Both the Ford Mustang and Chevrolet Camaro can be had with turbo-four versions. Which would you rather have?
Need help deciding? Here are some specs:
Additional reading: We recently reviewed an EcoBoost Mustang, while we have seen what the four-cylinder Camaro can do with a few go-fast parts from Chevrolet.
Neither? The Mustang has the clear numbers advantage and likely in the aftermarket support based off the Focus RS. However, if I'm getting into a Pony car, it has to have a V8. Used GT350s are under 50K now and used 2SS 1LE Camaros are even cheaper. More money than a new 4 banger, but worth it.
Daily driver: Mustang. I can see out of it better.
Track day car: Camaro 1LE (although hasn't the 1LE been discontinued on all but the V8 model?)
According the journos, I'm an Alpha chassis guy.
Frisbee twins.
Mustang. I don't care about taking a car to the track and the Mustang seems like the better all-around car. Plus I like looking at it much more than the Camaro.
both these new cars are WAY to heavy but I think that eco boost 4 banger would be a fantastic swap into a 65-66 Mustang.
I'm a diehard GM guy but that camaro is ooglay.
In reply to 67LS1 :
I second this motion. I bet you could mount it pretty far back in the engine bay.
I also wouldn't be opposed to putting one in a Mustang SVO.
In reply to Colin Wood :
For all the effort and expense of putting a modern engine in an early Mustang, I'd rather have an LS3 and Coyote than a 4 cylinder Ecoboost. The mild increase in weight (and huge drop over an iron block 289) is well worth the noise and being NA. It would certainly be unique though.
I bought a turbo 4 Camaro for autox and daily driving. It's more than capable of keeping up with its V8 brethren at autox and in stop-and-go traffic.
When shopping I much preferred it over the Miata and 86 twins for daily livability. The 370 is so old at this point it wasn't a real option, and I've known enough people to hate their new WRX that I wasn't interested.
The more I think about it, I'm leaning more towards the Mustang.
What I really want, however, is either turbo-four powertrains in some sort of four-door sedan, and I'd be sold.
Colin Wood said:The more I think about it, I'm leaning more towards the Mustang.
What I really want, however, is either turbo-four powertrains in some sort of four-door sedan, and I'd be sold.
Isn't the 2.0T available in the Caddy ATS, with a manual transmission even?
foshjowler said:I bought a turbo 4 Camaro for autox and daily driving. It's more than capable of keeping up with its V8 brethren at autox and in stop-and-go traffic.
When shopping I much preferred it over the Miata and 86 twins for daily livability. The 370 is so old at this point it wasn't a real option, and I've known enough people to hate their new WRX that I wasn't interested.
It won’t matter what you say on this forum, they already have their mind controlled.
In reply to secretariata (Forum Supporter) :
You know what, I forgot about the ATS. I should see how well a child seat fits in the back.
i thought the point of pony cars was to be used at the drag strip and have big v8 muscle *hence the name, muscle car)? if i had to, i'd choose the mustang, but these wouldn't be my go to for a new muscle car
Mustang. I daily drove a z28 for 9 years but I find the Camaro ugly inside and outside.
I'm just not seeing the appeal of a turbo 4 in such heavy platforms, especially when dramatically better engines are offered.
Checking Ford's online configurator, an Ecoboost Mustang with the handling pack and performance pack is going to be over 39K. 39K! For less than 10K more, I could get a lightly used GT350. That's money well spent.
They're both great cars but they also both suffer from the availability of V8s.
What's missing from these numbers is some context. How much WEIGHT are they pushing around? It turns out to be about 3,600# each
350z247 said:In reply to Colin Wood :
For all the effort and expense of putting a modern engine in an early Mustang, I'd rather have an LS3 and Coyote than a 4 cylinder Ecoboost. The mild increase in weight (and huge drop over an iron block 289) is well worth the noise and being NA. It would certainly be unique though.
An LS3 might not fit without shock tower surgery, a Coyote definitely would be a no go.
Those Mustangs were tiny cars based around an inline six engine, and the 260/289 had its legendarily bad exhaust ports in part because of Ford's effort to cram the thing into a Fairlane.
P3PPY said:What's missing from these numbers is some context. How much WEIGHT are they pushing around? It turns out to be about 3,600# each
The Mustang once had the weight advantage but I think the tables have turned with the latest (last?!) Camaro chassis. Both are a bit heavy for my liking but they are not small vehicles either.
Try 3,350# for a 2.0t Camaro.
In reply to racerfink :
That's for the base model 2.0; add more than 100 pounds for the performance packages.
You'll need to log in to post.
