2011 Mustang 5.0L vs 2010 Camaro SS Dyno Results

[wbt]

Originally Posted by Jekyll-N-Hyde

Why cant we just admitt they are neck and neck Geeze.

I have driven both and imo they are neck and neck ! both very fast cars yes the mustang feels leighter however the torque on the camaro SCREWS excitement.

Both ford and gm made awsome cars.

Now mod those two cars and then we can see which car is stronger.

No doubt both cars are fantastic. This thread, however, has several misconceptions that do need clarification.

For example:
Bolt-on for bolt-on the 5.0 responds just as well as the 6.2.

GM really needs to step up and offer gear options for the Camaro. Then I think we will see better comparisons.

[Jekyll-N-Hyde]

Originally Posted by wbt

No doubt both cars are fantastic. This thread, however, has several misconceptions that do need clarification.

For example:
Bolt-on for bolt-on the 5.0 responds just as well as the 6.2.

GM really needs to step up and offer gear options for the Camaro. Then I think we will see better comparisons.

I will agree with you Ford is impressive with a smaller cubic inch motor making the same about power.

and yes Gm needs to offer more gear choices.

The only thing besides both cars being pretty equal and it coming down to a driver is

Gm's Torque is better "IMO" just me but coming off the line the Camaro feels strong in torque.
Ford weighs less and its noticable.

[wbt]

Originally Posted by Jekyll-N-Hyde

I will agree with you Ford is impressive with a smaller cubic inch motor making the same about power.

and yes Gm needs to offer more gear choices.

The only thing besides both cars being pretty equal and it coming down to a driver is

Gm's Torque is better "IMO" just me but coming off the line the Camaro feels strong in torque.
Ford weighs less and its noticable.

No doubt my LS3 had more punch off idle which made it terribly fun to drive.

[mr_desmo]

Originally Posted by BackinBlackSS/RS

It is a little faster due to weight and gearing, but that is not what we are discussing. The dyno clearly shows the LS3 is more powerful. You put same gearing and same weight and you would see the LS3 walk away. I'm not saying the Camaro is better or faster, just that from just a motor standpoint, the LS3 has more power.

Your wrong about that one ...stock the ls3 rev 6600rpm while the 5.0 rev 7000rpm....the dyno shows to 6500rpm...the 5.0l plateau after what we see but the ls3 is a cow at hi rpm unless its cammed....and when its cammed it lose the low end advantage....
Guys the ls series engine is pushrod 50 years old technology....enough said

[mr_desmo]

Originally Posted by wbt

No doubt my LS3 had more punch off idle which made it terribly fun to drive.

No its doessnt because it has shitty gearing and soft suspension stock

[wbt]

Originally Posted by mr_desmo

No its doessnt because it has shitty gearing and soft suspension stock

Wow.....so how many 6.2 or 5.0's have you driven?

You have no idea what you are talking about.

[christianmotox]

Originally Posted by wbt

Not to turn this into another vs. thread....

Ford is doing almost the same thing with 1.2L less. That is impressive.

I have owned both the SS 6.2 M6 and the new 5.0 M6 and without a doubt my GT is faster regardless of what the dyno says. (I am talking bone stock 5.0 vs. my old 6.2 with a CAI and cat-back.)

To late, this is gonna be a long one..

[wbt]

Originally Posted by mr_desmo

Your wrong about that one ...stock the ls3 rev 6600rpm while the 5.0 rev 7000rpm....the dyno shows to 6500rpm...the 5.0l plateau after what we see but the ls3 is a cow at hi rpm unless its cammed....and when its cammed it lose the low end advantage....
Guys the ls series engine is pushrod 50 years old technology....enough said

No he isn't. If the Camaro had the same weight and gearing, no doubt it would be faster than the 5.0 stock for stock.

BTW - stock rev limiter on the 5.0 is 6850, not 7000. One of the benefits from a tune on the 5.0 is bumping that up to around 7300 for optimal shifting.

A properly cammed 6.2 will not lose much if any at all down low. Another mis-conception you have.

Isn't there a 4 banger forum waiting somewhere for your "expertise"?

[Dan@showstopper]

Almost a 30 lb./ft!!!! RWT difference. That's enough to make up for the weight and taller tires. I agree, GM really needs a 3.73 gear option.

[mr_desmo]

Originally Posted by wbt

Wow.....so how many 6.2 or 5.0's have you driven?

You have no idea what you are talking about.

we have both cars right now....i have a 2010 camaro ss and my wife exchanged her 2009 370z for the 2011 mustang 5.0l i try to find good points and bitch about her live axle but its way more fun then my camaro on eibach

[wbt]

Originally Posted by Dan@showstopper

Almost a 30 lb./ft!!!! RWT difference. That's enough to make up for the weight and taller tires. I agree, GM really needs a 3.73 gear option.

Screw the 3.73....4.30 is on par with the aggressive gearing of the Mustang and since the M6 has 2 OD's, 5th and 6th, would make it perfectly streetable.

[wbt]

Originally Posted by mr_desmo

we have both cars right now....i have a 2010 camaro ss and my wife exchanged her 2009 370z for the 2011 mustang 5.0l i try to find good points and bitch about her live axle but its way more fun then my camaro on eibach

Fair enough.

[mr_desmo]

Originally Posted by wbt

No he isn't. If the Camaro had the same weight and gearing, no doubt it would be faster than the 5.0 stock for stock.

BTW - stock rev limiter on the 5.0 is 6850, not 7000. One of the benefits from a tune on the 5.0 is bumping that up to around 7300 for optimal shifting.

A properly cammed 6.2 will not lose much if any at all down low. Another mis-conception you have.

Isn't there a 4 banger forum waiting somewhere for your "expertise"?

Its 7000 i bang it on a daily basis...6850 is the redline which dont matter

[BackinBlackSS/RS]

Originally Posted by wbt

No he isn't. If the Camaro had the same weight and gearing, no doubt it would be faster than the 5.0 stock for stock.

BTW - stock rev limiter on the 5.0 is 6850, not 7000. One of the benefits from a tune on the 5.0 is bumping that up to around 7300 for optimal shifting.

A properly cammed 6.2 will not lose much if any at all down low. Another mis-conception you have.

Isn't there a 4 banger forum waiting somewhere for your "expertise"?

I always enjoy debating with you. This thread can be very informative if we can just keep the haters out.