Camaro is King!!!
 

Yep...


<object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/r-uTjaQ6E7g&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/r-uTjaQ6E7g&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>

I cry foul! The Ford GT has 320hp compared to the 415hp of the Camaro SS, and 400+ hp of the Hemi powered Challenger.

In my opinion, a Sheby GT500 (540hp) would have easily romped that bow-tie wearing piece of crap Chebby, live rear axle and all... ;)

The Camaro SS was priced at roughly $40k, while the Mustang GT starts at $28k. (The GT500 starts at $46k - closer to the price of the SS, but with 100+ more hp). According to the Motortrend guy, the Mustang handles better and has more room.

Yeah, the Camaro's a winner.... :rolleyes:

-Z

Dude, is that Sniper?

Nope.


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1238470681.jpg

Their ranch isn't too bad either...
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1238471671.jpg

The Challenger tested was the smaller 376 horse V-8...not the 425 horse model, yet they chose the hottest Camaro...did the same to the Mustang...an apples/oranges test all around.

I would personally be happy with any of the three, am a little partial to the looks of the Camaro, but think that the Mustang Gt's look cool also... Dodges... ehh I figure it would run forever, but that would mean I would have to look at it for a long time.... Never really got into the looks of a Dodge... but this challenger and the new chargers and slowly growing on me.... Good points Z-man & pwd, lol Gogar....

*****in' Camaro! Donuts on your lawn!

Yup....but still a GM (Government Motor) crap.....!

For you guys in love:

Dodge Challenger 4100 lbs. (my Dodge Caravan weighs less)
Ford Mustang GT 3500 lbs., Live rear axle (at least it attempts to gain lightness)
Camaro 3859 lbs. Just $39,950 (independent rear, but disappointing throwback)

Is this what American manufacturers do best?

Contemporary versions of the old cars. Relying on nostalgia to sell cars. That's all I can say.

Consider the source: Motor Trend.

Are you guys just visiting the Porsche forum or what?

Sherwood

Sherwood -
What's wrong with a live rear axle? For the dragstrip, it is far more durable than an independant rear, which is where most Mustangs tend to play. And even on smooth surfaced road courses, the live rear axle works well. Not something I would take to Watkins Glen or Pocono's road courses, but I am sure that car has no problems on the newly paved Lime Rock, Mid-Ohio, and Thunderbolt.NJMP, to name a couple smooth tracks...

Hey - don't lots of modern Porsche have torsion bars? Isn't that a nostolgic piece of suspension as well?

-Z-man.

A 2009 911 weighs 3,164 pounds. A 2009 911 Turbo weighs 3,572 pounds.

Heck, even a Caymen S weighs 3,031 pounds.

I am guessing there is a lot of additional weight due to saftey reg's.

What's your point Sherwood?

2009 and manufacturers are still using leaf springs and live axles? As long as one doesn't demand much from the suspension, they're perfectly adequate.

Sure, they're adequate, like you say on smooth roads and quarter mile drag strips. However, most people venture beyond those environments as a road car would tend to.

Torsion bars? Just a type of spring. Mainly used when install space is a consideration. Only used by a few "nostalgic" companies like Brawn Racing, Sauber-BMW, Toyota, Ferrari, Mercedes-McClaren, Red Bull Racing, Force India, Williams and Torro Rosso (caveat; some may use coil springs).

Sherwood

What modern Porsche has torsion bars?







Tim

Is the Dodge Challenger safer because it weighs a half a ton more than a '09 911? Can a car maker claim some engineering advantage when a "flagship" performance vehicle has a solid rear end and leaf springs? Thank God they eventually went to disc brakes (on the front for a long time and eventually to all four). Some say it's lazy engineering. Others will merely compare it favorably with a 38 year old design that only worked well on smooth roads and the drag strip and had the same relative build quality.

Unlike many here, I'm not enamored by the latest pony car offerings by the big 3.... or the 3 as it is. Just MHO. I guess my fuzzy memories of yesteryear are not as sharp as others.

Here's an arbitrary sampling of MT's Cars of the Year for perspective:
1992 Cadillac Seville Touring Sedan
1991 Chevrolet Caprice Classic LTZ
1990 Lincoln Town Car
1989 Ford Thunderbird SC
1988 Pontiac Grand Prix
1987 Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe

I consider MT the precursor to email spam, but in a hard copy format. You don't believe everything you read in spam email do you?

Sherwood

Nostalgic? All the current Porsche's look like 911's LOL.....

Maybe the big three are just trying to get back to their roots and trying to make us forget
things like the MustangII and the mid eighties chargers....

I couldn't agree more. They're all ugly POS's, in my not-so-humble opinion. I don't care if they perform like a Ferrari, I wouldn't be caught dead with one in my driveway.

And they are not cheap. They are outperformed by a lot of "lesser" cars.

In fact, I've been on the Ford, Chrysler and Jeep sites the last few days. There is nothing there that I would want to buy (unless I wanted a truck). Seriously - zero.

If and when I get back to work, I will probably buy myself a 914-6 or a Cayman S (interior only thing that doesn't sell me..) but, I wouldn't mind having a 2010 Camaro in the driveway... apples & oranges.... blondes & brunettes....SmileWavy