(Motor Trend) 2016 Chevrolet Camaro RS (2.0T) vs. 2016 Ford Mustang EcoBoost

[BmacIL]

I am shocked that they ran the Mustang with 87. You would think when doing a performance test they would fill the car with 91. I can't remember which magazine it was, but that used to be something they would do with all the cars was fill them with the same fuel at the same station.

They would do this if they weren't trying to set a bias. What is the downside of filling them both with premium fuel, particularly for their readers? The numbers for both would only be their best. Exciting numbers is a reason people pick up these magazines for.

Sponsored

 

[bluebeastsrt]

Zane should be along any moment to say it was an honest mistake.

 

[BmacIL]

Zane should be along any moment to say it was an honest mistake.

I think he'll be willing to concede it was a bit...suspicious. I'm ok knowing that on equal tires, the Camaro is probably a little quicker on the track - it should be, being lighter and with GM having over a year to benchmark the EB PP before its release.

 

[Chargersfan81]

Total fail on MT! I had an ecoboost once and it didn't feel like a mid 14.5 sec car.

Just the other article had the EB at 13.9 and now at 14.5? They better explain themselves, their credibility just took a dump.

 

[Glenn G]

I think he'll be willing to concede it was a bit...suspicious. I'm ok knowing that on equal tires, the Camaro is probably a little quicker on the track - it should be, being lighter and with GM having over a year to benchmark the EB PP before its release.

It wouldn't be if they filled both cars with the same fuel, Putting 87 in the Mustang and 91 in the Camaro was plain cheating. The tires is something i always scream about when they test anything against a GM product that comes on super sticky summer rubber, guess the only time it matters enough to them to change it up is when GM is at the disadvantage.

 

[BmacIL]

It wouldn't be if they filled both cars with the same fuel, Putting 87 in the Mustang and 91 in the Camaro was plain cheating. The tires is something i always scream about when they test anything against a GM product that comes on super sticky summer rubber, guess the only time it matters enough to them to change it up is when GM is at the disadvantage.

By track, I don't mean the drag strip. The Camaro would only gain significant time via tires there, maybe a tenth in a straight line.

 

[bluebeastsrt]

I think he'll be willing to concede it was a bit...suspicious. I'm ok knowing that on equal tires, the Camaro is probably a little quicker on the track - it should be, being lighter and with GM having over a year to benchmark the EB PP before its release.

Look no farther than the EB vs Camaro V6 Comparo. The V6 is GMs entry level performance oriented car. The EB didn't struggle with the V6 why should it struggle with the weaker 4 banger? How about putting the same fuel and tires on both cars and have at it instead of this nonsense?

 

[1320']

Look no farther than the EB vs Camaro V6 Comparo. The V6 is GMs entry level performance oriented car. The EB didn't struggle with the V6 why should it struggle with the weaker 4 banger? How about putting the same fuel and tires on both cars and have at it instead of this nonsense?

Well..

The Turbo 4 Camaro puts out more torque and lower than the V6 which would help in a drag situation, as evidenced by the fact that the T4 cranked out a 13.9 second ET in the most recent test, where the C&D V6 test the Camaro did it in 14.2.

The Turbo4 is also lighter than the V6 by about 150lbs I think.

 

[bluebeastsrt]

Well..

The Turbo 4 Camaro puts out more torque and lower than the V6 which would help in a drag situation, as evidenced by the fact that the T4 cranked out a 13.9 second ET in the most recent test, where the C&D V6 test the Camaro did it in 14.2.

The Turbo4 is also lighter than the V6 by about 150lbs I think.

Correct but the 2.0 is also down 55HP to the V6. In drag racing circles it's said it takes 15HP to overcome 100 pounds of weight.

 

[TurboMetal]

I called it months ago, wish i could track down the thread. I knew they would use 87 in the mustang when the comparo with these two cars would be done. The part I was wrong was I thought the camaro would be automatic as well.

 

[1320']

Nevermind...the assholes are now trying to spin this as being Ford's fault for being "misleading" on the power vs MPG figures.

Every time I try to give Camaro6 some credit..they manage to snatch it away.

 

[mustang_guy]

Nevermind...the assholes are now trying to spin this as being Ford's fault for being "misleading" on the power vs MPG figures.

Every time I try to give Camaro6 some credit..they manage to snatch it away.

:lol:

 

[TurboMetal]

Nevermind...the assholes are now trying to spin this as being Ford's fault for being "misleading" on the power vs MPG figures.

I don't know what case they have. My MPG has been better than what the EPA listed, with or without a tune. My car regularly sees WOT to boot.
...
The magazines from how they talk of the EBM make it out to be the slowest car ever made. Oh well ppl will to continue to make a derp face when they lose.

Did I really read in the article that the 4-banger camaro sounded good? Really?

 

[mustang_guy]

I don't know what case they have. My MPG has been better than what the EPA listed, with or without a tune. My car regularly sees WOT to boot.
...
The magazines from how they talk of the EBM make it out to be the slowest car ever made. Oh well ppl will to continue to make a derp face when they lose.

Did I really read in the article that the 4-banger camaro sounded good? Really?

To be fair, the EB doesnt sound great either. .02

 

[ElAviator72]

And this is why I don't buy automotive magazines anymore. MT is by far the worst. Car and driver and road & track are slightly less vomit inducing.

The gig was over the second Merc went from meaning "Mercury" (like it did in the 1980's and 1990's) to Mercedes Benz (like it does today in a car magazine) :doh:

Sponsored