Camaro,Challenger or Mustang,Which Muscle car has the best design

OK i like all three cars. i think they did an outstanding job with the retro design. The Challenger IMO looks most like the original. if i had to pic one though i like the Camaro the best. now coming up with the 30,000.00 to 35,000.00 dollars to buy one lol

 

out of those 3 i prefer the mustang but would always buy european or japanese way better muscle cars lol

 

i personally have a 66 mustang, and my mother has a newer 07 mustang, and i hate hers compared to mine. there is a lot less room inside her car than mine, mine looks better since its the 'original' not a copy of the original, and its not all plastic in the interior like hers is (cheap ford crap). so i would go with the camaro as well, even though i would rather keep my 69 camaro over a new one.

 

I can't help wondering what you guys are going to do with your gas guzzlers when Obama signs the carbon treaty later this week.

 

tell him to piss off. just like i would tell anyone else that told me what to do with my cars.

 

Jan its a "Cap and Trade" bill and it has little chance of passing the Senate. and hill16 we aren't talking rice burners man, just American Muscle cars

 

Maybe we hear differemnt things in the news.. what we have been told is he will sign the Kyoto reduction things (unlike dubyah) and anything over a 1.6 litre and under 30mpg will be looked at most strongly.. (remember Jimmy Carters economy bill.. small engines get you from a>b just as well as a 8 litre v8) starting with a doubling of the fuel price.. we pay £1.08 a litre for fuel here.
At least thinking about our only world should have some importance.. we don't have an option.

 

ya well the straigt six in my mustang gets about a 30 MPG and basically would run on water, the camaro has a 350 small block and gets about 22 MPG. wouldnt quite call either of them a gas guzzler.

 

mustang hands down.

 

For fit, finish, and performance i'm going to say the Camaro.

 

-The mustang is not available with a strait six...and has not been available like this for many years. Also, there is no hydrogen version available for sale to the public (or even as a prototype as far as I know).

In terms of engineering:
All three have terrible engine designes.
All three have terrible frame designes.
All three have terrible overall engineering.

If you want an american muscle car with some engineering behind it, get yourself a corvette. If you must go with one of the three listed, the mustang is closer to being a well designed car than the other two (it is even available in a track ready version strait from ford).

 

KillerBug, I'm pretty sure he is referring to an older Mustang/Camaro

 

my mustang does in fact have a straight six. its a 66 mustang (just as i stated in my first post for this thread, so please get your facts straight before you say anything). and who said anything about a hydrogen kit.

 

1.) The question was about NEW muscle cars, not 1966 models. Also, it is about muscle cars. The strait six mustang is not a muscle car, it is just a pony car. It becomes a muscle car when you put in some muscle.
2.) The post said it basicly runs on water, AKA Hydrogen with some oxygen in it. Did you mean Russian Water?

 

As everyone knows the power to weight ratio of muscle cars is terrible.
For me its between mustang and camaro

but like us Americans do we just throw a huge engine to make up for it

The mustang (the new ones) is everywhere and the stock not gt package is usually referred to as the poor mans sports car.... and even the gt isn't that amazing if you think of it. But it has a classy look to it, and you can rely on ford.

The Camaro is using the similar engines as the 1970-81 second gen, The classic 350 v8 and the straight 6, for a six that makes around 304 horses thats pretty amazing.


Hands down im going with Camaro

 

1) the OP was also discussing how they compare to the original cars. i simply stated that i own a 66 mustang and my mother owns the new version and compared them.

2) i never claimed mine was a muscle car now did i??

3) by stating it basically runs on water is a common used figure of speech when referring to older v6's as they pretty much run on anything you throw at them, including mine, that started up perfectly this morning after sitting for two years with 3 year old gas in the tank.

 

-That is notable (although most carbureted cars will start with such gas, the problems happen once the carburator gets gummed up). Will your car run on perfume? I know the old beattle will.

-If the question was "What one looks most like the original", I would agree with ZoSoIV that the challenger looks most like it's '60's namesake. The front end of the Camaro looks nothing like the '60's/early '70's models and the new mustang has none of the hard lines and defined the orriginals.

BTW...I know this probably does not appeal to you, but I will at least mention it: Pontiac is going out of business (part of the GM bankruptcy). This means that the Solstice is in it's last year of production. If the car appeals to you, this would be the last chance to buy once new.

 

2010 Camaro SS
MSRP: 30,245 - 33,430 (ss1, ss2)
Configuration:Front Engine/RWD
Engine:V8
Displacement:6162 cc
Horsepower:422 bhp @ 5000 rpm
Torque:408 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm
Max RPM:6600 rpm
Transmission:6-Speed Manual/Automatic
Weight:3860 lbs
Height:54.2 in
Length:190.4 inWidth:75.5 in
Wheelbase:112.3 in
Track (f/r):f: 63.7/r: 63.7 in
0-60 mph: 4.7 secs
MPG: 16 city, 24 highway

2010 Challenger RT
MSRP: $30,800
Configuration:Front Engine/RWD
Engine:V8
Displacement:5654 cc
Horsepower:372 bhp @ 5200 rpm
Torque:401 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm
Max RPM:6500 rpm
Transmission:6-Speed Manual/5-Speed Auto
Weight:4041 lbs
Height:58.2 in
Length:197.7 in
Width:75.7 in
Wheelbase:116.0 in
Track (f/r):f: 63.o/r: 63.1 in
0-60 mph: 5.1 secs
MPG: 15 city, 23 highway

2010 Mustang GT
MSRP: $33,520
Configuration:Front Engine/RWD
Engine:V8
Displacement:4606 cc
Horsepower:315 bhp @ 6000 rpm
Torque:325 lb-ft @ 4250 rpm
Max RPM:6250 rpm
Transmission:5-Speed Manual/Automatic
Weight:3533 lbs
Height:56.1 in
Length:188.1 in
Width:73.9 in
Wheelbase:107.1 in
Track (f/r):f: 62.3/r: 62.9 in
0-60 Mph: 4.9 secs
MPG: 16 city, 24 highway

Also there's this
http://www.mustangblog.com/blog/1019733_2010-mustang-gt-vs-2010-camaro-ss-vs-2009-challenger-r-t

With all this info i'd have to go with the camaro. I never really had a prefrence between chevy or ford (i prefer forced induction, low compression and technology over pushrods high compression and displacement), but i've worked on both of them at one point or another. The camaro just kills the competition and runs the new ls9 6.2l. Chevy has been on top since the release of the turbo cobalt. They went though and developed all the technology for the C6 vette (i've had my friends stock ls3 c6 at 195mph in 5th gear 1,200rpm till redline and another gear left) and then threw it in a econo box. Really does the cobalt need launch control and no lift shift? It's just rediculous.....The camaro is a step above the rest.

 

good info C4RN1