97z28/m6

mustang will win that one.

bossco

Naw, just rolling my eyes at the comment itself - I'm pretty sure GT guys care as much about 0-60 as SS guys do (which I can say as a former GT guy, in fact I couldn't tell you what an SS or GT does 0-60 (or a GT500), but I can tell you a well driven SS gets into the high 12s and a well driven GT (pre '10) gets into the mid 13s)

If GT guys are focusing on bench racing stats; its skid-pad, slalom, and braking distance (we all like to pick our fights).

bossco

Dedicated chassis FTW!

guionM

I thought your "old guys in 89 Thunderbirds" was quaint, so I felt I should return the complement.

Don't throw poop and expect it not to be thrown back.

Though the 9.2 seconds 30-50 was a misquote on my side, the GTO from 50-80 with the momentum of an standing start acceleration of 50mph behind it and a straight line is over 5 seconds. 9 seconds to get to 80 from 40 is perfectly reasonable (maybe even a bit optimistic) when you not only have to rebuild accelerating momentum, & to get into another lane.

God forbid if you think I make things I post up, so....
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ecs_price.html
http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...c4488aa19b.pdf

But as was pointed out in a previous post, the whole thing is moot because
1: it is illegal, and...
2: only people highly intrested in immediately giving to the organ doner program and taking a few people with him would attempt such a assinine stunt in a situation you describe.




A more accurate calculation is to get a vehicles acceleration-to-mph times (0-30, 0-40, 0-50, etc...), take the difference between starting mph and ending mph, and then adding at least 2-3 seconds.

Example, let's take hypthetical times (say from Motor Trend Magazine's February 2005) that has recorded times of a vehicle's 0-40 at 2.9 seconds and the 0-100 time is 11.9. That's a 9 second spread.

If you're passing a car from a steady speed, you aren't going to match the 50-100 mph speed of a car that accelerated from a start because it already has momentum. You also are going to take time (perhaps a second) to get into the next lane.

If the traffic is moving at 40, the more vehicles you pass, the higher above 40 you need to go. Assuming one doesn't have an sudden urgent need to see their Allah or Yahweh immediately, passing 5 vehicles means you're likely gonna need about 100 mph. So that 9 seconds becomes 11-12 seconds. Giving every benefit imaginable, one isn't going to break that 9 seconds needed to pass, but it's more likely going to be more.

But again, regardless as to the math, anyone going 80 mph on a city street, and feeling the need to pass 5 vehicles on a 2 lane road when they know they will barely make it is driving on the same streets and highways you drive on.

The graveyard is filled with the handywork of people like that and Scott regularly posts articles of the aftermath of combative know-it-alls that take these types of chances. Personally, I prefer not to end up on the other end of someone trying to squeeze that extra split second passing more cars than he should on a 2 lane road while I'm riding with my 5 year old, or blasting 80 mph on a city street (you travel 25% more distance during your reaction time at 80 mph than at 60, and your vehicle needs 75 to 100 feet more space to stop from 60 mph than it does from 80..... and we're talking about this on a frigging city street!!! ).

THAT is the underlying point to all this, not what type of car some so-called old guy drives, or whether or not you want to hair-split numbers.


The top gear test is solely a demonstration of gearing and torque. No one slams on the brakes at 120 mph to come to a dead stop or has a real need for a 0-130 mph time either. But it's an worthwhile test that does give information.

Zigroid

are you still arguing that accelerating from a roll is invalid?

Z284ever

No doubt!

Plague

I didn't say that braking from 120 mph or that a 0-130 mph was good information either. In fact, that is also bad information. Why not test the car how it will actually be used on the road? If someone has the patience to use the top gear to accelerate slowly, they aren't likely going to care how long it is going to take. For people who want to accelerate more quickly, and who will down shift for it, that would be a good test. A real world acceleration from 50-70 or whatever speeds they saw fit. It would just need to be a good test of how the car would be driven. It wouldn't be easy to create and there are a huge amount of variables, but that doesn't make a top gear acceleration better because it is easier to perform.

krj-1168

At this point its hard to speculate what the actual performance numbers will be. Until the actual Horsepower & torque ratings are released.

Also the guessitamates about the performance of the 2011 Mustang 5.0 is just that. And they seem to based on the fact the 2011 Mustang 5.0 will weight roughly about the same as the 2010 4.6L Mustang - which is very un-realistic. The increase in Displacement & number of valves per cylinder will automatically increase the curb weight some. Like wise - if Ford decides to go with larger tires, larger brakes & better suspension - that would also increase the weight.

So I believe the most realistic guess for what the 2011 5.0L Mustang would be capable of is to say it would likely close the gap on the Camaro SS to within .2 sec/2mph in the 1/4 mile. But I wouldn't say it would beat the Camaro SS out right. And that's assuming that it actually ends up rated at 400 hp, and not 375-390hp. Which also could be possible.

Also remember that the 2010 Shelby GT500 is about 100lbs heavier than the Camaro SS, and has a 114hp advantage on the SS - yet it's basically no faster to the 1/4 mile than a normal Corvette Z51 (or about .5 sec/5mph faster than the SS). So with the 5.0L V8, the 2011 Mustang could easily weight about the same as a V6 Camaro with the RS package(3,720 lbs or so).

Bob Cosby

Now we're speculating on the speculation....all the while, throwing more speculation into the mix. Is one speculation (or "most realistic guess") any better than the other speculation?

AdioSS

that's awesome Bob

Z284ever

I'll add to the speculation...

So far, the Mustang has come out on top in most reviews with the Camaro, even with a 100 hp defecit. Adding 50-90 hp to the Mustang won't help the Camaro's position.

Gold_Rush

Mustang was close (and one of the major mags even put it 1st), but wasn't it the camaro that has come out on top in most reviews?

RussStang

It is. I always come to a totally dead stop when I need to do any form of heavy accelerating. And any race I have ever been in ends precisely at 60 mph.



I read something a while back about some v8 Focus running with a Lambo. Lambo had stock rubber on, the Focus had Rs. The Lambo's stock rubber is good, but it still doesn't match up to an R compound tire, and yet the magazine almost totally omitted that from it's analysis on why the Focus was able to keep up.

IRS or not is largely irrelevant here. The Mustang kept up because of the tires. 4 pages of bickering and that still seems to be being disputed by some?

RussStang

Yeah, besides C&D, I can't remember reading a publication that picked the Mustang over the Camaro. I am pretty sure in R&T, MT, Popular Mechanics, and Edmunds the Camaro was picked over the Mustang. I haven't really been keeping up on the 5th gen that closely though.

HAZ-Matt

It depends. The Camaro beat the 2009 Mustang pretty handily but the 2010 was more mixed since all the press vehicles had the track pack and the newer interior is so much better.

For 2011 it will not be pretty for Camaro unless they make some adjustments to the suspension.