Skip to main content

2016 Camaro SS vs 2016 Mustang GT - Road Test



If you've come here for a new instrument head-to-head test, I'm afraid you'll be disappointed. Although, for the sake of those who do want numbers, here they are from the most recent Car and Driver comparison test:

2016 Camaro SS 2016 Mustang GT
0-30 mph 1.6 s 1.7 s
0-60 mph 3.9 s 4.4 s
0-100 mph 8.9 s 10.5 s
1/4 mile 12.3 s @ 116 mph 13.0 s @ 112 mph
braking 70-0 mph 147 ft 157 ft
300-ft dia.skidpad 0.98 g 0.94 g
610-ft slalom 43.9 mph 43.3 mph

For some reason, Car and Driver tested an 8-speed auto Camaro and a 6-speed manual Mustang, so figure you'll lose a tenth or two with a manual; the gap is still clear. The new Camaro SS out accelerates, out brakes, and out grips the new (now almost two years old) Mustang. And I'm not here to tell you otherwise. If you're reading this, chances are, you've already read plenty of other reviews so I will try to give a different perspective. The perspective of a guy who owns this type of car, enjoys it the way it was intended to be enjoyed, but also daily drives it.

I had an opportunity to test drive a new +Chevrolet Camaro SS the other day as well as a new +Ford Mustang GT. Both cars were manual but, while the SS was a loaded 2SS model, the GT was a no-options base model. And by no options, I mean no options - not one. The Camaro, on the other hand, had plenty of options, including, crucially, the Magnetic shocks and dual-mode performance exhaust. I decided to take this opportunity to write my impressions of both cars. Don't consider this a foregone conclusion because of the disparity in options. 


Interior


 

Let's first address the elephant in the room; Camaro visibility. I came in expecting to hate it, especially after hearing that it's worse than the last generation, which I have driven a couple of times. To be honest, it wasn't that bad. I think it is very overblown. Sure, sight lines are tight and if you like a lot of space, you will probably feel claustrophobic because you can't see as much of outside as.. uh.. normal cars. But the parts that are blocked are not typically what you need to see to drive properly. Imagine having your sun visor down and then imagine stretching it across your windshield. Rotate it and put it against the side windows too. You now have a rough idea - the Camaro is a little bit better than that. You won't see as much of the sky, but unless you plan on taking off, that shouldn't be much of a concern.




As far as seeing what you need to see, it's mostly all there. The main bad blind spot is over the shoulder but if you have your mirrors setup properly, you shouldn't need to see much anyway and most people now get blind spot monitoring, cross traffic alert, etc. anyway, which is available (not that I like to rely on those features instead). The A pillar is thick but there are plenty of new cars like that now so it's not much different. When it all comes together, it's pretty bad, but the point is, if you think you might get claustrophobic, it is bad. But don't dismiss it because you think you won't be able to see out of it. You can still see what you need to see. It isn't ideal but far from a deal breaker in my opinion.

With that said, the Mustang feels like a cathedral in comparison. I have never sat in a Mustang before and thought: "Look at all the space!" But it feels very spacious relative to the Camaro, despite interior dimensions looking closer on paper. Although, like I said, it isn't a deal breaker for me, the Mustang interior is easily the better place to be. Interior design is nicer, too, and more cohesive. And inside and out, I feel like the Mustang manages to better capture retro design cues from classic Mustangs while looking more modern. Mustang +1.


Power

With that out of the way, the first thing you notice - assuming you're eager to start them car up like me instead of playing with gizmos - is the noise. Press the start button, and the Camaro roars into life in a way that belies a completely stock car. It's hard to miss when you startup. It's hard to miss when you get into it. It is very easy to miss, though, when you're just cruising under light load and the dual mode exhaust isn't shouting. The Mustang, on the other hand, doesn't have the same vocal range. It's more or less as quiet as the Camaro under light load so you aren't giving up much, if any, in that department but get into it, and there's a very noticeable difference. The beauty, here, is the dual mode exhaust, which means the noise will never get tiring because it quiets down when you're taking it easy. Not that V8 noise should ever get tiring...

And there is power everywhere in the rev range. In true Chevy V8 fashion, power comes on down low and stays, relentlessly, throughout the rev range. The Mustang never failed to please when you put your foot down, with plenty of power that is very linear and the noise is a little more deep and guttural (albeit, relatively quiet) than the Camaro, which is accompanied by a faint wail. But it doesn't quite have the same low end shove that you get at low engine speeds with the 2-valve, big displacement, Chevy small block. Camaro +1


The Drive


 

Surprisingly, driving the Camaro is where things actually disappointed. Before you curse or dismiss this review, hear me out. Based on what I've read, I feared (and was expecting) to leave feeling blown away, contemplating whether I should trade in. I had extremely high expectations. That was problem number one. Problem number two: I didn't get a chance to take the car out on a nice back road or, even better, the track, where I have no doubt the car would shine.

There was plenty to like. The noise is awesome like I said. You can't complain about the power. The car is stiff, but never punishing, and very composed. Body roll and movements in general are far better controlled compared to my '12 Boss 302, let alone the base GT I drove. It has great turn in and is very responsive. It seems to put power down really well. I tried a very aggressive throttle roll-in in 1st gear and the car executed beautifully. A lot of things seemed text book perfect during the drive. What went wrong, then?




It provided basically no additional reward over driving the Mustang, aside from more V8 noise. In fact, it was a little less entertaining. The engine, for example, feels very lazy at street speeds, barely having to rev above idle to get you moving and never needing or, more importantly, feeling like it wants to. Don't get me wrong, I love a good ole' low-effort V8. But the eagerness of Ford's 5.0 litre Coyote is more fun, especially here on the street where four or four and a half seconds to 60 mph makes no difference. Both will take off with satisfying grunt, both will sound good, and both will have no trouble reaching any speed you demand with your right foot. And the Mustang isn't exactly light on mid-range power, either. The car could easily cruise around town in 5th gear at speeds of 40-50 km/h and never break a sweat (don't do it). The Camaro otherwise also feels extremely unstressed in day to day driving. You get very little sensation of speed. Body movements are extremely limited at a reasonable pace on the street. The compromised visibility doesn't help. It dulls the sensation of speed even more by limiting feedback from outside.

On the other hand, the Mustang is noticeably more comfortable, a big advantage on the street. The engine is a lot more eager to rev, with much shorter gears. In fact, the Mustang only has one over drive gear, with 5th being 1:1, but the Camaro has two, with 4th being 1:1. The Mustang's soft suspension and airy cabin, both relative to the Camaro, make it feel quicker and, combined with the more eager engine, it's more entertaining. The trunk is also another huge advantage, where the Camaro has a narrow long space that's less than two thirds the size of the Mustang. Mustang +1


Conclusion

Does the Mustang win 2:1, then? Not exactly.. Although these cars have been competing for years, sell in comparable numbers, have the same number of doors, seats, engine cylinders, gears, and driven wheels, and despite being close in performance and size, and even cost comparable amounts of money, they are very different in their current generations. The Camaro was optimized for the track. You can tell by the compromise in the trunk. The rear shock towers appear to be tilted further inward, to better transfer loads towards the centre of the car and less up/down. The battery is in the back. The engine is placed further back about 3/4 of the way behind the front axle, whereas the Mustang's engine is about 1/2 way - sitting basically on top of the axle. This is evident in the Mustang having shorter wheelbase but more interior room.

But as a result, everything that I "complained" about in the Camaro would make sense on a track. The lazy engine means there is a lot of power regardless of rpm and gear. The long gears mean you don't have to shift as often. The stiffer and more buttoned down suspension means better tire wear, stability, and performance. The Mustang, on the other hand, would feel relatively heavy, low on grip, and sloppy. You may not notice if you drive the Mustang alone. It is a very capable and composed car. But drive them back to back on a track, and I guarantee you, you will want out of the Mustang and into the Camaro. The Camaro also has coolers for all drivetrain components - engine oil, transmission, and differential. The Mustang only has an engine oil cooler.

The conclusion here is that the two cars serve very different purposes. If you just want a fun, V8 coupe for the street, storming a good back road, a nice Sunday drive, or even a couple High Performance Driving School (HPDS) or lapping days here and there, do NOT buy the test numbers. The airy, better looking, and more comfortable interior of the Mustang plus the relative practicality make it a much better street car and, base cars or comparably equipped, it's cheaper to boot. Plus, the lower grip and body motions will provide a much better car to learn in. Cross country trip? I bet the Mustang would be sublime, equally comfortable cruising for hours or letting you enjoy all the back country and coastal roads you want. If you get the Camaro and you're planning to ever take a road trip in it with your better half, measure your suit cases and map out the trunk. You may be able to only fit a suitcase and a half back there..

But if you are planning on frequent track events, walk away from the Ford dealer. Go to Chevy, they'll happily give you a Camaro SS in exchange for some of your money. It's a better track car. And forget about the Mustang performance pack. It isn't enough. Why else would Ford stop calling it the Track Pack and switch to Performance Pack (PP)? I test drove a current  S550 Mustang with the Performance Pack and it is not enough (alone) for someone who does more than a couple track days a year. Sure, if you get the Camaro, I have no doubt you'll find weak points and start planning modifications. Every car has weaknesses, even race prepped cars. The difference is that you'll find weaknesses a lot sooner in the Mustang. The PP is very good if you go drive a Mustang GT without it and think: "it's a perfect car, I just wish it had a little more edge." Or, if you're like me - a Mustang guy who wants to track the car because it provides a great upgrade and a much better starting point. Otherwise, save yourself the premium and leave the box unchecked as it will make the Mustang a better, more comfortable street car.




I am a Mustang guy. I would take the Mustang. I wish I could leave it at that, but objectively, it isn't as track ready out of the box as the Camaro. It has an excellent chassis and provides a great starting point towards a formidable track acar, with vast aftermarket support and even great factory-backed upgrades from Ford Racing (stay tuned for a post on how I'd spec a new Mustang GT with Ford upgrades!). But if you want minimal or no modifications, the Camaro SS is the one to get. Their trim names could not have been more spot-on than they are now; the Mustang GT is truly a world class Grand Tourer but the Camaro SS is the one for Super Sport .


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Michelin Pilot Super Sports vs Firestone Firehawk Indy 500 - Street Review

I've been a huge fan of Michelin PSS tires and exclusively bought them for the Mustang over the last four years. So how did I end up here? This year, I was hugely interested in trying an "R-comp" tire. I had my eyes set on Bridgestone Potenza RE-71R's for two simple reasons: price and reputation. They seem like they're easily the most affordable (from a big brand) R-comp tire and combine that with a reputation for having tons of grip, it was an easy top contender. I had my concerns, though. For one, I'm told and have read that they are an autox tire, not really designed for high speed, pressure, and temps associated with open track. For another, the Mustang is a heavy car (as far as track cars are concerned) being roughly 3,800 lb. (including driver), which will amplify the unwanted open track loads. Combine that with the fact that I drive a good amount on the street during the summer, and I was very worried that they wouldn't last more than a handful of…

The New Shelby GT500 Is Coming in Two Weeks

If you've been paying attention in 2018, you probably already know that a brand new S550 Mustang Shelby GT500 is coming this year. And there is good reason to believe that the 2019 North American Auto Show (often referred to as the Detroit Auto Show) in less than two weeks will host the debut of the GT500. Why the 2019 Detroit Auto Show? It's one of the biggest auto shows for Ford. Ford decided to reveal its Ford GT at the same show three years ago in 2015, and also threw in the current Shelby GT350R and the current F-150 Raptor for good measure.

The Shelby GT500 has already been confirmed by Ford and teased in a couple of pictures and videos. Why is the GT500 significant? The first Shelby GT500 was a 1967 model and it was developed with help from the legend himself, Carroll Shelby. Because of Shelby's personal involvement in racing at the time, the original Shelby GT500 was actually meant to be a track monster, not only a straight line car. It used a a modified version o…

Michelin PSS vs Firestone Indy 500 - Track Review

A couple of weeks ago, I posted my first impressions of Michelin's PSS vs Firestone Firehawk Indy 500 tires. I've run PSS's for several years on the Boss, but I'm trying the Indy 500's for the first time. In short, I was worried about the narrower tires (I was running 285/35/18 PSS but could only find the Indy 500 in 275/35/18) and tread squirm, but I was happy with them up to that point just driving on the street. I had the chance to drive on them for three track days now. So what were they like? After my first session, they made an impression that basically persisted for the rest of track sessions on them. Phenomenal, unmatched value. Now, if value is something that stands out above all else, it typically means the compromise between qualities you want and those you don't is less than ideal, but the value is attractive. This is no different. I'll start with the bad, which really boil down to two: ultimate grip and grip longevity.

Grip is noticeably lowe…

The S209 is a big turbo wide-body WRX STI

A Subaru WRX STI is a very familiar car by now. Partially because it's very successful and capable, but partially because its engine and hp has been more or less unchanged for about 15 years in North America. It came out in 2004 with a 4 cylinder 2.5 litre turbocharged boxer engine making 300 hp. Today, the standard issue WRX STI is still powered by a version of that same engine making all of 305 hp, a measly 5 hp increase in two redesigns over 15 years. People have been complaining and, it turns out, Subaru has been listening.


Enter the S209. It is based on the Japanese market only S208 developed with Subaru Tecnica International (STI). It still uses the same North American EJ25 2.5 litre engine, but it's all grown up now with forged rods and pistons, and a bigger turbo (bigger turbos make everything better). In this case, it seems like the housing is the same, but HKS increases the compressor wheel by 5 mm to 65 mm and turbine by 3 mm to 56 mm. That has allowed Subaru to tu…

Can Telemetry Explain Schumacher's Talent?

With Michael Schumacher's recent fantastic news that he is no longer bedridden, I figured it would be a great opportunity to share one of my absolute favourite videos about him. I stumbled across this video last year and immediately bookmarked it. It includes bits from interviews with various F1 drivers, including Schumacher himself and team mate Johnny Herbert. But my favourite part of the video is when they compare telemetry between Schumacher and Herbert.

The telemetry clearly explains where Schumacher is saving (lap) time and how exactly his talent and skills translate to better (and ultimately faster) driving. His talent is even more impressive when you consider the lack of active throttle mapping in modern F1 cars and the myriad of improvements made to driveability. Watch below to see for yourself.


What I love about this video is that I found Jonathan's Palmer analysis of Schumacher's telemetry to be absolutely true when applied to my driving on track.

SPOILER ALERT…

Rejoice: The 2020 Shelby GT500 Could Get A manual!

I posted about the new Shelby GT500 on here, DriveTribe, my Facebook, and my Instagram (you can read about all the tech and capabilities that Ford stuffed into the GT500 in my GT500 reveal post here). Perhaps the biggest surprise (and only disappointment) was that the car wouldn't be offered with a manual. Instead, it would come with a 7-speed dual-clutch auto made by Tremec.

If there is one common theme across all platforms where I posted, though, it's that people want a manual and it looks like Ford is going to be listening very closely. Prior to the reveal, I
predicted that this was going to be the first GT500 to offer an automatic, but I figured it would be the 10-speed automatic available on the Mustang GT and I never expected Ford to drop the manual as an option.

According to a report by Road & Track, the reason why Ford went for this transmission instead of the torque-converter automatic was because it offered quicker shifts on track, suggesting that the 10-speed a…

Contact Me

Name

Email *

Message *