2011 Ford Mustang GT vs. 2010 Chevy Camaro SS Comparison Test

It's not just 2011 Ford Mustang GT vs. 2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS.

It's Mark Donohue's Z/28 and Parnelli Jones' Boss 302 bashing through the Trans-Am season finale at Riverside in 1969. It's Jungle Jim Liberman's Camaro facing Raymond Beadle's "Blue Max" Mustang in a Funny Car match race on a Saturday night in the summer of 1970. It's Super Cobra Jet, ZL-1, SVO, IROC, Yenko, Shelby, 1LE, Saleen, Bill "Grumpy" Jenkins, Bob Glidden, Lee Shepherd, Mickey Thompson, Smokey Yunick, John Force and a billion impromptu stoplight-to-stoplight grand prix races.

It's the longest sustained automotive rivalry in American history and it has just boiled over. Again.

The latest development in this ongoing slugfest is the introduction of the 2011 Ford Mustang GT with its new DOHC 32-valve all-aluminum 5.0-liter V8. Thanks to the new 5.0 V8's 412-horsepower rating and a new six-speed manual, the Mustang GT is now a solid match-up with the recently reincarnated, 426-hp Camaro SS.

To some, what's missing here is the Dodge Challenger R/T or Challenger SRT8. But the Challenger is really in a different class. It's much bigger, nowhere near as raw-nerved and doesn't necessarily attract the same sort of buyer. And prior experience means we know it would finish 3rd in an ultimately unfair comparison.

So this one is heads-up — mano-a-mano. It's IL's $35,425 long-term 2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS against a $37,600 2011 Ford Mustang GT yanked straight out of Ford's freshest crop of vehicles. Both have manual transmissions with six forward gears, but only the Camaro has optional Brembo front disc brakes.

Detached objectivity? That's for figuring out whether the Camry or Accord is a better lease deal. Camaro vs. Mustang is a war fought across the landscape of our vehicular souls. It's how these cars feel that matters as much as what sort of numbers they generate.

The Camaro and Mustang have never been more different from each other than they are now. And yet they've never been more evenly matched. Go figure.

The Big Pedal on the Right
There are those who will judge this match purely on drag strip performance. OK, fine. The Camaro SS is still quicker than the Mustang GT. But not by much.

On the quarter-mile at Auto Club Speedway in lush, parklike Fontana, California, IL's long-term Camaro SS whomped to 60 mph from a standstill in just 5.1 seconds with the traction control turned off (4.8 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip). The full quarter-mile went by in 13.1 seconds at 110.4 mph.

Our red Mustang GT (on all-season Pirelli P Zero Nero tires) matched the Camaro SS's blast to 60 mph by hitting that speed in an identical 5.1 seconds from a standstill with the traction control turned off (4.8 seconds with 1 foot of rollout). But the quarter-mile took another two-tenths to complete with a slightly lower trap speed, 13.3 seconds at 107.3 mph.

That's a razor-thin advantage for the Camaro and, just to throw in some additional ambiguity, we also tested another Mustang GT (this one in blue and wearing summer tires), which ripped to 60 mph in 4.8 seconds and blitzed the 1,320 feet in 13 seconds at 110.6 mph. That's the kind of razor's edge that can be measured in microns.

Yeah, the straight-line performance is agonizingly close (and apparently varies car to car), but that doesn't mean the power plants of the Camaro SS and Mustang GT are clones of each other. With its advantage of 1.2 liters in displacement and old-school pushrod valvetrain, the Camaro's 6.2-liter LS3 V8 makes big chunks of torque down low in its power band (it peaks at 420 pound-feet at 4,600 rpm, but also makes plenty right off idle), and then pulls strong until it starves for air near its 6,400-rpm redline. It's a throwback engine with great bottom-end grunt and a pretty good top end.

In contrast, the Mustang GT's 5.0-liter V8 puts its deep-breathing 32 valves controlled by dual overhead cams and variable valve timing to work, starting off a bit soft at the bottom end (all its 390 lb-ft of torque aren't available until 4,250 rpm), then pulls mightily through the midrange until it's screaming at its 7,000-rpm redline. This is a 21st-century V8, combining pretty good bottom-end thrust with a great top-end thrill zone.

Forward Motion
Both cars run six-speed manual transmissions, but where the Camaro SS uses the Tremec TR6060 (the updated version of the old BorgWarner T-56), the Mustang is equipped with the new Getrag MT-82. This is all to the Mustang's advantage, as the new Getrag shifts more precisely and more easily, and its 1st-to-4th fuel-sipping "skip shift" mode is less irritating than the Tremec's.

Beyond this, the Getrag box stacks its gear ratios closely, as 5th is a direct-drive 1:1 ratio, while 6th goes deep into overdrive with a tall 0.65 ratio overdrive. It's all very well suited to the 5.0-liter Ford V8's personality and talents. In contrast, the Camaro's Tremec box has wider-spaced gears, with 5th a 0.84 overdrive and 6th gear even taller than the Mustang box with a 0.57 overdrive. Further pushing the Mustang's gearing advantage is a set of 3.73:1 final-drive gears, while the Camaro is geared notably taller with 3.45:1 cogs.

Even though the Mustang takes more technique to launch or to run around a road course, it's easier to keep its engine boiling in its sweet spot because the transmission and gearing are so much more effective at this than the Camaro's. Conversely, that massive overdrive gear ratio and tall final drive in the Camaro mean that the torque-rich Chevy V8 is barely turning 1,500 rpm at 65 mph, which should pay off in fuel economy.

Even so, the slightly smaller displacement of the Ford V8 helps the Mustang pull out a win in fuel economy. The EPA rates the Ford at 17 mpg in the city and 26 mpg on the highway compared to the Chevy's 16 mpg and 24 mpg performance. (Your numbers may vary with the rate at which you incinerate tires.)

That Big Round Thing in Front of You
The most obvious difference between the Camaro's and Mustang's respective chassis is out back where the Chevy has a multilink independent suspension while the Ford retains the same sort of solid rear axle that underpinned the chariots of the Roman Legion.

Ford has never tuned the Mustang's suspension better than on the '11 GT. There's a certain eagerness to how the Mustang reacts to steering inputs, as if the car just can't wait to move. Even with the traction control engaged, the Mustang GT is always dancing, ready to pounce and excited to test the limits of its P245/45R19 Pirelli P Zeroes. It's flat fun.

As well tuned as the Mustang's solid axle is, however, it's still not an independent system. The Mustang's rear end takes its time to calm down after knocking against a pothole or bump, and this sort of skittishness can be unnerving. On the rugged freeway surfaces of Southern California, the Mustang's rear end never quite has a chance to settle in completely. It's as if the coil springs are always working back there and they want you to know it.

Meanwhile the Camaro SS feels as if its summer-spec 245/45R20 Pirelli P Zeroes are sutured to the pavement with steel cables. The independent rear suspension produces a poised, comfortable ride the Mustang can't match, and deals with pavement hiccups almost casually. If the Mustang feels like it's skipping over the road, the Camaro feels like it's a smothering steamroller. The steering doesn't have the same giddy, light feel that you sense in the Mustang, but it's precise and quick enough. It's reassuring where the Mustang is entertaining.

On the slalom course, the Mustang GT waltzes through at a respectable 65.9 mph while the Camaro goes full blitz at 68.2 mph. At the skid pad the Mustang orbits at 0.87g, while the Camaro is slightly better at 0.89g. The Camaro may not win the argument when it comes to the sense of subjective engagement by the driver, but its handling performance is undeniably impressive.

The Brembo-equipped Camaro dominates the braking zone with consistent 111-foot stops from 60 mph. The best that the Mustang can do on its all-weather rubber is 117 feet. We should note, however, that the blue Mustang GT with the optional Brembos and summer tires did the job in just 109 feet.

Everything Else
It's been four years since the fifth-generation Camaro appeared in concept form, so familiarity has dulled the impact of its looks. We're all used to it now. But the Camaro is truly the most aggressively styled production car available for less than six figures. And, except for maybe the 1953 Corvette, GM has never had a production car that looked more like its concept car progenitor.

Problem is, the Camaro's showcar appearance produces some showcar compromises. The roof is so low that even not-so-tall drivers have to make sure they don't whack their heads against it while getting in and out. Inside the cabin there are blind spots to the rear quarters that are big enough to hide the national debt, and the A-pillars are so fat you have to look around them to find a corner's apex. And the list only gets longer from there: The side mirrors are too small, the tiny trunk opening is hilariously misshapen and the doors are thick and heavy enough to knock a hole in your garage's wall.

The Mustang might not pack the Camaro's visual firepower, but it's an easy car with which to live. Outward visibility is good for a car with a sloped rear window, the roof is tall enough to make ingress/egress issues irrelevant, the trunk opens down to the bumper and the doors each weigh less than a linebacker. The Mustang's outside mirrors have convex elements to mitigate blind spots, but they give up too much reflective acreage — the sub-mirrors should be optional.

This red Mustang had been equipped with the "California Special" package that includes a billetlike grille, restyled bumper cover, side scoops and some tape stripes. But when you order the package, it deletes the iconic "5.0" fender badges. What's the point of buying a 5.0 without those? Skip the "Cliché Special" stuff and go for the clean Mustang GT.

Inside the cabin, the Mustang truly pulls ahead of the Camaro. The interior is, by far, the Camaro's weakest element. It's a riot of gimmick styling and cheeseball plastic in there and everything feels less than satisfying to the touch. It's easy to imagine standing there at GM styling and listening to the executives as material quality is sacrificed on the altar of showcar design. Maybe if the dash design had been simplified they could have splurged for some better-grained surfaces? Maybe not.

While the appearance of the Mustang's interior is nowhere near perfect, it's clearly better. The instrumentation is all grouped in front of the driver (the Camaro puts its ancillary gauges on the center console) and can be quickly scanned, the materials feel better and every switch is nicely weighted. The contours of the Mustang's front seats also fit you better, too. The bling-blingy-blingier chrome instrument surrounds should be toned down, but otherwise it's a straightforward cockpit.

Through the decades neither the Camaro nor the Mustang has ever had a usable backseat. They still don't.

Picking Ponies
The numbers say the 2011 Mustang GT squeaks out a thin win in this comparison test. But it's a win based mostly on the personal preferences of the testers. Slot some guys in with different taste — who value ride quality and deep torque wells over quick reflexes and a zinging power plant — and the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS wins. It's that close. And they're that good.

Both do their legends proud. But right now, it's the Mustang legend that gets rubbed with the better polish.

The manufacturers provided Edmunds these vehicles for the purposes of evaluation.

Top 8 Features

Assessing a car's list of features gives you a clearer picture of what kind of value you're getting for your money. But rather than focus on the usual comfort and convenience items that might be important to the usual sedan buyer, we've emphasized equipment that affects the way a car drives and its usefulness for serious driving adventures.

Key:
S: Standard
O: Optional
O*: Optional but not equipped on test vehicle
N/A: Not Available

Bluetooth: Virtually everyone has a cell phone and virtually every state bans normal, phone-in-hand cell phone use while driving. Connecting the phone through a car's sound system allows for hands-free conversations.

Brembo front disc brakes: These are fast cars, and high-quality brakes are critical. Both offer the option of Brembo's famously effective front discs.

Complete instrumentation: Serious drivers like to monitor the serious work their vehicles are doing. Instrumentation lets a driver discover a problem before matters get critical.

Dual-zone climate controls: No one expects the driver and front-seat passenger to agree on exactly the right cabin temperature. With dual-zone climate controls they don't have to agree.

Heated front seats: On cold days there's nothing better than some toasty buns.

Navigation system: These are performance cars, but most of their owners will use them every day for everything from commuting to cross-country travel. For many buyers a GPS-based navigation system is a critical element in getting the most enjoyment and utility out of their car.

Summer performance tires: For ultimate performance, tires built for dry weather are best. While compromised all-season tires are normally standard, the option of more aggressive rubber is important for muscle coupe buyers.

Sunroof: Coupe buyers often seek some sunshine. While a sunroof isn't offered on the Mustang, a fixed-glass roof panel is.

Data and Charts

Dimensions
Engine & Transmission Specifications
Warranty Information
Performance Information

Dimensions

Engine & Transmission Specifications

Warranty

Performance

Editors' Evaluations

Evaluation - Drive
Evaluation - Ride
Evaluation - Design
Evaluation - Function

Evaluation - Drive

Evaluation - Ride








Evaluation - Design









Evaluation - Function

Final Rankings and Scoring Explanation

Personal Rating (2.5%): Purely subjective. After the test, each participating editor was asked to rank the vehicles in order of preference based on which he or she would buy if money were no object.

Recommended Rating (2.5%): After the test, each participating editor was asked to rank the vehicles in order of preference based on which he or she thought would be best for the typical buyer looking for a V8-powered performance coupe with a muscle car heritage.

Evaluation Score (20%): Each participating editor ranked every vehicle based on a comprehensive 20-point evaluation. The evaluation covered everything from exterior design to cupholders. Scoring was calculated on a point system, and the scores listed are averages based on all test participants' evaluations.

Feature Content (15%): For this category, the editors picked the top 8 features they thought would be most beneficial to the consumer shopping in this segment. For each vehicle, the score was based on the number of actual features it had versus the total possible (8). Standard and optional equipment were taken into consideration.

Performance Testing (20%): Each vehicle was run through Inside Line's regimen of standardized instrumented tests: acceleration (0-60 and quarter-mile), braking (60-0), 600-foot slalom and 200-foot-diameter skid pad. Points were awarded as a percentage of the best overall performance in each test.

Fuel Consumption (20%): Using the EPA combined fuel-economy ratings as the basis for the fuel-consumption comparison (or an estimate based on EPA city and highway fuel-economy scores in the case of a new car), we awarded a score of 100 points to the more fuel-efficient vehicle. The less efficient vehicles were scored proportionally based on how close it came to the best-performing vehicle's fuel consumption.

Price (20%): The numbers listed were the result of a simple percentage calculation based on the less expensive vehicle in the comparison test. Using the "as tested" prices of the actual evaluation vehicles, the less expensive vehicle received a score of 100, with the remaining vehicle receiving a lesser score based on how much each one costs.