Cars.com Faceoff Takes on New Mustang, Camaro, Challenger

Could there be a better way to head into the Fourth of July holiday than with a three-way horse race — excuse the pun — between new yet classic American muscle cars? Cars.com lined up the 2010 Ford Mustang GT, 2010 Dodge Challenger R/T and 2010 Chevrolet Camaro 2SS to see which pony car would come out on top. We compared them in every category, from styling and performance to exhaust sound (and you can listen to recordings of each). Check out the story to see which muscle car drove off the winner in all the categories. If you want to see how they stack up as daily drivers, watch the video above.

Cars.comparison: American Muscle Cars (Cars.com)

Comments

Your video's really kick butt - this was better than the other car site reviews I've seen. I was completely shocked to see that you picked the Mustang but agree with your assessment. For the life of me I can't understand why GM can make a high quality interior for the CTS and new Equinox but not for anything else. The square-circular gauge concept is awful and nothing short of a Transformers gimmick. GM needs to go back to traditional interiors, until then the Stang lives on!

Dave:

There isnt any issue with the build quality of the Camaro. It has some hard plastics as do most cars that start well under $30k. The tactile quality of the interior (switches, padded areas, seats, control stalks, etc.) is very high. The equinox has hard plastics as well.

I wonder where they find the people to give the opinions on theses cars. I own the new mustang and a friend has the challenger , I have no issues driving his challenger and I am 5'4, my mustang is a great fit for me but the slowest out of the two as far as the camro goes I have sat in one and found it very comfortable and no issues with view front, rear or side . Don't we remember the issues with the older late 60's and early 70's cars , thats the price you pay for a sportscar , if you don't care for it buy a sedan . as far as the interior the camaro is far superior to my mustang , I loved the throwback gauges, what did he want to see pillar gauges or cram them on the dash like the 80's, then he would of been complaining that he couldn't see them on the dash . Find a person who knows sports cars to be a judge or give a good perspective. I give it to him that it was his view, just seemed like he judged more mini vans and suv's or family cars then he did pony cars .

I think it's safe to say that Joe, Dave, and the others at Cars.com know cars better than you do. If like most of us you read other car publications you'll see that what Joe reported is pretty much along the same line as the others but more insightful (my opinion). I believe it was C&D or Edmunds that blasted the Camaro for it's poor visibility and praised the Mustang for it's high quality interior. Frankly Ford should be putting a high quality interior in the Mustang as they've been building it for years. Your comments regarding Joe's ability to accurately report is not only off base but out of line.

I noticed some inconsistencies in this video.

Joe complained about the headroom in the camaro compared to the other two but it looks like the Carmaro has a sun roof and the other two don't.
A sunroof will decrease head room in any vehicle by at least 1 to 2 inches. He could have at least pointed that out in the video.

He said he liked the Mustangs guages bether than the Camaros because of the nice white back ground but in the very next segment says that the white guages in the Challenger look cartoonish.
?

ermatthe,
I "believe" the Camaro sunroof is actually one that slides over the roof, not into it. So probably does not impact headroom, but I'm not sure. I wasn't involved in this comparo but have driven all three.

I didn't mind the interiors of any of them. The striping on the red leather in the mustang was hot though.

I also think the Camaro is just better looking. I also didn't mind the visibility. Besides the C pillar issue that is in both it and Challenger was really bad.

The Mustang in this form is just more fun to drive and feels quicker because of the weight issue.

I wouldn't mind owning all three personally. If I HAD to pick one...I'd probably get the Camaro just because of looks. Really, deep down,not my money on the table, my favorite is the Challenger.

Having sat in both a 2010 Mustang and Camaro, I'd have to agree 100% with the critic.

I'm a big guy, but not "huge" (6'1" - 205) and I was not comfortable in the Camaro. The Mustang didn't have "tons" of room, but it was very usable (really no different than the Taurus and Fusion that I have driven in the past).

The Challenger would obviously have the most room, as it is a boat.

I like the appearance of the Camaro, but they need to do some serious ergonomic work on it.

I'm disappointed in the Camaro as GM made the car to heavy. We used to be an all GM family but finally got tired of the recalls so last month I bought my first Ford, a Mustang. The interior in both size and quality is better than the Camaro. I know everyone's insurance rates vary but my quotes were $600 higher for the Camaro. I can't fault anyone for going with the Camaro it's just not the best in the segment. Maybe next time General.

I think this was a good review with an appropriate result for the factors tested. It seems to me though that both the Camaro and the Challenger are Muscle Cars rather than Pony Cars. They are bigger with bigger engines, so comparing them to the lighter Mustang is not right. The Mustang still stands alone as the only modern Pony Car. Concluding that "It's consistently, intentionally and appropriately rough" is exactly right. That is what a Pony Car should be.
Come on GM and Chrysler, build some real Pony Car competition for the Mustang, but you better hurry before the 2011 shows up with the Coyote motor.

Look at DW coming to our defense!

I usually let the conversation go on without me, but I just saw how much the video dominates the Cars.comparison in this teaser. Don't miss the link underneath the video, which leads to a more comprehensive assessment. Granted, it's short-form too, but even that's more than you can ever hope to get from a dorky guy on a video with 4.5 minutes to work with.

I suspect some of the complaints and perceived inconsistencies are addressed in the real comparison, but to hit the highlights above: The gauge description is absolutely a victim of the format. The Challenger's and Mustang's are both white; it's the execution. The Challenger's just look worse, day and night, where our Mustang's didn't.

Also bear in mind that we compared three matched trim levels: SS, R/T and GT. If you're looking at, say, the base versions, you might be seeing different quality levels.

DT is correct that the moonroof goes over the roof, which tends to steal less headroom, but the issue here is one of extreme. The Camaro's
visibility and limited headroom are a terrible combination, and deleting the sunroof wouldn't be enough to even the score.

Cars.com's approach is to emphasize the real-world aspect of everything we review, and the video itself was focused on that. (Given that, it was a little silly to title it a "shootout"; the only shooting going on was by our intrepid videographer.) The Cars.comparison has more detail on the performance issues, as is appropriate. Again, be sure to check that out.

I'm also curious what everyone thinks about the muscle/sports/pony labels, which no one seems to agree on anymore. There were times in history when I'd see muscle cars as sports cars, but nowadays there's much more refinement in everything, including luxury sport sedans, etc. To my way of thinking, the Camaro is a muscle car and the Corvette a sports car, and it's not just about price. I like it this way. If the three models in the comparison get too refined, I think they'll lose their identity. Your thoughts?

--JW