REPORT: 2011 Ford Mustang to get upgraded Track Pack to handle 5.0 "Coyote" power?
08-13-2009, 06:34 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 1,505
REPORT: 2011 Ford Mustang to get upgraded Track Pack to handle 5.0 "Coyote" power?
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/08/12/r...k-to-handle-5/
We're hoping there's some "there there" with this one, but here goes. Car & Driver went down to the GingerMan Raceway in South Haven, Michigan where they ran into some Ford engineers with a few pre-production 2011 Mustangs. Aside from some adjustable shocks (which C&D feels are most likely just for development), the big difference was the tires on one of the mules.
Pirelli P Zero Corsa R-compounds, to be precise, in place of the "regular" P Zeros found on 2010 Track Packers. In other words, pure supercar. In fact, those tires come stock on the Lambo LP560-4, for instance. The question then becomes, why would a Mustang need honest to goodness supercar meat? One explanation is that Ford is just playing around with different tire compounds. Another though, is much more interesting.
C&D claims that the Corsa R-compound car was lapping the 1.88 mile track just as quickly as the current BMW M3 they brought along. But how could a 315 hp car keep up on a track with a 414 hp car? Weight? Maybe, because the Mustang weighs about 200 pounds less than the M3. Don't say torque, because the Mustang only beats the M3 by 25 lb-ft there. Tires? Well maybe, but the Michelin Pilot Sport 2s on the Bimmer are pretty sticky in their own right. Despite all that, 414 horses should have cleaned up.
Well, what if the 2011 Mustang Mule with the fancy tires had a 5.0-liter, 32-valve DOHC Coyote engine kicking out 400+ hp and 400+ torques. The world's worst kept secret engine could also explain the similar lap times. Now dig this, there's also a small possibility that the white mule depicted in the article -- the one that appears to be missing a tailpipe -- isn't a V8 at all, but is instead an EcoBoosted V6 model. Did the car C&D ran into have the new 5.0-liter Ford V8 or the blown six? They didn't say. But if they saw the adjustable shocks that means they saw the hood up.
Pirelli P Zero Corsa R-compounds, to be precise, in place of the "regular" P Zeros found on 2010 Track Packers. In other words, pure supercar. In fact, those tires come stock on the Lambo LP560-4, for instance. The question then becomes, why would a Mustang need honest to goodness supercar meat? One explanation is that Ford is just playing around with different tire compounds. Another though, is much more interesting.
C&D claims that the Corsa R-compound car was lapping the 1.88 mile track just as quickly as the current BMW M3 they brought along. But how could a 315 hp car keep up on a track with a 414 hp car? Weight? Maybe, because the Mustang weighs about 200 pounds less than the M3. Don't say torque, because the Mustang only beats the M3 by 25 lb-ft there. Tires? Well maybe, but the Michelin Pilot Sport 2s on the Bimmer are pretty sticky in their own right. Despite all that, 414 horses should have cleaned up.
Well, what if the 2011 Mustang Mule with the fancy tires had a 5.0-liter, 32-valve DOHC Coyote engine kicking out 400+ hp and 400+ torques. The world's worst kept secret engine could also explain the similar lap times. Now dig this, there's also a small possibility that the white mule depicted in the article -- the one that appears to be missing a tailpipe -- isn't a V8 at all, but is instead an EcoBoosted V6 model. Did the car C&D ran into have the new 5.0-liter Ford V8 or the blown six? They didn't say. But if they saw the adjustable shocks that means they saw the hood up.
08-13-2009, 06:39 PM
#2
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Okemos, MI
Posts: 9,479
Everything I can find about the Gallardo LP560-4 says it comes with regular PZeros, not the Corsa R-compounds. An R-compound on a street car, even a Lambo, is pretty absurd.
The Camaro SS and the GT w/ Track Pack both already come with those.
As for why the GT can keep up with an M3, are they serious? It's the tires. That's some serious race rubber right there. PS2s are good tires, but they're no R-compound.
This is non-news. You can put race tires on a slower car, and then keep up with a faster car around the track. Shocker!
The Camaro SS and the GT w/ Track Pack both already come with those.
As for why the GT can keep up with an M3, are they serious? It's the tires. That's some serious race rubber right there. PS2s are good tires, but they're no R-compound.
This is non-news. You can put race tires on a slower car, and then keep up with a faster car around the track. Shocker!
08-13-2009, 06:53 PM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: oshawa,ontario,canada
Posts: 3,597
08-14-2009, 03:13 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 270
Food for thought:
My SVO had adjustable KONI's on it. Could it be...the new ecoboosted SVO?
R-compounds are only going to help a horsepower deficit so much depending on the track. 1.88 miles ain't no autocross. FWIW.
My SVO had adjustable KONI's on it. Could it be...the new ecoboosted SVO?
R-compounds are only going to help a horsepower deficit so much depending on the track. 1.88 miles ain't no autocross. FWIW.
08-16-2009, 01:38 PM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
The current "small" 4.6 V8 in the current Mustang puts out 315 horsepower and 325 lbs/ft of torque.
In Car & Driver's comparison test in acceleration, the 426 horsepower Camaro SS couldn't clearly pull away from the Mustang till 60 mph. In Automobile Magazine's latest issue, the Mustang (quote, page 43) "..eats the Camaro alive in midcorner..", only half a mile per hour off in average track speed, and a mere half second off in it's fastest lap.... pulling a maximum cornering load of an astonding 1.12g!..... with a 111 horsepower (nearly 25%) horsepower deficit.
As for the BMW M3, it's rated in C&D at .98g while the current Mustang is rated at .92. Up where the real handling load is, the M3 runs Michelin Pilot 245 tires up front, Mustang's Track Pack runs Pirelli P-Zeros, size 255s. The M3's V8 makes 295 lbs/ft of torque to Mustang's 325. The M3, at 3650, also weighs 100 pounds more than a Mustang GT (despite being 8" shorter & 3" skinner... making it barely any bigger than a Chevy Cobalt).
The Ecoboost in the Taurus SHO put's out 365 horsepower and 350 lbs/ft of torque. The scheduled new Mustang 5.0 is slated to have roughly 400 horsepower.
It becomes obvious that it's not going to take much more than either new engine for the Mustang to put a serious hurt, not just on the current Camaro SS, but the BMW M3 that the article makes a huge issue about the Mustang keeping up with.
The current Mustang comes damn close. So there shouldn't be a big surprise that with a more powerful engine (even if it's an Ecoboost V6 from the Taurus) that the Mustang could actually not only keep up with, but might actually surpass BMW's M3?
Might be news and cause shock and heart failure to BMW M3 owners who paid 60Gs for the things. But to the rest of us who've been keeping up with things, I don't think anyone is going to be surprized.
With the engines Mustang is getting, the type of tire reported in the article and it's influence in Mustang's Track Pack handling is almost irrelevent.
In Car & Driver's comparison test in acceleration, the 426 horsepower Camaro SS couldn't clearly pull away from the Mustang till 60 mph. In Automobile Magazine's latest issue, the Mustang (quote, page 43) "..eats the Camaro alive in midcorner..", only half a mile per hour off in average track speed, and a mere half second off in it's fastest lap.... pulling a maximum cornering load of an astonding 1.12g!..... with a 111 horsepower (nearly 25%) horsepower deficit.
As for the BMW M3, it's rated in C&D at .98g while the current Mustang is rated at .92. Up where the real handling load is, the M3 runs Michelin Pilot 245 tires up front, Mustang's Track Pack runs Pirelli P-Zeros, size 255s. The M3's V8 makes 295 lbs/ft of torque to Mustang's 325. The M3, at 3650, also weighs 100 pounds more than a Mustang GT (despite being 8" shorter & 3" skinner... making it barely any bigger than a Chevy Cobalt).
The Ecoboost in the Taurus SHO put's out 365 horsepower and 350 lbs/ft of torque. The scheduled new Mustang 5.0 is slated to have roughly 400 horsepower.
It becomes obvious that it's not going to take much more than either new engine for the Mustang to put a serious hurt, not just on the current Camaro SS, but the BMW M3 that the article makes a huge issue about the Mustang keeping up with.
The current Mustang comes damn close. So there shouldn't be a big surprise that with a more powerful engine (even if it's an Ecoboost V6 from the Taurus) that the Mustang could actually not only keep up with, but might actually surpass BMW's M3?
Might be news and cause shock and heart failure to BMW M3 owners who paid 60Gs for the things. But to the rest of us who've been keeping up with things, I don't think anyone is going to be surprized.
With the engines Mustang is getting, the type of tire reported in the article and it's influence in Mustang's Track Pack handling is almost irrelevent.
08-16-2009, 05:42 PM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
As I posted in the other thread, I'm guessing that this may be a GT350 mule with a turbo V6. Anyone else notice the single exhaust tip?
08-16-2009, 09:04 PM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SeVa
Posts: 2,977
Naw, they'll dismiss it as a fluke along with the rest of the "IRS is GAWD" fanatics.
08-16-2009, 09:27 PM
#8
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Okemos, MI
Posts: 9,479
1.12g's isn't all that much for a peak cornering load. It's good, but any car with a decently tuned suspension and summer tires should be able to pull that off. If any of the corners are banked, you can expect to see even higher lateral loads than that.
The g-loading numbers we're used to seeing in magazine specs are averaged based on the time the car takes to travel around a predefined circle, and are intended to give you an idea what kind of steady-state lateral loads the car is capable of. As it is a steady-state situation, the test is almost entirely a measure of lateral grip from the tires; it tells you close to nothing about the car itself.
On an actual racetrack, maximum g-loading has a lot more variables, and the numbers aren't comparable to skidpad numbers.
The g-loading numbers we're used to seeing in magazine specs are averaged based on the time the car takes to travel around a predefined circle, and are intended to give you an idea what kind of steady-state lateral loads the car is capable of. As it is a steady-state situation, the test is almost entirely a measure of lateral grip from the tires; it tells you close to nothing about the car itself.
On an actual racetrack, maximum g-loading has a lot more variables, and the numbers aren't comparable to skidpad numbers.
08-17-2009, 10:04 AM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Miami, FL, US
Posts: 1,512
If the mustang with the new 5.0 engine making around 400 and if they keep the weight around the same I would be concerned for the SS... It would be right next if NOT passing us.
But if they change that live axle to IRS... then we should be ok.
does anyone know if there is any plans on making the mustang GT into a IRS anytime soon?
But if they change that live axle to IRS... then we should be ok.
does anyone know if there is any plans on making the mustang GT into a IRS anytime soon?
08-17-2009, 11:41 AM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
You guys are funny. Someone "says" that a Mustang engineering car with race compound tires is lapping Gingerman faster than an M3, and suddenly everyone with an M3 is going to have buyers' remorse. Please...
Who knows, maybe this mule has one.
08-17-2009, 12:56 PM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
If you are going to quote me, at least quote the point I was making instead of running off into an imaginary direction.....
Originally Posted by guionM
....With the engines Mustang is getting, the type of tire reported in the article and it's influence in Mustang's Track Pack handling is almost irrelevent.
Last edited by guionM; 08-17-2009 at 12:59 PM.
08-17-2009, 01:24 PM
#13
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Okemos, MI
Posts: 9,479
Oh, so you wanted us to pay attention to the downright ridiculous claim that tires aren't a significant variable in a car's handling abilities?
08-17-2009, 01:56 PM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
If the mustang with the new 5.0 engine making around 400 and if they keep the weight around the same I would be concerned for the SS... It would be right next if NOT passing us.
But if they change that live axle to IRS... then we should be ok.
does anyone know if there is any plans on making the mustang GT into a IRS anytime soon?
But if they change that live axle to IRS... then we should be ok.
does anyone know if there is any plans on making the mustang GT into a IRS anytime soon?
As for the 5.0, it wouldn't even need to make 400 horsepower to pass Camaro SS. Ford governs the top speeds on all Mustangs, so horsepower over a certain point is moot. A 5.0 could likely get by with only 375 horsepower, but if it made more than the 4.6's 325 lbs/ft of torque (say 350 to 375 lbs/ft), it would easily make up that 2 tenths to 60 and perhaps even drop that half second gap in the quarter.
Being 300 pounds lighter has it's advantages.
Back to IRS, there is at least one around run that does have IRS. Issue is (as always) weight and cost. Ford isn't simply going to stuff IRS under a Mustang simply because Camaro has it unless it's demanded by the marketplace. We're likely going to see the live axle under the Stang for a long time unless Ford's surveys show that was a deciding factor in someone choosing a Camaro or a significant issue with Mustang buyers.
BUT that doesn't mean no Mustangs will have IRS.
Imagine a sophisticated version of the Mustang (a modern Mustang SVO, for instance) that has IRS and a turbocharger and a 6 speed manual. Ford has publically stated that all it's cars...including the Mustang... will have an EcoBoost version within 2 years.
Knowing Ford's ability to put special packages and limited production editions of the Mustang together, and seemingly make money on it (something the old GM seemed never able to accomplish), and Mustang enthusiasts appetite for noteworthy unique factory versions of the Mustang, I'd seriously bank on the likelyhood of Ford bolting together a combination EcoBoost-IRS version of the Mustang by 2011.
We're all assuming the Ecoboost in the Mustang will be a V6. However, I would by no means rule out the turbo 4 being the EcoBoost engine that ends up in the Mustang.
Why?
Performance, high fuel economy, relatively low weight, cost, potential and having a version that would help the expansion of the Mustang into a new, more sophisticated market, if that's what you want to call import performance fans (buyers of V8 GTs are different from potential buyers of a turbo 4).
The EB 4 engine has 270 horsepower and 280 lbs/ft of torque the last time I checked. The Camaro V6 has 304 horsepower and 273 lbs/ft of torque. It doesn't take long to realize that the Mustang's 300+ pound weight advantage with the same torque and 30 less horsepower might mean a lower top speed, but will likely pull off the line significantly quicker than the Camaro V6.
However, far more notably, an EcoBoost 4 Mustang would be directly targeting the Genisis V6 coupe. Similar weight. Similar performance (mid 5s to 60, and 100 mph quarters) but with far better fuel economy (expect well over 30 on the highway).
I could see Ford testing the EcoBoost V6 as a future option to a discontuned V8 in the future, or even a entry level Shelby soon.
But the EcoBoost that
08-17-2009, 02:27 PM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
Let's recap my post.
1. The story claims that the Mustang they saw had these special compound Pirellis.
2. They marveled at the fact that this Mustang was "miraculosly" able to keep up with a BMW M3.
3. The current Mustang GT Track Pack is able to keep very close tabs on the BMW M3 already with the existing tires and setup, despite having far less horsepower.
4. Next year's Mustang GT will be getting a huge boost in horsepower via a new engine. This will close the gap between the GT and the BMW M3's current 315 to 414 horsepower matchup.
5. That boost in horsepower alone would be enough to close the gap with the BMW M3, regardless as to if the Mustang GT recieved stickier tires or not.
And.....
No where on on my previous post or this do I claim that stickier tires are not a variable.
At the same time, No where did I post that I think M3 drivers are going to have buyer's remosre. I said "shock and heart failure" over the idea that a $32K Mustang will outperform their $60K M3. A M3 buyer having buyer's remorse over being beaten by a Mustang is as assinine as saying a Ferrari buyer will suffer buyer's remosre being beaten by a Corvette Z06.... Ain't happening! But he's very well likely to be shocked at a Z06 outrunning him on a road course, and a M3 driver would be moreso at a Mustang beating him.... which is exactly what I said.
I know I haven't been here at the site nearly as much as I used to.... so, perhaps I missed that the latest sport of choice here is the competition to see who can come up with the most opposite and "creative", let alone far fetched interpretation of a meaning in a post?
Judging by the looks of things so far, I'd say there are no rules, and this is a free-for-all.
If so, can someone send me a copy of the e-mail, because I just logged off my hotmail account and I don't think I recieved it.
Last edited by guionM; 08-17-2009 at 02:37 PM.