I don't think this video changes anyone's minds about the three cars. Fanboys will still wave their flags respectively.Ford has the benefit of an unbroken lineage. It also uses that to remask (read: no engine changes other than a CAI standard for 15hp) a car that instead of making it faster, and has always been complacent with having a dominance on the market until recently. However, this heritage is also a plus because GM/Chrysler had to reuse larger platforms to get the car built (on the G8/Charger chassis), which is where a majority of their added weight (and don't forget the bigger engines) comes from. The best example of this performance bottleneck is when they speak about Camaro having a ~0.2s lead on a car with 115hp less and the Challenger actually losing to a car with 60hp less.All things being equal, you'll buy what you want and can afford. I just thought that when the engines reach the same hp my Mustang (yeah, 2010 GT) is still about 300 lbs lighter than my dad's Camaro (he wishes for 2010), which is something Ford refuses to take advantage of and therefore loses out on.Oh and the "retro done right" Challenger is actually bigger than the one it's mimic'ing. Still, it's a beauty in black.

What a cracker mobile.

Like the last guy said, the Camaro is a $30,000 car and it would not be fair if they put it against the GT500 and a SRT8 because those are more expensive cars witch means that they put more time and money on those cars with obviously means that they are going to be faster, have better handling, and have a better engine over all.So i think that the match up is = because it shows you how the Camaro can take on the RT with is a $45,000 car and can also take on the GT!

The fact that Camaro is being compared being compared to the GT500 shows just how awesome it is. The SS is a $30,000 car. The GT500 is $45k.And no, Edmunds isn't biased. They're biased in favor of cars that are "fun to drive" and often overlook or undervalue other aspects of the car, but they don't seem to have any brand loyalty.