Had the pleasure of driving a 5.0...

[suzbndt]

Lord people, HP is a measure of work. Torque is a measure of force. They are very related.

I own both cars. The main reason the 5.0 is quicker in the 1/4 is that it launches MUCH better, and weighs about 350lbs less PERIOD. Above 60mph it is a toss up on which car is quicker. Over 100mph the camaro feels faster.

0-60 5.0
60-100 5.0=SS
100+ SS

[Wesman]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

An s2000 making 200 ft lbs at 10,000rpm would be putting down about 380hp at redline in a 2800lb car and would walk all over that trans am. Average horsepower in the usable rpm range, along with how well the gearing optimizes it, is what's going to matter.

Except that those engines can't even make that much power and often blow up, so your entire point is pretty much invalidated.

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by Wesman

Except that those engines can't even make that much power and often blow up, so your entire point is pretty much invalidated.

Tell me, what was my point? It seems like it went right over your head. Who said an s2000 could do 200 ft lbs at 10,000 rpm? I didn't.

[epkmvuoq]

Originally Posted by wbt

Living in denial?

I love your mustang,,,, I know it is very fast,,I know it will out run all camaros ,,,,mustangs are faster than camaros,,5.0 mustangs are better cars. They are also very fast. They run real quick quarter mile times. They are so fast all camaros don't go to the dragstrip anymore. They don't want to be out run by the 5.0 mustang. Believe me these mustangs are super fast. Camaros will only see the rear end of the mustang because it is so fast. I would love to have one but unfortunately here where I live if I would have bought a fast 5.0 mustang someone would have shot me by now. Now I have to drive this very,very slow ss camaro ls3 every day. But I want you to know that I know my camaro is slow and your mustang is extremely fast. Once again I love your super fast 5.0 mustang !!!!!!!!!!!

[Shu71]

Originally Posted by suzbndt

Lord people, HP is a measure of work. Torque is a measure of force. They are very related.

They absolutely are related, which the formula for HP clearly shows. The point is that engine torque is not a measure of performance since it alone can not perform work. In order to perform work, you need that force measured over time, which is what HP is. When someone states this engine has stump pulling torque or whatever, they are wrong. That engine creates more HP at a lower RPM. Torque can not do work. If all our vehicles used no gear reduction at all, then the engine that produced more HP quicker would accelerate quicker (provided all other variables are the same); which would be one slow race. If you waited long enough though the top speed might just be impressive if the vehicle was aero enough to allow that setup to top out. Gearing multiplies engine power (more work, more HP). Change the gearing and you change the “stump pulling power” at the wheels (which is where it matters) at the cost of wheel speed. The ideal is several gears (multi speed transmissions) running though a constant gear (rear differential) which allows you to keep the engine in its most power range of power in the rpm curve. Using the right gears to get the most out of the particular engines power curve is the key to the most efficient acceleration.

[PitchBlack]

Originally Posted by MY2012RS

I just have one thing to say...The Camaro blows away the Mustang and Challanger in the looks dept..I could really care less if either one of those cars flies by me at a redlight..They still won't look cooler then a Camaro..IMHO..That is all

[67rscamarovette]

Originally Posted by wbt

Explain to us how one can take a 302 CI motor that puts out less TQ than a 376 CI motor but produces more HP and makes it to the end of the quarter mile first?

There is a lot more to drag racing than simplifying down to cubic inches. Gearing, RPM vs. peak power, shift points, suspension, weight, etc...

You can't unless the 302 had higher average torque (and therefore horsepower). I'm assuming you were referring to peak numbers in your statement.

[67rscamarovette]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

Tell me, what was my point? It seems like it went right over your head. Who said an s2000 could do 200 ft lbs at 10,000 rpm? I didn't.

that guy's a GM nutswinger..

I put that figure as a generalized example, I have no idea how little torque an S2K makes.

[AZ MSCL]

Originally Posted by MY2012RS

I just have one thing to say...The Camaro blows away the Mustang and Challanger in the looks dept..I could really care less if either one of those cars flies by me at a redlight..They still won't look cooler then a Camaro..IMHO..That is all

Nope. Swing and a miss.

[BriteCrawler]

Having owned literally a dozen cars that say Camaro, Challenger, or Mustang on them somewhere with no real brand loyalty I'd say that it does us all a service to remember that they're all priced somewhat similarly. Anyone who chose to purchase a Camaro could have purchased a Mustang, or vise versa... only, they didn't. Each of these marques have a qualifying factor (or several) that caused it's owner to make that selection.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Let's all go out and burn some rubber.

[AZ MSCL]

Originally Posted by BriteCrawler

Having owned literally a dozen cars that say Camaro, Challenger, or Mustang on them somewhere with no real brand loyalty I'd say that it does us all a service to remember that they're all priced somewhat similarly. Anyone who chose to purchase a Camaro could have purchased a Mustang, or vise versa... only, they didn't. Each of these marques have a qualifying factor (or several) that caused it's owner to make that selection.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Let's all go out and burn some rubber.

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by 67rscamarovette

You can't unless the 302 had higher average torque (and therefore horsepower). I'm assuming you were referring to peak numbers in your statement.

If it makes the same, or sometimes less average torque, but has a powerband in a higher rpm range it can still put down more average horsepower and gearing accordingly can put more average force to the ground in each gear.

[wbt]

Originally Posted by 67rscamarovette

You can't unless the 302 had higher average torque (and therefore horsepower). I'm assuming you were referring to peak numbers in your statement.

Yes you can and I have done it. Less TQ, more HP.

When you are at the strip, you are spending most of your time in the high RPM range. For example, I launch at 6,000 RPM. I shift at 7,500 RPM. The largest drop between shifts is from 1st to 2nd which puts me right at 5,500.

My car is making 430WHP for roughly 1,000 RPM. When I shift I am in my peak power for almost the entire length of the track sans the 1st to 2nd shift however I am hovering right at 400WHP at the lowest RPM point.

Since I am above 5,250 RPM pretty much down the entire 1,320 that means I have to rely on HP to get me to the end.

The point I am making is that a smaller, higher revving CI motor, setup properly, can outperform a larger CI lower RPM motor.

It all comes down to how much air can be pumped through the motor. I believe your line of thought should place that into consideration.

[a1cmatt]

I read everything here and was wondering what people think of the 2012 SS suspension upgrade along with the interior change. How does this compare to the 2012 mustang and did the mustang get any upgrades for 2012?