Ford Mustang Thread: 2011 General Talk

  • Thread starter Thread starter YSSMAN
  • 1,163 comments
  • 81,269 views
You didn't read my post at all, shame on you.:sly:

Paulie
Also, 1635kg vs 1750kg for the Camaro is not much difference for a better chassis, better weight balance and better suspension to make up. I'm not saying the Camaro will be faster on track (it will obviously lose in drag racing), but the way you're making it out to be, geez. And you're telling ME to use logic?:lol: You need to look at the whole picture.
Click to expand...
 
"is not much difference". It IS a rather large difference. That was my point. Oh well. I think we've beaten this horse pretty much to a bloody pulp. :D
 
JCE
"is not much difference". It IS a rather large difference. That was my point. Oh well. I think we've beaten this horse pretty much to a bloody pulp. :D
Click to expand...

If it was 1400kg or 1500kg I would be all like "Viva la Mustang!", but they're still both reasonably heavy cars, but you're right, let's wait and see the comparo tests.:dopey: At least the pony car wars are alive and well in these difficult times for the auto industry.:)
 
Paulie
Based on Motor Magazine, both the HSV GTS and Chevy Camaro are far more well sorted chassis' dynamically than the Mustang presently has, the prime reason why a 325kw 1800kg sedan can lap a 1min lap-time circuit 2sec faster than the 375+kw Shelby GT500. They described the Mustang as primitive in comparison. But I know you're not listening anyway.

Edit: While I'm at it, the fact the Camaro is THAT MUCH heavier than the current Mustang is, just look, the Camaro has beaten your precious Ford product in average lateral G's when directional changes are taken into account on the figure 8, and I remind you, the 2011 5.0L is getting slightly heavier. Also, 1635kg vs 1750kg for the Camaro is not much difference for a better chassis, better weight balance and better suspension to make up. I'm not saying the Camaro will be faster on track (it will obviously lose in drag racing), but the way you're making it out to be, geez. And you're telling ME to use logic?:lol: You need to look at the whole picture.
Click to expand...

In the road course tests I've read, the Camaro was only faster (by a few tenths, mind you) because it was much faster on the straights. None of the drivers felt confident in its handling and had a much better time driving the Mustang. And any handling comparison against a GT500 is moot when you've got another hundred pounds or more sitting on the front axle.
 
Eric.
In the road course tests I've read, the Camaro was only faster (by a few tenths, mind you) because it was much faster on the straights. None of the drivers felt confident in its handling and had a much better time driving the Mustang. And any handling comparison against a GT500 is moot when you've got another hundred pounds or more sitting on the front axle.
Click to expand...

Maybe Australian auto journos are better drivers in muscle cars.:sly: Are you saying the GT is faster around a track than a GT500? What the bloody hell is the point of a GT500 then for all these years? Because I wasn't comparing handling, simply lap times and therefore overall speed ability.
 
Paulie
What the bloody hell is the point of a GT500 then for all these years?
Click to expand...

The GT500 is all show and no go. Its a SHELBY product. The NAME is the only thing about this car that people need to know. A well driven stock Mustang GT will take out a GT500 on a track with corners. The new '11 GT500 might change that with an engine change...but we will see.
 
...Coming from a GM fan perspective...

At this point, while the Camaro and Mustang are obviously competitors because they just are, admittedly they are benchmarking different sets of performance standards. In the era of a pre-bankruptcy GM, the Camaro was meant to be a global performance coupe that would meet and exceed standards from around the world. That arguably is what was behind the choice of the more complicated suspension, extra sound deadening materials, cushy seats and so on. It has made the pony car more into a GT car. Not a terrible idea, after all, it has worked nicely for the Challenger. But, against the Mustang, its an entirely different situation.

Hypothetically speaking, the Mustang is likely going to be the choice for enthusiast drivers, with an admittedly more "pure" driving experience. Chalk it up to the lower weight, old-school suspension, narrower/smaller wheel tire combos, and so on. Its just a matter of the way that Ford has kept the car. GM easily could have done a smaller, more lightweight Camaro, but they chose not to. Admittedly, they still could. The Camaro is not a performance slouch, but it does need some work. I've been wondering where the chassis updates have been, especially considering that cars like the Corvette and Cobalt SS would have received updates every year or so to keep things competitive. It would seem that updates could be coming for '11, but I haven't heard much other than GM promising that they will 'return fire.'


I dunno. My suggestion? Take a V6-style Camaro with the lack of the bodykit and massive wheels, shove the SS equipment underneath, strip out at least half of the "civilized" equipment, and sell it to the public. I have no idea what you would call the car, as far as I can tell, there hasn't really been a Camaro like that.


In the end, things will probably even out. GM won't take this lying down, no matter what their financial situation is. Ford is on their A-Game, and I commend them for it. Frankly, this reminds me quite a lot of the old IROC-Z vs GT rivalry. The Ford just had the goods, and it took a significant update by GM in 1993 to wipe the floor with them.
 
2011 Mustang 5.0 (4th gear pull, 15% powertrain loss)
Claimed horsepower: 412 hp @ 6500 rpm
Claimed torque: 390 lb-ft @ 4250 rpm
Actual horsepower: 435 hp 6500 rpm
Actual torque: 404 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm

2011 Mustang V-6 (3rd gear pull, 15% powertrain loss)
Claimed horsepower: 305 hp @ 6500 rpm
Claimed torque: 280 lb-ft @ 4250 rpm
Actual horsepower: 308 hp @ 6700 rpm
Actual torque: 287 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm
Click to expand...

I love it. More power than advertised. That V6 is looking more and more tasty as well. Give me a black on black deluxe package manual with some 17" wheels please.
 
JCE
I love it. More power than advertised. That V6 is looking more and more tasty as well. Give me a black on black deluxe package manual with some 17" wheels please.
Click to expand...

Uh... while the numbers might suggest under-rating, it's pretty silly of MotorTrend (again) to make declarative statements on power, again assuming an arbitrary powertrain loss number.

"I hereby declare that a live-axle should give you silly high drivetrain losses and that the Mustang is really under-rated and is really around 500 hp. :dopey: "

They should do what Edmunds does and dyno them back to back against the Camaro... since relative power is really all that matters given the vagaries of dyno-testing.

But what do you expect from one of the silliest of the buff books?
 
Yeah, all I'm getting from this is that the engines are rated about right, maybe a couple percent under. I thought that was the standard practice.
 
ROAD_DOGG33J
Yeah, all I'm getting from this is that the engines are rated about right, maybe a couple percent under. I thought that was the standard practice.
Click to expand...

Well Ford had gotten a rather bad rap in the past for over rating some of the SN95 and New Edge Cobra's. After this was recognized and well known, the 03-04 Cobra's were significantly under rated which was probably done by Ford on purpose to protect themselves (or whatever reason it may be). Some of the 03-04 Cobra's were in fact putting down as much RWHP on a dynojet as Fords factory engine/flywheel rating. So given their past I wouldn't be surprised if Ford has once again under rated the new 5.0 as well. The current dynojet numbers realistically seem to prove this...but by how much, that is anyone's guess.
 
Paulie
Maybe Australian auto journos are better drivers in muscle cars.:sly: Are you saying the GT is faster around a track than a GT500? What the bloody hell is the point of a GT500 then for all these years? Because I wasn't comparing handling, simply lap times and therefore overall speed ability.
Click to expand...
My TL has posted faster laps than the previous GT500, that's how much of a pig these Shelby's can be.

They're not particularly well-balanced track cars, though I was hoping the '11 model would change, but they've proved their worth really lies on the strip. We have some very quick ones in Dallas running next to Z06s.
 
R1600Turbo
First drives:

GT:
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/29/2011-ford-mustang-gt-first-drive/

V6:
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/29/2011-ford-mustang-v6-first-drive/

Sounds to me like they are both winners.
Click to expand...

I was about to come and mention these first drives, but you tree'd me. That's some mighty high praise they're giving the Mustang there, sounds like it is indeed, as you say, a winner.

McLaren
My TL has posted faster laps than the previous GT500, that's how much of a pig these Shelby's can be.

They're not particularly well-balanced track cars, though I was hoping the '11 model would change, but they've proved their worth really lies on the strip. We have some very quick ones in Dallas running next to Z06s.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
YSSMAN
I dunno. My suggestion? Take a V6-style Camaro with the lack of the bodykit and massive wheels, shove the SS equipment underneath, strip out at least half of the "civilized" equipment, and sell it to the public. I have no idea what you would call the car, as far as I can tell, there hasn't really been a Camaro like that.
Click to expand...

They have to be very careful about doing that. Maybe as a special edition, that would work great. But GM has to make sure that the Camaro stays on a pretty grand tourer level or else they'll never sell a single Corvette.
 
ROAD_DOGG33J
sarcasm?



Why does the V6 look more aggressive than the GT? Options?
Click to expand...

I was wiping the egg off my face with a towel of sarcasm.

I think the V6 looks better. Looks like the GT500 front end. I am with you, not sure why they did that.
 
JCE
I love it. More power than advertised. That V6 is looking more and more tasty as well. Give me a black on black deluxe package manual with some 17" wheels please.
Click to expand...

So, they used 4th gear? Why?
 
as explained in another thread, 4th gear is the 1:1 straight-shot. 5th and 6th (or just 5th, I dunno how many cogs the 'stang stick has) would be overdrives, with reduced torque, and, thus, inaccurate power readings (or more innacurate) due to the output caused by changing speeds with gears.

It's not done in lower gears, either, because the higher ratios actually increase torque, and thus make the power rating rather optimistic. I'll bet my Nova makes 200WHP or so on a dyno...in first gear. In third, It'd be about 50, given the age of the system. (now, how I'd actually do a pull without it kicking down, I dunno. It's an auto...)
 
ROAD_DOGG33J
Why does the V6 look more aggressive than the GT? Options?
Click to expand...

Pretty much. It looks like Ford kitted out the test car with a lot of extra goodies:

05fordmustangv6fd2011opt.jpg


As far as I can tell, the stickers, wheels and (rear) window covers are optional extras. Or at least traditionally, they have been.


I was at the Ford dealership yesterday and I felt bad for the Mustangs they had left over. With these cars arriving in the next few weeks, you're practically going to have to pay people to take the old(er) ones off their hands.
 
Jim Prower
as explained in another thread, 4th gear is the 1:1 straight-shot. 5th and 6th (or just 5th, I dunno how many cogs the 'stang stick has) would be overdrives, with reduced torque, and, thus, inaccurate power readings (or more innacurate) due to the output caused by changing speeds with gears.

It's not done in lower gears, either, because the higher ratios actually increase torque, and thus make the power rating rather optimistic. I'll bet my Nova makes 200WHP or so on a dyno...in first gear. In third, It'd be about 50, given the age of the system. (now, how I'd actually do a pull without it kicking down, I dunno. It's an auto...)
Click to expand...
4th is 1.24:1, 5th is 1:1, that's why I asked.
 
Philly
They have to be very careful about doing that. Maybe as a special edition, that would work great. But GM has to make sure that the Camaro stays on a pretty grand tourer level or else they'll never sell a single Corvette.
Click to expand...
What? Camaro's are grand tourers now? and my idiocracy thought they were muscle cars...... I guess some might argue "pony cars" even though that was coined back when they weren't some of the biggest, heaviest, and most powerful of "muscle cars".
 
The Camaro is a grand tourer... hahaha. It'd be one awful tour in that car.
 
TrievelA7X
What? Camaro's are grand tourers now? and my idiocracy thought they were muscle cars...... I guess some might argue "pony cars" even though that was coined back when they weren't some of the biggest, heaviest, and most powerful of "muscle cars".
Click to expand...

YSSMAN's idea. Look at his post. But my point is that GM has to watch out for making the Camaro too much of a pure sports car or else the Corvette will be in trouble.
 

Latest Posts

Back