Challenger vs. Mustang vs. Camaro

[NOS2006]

Just for comparison’s sake…

Old Challenger:

New Challenger:

Old Mustang:

New Mustang:

Old Camaro:

New Camaro:

If you ask me… (in all honesty and in terms of design)

Changed the most? Camaro

Changed the least? Challenger

Best old design? Camaro

Worst old design? Mustang

Best new design? Camaro

Worst new design? Mustang

Like most? Camaro

Like least? Challenger

Opinions?

[z28luvr01]

Agreed. I like the Camaro for the fact that it isn't a carbon copy of a previously produced Camaro. Some people I know don't like the Camaro for that very same reason, but that's just too ------- bad. If I had to nit pick, I'd say that I'd like to see the 2nd gen better represented. The cues, subtle as they are, are there, but GM PR hides them as "Chevrolet" styling cues.

The Mustang - well, I've already made my feelings known about that stinking pile of manure.

The Challenger - after seeing the side profile comparison you have there, the new car looks somewhat boxier and squatter than the original. I did like it in person when I saw it at NYIAS, but the Camaro is still far more striking.

[Flybrian]

I never thought the Challenger looked that good in the first place. Sorry everyone.

[mustang84]

IMO, the Camaro is just as retro as the Mustang and Challenger. All three of them are modernized updates of the originals. I would argue that the Mustang and Camaro are on the same level of "retroness" due to the fact that the new Mustang's greenhouse isn't a fastback like the original and they left out the rear-quarter hump...two major elements that defined the '68.

Either way, I'm happy that all three are coming out...and if I had the money I would buy all three!

[Drew Dowdell]

you have to remember that the Mustang was basically just a Ford Falcon 2-door fast back with bucket seat option....

[Cory Wolfe]

Originality:

Challenger: 99% unoriginal

Mustang: 80% unoriginal

Camaro: 60% unoriginal.

Design itself:

Camaro: A-

Challenger: B

Mustang: D+

Which would I buy?

Camaro

[balthazar]

>>"you have to remember that the Mustang was basically just a Ford Falcon 2-door fast back with bucket seat option.... "<<

Oh please.

Originality:

Challenger: 50% unoriginal

Mustang: 40% unoriginal

Camaro: 10% unoriginal.

Like this matters.

BMW churned out 99% unoriginal designs for 30-some years, but no one seemed to mind. I assume in that case it's because no one cares when the design is barely a design at all... kinda like how notebook paper has hardly changed in 30 years.

Design itself:

Camaro: A-

Challenger: B+

Mustang: B+

Edited July 9, 2007 by balthazar

[Camino LS6]

I'm with Balthazar, I like all three.

And, I love that fact that they will do battle in the showrooms and on the street.

Yes, I give the design edge to the Camaro - it is the best of the batch.

But what a great batch!

[Sixty8panther]

I never thought the Challenger looked that good in the first place. Sorry everyone.

Maybe that's because the 1970 Challenger & Cuda were

direct rip-offs of the 1st gen. Camaro & Firebird, except

their proportions were slightly awkward.

I love these cars but not nearly as much as the ORIGINAL

car to wear the Styling... the 1969 Camaro.

Immitation is the sincerest form of flattery... right?

[Flybrian]

Maybe that's because the 1970 Challenger & Cuda were

direct rip-offs of the 1st gen. Camaro & Firebird, except

their proportions were slightly awkward.

Looking at those pictures again, its more than slightly. The 'before' Challengers have an odd boatlike taper to to front and rear fascias that leaves both too much ground clearance and makes the body look like its riding atop the wheels. The new Challenger sincerely looks awful from the side shot. Both front and rear are way too blunt and flat, giving it a squished appearance.

I have to reiterate again that I'm not all too taken with what Dodge placed its tissue paper over to come up with this new Challenger, hence my ambivalence towards it. But, that mehness is only further fueled by looking at the Ford and Chevy. Someone, both the Mustang and Camaro manage to remix those classic styling cues in something more modern, more contemporary, and something that will (or in Mustang cases, does) place well on the streets today. In contrast, the Challenger is a charactiture of itself, not that much more attractive than these fiberglass bodyshells placed over Mustang or Camaro chassis that attempt to replicate cars of the past.

Somewhere in this thread, someone remarked that the Challenger looks like it would if Dodge never discontinued it. Disagree. The Challenger looks exactly like it would if you applied modern engineering constraints and design conventions to proposals for the old Challenger and that, my friends, is a styling exercise, not an original product.

Look at the Prowler or Phaeton concept for something far, far more appropriate - melding historical cues and advanced design into an attractive and original creation. The Prowler, for instance, did not emulate a specific custom hot rod, but used the styling traits hot rods shared in general.

And speaking of the Prowler, the Challenger doesn't really matter anyway because Dodge still can't retail a car if their life depended on it - and it does.

[Drew Dowdell]

>>"you have to remember that the Mustang was basically just a Ford Falcon 2-door fast back with bucket seat option.... "<<

Oh please.

No?

To cut down the development cost, the Mustang was based heavily on familiar, yet simple components. Much of the chassis, suspension, and drivetrain components were derived from the Ford Falcon and Fairlane. The car had a unitized platform-type frame, which was taken from the 1964 Falcon, and welcoming box-section side rails, including five welded crossmembers. Although hardtop Mustangs were the majority of the sales, durability problems with the new frame led to the unusual step of engineering the (necessarily less rigid) convertible first, which ensured adequate stiffness. Overall length of the Mustang and Falcon was identical, although the Mustang's wheelbase was slightly shorter. With an overall width of 68.2 in (1732 mm), it was 2.4 in (61 mm) narrower, yet the wheel track was nearly identical. Shipping weight, about 2570 lb (1170 kg) with the six-cylinder engine, was also similar. A fully-equipped V8 model weighed about 3000 lb (1360 kg). Though most of the mechanical parts were taken directly from the Falcon, the Mustang's body shell was completely different;

What part is wrong?

[AxelTheRed]

These three are a toss up for me. I am considering the Camaro and Challenger more than the Mustang because Mustangs are such a common sight, but always in the back of my mind I realize that the Mustang is built in America, whereas the Camaro and Challenger will not be...that's right, Big Three, some of us still take that into consideration.

I'm really leaning towards the Camaro now since I saw the convertible and found out how expensive even the base model Challengers are going to be, but I'm keeping an open mind on all three until they're all out and I have a chance to test drive them.

Edited July 9, 2007 by AxelTheRed

[Sixty8panther]

Well... for the record I still say the Challenger will be a cooler

product than 95% of today's "cars". I have a bigger issue w/

how the 1970 was very unoriginal & bland compared to the

1969 Camaro versus the unoriginality of the new one.

The 2009 Challenger will stand out much MORE in 2009 than

a 1970 Challenger stood out in 1970. Think about THAT.

[balthazar]

No? What part is wrong?

The part where your refer to the SAME powertrain, largely SIMILAR chassis (different wheelbase & track), completely DIFFERENT interior and completely DIFFERENT sheetmetal and call the Mustang 'a Falcon with bucket seats'. If you stood between a '64 Falcon & Mustang, you would not realize they had the same beginning engineering roots. You actually could get buckets in a Falcon Sprint in '64- wonder how Ford knew which emblems to put on the car? The 2 are PRIMARILY 2 different cars, moreso than the same.

Are you also of the opinion that the '76 Seville is a 'Nova with a Cadillac grille'?

It's this sort of dismissiveness that enables the faint damning far too much of the domestic offerings, starting in the past and extending right up to the present (M/T's review of the Enclave: "GM tries to eradicate badge engineering, again"). Sorry, I have difficulty sitting on my tongue when I see what I consider to be historical slander (IMO).

[ocnblu]

I love all 3 designs, and appreciate the fact that pretty soon, all 3 will be back to do battle once again. Having said that, I lean toward the Camaro because I am a GM fan. The other two have my respect and admiration, however. I would not be embarrassed to drive either of the 3. Long live Detroit City! Edited July 9, 2007 by ocnblu

[Delta Force79]

Well somone had to be the first to say it....I like the Challenger the most out of these....it looks mean and Dodge is pround of it's past and copied the design of the original....which is fine by me. The Camaro is nice and all, but I hate the ass on it, and the grille looks stupid to me. The Mustang? it's a Ford.

[Drew Dowdell]

Where was this during the front overhangs thread??!?

[ocnblu]

Plus, remember, we are comparing the Mustang, a production car, to two concepts. Yes, we've all heard the promises that the Camaro and Challenger are "very close" to the production versions... but we've heard that before. Until we have photos of all three in the showroom and on the street, what's the point in picking a favorite? Edited July 10, 2007 by ocnblu

[mustang84]

Plus, remember, we are comparing the Mustang, a production car, to two concepts. Yes, we've all heard the promises that the Camaro and Challenger are "very close" to the production versions... but we've heard that before. Until we have photos of all three in the showroom and on the street, what's the point in picking a favorite?

Likewise, by the time the Camaro and Challenger are out, the Mustang will be getting a refresh. Who knows what Ford has in store...but they know they have to shake things up with two more competitors coming in the fray.