Mustangs................ - Page 59 - Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums

Ninjak · 05-19-2009, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MerF

From Mustang owners.

Sigh*

Quote:

The Motortrend head-to-head had the GT outpacing the SS in the figure-8 at 25.5 sec vs. 25.8, and pushing .95g on the skidpad vs. .90 for the SS. FWIW

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...test_data.html

Well from Mustang owners who read actually. The info is out there....of course this will be refuted with.."Its the track pack and its not even out yet !!" Even though the track pack is ready in june, and any serious mustang owner will be clicking that option considering how cheap it is.

MerF · 05-19-2009, 10:48 PM

While you're busy ignoring the rest of the facts from my most recent post, be sure to continue ignoring my earlier posts that you can't answer.

Just be consistant, that's a good troll.

DeathChill · 05-19-2009, 10:51 PM

Hey I can't complain, sounds like the Mustang handles great!

I certainly have no interest in refuting anything; both cars sound like they handle well and the Mustang with the track pack sounds like it handles slightly better. Can't complain about that!

Ninjak · 05-19-2009, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MerF

Again...the TRACK-PACK versus the fully loaded 2SS. And the differences were minimal.

Lol. You do know what the track is ....correct ? Here..I'll save you a google.

TrackPack
-Dual-piston front calipers with performance brake Pads
-Performance 3.73 axle ratio
-Recalibrated Electronic Stability Control® (ESC) – requires manual transmission
-GT500 front and rear stabilizer bars
-Front strut and rear shock tuning
-Rear GT500 lower control arm
-19" premium painted wheels
-Summer-only performance tires
-Tire mobility kit (available Summer 2009)

So.....with this, the mighty IRS is trump by a live axle. I would say its amazing engineering on ford's part. We tried the whole IRS thing on the Cobra btw. Most Mustang enthusiasts wanted the live axle back.

Looking at that list...is that not what a SS has ? standard ? So the Track Pack GT is not comparable ?

Ninjak · 05-19-2009, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MerF

While you're busy ignoring the rest of the facts from my most recent post, be sure to continue ignoring my earlier posts that you can't answer.

Just be consistant, that's a good troll.

What Factual info would that be ? This gem of knowledge ?

Quote:

I need sources for common sense?

Ok.

A and B) It's a N/A 5.0L, which means it's going to have to be considerably high c/r to achieve those numbers...or high revving...both of which will mean it's going to be heavily tuned (expensive to engineer) and probably require high octane. It also means unless it is direct injection (is it?) it's not going to handle very much boost without lowering the c/r (decreasing the factory numbers back down to normal in the first place).

C) If you actually belive a new car cna come out without weighing more and being more expensive then you are in the same pipedream that Camaro owners were before the numbers were released on our car.

Better than LLN. I'll concede for now, but I'm still not 100% convinced yet. I reserve that right as a Camaro fanboy.

Yes...hmm..your just overflowing with facts.

DeathChill · 05-19-2009, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninjak

Lol. You do know what the track is ....correct ? Here..I'll save you a google.

TrackPack
-Dual-piston front calipers with performance brake Pads
-Performance 3.73 axle ratio
-Recalibrated Electronic Stability Control® (ESC) – requires manual transmission
-GT500 front and rear stabilizer bars
-Front strut and rear shock tuning
-Rear GT500 lower control arm
-19" premium painted wheels
-Summer-only performance tires
-Tire mobility kit (available Summer 2009)

So.....with this, the mighty IRS is trump by a live axle. I would say its amazing engineering on ford's part. We tried the whole IRS thing on the Cobra btw. Most Mustang enthusiasts wanted the live axle back.

Looking at that list...is that not what a SS has ? standard ? So the Track Pack GT is not comparable ?

Sounds comparable to me. I can't imagine anyone would expect the SS to out-handle the GT without a bit more work on the SS' part. I don't know how the GT500 compares to the SS in terms of handling but I've heard good things so taking GT500 suspension stuff and putting on the GT would definitely have great results!

However, this is an endless argument I'd imagine. I'm sure the responses will just go back and forth about real world handling (e.g. rough surfaces) and perfect conditions.

Ninjak · 05-19-2009, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeathChill

Sounds comparable to me. I can't imagine anyone would expect the SS to out-handle the GT without a bit more work on the SS' part. I don't know how the GT500 compares to the SS in terms of handling but I've heard good things so taking GT500 suspension stuff and putting on the GT would definitely have great results!

However, this is an endless argument I'd imagine. I'm sure the responses will just go back and forth about real world handling (e.g. rough surfaces) and perfect conditions.

I would agree with you Chill. The point I am only try to make is that people on this forum say.."Oh that's with a track pack!" Its like somehow the GT suspension has been ripped out replaced GT cup car suspension.

MerF · 05-19-2009, 11:03 PM

Trumped? On a controlled environment, with a performance add-on, against the heaviest version of the Camaro. And "trumped" is hardly the word. It was neck-and-neck.

Again, why not pit it against a 1SS without the fluff? To encourage the discussion more, you could even argue that to get the prices closer one would have to pit it against a 1SS...which still would have better options than a base GT + track pack.

MerF · 05-19-2009, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninjak

Yes...hmm..your just overflowing with facts.

I'll take that as a concession. Thank you.

DeathChill · 05-19-2009, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MerF

Trumped? On a controlled environment, with a performance add-on, against the heaviest version of the Camaro. And "trumped" is hardly the word. It was neck-and-neck.

Again, why not pit it against a 1SS without the fluff? To encourage the discussion more, you could even argue that to get the prices closer one would have to pit it against a 1SS...which still would have better options than a base GT + track pack.

The MotorTrend review was with a 1SS actually.

Also, a question since it seems to be slightly on-topic:

What does the @ mean in the figure 8? Camaro: 25.8 @ 0.80 g, Mustang 25.5 @ 0.70 g, Challenger 27.5 @ 0.63 g. What does it mean?

MerF · 05-19-2009, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeathChill

The MotorTrend review was with a 1SS actually.

Huh? Then I'm seriously retarded because I could have sworn it was a 2SS/RS.

Ninjak · 05-19-2009, 11:08 PM

Merf that is not being ignored. I have a question for you.

How can you say what the engine will be..taped out, max hp, tq numbers...when it has not even been released or is in any known car ??

Mustang enthuist who have followed the developement of this engine are still not even sure on the HP total. But I digress...I will play along. A 302 CI engine, that produces 400hp crank, would maxed out in what way ? Just how much compression do you think is needed to achieve 400hp @ the crank ?

DeathChill · 05-19-2009, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MerF

Huh? Then I'm seriously retarded because I could have sworn it was a 2SS/RS.

Nope:

"What's more, it's priced to steal. Base sticker for the 1SS manual: just $30,995. With the Boston Acoustics audio package, our cloth-seat tester climbed only to $31,490."

For some reason I also initially thought it was a 2SS as well. It doesn't sound like it was an RS either.

MerF · 05-19-2009, 11:15 PM

I already conceded that if it is a DI engine then it's doable and very realistic (which I also added would hike the price up considerably). If it isn't, you show me an engine with 5.0L or less of displacement that achieves close to 400HP without an extreme cam/head/high compression and I'll again concede. AND it has to at least give a nod to cafe standards by being at LEAST 18 mpg average. Then there's the serious unknown of weight. Are they going to be able to ignore safety standards for another year and have to re-design the car again in 3 years anyway?

If you really believe they can do all of that, then you have to convince me that they will somehow spend the millions to develop that engine, plus the much-heralded ecoboost R&D without passing the costs along to the consumer. The cost is going to hike to pay for this, if it's even possible.

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

05-19-2009, 10:48 PM	#814
MerF Go Rays! Drives: 03 Trailblazer Join Date: May 2007 Location: St Pete, Florida Posts: 2,532	While you're busy ignoring the rest of the facts from my most recent post, be sure to continue ignoring my earlier posts that you can't answer. Just be consistant, that's a good troll.

05-19-2009, 10:51 PM	#815
DeathChill Drives: 2010 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 2.0T Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Mission, BC Posts: 862	Hey I can't complain, sounds like the Mustang handles great! I certainly have no interest in refuting anything; both cars sound like they handle well and the Mustang with the track pack sounds like it handles slightly better. Can't complain about that!

05-19-2009, 11:03 PM	#820
MerF Go Rays! Drives: 03 Trailblazer Join Date: May 2007 Location: St Pete, Florida Posts: 2,532	Trumped? On a controlled environment, with a performance add-on, against the heaviest version of the Camaro. And "trumped" is hardly the word. It was neck-and-neck. Again, why not pit it against a 1SS without the fluff? To encourage the discussion more, you could even argue that to get the prices closer one would have to pit it against a 1SS...which still would have better options than a base GT + track pack.

05-19-2009, 11:08 PM	#824
Ninjak Banned Drives: 08 GT Mustang \| 65 GT Notchbac Join Date: May 2009 Location: Miami Florida Posts: 819	Merf that is not being ignored. I have a question for you. How can you say what the engine will be..taped out, max hp, tq numbers...when it has not even been released or is in any known car ?? Mustang enthuist who have followed the developement of this engine are still not even sure on the HP total. But I digress...I will play along. A 302 CI engine, that produces 400hp crank, would maxed out in what way ? Just how much compression do you think is needed to achieve 400hp @ the crank ?

05-19-2009, 11:15 PM	#826
MerF Go Rays! Drives: 03 Trailblazer Join Date: May 2007 Location: St Pete, Florida Posts: 2,532	I already conceded that if it is a DI engine then it's doable and very realistic (which I also added would hike the price up considerably). If it isn't, you show me an engine with 5.0L or less of displacement that achieves close to 400HP without an extreme cam/head/high compression and I'll again concede. AND it has to at least give a nod to cafe standards by being at LEAST 18 mpg average. Then there's the serious unknown of weight. Are they going to be able to ignore safety standards for another year and have to re-design the car again in 3 years anyway? If you really believe they can do all of that, then you have to convince me that they will somehow spend the millions to develop that engine, plus the much-heralded ecoboost R&D without passing the costs along to the consumer. The cost is going to hike to pay for this, if it's even possible.