And that's pretty close to the 385 HP number that is floating around for the new 5.0 in the 2011 Stang. Convert the standard 3.31 rear to a 3.55, and move to a 6 speed manual and it's probably spot on for the SS times.

 

Could be. The 6 speed isn't going to help acceleration/performance any (2 ODs vs 1 OD doesn't gain you performance, and its a heavier tranny with more mass to rotate), but it might help mileage a bit, and is pretty much expected in a performance car these days.

 

1. The base Mustang GT is $28,845

2. The Track Pack is a $1,400 option.

3. $28,855 + $1,400 = $30,255

4. Camaro SS starts at $30,995.

5. You don't need the "Premium Package" to get the Track Pack.

6. Motor Trend Magazine. June 2009. Camaro SS 0-60 mph: 4.7 seconds. Sand magazine, same article, same conditions, same time, Mustang GT Track Pack 0-60 mph: 4.9 seconds.

7. Same magazine. Same comparison test:
Lateral acceleration: Camaro SS: .90g. Mustang GT: .95g.
Figure 8 times: Camaro SS: 25.8 seconds. Mustang GT: 25.5 seconds.

Same magazine actually has the Ford Mustang GT quicker off the line till 40 mph.

It isn't till over 60 where the Camaro SS clearly is quicker than the Mustang GT. Even then, you had better stay away from Camaro's launch control. The Mustang will tie your time in the quarter mile if you use it.

The Camaro SS actually gets 1 mpg better fuel economy as the Mustang GT.

But then the despite being the biggest of the 3, and having power closer to the SS than the GT, the Dodge Challenger R/T with the Hemi gets 1 mpg better than the Camaro... and 2 better than the Mustang..... Pretty curious, huh?

Finally.

Camaro SS does a 13 second quarter.
The Mustang GT does it in 13.5.
The V6 Camaro does it in 14.7.

Again, even though the V6 Camaro is a steal and perhaps the best automotive deal on the planet currently, if you buy a V6 Camaro and go out hunting for Mustang GTs, you're probally the type of person that likes to be on the reciving end of gagballs, handcuffs, and a gal wielding a cattleprod and a cat-o-nine-tails whose first name is "Mistress".

 

lol Sorry. I was throwing some hard stats into one sentence at the wrong place.

 

i was just giving you a hard time.

 

Here we go again...

Mustang GT manual: 15/23
Mustang GT auto: 15/22
Challenger R/T manual: 15/23
Challenger R/T auto: 16/23
Camaro SS manual: 16/24
Camaro SS auto: 16/25

So yeah, pretty curious.

 

Hmmm....here we go again indeed...

Jake...those are 2009 Mustang MPG numbers. Believe we're comparing 2010. The 2010 Mustang is EPA estimated at 16/24 for the manual, 17/23 for the auto. Spectacular? Not hardly - but more comparable to the 2010 Camaro than the 2009 numbers that you referenced.

Additionally, according to www.fueleconomy.gov, the 2009 Challenger gets 16/25 in both manual and auto form....

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008c...umn=1&id=25912
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008c...umn=1&id=25913

Bob

 

His Mustang numbers are correct according to Ford:
15 City/23 Hwy With Manual
15 city/22 Hwy With Automatic

http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/mus...eatures/specs/

 

No sir, that is incorrect.

I went to your link, clicked on "Specs" then "View All". Here's a direct link: http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/mus...ions/view-all/

Scroll down about half way. See for yourself. Or, take a look at this screen capture...



Bob

 

am I the only one that thinks 0-60 times are useless? both cars can probably lay down two black strips to over 40 mph. 0-100 is a better measurement when it comes to cars like this.

 

You're not the only one, and I have stated as much in the past. Too many variables for such a short distance, IMHO. However, it is the long-time magazine standard that probably won't change.

 

0-60 comparisios started in the era when cars generally weren't able to lay down tire marks. I agree...whats the point today.

A BMW 335i that runs 13.50 in the 1/4 and no tire spin at all should keep the number on the page for a while longer.

 

Not trying to argue but thats not what I'm seeing. I clicked on "engine" and tried your way of "show all" and it didn't matter. I can't figure out how to post my screenshot so here's a link:
https://www.camaroz28.com/forums/alb...&pictureid=667

Am I wrong here?

 

Figured out how to post an image:
[IMG][/IMG]

 

I'm seeing what 95red is seeing (the 15/23) on the website, but if you download the pdf with the specs, it lists the figures Bob posted. I don't know which is correct.

http://www.fordvehicles.com/assets/p..._Spec_Lite.pdf