Bob Cosby

So....is the 2011 V6 staying at about the same weight, losing a little, or gaining a lot? Guess it depends on whose post you read....

BTW Teal98....2010 Mustang V6 is not 3750 lbs.

ImportedRoomate

I didn't see it mentioned anywhere, but does this new V6 require premium? To make that kind of power without DI would be quite an achievement.

Z28x

Wow, very impressive. I like how they just beat out the Camaro by 1HP and 1mpg

305HP and no direct injection yet still gets 30mpg, must be all in the gearing, if that is the case I doubt it will be faster than a '10 GT or Camaro RS.

For the record, the 2010 Mustang V6 A5 is rated at 16/24MPG and 210HP. Pretty terrible for a V6 car considering the much heavier 540HP GT500 gets only 2mpg less 14/22mpg. This V6 was much needed.

Threxx

1mpg better than the V6. Way better mpg than your LT1.

TOO Z MAXX

Here we are again were weight is an issue. The new V6 Mustang will be faster, better handler and better at stopping thsn the V6 Camaro just becuase its a lighter car.

JakeRobb

What makes you think it doesn't have DI?

Z284ever

I guess the obvious question is how would Camaro respond here?

The V6 Mustang will not only outperform the Camaro V6 in acceleration, handling and FE - but in my experience with both, the Ford V6 is smoother, quieter and more eager to rev when compared to the HFV6.

ProudPony

OK guys... look at my username.

Those of you that have read my posts for 9 years on this board know what I collect - some of you know how many I have.

Anyone could see my passion for pony cars - Camaro and Mustang especially.

Well, here it comes again... I'm going onto the soapbox.

I am actively working on parts for the next Mustang. I get to see what's coming many times and that's cool. I have said for the last 2 years that weight is going to become more significant in these cars from the very beginning of design and concept all the way through production. I'm all for that kind of work - 100%.

I've also said that the horsepower wars will have to wain (and I still think they will because of governmental and insurance reasons alone - nevermind gas prices). There is also the diminishing returns issue that we have discussed... when a 100hp advantage only produces a few tenths in the 1/4, and the same disparity is negated completely on a curvy road, then what is the real benefit to persuing any additional power, and paying the legacy costs of producing it for the entire life of the vehicle (things like fuel economy, premium if required, etc).

Now I have to pull out the Samurai Sword and impale myself on it, because I feel that we are now committing ourselves to go down a path that will lead both the Camaro and Mustang to an "unhappy" place.
* Why are Mustangs and Camaro's both coming in with entry-level cars that are sliding deep into the $20k's and V8 units that are busting the $30k's wide open?
* Why is a V6 Convertible optioned to nearly $40k?
* Why does the public need a 300hp V6 with 6-spd trannys as the base unit?

I'm not asking if this is a good deal or not.
I'm not comparing the performance of these cars to the performance of the LT1 or the last 5.0 produced.
I'm not whining about the gadgets and doo-dads that are becoming so prevailent in these cars as options or standard equipment.

I am speaking in absolutes of the market.
I am putting myself in the shoes of a kid turning 16 or 18 - looking for their first new car to go to college, etc. Will they put almost $30k on that Mustang or Camaro, or will they put $19k on a 4-door econo-box? Or will they put $12k on a Hyundai and put the rest in the bank? There are so many other options today that are equal or less in financial investment, but offer more utility, better warranty, and in some cases almost as much styling and certainly as much options for less money. Performance be-damned... any kid was happy to simply have wheels when I turned 16, you didn't care if it had 80hp or 180hp, you just wanted to be mobile! Despite my loyalties to the ponycar, if I were 16-18 and looking for a ride, I would seriously look at buying something other than one of these two cars for the money required these days - especally if it were going to be my only car, and I were looking at starting a family with it.
And before anyone starts saying that no kid 16 buys a new car, think about this... if the price of a new unit goes up, so does the cost of a used one that is just a few years old. My first car was 3 years old when I bought it for about 50% of the price of a comparable new one. 50% of $30k is still a lot more than 50% of $20k, and neither of those is a must-have when I can get a 100% brand new car for $12-14k with a warranty and all.

Ponycars should be "toys" that double as daily drivers, errand-runners, go-getters, and occasional fun-buggies (that can be weekend racer, autocross, drag car, hot-rod, or whatever you want to do with it IMO). This kind of car is perfect for the teenager that is not hauling a family of four to dinner or practice, but is typically alone or with a friend and is driving themselves to practice. It should be the car for a college kid to run to class, run to a job, and just shuttle themselves around with in a sporty but economical fashion. Maybe a daily driver for someone that commutes to work, typically alone, and enjoys driving down a windy country road to get there.

One thing that has made Mustang so successful in the last 20 years is that it was a BASIC car. Very fundamental. Very inexpensive to buy, own, maintain, and use. If you wanted a Mustang in 1986, you could choose from an inline-4 with a manual or auto, a 3.8 V6 with auto or manual, or a 5,0 V8 with auto or manual, and all of those engines were available in a coupe, convertible, or hatch bodystyle. You could get a base 4-cyl 5-spd coupe with essential options for about $7k out the door, or you could order a loaded GT convertible with all the bells and whistles for almost double that price. That is a HUGE spread in MSRP.
Know what MOST BUYERS GOT?
LX coupe and hatchback with 4-cylinder constituted about 60% of all sales. Even through the end of the 4-cylinder in 1993, the 4-cylinder cars outsold the others handily. When they stopped offering the I-4, the V6 became the highest volume seller in 1994. So it would seem to me that most buyers wanted to pay for the sporty styling but did not care for the land-missile performance. So why are we pushing performance in every unit offered for sale today?

Another point to consider is this... if Ford keeps putting all their best goodies into the car as it sits on the showroom floor, what will happen to their aftermarket business? It becomes harder to mod a vehicle when you have it so finely tuned and adjusted from the factory. If you have the track-pak on your V6, what do you go to the FRP catalog to order that makes your car handle better? Do you even try to improve it? The cool thing about Mustangs in the past was that you could buy it cheap, and add money/mods to it as you saw fit, or maybe not at all if you like that base performance as it is. Now, it appears that they want to put the go-fast goodies on the car at the factory, charge you for it, and the options for buying a "stripper" version are being taken off the table. A huge mistake IMO.

OK - so that's my beef. I think/hope you folks see my point. I see Ford using the Mustang as a premier money-maker for their company (no crime in that for sure), and giving it more attention than it has ever had since inception - that's not all bad and I'm glad it is an "important" car for them. But Mustang was not meant to be a "premier" vehicle. It should be a low-cost sporty car for the common man/woman. A car used to get a teenager to become a Ford-Fan for life, and come back to buy a Taurus or F150 as they progress through life. A 2nd or 3rd car for a well-to-do family where a person wants an enjoyable commute to and from work or to the course on Saturday. A cruiser for a weekend getaway for two.

Think about this... In a time where there were no competitors in the ponycar market, sales went from almost 200k/year to barely 100k/year, and now that there is competition I fear that it will go even lower. Mustang sold 150-200k units/year for decades - in good economic times and bad ones too. So what has changed? People? Don't people still want a Mustang or Camaro? I think they do. But the drop in sales tells me that something is going wrong for the car, and I think I know what it is.

I am grateful for the new improvements in the Mustang - also grateful to GM and the Camaro for making these come forth. I just wish they were options that I could check on my order sheet instead of things I MUST pay for whether I want them or not. I HATE seeing the Mustang become a premier model on the lot insted of a poor-man's sporty-looking car that may be a missile or may be a grocery cart... the way that is has been for so long.

The styling on both cars is just sooo cool. I really do love them both. Beautiful bodies, sexy lines and profiles. Funny how we pay homage to their classic lines of the past, but we seem to have lost their purpose, spirit, and soul for their actual purpose in the past. I hope new brand management comes into play soon... before both these cars push themselves into performance-based exstinction.

Z284ever

Oh, BTW, Ford will be able to achieve all this with port injection - NOT DI.

DI is still waiting in the wings.

ProudPony

I love your sig.
Wish it was more widely understood.

Towards your question above... GM has the capability to respond. They have some awesome engines underway in both V6 and V8 configs. Their biggest issue would be to put the Camaro on a diet. If they had to, I'm sure they could find some weight savings in there that would put the cars on almost even ground performance-wise. They already are in the engine bay (nearly so anyhow).

The question I poise in response is this... are we heading towards the end of the V8? As these V6's get more powerful, they are now reaching that point of diminishing returns that V8 cars surpassed a few years back. About 400hp in a street car is all that the typical person can handle/use effectively. Beyond that, the returns for more power are barely noticeable unless you are on closed courses using timing equipment, and even then we call benefits for certain drivers or weather conditions to explain away .1 or .2 seconds difference between a 550hp car and a 400hp car on a 3-mile road course. I mean honestly... the bang for the buck starts to go away above a certain level.

So are we at the cusp of a new pony car era? One that sees the V8 rendered useless or even outperformed by a V6?

Sobering thought, isn't it?

Z284ever

Thanks. Me too.

Of course, but that kind of diet is just not in the cards....

El Duce

I'm sorry, but I don't know too many 18 year olds, let alone 16 year olds who were buying new cars. I don't even know that many that were getting 2-3 year old cars. Most were getting something 5 years old MINIMUM. I understand your point about the price reaching too high a level, but the kids today who get something new or fairly new, is few and far between. Let's not forget that financing for 72 months is the norm now, which makes getting even a mid-20k car obtainable. There's not many 18 year olds who are going to drop cash on a car and "pocket the rest." There isn't anything to pocket.

Silverado C-10

I have to agree with this too. I went to Clemson from 99-04, and it's not a cheap school to attend. I had quite a few friends and NONE of them had a new car, most, including me, had vehicles that were 5-10+ years old. While you saw the occasional new vehicle in the parking lots, you can be damn sure that mommy and daddy paid for it, not the student. I also don't recall anyone I know "making payments" during school.

ProudPonyFor the most part, I agree with the rest of what you said

I think in the near future we're going to see the Ponys get 4cyl "base" engines again

Z28x

For once I agree with you, and on top of all this more kids are going to college today which pushes them back 4 years from getting a decent job and enough steady pay to get a new or 2 year old car.

Back in the 70's you graduated high school, got a decent job, saved some money, and then could get a nice car by the time you were 19. Oh, and you didn't have student loans to pay back.

jg95z28

After spending last Friday at the SF Int'l Auto Show I can honestly tell you where the "kids" were spending most of their time... and it wasn't at the Mustang and Camaro displays. (Although Camaro did have more folks buzzing around them, most of them were guys in their 30's, 40's on up.) Honda, Toyota and Scion had a lot of the youth crowd. Kia was parked next to Scion and got some overflow, but not as much as I expected. There was no waiting to check out the bright red Kia Forte Koupe, which to me was the best looking youth oriented car in the show. Mazda was sandwiched between Toyota and Scion and got some overflow. But mostly the show was about crossovers and minivans, as mostly young families were scurrying around all the displays.

One curious absence (two?) was Nissan/Infinity. Are they in bigger trouble than they're leading us to believe?

Yes, Ford and Chevy need to do something to capture this market. However, I don't think its going to happen with Mustang or Camaro. Both cars have just become too expensive for the youth market. Sure if they could offer an entry level turbo 4-cylinder that was affordable, it might help, however both cars weigh too much to make that feasible. They're better off using a new/current subcompact to capture the youth market and use Mustang and Camaro as the next step when their youth buyers become financially mature. This means both Ford and Chevy really need a sporty subcompact that captures the essence of Mustang/Camaro while still remaining affordable and practical for young buyers.