M/T: Mustang EcoBoost vs Camaro RS

[kevm14]

Lots of good stuff to talk about here.

http://www.motortrend.com/news/comparis ... -ecoboost/

http://www.motortrend.com/news/1500-spe ... A187CDEDAC

The short of it is, the Mustang had summer tires and the Camaro had all seasons, because GM doesn't currently offer summer tires on the RS. However, M/T sprung for a set of summer tires and retested. The Camaro's loss turned into a win when they were both outfitted with summer tires.

[kevm14]

Launching the Camaro RS isn’t easy, and the grippier summer tires make it trickier still. Get it right, though, and the summer tire will give it a slight edge out of the hole. Braking is a different story; the summer rubber brings the car to a halt 7 feet shorter from 60 mph. More important, the tires’ ability to slow the car doesn’t degrade like the all-seasons do when heat builds. Speaking of grip, the RS’ average lateral acceleration on the skidpad went from 0.91 g up to 0.96 g. Naturally, we had to see what effect the tires would have on lap times. In the track map below, you’ll see the Camaro RS with stock tires lapped the Streets course in 1:28.18, or 0.86 second behind the Mustang EcoBoost. Summer tires on the Camaro resulted in a 1.57-second lead. “It’s like the lovechild of a Z/28 and an MGB,” Randy Pobst said. “It might be better than a Miata.”

There's a lot of legit performance in this Camaro on decent summer tires.

Let me highlight something else: the Mustang was 0.86s ahead in lap times stock for stock. With a proper set of summer tires to match the Mustang, the Camaro changed to a 1.57s lead. That is substantial, not just the absolute advantage, but the benefit from swapping tires. Over 2 seconds!! From high performance all seasons, even.

[kevm14]

They are still pimping that impossible figure 8 time for the Mustang:

24.2-second lap at 0.79 g

[kevm14]

Even with all the obvious differences, Lieberman and I found ourselves staring down a tie. “This is one of the more evenly matched comparison tests in recent memory,” he said. “I’m split 51 to 49 percent, and if I stare at either of the cars long enough, I can convince myself it’s the actual winner.” I felt the same. The Camaro was unquestionably more fun to drive, but it was kneecapped by its tires. The Mustang was the better all-around car, but its lethargic engine and extra poundage let it down. Even if the Camaro could give my old dream Firebird a run for its money on the strip and either pony could run circles around the Pontiac on a race track, neither quite felt like the obvious dream car in this test. Maybe it’s because all my dreams have eight or more cylinders, or maybe it’s because a lot more than 300 hp is attainable on a middle-class salary these days.

[bill25]

I will also point out, the Base Camaro beat the mid Mustang because Ford made the 6 cyl below the 4T.

I also wonder where this puts the Camaro 4T against the Camaro V8 for lap time.

[kevm14]

Yeah, well they were the same as-tested price.

[bill25]

Right, but they added the RS package, which adds zero performance, so the Camaro would have won without that option added, and would have been less money.

[kevm14]

Fair point, unless the RS package is required for the brake update. Wouldn't be surprised.

But I think it is pretty fair to say that the Camaro is the superior driving car. The Mustang is good but it would never be compared to a Miata like that. Also, while better tires almost always improve the performance of a car (I say almost because I remember the 1LE-Z/28 tire swap test that C/D did and the results were not logical), when the chassis can readily accept greater traction, that's when you benefit the most. And it was painfully obvious reading the write-up on the stock Camaro that the tires were totally holding it back. Not all cars are that tire limited. Some are chassis limited and sticky tires just make trouble.