Even 5 versus 6 seconds, if the difference is that high, is reasonably close -- maybe the 200hp 3.8 in 1998 was that close to the GT's 225, but I don't think so. I guess we could argue over whether that means "walking away". I doubt the difference will be 1 second, though. In any case, it'll be interesting to see.

 

Well-said, and well-taken.

My pasion is for ponycars - period. Any, All. I have chosen to collect one because of knowledge - historical at first, ever-growng to this day. I didn't really have a choice what I learned through exposure as a kid, but as an adult, I have chosen to learn about them all. It was driving cars that belonged to my buddies in HS that changed me. Jeff's old Nova was actually not so different than my old Mustang. Rob's old vette was cool as heck. Todd had a 1980 Civic bless his heart, but it got us around. We had a group of guys that had everything - old and new, from an old Plymouth Valiant with the slant-6 to brand new IROC Camaros. It was then that I learned that other cars were not all trash compared to what was in my driveway as a kid, and my passion came out of the box. I knew more about the Mustang because my older sister had one, my cousin had one, and there was always one in the driveway. I worked on these with my dad growing up, so it was just a comfort choice to get my first one in 1982. Then I stumbled into a 1971 Mach1 for $250 while in colege and started restoring it for a 2nd car. It just grew from there. My tribal knowledge of Mustangs has simply compounded itself and I am "stuck" collecting them because of the comfort zone. It is virtually impossible for me to get burned buying a Mustang (new or old) because I know what I am looking at and I can authenticate anything on them from memory. In fact, I am going tomorrow morning to look at a 1989 Colorado Highway Patrol car for sale here in NC, and the guy doesn't even know for certain he has an SSP. He sent me images of the car that had the buck tags in one, I zoomed in on the buck tag and decoded it... DSO 76-2114 SSP, meaning the car was delivered to Denver, CO from Dearborn, invoice or troop # 2114, and it indeed has the special service package. He thinks "it might be a cop car because it has the 160 certified calibration speedo", and that's all he knows. ($800 asking price BTW. I'm taking my trailer to "look" at it. AND the wife already knows about it too! )

This is my point. We all know something about "cars", but the more you study and understand not just the car itself, but what it was designed to do, the market it was to target, and the whole spin, the better prepared we all are to react to the offerings and help the carmakers produce something viable and sustainable. The last thing I want to see right now is a 2-3 year Camaro run, and another hiatus. Or see the Mustang turned into a FWD import. (if the big 2.5 don't get their crap together asap, we could likely see a LOT of hiatus for everything domestic. )

I realize what you said - the lunatic fringe is more than alive - it's flourishing. It takes no effort to stay stupid, so anyone can do it! That still doesn't make me feel any different about the continuous barrage of comments that always creep into a conversation. They are always the same.

Sort of wonder how long it took the population at-large to accept that the world is truly round, doesn't it? (I suppose some still do.)

 

Guy is getting big time hung up on weight lately without looking at power. So is everyone for the most part. That is all you hear about on the forums. All you heard about when the Camaro info was relased. All you heard about when the GT500 info was released, etc.

Everyone is forgetting to look at the horsepower difference though. Look, I want a light weight car as much as the next guy, it is an inherently better platform to build on, but it certainly is not the only factor.

 

Weight is certainly an issue; especially when you are talking about a performance oriented vehicle.

Overall, I do like both the current Mustang and the new one (although I don't think I could ever bring myself to buy one).

I do wonder, why they are only wringing 315 HP out of this engine...surely they could get more couldn't they? Is it just a marketing ploy to make something yet to come look that much better?

 

[QUOTE=Robert_Nashville;5697325

I do wonder, why they are only wringing 315 HP out of this engine...surely they could get more couldn't they? Is it just a marketing ploy to make something yet to come look that much better?[/QUOTE]
Probably.My Mustang history is getting fuzzy(thank you children),but didn't the later fox Stangs go from 225HP to 205HP overnight because of a new "rating",i always thought they did that to soften the blow of the new '94 GT w/ 215HP because they had to use the T-bird intake to fit under the SN-95 hood. I could be completely wrong on this,but i always thought that's why the Fox HP rating dipped for the last couple of years('92-93). Help me out of this Proud Pony.
I think a '11 5.0L will look all the more better if it's putting out so much more power than if the '10 GT was putting out 350HP w/ a 4.6 and then the 5.0L came along putting out the same power,it wouldn't be as big a deal.

 

reason for it was between 1987-1993, there were little changes that reduced the 5.0 by a few ponies. things like the TB, conversion to MAF in 88/89, air intake tube pickups, etc. all the little 2-3hp bits added up, until they rerated in 93 to 205/275, from 225/300. but it was just on paper, since the engine was the same as 92.

IIRC, the 94 used the 93 T-birds intake manifold(actually, i know that parts true), and i believe they redesigned the air intake some to get back some of the ponies lost, along with some exhaust changes.

 

The 94 is the one rated at 215? I recall that the 4.6 was also 215 until 1998.

 

I have pictures of it. I also have pictures of the new Mustang with a Mach1 type hood scoop as well.... all offered through Ford Motorsports.

 

All I will tell you is: "We'll see".

I think Charlie might be willing to take you to task about how much I am "hung up" on weight. I'd wager he probably doesn't think I'm hung up on weight anywhere near enough!

I think anyone that knows me and has actually read my posts and taken more than a nonosecond to think about them knows very well that I take alot more than simply weight into consideration when looking at any automobile. Perhaps even to their chargrin.

I am a staunch defender of the new Camaro's weight because the chassis can handle a godawful amount of horsepower and torque without destroying it's drivetrain or twisting it's own body like playdough if you unleash all that horsepower and torque to launch the thing at a dragstrip. On my short list of cars, I include the Dodge Challenger. A car formerly called a pig until the smaller new Camaro showed up on scene weighing just as much. As long as weight is being used for good, I have little issue with it.

I have highly praised the V6 Camaro. Only those with limited reading capacity (or very limited internet access) missed that. However, unlike quite a few people, I am also very capable of setting aside chearleading long enough to take a hard nosed look at things.

Regardless as to how far you want to put your head into the sand (or even wet concrete) The Camaro V6 has 300 horsepower and 3800 pounds to lug around. The Mustang GT has 315 horsepower and roughly 3500 pounds to move.

The Camaro V6 has 273 ft/lbs of torque to launch 3800 pounds. Mustang GT has 330 ft/lbs to launch 3300. I believe even special ed kids can even comprehend the outcome of a matchup between the 2. Especially when that Mustang will have a 3.73 axle while Camaro has a 3.27. Anyone prediction a close matchup between the 2 probally cars was still repeating kindergarden at age 10.

This has nothing to do with being hung up on weight. This is simply an ability to comprehend the difference between a high number and a low number.

You bring up the GT500. Last I checked, the GT500 had over 500 horsepower, which is more than anything produced on an assembly line in the US that has more than 2 seats. You brought up the fact that it was mentioned on forums that Camaro was pushing 3900 pounds in V8 form.

I rank handling, feel, and what I call "spirit" much higher than I rank being the absolutely quickest or high horsepower numbers. I am a fan of the new V6 Camaro, although I know a new 2010 Mustang GT will wipe it out in a race. The V6 Camaro is quick on it's own terms, apparently handles extremely well, and has a high content value. IRS, 4 wheel discs. An advanced engine and powertrain. 6 speed in the transmission. And all this in a base car!

You say that people are ignoring horsepower differences as if that's the great equalizer. It isn't. If you have alot of weight, you need more horsepower and torque to overcome it. If you have less weight, you need less horsepower and weight to overcome it. Mustang GT is a lot lighter, has a bit more horsepower and a whole lot more torque pulling a numerically higher axle ratio. The word "blowout" starts to comes to mind.

Also.... without going into details and explanations, there's going to be quite a few people stunned at how the new 2010 Mustang GT holds up next to the Camaro SS. (Hint: Mustang Mach1s were rated at 310 horsepower but in reality put out roughly 340 ).

 

Information from Ford and Chevy indicates 3535 pounds base for the Mustang GT with 5 speed manual and and 3741 pounds for the Camaro LT with 6 speed manual.

The autos are 3575 and 3750.

So if we're going to use a round number for the weight difference, it's 200 pounds, not 300.

The Camaro SS with 6 speed manual is estimated to be 3860 pounds.

Caveat: Comparing manufacturer base weights can be misleading....

 

Thanks for the info

 

Hmmmmm,interesting.............. Has anyone dyno'ed a Bullitt,The Sept '08 Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords got 13.2/105MPH out of one,that's hauling some major *** for 315HP.

 

Why are we comparing the weights of the Mustang GT to the base Camaro V6 again?

 

Because of the tired old statement that the V6 Camaro will give the Mustang GT a run for its money.

Most who do that, look at 300hp vs 315hp, and think that backs up their statement.

Yet, I understand where you are coming from................ and would never dream of getting into this lame arguement.

As Forest Gump once said................ "stupid is as stupid does."

 

I believe weight is a big deal. Don't forget, even if you have a big horsepower engine in a heavy car that can blow away it's competitors, at the end of the straight away it still has to slow down to make the turn. It is likely that the straight line performace will be ate up in the braking zones and through the turns.