Will Mustang sales suffer with the 5.0 being a half second slower

File: civic.jpg (41KB, 593x519px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 593x519px

better question
will the new camaro be faster than an old civic?

File: 1418659058494.gif (1MB, 392x400px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 392x400px

>Based 3500lbs ATS platform
> 455HP LT1
> 6 speed Tremec or 8 speed paddles
> Magnetic ride control
> 0-60 in 4 flat
> 1/4 mile in 12.3 seconds
Better than Mustang in every way.

>>13848049
A riced out, stripped out, stressed to death fwd faggotbox beats a loaded modern car on a meme track? No way

>>13848084
> riced out, stripped out, stressed to death
except that is a stock civic

kek, camaro kuk fanboy got butthurt

>>13848068
Ford shill reporting in.

that's fairly impressive actually.

>>13848068
>12.3 1/4 mile
is this for real?

File: consider-the-following.jpg (25KB, 300x301px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 300x301px

>>13848090
>>13848039
Same ford shill.

I don't think it will affect the sales mainly due to the fact that the vast majority of people who buy the Mustang (or Camaro for that matter) don't give a shit about track times, 0-60, 1/4 times, etc. Hence the reason why we see more v6's and Ecoboosts than GTs. (In my area anyway, I can't speak for everyone, but I have only seen one GT out of the hundreds of ecoboosts/v6s).

For those that DO value track performance, 0-60s, 1/4mi and what have you, the odds are that they will be modifying their Mustang or Camaro to improve those times anyhow, so a .5 second difference from the factory makes little to no difference when something as simple as an exhaust and some headers will probably even out the times.

>TL;DR: average buyer doesnt care about track times, track guys will modify it anyway and don't care about factory track times.

>>13848118
Yep, thru the 8 speed auto

File: ek9 vs z28.jpg (71KB, 712x811px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 712x811px

>>13848089
>except that is a stock civic
"The EK9 shared many characteristics with the Integra Type R DC2/ JDM DB8 such as omission of sound deadening and other weight-reduction measures, a hand-ported B16B engine, front helical limited-slip differential and close ratio gearbox." - wiki

1998 Civic Type R Motor Sports edition had no air conditioning, no power windows, no power steering, no radio, so in the interest of fairness we'll compare the EK9 to the Z/28

File: HgDsdVr.jpg (11KB, 250x244px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 250x244px

>>13848161
>no stereo and less sound deadening
>relevant
also
>having to spend 70k on a fucking camaro to beat a civic from the 90's


fucking KEK

>>13848161
a type R civic is stock you inbreed hick

>>13848182
so's the z/28

File: 1446280947484.jpg (215KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 1000x1000px

>>13848049
rekt

>>13848161
what am this website

lol history repeats itself

when the original camaro came out it was just a tad faster than it's contemporary mustang, and that made no difference to the hairdressers who buy most of these cars

The new Camaro SS also cost nearly 40k base price, and you can't see out of it. I bet the Rustang will out sell by a lot.

>>13848039
Being slower than the camaro never stopped them from selling in the past. Either car could literally be twice as good as the other and the fans would still buy "their brand" and insist the other is shit.

File: Fell for the bait.jpg (9KB, 224x225px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 224x225px

>>13848039
>>13848049
>>13848068
>>13848084
>>13848089
>>13848090
>>13848118
>>13848133
>>13848159
>>13848161
>>13848176
>>13848182
>>13848220
>>13848227
>>13848271
>>13848297
>>13848331
>>13848620

>>13848331
>The new Camaro SS also cost nearly 40k base price, and you can't see out of it
>implying you need to see when only going in a straight line lol

>>13848039
No. It's been the same battle that's been waging for ages. The Camaro has been quicker for the most part barring the 80's and the DOHC cars in the mid '90s and the Mustang has been nicer inside and easier to live with.

File: x91:opi.jpg (20KB, 300x296px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 300x296px

>>13848068
>better than a mustang in every way.
>so is dog shit

>>13848039
The new ATS based Camaro would cut into the Mustang's market even if it was a half second faster.

So long as you can actually see out the back of it, it'll take a bigger chunk out of the Mustang market than the current Camaro, that's for sure.

But without knowing base pricing we're really all just speculating wildly here.

>>13848118

Motortrend actually got the TR-6060 LT1 through the quarter in a 12.4

Pretty quick

File: ss (2015-11-12 at 05.30.38).png (225KB, 1233x367px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1233x367px

>Base Mustang is $24k
>Base Camaro is $27k
>First tier V8 Mustang is $30k
>First tier V8 Camaro is $38k
>Last tier V8 Mustang is $38k
>Last tier V8 Camaro is $42k

I'm expecting, yet again, that the Mustang is going to win.
I think base trim being the cheapest is going to be a big deal. Some people will argue they don't need a V8 and will shit talk an i4eco.

Calling it, 5 years from now, 2016 V6 Mustangs littering the craigslists like the previous gens already do.

>>13852096

SS starts at 37K, but the motortrend model that ran the 12.4 was the 37K model

Without the magnetic ride goodies and other shit it walked all over a track pack 5.0. I think the I4 is the lowest trim that starts at like 23K. Which also weighs 3,300 lbs, so it'll be interesting to see what turning up the boost will do. You might actually have some sub 30K turbo 4 Alpha Camaros that will run with stock LT1 Stingrays.

>>13852114

The i4 costs more than the lowest trim V6. It even gets a premium version while the V6 doesn't.

>>13852123

Pretty sure GM priced their I4 turbo as the cheapest option where Ford made the V6 their lowest

>>13848039
Not really. Everyone I know agrees the new Camaro looks like shit and they'd definitely buy the Mustang over it.

>>13848068
>Better than Mustang in every way.
Except looks

>>13852145

>everyone I know

I know /o/ is a Ford hug box but that doesn't count

>>13852152
Nah unlike most of /o/ I actually have a social life and friends in real life. A couple of them are car guys. Most are just normal people who don't care about cars other than how it looks.

>>13852141

Excuse me, I thought you meant the mustang after you mentioned the 5.0.
Either way, the i4 manual starts at 25. While the V6 autostarts at 27.

The mustang i4 starts at 24 and the v6 starts at 23.

These lower base trim costs are going to nail the Mustang up on the wall. Higher than the camaro.

>>13848039
Does anyone with the money to buy either car actually care about the numbers and not the fact that they're driving a 2016 [le muscle car]

>>13852181

This.
People who buy these cars don't give a shit about quarter mile speeds. They've already picked their side and which one looks better.
Who the fuck is on the fence about these two?

Stock race car guys who don't ever change their shit after?

>>13852114
>You might actually have some sub 30K turbo 4 Alpha Camaros that will run with stock LT1 Stingrays.
>implying it'll make 450+hp on stock internals
Unlikely.

>>13852106

I would like to add that Ford doesn't offer any premium features on the V6 Mustang. You need to upgrade to an Ecoboost Premium for premium features, which starts at $29,395.

If the entry level I4 Camaro offered premium features, that would give GM a big boost in the appeal of entry level models.

In my opinion, it was a bad move for Ford to force their buyers to upgrade to an Ecoboost Premium to even have the options of things like leather heated and cooled seats, dual zone climate control, and an audio system with a subwoofer.

>>13851684
>No. It's been the same battle that's been waging for ages. The Camaro has been quicker for the most part barring the 80's and the DOHC cars in the mid '90s and the Mustang has been nicer inside and easier to live with.

This. F-body has for many years been the better car if all you care about is 0-60, 1/4 mile, or even handling in the twisties.

But, before they killed of the Camaro the first time, combined F-body sales were lower than the Mustang, as the Camaro is preferred more by younger males who want to go fast, while the Mustang has had a much wider appeal- especially among women who just want a car that looks nice/comes in a convertible.

>>13852181
>>13852189
I'm actually in the market for a new car and it's between the 2016 Camaro SS and a Mustang GT. Hopefully I can hold off long enough to see how Ford responds to the 2016 Camaro. The brand war shit is youtube-tier and retarded, and probably the thing I hate most about /o/.

I care a lot about the performance, but the looks are important too. I love the exterior of the Mustang, and the interior of the Camaro personally.

Before the 2016 Camaro, the Mustang was winning by a mile, but that new interior gives me a hard on and performance was increased considerably. If Ford responds with a considerable performance upgrade, I'll probably go back to preferring the Mustang. Not really sure why, but I just don't like the Camaro exterior... seems really tryhard.
If either of them decide to offer their performance/track variant with an automatic they'd win instantly.

>>13848133
I fall somewhere in between, as do a lot of people probably. I'll modify, but I still care about base performance because I'm not going to modify everything at once.
Also, what you start with (and how much you can squeeze out of it) has some effect on what you end up with, and how much you have to spend to get it there.

>>13848161
>fagging intensifies