Having trouble deciding ... they have stellar deals on leftover new Camaros. A 2016 v6 manual is in Chicago for $20k. I also found a 2013 Mustang v6 manual with 20k miles for $14500. Both really good deals. Similar performance. Camaro has IRS but worse visibility. Mustang is better looking to me for now but might not age well. Zero percent financing on the Camaro but I can pay cash or get 3% on the mustang. The camaro has backup camera and Bluetooth.
Duty would be daily driver traded off between my wife and I. Some trips. No track time; I use race cars for that most of the time.
I have some mustang loyalty based on my mothers car being a 1966 notchback 289 when I was 14-15.
What do you guys think??
From what I understand, the Mustang should ride nicer.
Does the mustang have the performance package?
I'm pretty sure the new Camaro will crush the old mustang.
Go drive both.
Good idea. Both the cars I'm interested in are 200 miles away in opposite directions. Hopefully I can find local dealership examples I can compare.
I'd say drive them
I lean toward no car payment but that's a personal preference.
A 3.7 stang is on my list of cars o lust over, but I'd have to have a performance package as I wouldn't modify it much
300hp vs 335hp, and Camaros are NOT hard to see out of.
Edited because of small iPhone keyboards.
racerfink wrote:
300hp vs 335hp, and Camaros are NOT hard to see out of.
Edited because of small iPhone keyboards.
I have driven both at different times and the camaro is definitely harder to see out of.
35hp is nice.
dculberson wrote:
racerfink wrote:
300hp vs 335hp, and Camaros are NOT hard to see out of.
Edited because of small iPhone keyboards.
I have driven both at different times and the camaro is definitely harder to see out of.
35hp is nice.
He pulled a nice ninja edit.
It's not a ninja edit if I said I edited it.
dculberson wrote:
racerfink wrote:
300hp vs 335hp, and Camaros are NOT hard to see out of.
Edited because of small iPhone keyboards.
I have driven both at different times and the camaro is definitely harder to see out of.
35hp is nice.
Yeah, and the new generation Camaro has gone on a diet. The previous generation was several hundred pounds heavier than a comparable Mustang, so the hp advantage was eaten up by the weight. The '16 Camaro weighs about the same as the '13 Mustang.
Tough call. I really like the Mustang, I've test driven it multiple times as it's always been near the top of my shopping list...either for a DD or a cheap toy (in 'vert form). Still strange that although test figures put the 0-60 in the mid 5's, from seat of the pants it doesn't feel like it. Feels much slower, like mid 7's. I am also very mixed on that gen Mustangs' interior. It's so easy to use and so intuitive that for me it's functionally near perfect. I like having knobs and buttons instead of just a touch screen. But on the flip side, those knobs and buttons look like they came straight out of the '90's. So the interior has a very functional but very dated look, IMHO. I'm more a function over form guy, but even I noticed the form. Like you, I do all my racing with a race car, so I really wouldn't care if the car had the brakes/suspension upgrades. I'm sure they're nice, and I'd enjoy them on a twisty road, but reality is it's more a cruiser/DD than anything else.
Haven't driven the Camaro, but like what I see. I like the interior better. Like the looks just slightly better. To me, seems like it may be a slightly better overall car, but is it $6k better? Dunno about that...that extra $6k could put you in a nice '13 Mustang GT. But I'm cheap, I'd probably go Mustang. The new Camaro is going to take a depreciation hit the second you drive it off the lot. If I really wanted the Camaro, I'd wait 6 months and find a used one for $16-$17k.
If I had my pick between the 2013 Mustang V6 vs 2016 Camaro V6, I'd pick the Camaro every time. Better chassis, nicer interior, and more power than the Mustang. BUT...
I've seen 2013 Mustang GT's go for around $20k here, so if you are going to drop $20k on a pony car, I'd consider it.
My biggest gripe with the previous generation Mustang is the interior. Unless you get a higher end model, you get that OMG BUTTONS!!!!1!!1 center stack, a Rubbermaid steering wheel, and seats that belong in a Mercury Topaz. Most of that goes away when you mash the loud pedal on the GT though. 
See, I can live with all the buttons, and if I buy a 'stang, I'm going to have to. My gripe with it is their ridiculously dated look. They look like they should have been new when the SN95 debuted. Sad.
Yeah, the GTs loud pedal is one heck of a cure for shortcomings in the interior. But I have found its' clutch to be ridiculously heavy. I can skip leg day at the gym after driving it.
Klayfish wrote:
See, I can live with all the buttons, and if I buy a 'stang, I'm going to have to. My gripe with it is their ridiculously dated look. They look like they should have been new when the SN95 debuted. Sad.
Yeah, the GTs loud pedal is one heck of a cure for shortcomings in the interior. But I have found its' clutch to be ridiculously heavy. I can skip leg day at the gym after driving it.
Maybe you shouldn't be skipping leg day if you think the clutch is heavy.
I like the 5.0 in the GT, but for my purposes the extra cash isn't worth it. The price comparison tends to be: 2013 V6 at $14k with 20k miles versus a v8 with likely triple the miles for $20k. I've seen them for less but with sketchy mods or "new clutch" (at 50k miles? I know why!) or prior accident damage. Combined with my intended purpose (commuting and more commuting) and the lower MPG of the v8 makes it tough to justify paying for it.
Then again it's tough to justify a pony car over, say, a Prius when using your whole brain rather than just your limbic system.
dculberson wrote:
I like the 5.0 in the GT, but for my purposes the extra cash isn't worth it. The price comparison tends to be: 2013 V6 at $14k with 20k miles versus a v8 with likely triple the miles for $20k. I've seen them for less but with sketchy mods or "new clutch" (at 50k miles? I know why!) or prior accident damage. Combined with my intended purpose (commuting and more commuting) and the lower MPG of the v8 makes it tough to justify paying for it.
Then again it's tough to justify a pony car over, say, a Prius when using your whole brain rather than just your limbic system.
What's the V6 rated at? It's only a few more mpg than the GT isn't it.
Of course unless it's a track pack car with the 3.73s in pumpkin instead of the standard 3.31s.
dculberson wrote:
I like the 5.0 in the GT, but for my purposes the extra cash isn't worth it. The price comparison tends to be: 2013 V6 at $14k with 20k miles versus a v8 with likely triple the miles for $20k. I've seen them for less but with sketchy mods or "new clutch" (at 50k miles? I know why!) or prior accident damage. Combined with my intended purpose (commuting and more commuting) and the lower MPG of the v8 makes it tough to justify paying for it.
Then again it's tough to justify a pony car over, say, a Prius when using your whole brain rather than just your limbic system.
No!!! Don't go down that Prius hole. Yeah, it's the 100% logical solution to a daily commuter. I bought one when I first moved here to Atlanta, given my stupidly long commute. I have so much respect for the car and how well it does its' intended mission. But from a car lover perspective, it is oh-so-awful to drive. Horrid. Numb as Novocain, floppier than a wet noodle on a twisty road, and just boring beyond boring. I averaged 42-43mpg from it, which was awesome. My current DD is a 2013 Hyundai Elantra 6spd coupe. It's by no means a "fun" car, but I get to row my own gears, it's every bit as comfy, is nowhere near as numb as the Prius, and is just a better driving vehicle. I'm getting 35-36mpg with it. Well worth the 6mpg trade off from the Prius. Listen to your limbic system, your genital system, whatever, but don't rely on a Prius if it's going to be your only source of transportation. If you do get one, be sure to have something incredibly fun to balance it out.
STM317
HalfDork
11/3/16 9:54 a.m.
z31maniac wrote:
What's the V6 rated at? It's only a few more mpg than the GT isn't it.
Of course unless it's a track pack car with the 3.73s in pumpkin instead of the standard 3.31s.
That era of v6 Stang was rated at 31mpg highway. They neutered the v6 a decent amount when the EcoBoost model came out to make the v6 less appealing.
