Camaros v6 VS Mustang Gt

[theholycow]

Folks, don't forget that the DI V6 has a nearly perfectly flat torque chart, so it might pull ahead of the GT initially.

Originally Posted by nester7929

What really interests me though is the twin-turbo V6 Ford has been developing. It's supposed to be good for 390-415 hp while getting impressive gas mileage to boot. I suppose it would be too much to ask for Ford to revive the Thunderbird and drop that twin turbo inside it...

Do you mean the ugly retro-fad Thunderbird:


Or the cool one that for some reason got no respect for looking and being cool:


I really wish I had bought that '98 Thunderbird V8 instead of the stupid '97 Grand Am V6. RWD and more space FTW...

[nester7929]

I liked the retro-fad T-bird, but to each his own I guess.

My dad had one and they rode really well.

[ZeeTwentyFour]

The mustang has the same Horse Power but 50 foot pounds of torque more, and it weighs less, its simple, the mustang wins.

[Muscle Master]

Originally Posted by Muscle Master

Wait a second now, lets not forget " Theres no replacement for displacement" rule

Isn't a V8 engine faster than a V6 engine having the same horsepower or not and on top of that a six-speed MT

Can someone answer my question

[ZeeTwentyFour]

I don't see why a V8 would be faster then a V6 if they have the same hp rating AND torque rating. just like the "no replacement for displacement" montra, there is the golden rule of power to weight, which ever is lighter wins.

[Beyond Limits]

Originally Posted by Muscle Master

Wait a second now, lets not forget " Theres no replacement for displacement" rule

Isn't a V8 engine faster than a V6 engine having the same horsepower are not and on top of that a six-speed MT

............idk

If you have 2 engines that make the same power on both sides (HP and LB/FT) and you put them both in identical vehicles that both weighed the same and had the same gearing you would in theory have two vehicles that are the same speed at sea level.

There's no replacement for displacement is not a rule per say in terms of performance. It is really a saying, an expression that old school (myself included) performance guys live by. But it is just that, a saying. It has no basis in reality. There is no rule that says a 502 will always outrun a 454, Or that a 396 is always faster then a 350. There are so many factors that play into engine tuning, the least of which is displacement size.

Think of it this way... the motor in an Indy car is a 3.5L V8 that makes well over 700HP naturally aspirated and has a redline north of 13,000 RPM.

[ZeeTwentyFour]

Originally Posted by Beyond Limits

If you have 2 engines that make the same power on both sides (HP and LB/FT) and you put them both in identical vehicles that both weighed the same and had the same gearing you would in theory have two vehicles that are the same speed at sea level.

There's no replacement for displacement is not a rule per say in terms of performance. It is really a saying, an expression that old school (myself included) performance guys live by. But it is just that, a saying. It has no basis in reality. There is no rule that says a 502 will always outrun a 454, Or that a 396 is always faster then a 350. There are so many factors that play into engine tuning, the least of which is displacement size.

Think of it this way... the motor in an Indy car is a 3.5L V8 that makes well over 700HP naturally aspirated and has a redline north of 13,000 RPM.

[Congoman775]

The Mustang V8 Stock, will beat a Camaro V6 Stock.

But not after you put enough $$ worth of mods to make the V6 cost as much as the V8 =)

[2kwik]

I just find it funny that the V6 is comparable to the SS's actual competition haha...

[a12ozbottle]

Originally Posted by Muscle Master

Wait a second now, lets not forget " Theres no replacement for displacement" rule

Isn't a V8 engine faster than a V6 engine having the same horsepower are not and on top of that a six-speed MT

............idk

Adding displacement is an easy way to increase performance. You have more potential to make horsepower, because there is more space to fill with fuel and air. Which theoretically means you can produce more power. It doesn't mean just because you have more displacement that you're going to be faster.
When looking at 2 different engines, people usually look at just the peak horsepower and torque. When they should look at the entire rpm range. This is where the v8 will usually beat the v6, but not always. I would like to see the 3.6 put in something closer to the weight of a mustang and see that race, could be pretty close.

[Beelzebubba]

Originally Posted by a12ozbottle

When looking at 2 different engines, people usually look at just the peak horsepower and torque. When they should look at the entire rpm range.... .

THANK YOU!

Gave up on that whole arguement. There's still a large number of 4 cyl guys that think that superchargers make you 'slow'.

"blah blah blah your supercharged engine only makes 'XXX' horsepower blah blah blah. I'm making almost that much N/A....blah blah blah..."

Apparently, they miss the fact that the s/c'd motor makes more torque at 2000 rpm than they will ever make N/A'd. All they see is that peak number.

Of course these are usually the same guys that think torque makes you slow too.

You've seen these guys...they are the ones revving on your LS1 at every other stoplight. They want to take on the big dog and they've already been peed on by a little dog 3.1 3rd gen Camaro.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by Muscle Master

Can someone answer my question

The answer is here:

Originally Posted by a12ozbottle

When looking at 2 different engines, people usually look at just the peak horsepower and torque. When they should look at the entire rpm range.

In this case, I'm not sure. While I'm sure the Mustang GT's V8 makes more peak torque (and would win a race), our V6 doesn't have a peak...it's got a flat line of almost exactly the same torque at any RPM right down to idle. It should snap off the line really well. Can anyone post a chart of the Mustang GT's V8?

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by 2kwik

I just find it funny that the V6 is comparable to the SS's actual competition haha...

That's what I'm getting at!

[brihorse]

I took my 87 Grand National to the track last year to see what it would run. Only mods being exhaust and CAI. I ran a 13.7 on my stock size tires 215/65/15, a new mustang gt automatic tried to line up against me a few times. He never got out of the 14's and I seen it run at least 8 or 9 times.