Finding the Ultimate Modern Muscle Car

mikeyb

Member
Contributor
:
01 BMW 325xi Touring
2010 Chevy Camaro SS vs. 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T vs. 2010 Ford Mustang GT


09.comparo.musclecar.group3.500.jpg


09.comparo.musclecar.group1.500.jpg


In 2002, astronaut Buzz Aldrin, the second human being to set foot on the moon, punched a guy in the face for accusing him of faking the moon landing. Buzz was 72 years old at the time.

Go right ahead and question the existence of the 2010 Ford Mustang GT, 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T and 2010 Chevy Camaro SS and they, too, might just give you a knuckle sandwich in the kisser. Like Mr. Aldrin, they bear names from long ago that have made a collective return to the limelight. Like Mr. Aldrin, they are American heroes with unparalleled legacies reaching across decades. And like Mr. Aldrin, they have Ph.Ds in kicking ass.

Their makers may have proven that they have the financial acumen of a blind yak. However, we submit these pony car icons as proof that the home team can extract their craniums from their nether regions once in awhile and knock the cover off the ball.

Same Time, Same Place...Almost

Our usual comparison test protocol dictates that we test all cars in the same location with one driver.

Unfortunately, nobody told GM. No production examples of the 2010 Chevy Camaro SS exist yet, and these circumstances dictated that our driving time was split between two preproduction cars: a red 2SS we tested at GM's Milford Proving Grounds to provide all the go-fast numbers, and an identically equipped but silver 2SS we evaluated on the streets of Southern California (pictures of both are included).

In GM-speak, 2SS is the topmost trim level available on a V8-powered Camaro, and it starts at $34,180 with destination. Optioned only with the $1,200 RS package, the silver Camaro checks in at $35,380.

Unlike the Camaro, the Challenger and the Mustang were put through our battery of tests at our usual facility in SoCal, but as you can see from the photos, we spent the better part of a foggy cool day north of San Diego driving all three cars back-to-back.

The Mopar is our long-term 2009 Challenger R/T, which starts at $30,945 with destination. With its three option packages, however, including a six-speed manual gearbox and limited-slip differential along with comfort items, its MSRP is the highest of the three at $36,710. More performance would have required stepping another rung higher on the price ladder to the SRT8.

You might remember the 2010 Mustang GT Premium from its recent tte-a-tte with a certain two-seat Nissan. This is the very same Mustang from that test and it starts at $31,845 base price plus destination. It is dressed up to $35,625 including the Track Pack and comfort-related options.

All three cars are available with the same performance goodies for less money, but it wouldn't have changed the outcome.

3rd Place: 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T

Pony cars are about more than power and speed. They're about attitude. Plus burnouts and the occasional lawn job, but those kind of fall under the category of attitude. If 'tude didn't count for anything, these cars would be styled like suppositories.

Pick any production car, save perhaps for the Mini, and the Challenger's styling is the most evocative of them all. The Challenger R/T we tested, draped in a period-appropriate metallic black cloak, carves visual links to the past like a switchblade.

Those deep-set quad headlights, week-long overhangs and smooth, unadorned flanks speak of a simpler time. Yet the Challenger's keyless ignition and touchscreen navigation are contemporary touches not found on our Camaro and Mustang testers.

The dark cabin borders on austere, with a broad dashboard and an enormous steering wheel. You sit in a wide seat with your legs splayed. There's even a foot-actuated parking brake. What is this, a Ram?
Then you notice the pistol-grip shifter canted toward the driver and it all starts to gel. In the halcyon days of carburetors and bias-plies, muscle-car interiors were incidental. And so it is with this Challenger. Curling your mitt around the metallic gearchange lever, you're once again reminded that you're in something special.

It feels like a tank at first but it's really a user-friendly steed. It makes all the right sounds when you want it to and mellows out when you don't. Be warned the first time you use the featherweight clutch you'll swear the pedal just snapped off.

Unlike the busier-riding Mustang, the Challenger smoothes over the road: a Karen Carpenter lyric to the Ford's power chord. With its ridiculously tall 6th gear, it's just the thing for, say, an impromptu road trip from Denver to San Francisco. Kowalski would approve of this Challenger.

As a former road racer, he would take umbrage with its lame tires, though. The R/T's all-season tires snip the dangly bits from the Dodge's urge to frolic. Braking from 60 mph consumes 128 feet. Grip is tepid at 0.83g on the skid pad and you're constantly managing its punishing understeer through the flimsy sidewalls. As its 64.7-mph slalom speed suggests, the Camaro and Mustang flat-out leave the Dodge for dead on roads with turns.

Heads-up drag racing those two in the Dodge is also a bad idea. The 5.7-liter iron-block pushrod V8 kicks out a stout 376 horsepower and 410 pound-feet of torque, but is saddled with a lardy 4,055 pounds. Sixty arrives in 5.5 seconds (5.3 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip) and the Challenger clicks off a 13.9-second quarter-mile at 103.2 mph.

The Challenger wins hearts, not races. You can consider its highest-in-test sticker price as an investment in the kind of escapism you can't find anywhere else.

2nd Place: 2010 Ford Mustang GT

When we reached the terminus of one of our test-loop drives, the editor who had just piloted the Mustang asked how hard I was driving the Dodge to keep up with him. Fairly hard, I told him, and it was true. There was more left in the Challenger but not a lot.

He hadn't told me how aggressively he had been driving the Ford. But once we switched cars I knew immediately that he hadn't been trying very hard. Hell, he was wearing slippers and the Mustang's radio was still playing smooth jazz. Meanwhile, the Challenger's brakes were smoking and I had swamp crotch.

The Mustang's 3,572-pound curb weight undercuts the fatty Dodge by nearly 500 pounds and the Camaro by almost 300, and you know it the first time you bend the Ford into a corner. It feels lithe and trim, and its front end bites into the tarmac with tenacity.

At the skid pad, the Mustang's 0.91g result is the grippiest in this comparison. It stops the shortest at 107 feet from 60 mph. And while its 68.4-mph slalom result cedes the smallest sliver of speed to the Camaro, there is no sharper car in this test than the Mustang. It boils down to a driver's race versus the Camaro on our continuously winding drive loop.
Ironically, the Mustang's whippy chassis is also the source of its biggest limitation the live rear axle. The independent rear suspensions of the Dodge and Chevy offer superior ride quality without compromising traction. As good a job as Ford has done in refining the live axle's execution, the Mustang drives like a relic compared to the other two.

In turn, those guys could learn from the Mustang's seats, which hold you in place the best and allow the easiest access to the backseat. However, the Ford's non-telescoping wheel places the driving position too close to the dashboard. Maybe Ford did that intentionally to give you a prayer of reading the too-busy gauges.

As you have already guessed, the Mustang's lean mass helps its 4.6-liter V8 punch above its weight, too. On paper, its 315 hp and 325 lb-ft of torque is downright meek. A 13.5-second quarter-mile sprint at 102.7 mph proves otherwise, neatly splitting the difference between the Chevy and the Dodge. Zero to 60 in 5.2 seconds (4.9 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip) is nothing to sneeze at either.

There's something missing in the Mustang, though wow factor. Ford tells us that every one of the 2010 Mustang's panels save the roof is new, but in the wild it's a dead ringer for the outgoing car. Drive it in a convoy with the Camaro and the Challenger and you might as well be driving a Camry. It's invisible.

Chevy and Dodge owe Ford a debt of gratitude. Were it not for the Blue Oval's willingness to take a risk on the retro-heavy 2005 Mustang, they might never have known whether the market for throwback pony cars was big enough to justify entering the fray.

1st Place: 2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS

Let's make one thing clear. This baby's got motor. The Camaro SS sports what is easily the most powerful mill in this test a 6.2-liter pushrod LS3 V8 from the Vette. In the Camaro it blurps out 426 hp and 420 lb-ft of torque.

At 13.0 seconds at 110.9 mph, the Camaro SS is far and away the fleetest, smacking down the quarter-mile a half-second quicker than the next-quickest Mustang and nearly a full second quicker than the Challenger.

Get some air in its lungs and it belts out a V8 blat that is unmistakably Detroit. This thing hauls the mail. You expected that. What comes as a surprise is the Camaro's civility. Chevy's decision to abandon the live axle for a fully independent rear suspension will surely piss off the drag racers. Everyone else will appreciate the Camaro's newfound composure.
Yes, this Camaro handles. You can throw it into a corner and not worry about the front end washing away like in the Challenger. There's surprising agility on tap for a 3,857-pound car. As your entry speeds increase, it leaves you wanting for a bit more steering feel, but the poise with which it takes to corners is eye-opening. At 68.6 mph, it pips the Mustang's slalom speed despite having a bit less grip and packing hundreds more pounds. That, friends, is talent.

In 1967, you got four-wheel drum brakes. Today, all V8-powered Camaros come standard with biggie-size four-piston Brembo brakes and summer tires that halt the Camaro from 60 mph in just 109 feet. Bonus: The pedal feels nothing like stepping on a taxidermied raccoon. In fact, the Camaro's is the most solid pedal in this trio.

You grab a Hostess Ding Dong shift knob and peer over across a faux cowl-induction-style hood bulge that would make Whitesnake jealous. Despite the claustrophobic interior, it doesn't feel nearly as ponderous around town as the Challenger thanks to the Chevy's quicker steering and well-matched weighting of the pedals to the helm. Like the big Dodge, though, you have an obnoxious 1st-to-4th skip-shift to deal with when you walk it from a stop.

Say what you will about some of the fussy exterior detailing, this thing has massive presence. The glowering front three-quarter view is its best angle, especially with the halo rings of the RS package's HID headlights ablaze with evil intent.

If the Challenger is a tank, the Camaro is a bunker. Visibility stinks. Its imposing cowl meets a beltline that would deliver a wedgie requiring surgery if you tried to emulate it using your trousers. And reversing from a parking stall? Forget about seeing around the C-pillar. Your best bet is to be proactive and clear the area with a reverse burnout.

For good measure, Chevy included a few more reminders of the past like the four-gauge cluster below the center stack and a large, awkwardly shaped deep-spoke steering wheel. The cabin design and cheap-looking hard plastics won't give Audi designers sleepless nights. But when was the last time you saw anything from Ingolstadt do a burnout? You want to kick ass, or fondle the door panels, sissy?

Wrap
Perhaps it is a strange time for the arrival of retro-infused pony cars. We're not complaining. Gift horses aren't something we look in the mouth. What we didn't expect with these ponies was their variety. If you want something that plucks your heartstrings like no other car, the Challenger is it. Racers will probably gravitate toward the spry and established Mustang.
But there can only be one winner, and the Camaro SS is clearly that. No longer does it have to apologize for its performance with a bang-for-the-buck cop-out though it handily snatches that crown, too. It packs a talented chassis, performance and, yes, attitude at a price within the reach of working-class stiffs.

There's little more to be said than the Camaro is back. In a big way. And SS once again truly means Super Sport.
 
Ultimate muscle car would be a corvette. Shows what american muscle is capable of in a frame that can perform.
 
I'm not really impressed with the numbers these things are putting out. With the engines they got, I expect low 4's and 12's.

I'll keep my ms6 for now.
 
I'm not really impressed with the numbers these things are putting out. With the engines they got, I expect low 4's and 12's.

I'll keep my ms6 for now.

Just add a set of drag radials and your in the 12's. :D(drive2)
 
they should have tested the dodge challenger srt8 but that mustang is ugly. i would definitely take the dodge
 
Problem is the modern sports car isn't a $30K car anymore...that's a pony car. Sports cars are now about $50K.
 
So a car has to handle like s*** and look like a tin can on wheels to be considered a muscle car . . . sweet.

Name one muscle car from the 60s that handled well, there wasn't. They were designed to be fast as hell who cared about the next bend? And yes most muscle cars looked like ass cuz they took ho hum family cars and turned them into rockets. Also a muscle car is something that most people can afford to have, most people can't afford to have a Corvette.
 
Name one muscle car from the 60s that handled well, there wasn't. They were designed to be fast as hell who cared about the next bend? And yes most muscle cars looked like ass cuz they took ho hum family cars and turned them into rockets. Also a muscle car is something that most people can afford to have, most people can't afford to have a Corvette.

Well to our standards today nothing handled well back then. There were still efforts being made to improve handling. Not all muscle cars were family cars turned beast.

I have no problem with "cheaper" cars like these but what baffles me is the more expensive muscle cars (50K+) like the mustang GT500, charger srt10, etc. Not that they are slow, but rather how the frame restricts the performance. Muscle cars evolved 35+ years ago for a reason. Anyway some of them look cool but it makes no sense why these cars are created in this stereotypical "muscle car" look. Huge front ends with tiny rears which give no traction in the strip. A better frame and they would be amazing cars. They would probably sell more too . . .

Anyway thats just how I see it. Sorry for the thread jack.


Back to the OP, that chevy has one beast of an engine in there.
 
Relatively cheap power comes at a price. These vehicles don't have one-off purpose built performance platform to save on design time, development time, testing, and needing to retool factories to build them. Ultimately they shave a lot of money off the price of the car by recycling parts or platforms as much as possible. So while it's true that a purpose built platform would perform much better, it would make it impossible to sell a $25,000 base model or a $30,000 SS Camaro.

Everyone is better off the way things are being done here. The cars are achievable for your average North American. If they weren't, they wouldn't be tying into muscle car nostalgia, and that means one of the biggest reasons to buy them would be absent. I don't think the big three could sell enough $50,000 - $60,000 muscle cars to keep the product lines financially viable, given the sort of competition you already find in that price range and the type of people likely to buy a muscle car.
 
Relatively cheap power comes at a price. These vehicles don't have one-off purpose built performance platform to save on design time, development time, testing, and needing to retool factories to build them. Ultimately they shave a lot of money off the price of the car by recycling parts or platforms as much as possible. So while it's true that a purpose built platform would perform much better, it would make it impossible to sell a $25,000 base model or a $30,000 SS Camaro.

Everyone is better off the way things are being done here. The cars are achievable for your average North American. If they weren't, they wouldn't be tying into muscle car nostalgia, and that means one of the biggest reasons to buy them would be absent. I don't think the big three could sell enough $50,000 - $60,000 muscle cars to keep the product lines financially viable, given the sort of competition you already find in that price range and the type of people likely to buy a muscle car.

Well said!!
 
Ultimate muscle car would be a corvette. Shows what american muscle is capable of in a frame that can perform.
The corvette is not and hasnt been a muscle car. Its a sports car. It has a totally different suspension setup and build.


So a car has to handle like s*** and look like a tin can on wheels to be considered a muscle car . . . sweet.
These cars do not handle like s***, they do very well for their weight and size. You have to remember these cars are heavy! But they did that on purpose. The old Camaros where lighter, but if you tried to put a 500 hp engine in one you would have to install subframe connectors to keep from twisting the car apart. So the manufacturer fixed that. But by doing that they added weight. As for the looks, might not be your cup of tea, but to most of the people they look just as good as their older brothers. As for handleing, the old cars DID handle well. They did for their time. Yanko made some bad ass cars even better.

These cars now days handle very well for their size. If you take of the crapy tires and that come stock (which even the test drivers say should be done) you would get a lot better numbers.
 

New Threads

Back