The 2011+ Mustang Thread - Page 121 - Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums

AZCamaroFan · 03-25-2010, 12:15 PM

Why would Ford underrate it?
Just ask yourself that.
If it had as much or more horsepower than the LS3 , then they would tell everyone it did.

SleepWarz · 03-25-2010, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

I have no idea on the Viper...but the ZR1 is not dynoing that high...at least not stock. The LS9 is SAE-certified, it cannot be underrated.

Got to go red card and melt down any stock engine putting out more that than the sae numbers.....

shroomjohn · 03-25-2010, 12:58 PM

Does anyone know if the auto and manual come w 412 or are they offset like we were.

fazm · 03-25-2010, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shroomjohn

Does anyone know if the auto and manual come w 412 or are they offset like we were.

auto and manual are same power rating of 412

swizz · 03-25-2010, 01:12 PM

OMG, the Mustang is getting better. What do we do! What do we do! *Panic*

NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorrry but Camaro still looks nicer, is STILL the better buy and GM will blow them out the water soon enough.

2010 SSRS · 03-25-2010, 01:19 PM

Show the screen with the numbers while it is being dynoed. 412 HP with 395 to the wheels, it must be magic.

Crowley · 03-25-2010, 01:24 PM

They even mention in the full article on this that they were suprised by the rear wheel numbers and that this was a preproduction version of the car I believe. They want to get their hands on a production car once they can.

I do know the 03/04 cobras were underated .. 390/390 .. hell with just a CAI, I put down 400 to the wheels ....

It will be interesting to see what folks start putting to the wheels once these cars are out and about !

Crowley

SLOWHITE · 03-25-2010, 01:29 PM

Here is more of that dyno session.

http://www.insideline.com/ford/musta...ml#add-comment

Inferno2SS · 03-25-2010, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azfan

Why would Ford underrate it?
Just ask yourself that.
If it had as much or more horsepower than the LS3 , then they would tell everyone it did.

Exactly, people are going to be looking at the HP numbers when comparing the 2 cars trying to decide which to purchase. Underrating the HP would be stupid and most likely cost them some sales.

305pride · 03-25-2010, 03:18 PM

now that is a bad ass mustang. the older mustangs sucked. lol they didnt completely suck, but they werent as bad ass as a mustang should be. lol

toehead93 · 03-25-2010, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SleepWarz

Got to go red card and melt down any stock engine putting out more that than the sae numbers.....

There are always variables in production but as long as the manufacturer is not doing something unethical/illegal they CANNOT adjust the HP ratings.
http://www.sae.org/certifiedpower/details.htm

Look at the dyno numbers for the SS, they are all over the place just as any other car in the world. It is nothing new for dynos to vary that's why the industry has SAE certification.

Stew · 03-25-2010, 04:38 PM

I think it's all some kind of jedi mind trick

Z/28orSs · 03-25-2010, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 305pride

now that is a bad ass mustang. the older mustangs sucked. lol they didnt completely suck, but they werent as bad ass as a mustang should be. lol

they didnt suck by mustang guidelines,

but by camaro standards. nice #'s tho

sik68 · 03-25-2010, 05:03 PM

I am a HUGE fan of the 2010/2011 Mustang, but I think I am going to blow a big hole in these dyno results.

It comes down to Torque/Liter. Serious engine guys (not me) know that naturally aspirated horsepower comes from revs, and torque comes from displacement. You can rev an engine sky high to make power, but your displacement has the final say in how much torque you can make.

Here are some examples:
Ferrari's 458: 88.9ftlb/L (self proclaimed) record
Porsche 3.8 GT3: 83.42
Honda S2000: 81
2011 Mustang GT: 78
BMW M3 E92: 73.75
MB C63: 71.5
Camaro SS: 67.7
2008 Viper: 66.7

I listed some high tech and low tech engines there to show you a range of capabilities of engines right now (and you can see how relatively 'low tech' the LS3 motor is). If the 2011 GT makes 365 torque at the wheels, then using 13% drivetrain loss, is 420 at the crank, which is 420/5 = 83.9ftlbs/liter. HAHA, LOL, NO WAY. Their technology isn't there with this engine.

So all you Camaro fanboys, you can relax and use my argument in your intarnet debates until better numbers come out.

View Poll Results: .
Camaro	0	0%
Mustang	0	0%
Voters: 0. You may not vote on this poll

03-25-2010, 12:58 PM	#1683
shroomjohn Drives: Golden Eagle Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: No Posts: 1,134 View My Garage	Does anyone know if the auto and manual come w 412 or are they offset like we were. __________________ Loving this car!

03-25-2010, 01:19 PM	#1686
2010 SSRS Drives: 3 V8 Camaros Join Date: May 2009 Location: The Ocean State Posts: 111,186 View My Garage	Show the screen with the numbers while it is being dynoed. 412 HP with 395 to the wheels, it must be magic. __________________ Jannetty Racing JRE Street Package

03-25-2010, 01:24 PM	#1687
Crowley Okie doke Drives: 2012 GT500 Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: McKinney Texas Posts: 3,567 View My Garage	They even mention in the full article on this that they were suprised by the rear wheel numbers and that this was a preproduction version of the car I believe. They want to get their hands on a production car once they can. I do know the 03/04 cobras were underated .. 390/390 .. hell with just a CAI, I put down 400 to the wheels .... It will be interesting to see what folks start putting to the wheels once these cars are out and about ! Crowley __________________

03-25-2010, 01:29 PM	#1688
SLOWHITE Drives: 2007 Trailblazer SS Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Toledo OH Posts: 102	Here is more of that dyno session. http://www.insideline.com/ford/musta...ml#add-comment __________________ 07 Trailblazer SS awd. 13.08, Vector tune, SLOWHITE intake, ud pulley, 160* t-stat. My all year 'round, daily driven, boat pullin' Mustang beater.

03-25-2010, 12:15 PM	#1681
AZCamaroFan Camaro6 2016-2018 Drives: sometimes Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Phoenix Posts: 18,467	Why would Ford underrate it? Just ask yourself that. If it had as much or more horsepower than the LS3 , then they would tell everyone it did.

03-25-2010, 01:12 PM	#1685
swizz Drives: Camaro 1SS/RS Black Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Queens, NY Posts: 140	OMG, the Mustang is getting better. What do we do! What do we do! Panic NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sorrry but Camaro still looks nicer, is STILL the better buy and GM will blow them out the water soon enough.

03-25-2010, 03:18 PM	#1690
305pride Drives: 3.4l 1995 camaro Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: miami, fl Posts: 2,202	now that is a bad ass mustang. the older mustangs sucked. lol they didnt completely suck, but they werent as bad ass as a mustang should be. lol __________________ just call me alex. they make anti-me PSA's cos im dope lmao

03-25-2010, 04:38 PM	#1692
Stew Drives: 92 Luminadead/01 Dakota/97 F150 4x4 Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Eastern, Ky Posts: 3,789	I think it's all some kind of jedi mind trick

03-25-2010, 05:03 PM	#1694
sik68 Drives: 1968 Camaro, 2002 Subaru WRX Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 86	I am a HUGE fan of the 2010/2011 Mustang, but I think I am going to blow a big hole in these dyno results. It comes down to Torque/Liter. Serious engine guys (not me) know that naturally aspirated horsepower comes from revs, and torque comes from displacement. You can rev an engine sky high to make power, but your displacement has the final say in how much torque you can make. Here are some examples: Ferrari's 458: 88.9ftlb/L (self proclaimed) record Porsche 3.8 GT3: 83.42 Honda S2000: 81 2011 Mustang GT: 78 BMW M3 E92: 73.75 MB C63: 71.5 Camaro SS: 67.7 2008 Viper: 66.7 I listed some high tech and low tech engines there to show you a range of capabilities of engines right now (and you can see how relatively 'low tech' the LS3 motor is). If the 2011 GT makes 365 torque at the wheels, then using 13% drivetrain loss, is 420 at the crank, which is 420/5 = 83.9ftlbs/liter. HAHA, LOL, NO WAY. Their technology isn't there with this engine. So all you Camaro fanboys, you can relax and use my argument in your intarnet debates until better numbers come out. Last edited by sik68; 03-25-2010 at 05:23 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Camaro VS Mustang Mega Thread	Beau Tie	Chevy Camaro vs...	3644	03-09-2012 08:45 PM
Gran Turismo 5... No Camaro?	5thGenOwner	5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions	111	12-06-2011 11:06 AM
Official 2011 Mustang GT info released	nester7929	General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion	81	12-28-2009 04:13 PM