Mustangs................ - Page 38 - Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums

ArcAngel · 05-17-2009, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BackinBlackSS/RS

What is 385hp minus 22 to 28%? They don't lose that much. Not even on a Mustang.

True that lol

fdjizm · 05-17-2009, 11:19 AM

wow you guys suck at math.

Hesh · 05-17-2009, 11:19 AM

Roughly thats about 20% 385-20% is 308. 15% is 327. Dont know where anyone is getting 28%. My math isnt great, worst subject but I know it wasnt done at 28%. So around 385 at the crank would be around the numbers you would be looking for to get somewhere around the 315 to the tires. Depending on if that car was a manual or auto.

MTron · 05-17-2009, 11:23 AM

Well, to bring a bit of rough math in (lets leave out transmission ratios, tire grip/size, diff ratio and driver competence)

The Camaro weighs 3860 lbs and makes 426 HP (LS3), which comes to about 9.06 lbs/HP

The Mustang weighs 3691 lbs (for the GT, correct me if this is wrong, its the only value i found) and makes 315 HP, which comes to 11.7 lbs/HP

So the mustang must make up 2.65 lbs/HP, at the mustangs weight, that comes to about 71 HP

fdjizm · 05-17-2009, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTron

Well, to bring a bit of rough math in (lets leave out transmission ratios, tire grip/size, diff ratio and driver competence)

The Camaro weighs 3860 lbs and makes 426 HP (LS3), which comes to about 9.06 lbs/HP

The Mustang weighs 3691 lbs (for the GT, correct me if this is wrong, its the only value i found) and makes 315 HP, which comes to 11.7 lbs/HP

So the mustang must make up 2.65 lbs/HP, at the mustangs weight, that comes to about 71 HP

The 2010 mustang weights 3572lbs.

ArcAngel · 05-17-2009, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fdjizm

The 2010 mustang weights 3572lbs.

so if you redo his math what will it need about the 50 I said in the beginning right?

MerF · 05-17-2009, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArcAngel

I dont get you guys if at 315/325 the Mustang is .2 sec slower and .5 seconds slower in the 1/4 what the hell do you think it would do with 426/400.

How is that relevant? The Mustang isn't at 426/400, so the argument ends there. The only reason there is even an argument is that the Mustang is considerably lighter, which is great! The second reason it's viable is that everyone is comparing the track pack mustang to a fully loaded with features 2SS/RS. Compare the base model of each V8 (bare bones GT to barebones 1SS) and the numbers will tell a better story, in my opinion.

patriotpa · 05-17-2009, 11:44 AM

A better question would be:

If a Mustang owner claims his car can beat your Camaro....

....do you care?

I don't.

If I wanted to, I could build up a small block Super Beetle that would be STUPID FAST. Sure, it'd be fast, but it would still never be as cool as the Camaro.

ArcAngel · 05-17-2009, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patriotpa

A better question would be:

If a Mustang owner claims his car can beat your Camaro....

....do you care?

I don't.

Nice post! Your real mature, here a bunch of guys are having an honest discussion and you come in and drop your stupidity. go away

patriotpa · 05-17-2009, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArcAngel

Nice post! Your real mature, here a bunch of guys are having an honest discussion and you come in and drop your stupidity. go away

It's not stupid, AA. I don't race. I don't care. Wanna troll me and try to stir me up? I don't care about that either. This response was purely for explanation since you quite obviously didn't get it.

ArcAngel · 05-17-2009, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MerF

How is that relevant? The Mustang isn't at 426/400, so the argument ends there. The only reason there is even an argument is that the Mustang is considerably lighter, which is great! The second reason it's viable is that everyone is comparing the track pack mustang to a fully loaded with features 2SS/RS. Compare the base model of each V8 (bare bones GT to barebones 1SS) and the numbers will tell a better story, in my opinion.

Its relevant if you read the post I answered duh!

ArcAngel · 05-17-2009, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patriotpa

It's not stupid, AA. I don't race. I don't care. Wanna troll me and try to stir me up? I don't care about that either. This response was purely for explanation since you quite obviously didn't get it.

explanation to what LOL this is a question about how much HP a current Mustang GT would need to beat the Camaro SS. You come in with who cares? Maybe I didnt get it LOL

BackinBlackSS/RS · 05-17-2009, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArcAngel

so if you redo his math what will it need about the 50 I said in the beginning right?

Man, you do suck at math. It would be almost 61hp.

BackinBlackSS/RS · 05-17-2009, 12:51 PM

Actually the Mustang would need 80 more horses to get to the Camaros hp/wgt. ratio.
3860/426 = 9.06 3572/395 = 9.04 Certaninly other factors come in to play, gearing,
driver, etc., but 80hp is the power deficit. Pretty significant.

View Poll Results: What is your opinion of the Mustang?
Hate it. Plain and simple.	11	7.19%
Improvement... but not my cup of Tea	27	17.65%
Love it, its my next car.	25	16.34%
Its cool, but its not a Camaro.	90	58.82%
Voters: 153. You may not vote on this poll

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Mustangs	mike25	Off-topic Discussions	15	11-01-2009 11:20 AM
Mustangs................(if you like mustangs this thread is not the place for you)	1320junkie	Off-topic Discussions	246	09-06-2009 12:27 AM
Shouldn't we be comparing this to the new Mustangs?	StoutFiles	5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions	176	07-23-2009 04:26 PM
Who says Mustangs are for little girls?	DGthe3	General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion	46	04-22-2009 05:10 PM
The Bullitt and The Boss: Two more new Ford Mustangs for 2007	KILLER74Z28	General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion	9	12-13-2006 08:14 AM

05-17-2009, 11:19 AM	#520
fdjizm Account Suspended Drives: 2008 Mustang GT/CS Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: New Jersey Posts: 1,429 View My Garage	wow you guys suck at math.

05-17-2009, 11:19 AM	#521
Hesh Drives: 2010 IOM Camaro Vin 34334 Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Arlington, TX Posts: 566	Roughly thats about 20% 385-20% is 308. 15% is 327. Dont know where anyone is getting 28%. My math isnt great, worst subject but I know it wasnt done at 28%. So around 385 at the crank would be around the numbers you would be looking for to get somewhere around the 315 to the tires. Depending on if that car was a manual or auto.

05-17-2009, 11:23 AM	#522
MTron Drives: 99 Grand Prix Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 334	Well, to bring a bit of rough math in (lets leave out transmission ratios, tire grip/size, diff ratio and driver competence) The Camaro weighs 3860 lbs and makes 426 HP (LS3), which comes to about 9.06 lbs/HP The Mustang weighs 3691 lbs (for the GT, correct me if this is wrong, its the only value i found) and makes 315 HP, which comes to 11.7 lbs/HP So the mustang must make up 2.65 lbs/HP, at the mustangs weight, that comes to about 71 HP

05-17-2009, 11:44 AM	#526
patriotpa Account Suspended Drives: 02 Silverado, 09 Vue, 10 1SS Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Tired of apologizing when we should be kickin' butt! Posts: 1,966 View My Garage	A better question would be: If a Mustang owner claims his car can beat your Camaro.... ....do you care? I don't. If I wanted to, I could build up a small block Super Beetle that would be STUPID FAST. Sure, it'd be fast, but it would still never be as cool as the Camaro.

05-17-2009, 12:51 PM	#532
BackinBlackSS/RS Go Blue!!!!! Drives: 2012 Cruze LT Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Indiana Posts: 23,290	Actually the Mustang would need 80 more horses to get to the Camaros hp/wgt. ratio. 3860/426 = 9.06 3572/395 = 9.04 Certaninly other factors come in to play, gearing, driver, etc., but 80hp is the power deficit. Pretty significant.