Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Comparison - 2010 Camaro SS vs. 2009 Challenger SRT8 vs. 2010 Shelby GT500

mwc993mwc993 Posts: 1
All three cars are awesome! I just wish they were in my price range :(

Comments

  • 360cuda360cuda Posts: 2
    Edmonds can't seem to keep thier tests honest. First you test the 426 HP SS against the weaker and less expensive GT & RT. No comparison, the less powerful cars do not have a chance. after the averave Joe complains, you finally test the three top cars. Now I am not saying that the results do not warrent the judging. I am however sayint that you can't seem to keep your record straight. in one of your comparison tests you put the Challenger Vs the Bullt. in that test the Challenger ran 5.1 0-60.
    in another test the challenger ran 5.5. you either have lousy drivers or just doon't care about the accuracy of the testing. I spent 4 months researching the SS and the SRT, deciding which one to purchase. The GT 500 wasn't in my budget. this brings me to my second criticism of you. While I liked the SS and the ride quality. it didn't handle any better than the Challenger, not to mention the limited cargo space. the challenger can fit 4 comfortably. hase a very large trunk, and also has a 5 star safety rating. my third criticism is the claim that the Camaro SS is cheaper. When I was shopping, the SS equiped with the same equipment as the SRT cost 41k. add a 5k dealer mark-up and it was over 46k! I purchased a 2009 6 speed challenger for 44k fully loaded (minus the NAV system) I like all three cars and believe the Mustang is the fastest car, but the challenger has a much nicer ride, has the best looking and feeling interior and can actually be driven on a long trip without sacrificing ride quality or how much luggage you can take. One more thing, I am not a professional driver. yet I have been able to post a 0-60 time of 5.06 and a 1/4 mile of 13.16 @106MPH. :confuse:
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,673
    Were you comparing the interior of the 2009 mustang or the 2010? Big difference.
  • 360cuda360cuda Posts: 2
    The 2009, when I purchased my Challenger, the 2010 Mustang wasn't available. The Camaro was just ramping up. So I only had the Camaro and the 09 Mustang to compare to. If there is a big difference than good for Ford. My Boss has a 2009 Mustang with the Glass roof. The exterior is beauitful but the interior looks so cheesy and has a cheap feeling. As for the Challenger interior, Internet photos does not do it justice.
  • fourteen14fourteen14 Posts: 85
    edited October 2010
    TRACTION! With an Ultra HP street car it is all about traction! If you are testing cars that have a 0-60 longer than 7 seconds, you can get the same results over and over again on different surfaces. But, with a Ultra HP car off the showroom floor with OEM tires, results can vary considerably!

    In 2003 Car and Driver Television tested the new, all OEM, M-B AMG SLK32, which has a 349HP supercharged intercooled 3.2L V6, AT, and weighs 3232#. The results were: 0-60 in 4.5 and 1/4 in 13.0 at 110!! I believe these numbers, but on most surfaces my SLK32 with OEM tires will spin until TC cuts in to reduce power. After 1st gear, or on clean rough pavement, the SLK32 is an awesome rocket, but on smooth city streets, I get mostly smoke and not much rocket!!

    So, I am sure that most 0-60 for equally Ultra HP cars will vary greatly, just because of the available traction at the test site!! The only way to be sure would be to run them all side by side, but even then the less powerful car with stickier tires might win, or maybe a little old AMG would dust them all !!!!
    :P

    .
  • This would be such a hard choice to pick from if I had the money to go out and do it. The SS is a gorgeous car, but the nostalgia of the Challenger would be so hard to pass up. The GT Shelby has loads of power, I don't trust Ford that much. That being said, it would probably be my first love, the camaro.
  • The 2009/10 Mustangs don't do it for me. You have to get to the 2011's to make me enjoy the ride more, V8, then we're talking! 2009 Mustangs, the seats were harder back then, the rumble under your butt a little too uncomfortable for me. I much prefer the 2011/12 Mustangs as they have fixed the ride to be much more comfortable on your butt. You have to go to Shelby seats for the Mustang seats to be completely comfortable I find. Camaro I never really look at because I'm not a huge fan of Chevy with the exception of the Corvette. I find the interiors to be on the chintzy (sp?) side especially after a little bit of wear. The new Camaro's blind spot is also very bad. Now...the Challenger. I just drove a 2011 and 2012 today not expecting to being more impressed then the Mustang GT test drive I took. I have to say, I had a lot, A LOT of fun driving the Challenger. So much that I am trying to purchase one as we speak.

    Mind you, I have been test driving cars for the past 2 months straight. Outside of the Mustang GT, which I loved, but which was also out of my price range, the Challenger is the only car that comes close, even with just the V6. I drove both the V6 and the V8. The V6 isn't as bad as you may think, you just have to work it harder accelerating then the V8 obviously. But the torque is there regardless. Very surprised and impressed! So don't know if that helps, but I had to tell someone! :)
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,673
    Isn't the V6 Mustang faster than the V6 Challenger?
  • Technically from everything I know, yes, the Mustang is faster. However, even though both are super fun to drive, I personally enjoyed the torque of the Challenger better. I felt that the V6 Mustang was a little 'clunkier' then the V6 Challenger even though the Challenger has a bigger body. I really prefer to go to the GT when it comes to the Mustang, but financially I cannot afford it right now. So, for the V6 the Challenger wins out.
Sign In or Register to comment.