1320'
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2014
- Threads
- 19
- Messages
- 3,758
- Reaction score
- 1,616
- Location
- Medford,Oregon
- Vehicle(s)
- 2011 Avenger...sadly
- Thread starter
- #1
Hey folks,
I figured since we are having just such a lovely discussion on the GTPP vs. 1LE front. I figured I would toss in a bit of a more average level discussion. Last night after work I swung by my Friendly Neighborhood Ford Store™ since they just got their first shipments of S550's in. 4 GT's and one EcoBoost were present. Their only GTPP had been a customer order and thus had gone out the day before. I drove a Ruby Red Prem. GT Auto w/ 401A, Redline interior, 18" wheels and the 3.15 diff and had a sticker price of just over $40,000 and my thanks to Crater Lake Ford in Medford, Oregon for allowing me the chance to have some good seat time with one of their initial stock.
This car is unmistakably a Mustang, and the pictures simply do not do it justice, the rear end, while appearing somewhat pinched in some pictures, flows amazingly in person and balances the car well. The car I drove did exhibit some of the nose-high stance commented on.
I've driven every model year Mustang since 2011 when the 5.0 returned, and this new Mustang is a world apart from them. The power, even with the stock tune and 3.15's, is totally different. In previous years you had to really wind up the 5.0 to get power, with this new version there is power everywhere, torque is plentiful and abundant all over the RPM range. I never felt like I was having to spin the engine into the stratosphere to get power like I did before with 5.0's, and the jump from 35mph on the on ramp to 90 happened alarmingly quick. In years prior Auto’s with the 3.15 gears felt a bit, well, lame below 4,000 RPM, not so with this car, 3.55’s will make a base auto GT into an absolute rocket and likely make 1st gear mostly useless, but time will tell. Passing was effortless and the engine behaved very well in traffic and on the freeway, resting at right about 1,750-1,800 RPM’s while cruising at 65. Braking was only satisfactory as I did not jump hard on the brakes due to the car only having 13 miles on it when I drove it.
Speed is deceptive with this car, you do not feel like you're going as fast as you really are, a tribute to how well balanced and constructed the new Mustang is. 50 mph feels like 35 and 80 feels like 50, you're really going to need the speedometer because the days of knowing how fast you're going by feel are gone. It's plainly obvious this new platform was designed from the bottom up for the Mustang; the car communicates beautifully and does not have the compromised feel that the Camaro and Challenger have.
Sightlines are unobstructed and the only place where vision is an issue is directly out the rear quarters, use your mirrors, because the quarter windows are nearly useless. The fastback profile lends itself well to the large rear window and provides exceptional visibility out back.
Driving ergonomics are superb and the seats hold you well in both the premium and base models, being 6'3 and 230 lbs. on a large frame I found the seats to immobilize well, Recaro's are wholly unnecessary unless you're going to be doing some serious tracking and for someone of my size would actually be very uncomfortable. The smaller steering wheel is a welcome change and the position of the paddle shifters is ideal for someone with large hands, however smaller hands may have issues. At no point did I feel like I did not have ample and readily available legroom, in fact I actually had to move my seat forward for the drive, an extremely rare event in any case for me. The backseat is useless for anything but cargo or perhaps a person without legs. I could see someone fitting in the back if a shorter person was in the passenger seat and moved it forward.
Two issues I must take issue with Ford with, however, is running only 235 wide tires standard on the GT. In all truth this car should have come with 18X9’s stock with 255’s all around as when I took the car into some corners hard was the only time I didn’t feel completely confident with the car, it needs more tire, period. The other is the environmental controls are needlessly complicated.
For the 2014 Camaro 2SS, I headed to one of our 5 major Chevrolet dealers in the area, and found a 2014 Ashen Grey 2SS Auto with the Recaro seat option waiting. After the customary games and copies of ID’s, I set off in the Camaro. This car was stickered at $41,590 plus a $2,000 “Market Adjustment Value”. Why Chevrolet dealers in this area still assume that they can get that is beyond me, as is why they are even asking.
Since physical appearance is subjective to each person, I will pass on the comments concerning how I think the car looks, however one thing that did strike me was how frightfully plain and boring the interior on the Camaro was in comparison to the new Mustang and even the Challenger. The Recaro seats are on the same level of support and restraint as the BASE seats on the Mustang, but are very nice and have a modern, racey look to them. Unfortunately the rest of the interior is automotive melatonin.
Make no mistake, the Camaro is a very good car, but its design age is showing, as has GM’s general laziness in updating the drivetrain over the 5 years it has been available. The automatic, while sturdy, is a lethargic unit that betrays its truck origins while in stock tune. In daily driving the engine and transmission combination had plenty of power, but was in no hurry to deliver it to me unless I went full tilt on the fun pedal. With no available drive modes beyond D-rive and Manual “S” control, the transmission was soggy and completely muted the experience. I must state that the Mustangs transmission was also somewhat soft in normal mode, however that was cured with entering into Sport/Track, which the Camaro did not have the option of. I cannot fairly bash the Camaro for this as GM has not seen fit to include it. Putting the car Stabilitrack mode into sport/track helped relieve some of the smushy nature of the experience, however the Camaro felt almost totally disconnected from the road, I must attribute that to the sedan origins of the car, a fault shared with its larger, more powerful Mopar rival. One area where the Camaro had a more clear advantage was in braking, with the Brembos doing a very good job bringing the car down from speed, and I felt they inspired more confidence over the non-Brembo brakes on the Mustang, despite having similar dimensions.
The 6.2L L99 is a powerful, torque happy mill that brings more twist, lower in the RPM range than the 5.0, but only carries a 10 ft lb advantage over the Coyote despite having 1.2L more displacement. AFM was intrusive in the cruise with a slight but detectible lag between accelerator input and actual momentum shift, something the 5.0 did not share. The Camaro felt heavier than the Mustang, as it should being almost 150lbs more than an equally equipped Mustang, and with a softer suspension and numb chassis, the stock SS seemed willing to go into the corners, but wasn’t thrilled about it. Stability was never an issue, but the car simply did not communicate road conditions or the experience well at all.
I do not want to give the impression that the Camaro is a bad car, no, it is a GREAT car, but one where the design is showing its age and its less than ideal bones. I shouldn’t have to upgrade to a ZL1 or tack on a full track package to make the car live up to its Super SPORT name. The only reason I can see to buy a Camaro over a Mustang is if you’re a die hard brand loyalist or your prefer the looks of the Camaro more.
I figured since we are having just such a lovely discussion on the GTPP vs. 1LE front. I figured I would toss in a bit of a more average level discussion. Last night after work I swung by my Friendly Neighborhood Ford Store™ since they just got their first shipments of S550's in. 4 GT's and one EcoBoost were present. Their only GTPP had been a customer order and thus had gone out the day before. I drove a Ruby Red Prem. GT Auto w/ 401A, Redline interior, 18" wheels and the 3.15 diff and had a sticker price of just over $40,000 and my thanks to Crater Lake Ford in Medford, Oregon for allowing me the chance to have some good seat time with one of their initial stock.
This car is unmistakably a Mustang, and the pictures simply do not do it justice, the rear end, while appearing somewhat pinched in some pictures, flows amazingly in person and balances the car well. The car I drove did exhibit some of the nose-high stance commented on.
I've driven every model year Mustang since 2011 when the 5.0 returned, and this new Mustang is a world apart from them. The power, even with the stock tune and 3.15's, is totally different. In previous years you had to really wind up the 5.0 to get power, with this new version there is power everywhere, torque is plentiful and abundant all over the RPM range. I never felt like I was having to spin the engine into the stratosphere to get power like I did before with 5.0's, and the jump from 35mph on the on ramp to 90 happened alarmingly quick. In years prior Auto’s with the 3.15 gears felt a bit, well, lame below 4,000 RPM, not so with this car, 3.55’s will make a base auto GT into an absolute rocket and likely make 1st gear mostly useless, but time will tell. Passing was effortless and the engine behaved very well in traffic and on the freeway, resting at right about 1,750-1,800 RPM’s while cruising at 65. Braking was only satisfactory as I did not jump hard on the brakes due to the car only having 13 miles on it when I drove it.
Speed is deceptive with this car, you do not feel like you're going as fast as you really are, a tribute to how well balanced and constructed the new Mustang is. 50 mph feels like 35 and 80 feels like 50, you're really going to need the speedometer because the days of knowing how fast you're going by feel are gone. It's plainly obvious this new platform was designed from the bottom up for the Mustang; the car communicates beautifully and does not have the compromised feel that the Camaro and Challenger have.
Sightlines are unobstructed and the only place where vision is an issue is directly out the rear quarters, use your mirrors, because the quarter windows are nearly useless. The fastback profile lends itself well to the large rear window and provides exceptional visibility out back.
Driving ergonomics are superb and the seats hold you well in both the premium and base models, being 6'3 and 230 lbs. on a large frame I found the seats to immobilize well, Recaro's are wholly unnecessary unless you're going to be doing some serious tracking and for someone of my size would actually be very uncomfortable. The smaller steering wheel is a welcome change and the position of the paddle shifters is ideal for someone with large hands, however smaller hands may have issues. At no point did I feel like I did not have ample and readily available legroom, in fact I actually had to move my seat forward for the drive, an extremely rare event in any case for me. The backseat is useless for anything but cargo or perhaps a person without legs. I could see someone fitting in the back if a shorter person was in the passenger seat and moved it forward.
Two issues I must take issue with Ford with, however, is running only 235 wide tires standard on the GT. In all truth this car should have come with 18X9’s stock with 255’s all around as when I took the car into some corners hard was the only time I didn’t feel completely confident with the car, it needs more tire, period. The other is the environmental controls are needlessly complicated.
For the 2014 Camaro 2SS, I headed to one of our 5 major Chevrolet dealers in the area, and found a 2014 Ashen Grey 2SS Auto with the Recaro seat option waiting. After the customary games and copies of ID’s, I set off in the Camaro. This car was stickered at $41,590 plus a $2,000 “Market Adjustment Value”. Why Chevrolet dealers in this area still assume that they can get that is beyond me, as is why they are even asking.
Since physical appearance is subjective to each person, I will pass on the comments concerning how I think the car looks, however one thing that did strike me was how frightfully plain and boring the interior on the Camaro was in comparison to the new Mustang and even the Challenger. The Recaro seats are on the same level of support and restraint as the BASE seats on the Mustang, but are very nice and have a modern, racey look to them. Unfortunately the rest of the interior is automotive melatonin.
Make no mistake, the Camaro is a very good car, but its design age is showing, as has GM’s general laziness in updating the drivetrain over the 5 years it has been available. The automatic, while sturdy, is a lethargic unit that betrays its truck origins while in stock tune. In daily driving the engine and transmission combination had plenty of power, but was in no hurry to deliver it to me unless I went full tilt on the fun pedal. With no available drive modes beyond D-rive and Manual “S” control, the transmission was soggy and completely muted the experience. I must state that the Mustangs transmission was also somewhat soft in normal mode, however that was cured with entering into Sport/Track, which the Camaro did not have the option of. I cannot fairly bash the Camaro for this as GM has not seen fit to include it. Putting the car Stabilitrack mode into sport/track helped relieve some of the smushy nature of the experience, however the Camaro felt almost totally disconnected from the road, I must attribute that to the sedan origins of the car, a fault shared with its larger, more powerful Mopar rival. One area where the Camaro had a more clear advantage was in braking, with the Brembos doing a very good job bringing the car down from speed, and I felt they inspired more confidence over the non-Brembo brakes on the Mustang, despite having similar dimensions.
The 6.2L L99 is a powerful, torque happy mill that brings more twist, lower in the RPM range than the 5.0, but only carries a 10 ft lb advantage over the Coyote despite having 1.2L more displacement. AFM was intrusive in the cruise with a slight but detectible lag between accelerator input and actual momentum shift, something the 5.0 did not share. The Camaro felt heavier than the Mustang, as it should being almost 150lbs more than an equally equipped Mustang, and with a softer suspension and numb chassis, the stock SS seemed willing to go into the corners, but wasn’t thrilled about it. Stability was never an issue, but the car simply did not communicate road conditions or the experience well at all.
I do not want to give the impression that the Camaro is a bad car, no, it is a GREAT car, but one where the design is showing its age and its less than ideal bones. I shouldn’t have to upgrade to a ZL1 or tack on a full track package to make the car live up to its Super SPORT name. The only reason I can see to buy a Camaro over a Mustang is if you’re a die hard brand loyalist or your prefer the looks of the Camaro more.
Sponsored