Cadillac ATS Coupe vs Mustang Ecoboost

[thePill]

Okay, and the SS starts at???? $33.5, plus $3500??? Is that more or less than a Mustang at $32.9 and $2600... I don't know... The Camaro is also 130lbs heavier in the best case.

It's too fat to take seriously... and look how it did in racing. It's a joke...

I would compare the FE4 SS to the GTPP. The FE4 was a failed attempt to bring the SS up to the GT TP level. It still had issues and required the 1LE to manage a solid axle Mustang.

None of this changes the fact that the Alpha will need to go through a lot of its own changes before it becomes a Camaro.

Sponsored

 

[Hack]

Okay, and the SS starts at???? $33.5, plus $3500??? Is that more or less than a Mustang at $32.9 and $2600... I don't know... The Camaro is also 130lbs heavier in the best case.

It's too fat to take seriously... and look how it did in racing. It's a joke...

I would compare the FE4 SS to the GTPP. The FE4 was a failed attempt to bring the SS up to the GT TP level. It still had issues and required the 1LE to manage a solid axle Mustang.

None of this changes the fact that the Alpha will need to go through a lot of its own changes before it becomes a Camaro.

The 1SS 1LE if you don't buy the Recaros can be ordered for about $35,300. Now if you drove one with the dual mode exhaust ($895) you would have to have it. My sales guy said the backup camera ($450 IIRC) is a necessity. I haven't driven the car enough to be sure of that.

I think the 1SS 1LE beats the Mustang in fun factor for a car guy, at least in some ways. The matte hood seems impractical to me, though. Also the 20 inch rims are a negative in my opinion, especially for someone like me that will be running snow tires at a minimum and potentially separate wheels for the winter. The 2015 base GT Mustang also has better interior and some other better features, especially the engine.

I guess my point is that IMO the Camaro and Mustang are close in a lot of ways. I almost bought a Camaro just to have something different for a couple years. Probably the facts that I'm in the snow zone driving the car year round is the main thing that stopped me from buying the 1LE Camaro. Oh, and to me the base Camaro 1SS had way too soft a ride. Oh and there is that fact that I'm a bit of a Ford guy. :ford:

 

[dirty-max]

I just don't think the camaro will be much lighter than the mustang..no doubt it will be lighter but I bet it's with the mustang when it comes to weight

 

[MSamuels]

Who is this ThePill guy? He speaks so assertively about crap he has no idea about. He spent 5 posts talking about a 1LE before he even realized its a similar package like the track pack on the GTs that can be added to bases or premiums. I mean I knew that even from my cursory research knowledge. Dont talk too much and especially with any attitude when you have no idea what youre talking about

 

[Vernichtung]

The current (aging, outgoing) generation Camaro 1LE test by Moter Trend, performs better (2 sec quicker on road course, and all other measures) while weighing 3,860 lbs and costing $33,535 (base) / $35,035 as tested.

That compares to 3,814 lbs and $32,925 (base)/$46,380 (as tested) for the Mustang GT.

So the cars are within 50 lbs of one another and within $1,000 of one another (base). (with Performance Pack the GT actually costs more)

So, while you may be technically correct with your statement, the following statement is also correct:

The Camaro 1LE is faster/better on a road course (according to Rendy Pobst and all objective measures) while weighing and costing about the same as a brand spanking new generation Mustang GT with Performance Pack.

So if you don't care that the brand new generation Mustang GT + PP can't keep up with the outgoing 1LE, that is fine. But I think it does not bode well for the Mustang when the new Camaro comes out.

See all back up date below.

I know I've stated this before, but, to be fair, Road and Track got their 2015 Mustang GT PP to statistically tie with the current Camaro 1LE on their test track (it was 0.02 seconds quicker than Chevy's offering). The Mustang also bested the following: 2013 Audi RS5, 2014 Aston Martin Rapide S, 2014 Chevy SS, 2015 BMW M4, 2014 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG S-Model Wagon, 2014 BMW M6 Gran Coupe. Driving.ca preferred the 2015 Mustang GT (devoid of Performance Package) over the Camaro 1LE, even going as far as to say the Mustang was "easier to drive at sporting speeds." Further, while I know Motor Trend tells you all you want to hear in a new Mustang vs. old Camaro comparison, I implore you to read everyone else's opinion of the new Mustang; they couldn't be any more opposed to the pitchy, wallowy beast of a car that Motor Trend portrayed during their hate-rant. What's funny and ironic is that, if Randy Pobst's word is gospel and trumps all other opinion, that means the 2013 GT500 was a better car than the Camaro ZL1 -- it was quicker around the track per Motor Trend and Randy stated that the Shelby wass better-balanced and the better car for both the track (with a brake upgrade) and the street.

http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showpost.php?p=398538&postcount=37

Also, to assume that Ford has nothing in the works to counter whatever Chevy will offer in the 2016 Camaro is presumptuous, short-sighted and reeks of a bit of fanboyism -- that's exactly how this rivalry has been played since the released of the Camaro in its new, retro-modern form (after its several-year hiatus). Given what Ford and Team Mustang engineers were able to muster with the decade-old S197 platform towards the end of its life has me very excited, to say the least. Of course, Chevy will answer Ford's counter and Ford will strike back; Chevy will one-up Ford again, and so-on and so-on...

 

[Vernichtung]

2013 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE
BASE PRICE $33,535
PRICE AS TESTED $37,035
VEHICLE LAYOUT Front engine, RWD, 4-pass, 2-door coupe
ENGINE 6.2L/426-hp/420-lb-ft OHV 16-valve V-8
TRANSMISSION 6-speed manual
CURB WEIGHT (F/R DIST) 3860 lb (53/47%)
WHEELBASE 112.3 in
LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 190.4 x 75.5 x 54.2 in
0-60 MPH 4.3 sec
QUARTER MILE 12.7 sec @ 111.8 mph
BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 101 ft
LATERAL ACCELERATION 1.03 g (avg)
MT FIGURE EIGHT 24.2 sec @ 0.83 g (avg)
EPA CITY/HWY FUEL ECON 16/24 mpg
ENERGY CONS., CITY/HWY 211/140 kW-hrs/100 miles
CO2 EMISSIONS 1.03 lb/mile

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1209_2013_chevrolet_camaro_ss_1le_first_test/

2015 Ford Mustang GT
BASE PRICE $32,925
PRICE AS TESTED $46,380
VEHICLE LAYOUT Front-engine, RWD, 4-pass, 2-door coupe
ENGINE 5.0L/435-hp/400-lb-ft DOHC 32-valve V-8
TRANSMISSION 6-speed manual
CURB WEIGHT (F/R DIST) 3814 lb (54/46%)
WHEELBASE 107.1 in
LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 188.3 x 75.4 x 54.9 in
0-60 MPH 4.4 sec
QUARTER MILE 12.8 sec @ 112.2 mph
BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 107 ft
LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.96 g (avg)
MT FIGURE EIGHT 24.7 sec @ 0.84 g (avg)
EPA CITY/HWY/COMB FUEL ECON 15/25/19 mpg
ENERGY CONS., CITY/HWY 225/135 kW-hrs/100 miles
CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB 1.06 lb/mile

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1409_2015_ford_mustang_gt_first_test/viewall.html

Each time these cars are tested, the results are a little bit different. From another test Motor Trend conducted:

2014 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE

0-60 - 4.5 sec
1/4-mile - 13.0 sec @ 109.1 mph
Braking 60-0 - 101 ft
Lateral Acceleration - 1.02g (avg)
MT Figure-Eight - 24.1 sec @ 0.85g (avg)

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests...o_the_tires_make_the_car/braking_skidpad.html

 

[Vernichtung]

Yes, and we already know that the 10 speed is not an acceptable performance transmission, otherwise Ford would not have to resort to sourcing the heavy and super expensive Getrag DCT for the Ford GT.

Then why do any car manufacturers offer a DCT when Aisin and ZF each offer their respective 8-speed automatics? Why does BMW offer a DCT in the M3 / M4 when their more-pedestrian cars feature ZF's 8-speed? How about Audi and their R8, for example? Or Audi-owned Lamborghini? To assume Ford is outfitting the next-generation GT with Getrag's 7-speed DCT because their ten-speed isn't an "acceptable performance transmission" is, again, a bit presumptuous, no?

 

[thePill]

Who is this ThePill guy? He speaks so assertively about crap he has no idea about. He spent 5 posts talking about a 1LE before he even realized its a similar package like the track pack on the GTs that can be added to bases or premiums. I mean I knew that even from my cursory research knowledge. Dont talk too much and especially with any attitude when you have no idea what youre talking about

Oh, I never realized the 1LE was just an SS. :lol: The 1LE was an addition to the SS after the FE4 failed to handle the GT in 2012. The 1LE's production IS in limited numbers OR, is limited by demand, which would be as low as the Boss 302.

Is the 1LE cheaper and lighter than the GT? No.. it is not...

According to Road and Track, the GTPP CAN perform just as good as the 1LE, period.

From what we already know, is there a CHEAPER, LIGHTER and BETTER PERFORMING vehicle available right now?

Answer: No, there is not... That will not likely change, even with the next Gen Camaro coming out. It will start closer to $35,000, if not more if it was released right now, at a 10% increase. A Performance Package will add another $2500-$3500 on top of that MINIMUM...

I can get a GTPP at 3740lbs, at $35,500 and it will perform just as good or better than the 1LE at 120lbs lighter and $1000 dollar cheaper RIGHT NOW.

Until that changes, I am not as concerned about weight as I was. There are few cars that cost twice to three times more than the GTPP that STILL doesn't weigh less.

Don't butthurt about the z28 here...

 

[dirty-max]

i still predict the camaro will shave close to 200lbs which would put it head to head with the mustang

 

[thePill]

i still predict the camaro will shave close to 200lbs which would put it head to head with the mustang

It is possible but, the CA Camaro they just caught in the wild don't do any lightweight rumors any justice. Look how small humans look in the 6th Gen mule compared to humans in the Mustang or ATS-V. The Camaro is engulfing again and I hated that last Gen. The Mustang's roof is short and aggressively sloped, the Camaro's roof carries and is large in comparison.

The ATS-V has an aggressive rake, look here...

The Camaro is thick again, not so much muscularly obese as the 5th Gen. More Flumpy, chunky and snubbed.

The ATS again, goes into an aggressive rake and, almost to a point from the A-Pillar up.

The Camaro is just more of the same. The 5th Gen did not use an optimal wheelbase, nor does the 2015 ATS-V.

Even if the 6th Gen increases the track up to 63/63, 64/63, it is still sub-optimal. In that case, the total width of the Camaro will have increased from 72.5 to 76+ inches.

Also, being sub-optimal will force them to go with a larger tire to compensate for the WB:T ratio.

The 5th Gen was a good example of needing tire as well as the last Gen Mustang.

Size does matter and, it appears that the 2017 Camaro does indeed have more mass than the ATS-V coupe by the eye.

The A-Pillar up on the C6 Camaro is massive compared to the ATS-V. It is wider, the hood is longer, wider, flatter and, the overall bulk of the front is larger.

Even using a smaller picture of the Camaro, you can see this. The greenhouse appears to keep a similar shape BUT, the rear wheels are pushed out to a large degree. The front wheels are also farther apart on the Camaro vs. the ATS.

The Camaro has a longer decklid, or, a rear shelf while the ATS-V is more of a fastback type design. You can see the Camaro is a big boy in the back.

The ATS-V's rear 1/4 window is larger, the C6 looks to just be larger from the C-Pillar back, from the A-Pillar up and larger from the A-Pillar to the C-Pillar.

ATS-V Profile

6th Gen Camaro Profile

The rear 3/4 of the ATS-V.... Very nice...

The rear 3/4 of the 5.5 Gen Camaro... Flumpy, club footed, wide nose-havin', monster of a car.

Lets look at a real American Sports Coupe.

Something a manufacturer took time to sort out, build on an optimal foot print (like the C7 Corvette) and looks great at every angle.

The Camaro tries to adopt the Corvette's track plan, as in, wider up front than in the rear.

However, this comes off as sorta Clown Shoe and less Corvette I'm sorry to say.

I call this design concept the "Jack Black", his demonstration is shown below.

 

[Baron95]

Phil - in the interest of bring this thread back on track...

It is obvious that most of us here like the Mustang over the Camaro or the ATS. That is why we are on this forum. So trying to convince people that the Mustang is better looking than the others, better value, etc is redundant.

I for one, liked the S197 GT because of its value, ease of modification, which could easily bring it to outperform a twice as expensive E92 M3, while having similar weight and being lighter.

What we are discussing are the relative changes of weight from one generation to the next of the respective designs.

So far, it seems like Mercedes took weight out of the C-class, BMW took weight out of the M3/M4, Cadillac took weight out of the ATS/CTS platform twins, all while substantially increasing size, interior room and massively increasing performance.

The S550 Mustang seems to be the odd exception. Its interior room decreased substantially, to the point of making the rear seats unusable. Its performance went backwards in acceleration. And it is 200 lbs heavier in GT trim.

The question of this thread is why only the Mustang had a weight increase and a interior room and performance decrease.

The new generation models all have similar volumes and similar price points as the previous ones. So does the Mustang. So trying to say that BMW or Cadillac can spend more is not the answer. They could spend more before also, and yet the S197 was lighter, performed better.

It is really shocking to me that the 2015 Mustang GT, as good looking as it is, as improved as it is in materials and NVH, lost usable interior rear seat room, gained weight and lost performance.

On those metrics - interior room, weight, and performance gain - the S197 to S550 transition is singularly bad vs the competition.

The other singularly bad, is that all the competitors have a fast shifting, sporty 8-speed out or 7-speed DCT (BMW, Chevy, Cadillac, even Dodge/Chrysler for crying out loud). But the Mustang soldier on without a performance automatic.

It is inexcusable. And it shows. And I suspect, that when the new Camaro launches, followed a bit later by the next en Challenger, it will become even more of a problem.

There is only one upside to all of this. That is that Mustang GT PPs and soon GT350s will be readily available at dealer lots at reasonable discounts. And that is good.

I have been forced to wait for the GT350. And it has to be very good, since Corvette Z51s/2LTs are readily available at $61K from the likes of Kerbeck.

A good track day capable GT350 needs to be around $50K to be competitive.

 

[thePill]

200lbs heavier in GT trim? Where is this???

Did you say "Performance Automatic" Why? Why does the GT and GT350 need a "Performance Automatic"?

Where is the Camaro's Performance Auto? Does the ATS-V have one?

The GT's performance has been better than the outgoing Boss 302 AND, the acceloration is about the same as last years GT Brembo Pack, which had some of those cars weighing close to 3700lbs anyway. Car and Driver weighed a GT Brembo in 2011 and it weighed 3672lbs with Recaro's. I'm not really sure I follow your argument...

The C6 Camaro is much, much larger in comparison to the ATS-V by far. It is a good 20% larger in mass than the ATS-V easy. That means more weight...

The ATS Coupe nor the ATS-V is a good indicator of the C6 Camaro's curb weight. A lot has changed since the ATS has used the Alpha exclusively...


I mean really, would you want to compare an ATS Coupe or the proposed 6th Gen Camaro to this? Forget about it...

 

[9secondko]

The 1SS 1LE if you don't buy the Recaros can be ordered for about $35,300. Now if you drove one with the dual mode exhaust ($895) you would have to have it. My sales guy said the backup camera ($450 IIRC) is a necessity. I haven't driven the car enough to be sure of that.

I think the 1SS 1LE beats the Mustang in fun factor for a car guy, at least in some ways. The matte hood seems impractical to me, though. Also the 20 inch rims are a negative in my opinion, especially for someone like me that will be running snow tires at a minimum and potentially separate wheels for the winter. The 2015 base GT Mustang also has better interior and some other better features, especially the engine.

I guess my point is that IMO the Camaro and Mustang are close in a lot of ways. I almost bought a Camaro just to have something different for a couple years. Probably the facts that I'm in the snow zone driving the car year round is the main thing that stopped me from buying the 1LE Camaro. Oh, and to me the base Camaro 1SS had way too soft a ride. Oh and there is that fact that I'm a bit of a Ford guy. :ford:

Removing recaro seats puts a decent bit of weight back in, no?

 

[Baron95]

200lbs heavier in GT trim? Where is this???

Geez, man. There is no dialoging with you. You seem to believe that quantity of info, equates with quality of info.

S197 Mustang GT Test Drive (Car and Driver): Curb Weight as tested - 3,580 lbs. I've seen it as high as 3,610. I put my car on the scales with the Brembo package and it was 3,604lbs.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2011-ford-mustang-gt-50-short-take-road-test

S197 Mustang Boss 302 (not LS) - Car and Driver test curb weight 3,666 lbs. That is the highest curb weight I have seen for any S197 GT/302 - so putting it here for completeness. (note that this is with 285 rear tires, torsen, etc).

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2012-ford-mustang-boss-302-test-review

S550 Mustang GT (Car and driver) curb weight: 3,810 lbs, which is consistent with all other magazine tests.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-ford-mustang-gt-instrumented-test-review

So S197 5.0 (3,580-3,666). S550 5.0 3,810. So looks like it is anywhere from 230lbs to 144lbs heavier. So roughly 200 lbs heavier. Why do you have to waste people's time arguing when you know it is so?

Did you say "Performance Automatic" Why? Why does the GT and GT350 need a "Performance Automatic"?

Where is the Camaro's Performance Auto? Does the ATS-V have one?

Yes I did. And every performance car now-a-days has a fast shifting performance auto-shifter. From the 911 GT3, to the Corvette Z06 to the Jaguar F-type to the M4, to the Challenger. And yes, the ATS-V and CTS-V have both been announced as having the GM 8L90 transmission as in the 2015 Corvette/Z06.

Why are you arguing? Some people prefer manual, some people prefer auto-shifter. And from all accounts the ZF 8-speed, the GM 8L90, the Porsche PDK, BMW DCT and the like are all good high-performance transmission, (I have driven being most of them) and are much faster and consistent on track than any manual.

That is why on the NASA GTS series where I race, auto-shifters are assessed a 0.2lb/HP penalty.

Again, why are you arguing with progress? Lots of people will pass on the GT350 simply because it has no auto-shifter. It is neither right, nor wrong. It simply is. Ford doesn't offer it, before they don't have access to one.

An ATS-V, CTS-V, Z51 or Z06 or Camaro with the 8L90 will be faster, more consistent and more accessible to more people than the equivalent manual Mustang - any day, every day.

 

[dirty-max]

theres a guy that weighed his and fully loaded the gt weighed 3780lbs i know ford claims the base gt weighs 3705lbs

Sponsored