You guys are missing the point of Guy's post completely.

Yes, he meant the 2003 Cobra - he called it the "previous gen Cobra" in the same post. But the model year he meant is not the point... it's the fact that HP is in a diminishing-return state now.

I 100% agree with Guy. I'll even go a step further and state that I posted on this subject as much as 3 years ago, predicting it was coming.Shelby has 625 and 700hp cars available, Saleen is out with a 650hp unit, Roush is hitting big numbers - they all are - in the engine bay, but what are they doing on thetrack and the street? Not MUCH more than the old 2003 Cobras were 6 years ago. The 700hp SuperSnake is certainly not twice as fast as the 2010 GT because it has over twice the HP. See what I mean?

There was a good thread last year about weight and power in which I stated that certain models were going to go under the microscope for weight savings and redistribution as opposed to going for "more power". Charlie picked-up on it and took me to task, wanting specifics. Let's just say that a certain few (very wise) people inside some OEMs are figuring out that more power for the sake of peenis-envy and bragging rights is not going to sell but so many cars, and more power alone in a land barge will not give it respectable numbers either.

Witness the curent GT with Track-Pack and the trials done by Motor Trend 2 months ago.
Angus MacKenzie: "Best Steering EVER in a US car". "Handles better than any car with a live rear axle has a right to." Ed Loh: "The biggest surprise here. I thought the Camaro would leave the Mustang in a ditch by the side of the road, but I was genuinely surprised at how capable the Mustang is. Its long and meaty third gear sends the car roaring up Sunrise Highway. Similar to the Camaro, though the downhill is where the Mustang begins to separate itself. Sharper more communicative steering (a result of that Track Pack?) gives the Mustang more confidence through corners. I felt more front-end grip and less lateral sway from the suspension -- especially under braking when approaching a corner."

"Indeed, the Mustang GT left all of us astounded at what magic Ford's engineers have achieved with this seemingly antiquated architecture. "That GT turns in like a race car," was our communal opinion after our mountain romps. Only when the road surface deteriorates does the Mustang GT begin to lose its poise. But, man, the incredible bite of the front end is the stuff test drivers write poetry about. Astonishing."

"Sorry, Hatfields and McCoys: No huge winner here. Both Mustang GT and Camaro SS tackle mountain roads superbly."

"The Mustang GT carries the least-impressive on-paper physique -- just 4.6L making 315 hp -- but like a bantamweight it packs a helluva punch. Nearly 600 lb lighter than the Dodge, Ford's pony rockets to 60 mph in a mere 4.9 sec and holds that edge through the quarter, nipping the lights in 13.5 sec at trap speed of 104.2 mph. "

"The Challenger R/T nonetheless rips to 60 mph in just 5.1 seconds and knocks-down the quarter in 13.6 seconds at 104.9 mph. "

"Despite the 3859 lb borne of the Camaro's use of a preexisting structure (and the inherent compromises thereof), 0 to 60 mph takes a mere 4.7 sec; the quarter mile just 13 sec flat at 111.0 mph. "

"The lightweight, Track Pack-enhanced Mustang GT posts the defining stats on the handling tests. Maximum grip is a neck-wrenching 0.95 g, and the GT circled our figure eight in just 25.5 sec (at a 0.70g average). The Camaro SS was nearly there, churning out a max lat of 0.90 g and running the ocho cones in 25.8 sec (at 0.80 average g). Far behind lagged the broad-shouldered Challenger R/T, good for just 0.82 g max and needing 27.5 sec (at 0.63 average g) to negotiate the figure eight."

"Braking performance follows a similar pattern. Though wearing only conventional binders, the lower-mass Mustang GT hammers to a stop from 60 in just 108 ft. Blessed with those four big Brembos, the Camaro SS, though heavier, notches the win, stopping in just 105 ft. Then far behind arrives the Challenger R/T, needing a full 135 ft to reign in its forward motion. "

The numbers keep coming in.
KUDOS to GM for donning a beautiful Camaro that is a capable car. Likewise to Dodge for the Challenger, and Ford for the Mustang. THEY ARE ALL AWESOME.

What I want folks to take away from this article is that huge power is not always needed to make big numbers. Anyone who has autocrossed or seen specialized vehicles do their magic knows this already. I seriously want to see the big 2.5 concentrate on making the ponycars lighter, more nimble, lean machines that offer a muscular top-end model for those of us who want to play that way. For everyone else, your V6 will simply go faster and get better mileage if the car is lighter. It will handle better. It will (hopefully) cost less based on the material investments they choose. Pretty simple concept actually.

Now, we have to address all these mandatory requirements like airbags, and all the optional goodies like power everything, nav, hud, etc.

Nevermind the new Camaro SS... how would you like to be the guy that spent $65k on his new GT500 only to drive up to the next stoplight and have your @ss handed to you by a guy in a 2010 GT that he just bought and did a few simple bolt-ons to?!?! Humility?!?! Pizzed?!?!
If I had to be in 1 of those cars, I'd be in the GT with a pocket full of cash.

 

For autoX doesn't FWD work pretty well? If so, then cars like the Cobalt SS or Civic SI ought to be competitive.

It's funny about the Mustang GT. On one page, I see the MT guys talking about how well it works, in spite of the live axle. On another page, they're giving it a hard time for that live axle. I wish they'd make up their mind. Either it works well and is a good compromise for weight and cost, or it doesn't work well. I get the feeling that when they drive it, it's good, but when they look at the spec sheet, it's not.


Lane departure warning, backup camera, drowsiness detector, automatic rearview mirror adjuster, trunk and door closer.

 

I really, sincerely doubt that they'll achieve that figure with a naturally aspirated 392ci engine. Assuming power scales linearly with displacement (which, in general, is being generous), they're looking at 450hp.

I think that, rather than trying to compete with the GT500, they're just returning Chevrolet's volley. Dodge came out with the 425hp SRT8, and then Chevrolet came out with the 426hp SS; now it's Dodge's turn to one-up again.

 

I see the argument with diminishing return. Head to head tests already have the 375hp R/T as being no quicker than the 315hp trackpack equipped GT till after the 1/4 mile mark. And that's straightline performance. In other performance categories like handling and braking that aren't hp dependent, the GT handily walks all over the R/T.

I don't think adding more hp is the solution. But what other choice does Chrysler have when the only affordable rwd platform they have available is the large and heavy LX platform? Hopefully whatever LX replacement Chrysler has planned will be smaller and lighter.

 

They are probably sucking up to the readership? Personally I dont see the big issue with having an SRA? If it ain't broke, dont fix it. The car works with it and if a Mustang guy has his panties all in a twist about the Mustang not coming with an IRS, then STFU and go down the street to GM where they have a pony car with an IRS, its really that simple.

 

The low weight is what makes those cars handle decent. FWD gives you crappier weight distribution and inefficient use of your available grip. 2 wheels do the turning, accelerating and 90% of the braking, and two are more or less along for the ride. I would take a Miata, Solstice or 240SX to autocross long before I would think about a car with wrong wheel drive.

 

Will this 6.4 be outboard or inboard? Will I need to apply for a different boaters licence?

500hp, and its still 4300lbs. It will now be JUST as fast as a 426hp Camaro SS. Congrats Chrysler!! YEAH!!

 

Well you're probably too pessimistic and they're a little optomistic.

I don't see this thing making sense unless it comes out with with something north of 475hp.

 

Supposedly manual Challengers are making less power than auto ones.

http://www.challengertalk.com/forums...say-yes-21194/

 

I did mean 2003.... thanks Bob.



The Chrysler LX based Challenger (and 300, and Charger) are all 500+ horsepower capable chassis. So is the Chevrolet Camaro (and VE & WM Zetas). That weight is the result of that being engineered in. In 2006, Ford made started using a thicker guage of steel on the Mustang's floorpan across the board. Reason? It was cheaper than the 2005 practice of making it just for the GT500.... plus, Ford was setting the Mustang up for additional power in the future.

The new Mustang GT versus the new Camaro SS is a glaring example of diminishing returns in the horsepower race.

The Camaro SS has roughly 33% more horsepower than the Mustang GT. Because of that fact, one would think the SS would absolutely flatten the Mustang.... as so many of the under-educated here on this board continue to believe.

However, in reality, for that monstorous 33% more power, do you get 33% better acceleration???

Nope.

25% better?

Uh uh.

How about just 10% better?

Again, not on the agenda.

The SS will edge out the GT in a quarter mile, and you stand just as good of a chance at reaching a draw going from 0-60 or 0-100 running against a Mustang GT as you would at winning.

However, that 33% more horsepower does require a chassis and drivetrain components that can handle 33% more horsepower. That means additional weight. Throw in an IRS that can handle the abuse, and you start talking about some notable weight.



Going back to the Camaro SS for a moment. Again, a structure that's capable of handling some mega horsepower and handling perhaps 190 to 200mph while maintaing stability.

Compare that to the 2003 supercharged Mustang Cobra, that is limited to 155 mph because it's light weight chassis simply isn't made to run much faster... let alone handle the stresses of 190-200 mph without serious modifications.


The Cobra weighed 3665. The new SS weighs 3860. Both have IRS. The Mustang has a heavy supercharger system. The Camaro has roughly a 26 horse and a 30 lbs/ft torque advantage.

Both cars do 0-60 in roughly 4.7, the quarter in roughly 13 flat at 110 mph.

Wanna talk about the influence from weight and gearing over horsepower alone? Check out the 30-50 mph blast or the 50-70 mph blast the current Mustang GT does compared to the SS in top gear (9.4 & 8.7 next to the SS's 12.7 & 12.2).... it pays to remind that the GT packs 111 less horsepower and 95 less lbs/ft of torque.


The fact is that muscle cars aren't going to get any quicker than they've been for the past nearly decade. The 2003 Mustang Cobra has been roughly the limit of all regular production, affordable, V8 performance cars since, no matter how much additional horsepower they're packing. LS2 GTOs, LS3 Camaros, SRT8 Challengers, even 500+ horse Shelbys and almost certainly any future Camaro Z28 isn't likely to get too much quicker, despite packing in an additional 100-150 horsepower.

The challenge now is in getting affordable V6 power up to the performance level of today's affordable V8s with the help of lighter chassis and components.... and yes.... packing less horsepower than the monster motors of today.

Mustang GT offers the best balence of capabilities and weight in a performance coupe just as much as Camaro V6 (yes, the V6) offers the best in value in a performance coupe and Challenger R/T is the only game in town if you want a performance coupe that can actually double as a family car or the ultimate road trip car.

Packing ever more horsepower beyond a certain point is simply futile, and serves no purpose other than bragging about a bigger number.

But much like the old saying: "It's not about how much you have... it's about how you use it.".

 

Actually, 0-100 time for the Mustang is 20% longer than for the Camaro. When you consider than traction is limiting the first couple of seconds, that's about what you'd expect for the power/weight ratios.

 

I'm going to assume you are talking about both cars equipped with Manual transmissions? And does anybody happen to have the gear ratios of those transmissions, rear gear ratio, and outside diameter of the tires?

 

They are manuals. Top gear tests are pretty silly with double overdrives.
Who's going to drive their M6 Camaro and floor it in 6th at 30mph?

 

Yeah, that has to be a case of the typical, test the GM in it's double OD 6th gear lugging at 1200rpms vs. the single OD at a happier 2000rpms.

 

True, and that's why I use it as an example of gearing and weight trumping horsepower.

The Mustang has a 5 speen manual, Camaro (and Challenger... it took about as long accelerating in top gear as Camaro) has a 6 speed.

6 speeds are heavier than 5 speeds.

Also, although the Mustang is rated below the Challenger R/T in EPA-rated fuel economy, in just about every test, Mustang GT gets the best fuel economy of the group.... again, because of gearing and lighter weight.

Realistically, are you going to floor your manual tranny car when starting a freeway grand prix without downshifting? of course not. But when you downshift from 1 gear from top in a GT you're running a 1 to 1 ratio through a 3.73 axle. The same move in a SS sends you to a .84 ratio and a 3.45 axle (meaning a lower engine speed and less torque getting through the syetem). Even dropping the SS down 2 gears doesn't mandate the SS flattening the GT.

The point I was making was, again, mega horsepower numbers are not the end-all or be-all. Between lighter weight and gearing, we don't actually need high ***** numbers to gain high horse performance.