast and nimble, but a bit twitchy.

[Huggerorange73]

What an excellent write up!!!!

Mad props to you

If I didn't buy a Camaro, a plum crazy Challenger would have been the next choice.

[Dakota Kid]

Originally Posted by ViperTomcat

If I can give a proper analogy:

A Challenger is a Clydesdale Draft Horse. Powerful, large and heavy, takes a bit to get moving but once it is..look out, its fast. Often overlooked as a speed contender because of size, but it can and will surprise you.

A Camaro is a American Quarter Horse. Good all around, fast and doesnt need alot of prodding to get going in a hurry, overall very well balanced.

A Mustang is a Arabian Stallion. Mildly crazy, hard to control, but when reigned in, mind numbingly fast and nimble, but a bit twitchy.

Great job on the write up, and on your analogy. I have to agree with what you posted, having driven all three and owning an SS.

I just did a long, long trip and at times I wished I had the Challenger (more room and more comfort).