The 2011+ Mustang Thread

[garagelogic]

I really don't understand why anybody would order the electonics package on the Mustang, especially for that $$ figure. If you have SYNC, you get all the benefits of that system, including turn-by-trun navigation. The only thing you don't get is the touchscreen.

HD Radio? I guess some people actually listen to the radio often enough to justify it but I'd have to think that it is a small minority.

Dual zone climate control? Sorry, but someone explain to me how you can have two different climates in one open cabin? That's like having a swimming pool with a no pee section in it.

[Huggerorange73]

Originally Posted by GMRULZ

Its very invasive in the auto`s, but is also present in the manual`s as well from my understanding. I don`t have the mn6 though so perhaps one of those guys should chime in.

It is in fact present on the M6, I removed it along with the skip shift though.

Originally Posted by garagelogic

Dual zone climate control? Sorry, but someone explain to me how you can have two different climates in one open cabin? That's like having a swimming pool with a no pee section in it.

Awesome comment

[BigDan]

Originally Posted by garagelogic

Dual zone climate control? Sorry, but someone explain to me how you can have two different climates in one open cabin? That's like having a swimming pool with a no pee section in it.

Its not the 2 different climates its for the 2 different persons riding in the car. Usually 1 male 1 female and EVERY female ive ever driven with is always colder then me and they require more heat especially if the male driver likes to drive with the windows down. That is when it pays to have dual zone, but if you prefer men riding next to you then I think you could skip the option.

[KarFan]

Originally Posted by BigDan

Its not the 2 different climates its for the 2 different persons riding in the car. Usually 1 male 1 female and EVERY female ive ever driven with is always colder then me and they require more heat especially if the male driver likes to drive with the windows down. That is when it pays to have dual zone, but if you prefer men riding next to you then I think you could skip the option.

Yep I didn't know the benefit of the dual climate zone until I had it. Anything to keep the lady from messing with the heat/AC every 5 min for the whole car while still keeping her frown upside down makes me happy too.

[BackinBlackSS/RS]

Why am I on page 138 and it says there are page 139 and 140, but when you click on them it takes me to page 138?

[Sleestack]

Originally Posted by alrox

I'm glad you like your car, but your bias is showing.
Facts:
A regular 2SS/RS is $36,345.
A regular Mustang GT Premium with Brembos, HID/security/comfort package is $36,905.

Change these to automatics, which most of the cars sold to the public will be, and the prices are:
2SS/RS automatic is $37,530.
Mustang GT Premium automatic with HID/security/comfort packages is $36,205.

The point here is Camaro has more standard features than a base Mustang but the Mustang can be optioned higher with more features than available on the Camaro. Apples to apples they are very close in price.

This is very true and accurate, they are fairly evenly priced when comparing similar options and MSRP. Anyone claimng multiple thousands of $$ difference either way is pulling numbers outta their heads.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by Supermans

It's just heavier than the GT and older 4th gen's. That is the main reason... Lower the weight of the Camaro and its 0-60 times would improve. That is why the lighter 4th gen's still pose a threat at the track with some light mods that bring up the HP to 350 ish and they win against a stock SS.

We were talking 60 ft not 0-60.

But I would suppose weight would hinder 60ft times as well...weight isnt good for anything really.

Funny how you act like the Mustang is some lightweight. It is heaver than a 4th gen as well.
With the same options the difference between the two cars is only about 200lbs. (base no option GT 3603, and only gets heavier, SS is 3849-3860) Drive with a passenger in your car and you are driving a camaro pretty much. The biggest reason the stang can cut better 60 fts is the SRA and the smaller wheel and tire combination.

And yes 4th gens pose a threat to both cars not just the mustang....they are only a few tenths behind either the camaro or mustang and can trap up to ~108.

BTW camaro enthusiast ...the stock horsepower for a 4th gen camaro ls1 is about ~350...it doesnt need mods to hit that number. They dyno roughly 300 to the wheels stock. I have seen anywhere from 280-320 rwhp stock depending on the dyno. THe ls1 was underrated in the f-body at 305-310 hp and rated at 350hp in the vette.

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by Sleestack

This is very true and accurate, they are fairly evenly priced when comparing similar options and MSRP. Anyone claimng multiple thousands of $$ difference either way is pulling numbers outta their heads.

Another thing to take into consideration. If you can find a dealer willing to deal, you can get a 2011 Mustang GT for about $3000 off sticker. There is a much greater invoice to sticker difference on them.

[alrox]

Originally Posted by Supermans

From 1993 to 2001, the Camaro's HP was not 350 stock.. At most in 2001 it was 325.. Anyways, I'm a 5th gen Camaro enthusiast, I am not an expert in all things Camaro but I do know HP ratings for the older Camaro's due to many friends owning them and I read a lot of magazines back then as a hobby. BTW, the Mustangs Coyote 5.0 engine is also underrated which has been proven in dyno's.. The SS was not underrated. In all cases, weight does have a huge effect in 0-60 times..

You're a child. 98-02 fbody's had the exact same engine/tune/transmission as the 350hp Corvettes.

They were rated lower so Corvette buyers would feel better about themselves and their overpriced cars.

[wbt]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

Another thing to take into consideration. If you can find a dealer willing to deal, you can get a 2011 Mustang GT for about $3000 off sticker. There is a much greater invoice to sticker difference on them.

I got mine for a few hundred under invoice.

[lil_chef]

Originally Posted by alrox

You're a child. 98-02 fbody's had the exact same engine/tune/transmission as the 350hp Corvettes.

They were rated lower so Corvette buyers would feel better about themselves and their overpriced cars.

your post could be taken 10x more seriously if you didnt make a personal attack....

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by Supermans

From 1993 to 2001, the Camaro's HP was not 350 stock.. At most in 2001 it was 325.. Anyways, I'm a 5th gen Camaro enthusiast, I am not an expert in all things Camaro but I do know HP ratings for the older Camaro's due to many friends owning them and I read a lot of magazines back then as a hobby. BTW, the Mustangs Coyote 5.0 engine is also underrated which has been proven in dyno's.. The SS was not underrated. In all cases, weight does have a huge effect in 0-60 times..

No the coyote is not under rated IMO. It is SAE certified at 412hp. It dynoes roughly the same as the LS3 camaro (every dyno done between the two cars on the same day with the same dyno shows this as well as various other RELIABLE sources)which adds up perfectly because it will lose a bit less through its drive-train and smaller wheel/tire combo. Yes some have dynoed in the 390 range but some ls3's have dynoed in the 390 range stock as well (a person who just posted in this thread dynoed 390 stock matter of fact)...dyno discrepancies. A couple dynoes have been recently posted with the two cars on the same day showing them to be nearly equal in horsepower and the 5.0 down a bit on torque (and behind for nearly the whole RPM range in both hp/tq)...did you miss these?

How could the coyote be under rate while the LS3 is not by looking at the dyno numbers alone? They are only 14 hp apart which could easily be lost through the Camaro drivetrain etc. And even so...how under rated could it be?...it is already 250lbs lighter putting down similar numbers to the wheels with better gearing...yet only slightly quicker stock for stock. If it is under rated im sure not seeing it so far...

And yes...the 98-02 ls1 car was underrated and made roughly 350hp from the factory. 01-02 cars had an LS6 style intake but also a slightly smaller cam. The difference between 98-02 cars is paper thin. FYI the 12.89 run done by Evan Smith in a 4th gen was done in a plain jane 99 z28.

93-97 was the LT-1 car...which was 275-285hp....which was slightly under rated at best. Their was also a rare LT-4 (borrowed from the 96 corvette grand sport) option 97 SS which was available. These were 330hp and ran just about as quick as an LS1 car.

For being such a camaro enthusiast you sure like to skew some of your opinions in the mustangs favor

[Supermans]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

No the coyote is not under rated IMO. It is SAE certified at 412hp. It dynoes roughly the same as the LS3 camaro (every dyno done between the two cars on the same day with the same dyno shows this as well as various other RELIABLE sources)which adds up perfectly because it will lose a bit less through its drive-train and smaller wheel/tire combo. Yes some have dynoed in the 390 range but some ls3's have dynoed in the 390 range stock as well (a person who just posted in this thread dynoed 390 stock matter of fact)...dyno discrepancies. A couple dynoes have been recently posted with the two cars on the same day showing them to be nearly equal in horsepower and the 5.0 down a bit on torque (and behind for nearly the whole RPM range in both hp/tq)...did you miss these?

How could the coyote be under rate while the LS3 is not by looking at the dyno numbers alone? They are only 14 hp apart which could easily be lost through the Camaro drivetrain etc. And even so...how under rated could it be?...it is already 250lbs lighter putting down similar numbers to the wheels with better gearing...yet only slightly quicker stock for stock. If it is under rated im sure not seeing it so far...

And yes...the 98-02 ls1 car was underrated and made roughly 350hp from the factory. 01-02 cars had an LS6 style intake but also a slightly smaller cam. The difference between 98-02 cars is paper thin. FYI the 12.89 run done by Evan Smith in a 4th gen was done in a plain jane 99 z28.

93-97 was the LT-1 car...which was 275-285hp....which was slightly under rated at best. Their was also a rare LT-4 (borrowed from the 96 corvette grand sport) option 97 SS which was available. These were 330hp and ran just about as quick as an LS1 car.

For being such a camaro enthusiast you sure like to skew some of your opinions in the mustangs favor

I've read and watched all the reviews done for the Camaro SS and the new Mustang including the reviews done on last years Mustang as well in comparison to the SS. I wasn't favoring one car over the other in my post which was simply about weight. It is obvious weight plays a role in 0-60 times. THe weight of a boxing heavyweight is the difference between the 5.0 and the SS as well as the SS when compared to the Challenger. I read and watched many reviews if not all of them from the big name review companies and yes many are Mustang or Ford biased, however on average all of them had similar faults with the Camaro SS in comparison to the new Mustang 5.0.

And since "comparisons" are what this thread is about, it is only fair to look at all the numbers done by all the review companies and come up with an average instead of only choosing the times that best suit our arguments. Finding the fastest recorded times for any of these vehicles stock vs stock or the slowest times as well is not being fair and balanced. Since there are many varibales which can account for different times and dyno numbers including the dyno calibration date itself.

With that said, all of the review sites that tested the Mustang 5.0 have said it was underrated by quite a bit. I don't remember the Camaro SS's LS3 being mentioned as being underrated. Most reviews at the time last year spoke about how the Camaro was tops in handling and times. Now the new 5.0 has surpassed the Camaro's handling and times and we have the musscle car wars all over again. I am thankful for that. The Camaro SS would not be the car it is today if it wasn't for the Mustang and the new 5.0 would not have been released if it wasn't for the SS beating the snot out of the 2010 Mustangs.. This review below is new and pretty fair to all the cars.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...son/index.html

In that article the 5.0 got to 0-60 in 4.4 seconds. In comparison, the 2009 GT500 averages at 4.6 second 0-60.. Now that 4.4 may be an anomoly, however the impressive thing about the 5.0 is how close the speed is from 0-60 compared to the 2009 GT500 for a lot less money. Also, the handling is better on the 5.0 because it is lighter than the GT500 as well.

Like I said before, I don't know much about the older Camaro's and Mustangs, but I do know the new crash test safety regulations are what is making our cars heavier overall for the most part.. Those 4th gens are still light weights compared to the new SS and even the 5.0.. That is why when you see a modded 4th gen at the track, it may very well be faster than your new 2011 5.0 or SS..

[alrox]

Originally Posted by lil_chef

your post could be taken 10x more seriously if you didnt make a personal attack....

I'd be willing to bet he's under 18. Therefore my post is true.