Repair-It

Starting at $37,295. I bet the average bottom will be 40K after dealer costs etc.
http://blog.caranddriver.com/chevrolets ... hats-okay/


Sweet, I should be able to buy one ten years from now. The Gen 5 looks better every day. The 85 Monte also looks better every day.

It blows my mind that people can afford this. And I know before you start "But look at how much you get..." Well, if it is 10 to 15K out of my price range, I don't get anything. The Camaro was supposed to be affordable V8 power. The V8 Mustang base is 33K. That is a little more like it.

The Mustang with the performance pack is only $1600 cheaper than the Camaro SS.

The discussion, then, is why GM decided to make those types of features mandatory.

At least GM didn't artificially deflate the V6 in power and trim just to make more 4 cylinder turbo sales. The ecoboost does no better on fuel economy or performance as the V6 yet requires premium. They did it because of CAFE probably.

So the V6 has a healthy 60 more hp than the base turbo engine.

But the Camaro SS includes transmissions and rear end coolers, make more horsepower (and more torque), and will almost certainly beat the Mustang GT's fuel economy.

Content drives costs, and I think you'll find that the Camaro SS's content is higher than that of the Mustang GT with the performance package as the sole option.

If you get the V8, GM gives you all of the high-end hardware. I see nothing wrong with that. Ford is stripping the quality out to save cost, but the base V8 Mustangs aren't that good. They are so-so. The cost is 100% justified. The new Camaro is basically an ATS-V with a V8 for 37k. Its a bargain.

Yeah that must suck to get an ATS-V with a V8 for $37k.

I want to say the best Camaro was always a bit more than the best Mustang, and you got extra performance for that difference.

kevm14 wrote:I want to say the best Camaro was always a bit more than the best Mustang, and you got extra performance for that difference.

Except for this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svt_cobra#2000_Cobra_R (not entirely fair, as only 300 were built)
and this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svt_cobra ... .80.932004
and this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_Mu ... elby_GT500

There are probably other examples.

You could probably also consider this one too, but might not count as it was low production and only produced 15 more HP than the LT1 F-Body at the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svt_cobra#1995_Cobra_R

I meant to say top normal trim, like the old Z28s vs Mustang GTs.

None of those Mustangs you linked to were even that good for what they cost. The early 2000s Cobra R with the 5.4 was famously trounced by the C5 Z06, and I think the Z06 was a bit cheaper. But as Mustangs go, the Cobras were always pretty high performance.

It is cool though, that the 95 Cobra R was a high-po 351. I would be curious to see how that drove/sounded, given Ford's other offerings at the time.

Hmm.

as tested in the April 1995 issue, our refrigerator-white cover car, with its 300-hp, 5.8-liter pushrod V-8, managed a top speed of 151 mph, quarter-mile performance of 14.0 seconds at 99 mph

So that uber-rare 95 Cobra R is....as fast as a run of the mill LT1 F-body?

kevm14 wrote: The early 2000s Cobra R with the 5.4 was famously trounced by the C5 Z06, and I think the Z06 was a bit cheaper.

I thought we were talking about Camaros.

kevm14 wrote:Hmm.

as tested in the April 1995 issue, our refrigerator-white cover car, with its 300-hp, 5.8-liter pushrod V-8, managed a top speed of 151 mph, quarter-mile performance of 14.0 seconds at 99 mph

So that uber-rare 95 Cobra R is....as fast as a run of the mill LT1 F-body?

That's why that one shouldn't count.