The 2011+ Mustang Thread

[Bob Cosby]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

That's not my point. My point is, the 3.73 equipped cars aren't (apparently) ETing quicker in the 1/4 than the taller geared cars, nor are they ETing quicker at any reference points, such as 1/8, 1000', etc. Any advantage the 3.73's hold is theoretical and unproven. I see a lot of people on this forum assuming that a shorter rear gear means a quicker car, which is not always the case. How power delivery meshes with the gearing is much more important than how short the gearing actually is.

3.73s probably won't be quickest on hard-compound street tires because the extra torque multiplication at the wheels will likely be wasted on the launch, and at each shift via increased tire spin. Put a tire on the car, and a driver that knows what he is doing, and that will change.

Also, 3.73s will put a stock 5.0 right into the 6850 rpm "soft limiter" at the end of the 1/4 mile in 4th gear. This will admittedly have very little effect on ET but will show up as as a lower trap speed.

If I wanted to get the quickest stock 5.0, I'd likely opt for 3.55s, and hope I could find a track with enough bite to allow me to take advantage of the small increase in gearing (3.31 to 3.55).

[Bob Cosby]

Originally Posted by Wacker

That's what I've noticed. I actually trap about the same, only I do it at the top of 4th where before it was the top of 3rd. The car feels allot stronger off the line, but goes through the gears so quick you don't get the long pull anymore. The key is to get the shift points down low just as the HP curve starts to fall. Also shift completion on the backside/decreasing side of the torque curve negates slower ETs.

Your optimum shift point will be several hundred rpm above peak HP. The idea is to get the maximum average HP in each gear. For most cars, this is typically 400-800 rpm above peak, and varies with each gear change because of the different rpm drop going from 1/2 vs 2/3 vs 3/4 (and 4/5 in the 5.0).

This is one area in which the LS3 in the SS has a distinct advantage over the 5.0, and why it will run pretty much the same ETs as the 5.0 - even though they both put about the same power to the ground with the 5.0 being ~250 lbs lighter. Why? The LS3's rev limiter is ~600 rpm above peak HP. The 5.0's is only ~250 rpm above peak HP, thus the LS3 is making more AVERAGE power in each gear.

[racer515]

I don't know how the Camaro gearing complares, but trust me, the gearing on a the 5.0 makes a huge difference. Likely not in published times, because of driver error, etc. But I have driven the stock auto, manual and I have a manual with the 3.73 axle and the three don't compare. I was hugely disappointed when I drove the first two and equally impressed with the latter.

[KungFuHamster]

what i want to know is how many people would say a camaro that lost needed a driver mod if bob cosby was the one behind the wheel of the camaro?

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by Supermans

The taller gearing makes for a more aggressive feel and that's about it is what I take from all these times.

Not to nag, but 3.73 is "shorter" than 3.55 and 3.15. Just for future reference.

[Supermans]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

Not to nag, but 3.73 is "shorter" than 3.55 and 3.15. Just for future reference.

You're right, got that backwards

[Wacker]

Originally Posted by Bob Cosby

Your optimum shift point will be several hundred rpm above peak HP. The idea is to get the maximum average HP in each gear. For most cars, this is typically 400-800 rpm above peak, and varies with each gear change because of the different rpm drop going from 1/2 vs 2/3 vs 3/4 (and 4/5 in the 5.0).

This is one area in which the LS3 in the SS has a distinct advantage over the 5.0, and why it will run pretty much the same ETs as the 5.0 - even though they both put about the same power to the ground with the 5.0 being ~250 lbs lighter. Why? The LS3's rev limiter is ~600 rpm above peak HP. The 5.0's is only ~250 rpm above peak HP, thus the LS3 is making more AVERAGE power in each gear.

I have to disagree based on actual races. This is a heavy car and torque moves heavy vehicles. The LS3 has a higher rev limiter because it's cam peaks at a higher RPM. A shift in the l99 above 6K is beyond peak HP as well as peak torque (after shift completion). I've got about 250 1320's and another 200 or so logging runs to base this on. GM put the shift at 6k for a reason. Change the cam, tire size, stall etc and this all goes out the window. I can actually feel the car loose steam as I exceed 6k. Peak HP in the L99 occurs around 5800-5900, therefore a shift at 6000-6100 would be optimum. Anything more than this puts you on the wrong side of the torque curve in the L99. I've ran 5900,6000,6100,6200,6300 and 6400 shift points. I've hot lapped the car at least 30 times on multiple occasions while lowering shift points. At each interval the car gets faster while lowering shift points. My car is just as fast letting it shift into 5th at 6000 as it is letting it trap at 6450 in 4th. Why, because the added torque from the lower RPM negates the time it takes to shift.

[KungFuHamster]

Originally Posted by Wacker

I have to disagree based on actual races. This is a heavy car and torque moves heavy vehicles. The LS3 has a higher rev limiter because it's cam peaks at a higher RPM. A shift in the l99 above 6K is beyond peak HP as well as peak torque (after shift completion). I've got about 250 1320's and another 200 or so logging runs to base this on. GM put the shift at 6k for a reason. Change the cam, tire size, stall etc and this all goes out the window. I can actually feel the car loose steam as I exceed 6k. Peak HP in the L99 occurs around 5800-5900, therefore a shift at 6000-6100 would be optimum. Anything more than this puts you on the wrong side of the torque curve in the L99. I've ran 5900,6000,6100,6200,6300 and 6400 shift points. I've hot lapped the car at least 30 times on multiple occasions while lowering shift points. At each interval the car gets faster while lowering shift points. My car is just as fast letting it shift into 5th at 6000 as it is letting it trap at 6450 in 4th. Why, because the added torque from the lower RPM negates the time it takes to shift.

id listen to this guy. hes a much more experienced drag racer than Bob Cosby.

[wavrun2000]

Is there really 93 pages of Camaro vs Mustang. I think we all need to go outside and take a deep breath. Then go find one to race and get a first hand practical answer.

[Bob Cosby]

Originally Posted by Wacker

I have to disagree based on actual races. This is a heavy car and torque moves heavy vehicles. The LS3 has a higher rev limiter because it's cam peaks at a higher RPM. A shift in the l99 above 6K is beyond peak HP as well as peak torque (after shift completion). I've got about 250 1320's and another 200 or so logging runs to base this on. GM put the shift at 6k for a reason. Change the cam, tire size, stall etc and this all goes out the window. I can actually feel the car loose steam as I exceed 6k. Peak HP in the L99 occurs around 5800-5900, therefore a shift at 6000-6100 would be optimum. Anything more than this puts you on the wrong side of the torque curve in the L99. I've ran 5900,6000,6100,6200,6300 and 6400 shift points. I've hot lapped the car at least 30 times on multiple occasions while lowering shift points. At each interval the car gets faster while lowering shift points. My car is just as fast letting it shift into 5th at 6000 as it is letting it trap at 6450 in 4th. Why, because the added torque from the lower RPM negates the time it takes to shift.

Shift wherever you wish - it is your car, your money, your time, and your ETs.

However...I would suggest again that you think about average HP in each gear, and forget about looking at the torque curve. Optimizing HP (or torque * rpm, if you prefer) in each gear....ie...achieving the highest average HP....will accelerate the car the quickest. You are on the "wrong side" of the torque curve, as you put it, any time that your engine rpm is above peak torque.

Good luck.
Bob

[wbt]

Originally Posted by Bob Cosby

3.73s probably won't be quickest on hard-compound street tires because the extra torque multiplication at the wheels will likely be wasted on the launch, and at each shift via increased tire spin. Put a tire on the car, and a driver that knows what he is doing, and that will change.

Also, 3.73s will put a stock 5.0 right into the 6850 rpm "soft limiter" at the end of the 1/4 mile in 4th gear. This will admittedly have very little effect on ET but will show up as as a lower trap speed.

If I wanted to get the quickest stock 5.0, I'd likely opt for 3.55s, and hope I could find a track with enough bite to allow me to take advantage of the small increase in gearing (3.31 to 3.55).

I can personally vouch for this. 3.55 is the best gear to get on the 2011 GT if you plan to run a stock car on stock tires.

This past weekend I made a few passes on my base GT with 18" wheels with all season tires and a 3.73 and came away with the following -

Bone stock 2011 GT. Best times were (uncorrected):

60': 2.25
ET: 13.68
MPH: 107.78

60': 2.23
ET: 13.69
MPH: 106.61

Best 60' of the night was 2.16. I could not launch without traction control on and with it on was still spinning the tires in every gear throughout the 1/4 with T/C on. On the 2.16 60' run the traction control complained when I shifted into 4th and bogged the car down. I was on track for a 13.4 run before that.....

DA for those runs were 2,184 and 2,405 respectively.

BTW - I have been down the 1/4 many times in the past and maybe while not the best driver out there, this old man isn't too shabby.

[ParisTNDude]

Originally Posted by MEDISIN

I wish these comparisons were done with the entry level trim rather than some options here, other options there. There are hundreds of ways to optimize these cars from the factory as well as aftermarket. To me the most important measure is baseline performance, followed by upgrade potential.

Why not start with the base GT (MSRP $29,645) vs the base SS (MSRP $30,945)? These are the prices the average Joe could slip behind the wheel for.

Kudos to Ford for offering the starting price $1,300 clams less than the 2010 SS and that gap is likely to grow when Chevrolet announces the 2011 pricing.

The extra cost is most likely the independent rear end. Ford tried that some time back and it was so expensive, no one could afford them. The extras in the Camaro are worth it...Mustangs don't have interior trunk releases built in standard On-Star systems or even a status center that gives compass directions and outside temperatures. My 2008 had the same air conditioning controls I had in my 1990 Mustang GT. For crying out loud...they still have a prop rod for the hood.

[All-Or-Nothing]

Originally Posted by ParisTNDude

The extra cost is most likely the independent rear end. Ford tried that some time back and it was so expensive, no one could afford them. The extras in the Camaro are worth it...Mustangs don't have interior trunk releases built in standard On-Star systems or even a status center that gives compass directions and outside temperatures. My 2008 had the same air conditioning controls I had in my 1990 Mustang GT. For crying out loud...they still have a prop rod for the hood.

There IS an emergancy interior trunk release button. Who needs On-Star when you can have Sync. There IS a compass and exterior temperature display.

Just say you hate the Mustang and not just make up facts.

[lil_chef]

just saying you hate the mustang is too easy and unoriginal...