2010 Chevy Camaro SS vs. 2009 Dodge Challenger vs. 2010 Ford Mustang GT

46 messages, Last post on Nov 05, 2009 at 12:58 PM

You are in the Chevrolet Camaro Forum. Your Host is claires

What is this discussion about? Chevrolet Camaro, Dodge Challenger, Ford GT, Car Comparisons, Coupe

2010 Chevy Camaro SS vs. 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T vs. 2010 Ford Mustang GT - All three cars are available with the same performance goodies for less money, but it wouldn't have changed the outcome. (more)

Outline

Messages Page 3 of 5: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; Prev; Next; Last

#17 of 46 A very BIASED article. by zztop3 May 24, 2009 (7:57 am)
Is the point of this review to put one more nail in Chrysler's coffin? This is such an obviously misleading article. You test the TOP of the Line SS and GT alongside the MIDDLE of the Line RT so of course the Challenger will come out last. This test should have used the TOP of the Line SRT The expression 'apples to oranges' describes this article. The Camaro article used 3 of it's 9 Paragraphs (1/3 of the entire article) devoted to the SS's Engine whereas it simply listed the HP/TQ of the Challenger RT's engine. The Camaro SS is a 426 HP car and the Challenger SRT8 is a 425 HP car yet you chose to use the 376 HP Challenger RT. By basing your test on the RT instead of the flagship SRT, readers of your article researching these cars are never informed that an SRT trim level exists nor are they made aware of the fact that the SRT is much more than just a bigger motor. The SRT is a totally different car than any of the other Challenger trim levels. Such things as Brembo brakes, 1" lower,20" wheels,different suspension,brake-lock differential,etc,etc. This article showed me that Edmunds is useless for researching new cars and has an obvious bias towards certain manufacturers. Why did you leave out the Pontiac G8 GXP? Replies to this message: nkeen (May 24, 2009 6:26 pm) kingd33 (Jul 05, 2009 12:50 pm) yh8myss (Jul 07, 2009 11:40 am) iwant12 (Jul 07, 2009 1:44 pm) and 3 more... lmag81 (Jul 19, 2009 2:50 pm)
#18 of 46 Re: A very BIASED article. [zztop3] by nkeen May 24, 2009 (6:26 pm)
Replying to: zztop3 (May 24, 2009 7:57 am) I test drove an SRT8 with manual transmission a few weeks ago. I was impressed by the refinement and ride of the car and can imagine it being a stable platform at 140MPH + sitting as it does on a legacy Mercedes E class platform. I liked most of the interior, especially the seat comfort and the quality feel of the HVAC controls. However, on arriving back at the dealership the car had started to make a nasty grinding noise which seemed to come from the rear wheel assembly. Not good. Also, I didn't think much of the hard door trim, and allowing rear seat access from the passenger side only is unacceptable. The hood latch was made of a non-stainless steel which had already started to rust -- an aesthetic issue but one that puts the buyer off in these days of jewel-like quality expectations in new car assembly and finish. An industry study reported in the press yesterday claimed that Chrysler had only two viable vehicles -- the Viper and the Jeep Wrangler. The Challenger could be a third given a much more rigorous striving for quality and finish.
#20 of 46 VS by mustangtoby Jun 07, 2009 (10:09 am)
I do believe this is a very biased test. The cars were chosen for cost comparison, but use performance for grading. Bang for the buck is what they're striving for. Them Mustang has always outsould the camero because it is cheaper. And for a couple of thousand dollars, can be made faster. If this test would've included the Shelby and SRT8, the camero would've been dead last. And on another note, why do these write ups inclulde points for styling? It is purely opinion, and points are awarded on the opinion of the author? If it was my opinion on styling, the Challenger would win, and the camero wouldn't even qualify for the compitition because it's so ugly. And this is coming from a very die hard Ford guy. Style is all opinion, can't be judged on a numeric scale! Replies to this message: alman08 (Jun 09, 2009 9:02 am)
#21 of 46 Re: VS [mustangtoby] by alman08 Jun 09, 2009 (9:02 am)
Replying to: mustangtoby (Jun 07, 2009 10:09 am) W ell said about the opinion on styling. I wish every car magazine would just drop that category (and the got to have it factor) in its comparo.
#22 of 46 Why the gripes about price? by stovebolter Jul 03, 2009 (4:22 am)
It seems there are a number of complaints about the "top of the line" Camaro being tested against the Mustang GT and Challenger R/T, but has anyone complaining actually looked at the as-tested pricing? The Camaro is listed as the cheapest in this test (though Edmunds gave top points to the Mustang in this category, for some unknown reason). You can make a good case for the Mustang as the winner of this test based on its overall combination of performance, or by looking at its price with only performance options considered, but as a whole, these three vehicles were priced very closely and appropriately. Don't cry foul just because your horse didn't win, it was a fair fight.
#23 of 46 Charger? by lightninmcqeen Jul 03, 2009 (9:26 pm)
This totally blew my mind with the obvious bias and mix matched trim levels! Also, the Mustang has been out for years now and has a million variants and lets see the Camaro is so new, I have yet to see one. I see about 100 Mustangs a day mostly (driven mostly by chicks) and about 3 Challengers because they're too pricey. I'd like to see a "top of the line test" including the Charger and Challenger SRT8's and include a class for family friendly and practical usefulness ...unless this is just for cars that sit in a garage under a tarp.
#24 of 46 Re: A very BIASED article. [zztop3] by kingd33 Jul 05, 2009 (12:50 pm)
Replying to: zztop3 (May 24, 2009 7:57 am) this isnt about wat company is the best the majority of any reputable car magazines does test based on the cost of cars and the relevance of the cars (i.e. 2+2 coupes that went at it back in the day) and the sad thing is that the srt8 is till slower than the ss and it cost round 45grand compared to the ss's 33grand and they spent those 3 out of 9 paragraghs on its iengine because its the best of the three. Chevy is the winner on their article get over it. Replies to this message: yh8myss (Jul 07, 2009 11:40 am) iwant12 (Jul 07, 2009 1:44 pm) yh8myss (Jul 17, 2009 12:24 pm) and 2 more... lmag81 (Jul 19, 2009 2:50 pm)
#25 of 46 Re: In the flesh... [wjtinatl] by tayl0rd Jul 06, 2009 (8:55 am)
Replying to: wjtinatl (Apr 03, 2009 9:51 am) ... I'll hold off for the upcoming Boss 5.0... Mustang fans have been "holding off" for the "Boss 5.0" since 1994. Here we are 15 years later and it's still nowhere to be seen. I think it's a pretty safe bet that that's not ever going to happen, especially not with the new mileage standards coming around the bend. Replies to this message: explorerx4 (Jul 06, 2009 3:53 pm)
#26 of 46 Re: In the flesh... [tayl0rd] by explorerx4 Jul 06, 2009 (3:53 pm)
Replying to: tayl0rd (Jul 06, 2009 8:55 am) mustang fans are 'holding off'? not sure i get that one.