By on June 23, 2016

2016 Chevrolet Camaro

On the Muscle Car Calendar, 2016 was supposed to be the Year of Camaro.

After outselling the Ford Mustang in the United States in five consecutive years between 2010 and 2014, it wasn’t surprising to see the Chevrolet Camaro fade into a distant second place in calendar year 2015. The Mustang was all-new in sixth-generation form for model year 2015; the Camaro was in its seventh and last year of its fifth iteration. The refreshed Dodge Challenger’s success may have played a role in the Camaro’s sharp decline, too, as 2015 was the seventh consecutive year of U.S. Challenger sales growth.

2016, with the reborn Camaro freshly reengineered and the Mustang no longer the freshest American muscle, is not turning out to be the Camaro’s time to shine.

Through the first five months of 2016, the Ford Mustang has outsold the Chevrolet Camaro by 21,324 units in the United States, a margin that may be impossible for the Camaro to overcome by year’s end.

2016 Ford Mustang GT

There are a number of business factors at play.

Automotive News says Ford Motor Company’s Flat Rock, Michigan, assembly plant built more than 68,000 Mustangs in the first five months of 2016, while General Motors’ Lansing, Michigan, assembly plant built fewer than 49,000 Camaros.

According to Cars.com, Ford dealers have far greater inventory of affordable Mustangs; nearly double the number of sub-$30,000 Mustangs than Chevrolet dealers have sub-$30,000 Camaros.

Jim Cain (no relation to the author), GM’s senior manager of Chevrolet business communications, says this is the nature of launching a performance car.

“The early customers tend to be the most hardcore enthusiasts who are buying their dream car,” Cain says. “These customers are much more likely to check all the boxes — they want the most features and the most performance they can afford. As such, the first year of sales we expect to skew higher for V-8 models, manual transmissions, and higher trim levels.”

Outside of incentives, the base MSRP of a Chevrolet Camaro is 7-percent higher than the base price of the Ford Mustang; Camaro Convertible base prices are 10-percent higher, a $3,150 gap. The V8 variant of the Camaro is $4,000 more costly. GM’s Cain says incentives equal roughly $900 per Camaro at Chevrolet; $1,900 per Mustang at Ford. Erich Merkle, Ford spokesperson and sales analyst said, “Our Mustang incentive spend is in line with the segment average.”

Regardless of the levels of Mustang production and the heights of Camaro pricing, there’s no denying that the number of Camaros sold by Chevrolet is decreasing. Rapidly. And the number of Camaros sold is decreasing even though Chevrolet dealers have plenty of Camaros to sell.

Heading into May 2016, GM had a 71-day supply of roughly 20,000 Camaros, essentially on par with the industry’s 70-day average. Yet year-over-year, Camaro volume tumbled 40 percent to 5,827 units, a loss of 3,926 sales compared with May 2015 and by far the lowest-volume May since the Camaro’s 2009 return. Ford sold more than 10,000 Mustangs in May; the Dodge Challenger outsold the Camaro by 850 units in May, as well. Year-to-date, Camaro volume is down 6 percent compared with sales in 2015, a year in which Camaro volume fell to a six-year low.

Meanwhile, May was the Mustang’s third consecutive five-digit U.S. sales month. May 2016 Mustang sales fell 24 percent compared with May 2015, when Mustang volume soared to a the highest level in years. Through five months, Mustang volume is down 6 percent, as well, though for the Mustang this occurs one year after the all-new, highly regarded car lured waiting buyers into Ford showrooms; the year after Ford Mustang volume rose to an eight-year high.

The hard numbers don’t tell the whole story, however.

GM’s Cain says the Camaro is capturing an increased share of the retail market. “Camaro retail sales are up 13 percent so far this year. Fleet sales are down 53 percent,” Cain told TTAC in an email, while claiming that more than a quarter of Mustang sales head to daily rental fleets.

Yet even without those Mustang daily rental sales – 11,282 through the end of May, according to GM – the Mustang is still outselling its most direct Chevrolet rival — a rival which had the Ford pony car’s number for half a decade — by more than 10,000 units so far this year.

Questions posed to Ford on this subject were responded to largely with claims of overwhelming popularity.

“Mustang is the best-selling sports car both in total and in retail sales here in the U.S.,” Ford’s Erich Merkle told TTAC. Pointing to the fanfare Ford carved out with worldwide success a couple of months ago, Merkle says, “Not only is Mustang a top seller in America, but we are also the top seller globally.”

No matter how it find its customers, no matter the price those customers are willing to accept, it’s highly improbable that we’ll see the Camaro knock the Mustang down a peg by reclaiming its overall U.S. sales crown in calendar year 2016.

General Motors is on track to sell fewer than 75,000 Camaros in calendar year 2016, the lowest total since 61,648 were sold in the 2009 launch year. Even in decline, Ford is on track to sell more than 110,000 Mustangs in America this year. From here on out, the Camaro would need to outsell the Mustang by an average of 3,050 units per month to overcome the current deficit, and GM’s newfound unwillingness to trade heavily in the daily rental market makes that highly unlikely.

Both cars — indeed the Dodge Challenger, too — mark themselves out as decidedly mainstream purchases relative to the achievements of other sporting cars. The Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger are America’s 15th, 26th, and 28th best-selling passenger cars, respectively, so far this year. The Mustang outsells the Kia Optima and Volkswagen Jetta, the Camaro outsells the Mercedes-Benz C-Class and is within striking distance of the Chrysler 200, and the Challenger leads Chrysler’s own 300 as well as the Volkswagen Passat, BMW 3-Series, Nissan Maxima, Subaru Legacy, and Honda Fit.

Timothy Cain is the founder of GoodCarBadCar.net, which obsesses over the free and frequent publication of U.S. and Canadian auto sales figures. Follow on Twitter @goodcarbadcar and on Facebook.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

92 Comments on “Ford Mustang vs. Chevrolet Camaro: 2016 Is Clearly Not The New Camaro’s Year...”


  • avatar

    Charger and Challenger SRT.

    Because: nobody really goes to tracks anyway…

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      So not true!

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      Not everyone wants a 4500lb boat either or needs to buy and drive their manhood. Buddy of mine has a Challenger SRT8. Not bad but it’s about as big outside as a SWB 7 and as small inside as a 2 series.

      http://www.cars.com/go/compare/trimCompare.jsp?acodes=USC60DOC191D0,USC60BMC631A0,USC30BMC081A0

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      Challenger SRT starting MSRP: $50,195.

      Mustang GT starting MSRP: $32,645

      That’s a lot of money for people in this segment. Even the $6K premium for the Scat Pack is enough to dissuade a lot of buyers. The Mustang is new; the Challenger is now very old. The Mustang can go fast in a straight line, and it turns, too. Just in case that comes up.

    • 0 avatar
      Frylock350

      @BTSR,

      I prefer the styling of the Challenger; but I’d go Camaro simply because the Challenger doesn’t offer a convertible.

    • 0 avatar
      Number23

      I’ve tracked my 2012 Boss 302 5 times. I bought because it was mostly track ready.

    • 0 avatar
      devonblue4u

      Uh, who exactly are you speaking for… I’m with raph on this one.
      I just rented a 2016 Camaro SS for 4 days from Avis at SFO. I am interested in replacing my GT, and I thought 4 days would give me a pretty good idea about the new one. I loved it! Even with the 8 speed autobox, it beat my expectations. I sampled the gen 5 six years ago, and it sold me on the GT. Believe it or not, it isn’t as hard to see out of as the Gen 5, is better looking than the S550 Mustang, and I think it can give the GT350 a run for the money if equipped properly – even before the 1LE comes out – for less money than the GT350.

  • avatar
    CarnotCycle

    Given most folks don’t realize 2016 Camaro is different car than, say, a 2012 Camaro, the lack of corresponding engagement isn’t that surprising.

    • 0 avatar
      carguy

      +1: The “let’s take no risks” strategy with the styling makes is hard for some buyers to recognize the 2016 Camaro as new. I am sure that Audi is about to find the same thing with the “new” A5.

      The other reason for poor sales is the price. I don’t doubt that its a performance bargain but more dollars simply means that less buyers can afford it.

      • 0 avatar
        Zackman

        Could it also be a factor that Mustangs have windows so you can see out of the car?

        • 0 avatar
          bswanny

          Bahahaha took the words right out of my mouth. Amen

        • 0 avatar
          Nick

          Who knew being able to see out of a car was a desirable attribute? Kreskin?

          Seriously though, I sat in a new one recently and with the new Camaro GM has managed to make a car as bad in terms of packaging and outward visibility as the old F-body. That must have taken some work.

      • 0 avatar
        James2

        Audi design hasn’t changed AT ALL in at least a decade. They’ve only nibbled around the edges.

        Chevy has, with the Silverado, and now with the Camaro decided to stay with basically the same design, for better and worse. Funny, they ping-pong from one theme to another with the Malibu and Impala and both the Cruze and Volt changed dramatically from one gen to the next.

        +1 on the windows. That will turn off the non-fanboi buyer.

      • 0 avatar
        bswanny

        Agree completely. Its really an expensive car that you cant see out of

    • 0 avatar
      BiturboS4

      Agreed. The juvenile styling is a major turn off for folks that can afford these cars. I’m in the market for a muscle car and even though the reviewers rave about the Camaro’s performance, I just can’t see myself buying one because they are just so adolescent.

    • 0 avatar
      energetik9

      “Given most folks don’t realize 2016 Camaro is different car than, say, a 2012 Camaro, the lack of corresponding engagement isn’t that surprising.”

      Good point. I’m guessing most people can’t tell them apart.

      • 0 avatar
        TMA1

        Yeah, I just spotted one last week, and from behind I didn’t realize it was the new model. It was so filthy on the outside, and the driver was a young guy, I assumed it was probably on its 2nd or 3rd owner already. From the side I saw the badge and realized it was the new model.

        • 0 avatar
          PrincipalDan

          I can tell the difference between the Camaro generations if viewed head on or from the direct rear.

          As I’ve said before, it is time to ape the styling of the 1972 split bumper model if GM wants to make waves.

    • 0 avatar
      bachewy

      The difference is the new Camaro is even smaller than before.

      At 6’3″ I couldn’t even sit up straight in the previous generation Camaro. Also, NObody could see out of the windows. That problem definitely hasn’t improved with the new design.

      Also as mentioned below the new Camaro highly resembles the ‘old’ Camaro.

  • avatar
    yamahog

    Maybe Ford moves more metal, but the real winner is the person making the money. I have to believe that GM mints money on the Camaro SS – the cars are pretty spendy, have very low incentives, and that engine has to be so cheap compared to Ford’s 5.0 DOHC.

    Personally, I think the Camaro got the engine options right 2.0 T < V6 < V8.

    It's a shame that Ford nerf'd the V6 Mustang but apparently it doesn't matter. What's the tuning community doing with the 2.0 ecoboost?

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      “What’s the tuning community doing with the 2.0 ecoboost?”

      MAPerformance got one up over 500 hp on stock internals, but obv with upgraded turbo hardware.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      I wouldn’t be worried about the Mustang’s profitability. Especially when it continues to have five digit sales months. The Camaro also has to save the Alpha platform. Which, so far, has been a sales disaster for GM. I’m sure everyone at Lansing Assembly is happy they finally have a product to build that customers actually want.

      • 0 avatar
        yamahog

        I’m not worried about it either but GM mints money on everything with a pushrod V8.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          That is true. They better sell a bunch of Camaro SSs because that platform is an albatross.

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          Let’s not be valve actuation snobs. Sure the pushrod tech is cheaper. But it is also very effective in LS/LT form. A 6,500 RPM redline is nothing to be embarrassed by. Nor are the horsepower numbers, or the mileage. And a nice compact design allows for a low hood. So, other than not being as “modern”, giving up a few RPM’s and the subsequent bragging rights what do you really lose? Well, you do lose the ability to adjust the valve timing of the intake independently of the exhaust – not a trivial thing. Anything else?

          • 0 avatar
            Kenmore

            “valve actuation snob”

            T-shirt!

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            The only people who complain about pushrod engines are people who have never had to live daily with a peaky, high-rpm engine in a car. Because the vast majority of day-to-day driving is done in the lower third/half of the RPM range, and that is where a peaky, high-specific-output engine is at its worst.

            I guess what I’m saying is that the Internet People who complain about pushrods probably don’t even have a car at all, and just argue about what they think sounds right from what they’ve read online.

          • 0 avatar
            tekdemon

            Problem is JimZ, the Camaro is a sports car where people do want a revvy motor.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “Problem is JimZ, the Camaro is a sports car where people do want a revvy motor.”

            assumes facts not in evidence.

          • 0 avatar
            ElAntonius

            As someone who owned a 2010 Camaro SS, then a Boss 302, I can say for a fact that the pushrod motor is not at all a problem for the Chevy.

            The LS3 (and I assume the LT4) are sweet gems as engines, they feel meaty right when the the Roadrunner is barely getting started.

            And this is from someone who does definitely prefer “peaky” high RPM engines. The Boss and the GT350 are right up my alley.

            The Camaro’s problems are thus: in a 10 minute test drive, the average buyer isn’t going to feel the difference in 0-60 in 4.5 sec vs 4.0 sec. But they are going to notice they can’t see very well, and they feel claustrophobic, and that the styling is barely different from the 2015 model whereas the Mustang looks completely new, and that you can get into a V8 Mustang for $32k, while the Camaro starts at $37k, and the loaded one is approaching GT350 pricing…

            Engine? Nah. Chevy got that down. The SBC is a gem.

          • 0 avatar
            Morea

            “valve actuation snob”

            Go desmo or go home!

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      The V6 model was nerfed even harder for 2017. Almost all ’16 models were optioned with a package that added power seats/fog lights/18-inch wheels. Those are no longer options. If you want a V6 Mustang, you’re now stuck with 17’s. I didn’t even know Mustangs came with 17’s!

  • avatar
    JimZ

    doesn’t help that the Camaro is harder to see out of than an army blockhouse.

    • 0 avatar
      dougjp

      +1

      It is their failure to resolve this issue after everybody telling them the last version was hopeless in this regard. Countless people told them they crossed the car off their list for this reason.

  • avatar
    whynot

    Probably not helping is the fact that at first glance the new Camaro looks very similar to the old Camaro, while the new Mustang is clearly distinct form the old one (but still looks like a Mustang).

    This is a segment where image is very important. Hard to make a big splash if your new product looks just like the old one. Chevy/GM doesn’t help with their historically awful/boring press shots.

  • avatar
    seth1065

    No idea where those Chargers sales are in metro Ny it is one Charger for every 20 BMW # series , I am sure GM is not happy about this but if they are deciding not to dump to the rentals it may be a good move long term.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Alpha sux, Zeta bux.

  • avatar

    There’s plenty of one on one tests by car magazines and internet blogs to understand the difference between the Camaro SS and the Mustang GT. The Mustang outruns the Camaro. The Mustang outhandles the Camaro. The fit and finish is better on the Mustang. The Mustang is more comfortable.

    Things get a little murkier when you compare base models but a couple of things remain the same. The Mustang has better fit and finish and is the more comfortable car to drive.

    Doesn’t seem a mystery why the Mustang outsells the Camaro.

    • 0 avatar
      MrIcky

      That’s not accurate for the 16 at all. What tests are you referring to because ALL the latest camparos show the Camaro dominating the Mustang on pretty much every performance metric? And the Alpha platform is supposed to be pretty well built. The suspension is practically being praised as the second coming in some of the mag-tests I’ve read.

      I’m not really a Camaro fan, but I’m appreciating what they pulled off performance wise so I’d like to see where you are getting this? Or…just another fanboy (most likely).

      • 0 avatar

        I could cite them all here but you do have Google, right?

        Car and Driver did a comparison test of the ’16 SS vs a ’15 GT. The GT won.

        Digital Trends compared two ’16 models and the Mustang won.

        Motor Trend compared the two and the Camaro won because of it’s track performance but declared the Mustang the better car to “drive across the U.S.A.”

        There are a few others. Almost everyone that actually tested the two declared the Mustang the better daily driver regardless of how they scored the outcome of their comparison test.

        So the question is… Whatcha gonna do with the car? Drive it every day in the real world or drive it on track days?

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          “Car and Driver did a comparison test of the ’16 SS vs a ’15 GT. The GT won.”

          I could not care less about the opinions from the hacks at Motortrend and C&D but the Camaro won.

          http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-vs-2015-ford-mustang-gt-comparison-test

        • 0 avatar
          MrIcky

          Ya, I can google. You posted this: “The Mustang outruns the Camaro. The Mustang outhandles the Camaro.”

          I’ve got C&D, R&T, and Hot Rod magazine subscriptions. They’re probably all biased to hell- but on the objective numbers, the Mustang got killed.

          Sorry man, love or hate the Camaro- it is fast. Next time, I’ll google “what will WhiskeyRiver pull out of his ass”

          • 0 avatar
            05lgt

            When I see these comparisons I always wonder what the results would be if you specified cars with identical sales prices. Between MSRP and incentives it looks like 5k difference, that should mean comparing a GT with … certainly not an SS, maybe not even a V8. I’m not sure who depreciation benefits more, but when it comes time to buy, the magazine BS melts away and reality guides the purchase.

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            Is the Mustang really assembled better than the Camaroo? I looked at both at the car show this spring and the Camaro was well assembled with nice tight fits, even that lame hood to fender detail was tight. Perhaps the show cars are massaged – I have not seen a new Camaro in the wild, or maybe I did and did not recognize it as the new car.

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            Remember the 80s gentlemen? The Camaro was the darling of the Automotive Press and in sales (most of the time) the Mustang still killed it.

          • 0 avatar
            TMA1

            golden2, you should have grabbed the door handle of that Camaro. It would have instantly dispelled any notion that the car was well put together. Every Camaro I’ve touched on the lot has a loose door handle.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    No mystery for me – in this category, styling sells, and the Mustang is just too damn sexy, no matter what trim Ford makes it in. For my money, it may be the best looking car on the market without a “Ferrari” badge.

    Meanwhile, the new Camaro looks about the same as the last one. Plus, you can’t see out of it. Minor problem.

    Mustang for the win.

  • avatar
    DevilsRotary86

    I may have a small bit of experience to contribute to this. I recently decided to trade in my 2006 Acura RSX Type S. I had a few requirements that I laid out:

    – Will be buying new
    – Must be a two door
    – Must be a four seater
    – Must get a minimum EPA rating of 20 mpg city
    – Must be a manual transmission but must be easier to operate than my RSX
    – Wife and daughter must be comfortable riding in it.
    – Strongly desire a softer suspension than my RSX-S
    – Strongly desire a built in sat-nav system.
    – Spacious back seat is a plus
    – Factory installed Sub woofer is a plus
    – Strongly prefer a trunk over a hatch
    – Prefer leather interior
    – Budget of up to about $40k

    So from those specifications, the list was: Subaru BRZ, Camaro 2LT 2.0T, Mustang Ecoboost Premium, Honda Accord Coupe, Honda Civic Coupe, Kia Forte Koupe. I did not consider the Challenger because while it fits most of the requirements it was only rated at 16mpg city. The Challenger V6 gets 19mpg city which might be close enough, but it wasn’t available with a manual transmission. I also excluded the Hyundai Genesis Coupe for similar reasons. The BMW 2 series and Audi A5 were also possible, but they optioned to over my $40k budget quickly.

    I really wanted the BRZ, but my wife hated the passenger seat, no factory sat-nav system, a little tight in the back seat, and smallish trunk. I excluded the Forte Koupe because, well, I just didn’t like it and that’s that. I didn’t like how the Civic coupe forced me into the base trims to get the manual transmission. The Honda Accord forced me into a funny game. If I wanted the 4 cylinder engine that would get me my mileage requirement I would have to give up leather; 4 cylinder and leather was not available with a manual. If I wanted leather and manual, I would have to opt for the V6 which didn’t meet my mileage requirements. I decided that I didn’t want to play that game.

    So I wound up in the classic battle between Mustang and Camaro. Both were nice cars and I did like how both of them drive, and both clutches were far easier to use than my Acura. And I really had no problem seeing out of the Camaro contrary to what others have said here. But the interior just felt claustrophobic, and the rear seat was so pathetic that it was what I call a “functional 2 seater”. And the trunk was tiny, a check of specs showed the trunk to be about 9 cu ft.

    On the other hand, the Mustang felt roomier inside and was more comfortable. The rear seats are more than adequate. It’s not about to be used as a limo, but they aren’t terribly cramped either. And the trunk at about 13 cut ft is generous. I didn’t take a giant hit going from the RSX’s 16 cu ft hatch to the Mustang’s trunk. I like how it drives, it handles well, it brakes well, and I like that the Mustang kept a real physical hand brake lever where the Camaro had gone to a button. So yes, I wound up taking home the Mustang for a little more than $30k out the door. So far, I have been quite pleased with it.

    • 0 avatar

      Did you consider a Challenger at all? I think it has the roomiest interior and trunk. And the refresh gave it one of the plusher interiors amongst the Camaro and Mustang.

      • 0 avatar
        DevilsRotary86

        I did. I know I wrote a lot, and some details may get lost in there. But remember, I wanted a manual transmission and at least 20 mpg city. The V6 Challenger gets an “almost there and good enough” rating of 19mpg city, but is only available with an automatic. The V8 is available with a manual transmission, but gets an unacceptable rating of 16mpg city.

        So you are right, the Challenger was tempting for that one trait, but the unfortunate fact is it didn’t meet my requirements so it had to be eliminated.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      Probably no big loss, but the only one you might have missed out on was the ATS coupe. Truecar shows an ATS coupe 2.0T “luxury” with manual and navigation at ~$38K.

      According to the official specs, the rear seating is fairly close to the Mustang’s. Although real world I’m not sure.

      • 0 avatar
        DevilsRotary86

        Heh, you are right, that one sure did fly under my radar. Still, that’s about $7k more than I paid for my Mustang. Not sure the Cadillac is $7k nicer. Note that I am not saying the Cadillac is bad, but the Mustang Premiums are that good.

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      Congrats on your new Mustang. What color combo did you get? I like the various colors of Mustang leather that are available: brown, white, and red. Too bad most of the cars on the lots go with black.

      • 0 avatar
        DevilsRotary86

        Sorry for the late reply. Shortly after writing that I left on a road trip vacation to visit a family reunion. From the 24th to the 27th, I put 2,000 miles on the Mustang! Literally. I set trip 2 at the beginning of the trip and checked it when I pulled up to my garage yesterday evening. Trip 2 was like 2,017 miles.

        OK color. Hate to break it to you. But it’s black/black. I wanted Yellow, but the black one on the lot had the options I wanted (Premium, 210A, Navigation, blind spot warning) and didn’t have the options I didn’t want (Performance Pack). They wanted ~$29k for it, and after taxes, docs, 7yr warranty, etc, it wound up at $33k. Less my trade in it wound up being $32k. If I had ordered it, it would have been something like $35k. So grrrr. Is yellow paint really worth $6k?

        I am actually thinking of vinyl wrapping it. It’s come a long ways over the years, and I heard that it’s a great way to quickly change a car’s color.

  • avatar
    LS1Fan

    GM made the same error they did with the 1998 F-Cars.

    They boosted the performance at the expense of the car’s practicality.The Fox body Mustangs weren’t better at build quality or performance then the Camaros of the day either, but they were much more practical cars to drive daily.

    Chevy made a sled without digesting that people don’t want sleds. They want mean sounding nostalgia mobiles that can haul groceries. A 2015 Camaro is thus better at being a “car” then a 2016 model, despite the latter being a dynamically better machine.

  • avatar

    Maybe it’s time for Chevrolet to design a new interpretation of “Camaro 2.0″…especially as expressed in the ’70 1/2 Z28 Rally Sport.

    Showing Camaro and Mustang in comparison reveals the ’69 Camaro theme has run its course and then some. In this context, the new model looks like a Hot Wheels-cartoon 1st-gen trying out for the next Transformers movie.

    Ford, in contrast, has rolled out a new ’65 Mustang. Not retro, yet there’s no denying it pulls its DNA from the very first generation more than the ’67, ’69 or any other version. Fine line to walk but Ford pulled it off.

    Fleet sales bring up a potentially, even-more-unfair comparison as Mustang fleet sales include such gems as the Hertz GT350H. It can be argued there’s less brand and value damage from Mustang fleet sales than Camaro’s.

    A crying shame because apparently the new Camaro’s a ball to drive, if you can only see out of it.

  • avatar
    nguyenvuminh

    I’m not a muscle car fan but isn’t it sad how the Dodge muscle cars are always left out of the discussion? How are the Hellcats doing in the market place anyway? I don’t see them nearly as much as I see Camaros and Mustangs.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      nguyenvuminh – must be a regional thing. I rarely ever see anything other than “family spec” V6 or 5.7 Charger. There is the odd Challenger around and the only Hellcat’s I’ve seen were on the dealer lot. Mustangs are by far the most plentiful of the bunch. The Camaro’s I see tend to be the higher spec models and they aren’t all that common but have a greater presence than the Challenger.

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      The Challenger hasn’t changed much since it hit the road in 2008. The Mustang and Camaro have both been renewed twice since then.

      And the worst part about the Challenger is that its price is outrageous for a competitive model. Any 6.4-powered car that can keep up with the GT or SS is going to sticker for $45K+. The GT can be had for $10K less. That’s important in this segment, because the people who don’t care about that kind of money are buying AMGs and M4s anyway. As for the 5.7 R/T, well, it can’t really compete with the GT or SS. You have to really love the styling, or need the extra space, to take that much older car over a new Mustang or Camaro for the same money.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        Like you wrote, most people that get Challengers seem to go for them because of the styling and extra space.

        I will say that I think it’s nice FCA offers an intermediate V8 in the Challenger. The acceleration on the R/T is only +/- a few tenths compared to the V6 or 2.3T, but personally the driving (and ego) experience of a V8 is hard to beat.

        I wouldn’t expect Ford to do a V8 below the 5.0, but it is too bad that GM doesnt offer a cheaper sub-SS car with the 5.3L.

        • 0 avatar
          TMA1

          A 5.3 Camaro would be a great idea. The SS as it is now is just too track oriented for the people who want to hear the growl and go fast in a straight line. Unfortunately that performance is reflected in a much higher price, which is why the Mustang is going to destroy the Camaro in sales.

  • avatar

    It might just be that people prefer having actual side windows instead of mere gun slits to see out of.

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      The blind-spot detection is an absolute necessity in the Camaro. But it’s only available on the upper trims. So for a V8 you can see out of (with assistance), you’re looking at $45K+. For a Camaro. At that point, you’re in reaching distance for a Corvette!

  • avatar
    "scarey"

    I’ll admit that the new Camaro is a hot looking meatball. I like the bulgy hood. The limited visibility doesn’t phase me. (I had a ’73 Mach 1 with a nearly flat rear window.)
    But if I was buying with my own money, I would go for the Stang. More reliable, most likely. But I couldn’t blame anyone for picking the Camaro. I fell for one myself, once. Still one of my favorites.

  • avatar

    Before I preferred the Mustang without doubt but now I was in doubt this new designer Camaro and sensational

  • avatar
    TMA1

    I’ve had a chance to drive both cars in the past two weeks, one after the other. Both were V8-equipped cars. The base Mustang GT came it at $29.6K after incentives. The Chevy dealer only had fully-loaded SS models in stock, all in the high $40’s. They checked their systems online to see if they had any base SS cars available. Nothing under $40K. A $10K difference crossed Camaro off the shopping list. There’s a $4K spread in MSRP. In the real world, it’s closer to $6K with Ford incentives and Chevy gouging.

    Couldn’t see out of it anyway, and my mind has blocked out all impressions of the interior, so I’m assuming it’s traumatizing. Also, I parked behind a new Camaro last week, and didn’t realize it was the new one until I walked along side of it and saw the tri-stripe badge. I know the old car had a popular design, but it needs more differentiation.

    I think Chevy made a huge mistake turning every SS into a track star. It adds unnecessary expense, whereas the Mustang comes off as a softer grand touring car, with an option track package, if you want it. I’m still trying to figure out how Ford will sell you a track package for $2500 with 6-piston Brembos, but Chevy charges $3175 for those brakes alone.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    Chevrolet killed the Camaros chances by boosting the price on the base V8 model to Corvette level expensive. For all intents the Mustang has no rival for its V8, the Camaro is practically in a different realm with its ridiculous pricing strategy.

    • 0 avatar
      hubcap

      Base Corvette is $55,400.

      Base V8 Camaro is $37,200

      Base V8 Mustang is $32,600

      Yes, the Camaro is more expensive than both the ‘Stang and the gen V car. No, it’s not in Corvette territory.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        I suppose they expected the price increase to cover the billions the failed platform has cost them. FoMoCo is looking very smart by continuing the S-197 as the S-550.

      • 0 avatar
        TMA1

        All the SS Camaros I’ve seen have been closer to Corvette pricing (around $48K) than base SS pricing. The dealer I spoke with couldn’t even find a 1SS with cloth seats for less than $40K. I’m comparing the 2SS to the Corvette, as it’s more closely equipped to a basic ‘Vette.

  • avatar
    hubcap

    I’ve driven both cars. The SS is a delight to drive and the updated interior pushes all or my buttons. This in itself is a strong positive because the previous Camaro interior was sub-par in just about every way.

    The car drove fine. Compared to the Mustang it was a bit more athletic. For the most part, visibility was fine. If you’re first in-line at a red light you’ll have to tilt your head up to see when it changes.

    The high sills are annoying. To me, the car feels like its closing in on you. That’s a feeling I rarely have in a car. Here’s the funny thing. When you compare a Camaro with a Corvette you’d think the Corvette would feel more cramped. It doesn’t. But the Camaro does.

    The Mustang’s interior is also a big improvement. The prior gen was only a few ticks better than the Camaro’s. The car doesn’t feel as presice as the Camaro. It drives big.

    No claustrophobia issues. I found the cabin a nice place to be. I wouldn’t buy either for their back seats. If back seat space is important to you, I’d take whomever will be back there for a test fitting.

    All in all, I liked both but would spend my money on the Mustang. In the real world, I’d save a bit more and buy a gently used Z51 Stingray.

    But that’s just me.

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      I think the Camaro was a bit louder on the highway, in terms of wind and tire noise. The SS makes a better exhaust sound than the Mustang, but I think Ford turned the volume down on purpose for wider appeal and livability.

  • avatar
    nickoo

    This doesn’t surprise me at all. Driving in to work and in the parking lot at work, I saw dozens of mustangs. It was by far the most common car in the parking lot. All generations going back to Fox Bodies were represented and even lots of new ones. I also saw my fair share of LX MOPARS, including an ACTUAL heck kitty.

    I have yet to see a single new camaro, and may have seen a previous gen…I can’t recall.

  • avatar
    tresmonos

    Welcome to the ‘Euro’ mustang. It appeals to both refined and unrefined buyers (I am an unrefined POS, so I am no discriminating against any category of buyer).

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    I love the ’69-’70 Cougar. It didn’t appear to be any more refined than the Mustang. Loved those sequential lights of which now are a signature piece of the Mustang.

  • avatar

    With the latest model Ford managed to keep what feels basically Mustang, far better than with previous models. Camaro became somewhat of a cartoon car. Gone are the charisma and stylistic charm of the 60’s and early 70’s models.

  • avatar
    seanx37

    I have driven both cars in the last few weeks(I mentioned elsewhere around here). The Mustang is just a nicer car. Better interior. Much better stereo. Better seats. And as others mentioned, drastically better visibility. The Camaro was actually a bit scary for me. I could hardly see out of it. The only thing Camaro has going for it is that wonderful tourqey small block Chevy V8. And that might be enough for some people.

  • avatar
    CincyDavid

    I rented a Camaro convertible in Florida recently…the rubbery, stretchy vinyl seat bolster upholstery was gross, and the sticky decklid that was almost impossible to open was none too impressive either. An all-black interior and the world’s widest A-pillars contributed to the feeling that I was driving a tank and looking out a gun slit. Just not my thing.

    I haven’t driven a Mustang in about 5 years so I can’t comment on the dynamics of the new ones, but of the pseudo-retro muscle machines, the Mustang’s appearance is the most appealing of the bunch to me.

    • 0 avatar
      BuzzDog

      I refuse to be one of those Mustang fangeezers (too old to be a fanboi) who claims that his fourth Mustang is perfect – no car is.

      One thing that surprised me when I looked at renting a Camaro convertible was the trunk, and the need to flip a movable to allow space for the top to fold. Ford chose to designate a static space, separated by a steel panel, while still allowing for a fairly adequate amount of trunk space. The other thing was that the rental agent couldn’t figure out all of the things that had to occur before the top would lower, or perhaps the top was faulty on this one particular car.

      I’m sure that the Camaro has its advantages, but as others have noted, every time I’ve cross-shopped it I’ve found the Mustang to be move livable all around on a day-to-day basis. And there’s no comparison between the pony cars built today, versus the ones I drove new in the ’80s and ’90s. The older ones’ interiors reeked of glorified econobox – plasticky, no power conveniences, and plenty of rattles – while modern ones are finished to near the level of an entry-level luxury vehicle.

  • avatar
    justanotherwb

    I went to a Chevrolet dealer to check a 2016 out, they had a 2015 right next to the 2016, I had to look twice to see which was which, they look that much alike. The 2016’s have a much nicer interior, however they are tiny, that was the biggest turn off for me. The price was also shocking, they had V6 Camaros on the lot for $36k w/o leather! That’s Audi territory and I don’t believe you can even order an Audi without leather.
    The outward visibility is a problem, I would be afraid to change lanes in the Camaro w/o a blindspot system. I did get a Mustang GT and i have the blindspot warning system without it in the Mustang I’d be doubly cautious about changing lanes. When I started driving the Mustang GT, I found a lot of people like to pull up beside me and check it out – usually right in my blind spot so Camaro owners I’m sure you’ll get the same – beware!

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • subuclayton: 1965. Driving west through southern Utah on I 15 towards Vegas in the ’59 Vette convertible top...
  • schmitt trigger: Re; Kerosene instead of gasoline I have never filled up a car with kerosene, but I once did on a...
  • pwrwrench: multicam. Obviously you know that 4wd does not mean that you will not get stuck. It means that you will...
  • mcs: I’ve been getting into 3D printing lately. Sure, every part of the printer was from the Shenzen, but...
  • NormSV650: Oshawa, and others went be making ICE vehicles at the end of next decade, let alone BEV.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber