The 2011+ Mustang Thread

[syr74]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Yes it is. It's still slower in the slalom, slower round MotorTrend's figure-eight, and slower to stop (in half the tests). Those are just the numbers -- factor in the driving characteristics, and they all found that the Camaro seemed more forgiving to drive. All things considered, like CaptainSam said, it's only behind by a little bit. And coming from a Camaro 'fanboy' -- that's too close for comfort.

I'm uncertain where you are getting your numbers from. In the MT comparo the Mustang GT ran a figure eight time of 25.5 seconds to the Camaros slightly slower 25.8 second time. As for slalom speed, I haven't seen any hard numbers as yet but I can tell you that the Camaros higher max g rating in the figure eight test (.80g for the Camro compared to .70g for the Mustang) more or less means that the Camaro is more prone to understeer making it easier to modulate through such quick, tight corners leading to that superior g number in this kind of test. In turn, that means the camaro has to be losing ground in the transition from left turn to right turn and vice-versa. That would be the same kind of transition you could expect to undergo during slalom testing.

I have no doubt the Camaro is a more forgiving car to drive fast, but in terms of pure handling it isn't as good, whether that is by the numbers or by way of subjective measures if these guys are to be believed. It seems likely that the better the driver the larger the difference in handling between these two is going to be.

In terms of performance Camaro has Mustang on acceleration and braking right now, the latter primarily due to the fact that the Mustang is still very prone to brake fade. In terms of handling, I think the Mustang walks away with it so long as the track pack option box has been checked. The Camaro is also no doubt more comfortable, which is an advantage to be sure, but I do think it a less significant advantage than some want to beleive it to be since the Mustang is apparently a comfortable enough ride as well, just not quite as cozy as the Chevy.

[garagelogic]

Originally Posted by kanakattack

The GT500 didn't do as well as expected because the rear end was not able to handle the added power as well as the designers thought.

What the heck are you talking about? I can tell you for a fact the stock rear end under my car has no problem handling the power my car makes, and it's far from the 500hp it came with. It might help everyone if you describe what you meant by "did not do as well as expected". Did you just read that or hear that somewhere else and decide to regurgitate it on this forum to sound like you know what you are talking about?

[fdjizm]

lol @ people talking out of thin air with no facts and wrong accusations!!!! gotta love it

[Mr. Wyndham]

Ugh...I give up. There's no point in arguing. If it appeases you; they're within a hair of each other, so it's like arguing semantics. I will say I've never seen the Mustang folks put up such a stiff defense before, though. Kudos.

[kanakattack]

Originally Posted by garagelogic

What the heck are you talking about? I can tell you for a fact the stock rear end under my car has no problem handling the power my car makes, and it's far from the 500hp it came with. It might help everyone if you describe what you meant by "did not do as well as expected". Did you just read that or hear that somewhere else and decide to regurgitate it on this forum to sound like you know what you are talking about?

There were several reviews including a video review on "Top Gear" that stated that the rear end was "skiddish". I know you would say that Top Gear doesn't like American cars but they did push the car and it is on video. I have not had the opportunity to drive one but rest assured that those were not words just pulled out of the air, just stating what was said thats all.

[manimsoblack]

Originally Posted by manimsoblack

"The 3.5L saves over 150 lbs. compared to the 4.6L V-8"

second paragraph

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/06/d...ect-injection/

So the twin turbo should be lighter dunno about the 5.0 though. i'll look it up when i get back from applebees.

[Speed74SS]

The 5.0 won't even make it into the mustang - it will be their new ecoboost... I don't think there has been any new articles or viseos where there is any talk about the 5.0 engine. If the 5.0 went into the GT though, what about an LS7? hmm

[garagelogic]

Originally Posted by kanakattack

There were several reviews including a video review on "Top Gear" that stated that the rear end was "skiddish". I know you would say that Top Gear doesn't like American cars but they did push the car and it is on video. I have not had the opportunity to drive one but rest assured that those were not words just pulled out of the air, just stating what was said thats all.

I guess I'm just not getting what you are trying to say. You said, and I quote:

Originally Posted by kanakattack

The GT500 didn't do as well as expected because the rear end was not able to handle the added power as well as the designers thought.

When you hear a statement like that, it usually means the rear end was not able to effectively transfer power to the ground or that there was some sort of design flaw that was causing the rear end to fail under the load generated by the drivetrain. I'm pretty sure that none of the SVT engineers who worked on this car were surprised by this.

Based on your follow up post, it sounds like you are making reference to the fact that the GT500 being tested experienced some axle trounce when managing an uneven road surface. That is what you get with an solid rear axle under the car, but it by no means an indication that the suspension is unable to "handle the extra power".

When you are actually able to construct an original thought about the subject at hand or are able to convey your own, first-hand experience with the car in question and not simply repeat what someone else has said somehere along the line, feel free to reply. Otherwise, just put up a link to the article and we can all read/watch it for ourselves.

[kanakattack]

Originally Posted by garagelogic

I guess I'm just not getting what you are trying to say. You said, and I quote:



When you hear a statement like that, it usually means the rear end was not able to effectively transfer power to the ground or that there was some sort of design flaw that was causing the rear end to fail under the load generated by the drivetrain. I'm pretty sure that none of the SVT engineers who worked on this car were surprised by this.

Based on your follow up post, it sounds like you are making reference to the fact that the GT500 being tested experienced some axle trounce when managing an uneven road surface. That is what you get with an solid rear axle under the car, but it by no means an indication that the suspension is unable to "handle the extra power".

When you are actually able to construct an original thought about the subject at hand or are able to convey your own, first-hand experience with the car in question and not simply repeat what someone else has said somehere along the line, feel free to reply. Otherwise, just put up a link to the article and we can all read/watch it for ourselves.

I'm sorry that you do not think that my post was without merit, but isn't forums where you discuss things. I am not a mechanical engineer, but I do know that with added horsepower you have to over engineer various parts of a car such as brakes, suspension, transmission and so forth. But since you feel that I am not capable of original thought here is the top gear link, and mind you Richard likes American cars.
http://www.topgear.com/us/videos/mor...lassic-mustang

[manimsoblack]

Originally Posted by garagelogic

I guess I'm just not getting what you are trying to say. You said, and I quote:



When you hear a statement like that, it usually means the rear end was not able to effectively transfer power to the ground or that there was some sort of design flaw that was causing the rear end to fail under the load generated by the drivetrain. I'm pretty sure that none of the SVT engineers who worked on this car were surprised by this.

Based on your follow up post, it sounds like you are making reference to the fact that the GT500 being tested experienced some axle trounce when managing an uneven road surface. That is what you get with an solid rear axle under the car, but it by no means an indication that the suspension is unable to "handle the extra power".

When you are actually able to construct an original thought about the subject at hand or are able to convey your own, first-hand experience with the car in question and not simply repeat what someone else has said somehere along the line, feel free to reply. Otherwise, just put up a link to the article and we can all read/watch it for ourselves.

Wow. You sure you don't actually drive a bimmer?

[CaptianSam]

Wow this is gettng out of hand lol... Its not a decisio for me I'm sold on the camaro...

But its so cool that we are actually arguing about camaro vs mustang rivalry! Its beautiful

We've waited 5 years to heckle eachother like this hahaha

By the way dragoneye.. At least somebody sees the question I'm asking...
Lol
By the way I love cars not just mustangs or camaros... Just so happens to be the camaro is my heart stopper. And she's a looker with lungs and runs as fast as anything.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by CaptianSam

By the way dragoneye.. At least somebody sees the question I'm asking...Lol

I try....
No amount of reminders will pull this crowd back on track.
Someone has to be "better", remember? Duhhhh....

[TheClassicCarKid]

guys, guys, all the 5.0L means is that we'll probably get a higher performance car in the 2011 or 12MY and the folks that buy an SS this year will have to buy a hot cam if they want to thoroughly destroy new Mustangs. If they don't...I think a stock 2010 SS will be very close to a mustang putting out 400hp.

But I really doubt the new V8 will put out 400 horsepower. I say no more than 380 in a car that will probably be around 3640 pounds

[manimsoblack]

Well alot of the guys on the ford forums that seem to know what they're talking about as far as engines go are guessing 3600-3700. We'll see.