By on March 15, 2017

American V8 Muscle

A few months ago, I promised the B&B they would never see American muscle cars in this Ace of Base series. Why? Well, it’s my firm belief the likes of Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger should be permanently equipped with a V8 engine and its accompanying sultry exhaust note.

I am here before you today not to break my promise, but — as I’ve said to my wife on occasion — to creatively keep my promise. Let’s find out what shoppers get for their cash in a no-option, V8-equipped example of the hairy-chested coupes hawked by the Detroit Three.

The muscle car wars is a feud as intense as the Hatfields and McCoys, and has been going on for nearly the same amount of time. It used to involve a few more players – AMC, for starters – but is now pared down to three manufacturers: Ford, Chevy, and Dodge. Generally, most folks are in one camp or another, with no in-between and bitter hatred for rivals. This assures my conclusions will summarily anger two-thirds of America’s muscle car fans. If, after reading this, you feel the need to rain hot motor oil upon me, please use 5W-20 so I can at least put it in my truck later.

2017 Dodge Challenger R/T

2017 Dodge Challenger
Choosing the R/T trim is the cheapest way to get into an eight-cylinder Challenger. Equipped with the tried-and-proven 5.7-liter Hemi V8, drivers will find themselves in control of 375 horsepower, all of which are sent to 245 section, 20-inch hoops at the rear by way of a Tremec-sourced six-speed manual. Styled to look like a Dodge straight out of the ‘70s, the Challenger’s split chrome grille and appearance of quad, sealed-beam headlights evokes good memories of big lapels and pork-chop sideburns. The Hemi burble rounds out the retro scene.

Inside, a no-options R/T is equipped with a 5-inch uConnect infotainment system and not the good 8.4-inch screen, but the Challenger acquits itself with good-feeling leather wrapped around its steering wheel and shifter. Throwback gauges and deep-in-a-well seating position are also reminiscent of the ’70s. Buyers should expect to see a Monroney bearing a price of $32,890 plus $1,095 destination. That is the cheapest of all three cars.

While the Challenger has the lowest price, it also has the lowest horsepower rating and the greatest amount of pavement-pressing mass. Here is a handy chart detailing the curb weights of the three V8-equipped American muscle cars on sale today.

American V8 Muscle curb weights

See why I can’t pick the Challenger? While the styling tugs on my sentimental heartstrings — I own two Dodges, remember — the 4,190-pound Challenger is seemingly hewn from a solid block of lead. Memo to Dodge: stop letting the Challenger run up to the ice cream truck every time it passes through the neighbourhood on a hot day.

That leaves the Mustang and Camaro. Gee. That’s a battle older than the ages, eh?

2017 Mustang GT Fastback

2017 Ford Mustang
Ford has imbued its base Mustang GT with the Fastback moniker, evoking misty-eyed memories of the ’60s when service was good and gas was cheap. Today’s drivers who select the base V8 Mustang will find themselves rollin’ in a five-point-oh that makes a remarkable 435 hp, all sent rearward via a six-speed manual to 18 inch, 235-width tires. Pay attention in parking lots; at Ford, like walking the dog, you’ll have to yank the (shifter’s) collar to find reverse. A stick-shift GT Fastback weighs 3,705 pounds.

The base V8 Mustang is priced at $33,195, plus $900 destination. Standard HID headlights will blind your oncoming enemies. Open the door, and one will find a tasty leather-wrapped wheel and shifter knob, manual climate control, and the el-cheapo stereo head unit. Drivers can call up the standard Track Apps to engage Ford’s electronic line lock to do apocalyptic burnouts. The Performance Package – bringing Brembo brakes, upgraded suspension, bigger meats, and a yaffle of stiffening braces – is a $2,995 option.

2017 Chevrolet Camaro 1SS

2017 Chevrolet Camaro
Many have complained about Camaro’s bunker-like visibility, but you’re only looking straight ahead down the drag strip or Woodward Avenue, right? Actually, that flippant statement blithely ignores the strides GM has made in Camaro’s handling, which can now confidently find its way around a corner or three. The standard 6.2-liter V8 puts out a whopping 455 hp, stirred with a six-speed manual. A rear-end stuffed with 3.73-ratio gearing (the best of our trio) and a curb weight of 3,685 pounds (also the best of our trio) ensures lightning off-the-line performance.

Twenty-inch hoops with summer runflats are part and parcel of the base V8 car, with wide 275 tires at the rear. Brembo brakes are along for the ride, too. Inside the bunker, GM makes the sensible choice to equip the thing with its large, 8-inch touchscreen equipped with SiriusXM and a backup camera. Priced at $36,905, GM slaps on a $995 destination fee.

Man, it’s a hard choice. Mustang … Camaro … Mustang … Camaro … I gotta go with the Mustang. It’s close though; the Camaro is a compelling package and I find it hard to say no to an extra 30 hp. But $3,800 is a big price difference. Considering that, one could spring for the Mustang’s optional Performance Package and still be money in pocket. Don’t though: that’ll break all the Ace of Base rules. Take the three grand and upgrade it to your own specifications … or use it for tires. With line lock, you’ll probably need ‘em.

Not every base model has aced it. The ones which have? They help make the automotive landscape a lot better. Any others you can think of, B&B? Let us know in the comments. Naturally, feel free to eviscerate our selections.

The models above is shown in Trump Bucks, absent of regional incentives and cash allowances. As always, your dealer may sell for less.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

89 Comments on “Ace of Base: American V8 Muscle...”


  • avatar
    S2k Chris

    The Mustang has available testicle chillers in the Premium pack, that would be a requirement for me. Plus the Performance Pack.

    • 0 avatar
      duffman13

      I could do without the premium pack, but I’d sub in the Recaros instead.

      I do have X-plan though, so I think I’d still be getting out the door for around $35k once incentives are factored in.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    V8? A base muscle car?

    Hmmmmm….

    I own a base BT50, with all the leather and bling.

    A V6 is the base. I’m sorry, but this is reality.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @BAFO – a normally aspirated V6 pony car is NO LONGER a muscle car. This is about muscle cars.

      Oh and according to Mazda Australia. Your truck isn’t quite the base model. Do you have a chassis cab truck? That is the base model.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        Lou,
        These vehicles are pony cars, not muscle cars.

        No muscle car has been built for some time.

        • 0 avatar
          scott25

          What are a Hellcat/any V8 Charger and an SS if not muscle cars?

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            scott,
            These are pony cars. The term was coined in the 60s around the time of the original Mustang.

            My view is once you option a vehicle to the extent of engine/drivetrain changes you no longer have a base model.

            A V8 will change the suspension as well.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        Doh, Lou, my pickup isn’t base! Neither is one of these V8s.

        Hmmm…..?????

        Hence, my point.

        This segment should be about base models.

        I did mention Ace of Base would be restricted due to choice.

        Can we expect an Ace of Base on XLT F150s?

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          “I own a base BT50″

          That is exactly what you said!

          ” my pickup isn’t base!”

          WTF?

          I didn’t know “alt news” was a contagion in Australia too?

          I wonder, is English a second language?

          “Can we expect an Ace of Base on XLT F150s?”

          XLT is base trim in SuperCrew so that would be a viable option for crewcab full sized pickups.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Lou,
            If a vehicle model comes stanard with a V6 and you start optioning/accessorising a vehicle it is no longer base.

            Are you trolling?

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            BAFO has the “BT50GT” edition, or so he’s claimed.

            But the lowest model “pony car” with the V8 is “base” to me.

            It’s the normal base V6 is what makes it a “pony car”. With just a V8 offered, it’d be a “muscle car”

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Big Al from Oz – this article is about *MUSCLE” cars.
            The base engine that turns a *PONY* car into a *MUSCLE* car is a V8.

            That concept dates back to the 1964 1/2 Mustang.

            The cars listed are *base* configurations for the V8.

            You obviously are the only one on this site that is struggling with that concept.

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            “If a vehicle model comes stanard with a V6 and you start optioning/accessorising a vehicle it is no longer base.”

            A V8 Mustang, Camaro and Challenger, is a distinct vehicle from the V6 version. One is a Muscle Car. The other a Pony Car. If I go buy a real, flesh and blood Mustang at my local horse trader, and name it Ford, it’s a Ford Mustang. But it’s not, despite the name similiarity, the same vehicle as a V8 Mustang. After all, what kind of Muscle vehicle has only one horsepower?

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Hey everyone!
            A trim for a model is the manufacturer optioning and accessorising a base model vehicle.

            No different than you setting “the trim”.

            A base model that comes as”X” unaltered is the base.

            You can’t say I bought a base model and optioned a new engine or what ever.

            You have changed the vehicle considerably.

            Maybe this “column” has deviated too much from its origin intent.

            As I stated my pickup is a base model with a larger engine, leather and bullsh!t. Not much different than our discussion.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al From 'Murica

          “Can we expect an Ace of Base on XLT F150s?”

          No…Because the XL is the base trim for all body styles…at least in the US per the Ford Website. XL Sport would probably be the ace of base edition. It is an XL but has sync3, painted bumpers, and decent rims. I would have gotten it verses my XLT were I buying today because I am retiring and have no need for the combo lock doors since I don’t have to leave my keys in there for morning PT anymore.

        • 0 avatar
          Flipper35

          Big Al, Scott is saying they do build muscle cars in the form or the Charger and SS.

    • 0 avatar
      Giltibo

      Base with no options? Make that Challenger Automatic! The Tremec 6-speed manual trans is an extra-cost option!

  • avatar
    ajla

    I want the Camaro’s drivetrain with the Challenger’s dimensions and the Mustang’s aftermarket.

  • avatar
    NoID

    To compete with the Mustang GT and Camaro SS, you really need to jump from the standard R/T to the R/T Scat Pack (preferably with the SHAKER HOOD!) and get 475 prancing ponies under the hood. That, or spring for the MOPAR Scat Pack upgrades for the 5.7L (good for up to 430 HP).

    Either one of those soundly disqualifies the Chally from receiving Ace of Base honors. But you gotta pay to play. At least that’s what your momma say.

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      Yeah, that’s the more comparable Challenger, performance-wise (and it’s 485 horses). But price-wise, it’s a killer. The equivalently equipped Scat Pack cost $7,000 more than the Mustang I bought. And mine’s a Premium with a few options. Even a stripped Scat Pack would have cost $2,000 more.

  • avatar
    Ianw33

    The whole “OMG the Challenger is FAT!!!111” mantra is getting very old.

    The Mustang/Camaro are not a direct comparison to the challenger. The challenger is more of a full size grand touring coupe, where the other two are smaller actual sports cars.

    I own a mustang. With that said, if I had better parking options (aka, bigger parking spots) and had the budget for a 392 challenger, I would have gone that way.

    Enthusiasts are weird. You would think that enthusiasts would be happy to have as many different options available through out the performance spectrum, but in the end, each enthusiast seems to think that their preferences are they only legit/pure preferences and that everyone should want only that option.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      +1. I think the Challenger’s size is perfect. If I had to use something with the dimensions of a Mustang or Camaro everyday I’d go crazy.

      • 0 avatar
        TMA1

        I think it depends on what dimensions are most important to you. I found the Mustang to be more comfortable for front seat passengers than the Challenger, because the Challenger’s fat console intrudes into the footwell.

        But then I usually drive my Mustang alone. Back seats or trunk, it’s Challenger all the way.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      “The challenger is more of a full size grand touring coupe”

      When equipped a certain way, it’s a personal luxury coupe. The modern-day 1975 Charger. If Chrysler made its own version, they could call it the Cordoba (but probably wouldn’t.)

      • 0 avatar
        Heino

        But can you get Corinthian Leather?

      • 0 avatar
        PenguinBoy

        “The modern-day 1975 Charger.”
        +1

        Back in the early ’80s, I had a 1977 Charger with 400, 4V, and dual exahusts. The Lean Burn and smog equipment were removed, and the 727 had a mild shift kit in it. It was a great long distance road trip car, and the performance was respectable by the admittedly low standards of the late malaise era. I totally get the appeal of the modern Challenger – make mine a 6MT, preferably with the 392.

        Both the Challenger and Mustang appeal to me, but for different reasons. I’m glad all three cars exist, and that they have different virtues and vices. I’m not sure how much longer we’ll be able to get affordable rear wheel drive cars with powerfull normally aspirated V8 engines and manual transmissions, so if you want one, act now before it’s too late…

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      My problem with the Challenger’s size is that if I’m going to put up with that much footprint and mass I really want four doors and a limo-like back seat to go with it.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      I do agree that the Mustang and Camaro are better sports cars but aren’t we talking about muscle cars?
      The Camaro and Mustang function well as sports cars. The Challenger does better with “grand touring”.
      The question here: which one is the best muscle car?
      Muscle cars exist to cruise and go fast in a straight line. I’m betting that the Ford and Chevy are faster in a drag race. IIRC, at a drag strip, the Camaro is fastest followed by the Mustang. The Challenger is last.

  • avatar
    MLS

    Second use of “yaffle” in as many days. That’s two too many.

    • 0 avatar
      cdotson

      And again “yaffle” was used incorrectly, as was pointed out after its previous usage. Not sure if he intended to mean eating noisily or the sound of a European green woodpecker. My guess is he meant “passel” but couldn’t bother finding the right word for some reason.

  • avatar
    Carlson Fan

    Dang I like the Challenger! The front end is absolutely menacing – love it!

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Mustang for fun quick little runs, the Challenger for cross country trips – cause you won’t build me a 300 Coupe.

  • avatar

    Having driven the I4, V6 and V8, I can attest that the turbo 4s have more than enough performance for pretty much any application short of road racing or drag racing – and can be upgraded to match the output of the V8 by anyone competent to turn a wrench and plumb an oil line.

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      If you’re going to spend money to upgrade a turbo 4, why not just buy the V8 in the first place.

      It’s arguments like that that just make me think, “I could add a supercharger to the 5.0 and be putting down 700hp, with a Ford warranty.”

      • 0 avatar
        DevilsRotary86

        It’s entirely illogical, but the only reason I can give is that I just prefer to have the inline-4 turbo. I think it’s plenty powerful for street use and a few upgrades would be nice, like the new kit Ford released for the Ecoboost.

        Yes I could have had a V8, but I don’t want the V8. I have never cared for V8’s, I don’t like how they sound, and in my opinion 435hp is just silly for street use much less 700. No, my turbo-4 is very much a Goldilocks “just right” engine.

    • 0 avatar
      bunkie

      I’ve driven all three variants of the new Mustang and while the I4 is powerful, the best word to describe it is “reluctant”. Yes, it makes big power, but it really doesn’t want to unless you beat it with a stick. The V8, on the other hand is a bulldog straining at the leash, It *wants* to show what it can do all the time.

      That is why, no matter how good the I4 looks on paper, there is no comparison in the real world. In fact, I’d rather have the V6 than the I4 despite the top-end deficit. It, too, is a willing participant.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      I can’t speak for the Chevy four-cylinder, but Ford’s is somewhat joyless. I’d have expected it to be either lighter or more freely-revving, but it’s neither.

      I suppose a Mustang with the heart of an Integra is kind of asking too much.

  • avatar
    DevilsRotary86

    And I went and bought a 4-cylinder Mustang Premium with all the options except the performance pack and adaptive cruise, rocking 17″ wheels. I was just born to break all the rules. It cost me about the same as the prices quoted above for a base V8.

    Base V8 or loaded 4-cylinder? I made my choice, and I stick with it.

  • avatar
    philadlj

    I’ll take the Camaro. Best engine, lightest weight, best-looking (IMO), and it doubles as a bomb shelter.

    • 0 avatar
      MrIcky

      Well I’m a little torn on it’s looks, but it’s the complete package performance wise. It’s really hard to beat an SS right now at the price if going fast is your priority.

    • 0 avatar
      DevilsRotary86

      When I bought my Mustang last year, I also looked at a Camaro 2LT with the turbo-4 (I know, I know, I am doing this wrong). You are right, as a sports car it was tops. I looked at it because unlike the Mustang, the Camaro does offer a sunroof and that would have been nice. But I couldn’t get away from the surprisingly tight interior, small rear seat, and miniscule trunk. For a reference on the trunk, the Acura this car was replacing had a 16 cu ft trunk, the Ford had 13 cu ft, and the Camaro had 9 cu ft.

  • avatar
    whitworth

    I would love to pull something from all of them for the ultimate muscle car.

    I think the Challenger is the best looking, but too large. And Mopar has no quality control. The Camaro probably has the best all around engine, but is ugly to my eyes and just has a real cheesy vibe. The Mustang is probably the best all around vehicle, but I’m not crazy about the looks. The front end doesn’t work for me. At other angles though it looks sharp. Also just seems more upscale.

    They’ve definitely come a long way and the price reflects that. They used to basically be economy cars with V8 engines, now they are more like the company’s higher end offering with a better power plant.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      Camaro has always had a fairly competent chassis, from the get-go GM was building a budget performance car where Mustang tended toward the sporty package based on economy car bones (with the compromises that presented) until the S-197 and S550 cars which are bespoke chassis not shared with anything else in Ford’s stable.

      People give the 3rd/4th gen Camaros hell but they were pretty damn good. Especially by the time the 4th gen rolled around and they had nailed down the tuning. The 4th gen SS Camaro was running faster at Milford than the Corvette. Its just a shame GM was so adverse to quality materials back then along with decent ergonomics.

      • 0 avatar
        whitworth

        I’ll have to respectfully disagree, the 3rd gen camaros were garbage (even though I liked the lines in that era)

        The 4th Gen Camaros had the better engine if all you were about was straight line performance (that’s what more displacement does) but ask most Camaro owners of that era and they will admit the cars fell apart pretty quickly. The mustang was the far better car for actual ownership. You just had to have the humilation of a bow tie beating you.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          “You just had to have the humilation of a bow tie beating you…”

          It’s easy not to remember the “notchback”. Most IROC-z’s were automatics and or GM 5.0’s. A heavy convertible LX/GT would embarrass those.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    This is not a class where I’d want a base model. These are performance cars, and all three of them have terrific performance options that seem to me like no-brainers at the price.

  • avatar
    orick

    Come on. No one else is going yellow Camaro cause bumblebee?

  • avatar
    ptschett

    I’d go with the base Challenger R/T 5.7L with a few simple additions: 8-speed auto (I don’t particularly love manuals), 8.4AN, Sirius, block heater (it gets cold up here in Nord Dakota dontchaknow), blind spot sensors, Super Track Pack, and the no-cost option on the STP to get 4-season tires instead of summer tires. That combination is what lives in my garage.

  • avatar
    pmirp1

    The correct answer is Challenger or Mustang.
    Challenger if you like a luxury cruiser. Big old American V8, what Pontiac Grand Prix And Chevy Monte Carolo and Chrysler Cordoba used to be. or at a higher end what Olds Toronado, or Buick Riviera were. What Ford Thunderbird was. What Caddy and Lincoln refuse to give us, and Ford and Chevy won’t even think about.

    Mustang is so much the better muscle car. Camaro is a great engine and chassis, but it is as though Chevy doesn’t even try with the Camaro. If you want to see Chevy try, then just test the Stingray. Stingray is special everywhere, Camaro is old GM trying to act like new GM. The quality and plastics suck, there is nothing that makes you feel special, other than gimmicks like where the AC outlets are. It is not just that the Camaro is a bunker, it is that you can’t feel comfortable on a highway changing lanes. What good is that? Or when you sit, you are so far down putting your arm on the door will make you just look stupid.

    Mustang is the perfect combination of sporty, and premium. Ford has that figured out. It is not even close. Mustang every day. There is not even in a car in the world that can compete with the Coyote V8.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      I’d disagree about he Camaro, the ZL1 is a beast and the ZL1 1LE more so. You cant touch that level of performance in GM’s stable (or any domestic manufacturer) for the price and when you move down to the lesser models your getting great dollar/performance. The SS 1LE will give the GT350 a hard time for thousands less and the SS is still a good deal when you look at the performance numbers. Its a shame GM wrapped the 2016 car’s in what amounts to styling best described as day old bread.

      I agree Ford did it right with the S550 with its clean break in styling over the previous cars and the overall feel of the interior but if your not brand loyal and can get past the styling and packaging on the Camaro (not really that bad and I have to admit compared to the Mustang GM gets its seats right – in the GT350 and my old GT you feel like your sitting on top of the seat instead of in the seat where the Camaro you sit in the seat) its a solid car for the money.

      I’ll be interested to see how the 2018 Mustang stacks up performance wise with the introduction of the big bore block and DI/PI. The Coyote is a good engine but its not well suited to American driving habits where people like to mash the gas from an idle and go. Definitely an engine that you have to beat on to extract maximum performance where the big torquey 6.2 LT allows a person to extract that performance easier. The aforementioned improvements should help in that department though.

  • avatar
    Matt Foley

    The turbo-4 Camaro and Mustang are great cars. They really are. They have more in common with a 430i than they do with the Z28s and Mustang GTs of 15 years ago, especially since mainstream BMWs have gotten so big, soft, and heavy. And unlike the 430i, you can still get a proper manual in a turbo-4 Camaro or Mustang.

    But like Matthew Guy, I can’t get over my “proper pony car has 8 cylinders” prejudice. It’s so stupid, I know. Why would I pass on a ~300hp American grand-touring coupe because it doesn’t make rumbly sounds when you put the hammer down?

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      But why would I want to spend that much money on something that doesn’t make rumbly sounds? At that point I might as well buy a Civic 2.0L and save some cash. I’m much more interested in emotional appeal over technical excellence.

    • 0 avatar
      bunkie

      Two words:

      Throttle response. I expect a muscle car to be strong enough to propel itself off the line smartly without waiting for a turbo to spool up. The non-linear character of turbo cars reminds me of my two-stroke motorcycles as in not enough power and then way-too-much-too-fast. I grew out of that years ago.

      I hate cars that are always asking me the car equivalent of “are you sure?”. Damn straight, I’m sure. That’s why I floored it.

      • 0 avatar
        DevilsRotary86

        As the owner of an Ecoboost Mustang, I can tell you it’s pretty damn good in that department. The ecoboosts use a fairly small turbo that spools up fast. And exhaust manifold design is simply light years ahead of what it used to be. The delay is still there, but it’s not much at all.

      • 0 avatar
        DC Bruce

        Eggsactly! I’ve owned turbo 4s and normally aspirated 6s and V-8s. I’ve driven Ford’s “Ecoboost” V-6. It still has a non-linear throttle . . . not as bad as some in the past (I’m looking at you, first-gen Acura RDX!), but not like a normally aspirated engine.

        Actually, the Saab people had the turbo thing down pretty well. In “relaxed driving” with an autobox, it was pretty invisible. IN sport mode, it was pretty peaky.

      • 0 avatar
        Moparmann

        @Bunkie: +100!

  • avatar
    JMII

    I’d take the Mustang based on the fact that when your burning rubber constantly 18″ tires are cheaper. I really wish the Mustang was a true liftback like the ‘Stangs I grew up with in the 80s. Just because the back seats are tight why make the trunk nearly useless too? Give me a hatch with fold down rear seats. I also find Ford’s interiors to be superior to Chevy’s. I’ve yet to drive from inside the bunker of the Camaro but Mustang is honestly not winning any awards in this category either. I found the dash is too high and the hood too long. One of the nice things about my Z is the low dash and hood that dips out of sight. To me the Mustang’s I’ve been in feel like aircraft carriers in comparison.

    The Challenger is just a big brute, a street cruiser or drag strip machine. I’ve been on track aboard one and it sways like a ship at sea when you attempt to turn it, then it wags its tail during any attempt at applying power due to a lack of grip. I understand the appeal but I wouldn’t take one if you gave it to me.

    • 0 avatar
      bunkie

      Check out the Camaro trunk. That’s where all the back seat room went. I rented one a few weeks back and was really surprised at how deep and long the trunk space is.

  • avatar
    Chan

    I have a soft spot for the Challenger.

    While the Mustang and Camaro have evolved into actual sports cars (the Camaro more so with this generation), the Challenger has remained an unapologetic cruiser.

    Nothing wrong with a boat that can rocket past others on the highway with ease, and it looks the meanest too. As a bonus, it even has the nicest interior.

    IMO, Chevy took too big a gamble with the styling. The Camaro’s visibility is worse than a supercar’s and the rear seats are useless. Those will be deal-breakers for many.

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      That’s the first time I heard someone say the new Camaro’s styling is a gamble. I have to look for that little badge on the fender to make sure it’s not the 5th-generation car.

      • 0 avatar
        Chan

        Clarification: The 5th-gen was the waist-deep gamble, but at least it was a larger car despite its terrible space utilisation. The 6th-gen is neck-deep, and the “benefits” (more bluntly, design slop) of the larger body went away.

  • avatar
    TMA1

    It would be useful to talk about real-world prices. When shopping last year, Z-plan Mustang GT’s with no options were available below the $30K mark. Challengers usually get quite a bit off sticker as well.

    I don’t know what the current status of the Camaro is. When I was looking, dealers weren’t interested in talking discounts, and the only V8s available were all loaded 2SS models in the mid- to high-$40’s.

    • 0 avatar
      DevilsRotary86

      Given the recent news about how GM dealers are swimming in inventory right now, they should be more reasonable.

      • 0 avatar
        TMA1

        That’s what I figured. I recall they were doing the 20% off MSRP sales last year for the oldest Camaros on the lot. Not really a factor when I was shopping, and the Camaro is by far the worst to drive of the three. By far. I felt that was worth reiterating.

        How did they manage to take the 5th-generation Camaro, and make the visibility even worse?

  • avatar
    incautious

    The challenger is the one for day to day driving esp if carting around extra passengers as it actually has a back seat that can fit two adults. It also has the most comfortable ride for everyday driving. The camaro rear passenger compartment is akin to a medieval torture chamber. Oh by the way I own a Camaro SS so I know what I’m talking about. The camaro comes out everyone else stays home. The reason for buying the Camaro, simple, Dodge doesn’t offer a convertible!

  • avatar
    turbo_awd

    Local dealer recently advertised a Charger 392 Daytona (that’s the equivalent of the SRT392 except for some performance settings and the adaptive suspension) for $38,xxx. THAT got my attention (MSRP is around 44-45k). 485 hp, huge Brembos, room for passengers in the back (I have kids), etc..

  • avatar
    LS1Fan

    “….which can now confidently find its way around a corner or three. ”

    The 4th Gen Camaro/Firebird wont beat a BMW for interior quality,but it will stomp one in the corners- and other cars with performance pedigree.

  • avatar
    pb35

    I picked up a 2017 Regal Peacock Green SS, 6mt no sunroof for for $39.2k last week. Overpriced at $49k but $39k? Deal of the century.

  • avatar
    RedRocket

    What, no mention of the base Mustang’s burlap upholstery, 99% of the time found only in black on dealer lots? That interior feels worse than a 1968 base model Ford Custom sedan.

    Unfortunately, the Camaro is only slightly better.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • threeer: So maybe some of that $300 Billion (plus) trade deficit we “enjoy” with China year over year is...
  • Penguinlord: “All work, and no play? Give Jack a Mighty Boy!” Unfortunately for my slogan, this thing...
  • Penguinlord: You are right, there is sometimes a distinct time-lag involved in recognizing the sound and responding...
  • Shortest Circuit: I suspect with the B&B, you are preaching to the choir Jack. Yes every driver should receive...
  • SoCalMikester: an iQ would suit me just fine. i will stick with my xA because its been paid for the past 11 years,...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States