The 2011+ Mustang Thread

[assasinator]

a fellow who can powershift like a madman will do ok shifting. my personal answer is to tune it for higher rev limiter.

ill set mine for 7500 and see if retarding the variable cams will help it up there.

everyone may really be suprised when we start fooling with the ti-vct at 7500.

[Boost_TT]

Figured. I looked back at least 8 pages and didn't see it, so I posted it. My bad.

[Sax1031]

Originally Posted by assasinator

a fellow who can powershift like a madman will do ok shifting. my personal answer is to tune it for higher rev limiter.

ill set mine for 7500 and see if retarding the variable cams will help it up there.

everyone may really be suprised when we start fooling with the ti-vct at 7500.

I was about to say I would push the fuel cutoff and rev limiter to 7500 and shift that bitch around 7400rpm.

[Sax1031]

Originally Posted by Boost_TT

Figured. I looked back at least 8 pages and didn't see it, so I posted it. My bad.

It is all good man.

Yea this thread is MASSIVE.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by mrray13

Really? Oh..the comparision by Motor Trend? Or another magazine?

While entertaining, I think we should wait until the 11s hit the drag strip. Also, we really should wait until the 2011 MY Camaro comes out before we say conclusively the 5.0 can beat the LS3, or even the L99 for that matter.

With that said, I'll concede the 11 GT is the quicker car by the reviews. Now unto people actually taking them to the strip and see who wins. As well as GM answering back.


Or we keep bench racing and prove nothing?? Lol.....which is fun too I guess. I keep posting in the threads, lol.

Well, you can't really fudge the subjective data, same track, same day, same conditions, the Mustang had the quicker time. I wouldn't count on anything more than gears suspension upgrades for the 11 Camaro, and I am not sure the gears would actually help and may even hurt as from NHRA Stockers post in the vs section got me thinking, it would almost certainly cause an additional shift to be needed before the end of the 1/4 mile and the difference between 3.45 and 3.73 gears isn't that much anyways. And yes we will see more when the 11 Stang hits the tracks, but considering the 12.9-13.1 the Camaro has gotten from them is a pretty good match for the average LS3 times (maybe even quicker than alot are seeing), I'd say this is a damned good indication of what we will be seeing when they get in the hands of owners.

[Whiskey Tango Foxtrot]

Originally Posted by Stew

Well, you can't really fudge the subjective data, same track, same day, same conditions, the Mustang had the quicker time. I wouldn't count on anything more than gears suspension upgrades for the 11 Camaro, and I am not sure the gears would actually help and may even hurt as from NHRA Stockers post in the vs section got me thinking, it would almost certainly cause an additional shift to be needed before the end of the 1/4 mile and the difference between 3.45 and 3.73 gears isn't that much anyways. And yes we will see more when the 11 Stang hits the tracks, but considering the 12.9-13.1 the Camaro has gotten from them is a pretty good match for the average LS3 times (maybe even quicker than alot are seeing), I'd say this is a damned good indication of what we will be seeing when they get in the hands of owners.

Sometimes in a magical place called earth they have these things called transmissions, and in these magical boxes they have things called gears. Now some people dont believe this, but these magical gears can be changed out just like a rearend gear.

[Sax1031]

I am not completely sure about this but I think changing the tranny gears would force a recertification process with the EPA.

As it would effect all versions of the SS.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Sax1031

I am not completely sure about this but I think changing the tranny gears would force a recertification process with the EPA.

As it would effect all versions of the SS.

And as I think it was wbt that point it out, there's apparently a loophole in the SAE/EPA ratings system that doesn't force a company to do new EPA ratings with gear swaps.

[Sax1031]

Originally Posted by a_Username

And as I think it was wbt that point it out, there's apparently a loophole in the SAE/EPA ratings system that doesn't force a company to do new EPA ratings with gear swaps.

Yep the stock V6 stang comes with 2.73 gear. Although you have the option of going with a 3.31 gear but the car will still be EPA rated the same.

[Mr CLuTcH]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Camaro is out of gear at 110 as well. THe mustang is out of gear at 111.5 I believe...sounds like exactly where it needs to be to maximize its trap speed as well as ET. If the mustang loses some trap the camaro loses just as much or more...you have no choice but to shift if you want to break 110 in the camaro...yet it still does it frequently.

Also Motor trend (or any mag) will get certain times to prove a point. Not all out cheating...but slight bias.

For example...

They ran a 12.9 with the camaro when racing it against the GT500 at a 12.8. The camaro was the new best thing then and they wanted to prove that they were right in saying this.

Now in a heads up comparison they run a 13.1 (with the same trap..so conditions are same for performance...only difference this time is launch and or driver) in the camaro and an even better time in the mustang at 12.7. this further backs the new claim they are making as the mustang being the new best thing. It wouldnt have made a very big statement and or backed their claim about the mustang if they would have pulled another 12.9 or better with the camaro.

EXACTLY. And this is the point I'm trying to make. A car should be reviewed for what it is and what it does performance wise for the consumer, not based on "what's in". The problem with Motor Trend is, they murder the Camaro's external appearance that they loved 6 months ago and score it 3rd place while making the Mustang's review appear like the holy grail to consumers when literally the only thing about the car that's changed is it's performance. Nothing about the car's appearance was changed even slightly dramatic to where it would actually look different from anything else they've produced. Put the 2010 Mustang and the 2011 Mustang next to each other and nearly all people wouldn't be able to tell the different...until they look at the "5.0" badge.

You see this is my problem,....when a reviewer of a particular product possess a bias from the beginning of the review, it make it impossible to be "fair and balance". Motor Trend is now equivalent to "Fox News"; they report everything but news, they only give you the news about the world in the way THEY want you to see it. And that's what Motor Trend does, keep the bias aside, don't build one car up to appear better than it really is to tip the favor of consumer opinion toward "your favorite".

Dont even think about making a jab at the Challenger either, I know it isnt as fast, but I'm happy with my car.

At least you know it isn't fast......I'm not going to argue against that fact. Nor will I argue against the fact that you love your car, ...it's nice, it's a classic car with good looks, but in just about every past comparison of the big three by other reviewers, the Challenger RT/SRT8 both scored last place
in all comparisons. I just don't agree with MT putting the the Challenger in 2nd place over the Camaro just because one editor prefers it's looks and performance when months ago it sucked.

why should they be better? i don't see that logic. 104 ft compared to 108 ft. is BASICALLY the same. So to argue about how it got 105 ft. before doesn't matter. But the magazine had to pick a better of the two, and it did. It's not that serious.

And i believe the mustang would have trapped higher with more correct gearing. The mustang is out of gear at 110-111 mph and has to be shifted into 5th. I don't think it's costing it too much in the time (another ~.1) but the mph would suffer (~2 mph).

108ft compared to 104 feet is not the same, performance wise, there is clearly a difference. 6 months ago the Camaro SS' braking was 105ft, BUT NOW some how the Brembos have seemed to have changed or worn to the point where the car's braking is now 108ft. That's hella significant in a damn comparison. I feel Motor Trend is seriously fixing these time for the Mustang's favor to make it appear better than it is.

They're going nuts because ....gasp...shock and awe, the new Mustang gets Brembo brakes too, "and the brakes work so much better on the Mustang than the Camaro", when in reality, that's far from true. If we look at the braking the Camaro first achieved compared to what they're claiming the Camaro has now achieved, you'll see, the braking on both cars the Mustang and Camaro are nearly dead even, one not significantly doing better than the other given the 200 pound weight difference.

Mustang 60-0 braking = 104ft
Camaro SS 60-0 braking =105ft.

But as far as the drag times in this new comparison, I asked a honest question because I didn't understand something. I wanted to know how the Mustang can trap the same speed as the Camaro "111.3 mph" and achieve a whopping "12.7", but when the Camaro SS in they're first comparison ran "111.0 MPH flat" it achieve a significantly lower drag time at 13 seconds. So basically, Motor Trend is telling us, .3mph can take a car from 13.0 flat at 111.0mph to 12.7 at 111.3 mph. That doesn't make sense. Something doesn't add up to me.

I can get through the quarter and score a 13.0 @111.0mph....but if I had .3 more mph "111.3" I could some how JUMP to 12.7 or for that matter 12.8 in my Camaro like the Mustang just did. That's my problem. The 2011 is the same kid on the block it's just that today he's driving a newer bike with better tires and brakes, but we're going to stack the chips in his favor because he's always been our favorite.

[Sax1031]

Originally Posted by Mr CLuTcH

I wanted to know how the Mustang can trap the same speed as the Camaro "111.3 mph" and achieve a whopping "12.7", but when the Camaro SS in they're first comparison ran "111.0 MPH flat" it achieve a significantly lower drag time at 13 seconds. So basically, Motor Trend is telling us, .3mph can take a car from 13.0 flat at 111.0mph to 12.7 at 111.3 mph. That doesn't make sense. Something doesn't add up to me.

You obviously are not a drag racer and it shows.

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by Sax1031

Yep the stock V6 stang comes with 2.73 gear. Although you have the option of going with a 3.31 gear but the car will still be EPA rated the same.

I don't legally see how they could, changing the rear gearing that much without changing anything else will effect gas mileage. Seems to me they would have to rate it differently... I know most cars will rate the automatic different than the manual, so why wouldn't they have to on rear gearing?

[Sax1031]

Originally Posted by Skyman 08

I don't legally see how they could, changing the rear gearing that much without changing anything else will effect gas mileage. Seems to me they would have to rate it differently... I know most cars will rate the automatic different than the manual, so why wouldn't they have to on rear gearing?

Not exactly sure.

I think it is a loop hole in the EPA testing. They can get by with testing the base car and add the option for gear and not have rate again for gearing.

[Zeus]

Originally Posted by Boost_TT

Rape.