Ok so I'm starting to get concerned that the early reviews of the 2011 Mustang are a little biased. I know Ford made some major updates and upgrades, but I just read the Motor Trend comparison between the Mustang and Camaro and the final verdict just seems a little off. Apparently most of the staff at MT would chose the Challenger over the Camaro, putting it in 3rd place... even though it outperforms the Challenger in their tests??
Then there are the numbers in the final table...
Ok the standard gear ratio is 3.55 but MT tested with a 3.73 ratio setup in the track pack... Now this in itself isn't upsetting, because it's a factory option, but wouldn't this change the mileage that the standard 3.55 ratio would give you? MT reports that the mileage should be 17/26... But wouldn't the gear ratio decrease this?
Another thing I noticed is that they said the recommended fuel for the Camaro SS was regular unleaded... I sure hope this was a typo because if they put regular fuel in the car for their tests, that certainly would've hurt the #s!
I may be crazy for being annoyed by this, but people are going to be buying either the standard mustang and get 17/26 mileage with slower accelleration or the 3.73 track pack mustang as tested and get another mileage, but the review as far as I could tell never mentioned that the mileage would be affected by the upgrades purchased.
And that brings me to my last point. If Chevy did one thing to shut up the media in proclaiming that the Mustang was top dog, it would be to offer factory performance upgrades like the Mustang! I wish they would!
I'm not trying to start a one sided discussion about how the Camaro rules or how the Mustang sucks. I just want to know if the articles are really as biased as I think...
source:
Motor Trend