LS3 vs 5.0 yote? motor only comparison.

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by Bo White

I'm just not confortable with a tranny like that. I'd rather have a tremec that has an occasional grind going into 2nd than a Chinese tranny that's silky smooth(which the shifter has too bad of feedback to really tell).

the MT82 has the 2nd gear grind issue as well. and the 5th gear synchro chews off quickly.

[VADER SS L99]

Originally Posted by Deki

That seems about right, 15-16%. Not a whole lot of people have used a live rear in a car since SAE standards were implemented so the scale is a bit off with the Mustang. And the stock base car is grossly under tired, it's running a 235 on an 8 inch wheel. The 19x8.5 runs a 255.



I have a late build 2010 (2011 GT) and I had pressure plate bolts back out at 900 miles and Ford replaced the clutch. At 19,000 it developed a whine and Ford, even with all my mods, replaced the whole transmission. Early 2011 models had a lot of issues, but it's still not as many as people are making it out to be. My car was one of them, but I everyone else I've talked to with a 2012 or newer has not had a single issue. It's blown out of proportion. Is it as good as a Tremec? Go see the GT500 forums and look at the 2nd gear issues those guys are having, or take look see here and look at the issues some SS owners have had. It's a mass produced item, and it will have some defects in some batches of parts. The MT82 is perfectly geared for the Coyote with any final drive out back, and the MT82 has gone 10.20s with no modification to the transmission. They used a Mcleod RXT clutch and a 1 piece drive shaft. A lot of reliability issues with this transmission and saying it's crap is from people that have never owned one.

Yes, I have have never owned a MT82 but I know when a trans is lacking, to put it mildly. I know of owners who never post on forums with problems. I'm also not one of those poeple that don't deny a problem exist just because I'm a fan of the car or own the said car. The AFM and lifters in my SS are CRAP. The 4L60E and 10 bolt rear end in my 4th gen Z28 was CRAP. While I never experienced any mechanical issues, the power and especially the low end torque of my 08 Mustang GT was CRAP. I have no problem calling out the problems and flaws of cars I have owned or do own.

[302-412]

Originally Posted by bluebeastsrt

Something is sapping power from the Camaro??? If you figure 12% drive train loss thru the manual in both cars the 5.0 is dead on at 370HP at the rear tires. At 12% the Camaro should dyno 375. Instead the Camaro is losing 16% thru it's drive train to only put down 357. I'm willing to bet it has to do with the tire and wheel size on the Camaro. Were rolling on 20X10 and a 275 series tire out back Vs the mustangs 18X8 and 255 series tire. Even the Mustangs optional wheels is only a 19 inch wheel with a 255 tire. The extra rotating mass has got to cost the Camaro some power.

I really think it's more a function of the tire diameter, and that the 5.0 may be a little underrated, halo car or not. Also maybe Ford handles heat soak better than GM, my LS2 Goat suffered allot from this. I realize they use a fan when chassis dyno testing but for the cv joints to be absorbing that much power how long would they would last. R/T Challengers don't show nearly this drive line loss.

[newmoon]

Originally Posted by Deki

That seems about right, 15-16%. Not a whole lot of people have used a live rear in a car since SAE standards were implemented so the scale is a bit off with the Mustang. And the stock base car is grossly under tired, it's running a 235 on an 8 inch wheel. The 19x8.5 runs a 255.



I have a late build 2010 (2011 GT) and I had pressure plate bolts back out at 900 miles and Ford replaced the clutch. At 19,000 it developed a whine and Ford, even with all my mods, replaced the whole transmission. Early 2011 models had a lot of issues, but it's still not as many as people are making it out to be. My car was one of them, but I everyone else I've talked to with a 2012 or newer has not had a single issue. It's blown out of proportion. Is it as good as a Tremec? Go see the GT500 forums and look at the 2nd gear issues those guys are having, or take look see here and look at the issues some SS owners have had. It's a mass produced item, and it will have some defects in some batches of parts. The MT82 is perfectly geared for the Coyote with any final drive out back, and the MT82 has gone 10.20s with no modification to the transmission. They used a Mcleod RXT clutch and a 1 piece drive shaft. A lot of reliability issues with this transmission and saying it's crap is from people that have never owned one.

Well my 5.0 was a 12 and the transmission was terrible, I also see posts over on the SVT site that the 13s are also having issues. Some have resorted to shifter / plate upgrades to improve the situation but it's still there. Nothing more annoying than buying a new performance car and not being able to nail shifts at high rpm shift points. Under normal throttle the MT82 shifted very nicely unless it was cold outside. My 04 Cobra shifted much better under hard throttle as did my 10-SS.

[big hammer]

know whats sad? the M21 in my 75 t\a shifts great. and all these new transmissions are having issues. wtf?

[shaffe]

Yeah the MT-82 trans in the 5.0 is not good. Its not as bad as people on here make it out to be though.( yes I know about the issues it has had and people having the replace/rebuilt) People on here make it sound like its made out of toothpicks. I will have to agree I don't know why Ford chose it though. Hoepfully the next gen does not have the MT-82.

[willhe64]

My Buddy has a 2012 GT and absolutely hates the Tranny. Grinding in 4th and 5th now too.

[Deki]

Originally Posted by big hammer

my buddies 2013 boss needed the entire trans rebuilt at under 3000 miles.

now you have heard of an issue in a 12+. this is not blown out of proportion at all.

Originally Posted by VADER SS L99

Yes, I have have never owned a MT82 but I know when a trans is lacking, to put it mildly. I know of owners who never post on forums with problems. I'm also not one of those poeple that don't deny a problem exist just because I'm a fan of the car or own the said car. The AFM and lifters in my SS are CRAP. The 4L60E and 10 bolt rear end in my 4th gen Z28 was CRAP. While I never experienced any mechanical issues, the power and especially the low end torque of my 08 Mustang GT was CRAP. I have no problem calling out the problems and flaws of cars I have owned or do own.

Looking at the fact how many cars are sold, it definitely is blown out of proportion. I've never had issues with hard shifting or shifting at high rpms, but I've never shifted over 7k. Like i said, I am one of the guys that had an issue with the mt82, but it's definitely not the norm. It's less then 1% of the cars, some guys just got unlucky, me being one of them.

[Cody6.2]

Originally Posted by Bo White

No. They use a Chinese tranny that by what I understand the shifter isn't even mechanicly connected to it.

The Getrag is German design but made in China and there have been quite a few issues with tolerances and QC. And before everyone goes ape shit most manual transmissions now use a remote shifter including the Camaro, Corvette and Mustang.

[87GNX]

Originally Posted by 302-412

I really think it's more a function of the tire diameter, and that the 5.0 may be a little underrated, halo car or not. Also maybe Ford handles heat soak better than GM, my LS2 Goat suffered allot from this. I realize they use a fan when chassis dyno testing but for the cv joints to be absorbing that much power how long would they would last. R/T Challengers don't show nearly this drive line loss.

It is underrated. IMO the GT is making over 330hp stock. The boss is around 460.

[Cody6.2]

Originally Posted by 302-412

I really think it's more a function of the tire diameter, and that the 5.0 may be a little underrated, halo car or not. Also maybe Ford handles heat soak better than GM, my LS2 Goat suffered allot from this. I realize they use a fan when chassis dyno testing but for the cv joints to be absorbing that much power how long would they would last. R/T Challengers don't show nearly this drive line loss.

You aren't heat soaking anything.

However the MAF mounted IAT gets hot and remains hot until you get actual air evacuation from under the hood.

[wakespeak]

Originally Posted by cbass

Ok.

The coyote makes 420 hp compared to 426 hp for the LS3.
426 > 420 hp. Thus the LS3 has better performance.

Everything I wrote is true.

The coyote motor weights 430 lbs. The LS3 weights 418 lbs.
The LS3 is a lighter motor.

Having the weight down low in the block like the LS3 has a handling advantage and having the weight up high like in the overhead cam coyote has a handling disadvantage.

The coyote motor is larger physically and thus uses more space in the engine compartment. The LS3 is able to fit in much smaller spaces.

What have I said that is false?

I think people get brainwashed into thinking a particular motor is a better design and more advanced without actually doing some research and thinking for themselves.

^ This.

Focus on the objectives and not the implementation.

[302-412]

Except that in the real world with accesories needed the over all size difference is not that great.
12 lbs, really, you can't be serious!
Real world hp advantage may not coincide with advertised flywheel numbers as seen on many of the rwhp dyno runs out there. Often the Ford is showing more rwhp unless you start factoring in some percent loss's to make it all come out right.

[cbass]

Originally Posted by 302-412

Except that in the real world with accesories needed the over all size difference is not that great.
12 lbs, really, you can't be serious!
Real world hp advantage may not coincide with advertised flywheel numbers as seen on many of the rwhp dyno runs out there. Often the Ford is showing more rwhp unless you start factoring in some percent loss's to make it all come out right.

But it's only 12 lbs for an extra 1.2L of displacement! Now that makes the extra displacement sound like a positive and not a negative.