Welcome back to Shitbox Showdown! Today we’re going to look at one of the great all-time rivalries, right up there with Coke vs. Pepsi, Cardinals vs. Cubs, and David Lee Roth vs. Sammy Hagar. But first let’s see which car won yesterday’s lengthy battle:
Well, that’s the long and the short of it. The bar graph is the opposite of the overall lengths, and the little Chevy Sprint is our winner. I do like the idea of building a twin-engined all-wheel-drive monster out of the two cars the seller was parting with; It seems like a noble amd terrifying way to die.
Ford introduced the world’s second pony car, the Mustang, on April 17, 1964 (Waitaminnit! Second, you say? Yes, Plymouth beat them to market by two weeks with the Barracuda). [Editor’s Note: Mark, a Barracuda is a fish. The entire concept of “Pony Car” came from the Mustang, which, per all the scientific equine research papers I’ve been reading, is basically a pony. -DT]. It was an immediate success, and left crosstown rival GM without a competing vehicle for a couple of years, until September 29, 1966, when Chevy unveiled the Camaro. When asked what a “Camaro” was, a GM product manager replied, “A small vicious animal that eats Mustangs.”
And they’ve been at each other’s throats ever since.
For a long time, used Camaros and Mustangs were performance car bargains, a good way to get some cheap thrills in a reasonably stylish package (sometimes more stylish, sometimes less, depending on the era). But now that early examples of both cars are considered classics, and even the ’80s Fox-body Mustangs and third-generation Camaros are starting to creep up in price, kicks just keep getting harder to find, as the old song goes. [Editor’s Note: I have no idea which song Mark is referring to, here. -DT]
But at the moment, twenty-something-year-old examples of either car are right at the bottom of their depreciation curve, so there are still some to be found for our meager budget. We’ll have to settle for six-cylinders; V8s either don’t run or cost too much. Let’s take a look at one of each.
Ride, Sally, Ride – 1999 Ford Mustang – $2,495
Engine/drivetrain: 3.8 liter V6, 5 speed manual, RWD
Location: Tacoma, WA
Odometer reading: 216,000 miles
Runs/drives? We can assume
This is a fourth-generation Mustang, the first year of the “New Edge” refresh. Like all Mustangs before it, and quite a few after, it’s about as complicated a machine as a C-clamp. Sit down, stomp on the right pedal, do something antisocial. While not as raucous as its V8-powered stablemates, the 3.8 liter “Essex” V6 in this car received a serious power bump for 1999, up to 190 horses. Particularly when backed by a T-5 manual as in this car, it can still manage some mischief. But it’s also tractable enough to drive every day.
And personally, I think the New Edge Mustang is a sharp-looking car, much better than the blobby mess that preceded it. This one looks well-used, but reasonably well-kept. It’s got a lot of miles, and coming from a buy-here-pay-here lot, probably not much written history.
Inside, a cheap parts-store seat cover and some missing cruise control buttons on the steering wheel show the miles, but it could be a lot worse. You could probably rely on this car as a daily driver, if an inspection didn’t turn up any surprises.
Donuts On Your Lawn – 2000 Chevrolet Camaro – $2,250
Engine/drivetrain: 3.8 liter V6, 4 speed automatic, RWD
Location: Houston, TX
Odometer reading: 104,000 miles
Runs/drives? Great, according to the seller
Camaros always seem to end up one notch scruffier than Mustangs. I don’t know if it’s because they get driven harder, or cared for less well, or if GM’s materials just get grubby-looking faster than Ford’s. But looking at this Camaro, compared to the Mustang above, you’d never guess it had half as many miles on it.
Mechanically, it’s at least as tough, if not tougher. In 1996, GM began using the Buick-derived corporate 3800 V6 as the base engine in the Camaro and sister model Pontiac Firebird, and it was a nice bump in power and refinement from the older 3.4 liter V6. This one is backed by an automatic; I tried to find a manual Camaro so we could compare apples to apples, but no dice.
This poor Camaro has suffered some questionable modifications, namely the aftermarket taillights and those awful wheels and rubber-band tires. But it’s standard five-lug GM, so you can replace them with just about anything. It has also been booped in the nose, and the seller settled for replacing the bumper skin with a mismatched junkyard unit and leaving the sheetmetal damage alone.
Still, it’s intact and drivable, and if the seller is to be believed, runs really well. And like the Mustang, the Camaro is designed and intended to be “just a car,” not some precious exotic plaything. You can use a Camaro as your only car if you want; it will carry groceries as well as any minivan, and the six-cylinder models even get reasonable gas mileage. Sure, some plastic stuff will break, but the basic core of the car is stout.
Really, these two cars are almost interchangeable, except for a little brand loyalty. The Mustang is a little smaller and sportier; the Camaro has a hatchback and a bit more bad-boy reputation. Which one suits you better?
The Camaro is horrid. The wheels look ridiculous (and probably ride like a Roman chariot), the interior looks like it hasn’t been vacuumed since the early 90s (and yes, I’m aware it is a 2000), half of the body panels are damaged and/or falling off, and the aftermarket tail lights look like they should sell for $4 on whatever the Kentucky version of Craigslist is. All together, that car looks like it is owned and driven by a mildly successful meth dealer who likes to sample his product. That Camaro should be burned, although I’d recommend not inhaling the smoke.
I’d go for the Mustang.
This was a coin toss – The Mustang does look cared for, but only because it’s from a dealership. There’s a good chance it looked a lot like the Camaro before it got detailed.
Weren’t we going to get “Triumph Spitfire” as a permanent third option? I would vote for that.
Or TR6, or MGB, or any 3rd option really…
Are you trying to lock in my vote?
1. We are polar opposites where SN95 Mustangs are concerned- I greatly prefer the 94-98’s, especially the early ones with the Windsor 5.0L.
2. Generally, I’d choose the F-body over the Stang, although I’ve owned a couple ’69 fastbacks and consider that to be among the most beautiful of all pony cars.
3. In this comparo though, the Mustang wins hands-down. Manual equipped over the snore-inducing 4L60E, not to mention the Camaro looks like it’s a hurricane refugee. Not that I’d want that V6 pony, but it’s a much better option than the Camaro.
There was a cheaper Camaro with a stick in the Seattle CL yesterday I think (could have been a couple days ago, this has been a hellacious week). It had a misfire though, and I’m looking at pictures of the engine bay and remembering how famously bad it is to change the plugs on those.
Stang all the way.
Oh come on, you just have to drop the engine out the bottom. It’s easy!
Mustang easily.
Everyone’s covered the main points already, but I’d add that the base Mustangs of the era had basically the same running gear as the GTs minus the powertrain. And possibly the sounds badass but isn’t really “quadra shock” setup at the back.
Big thing here then is the brakes.
I would much rather have a 200k mile car that was daily driven than a 100k mile car that was treated like that Camaro. To paraphrase John Hiatt: She lived 10 lifetimes in 20 years, anywhere the law would allow.
A rap-metal meltdown of iron here. I’d rather walk.
EZ win for the Mustang today, and probably a favorite for the weekly prize
That Camero looks rough. The mustang looks decent. That an manual sold it if I’m forced to buy one.
That Camaro looks ready for the junkyard. You’d also have to undo whatever is going on with the wheels/suspension.
The Mustang is a shitbox, but looks great compared to that Camaro. Both have a shitty V6, so rather have the MT than the slushbox.
I got me a bitchin’ Camaro, with no insurance to match. So if I have to run ya down, please don’t leave a scratch!
That being said, I voted Mustang.
Ford guy since I started wrenching, but even if I wasn’t that Camaro looks too rough to want to take on.
Plus, manual always wins out over automatic.
The seats on that Camaro will probably give you syphilis.
“… these two cars are almost interchangeable”. Sorry, no. And so far, the poll backs me up. If you had found a stick, maybe.
I reluctantly voted for the stang and I’m not happy about it. That generation of Mustang is the main reason I am not attracted American made cars. Everything about it is terrible, the interior is ugly and cheap, handles and rides like poo, the styling is ugly at best, and it ain’t fast. They are peak rich high school kid whose parents bought them a new car and they think it’s the shit because they know nothing about cars. But it’s better than the clapped out slushbox camaro.
Thanks for ruining my morning
The Mustang looks like an entirely reasonable beater or first car for a teenager.
The Camaro looks like you’ve reached rock bottom.
The Mustang, hands down.
But… only because I have a 4.6 4v, TR3650, and V8 crossmember to swap into it sitting in storage.
Author’s notes to the editor’s notes:
1. Yes, I know a barracuda is a fish. Had the Mustang been a flop, we might be calling them “fish cars” now, which admittedly doesn’t have the same ring to it.
2. Paul Revere and The Raiders, “Kicks,” released in 1966.
3. Al Green, Ride Sally Ride.
4. Mark Rice, Mustang Sally.
5. Dead Milkmen, Bitchin’ Camaro
6. mid-00’s mega-size band Bang Camaro.
7. Kings of Leon – Camaro
That being said, I voted ‘stang.
I was going to comment on “Camero” in the poll, but in this case it seems appropriate.
Shame it doesn’t come with a Manuel transmission.
Yeah, third day in a row I want a ‘None of the Above’ option. The Mustang has that horrible solid rear axle and ‘just’ a V6, and the Camaro has so many issues I don’t know where to start.
Solid axles aren’t that bad. Between my two Jeeps, I have 4 solid axles.
Well, this series IS called “Shitbox Showdown” so the title should clue you in that the desirability factor is likely to be very low or even zero.
So really, it’s about which shit sandwich will make you gag less, not which one you really want to eat.
All things equal as they’re both v6s, and not being a muscle car fan, manual wins.
That Camaro doesn’t even have T-tops! That’s really the only reason you’d buy one of those because it has no other redeeming virtues. Impossible to work on (the engine is under the windshield, not under the hood), Tesla-quality interior, not really a great driving car.
At least the equivalent Firebird has the Monsoon radio and an extra cupholder in the passenger side door (and only the passenger side, not the driver side door for some reason). I don’t know why they didn’t put a cupholder in both doors. it also has different seats with separate headrests.
If it had T-tops, I might have given it more consideration. Therefore, I voted Mustang.
The 98 did have the Monsoon option. There is cup holder in the center console and swing out for the passenger.
Also T-Tops are great as long as you put the shades on hot sunny days unless you want an EZ-Bake Oven.
Nah Sawzall off the roof and you got a convertible.
This one is tough for me. My username would generally indicate the Camaro. However looking that makes me realize why I won’t let mine go. I don’t want it to end up like that.
The Mustang won for the better shape, with the higher mileage. I will work as is or I can look into a period correct V8 upgrade.
Absolutely. The junkyard insanity you could shove in there and the manual make it a no-brainer. Plus, at least the buy here pay here lot appears to have detailed it. That Camaro needs a wash, poor. Thing.
Do I remember incorrectly or did the description about the ad not even state the Mustang actually runs? Unless it actually runs I don’t need a car mannequin
Lol, yeah, car lots often tow non-running cars around town for pics. They detail them up real nice too!
I got one by me that sells parts cars if they are too expensive to fix
The Mustang wins today, for me. Just drooling over a 429 being stuffed in the bay.
I’ve owned both (’96 Camaro with the 3.4 POS, 2000 Mustang GT auto and ’04 GT manual). Run, don’t walk, away from the Camaro. I can hear the plastics (body panels and interior) falling apart through the picture. The 3.8 is the only redeemable thing about that car. And with the V6 Mustang, only small trees and crowds of children will be in danger at a C&C event.
I like them both, but I’d take the Mustang for it’s manual transmission. And the Camaro looks donk-ified. They don’t normally ride that high. But no V8s, I cried! Then I thought about spending $25 to fill up my *motorcycle* this morning. Suddenly a V6 is more appealing.
If either of those were sitting on my neighbors lawn, surrounded by empty beer cans, with a for sale sign in the window, it would be mine.
No and uh…..No. If I had the time and money to waste I’d V10 the mustang and Turbo 4 the camaro, you know, just to piss people off for fun.