New Comparo

[Chameleon]

Looks are subjective. Also visibility is better in the 6th gen than the 5th gen Camaro by a long shot. Look over your shoulder when trying to change lanes in a 5th gen Camaro... You won't see a damn thing, it's terrible, they fixed that in the 6th gen. Sight lines aren't perfect for sure though, but Mustang isn't without it's faults in visibility either.

No, it's not. :headbonk:

Sponsored

 

[Childs Play]

No, it's not. :headbonk:

I doubt you've ever driven one if you're going to post that.

I know. I've driven both and have owned two 5th gen Camaros. Visibility is improved in the 6th except for the rear window. And you have cameras for that.

Don't post about something when you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[04SloSnake]

Mustang II............. (not 80's but meh. I thought the Fox body was pretty nice. I like the sharp boxy look of 80's cars though. Many people didn't...)

But I agree. I think all three are amazing looking.

Each of them have their faults IMO.

I feel the Camaro could have a bit more aggressive looking rear, the Mustang could have less of a catfish look up front, and the Challenger could tone down the bulkiness (Can't think of anything bad about how the Challenger looks so I'll point at the weight). However those are just my opinions.

Camero guy really wants to talk about catfish front ends... Does your memory not go back to 1998-2002?

 

[sabasigh]

If they could bring down those hips on the Challenger and just streamline it a bit (even smaller by a few inches) I think it would be a sexy car.

And this is just bad...this shouldn't be happening 2 years into production. Ford QA should be ashamed.

Fit-and-finish fail: "The exterior fit and finish are a problem," Robinson said. "The body gaps are not consistent, and panels are misaligned." "Inconsistent sheet-metal gaps and uneven trunk lids make a terrible impression," Wiesenfelder said. "Poor build quality is apparent from nose to tail," Bruzek said.

My '06 Mustang had poor panel gaps. Hood was offset and driver's rear quarter was misaligned. Disappointing to see so many reports of these issues plaguing the current model.

 

[Childs Play]

Camero guy really wants to talk about catfish front ends... Does your memory not go back to 1998-2002?

I was talking about current gens in that sentence was I not?

But since you brought it up. No. I didn't like the front end of the late 4th gen Camaro for the exact same reason. I like the Trans Am however. That car was awesome looking.

Not everyone here is fan specific to only Mustangs. I get that you are on here which is fine considering we are on a Mustang forum. There's nothing wrong with being brand loyal. But you can like more than one brand of vehicle and discuss them here.

That being said. I'd take a late 4th gen Mustang over a late 4th gen Camaro any day.

 

[04SloSnake]

I was talking about current gens in that sentence was I not?

But since you brought it up. No. I didn't like the front end of the late 4th gen Camaro for the exact same reason. I like the Trans Am however. That car was awesome looking.

Not everyone here is fan specific to only Mustangs. I get that you are on here which is fine considering we are on a Mustang forum. There's nothing wrong with being brand loyal. But you can like more than one brand of vehicle and discuss them here.

That being said. I'd take a late 4th gen Mustang over a late 4th gen Camaro any day.

I'm aware not everyone is on this forum for Mustangs, and I know what side you land on. I just find it ironic that is the reference you chose to make considering "catfish" is the nickname for late 4th Gens.

 

[Tm@c1965]

315 is the widest

How wide for rear tires can you go with the Challenger? Also, has anyone done 18s or small for rear wheels to compliment a drag setup?

I'd love to own a hellcat, slicks and skinnies, remove all the seats and install a racing driver seat, and oh yes in manual please!

in back....unless you use spacers, but then the tires will protrude outside of the rear wheel well. On pre-15's, you can run 275's up front. There are people who run super wide tires in the back, but they modify the car with wide body kits. The newer models come with factory front fender rolls. Some guys are running 295's up front.

Many guys run 18" rims with drag radials on the back. You cannot run 18" rims up front because they will not fit over either the 4 piston or 6 piston Brembo brakes.

 

[1320']

One fellow around my area has a 2015 Scat Pack automatic and is running 19X9 out front and 19X10 out back on custom forgeline's (I think). 275 MPSS's out front and 295 MPSS's out back. He's done a few other things to help take the weight down (1 piece DS and rear seat delete) so he's right around 4,100lbs with a full tank.

A car that large shouldn't be keeping up with a Boss 302 around a track, but it does.

 

[Hack]

One fellow around my area has a 2015 Scat Pack automatic and is running 19X9 out front and 19X10 out back on custom forgeline's (I think). 275 MPSS's out front and 295 MPSS's out back. He's done a few other things to help take the weight down (1 piece DS and rear seat delete) so he's right around 4,100lbs with a full tank.

A car that large shouldn't be keeping up with a Boss 302 around a track, but it does.

Tire upgrades make a big difference, especially when the car is under-tired from the factory.

 

[ZaneWayne]

No, it's not. :headbonk:

As someone who has owned both, the 6th gen is better. But it is not great.

 

[california special gt]

Since we changed subject a little to Scat pack I thought I might share. Good buddy has 15 a8 auto with hellcat box and inlet. My car (14 GT/CS auto) at the time had just put on cj intake, tb, orx, and base Bama tuning. Track is 1500' with 1909 DA and 63 degrees. The scat out of 4 runs had his best in vid below. Both cars on factory street tires. Enjoy...

Scat: 12.53 @ 112.25
Stang: 12.31 @ 114.59 (2.01 60') 245 Nero's

 

[347CobraII]

Mustang II............. (not 80's but meh. I thought the Fox body was pretty nice. I like the sharp boxy look of 80's cars though. Many people didn't...)

But I agree. I think all three are amazing looking.

Each of them have their faults IMO.

I feel the Camaro could have a bit more aggressive looking rear, the Mustang could have less of a catfish look up front, and the Challenger could tone down the bulkiness (Can't think of anything bad about how the Challenger looks so I'll point at the weight). However those are just my opinions.

Don't knock Mustang II had more Mustang lines than fox body.

 

[9secondko]

Don't knock Mustang II had more Mustang lines than fox body.

The Mustang 2 was nasty looking.

And I must confess that a used 1977 Mustang 2 V8 was my first car.

As much as I loved that car (even built the engine and C4 auto transmission)as the factory specs were just sick and wrong..), I always wished it looked different.

The fox body had its own Mustang lines. And it looked very sharp. Everyone wanted one. the '97-'93 "5.0" was my dream car for many years.

"Mustang" doesn't equal 1965 lookalike. It's the DNA of the car that makes it a Mustang. Sometimes that shows up in appearance, sometimes not. But it's going to be sporty looking, fast, V8 power, primarily RWD, affordable, and just plain "cool."

The Fox and New Edge both were eras of modern design while still maintaining the Mustang heritage. And they were both very well received in term of looks and performance.

I think the market is shifting into an era like that again. The s550 is currently in its Fox-4 phase and will likely hit its New Edge stride before too long.

 

[Hack]

The s550 is currently in its Fox-4 phase and will likely hit its New Edge stride before too long.

Oh man, I sure hope the next one doesn't look more like the new edge. :barf:

Sponsored