Comparison: 2016 Chevrolet Camaro RS vs. 2016 Ford Mustang EcoBoost

Turbo Bronies: Childish fun with cars we’re supposed to hate

We all have at least one dream car, and probably several. Most of them are dreams because they’re effectively unobtainable, but we each have at least one attainable car on the list. Something we’ll buy when we land that new job or big promotion. Back when I was in high school, my attainable dream had rear-wheel drive, a manual transmission, and a big V-8. That V-8 made just over 300 hp.

That car was a Pontiac Firebird WS6, and it hit 60 mph in 5 seconds flat on its way to a 13.5-second quarter mile at 107.4 mph per our records. Just 15 years ago, 300 hp was a lot, and it took a V-8 or a lot of boost to get it. In my car club, a 13-second quarter mile was damn quick for a street car, and breaking into the 12s was a major accomplishment. Only the hottest of hot rodders ran 11s.
That was then. This is now. We have before us two turbocharged four-cylinder ponycars, a Mustang and a Camaro, that can nearly keep pace with my teenage dream. The Camaro makes 275 hp and 295 lb-ft of torque. The Mustang: 310 hp and 320 lb-ft. (The Firebird, in case you were wondering, made 305 hp and 335 lb-ft.) The Camaro hits 60 mph in 5.2 seconds and runs a 13.9-second quarter mile at 101.0 mph, and the Mustang, 230 pounds heavier, needs 6.3 seconds for the former and 14.5 seconds for the latter at 98.0 mph. Welcome to the future.

Rating

Not yet rated

2016 Ford Mustang Coupe

Buyer's Guide Get Quote

MASTER IN THE CORNER: If the road is straight, the more powerful but heavier Mustang doesn’t stand a chance.

This is the only objective measure in which the Camaro has an advantage. The Mustang is hampered in two ways, the first being the weight penalty. The second is a strange tendency to pull power after an upshift if it’s shifted too fast. It was tough to get a perfect run, and even then, the more powerful Mustang was still a second behind the lighter Camaro.

It’s no academic exercise, either, as the engines have entirely different personalities. The Mustang is all low-end, giving it lots of grunt off the line and exiting a corner and making it easier and more pleasant to drive around town. Unfortunately, the party’s over just north of 5,000 rpm, where it falls completely on its face. The Camaro, meanwhile, is the polar opposite. It’s gutless below 3,000 rpm, then the boost comes on like a light switch. From there, the party doesn’t stop until the tach does. It’s harder and less enjoyable to drive in town, but when it’s time to go fast, it’s way more fun.

This is no academic exercise. Both engines have entirely different personalities.

“The Mustang has better low-end torque, but honestly, I prefer the way the Camaro’s engine behaves,” Jonny Lieberman said. “I happen to enjoy engines where the horsepower comes on strong toward the top of the revs, unlike the Mustang’s 2.3-liter turbo, which feels laggardly compared to the Chevy’s revver.”

I’m with Lieberman. Better to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow, and wringing out the Camaro for all it’s worth is a lot more fun than short-shifting the Mustang. Both cars, as you might expect, benefit from having their Sport modes activated, though the sluggish Ford benefits more. (It also gets a Track mode the Camaro doesn’t.) Sport is a must in the Mustang and a why not in the Camaro. The Camaro’s must: opening the exhaust. It’s no V-8, but it sounds pretty good for a four-banger and way better than the mumbling Mustang.

That said, the Camaro is watching the Mustang’s taillights in anything other than straight-line stuff. That is, except in the braking test, where the Mustang stops 10 feet shorter. Otherwise, though, the Mustang’s out in front. On the skidpad, the Mustang pulls 0.95 g average to the Camaro’s 0.91. In our figure-eight test, it’s another easy victory for the Ford with a 24.2-second lap at 0.79 g average to the Chevy’s 25.1-second lap at 0.76 g average.

How the slower, heavier Mustang manages these feats comes down to just two things: tires and brakes. Our Mustang had the optional $1,995 Performance package, which includes summer tires and four-piston brake calipers in addition to a better axle ratio and tuning improvements. The Camaro, though, doesn’t have a performance package. The closest you can get on a four-cylinder car is a front-only brake upgrade and a set of high-performance all-season tires, which we spec’d. This severely handicaps the Camaro’s braking and handling performance, and the differences were obvious both on the test track and the street. On the figure eight, the Mustang braked shockingly hard, turned in to a corner immediately and precisely, understeered mildly in the middle, then put the power down at the exit. The Camaro, by contrast, had a soft brake pedal, understeered all the way from corner entry to exit, and power oversteered a bit on the way out. (At least there’s a consolation prize.)

These behaviors make themselves known in the real world, too. The Mustang can be driven as fast as its motor will carry it down a winding road with complete confidence. The Camaro can keep up with the Mustang thanks mostly to its acceleration advantage, but it feels as if you’re driving it at the tires’ absolute limit all the time. Put the Camaro in front, and it’ll have mirrors full of Mustang all the time. When the Camaro simply can’t go any faster around a corner, the Mustang is sweating but not panting. On the plus side, the wimpy tires do allow the Camaro to do way better burnouts.

We have before us two turbocharged ponycars that can keep pace with my teenage dream.

Now is a good time to point out the role reversal going on here. Put V-8s in these cars, and it’s the opposite story. The Mustang is too soft and heavy to keep up with the faster, lighter, nimbler Camaro.

The difference in braking performance is also apparent in canyon driving. The Mustang’s brakes have incredible bite right at first engagement, and they never let up. There’s excellent pedal feel to boot. The Camaro, meanwhile, has a longer pedal that feels soft up top but firms up when you really stand on it, which, although nicer in traffic, isn’t exactly what we’re looking for in a “Performance Brake Upgrade.”

The cars have other differences, as well. The Mustang may go around a corner quicker, but it feels heavier and softer doing it. The damping just isn’t firm enough for a Performance package, and it affects your confidence until you get used to it. The Camaro, by contrast, is beautifully balanced and light on its feet. Although the spec chart shows only a 1 percent difference in weight distribution between the two, the Mustang, its engine sitting on the front axle rather than behind as in the Camaro, feels unsurprisingly heavier on the nose.
You can feel it in the steering. The Camaro’s, when the tires stick, has more feel to it. The Mustang turns in better, and although it has little feel, it offers three modes to dial in the right amount of weight for your driving style.

There’s also the matter of the shifters. Both cars use a same six-speed manual transmission, but Ford has worked out a better shift linkage. The throw is just a bit shorter and crisper, and the decision to use a manual reverse lockout is laudable. In the Camaro, it’s all too easy to blow through the reverse detent when attempting a 3-2 downshift, resulting in frustration, cursing, and lost time.

Then come the little, practical things. Both cars have small trunks, but the Mustang’s is bigger and has a bigger opening. Neither car has real back seats, but the Mustang’s will hold bigger children than the Camaro’s. The Ford also has more than one USB port (and in a usable location, no less) and actual storage cubbies to put your stuff in. On the other hand, the Mustang has Sync. For all the usability and functionality improvements to Sync3, it still crashed and stayed that way for most of a day until Lieberman rebooted his phone, which he’d been charging and attempting to use Bluetooth phone and audio streaming with. Chevy’s MyLink, however, kept changing audio inputs; every time my Google Maps app played a voice prompt over the Bluetooth connection, it started playing music on my phone rather than the satellite radio station I’d been listening to. Fuel economy, ostensibly the reason you’re buying one of these four-bangers, is effectively the same on paper and in the real world.

Oh, and we took them to a racetrack, too. Yeah, yeah, I know. These are the four-bangers, and no one will track them, blah, blah, blah. We did, and you should, too. Both cars were a riot on the track, able to use all of their power all the time and benefiting mightily from lower curb weights and better balance than their V-8 counterparts. Of course, the Camaro was still handicapped by its tires, but you can fix that (see page TK). As is, the Mustang won the day by 0.86 second at the Streets of Willow Springs, owing mostly to its stopping power and cornering grip.
“The [braking] response of the Camaro was so slow and inconsistent compared to the Mustang,” Randy Pobst said; he referred to the Camaro’s on-track braking more than once as “frightening.” Things didn’t get much better in the corners. “The whole turning phase is vastly inferior to the Mustang. The braking doesn’t give me as much entry grip as I want. The tires have less grip, more squirm, more slide, more slip angles everywhere. It’s less accurate and less fun.” Otherwise, though, he liked it. “Cornering speeds were lower, but it was a little bit more drifty under power, which I actually kinda enjoyed. … The Camaro engine is just more satisfying. It pulls stronger.”

The Mustang didn’t get off easy, either. “The engine felt lazy,” Pobst said. “I thought I felt the thing pulling power. Seemed worse on later laps. The oil temp came up right to the yellow.” It didn’t go like he wanted, but it sure did stop. “I absolutely love the brake response; it’s unbelievable how quick it gets to its max braking g. I can go so late on the brakes, way later than the Camaro. I think that’s a record for me braking as late as I did and still making it in many places around the course. It loves a trail-brake. It rotates just a little bit.” All that despite complaints about the weight.

Even with all the obvious differences, Lieberman and I found ourselves staring down a tie. “This is one of the more evenly matched comparison tests in recent memory,” he said. “I’m split 51 to 49 percent, and if I stare at either of the cars long enough, I can convince myself it’s the actual winner.” I felt the same. The Camaro was unquestionably more fun to drive, but it was kneecapped by its tires. The Mustang was the better all-around car, but its lethargic engine and extra poundage let it down. Even if the Camaro could give my old dream Firebird a run for its money on the strip and either pony could run circles around the Pontiac on a race track, neither quite felt like the obvious dream car in this test. Maybe it’s because all my dreams have eight or more cylinders, or maybe it’s because a lot more than 300 hp is attainable on a middle-class salary these days. Really, though, it’s a question of priorities. Dream cars are irrational. These two are logical alternatives that ask practical questions. How fast do you really need to go? How much money do you really want to spend on gas every month? And how many commutes are you really going to put up with that ride quality?

After a great deal of standing around staring at the cars and trading observations that started with “but what about,” we settled on a winner: the Mustang. It’s the better car in nearly every measure by some margin, and as much as we hate to lose a stoplight drag, there’s no arguing it’s got the Camaro licked everywhere else. A set of real summer tires for the Camaro would change everything, but Chevy doesn’t sell them, and the Camaro suffers for it.

Or, as Lieberman put it: “Not satisfied that dull tires are enough to sink the Chevy? The Mustang has a real handbrake. Winner!”

BE PREPARED: The Mustang has way better brake bite than the Camaro, so it’s best not to follow the Ford too closely.

---

GOOD MEASURE: All Chevy Camaro RS data illustrated here is compliments of the all-season tires.

Funhouse Mirror

Mercedes-Benz SL 400 road test: Enjoying life in the fast lane

It didn't take many miles in the Mercedes SL to consider swinging away from home and heading south to Nice, immediately. Or anywhere with plentiful mixtures of sun and gracious living, really.

0shares0000

For here in the £73,810 - current entry level - version of a convertible line that has adorned luxury harbour sides for decades is a car that wants you to enjoy life at the top.

Tested: Mercedes-Benz SL 400 AMG

Engine: 3.0-litre petrol engine. 362bhp
Warranty: Three years, unlimited miles
Economy: The SL400 can do 36.7mpg officially
Insurance Group: 50
Price: £73,810

Indeed, there may not be a better way yet devised of taking two people from their home in a high end postcode to the marina or yacht basin, there to be reunited with seagull, ocean queen... or whatever name the owner's wide broke a bottle of champagne over at the launch.
Simple figures have never told even half the story of an SL, currently available in four grades of urge and luxury and culminating in a 12 cylinder, 630 horsepower, £172,000 AMG machine that will make a hen's tooth look commonplace by comparison.
Forget the numbers (they are all limited to the responsible 155mph limit set by most German car makers of fast cars, Porsche excepted) and concentrate instead on the way every SL has trodden the taste tightrope between brash, brawn and beauty.
Mostly they've found an admirable middle point, straying only occasionally into the gaudy or vulgar. To these eyes the current version, especially perhaps in this least expensive SL 400 guise. can confidently assume the mantle of privilege with a touch of decorum, even fitted with 19inch AMG alloy wheels in high gloss black (£895) and door sills that light up with Mercedes-Benz lettering (£215) and remind you what you've bought as you slip aboard at night.
But if you ever needed positive proof that a touch under seventy-four grand brings a car that allows the full SL experience, and that mere figures mean little in this car's world, consider this: for comfortably more than double the base model's price (£73,810 plays £173,315) you save 0.9 seconds on the dash to 62mph - and both cars will top out, pretty promptly, at that artificially limited 155mph already mentioned.

Of course, the 12-cylinder SL 65 deploys its 630 horses to give blinding performance in any gear, at any speed. It will also make a noise at takeoff that would silence a St Tropez cafe full of ladies doing lunch.
But the humbler SL 400 would not be considered an even slightly less delightful way for any of them to return to that charming villa in the hills.
Its 362bhp will be more than adequate and its smooth nine-speed automatic gearbox slurs the changes so gently you won't even notice. Outside and - especially - inside, this SL feels simply very special indeed. From 'just right' touches of silver-glinting alloy and caressingly soft leather to a level of fit and finish that must have meanty all leave cancelled at the Bremen plant where it was built, this is a car that makes an owner glow with pride of ownership.

And with a specification that even in its least expensive expression takes pages of closely spaced sentences to explain, it may be just as well that SLs of any generation since the first of 1954 tend to stick around long enough to become treasured family heirlooms.
For the record, your price list starter version comes with an aluminium folding roof that works in either direction at around-town speeds, enough safety features to make a risk assessment obsessive puce with envy and sufficient luxury touches to have you studying the handbook as after-dinner homework.

Read more at http://www.shropshirestar.com/motoring/2016/06/06/mercedes-benz-sl-400-road-test-enjoying-life-in-the-fast-lane/#FkMgH0etzcfPKdIX.99

Bread is no more a healthy food, contains cancer causing chemicals

A typical middle-class family starts its day with the ‘healthy’ breakfast; when they take out bread from the toaster that is brown; hence healthy, spreads butter over it and waters it down either with milk, tea or coffee.
But, are they enjoying a healthy breakfast
Far from it, as a CSE (Center for Science and Environment), a New Delhi-based public interest organization revealed in its recent study, that  their favorite, ‘health’ brown bread that has just 22 percent whole wheat flour and color to make it brown, has dangerous and internationally banned carcinogenic chemicals.
Just a few days ago, its study showed that 84 per cent of bread and bakery samples collected from the city—New Delhi—contain residues of potassium bromate, potassium iodate or both. And, these chemicals, according to Indian food regulations, can be used by bread makers and bakeries as flour treatment agents. Potassium bromate helps achieve high rising and a uniform finish. They may provide an eye-catching shape to the bread, but they are highly dangerous to human health.
Popularly used in many parts of the world a few decades ago, potassium bromate was allowed based on the assumption that no residue of bromate would be found in the final product. However, studies began to find detectable residues of bromate in finished products. Other studies showed that bromate was a possible carcinogen. In the 1980s and early 1990s, global scientific expert committees began reducing the allowed limit of use for bromate. They were found to be carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, associated with the World Health Organization in 1986.
Eventually, they recommended not using potassium bromate at all, a warning that was heeded in many countries. Potassium iodate is also banned in many countries as it can lead to higher intake of iodine, which can potentially affect thyroid function. But India continues to allow the use of these treatment agents, exposing people to the risk of consuming them through bread and bakery items.
But, in India, they are permitted. While the maximum level of use of potassium bromate and/or iodate in bread is set at 50 ppm (parts per million), maximum level of use of potassium bromate in flour for bakery is set at 20 ppm and the maximum use limit of potassium bromate is set at 20 ppm in refined wheat flour, if used for bakery.

Makanan Sehat untuk Penderita Diabetes

Penderita diabetes dianjurkan untuk tidak salah memilih makanan sehat.

Asupan makanan sehat.

Diabetes adalah salah satu penyakit berbahaya dan mematikan. Jadi, sangat tak heran apabila orang-orang yang menderita penyakit ini dituntut untuk selalu menjaga pola makan mereka dan tidak boleh sembarangan mengonsumsi makanan. Hal tersebut lantaran, para penderita diabetes gemar mengonsumsi makanan secara sembarangan, yang menyebabkan kadar gula darah di dalam tubuh menjadi tidak terkontrol dan cenderung meningkat.
Peningkatan kadar gula darah ini tentu saja berdampak negatif bagi penderita diabetes itu sendiri, karena berisiko memicu terjadinya komplikasi seperti penyakit jantung, kerusakan syaraf, pusing, kelelahan, hinggamenurunnya kesadaran.

F1 stars take pole position at Goodwood Festival of Speed

Button and Hulkenberg are among the names to visit petrolheads’ paradise

Thrills and spills: the Goodwood Festival of Speed returns with an exciting line-up of the world’s fastest and most powerful cars Dominic James

It’s time to make plans for the grandest motorised garden party of them all; the Goodwood Festival of Speed, which transforms the rolling hills of West Sussex into a petrolhead’s paradise from June 23-26.
But you’ll have to be quick. Tickets are selling out fast, and no wonder. The action begins on the Thursday, with the Moving Motor Show, a chance to see the very latest on-sale models close up, with some guests able to drive the latest models around a special course, including up the legendary hillclimb itself. One of the stars will be the new Mini Seven, making its global debut alongside a range of cars from leading manufacturers.
The fun continues throughout the weekend, with the legendary 1.6-mile hillclimb the centre of attention, as cars and motorcycles hurtle up, competing for the fastest times. This year there will be machinery from five current Formula 1 teams, including Mercedes, McLaren and Red Bull.
In fact, the Festival of Speed is the only event — other than the British Grand Prix — where British fans can see so many F1 cars in action in one place, with an unrivalled level of access to both cars and drivers. Confirmed for this year’s festival are Force India’s Nico Hulkenberg, who also took victory in last year’s Le Mans 24 Hours with Porsche, and 2009 world champion Jenson Button, along with a host of other well-known names.

It’s all in keeping with the theme of this year’s event, Full Throttle — The Endless Pursuit of Power, celebrating the most epic machinery ever to grace the race tracks of the world. This year’s festival will feature the racing machines that, more than any others, have pushed the power envelope, while honouring the “pilots” who tamed them.
From monstrous aero-engined leviathans to flame-spitting turbo F1 cars, titanic pre-war Silver Arrows to thundering Can-Am monsters, and fearsome two-stroke Grand Prix bikes to brutal Group B rally cars, the festival will feature cars and motorcycles which prove beyond doubt that, where power is concerned, bigger really is better. Alongside this central theme, the festival will pay tribute to BMW’s rich motorsport heritage, as the German manufacturer marks its centenary with an impressive line-up of cars and bikes.
Also celebrated will be 50 years since the inaugural Can-Am championship and the first of the GT40’s four Le Mans wins, and 40 years since James Hunt’s F1 World Championship victory.
Other key attractions will include the Goodwood Action Sports arena, with daring freestyle motocross, trials, BMW and mountain bike displays from leading experts tackling a special collection of jumps, and the exciting rally stage with cars getting airborne. Show-goers will be also able to inspect the cars and meet the teams. Those wanting a more sedate attraction can enjoy a “beauty” pageant fought out by some of the world’s most beautiful cars and judged by a panel of experts. And it wouldn’t really be Goodwood without the aviation and air displays.
“This year’s festival will see the wildest, fastest, craziest, baddest cars and bikes ever to ascend the Goodwood Hill,” says Festival of Speed founder Lord March.