Price Wars: Ford Pits Brawnier Four-cylinder Mustang Against Chevrolet's Bargain V8 Camaro

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

A new addition to the Ford Mustang lineup arrives this fall, just in time to do battle with a new addition to Chevrolet’s Camaro stable. As sales falter, the pony car wars are heating up. However, while these two steeds do not differ greatly in price, their means of motivation are quite dissimilar.

Now that pricing has been revealed for the 2020 Mustang High Performance Package, we can contrast it with the equally new Camaro LT1 — a bargain V8 model slotted below the SS. It’s four cylinders versus eight.

Ticking the box for the High Performance Package elevates the Mustang above the entry-level EcoBoost model, but it doesn’t quite reach GT levels. It does in some regards, though. The package adds a larger twin-scroll turbo and other alterations to a 2.3-liter EcoBoost borrowed from the now defunct Focus RS, then bundles it together with 13.9-inch front brake rotors and 255/40 R19 rubber sourced from the GT Performance Package. A tuned exhaust, rejigged suspension, and GT Performance Package aero add-ons complete the package.

Output is 330 horsepower, some 20 ponies more than the standard EcoBoost, with an identical torque figure: 350 lb-ft.

As CarsDirect reports, order guides show the package costing $4,995, with a Ford spokesperson confirming the price. This places the MSRP for a 2020 Mustang EcoBoost coupe with High Performance Package at $32,760 after delivery. Should buyers choose, they can boost the model’s prowess (and slightly surpass the price of a Mustang GT) by adding the Handling Package. The upgrade, which requires an equipment package, pushes the model to $36,755. A 10-speed automatic will cost you more.

Compared to this, Chevy’s Camaro 1LT borrows the 6.2-liter naturally aspirated V8 found in the SS, sending 455 hp and 455 lb-ft to the rear wheels via a six-speed manual for an after-delivery price of $34,995. That’s three grand less than an SS, but just over two grand more than a Mustang High Performance Package (you can call the car that — there’ll be badging). Of course, adding the Handling Package will see the Stang’s price leapfrog the Camaro’s by nearly two grand.

Levels of content between the two differ, of course, and in many cases this will be the deciding factor for those not afflicted with Ford vs. GM Syndrome.

Both models go on sale this fall, with the rival automakers attempting to stimulate sales by giving buyers what they want: more power. In Chevy’s case, the strategy is more power for less cost. If boosted four-bangers aren’t your bag, GM wins in the eight-cylinder field, at least in terms of price. Unfortunately for the General, the base Camaro’s turbo four pales next to the entry-level EcoBoost, delivering the slightly more expensive Ford a win on the bottom rung.

[Images: Ford, General Motors]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 26 comments
  • Ol Shel Ol Shel on May 29, 2019

    I will take a Mustang LT1, please.

  • Art Vandelay Art Vandelay on May 29, 2019

    Eh, the correct answer is an LS swapped third gen Trans Am with a cage, T Tops, and Guns n Roses Greatest Hits...on cassette of course. Busch Light and Marlboro Reds sold separately. In all honesty we were at the pool this weekend and I saw several nice cars go by to include a new 911. But half the pool stopped when a beautiful, early 4th gen Z-28 with an exhaust pulled away from the stop sign.

  • Merc190 I would say Civic Si all the way if it still revved to 8300 rpm with no turbo. But nowadays I would pick the Corolla because I think they have a more clear idea on their respective models identity and mission. I also believe Toyota has a higher standard for quality.
  • Dave Holzman I think we're mixing up a few things here. I won't swear to it, but I'd be damned surprised if they were putting fire retardant in the seats of any cars from the '50s, or even the '60s. I can't quite conjure up the new car smell of the '57 Chevy my parents bought on October 17th of that year... but I could do so--vividly--until the last five years or so. I loved that scent, and when I smelled it, I could see the snow on Hollis Street in Cambridge Mass, as one or the other parent got ready to drive me to nursery school, and I could remember staring up at the sky on Christmas Eve, 1957, wondering if I might see Santa Claus flying overhead in his sleigh. No, I don't think the fire retardant on the foam in the seats of 21st (and maybe late 20th) century cars has anything to do with new car smell. (That doesn't mean new car small lacked toxicity--it probably had some.)
  • ToolGuy Is this a website or a podcast with homework? You want me to answer the QOTD before I listen to the podcast? Last time I worked on one of our vehicles (2010 RAV4 2.5L L4) was this past week -- replaced the right front passenger window regulator (only problem turned out to be two loose screws, but went ahead and installed the new part), replaced a bulb in the dash, finally ordered new upper dash finishers (non-OEM) because I cracked one of them ~2 years ago.Looked at the mileage (157K) and scratched my head and proactively ordered plugs, coils, PCV valve, air filter and a spare oil filter, plus a new oil filter housing (for the weirdo cartridge-type filter). Those might go in tomorrow. Is this interesting to you? It ain't that interesting to me. 😉The more intriguing part to me, is I have noticed some 'blowby' (but is it) when the oil filler cap is removed which I don't think was there before. But of course I'm old and forgetful. Is it worth doing a compression test? Leakdown test? Perhaps if a guy were already replacing the plugs...
  • Crown No surprise there. The toxic chemical stew of outgassing.
  • Spamvw Seeing the gear indicator made me wonder when PRNDL was mandated.Anyone?Anyone?1971
Next