What are your thoughts on these cars? Specifically, the two being compared are convertibles and are base models - with automatic. The Ford has the 4 cylinder Ecoboost and the Chevy the V-6. If you have had experience with these newer models, please share your thoughts. Thanks in advance.
If it’s purely for looks/comfortability, the Mustangs arent very roomy at all, I’m 5’8 and my head hits the window when I’m in the back. I gotta say Camaros are a bit more roomy.
If it’s for performence, you’ll never pull anything extra out of your Camaro, but the Mustangs are completely gutless, it’s like driving any other sedan.
So… Camaro in my opinion.
What is your objective? Both are excellent sports/performance cars. There’s always been a contest between those who prefer Ford to those who prefer Chevy, ever since there were Fords and Chevy’s. I remember the kids in my high school debating the issue. Many strong opinions voiced, most without much objective evidence. The car magazines would run test after test, and the results were usually … "the Ford displacement was slightly less than the Chevy, but the dyno hp and torque test showed the Ford a little better, except at above 6000 rpm, where the Chevy noses the Ford out, but we can’t be sure b/c the Ford we used didn’t match the Chevy’s gear settings " … lol …
So I’d say it is a coin flip. Choose the one with the color you like best.
Sit in both. Visibility in the Camaro is famously bad. If rear seat room is important, neither car is worth considering.
Gutless , You can’t be serious .
The 2016s were very close in performance:
How long have you driven the Mustang to determine it is gutless
In terms of performance they should be be very comparable.
vs.
The caveat here being that that the convertible versions will be heavier and somewhat slower, also I could find a test of the 2018 Mustang EcoBoost with the ten-speed automatic, it’ll knock a few tenths off the acceleration times vs. the 6 speed manual. The 2018 Ecoboost Mustang has a revised engine, it doesn’t lay down at higher RPMs like the 2015-2017 2.3L Ecoboost did, and it has significantly more torque than the N/A V6 in the Camaro. The Camaro is reputed to have better/lighter chassis and sharper handling, but if you’re opting for the convertible base models, I’m guessing that’s probably not hugely important to you. Also note that the 2018/2019 Camaro is mechanically the same as the 2016 model, so the performance numbers should be the same.
Both have decent interiors, the Mustang’s interior has some minor ergonomic advantages, like the placement of the dashboard A/C vents. The standard base Sync infotainment system is pretty underwhelming by today’s standards, the Camaro has a better base infotainment system. To get Ford’s Sync3 infotainment you have to get a $2000 option package on the base trim, or opt for the Premium trim. However the Mustang is cheaper to begin with so when you compare apples to apples in terms of features, the prices are very close.
Neither car is going to be particularly roomy. The back seats are mostly ornamental, the Mustang has better visibility, though with convertibles it’s only going be but so good.
I test drove a 2016 Camaro SS, a 2016 Mustang GT, and 2016 Dodge Challenger R/T when I was deciding what car to get (this was two years ago). The Camaro had better performance, but I didn’t like it’s interior as much, and at the time the new-for 2016 Camaro had just hit dealerships and they were not backing off sticker on the SS models. The Challenger had a nice interior and was roomy, but it’s performance wasn’t as good, and the stock tires were comically narrow for the size of the car. The Scat Pack Challenger would’ve been more competitive, but the dealer I talked only had two on the lot and they were priced to the point where the value wasn’t there. I decided on the Mustang GT (Premium trim, Performance Pack), it was the just right choice, it didn’t have the raw performance of the Camaro SS, but it was noticeably cheaper, and I liked the interior better. It wasn’t as comfortable or as roomy as the Challenger, but it offered better performance.
1 Like
First of all, buying either of these cars with an automatic transmission would be a travesty. A car like this would be worth learning how to drive stick for.
Having said that, I’ve never liked the Mustang’s faux vents on the rear brakes and hood. I’ve always thought they looked cheesy, so I’m glad Ford appears to have finally done away with them. In spite of that, I’ve always favored the Camaro, and probably always will. Looking at pictures, I favor the Camaro’s looks. I like its body style better.
2 Likes
both should be great cars but I have found that I like the steering on a ford a little bit better. I feel like the Chevy cars have a lighter steering wheel that needs more turn. The Ford cars tend to have a tighter and heavier steering which I like better.
The Camaro holds it’s resale value longer. I attend many dealer auctions and this has been the case for many years. I prefer the look of a Mustang but love the headroom of a Camaro.
I’m biased but Mustang. I like the retro looks
I disagree. My last Mustang was 5 speed manual, this one is a 6 speed auto with a manual-shift function. I’ve done 6 track days with this car and I can say I don’t miss the 3rd pedal. The manual function makes the automatic shift quickly upon command and is much more user friendly in city traffic on the drive home.
Having owned 3 turbo charged cars, 1 with a stick and the other 2 with automatics, the turbo favors the automatic. It is easier to build and control boost with a torque convertor than a clutch.
Oh, and I don’t like the faux vents/scoops either so my car has neither!
2 Likes
Why did Ford pick 2.3L as the size for this engine? Surely they didn’t think that people actually had fond memories of the Pinto and the Mustang II or even the turbo T-Bird. I know this engine has absolutely nothing to do with that old dog, but Ford’s marketing division must have been asleep at the wheel. A 2.4 or 2.5 would have been an easier sell than 2.3.
Millions of cars and trucks were powered by the first generation 2.3 L OHC Ford engine, shame or pride? I guess it depends on the perspective of the individual. I believe a very small percentage of people that are new car buyers today had a bad experience with a Ford Pinto.
Most manufactures offer a smaller engine, 2.0 L is common. The 2.3 L has an advantage over the competition, 310 HP, that is 100 HP more than the 1970 V-8 Mustang I once owned.
This did come from a company that had 3, count 'em 3 - 7 liter pushrod engines and one 7 liter OHC engine in their offerings in the 1960’s. The 427, 428 and 429 V8’s and the 427 SOHC, or cammer engine.
Ford, once they fixate on a displacement, they STAY with that displacement! 
They needed something with a bit more power than the 2.0L Ecoboost. But, they also needed to mindful of displacement taxes in overseas markets, and they needed to make sure the ecoboost model got better fuel economy and produced more power than the V6 model Mustang, as Ford positioned the Ecoboost higher than the V6 in the lineup. So 2.3L was deemed the correct displacement for what they were trying to accomplish
The engine family that the 2.3-liter Lima engine was based around was one of the most successful in Ford’s entire history. Definitely THE most successful four cylinder.
It powered legendary rally cars. Nobody liked it in the US because it was carbureted forever and choked with rudimentary emissions equipment, but everywhere lese, the overhead cam 2.3 was a terrific engine. Ford used it from 1972 to 1997.
The EcoBoost Mustang hits 60 miles per hour in under five seconds.
How fast do you expect to go?
I own a GT coupe, so I’m kind of biased in this case
Pretty sure the 2.3L recommends premium fuel to get the performance out of it- don’t have my manual at hand at the moment. I know the 5L recommends premium fuel and I’m pretty sure that’s not what the dealership put in as the first full tank of gas I got with mine- performance as it neared empty got kinda poor.
I thought so as well, but with how quick my car is, I don’t think I could shift fast enough compared to the computer. Then again, it’s a 10 speed, not a 6 speed.
310hp/350tq to the rear wheels isn’t what I would call gutless. And with 21/31mpg
it gets the better fuel mileage. 1/1mpg better than the 4cyl Camaro and 5/3mpg better than the 6cyl Camaro