Alright /o/ I'm getting a new car. Should I get a 2017 Camaro

Mustang if you don't want to break your wallet

>>15622548
wow the mustang looks so big and heavy next to the camaro

>>15622548
I used to be all about the mustang, but that side by side changed my mind.
Look how pigfat the mustangs look

File: hennessey-dodge-challenger-srt8-392-yellow-jacket.2000x1500.Mar-01-2013_11.27.37.568494.jpg (1MB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1500px

>>15622548
Challenger

>>15622570
>a useless straightline car

The camaro if you don't like visibility

>>15622570
Challanger is slow as fuck

lol can't even see the camaro drivers full face.

>>15622559
>>15622567
Guys, the mustang doesn't just look big, it is big/heavy.

At least the camaro lost weight instead of gaining.

OP if you care about performance, buy the camaro

File: random-t-07_22_11-920-14.jpg (198KB, 919x615px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 919x615px

>>15622570
This, unless you plan to track it

If you plan to track it get the Camaro

>>15622559
>>15622567
>>15622582
>samefagging
The Mustang GT weighs 60 lbs more than the SS.

>>15622580
That's because there's a Mexican manlet driving it while the mustang has a 500 pound man driving it

>>15622582
An SS and GT both come right at about 3700lbs according to Car and Driver

>>15622589
>Mustang weigh more but is not pigfat

You are retarded

>>15622601
>doesn't know how to construct a sentence
>calls others retarded

>>15622570
Still the best looking one even it it's the worst in every other aspect.

after just driving a convertible 2015 camaro ss i can only say : all bark no bite! The mufflers are trumpet shaped just to make it sound louder. like others have said..visibility is shite. When you take a turn and look in that direction..all you see in front of you is half a foot of sidepanel and btw i get more fun from a 2 liter turbo than that car. Only thing hs for it is that it feels great to be in. its the type of car that you pull up at a stop light and burnout to the next stop light just to "look cool"

>>15622614
The 2017 is literally a different camaro

can you drive these things in the snow?

>>15622614
The mustang feels the same.
These cars feel so hollow and disconnected from the actual driving experience. Op should probably just get a miata or a go kart

>>15622641
No, they weren't meant to be driven in the snow. These cars you take out in the spring, summer and fall.

>>15622548

The SS is like a half second quicker than the GT bro, it's not even a competition anymore.

The Mustang looks a lot better though, unfortunately.

>>15622647
so what the hell do i drive december-march

>>15622649
>auto vs manual
Ford won't have an automatic in the mustang till next year.

The camaro also costs far more.

File: Check my ferrari's dubs.jpg (71KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 800x450px

>>15622647

Couldn't you just add snow tires?

>>15622660
*a faster automatic

>>15622653
A buy a cheap shitbox

>>15622660
Why would you get an auto? I thought this was /o/

>>15622660

>Ford won't have an automatic in the mustang till next year.

they what?

>The camaro also costs far more.

True, $4000~ difference is fairly steep at that price point.

>>15622686
See
>>15622677

File: Screenshot_20160813-200946.png (288KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 1080x1920px

>>15622589
>implying samefag

So the mustang looks heavier/bigger, and it indeed does weigh more.

It also has less horsepower. You either buy a mustang for the exterior, or interior quality. It's an inferior performance platform compared to the alpha camaro.

>>15622722
I would expect a car with a 4k higher msrp to perform better. Just as I expected the mustang with a 4k lower msrp to sell at a over a 2:1 ratio. Additionally, it's not even a surprise why the Challenger sells more than the Camaro 6. Money talks and most people don't want to pay more for slightly better day to day performance.

>>15622613
>every other aspect
>implying its not maximum comfy landbarge with huge storage space

literally a "MUSCLE" car

>>15622747
Better get what everyone else is getting. Someone post that pic of a meet with like 20 mustangs parked next to each other

>>15622790
A muscle car with no muscle (it's slow). The V8 without the scat pack is literally slower than a v6 mustang and v6 camaro

File: 2016-Chevrolet-Camaro-SS-and-2015-Ford-Mustang-GT-102-876x537.jpg (151KB, 876x537px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 876x537px

>>15622747
The Alpha Camaro is brand new. Give it a couple of years and there will be bargains on these cars left and right. Besides, you would be putting thousands into a mustang anyways to get it to perform on the same level as a stock SS.

Challengers sell on looks alone. Mustangs sell because of teenage women and boomers. It just depends on what you main priority in a car is.

All I've been saying this whole time is that the camaro is the better performance car of the two, which you pretty much admitted already.

File: Camaro_Prices.png (247KB, 1071x1096px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 1071x1096px

>>15622815
Do you really think the Mustang won't have sales making it cheaper either?

>you would be putting thousands into the mustang
It would still be cheaper.

>which you admitted
Yep, no surprise a 38k dollar car beats a 32k car.

>>15622815
gm can't design a good ass anymore, that looks so fucking boring.

>>15622800
when I say muscle I mean like those strongman guys

big and low with lots of carrying capacity

>>15622548
Neither. 40k could get you a used corvette or cayman s or 997 911.

>>15622559
>only visible difference in dimensions being that the Mustang's roof line is an inch or two higher
ITS SO PIGFAT GUISE DO YOU SEE DO YOU SEE HOW BIG IT IS??????!?!!!?!?!??!!?!

>>15622841
A voice of reason appears. May I also sam you could still get a sweet muscle car and that 5.0 at 20 grand with a used Mustang. 20g saved is a dope down payment on a house.

>>15622548
If you don't have your heart absolutely set on getting a brand new car I would really advise you to consider looking for a fully optioned 2015 or 16. Your $40k would go a lot further in getting you a car with all the bells and whistles that may only have 10k miles on it.

File: gallery-1450378385-rp-camaro-mustang-37.jpg (71KB, 768x384px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 768x384px

>>15622820
You're starting to sound upset. Just because a car is more expensive doesn't mean it performs better. Why do you have this need to defend the mustang from facts?

The 2016 mustang GT with the performance pack is $36,540. The 1SS is 37,900. I'd pick the Camaro

>>15622548
That mustang looks sooo fat compared to the camaro what is going on

>>15622841
>Buying a car that's known to be abused used

Nah

>>15622886
It's an optical illusion created because the Mustang is so far ahead of the Camaro

>>15622891
>Implying that the majority of original owners didn't baby the shit out of their 60k car.

File: 2020camaro.jpg (94KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 900x600px

>ANGRY HEADLIGHTS
>ANGRY GRILLE
>ANGRY REAR FACE
>ANGRY DOOR HANDLES
>ANGRY STEERING WHEELS
>ANGRY TINY WINDOWS
>BOTH CARS WEIGH ALMOST TWO FUCKING TONS

>>15622897
If you look at the tires you can see the camaro is further ahead meaning the mustang is even fatter than it appears hahahah

>>15622897
why would the camaro let the mustang win though?

>>15622879

I really want to like the camaro but everytime i see it I am reminded of the modern car design meme pic with tiny windows and wheels

someone post if they've got it, keep forgetting it save it

>>15622879
Facts that the camaro is far more expensive?

>>15622897
you can tell by the tires they're the same distance from the camera. The mustang just looks really... fat

File: tumblr_inline_mr4uxvyI1D1qz4rgp.gif (999KB, 500x241px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 500x241px

>>15622905
that's the secret to modern car design.

>>15622902
Those are also the type of baby booming owners who demand 30% above market value

>>15622910
pity maybe?
Fat people need inclusion too you know

>>15622907
Nah notice how the Mustang driver is having to look in his side mirror just to see where the Camaro is

>>15622919
Mustang is further back actually

>>15622931
>Implying that fat fuck isn't looking for a mcdonalds

>>15622919
Honestly in the thumbnail the Mustang does look bigger but in the full size image the only difference I see is that the Mustangs roof is a little taller

>>15622944
REKT
E
K
T

File: landscape-1450379972-camaro.jpg (133KB, 980x490px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 980x490px

>>15622917
>far more expensive
less than $2000 difference.

Don't tell me you wouldn't get the performance package on the GT? It would get destroyed even faster by the SS

(ps- before you respond next time, realize that I am fully aware that the camaro costs more than the mustang)

>>15622962
>a car more expensive beats a cheaper vehicle
Congratulations? I'm pretty sure we're on the same page.

>>15622972
I bet you are one of the fags that spams the corvette and gtr image

>>15622981
No, I'm not. Are you okay, buddy? Just a car. No need to be upset.

>>15622988
I'm not ok with faggots on /o/ saying no suprise the more expensive car won then turning around and spamming the corvette vs GTR shit

File: muh v8.jpg (181KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 800x533px

Neither, would take a challenger any day

The Challenger Scat Pack R/T 392 is much more comfortable, rides nicer, has way less road noise, and looks much cooler than either of the two. I've had so many people give me compliments on on my challenger

Compared to the mustang, its much faster. The only exception is around a track and by less than half a second. The mustang was just too boring for me and the interior was lacking.

The camaro is a better track car hands down, the steering just feels more direct. But the visibility sucks and is a pretty rough car to ride in every day.

>>15623007
I don't spam corvette vs gtr images though. Im just saying it's not a surprise that it's faster. Sorry I upset you for some reason.

>>15623019
it's not just faster. It also has better steering, gear box, brakes, etc.

Making it worth the increased price if you care about driving dynamics.

>>15623029
As expected from a 6k dollar price difference.......

>>15623031
You mean how the 50k M3 drives better than the Camaro?

Oh wait...

>>15623033
I didn't mention a bmw though. Not to mention it isn't even a muscle car. Are you okay?

>>15622841
This right here.

You could even get a used C6 for under 30k.

>>15623041
It handles like shit an has a V8 making oodles of power, sounds like a muscle car to me

>>15623069
It isn't a muscle car though. Even if it was it doesn't even compete with the camaro and mustang. It's in a different class. You sure are moving goalposts a lot.

>>15623069
>bmw m3
>V8
This is how stupid GM fangirls are.

>>15622548
Challenger

>>15623078
e92 has a V8. Not available new at this point but then again neither is a $50k m3

>>15622642
Typical miata fag

If you like to see out of the car than don't get a camaro

>>15623079
The challanger is slow. It's literally slower than a v6 camaro and mustang

>>15624863
The scat pack version of the challenger is faster than the mustang and only 2/10 of a second slower than a Camaro ss

>>15622548
How does that Caamaro guy even see out properly?!

>>15622641
I drove a 14 GT on Snow and it was good.

>>15622815
Mustang looks more exotic and clean.

>>15624949
No its not lmao. The scat pack does not do 0 to 60 in 4.2 but either way I'm talking about a base V8 losing to a fucking base v6

File: 1466344927833.jpg (6KB, 164x152px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 164x152px

>>15622905
>angry door handles

My fucking sides

OP should also consider the availability of things like the Pontiac GTO or G8 GT/GXP, all of which are quality cars. The only issue with the G8 is that the GT is automatic only and manual GXPs are difficult to find.

>>15622905
thats why they got truck engine. kek muh torks to haul 2 ton car.

>>15624960
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-dodge-challenger-r-t-scat-pack-automatic-test-review

0-60 in 4.2 faggot

Where is your evidence of a base 2015 mustang V6 or camaro V6 beating an R/T challenger?

>>15623029
And better view. Oh wait

>>15622570
you suck

>>15625124
>Car and Driver

Top kek, no one on youtube has seen that time

Also google it retard

>>15625144
>I don't know how to drive! Mommy hold my hand!!!

Try driving one, it's not as bad as people make it seem. There's a reason 90% of camaro owners said keep the windows the same

>>15622869
>t. flyover state

>>15625222
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/dodge/challenger/2015/2015-dodge-challenger-rt-scat-pack-first-test/

Motor trend got the same result

File: 1435571924581.png (160KB, 498x170px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 498x170px

>>15622548
you are now aware the front ends are the same but the camaro has it upside-down

>>15625124
I dont have any video, but I smoked a 392 scat pack auto in my BPU ecoboost the other day (about a car length89 at 1/2 mile). The guy was so pissed off he ran a red light so he wouldn't have to look at me.

File: 1463603251902.jpg (100KB, 750x613px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 750x613px

>>15625356
Bullshit. Do you remember the chat with your mother and I about LYING on the internet?

>>15625294
And yet there are no vids of this time. The camaro ss actually has vids of 4 seconds, even 3.9

File: 1469891668983.jpg (143KB, 1160x653px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1160x653px

>>15625499
I have no reason to impress you bunch of homos. Just stating a fact.

If you are serial killer buy Mustang

>>15625525
CHALLANGERS ARE FAST! SHUT UP! THEY AREN'T SLOW!! DELETE THIS

>>15622570
The worst of the three but I'd get this one just because it looks the best

>>15625554
All because it's slow and fat and made by dodge and can't turn does not mean it's the worse!

>>15622825
>Strongman
>Slow
Skinnyfaggot detected.

>>15622962
That's funny considering my S 197 just went door to door with a new SS last night. 38k car cant pull on a 28k car.

File: 2017-Chevrolet-Camaro-1LE-001.jpg (4MB, 3000x1996px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3000x1996px

>1LE (base model)
AFTERMARKET ONLY
>1LE LT
V6 powered SS
>1LE SS
ZL1 minus the supercharger
>ZL1
CTS-V coupe/convertible
>Z/28
???

File: P1010007.jpg (159KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1024x768px

>>15622548
> tfw your doesn't even have nostrils
> skinny muscle car before it was cool
> gone like harambe

>>15626478
No it didnt.

>>15626715
A lt with the le package is not as good as a base ss. Are you kidding me?

>>15626478
You thought I was racing. Kek

>>15627199
I love when people in slow cars do ricer flybys on faster cars minding their own business and call it a victory lol

>>15627190
IIRC it's faster around a track than the previous gen SS (non 1LE).

>>15627304
Oh ok I see

File: image_7.jpg (101KB, 500x501px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 500x501px

>>15625320
Can't unsee

>>15627164
I miss burb :(

and no, those fags that put a body kit on a camaro and call it a trans am and jack the price to high hell dont count

>>15623009
I used to really want a challenger but holy fuck they are goddamn EVERYWHERE here now

Literally can't go a day without seeing one

File: pontiac.png (950KB, 543x965px) Image search: [Google]

950KB, 543x965px

>>15627164
>tfw your trans am doesn't have nostrils

c l e a n

>>15622548
Both are amazing cars for the money, but I wouldn't buy a Camaro unless it was 2016+ and obviously don't buy a mustang or camaro unless it's a V8. If you want an amazing performance car under 40K that will hold its value, get a boss 302 mustang.

>>15622548
NISMO 370Z

>>15622548
The new SS is the better car, hands down. It actually got lighter since the previous gen, and is MUCH lighter than the pigfat stang

>>15628383
Will never be as bad as Mustangs or Camaros

>>15622574
But muh supercharger

>>15628742
Sure if you count "much lighter" as 60 lbs. The only place you see the weight reduction at is at the lower end models

>>15626213
>faster than the mustang

Gtfo ford shill

>>15629003
Not around a track buddy.

Do any of you own these cars and DD them in northern states where you have to deal with snow?
I honestly love the new mustang but worry about RWD V8 come winter.

Massachusetts here. It's not exactly Canada but goddamn did the winter of '15 kick our ass.

Not a gm fan boy or mustang fag

But the honest truth is the new SS camaros are the superior car. They perform better

>>15629007
ah yes because everyone tracks their daily driver and cares only about lap times

Challenger Scat Pack

>>15622577

Says the person who likely drives a shitbox with one fifth the displacement and a 0-60 time in the double digits.

Challenger R/Ts are still fast enough to get you killed, but comfy enough to make you die smiling.

>>15622620

Yeah, it has a lot less visibility.

Also, 6' reporting in, can't get into a Camaro without having to slouch down into the seat. Sitting upright in that piece of shit would require two more inches of roof clearance.

>>15629031
That's why you need a cheap shitbox for the winter

>>15629173
The challanger is the slowest, most fat, and can't turn of all three. Deal with it

>>15629425
Challanger RT is slower than a v6 camaro and mustang lmao.

>Inb4 you mention how the base V8 needs the scat pack other wise the V8 gets rekt by a v6

>>15622722
I'd personally buy the Mustang because I like being able to see what's going on around me. I really want to like the Camaro, but the two times I drove one the visibility is absolute shit.

>>15629432
This, I feel like a lot of people who talk up the Camaro never drove one. It's a really fun car, but I'd absolutely loathe it if I had to DD it.

>>15630408
I DD a 2014 and it seems just fine to me. Maybe I'm just a really good driver

>>15630398
>Not wanting to drive a sexy fast as fuck tank

>>15627178
>>15627199
430whp 5.0 vs a Gen 6 SS Camaro. Yeah it did. Believe it faggots

>>15630488
Ricer flybys is not racing anon

The Mustang
>looks better
>better interior
>more space/more practical
>you can see out of it
>is cheaper
>muh heritage
>sounds better (imo)
The Camaro
>slightly faster
For the same money as the Camaro you could get a Mustang and put a couple mods on it and be much faster than the Camaro.

I'm thinking of getting a V6 Mustang. What I really want is a Challenger SRT8 but I dont have the money.

Is the V6 Mustang a good car?

Memesters need not reply.

>>15630769
The mustang does not look better but then again this is highly opinionated. The interior is far better in the camaro, the mustang uses such a shit screen and feels cheaper inside. The camaro with NPP exhaust is amazing, everyone says if you stand within 10 feet of the car you can feel the rev. Also why would I want a car that literally everyone and their mother has.

>Dude check out my new mustang!
That's cool, bro, there about 5 on my block alone

>>15630981
Yes, and it's actually faster than a base V8 challanger (google it) which is really sad. You'll notice all the replies I'll get now about people bring up the scat pack in the challanger which costs extra, a base V8 challanger should not be so pathetic it loses to a base v6

>>15631076
Because Dodge uses a shit dated truck engine

They really should do something about their RT trim.

Also I wouldn't even consider a V6 Challenger, despite it being a decent power train. It just seems so wrong.

Late to the party, but I figured I'd chime in. I was in the same boat as OP. I chose the Mustang.

Objectively, the Camaro is a faster car. If you're only worried about being fast then that's the option to go with.

The first time I sat in the Camaro, though, I felt like I was in a coffin. I know /o/ likes to meme it up about visibility, but it's actually horrible. It made me feel uncomfortable it was so bad.

There's an image that I've seen around here of a guy who was doing a road test. He spread his hand out between the top of the gauges and the roof liner and was touching both at the same time. Just gives you an idea of how cramped it actually is.

Subjectively, I like the look of the Mustang better and I think it's a more comfortable place to be. I'm not tracking the thing and I use it as my daily, so I was more concerned with feeling comfortable day in and day out vs needing to be faster.

My biggest gripe with the Mustang is the the cheap ass plastic they used around the gear shifter/cup holders. For a place where your arm is going to be resting most of the time, I wish they would have made it a nicer material. I don't really mind cheap plastics in other places, but that bugs me a bit.

>>15630463
Or maybe you are a shit driver who never checks his blind spots.

File: 09c6e9ebc04ceccd2add80f4ade4b7f01507_k15.jpg (150KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1080x1080px

>>15630981
Yes, and the old 3.7 models are dirt cheap.
Get one with the Perfomance package and manual trans if possible.

0 to 60 in 5.1 secs is pretty good, and you can get 30-40 mpg in the highway.

>>15631559
>Never had a problem driving the
YOU MUST HE A SHIT DRIVER CAUSE I HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM DRIVING THE CAR!!!

Yeah that makes perfect sense. Learn to drive faggot, I bet it took you 3 times to pass your road test

File: Nice V6.jpg (64KB, 400x671px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 400x671px

>>15631076
Where is the data to back up your claim of a challenger R/T being slower than a V6 camaro or mustang?

Here is mine to show your claims are full of shit

2015 Challenger R/T 0-60 in 5.1 seconds and 1/4 in 13.7@103mph
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-dodge-challenger-r-t-57-liter-manual-test-review

2015 mustang V6 0-60 in 5.5 seconds and 1/4 in 14.1@102mph
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-ford-mustang-v-6-test-review

2016 camaro V6 0-60 in 5.4 seconds and 1/4 in 14.1@100mph
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-chevrolet-camaro-v-6-manual-test-review

Keep lying to yourself to justify buying a slower and shittier car

>>15631629
Hate to burst your bubbles pajeet but the V6 camaro does 60 in 5.1 LMAO

>>15631582
>30-40 mpg in the highway.

>5.1 second 0-60

fucking christ mustang fags are delusional as shit


>v6 mustang
>ever doing 5.1 0-60
>ever doing 40 mpg

kill yourself

>>15626478
>tfw LS1 trans am walks 2005-2010 4.6l 3V mustangs all day


$5k car and $20k + kek

SS is the faster, more nimble car. No way around it. Straight line, track. However, the GT is still good and is much more of a "GT" car. Comfier, less stiff, a better daily driver.
Depends on what you want... drive both and whichever tickles your pickle wins.

>>15631644
I am comparing manuals since that is what most people on here drive and only care about.

Your previous statement was that the V6 camaro was faster and it isn't. My point is proven true while yours is fucking false

>>15631844
A camaro v6 manual does 60 in 5.2 bro. Please stop defending dodge, they don't know how to build shit.

The World's Biggest Liar: >>15631582

>>15631866
Source on your claim?

Even if the camaro did 60 in 5.2 it would still be slower than an R/T challenger

>>15632184
>Source on your claim?

http://media.chevrolet.com/media/us/en/chevrolet/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2015/sep/0914-camaro.html

File: Buick-Avista-concept-driving-1280x810.jpg (161KB, 1280x810px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1280x810px

>choosing between a secretary's car and a mullet-mobile
This is what Buick would've built with the alpha platform but chevy hates competition.

File: ee921450d7e884857944b08f26ecb009resNetFinal_13.jpg (223KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1080x1080px

>>15632008
>>15631679
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/mustang/2011/2011-ford-mustang-v-6-test/

>His car isn't capable of doing 5.1 secs 0 to 60.
>Therefore mine doesn't.

Also, newer Mustangs have slower 0 to 60 times because of IRS and heavier weight.

>>15631701
I think he is talking about a 2011-2014 5.0 Mustang since it uses the same s197 chassis.

>>15632222
>using chevrolet.com as a source
>"numbers from chevy"
>not subjective

the V6 camaro can hit 5.2 with the automatic, 5.4 the manual. Almost every comparison supports this.

>>15632820
You mean the cars that testers get that are loaded up with extras adding weight are getting slower times? No way.

Those are the official numbers from the manufacturer. Don't like it? Sue them for false advertising.

>>15622548
stang lookin hella pigfat

>>15632820
Are you this retarded? For one those cars weigh more and two, a v8 challanger is only .1 seconds faster than a v6 camaro and you are actually defending it like it's some sort of accomplishment? It's not even faster but we will give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend it is. Very sad, dodge sucks at making cars

File: movin out.jpg (29KB, 300x240px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 300x240px

>>15633223
>loses argument when presented facts
>b-b-but its only 1/10 of a second faster!!

Your argument was that the 2016 camaro V6 was faster and it isn't.

It has a slower 0-60 and 1/4 time even if we use your Chevy.com numbers. Those 2 stats are the only performance figures people who buy muscle cars care about.

Dodge sucks at making cars? Then why is the challenger currently outselling the camaro?

http://www.torquenews.com/106/chevrolet-camaro-sales-slump-ford-mustang-dodge-challenger-lead-may-sales

>>15622548
V6 Mustang and a supercharger. GT power for Ecoboost price.

>>15634711
A turbo works better though, or a procharger.

>>15635056
Turbocharging V engines takes either a lot of plumbing or two turbos. Procharger is just a brand of supercharger.

>>15632232
Fuck that. GNX or nothing. Besides Buick is fine making Opels we don't need GM making more sports cars.

I own a 2016 2ss. Amazing car for the value if you can afford it.

File: 1399126223094.jpg (14KB, 248x239px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 248x239px

>>15635119
>I don't want a camaro that I can actually see out of

>>15634701
Nah it's actually faster, go look up youtube videos of the slow ass challanger

>>15635923
Honesty bro.. I don't want a Camaro. I personally don't like the way it looks. Now if Buick made another sports car it should 100% be a turbo VA like in the 80s.

>>15622642
Same, had a miata and miss it, though now I drive a vette, it's great but missing the fun that was the miata

looking at getting a used v8 gt (2011+)
anyone have one?

>>15631070
The interior in the Camaro looks like it was designed by ten year old just like the exterior, the exhaust on it is frankly decent but not as good as the Mustang, and if you just want to have a different can than everyone to be a special snowflake and not because you actually like it you're a fucking retard

File: image.jpg (128KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1080x1080px

>>15622548

File: 1971_Camaro.jpg (191KB, 1280x715px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1280x715px

>>15622548
Get something worth it man for a 40k budget, you can fix your own car. Get a 240sx and drop an Ls1 into it. Or get a 1971 camaro and build it with an ls1 engine and get that fucker on high way pulls.

>>15637335
You mean the fun of having grown men finger you in your fag car?

>>15638153
You are a fucking retard if you think the mustang has a better interior. The touchscreen alone makes me want to stay far away not to mention everything else and the mustang does not sound better, you have clearly NEVER seen a dual mode exhaust 16 v8 camaro in person

>>15638731
Or the heads up display that you can't get in mustang.

>>15639900
Have a HUD in my 5th gen. It's not as useful as you might think it is.

It's still pretty fucking slick though.

File: 1468384927605.jpg (52KB, 552x413px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 552x413px

>>15636079
You are kidding me right now.....

Best i could find of the new camaro was 5.4 seconds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YT1k8YmGSM

Stock 2015 challenger R/T with 8 speed auto

0-60 mph in 4.8 seconds, BTFO

File: image.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>15639900
I love the HUD in my 16 2ss.

>>15640201
I could only imagine how long it took you to find that video of the challanger and it probably has the scat pack lol. Just accept it, it's SLOW and handles like a fucking boat

File: Mustang Men.jpg (20KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 300x300px

>>15629101
I think that's something everyone in this thread realizes, excepting the retards arguing over it. The quiet majority

File: Squad with the Stang.jpg (158KB, 691x512px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 691x512px

>>15637245
What are those things circled?

File: Lil snake & Lil Fox.jpg (940KB, 4044x2660px) Image search: [Google]

940KB, 4044x2660px

>>15638424
dude, fuck yeah. But most of these fags couldn't turn a wrench

I'm gonna buy a foxbody and do that. but my budget will probably be closer to 20k, because I mean, foxbody

File: 1969 Boss 429 Mustang.jpg (263KB, 1500x938px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 1500x938px

>>15631215

thanks for the honest opinion. your anecdote is worth more than 90% of these other posts

File: 243.png (33KB, 899x547px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 899x547px

>>15641935
>GM fanboy gets btfo
>denies source
>has no evidence to back up claim

Alright Putin, its been fun but the mental gymnastics you are pulling are getting pretty insane

>>15642205
Why would you spend 20k on something that won't help your car performe better to the point 20k is worth it?

>>15642629
I showed you that GM has gotten 5.1, you yourself said the challanger gets 5.1, it does not, but even if it did, A V8 CHALLANGER CAN'T OUT PERFORM A V6 CAMARO and that alone is sad

did op ever decide on a car?

>>15642817
Literally posted a video of an R/T w/ the 8 speed hitting 60 mph in 4.8 seconds which makes sense since the manual R/T hits 60 in 5.1

Yet you continue to deny that the challenger is faster

>>15643911
How is it faster when it matches a V6 camaro in time?

>>15642817
>>>15642205
>Why would you spend 20k on something that won't help your car performe better to the point 20k is worth it?
>>>15642629
>I showed you that GM has gotten 5.1, you yourself said the challanger gets 5.1, it does not, but even if it did, A V8 CHALLANGER CAN'T OUT PERFORM A V6 CAMARO and that alone is sad

>2017 Camaro v6 can finally hit 5.1 seconds 0 to 60
>2011 v6 mustangs hitting those times from factory.

You shouldn't feel proud of that.

>>15630560
Three honk 2nd gear pulls and a street light dig race isnt a fly by bus rider. Try harder.

>>15644825
If you lurk the thread you will see I brought up v6 mustangs dumbass and 2011 v6 did not do 60 in 5.1.

>>15645027
And you just happen to not catch this unbelievable race on camera. Ight bro, we'll until you prove it, you didn't do shit.

>I beat a lambo in my stock civic
>You want proof? Lmao it was a real race bro just take my word for it

>>15625320
fug you're right

>>15644805
>challenger R/T w/ 6 speed = 0-60 mph in 5.1
>challenger R/T w/ 8 speed auto = 0-60 mph in 4.8

>camaro V6 w/ 6 speed = 0-60 in 5.4
>camaro V6 w/ 8 speed auto = 0-60 in 5.1

Sure, the automatic V6 camaro is as fast as the manual equipped R/T challenger. Apples to apples though, the automatic R/T challenger is faster than the automatic V6 camaro.

File: IMG_2619.jpg (103KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1024x768px

>>15622548

Buy a Scat Pack

>>15645974
prepare for the GM fuck boi V6 brigade posts fellow 392 owner..

File: scat-pack.jpg (2MB, 2000x1496px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1496px

>>15646029

I regret nothing.

File: IMG_20160813_165803.jpg (2MB, 3681x1693px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3681x1693px

>>15646029

I wake up every morning just so I can do this.

https://webmshare.com/play/EEmVg

>>15646135
is that the stock sound?

>>15646195

Yes.

>>15634701
>Then why is the challenger currently outselling the camaro?
Because the camaro looks like a Camry.

I paid $38k out the door for my Scat Pack with A8 and blind-spot monitor/remote start group after a few rebates. MSRP was $41-42k.

>>15646029
I thought the 392 was only the SRT

>>15646301

Scat Pack is an R/T with a 392, bigger brakes, and better suspension.

Best bang for buck available.

>>15645726
>Not 0 to 60 in 5.1 seconds.

Read
>>15632378

>>15622548
>mfw scrolls down for like a minute
>not a single ecoboost meme

>>15646607
/o/ is great again.

>>15646613
Where is alphonse

>>15646029
>>15646029
Oh so you were posting scat pack times? I rest my case, take your slow piece of shit home.

File: 1461800398980.jpg (12KB, 250x221px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 250x221px

>>15645974
>>15646029

>Our best 0-60 times was 5.8

MY SIDES ARE IN ORBIT AT HOW SLOW THE CHALLENGER IS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0-x1X_a0x0

>>15647061
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXsMe7SHZYg

Challenger will always be slow

>>15630981
V6 are pretty much decent cars. They also last longer than the V8s but at the end of the day you know that a V8 is always better.

>>15647061

6.4L gets under 5 seconds, what are you talking about?

>>15647587
We are talking about a standard challanger v8, some guy in the thread is trying to justify buying it by claiming it's faster than a v6 camaro when it's clearly not

>>15647347
>Last longer than V8's

Obviously you understand nothing about engines.

>>15647620
>Obviously you understand nothing about engines.
Calling the kettle black there m80?
>implying an engine with less moving parts doesn't last longer
You haven't graduated from high school yet, have you?

>>15647617

You quoted me, so I thought you were talking about the Scat Pack.

The 5.7L is an old engine in a heavy car, it's good if you want a comfy cruiser, but the 6.4L is the one you want if you enjoy being put back into your seat.

>>15647628
>Less moving parts
Digging your grave deeper now.
>Moving parts have nothing on engine balance.
There is a reason I6's run for a million miles, and a reason V6's die like gold fish.

>>15647644
You are the guy who was trying to claim a base RT does 0 to 60 in 4.8?

how to people on 4-chongs have 40k lying around...

I mean like if u saved the money for a car, you would already have decided which car to get by the time you've got the 40 grand. Even at a reasonably paid job.

I refuse to believe people buy toys on installment.

>>15647779
My father owes me 17k so I told him to just get me a Camaro SS and we will call it even

>>15647779
There is nothing wrong with financing if you have great credit and stable income.

>>15647671
>>>15647628
>>Less moving parts
>Digging your grave deeper now.
>>Moving parts have nothing on engine balance.
>There is a reason I6's run for a million miles, and a reason V6's die like gold fish.
Get with the times grandpa, nowadays every engine is designed with NVH in mind.

>>15647735
No.

>>15647779

>have decent job
>have decent credit score
>financed 30k @ 2.5% on a sports car

I don't like dumping all my money into one thing at once. I'm sure in the future if I decide to get something else I will be able to finance it for near 0% and still have money in the bank.

>>15650874
What car?

>>15650956
Scat Pack

>>15647735
No he is a different guy, I'm the guy you have been arguing with about the 5.7 L R/T

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YT1k8YmGSM

If you look at the description and the posters comments to replies, its an R/T plus with the 5.7 L V8 and ZF 8 speed auto

I don't know why you keep denying it. The 6 speed manual R/Ts hit 60 in 5.1. Automatics are generally a few tenths faster.

>>15651168

Good taste.

>>15622548
V6 Camaro > V6 Mustang
I4T Mustang > I4T Camaro
V8 Camaro > V8 Mustang
Not picking the V8 would be stupid.

GT350 has no Camaro competitor, GT500 will likely make more power than the ZL1 if it really is turbo, but those are out of your budget. Also, consider a Scat Pack Challenger. Not a pony car, but a hell of a deal for 40K.

>>15622570
Objectively the worst car out of the three, but subjectively the most fun. Where else can you get a 6.4L 485hp V8 for 40K?

>>15622641
Using throttle control and proper tires, yes.

>>15631095
>Because Dodge uses a shit dated truck engine
No, because Dodge uses a pigfat, ancient Mercedes chassis that dates back to 2005, whereas the competition uses brand new 2015/2016 chassis. Everybody in this class uses 'truck motors'.

The Hemi itself is pretty good, having raw airflow and power potential that greatly exceeds the competition. There three downsides though
>Iron block
Which is an oddity nowadays. Going aluminium isn't going to fix the Challengers weight issues though
>Indirect injection
Really hurts power potential in an age where emissions is important, especially on the Hellcat.
>Semihemi head
This is what's keeping them from consistently having the highest factory outputs. It causes emissions problems, which makes them downtime the engines. Power potential is still there though.

>>15635119
>we don't need GM making more sports cars.
Yes we do.

>>15652633
You keep saying that yet every other video shows 5. Something in the challanger

>>15652672
>>15652678
I don't want a boat, I want a car

>tfw want to save up for v8 camaro
>tfw live in baltia and gas is expensive as fuck, while there are no decent autobans or even straights
>tfw no camaro official seller in these parts
>tfw boostang is starting at 36k EUR
fuck.jpg

>>15652678
well, for 40k you can get a 6.2L V8 in the SS and not look like a faggot.
or get a mustang GT PP for just under 30, go 0 to 60 in 4.5 instead of 4.4s, and then spend the other 10k on tires, parts, or other cars
then you'll actually be able to turn and whatnot.

Everyone missing the point of the Challenger R/T though. There's clearly a market for a mid-performance V8. With Ford or Chevy your choices are Sub-V8s (I'd argue peformance does not matter here, no one is buying an Ecoboost or V6 for performance) or a car capable of 11 sec times with drag radials. The R/T is arguably faster than the sixes but isn't hair on fire fast. It's a very well balanced offering and clearly sells or Dodge would have shit canned it years ago.

That said- I bought an R/T in April, and traded it for a Hellcat in July. lol

>>15654233
post pics mane

>>15653859

You can both not look like a faggot and not look at anything at all because 0 visibility.

File: SLK55_sm.jpg (471KB, 1312x738px) Image search: [Google]

471KB, 1312x738px

For 40 Grand you can do what I did, pick up a commuter car for day to day, then pick something like this up and go even faster than anything you are looking at. Its 11 years old and still will do 0-60 in high 4's

File: tmp_12679-1471452618643-477550102.jpg (65KB, 660x438px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 660x438px

>>15622912

>>15654233
You traded it in cause you know the challenger RT is a slow boat

File: 1278788972613.jpg (8KB, 211x193px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 211x193px

>>15655250

>pick up something that's more expensive to repair than both cars combined

>>15655481
come back when you have driven something other than your 125 hp fwd shit box

>>15656635
I have drives a 2016 Camaro SS and I am getting one so jokes on you fuckface

File: udidwat.jpg (106KB, 485x496px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 485x496px

>>15657491
>i have drives

I'd rather get the Mustang
Something about the Camaro makes me think the owner is an idiot
I can't put my finger on why though

>>15622548
They're all the same!

>>15660028
But everyone has a mustang. Have you even been to a meet? Everyone with a mustang is also a complete dick

>Yeah yo, check out my 2007 mustang bro, what's that shit box you drive? Can't afford a mustang? Race me pansy

>>15645974

>scat pack
>scat literally means shit
>shut pack.

>>15660308
For the extra money they charge for that I can shit in the engine myself. Do they Indians or something to shit in the engine and that's why it's so much extra?

File: 1470620609862.jpg (239KB, 1458x672px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1458x672px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H6d4jXyLLA

File: Alfa_Romeo_159_ti_Sportwagon_front_20100814.jpg (2MB, 2470x1220px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2470x1220px

>>15625525
why do cars look better as station wagons

>>15662806
They don't. You're a fag.

File: scatpack.jpg (83KB, 873x727px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 873x727px

>>15657491
>>15660308
>>15660396

It's rather easy to pick out your posts, bro. No need to be extra butthurt about it.

Why do the pictures of these drivers match literally every driver of each car so perfectly?

>>15647069
>my car is slow
>Cars owner is a fat tub of fucking shit.

Maybe if the driver wasn't half the weight of the car it'd be faster.

>>15664267
Nice boat

>>15664267
How do camaro tail lights look https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRs8L6ONXww

>>15667039

I wouldn't know, honestly. Still breaking it in.

How does No-Car feel?

>>15667082
But I have a camaro, and I am getting a new one, I would ask to race but I dont race slow boats

>>15667082
>Butthurt dodge fanboy