Skip to main content
HOME   |   ABOUT   |   NEWS   |   TECH ARTICLES   |   AT THE TRACK   |   REVIEWS   |   VIDEOS   |   CONTACT ME

2013 Camaro SS 1LE vs 2013 Mustang GT Track Pack - A Closer Look

Unsurprisingly, a Camaro vs. Mustang comparison grabs a lot of attention. Motor Trend's recent comparison of the 2013 Camaro SS 1LE and the 2013 Mustang GT Track Pack (full article: 2013 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE vs. 2013 Ford Mustang GT Track Pack) has fans of each car fighting in the comments section. I'm hoping a closer look at the results and the review could clear some of the air, although I know it won't mean anything to the diehard fans.




The Camaro has been winning reviews lately. Most comparison tests between the ZL1 and 2013 Mustang GT500 crowned the ZL1 as the winner. Although the GT500 is faster in all aspects, it is less composed and loses lead as time and laps go by due to brake fade. The Camaro ZL1 also beat the Boss 302 LS because, while the Boss 302 LS is more fun on the track, the power advantage and suspension tuning of the ZL1 propelled it to a win on the track and the magnetic shocks give it a more comfortable ride on the road. The Mustang still had one comparison to win though; the Mustang Boss 302 vs the Camaro SS 1LE.




When Motor Trend tried to do that comparison, Ford declined to provide a Boss 302. They said that the Boss is a stand alone model and even gets its own engine while the 1LE package is simply an option package that is added to a standard Camaro SS, much like the Track Package for the Mustang GT. As a result, Ford provided a Mustang GT Track Pack. Regardless of the reason why Ford declined, the Mustang GT with the Track Pack is the underdog because the 1LE package was clearly put together by Chevy to have a model to go against the Boss 302 and the Mustang lost another battle.

Looking at the acceleration tests, it is clear that the two are very even matched in terms of acceleration:


2013 Chevy Camaro SS 1LE:

0-30 mph:                  1.8 s
0-40 mph:                  2.4 s
0-50 mph:                  3.2 s
0-60 mph:                  4.3 s
0-70 mph:                  5.4 s
0-80 mph:                  6.8 s
0-90 mph:                  8.3 s
0-100 mph:              10.2 s
Passing, 45-65 mph:  2.0 s
1/4 mile:                   12.7 s @ 111.8 mph


2013 Ford Mustang GT Track Pack:

0-30 mph:                  1.7 s
0-40 mph:                  2.6 s
0-50 mph:                  3.3 s
0-60 mph:                  4.4 s
0-70 mph:                  5.5 s
0-80 mph:                  6.8 s
0-90 mph:                  8.4 s
0-100 mph:              10.2 s
Passing, 45-65 mph:  2.0 s
1/4 mile:                   12.7 s @ 111.9 mph


On the track, however, the story is different. The Camaro pulls a 3.07 seconds lead, which is a lot, especially on 1.55 mile laps. The first issue is braking. It takes the Mustang 110 ft to get from 60-0 mph while the Camaro does the same deed in 101 ft despite being over 200 lb heavier. The second issue is apparent after looking at the numbers at the end of the first section of the track and acceleration numbers. In a straight line, both cars are neck and neck with identical 1/4 mile times and almost identical trap speeds. However, on the first straight, the Mustang has a top of speed of 102 mph while the Camaro goes up to 104 mph.




It is important to note that the Camaro doesn't only achieve a higher top speed, but it achieves it a little later down the straight. Based on that and the almost identical straight line acceleration performance, I can assume that the Camaro didn't out accelerate the Mustang. Instead, the driver (Randy Pobst) was able to stay on the power longer in the Camaro while having to lift off the throttle earlier in the Mustang. This probably means that he was feeling more confident in the Camaro but had to set up for the turn a little earlier in the Mustang. Problem? The Mustang is less stable. In the review, it was described as having a squirmy rear end and too much body and suspension movement. It is clear that the Mustang also has less grip as the Camaro consistently pulled more lateral g's in the corners. This is unsurprising, since the Camaro has 285 wide tires at all four corners while the Mustang has to do with only 255's.

All of this results in the Camaro taking the win and, with over 3 seconds a lap lead, it is quite the beating to the Mustang. But How did the Mustang lose? It is over 200 lb lighter, can keep up on the straights and has been compared by Motor Trend to a BMW M3 and lost by less than a second which should mean that the Mustang isn't bad around corners, and that was even before some 2013 model year upgrades. Well, it isn't bad. It's actually far from it. The Camaro is just dialled in that good. Although it is heavier, it has better weight distribution so it's easier to balance, it has an independent rear end, which is much better at keeping the rear end in check, and now it has the 1LE package which was put together with one goal in mind - to beat the Boss 302 - and it did just that, which is impressive with more weight and less power.

Mustang fans should be happy, though, not just Camaro fans. In fact, they should be proud. The Mustang has been the handling champ for 2 years while the Camaro was being criticized for too much understeer and lack of agility. Ford was the first to step up the handling game with the 2010 Mustang GT and then it gave it a stout engine to match - the Coyote - for the next model year. And even though the Mustang was already the better track car, that wasn't enough for Ford.. They pushed the envelope even further and introduced the Boss 302 and Boss 302 LS - arguably the best handling Mustangs and some of the best handling and most fun to drive cars on the road, despite being stuck with a live rear axle.

This comparison is also not the end of the story for the Mustang. There are a few things to make out of this about it:

1- It can keep up on the straights so the engine does not need work to keep up with the Camaro on a track.
2- It needs more rubber/wider tires.
3- It has a great, agile chassis but a lot of movement so more grip means even more movement. Body movement has be addressed before the grip issue is fixed.
4- It needs more stopping power (and more rubber could be enough fix that issue).

With endless aftermarket options for the Mustang, owners should have no trouble turning the performance up a notch. More damping, some front and back stiffening and more rubber and a 5.0 Mustang Track Pack should have no trouble keeping up with a Camaro SS 1LE on a track. The same can be said about Camaro owners wanting to push them even further. Both Mustang and Camaro fans should be proud of how capable they are off the showroom floor and, with street cars, the Mustang will always have the weight advantage and the Camaro will always have the more compliant rear suspension. If you are not loyal to either nameplate, go test drive each and I am sure you will be happy with at least one and be able to pick the platform you want to work with.

Think you can't live with either shortcoming? Wait until the next generations come out which should be out in 2 years or less. The next Camaro is going to utilize GM's new lightweight Alpha RWD platform and the Mustang is supposed to ditch the solid axle and gain an independent rear end.

Source: Motor Trend

Comments

  1. I love the Camaro SS, I work at a South New Jersey Chevy and I get to see and drive them all the time. The acceleration is unbelievable compared to the six cylinder model. The SS is just a great car and while comparable to the mustang in terms of performance, It outclasses the mustang in style.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, I drove both of the V6 and V8 models and the difference was great, not just in performance but good old V8 noise.

      Delete

Post a Comment







Does An Aftermarket Grille Really Increase Airflow?
I put a Saleen S281 grille to the test to answer that question.

Stock Suspension S197 Mustang With Square 305/30/19's
What you need to fit a proper size square tire setup.

How Limited Slip Diffs Make You Faster on Track
What you need to know about how they put power down and pros and cons.

Can Telemetry Explain Schumacher's Talent?
A comparison between Schumacher's and then team mate Herbert's data.






Cayman GT4 Track Review
The first Cayman with proper (911-challenging) power.

Is an EcoBoost Mustang any good on Track?
Two days at the track in a Mustang short 4 cylinders.

2016 BMW M4 DCT Track Review
It's quick (properly quick). But is it fun?

Can a stock Golf Diesel handle a Track Day?
Not your every day track beater.




🔥 Most Visited This Week

Rams Eye New Track Car & Daily Reveal

New track car? You bet! Just picked it up a few weeks ago for a long term test to serve as a dual purpose daily and track car. It's a bit obscure and forgotten about but packs a lot of special features and one of the best AWD systems you can buy. Watch to find out what it is, why it's forgotten, and what I like the most about it (plus how much I paid for it!). Liked this? Make sure to subscribe so you don't miss new videos! Follow Rams Eye The Track Guy on Facebook and Instagram! View this post on Instagram A post shared by Michael R (@ramseyethetrackguy) on Sep 8, 2020 at 4:43pm PDT

GTR vs Evo X vs STI: which has the best AWD system?

A few weeks ago, I made a post explaining  mainstream AWD system types and how they compare , pros and cons, etc. including some simple diagrams to show where the power goes and how much. As promised, this post will focus on specific cars and what AWD systems they use, especially ones that that have more or less been defined by their AWD systems, and the best place to start may be with a bombshell; the Nissan GT-R. Nissan GT-R (R35) The GT-R has built a reputation around having monster traction and very approachable performance, thanks to its AWD system - Advanced Total Traction Engineering System for All-Terrain (ATTESA) - and what it can do for you. But the GT-R doesn't actually use the most mechanically sophisticated type of AWD systems discussed in the previous article, namely a "true" AWD with a centre differential. Instead, it uses a clutch pack to transfer power. RWD-based clutch-type AWD schematic - Rams Eye The Track Guy © The R32, R33, and R34 Sky

How would a Mustang 3.5L EcoBoost compare to the 5.0L V8?

Ever wonder how a 3.5 litre EcoBoost might fair against the 5.0 litre V8 in the Mustang? Of course you have. Ever since Ford dropped it in the F150 (and perhaps well before), everyone has been wondering how it would perform. There are basically two camps; those who think it would be awesome because of tuneability and power potential and those who think it means the death of the V8 in the Mustang. If you are in the latter group, we seem to be good so far with continuous upgrades to the 5.0 litre Coyote and the brand new Shelby GT500 which still uses a supercharged V8 as it has been for over a decade and multiple iterations. But what if... Well, it seems we are closer than ever to finding out the answer to that question. American Trucks recently got together two crew cab, short box, 4x4 F150's but one has the 5.0 litre V8 and the other has the 3.5 litre EcoBoost V6. There has been a few comparisons between 5.0 litre and 3.5 litre EB F150's, but this seems to be the most di

Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2's vs Bridgestone Potenza RE-71R's

I never thought I'd ever run Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2's on my 2012 Boss 302. The cost is astronomical and they are supposed to last the least of anything comparable. So how did I end up with (nearly) fresh Sport Cup 2's? A complete fluke. I came across a lightly used set with only a few hundred miles and no track time; 305/30/19 takeoffs from a GT Performance Pack Level 2 (GT PPL2). I knew my 71R's were getting very worn before the season started and likely wouldn't last the whole season, even this short one. The price was far better than a new set of RE-71R's, a little more than half, and local Time Attack rules (Canadian Automobile Sport Clubs) recently made 180 and 200 TW tires equivalent, meaning no PAX or PIP point penalty for going with 180 TW tire like the Pilot Sport Cup 2's. I have been very curious about how PSC2's compare to RE 71R's but I stayed away due to their being painfully expensive and, up to last year, their 180 TW rating would