washingtonpost.com's view

THIS IS a story about black and white. But it has nothing to do with race. It is about two convertibles — a black 1996 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 and a white 1995 Ford Mustang GT.

In most respects, both were created equal. But only one could win my heart — the one that provided the most affirmative action on the road.

It is understandable that some might find the comparison unfair. The Mustang, after all, belonged to a fading model year. And Ford has promised that the 1996 Mustang GT convertible will be improved substantially.

But the 1996 GT convertible wasn’t available. I took what was in Ford’s garage.

Surely, the Camaro Z28 had certain advantages — a more powerful engine and a definite, no-compromise, in-your-face, knock-you-‘cross-the-head, urban attitude.

By comparison, the Mustang came across as a suburbanite on an exotic excursion to the inner city — quite acceptable, but somewhat clueless.

Those differences notwithstanding, I used the Republican Congressional Standard of Evaluation in choosing my favorite of the two convertibles. Those standards are color-blind, unaffected by cultural nuance and personal bias, and are based solely on merit.

Background: Both the Mustang and Camaro are “pony” cars, but the Camaro has always been more of a horse.

The Mustang was introduced April 17, 1964, as a mid-1964 model. The Camaro came out Sept. 26, 1966, as a 1967 model. Because the Camaro was a late entry, General Motors Corp., its maker, figured that it had to pump the car up with more muscle and gusto to attract attention. The GM strategy worked.

In retrospect, the Camaro has always been more of a blue-collar car than the Mustang, which seemed to sell better than the Camaro in wine-and-cheese neighborhoods.

But GM and Ford lately have been trying to aim their products more toward America’s upper-middle class. Ford generally has been more successful in that endeavor — which would be good, if we were talking about a family sedan or a sport-utility vehicle. But we’re talking hotblooded convertibles, which are all about attitude. The Z28 Camaro wins that contest hands down.

The Z28 is sleeker, sexier, faster and tighter than the Mustang GT convertible. It’s free of any crossover pretensions. It aims for the the gut.

Some comparisons:

Styling: The Mustang goes for body panel scoops, a la the 1964 original. It’s attractive, but smacks of artifice, especially with that whalelike air spoiler atop the trunk lid. But the smart, dual-pod interior styling of the Mustang beats the Darth Vader-like interior of the Z28 Camaro big time. The Mustang’s exterior/interior styling will remain the same for 1996.

The Z28’s exterior styling kicks butt — smooth, super fine. The air spoiler atop the trunk lid literally flows into the car’s body lines.

Engines: The 1996 Z28 runs with the Corvette-derived 5.7-liter V-8 rated 285 horsepower at 5,200 r pm. Torque is set at 325 pound-feet at 2,400 rpm.

The 1995 Mustang GT is equipped with a 5-liter V-8 rated 215 horsepower at 4,200 rpm. Torque on the current Mustang engine is set at 285 pound-feet at 3,400 rpm.

For ’96, the Mustang GT convertible gets Ford’s new, modular 4.6-liter V-8, which has practically the same horsepower and torque as the current GT 5-liter V-8. The difference is that the new engine is lighter and more fuel-efficient.

Other mechanicals: The Camaro Z28 and Mustang GT convertibles both have standard power four-wheel disc brakes. But the Z28 comes with a standard anti-lock system. On the ’95 and ’96 Mustang GT, anti-locks are sold as an option.

The standard transmission in the Mustang GT for 1995 and 1996 is a five-speed manual. A four-speed automatic is optional. The Camaro Z28 comes with a standard six-speed — repeat, six-speed — manual gearbox. A four-speed automatic is optional in the Camaro.

Safety: Both convertibles are very stable cars, which means that you are not likely to roll them over and lose your head. Both are equipped with dual-front air bags and all of the appropriate side-impact crash protections. Both run faster than the law allows.

Complaints: A squeak emanated from the left rear side of the 1995 Mustang GT whenever the top was down. Hated that noise!

The Z28 could use a bit less testosterone and a bit more finesse, especially in the engine-roar department. It’s kind of adolescent to let everybody know you’re coming.

Praise: Both convertibles are hot runners and mostly fun to drive.

Head-turning quotients: Camaro Z28 — “Ooh, baby!” Mustang GT — “Good morning, honey.”

Ride, acceleration and handling: Better front-passenger ride in the Mustang GT, which has better front-passenger foot space than the Camaro Z28. Better behind-the-wheel feel in the Z28. Both cars offer only marginal comfort for rear-seat passengers, even though the Mustang GT has a slight edge in that area.

All-around better handling in the Z28, and I don’t think it just was because it was a ’96 model. The ’95 Camaro convertible also handled better than the somewhat wobbly-in-curves ’95 Mustang GT.

Excellent braking in both cars.

Mileage: Nothing to cheer about in either car. The Camaro Z28 got about 19 miles per gallon (15.5-gallon tank, an estimated 280-mile range on usable volume of recommended premium unleaded), combined city-highway, mostly driver only.

The 1995 Mustang GT also got around 19 miles per gallon (15.4-gallon tank, an estimated 278-mile range on usable volume of regular unleaded), combined city-highway and mostly driver only.

Sound systems: AM/FM stereo radio and cassette in Mustang GT, Ford Mach 460 system. Totally righteous. Optional Bose sound system with five speakers arranged in cross-firing pattern in the Camaro Z28. Boss boogie here too.

Price: Base price on the 1995 Ford Mustang GT convertible is $22,795. Dealer’s invoice is $20,538. Price as tested is $27,430, including $4,135 in options and a $500 destination charge. Ford will attempt to run as close as possible to this pricing in 1996.

Estimated base price on the 1996 Chevrolet Camaro is $24,000. Estimated dealer invoice is $21,500. Estimated price as tested is $28,000, including an estimated $3,500 in options and a $500 destination charge. Prices on the ’96 Camaro were not firm at this writing.

Purse-strings note: Both Mustang GT and Camaro Z28 convertibles are “want” cars, as opposed to “need.” Still, I want the Camaro Z28.