That's what kept the American car company's making crap all these years, they could depend on the my daddy drove Ford, Chevy, Mopars, etc... so the kids would be brand loyal insteaf of choosing the superior car. I love Chevy but if Ford or Dodge has the better performance for the dollar I'm going with them. I like cars that are fun to drive regardless of brand.

 

I don't think that the 2010 model of the Camaro will be the last word for this generation. I would expect improvements to tires, suspension, steering, etc., to improve "seat-of-the-pants" feel as well as track numbers.

It is 250 pounds heavier than the Mustang, and while the extra weight is a handicap, the IRS could help overcome it.

I have to admit that the 2011 Mustang GT will probably beat the 2010 Camaro SS in most comparisons. But when we read the 2012 model comparisons, things could change.

The 4th gen F-body won some and lost some. There were some where it was a heavyweight compared to other cars, yet it still did well, and others where it lost in spite of not being the heaviest. There is more to a car than the weight statistic, or I'd be driving a Smart!

 

It looks like maybe you guys (and gal) are done bickering. Good! Keep it that way.

 

Hmmm.....somebody down in "Oz" disagrees with you (at least on the performance part). Of course, they might not have credentials as high as yours, but none-the-less, they did print data to go along with their conclusions. To wit...



That was from an issue of Australia's "Wheels" Magazine, and involved a comparison between Ford's 5.4L 4V powered FPV GT and Holden's LS3 Powered HSV GTS.

 

That's all well and good on paper... but races are never won on paper.

Btw, did you read about the 'heatsoak' issue - that is common on all GM LSX's - in the article you posted up? There's a real hint as to why they perform better on the track than on dynos. And need we get into the subject of the 5.4L engine's underwhelming straight-line performance especially in comparison to the LS1/2/3? Is it any wonder Ford's 5.4L V8 is being put out to pasture?

At least the Coyote V8 will lose some 200 lbs on the 5.4L V8 while its output will be somewhat of a match.

Btw,

 

Not really, just had an off day at work, yesterday, so no quarters given, but I still stand by my comments.

I don't think an apology is in order as I've had worse insults from Charlie himself... and guess what, I didn't even use any expletives, unlike he. Btw, he didn't apologize either, so... If those are the attributes of the most 'respected' member of the forum, then it sucks, basically.

Back on topic...

As to Lightning Lady's post, the 7000rpm redline of the Coyote, hmmm, I wonder if that would result in a penalty to fuel economy!

I don't doubt that the Coyote will be a good engine but some people are acting like Ford have re-invented the engine. Let's just wait before we make generalizations like the one Charlie did. A guess on his part is still not fact, even if it comes across that way.

 

Hardly in my case...

Daddy wasn't a "car guy". In his youth, he was a Buick man (drove a 56 Century), when I was a kid he had a '48 Chevy truck, then a '49 Ford, the a '65 GMC which he drove for years and I even helped him restore as a teen. He replaced it with a Ford 150 and later had a new F150 when he died in 2007. So I would have considered him a Ford man. His brother who was also my god father was a car guy and used to help me work on cars as he lived only three doors down. He drove a 68 Cougar, but also owned a 51 Chevy pickup which I later inherited. My father's uncle was also a mechanic and helped me on cars from time to time. He was also a Ford man.

As a kid I wanted '57 Chevy Bel Air, and then a Jaguar XKE, a Corvette, and even the new Triumph TR-7. That all changed when I turned 13 and my flag-football coach gave me a ride home from practice in his 1968 RS/SS-396 Camaro. I've been a Camaro man ever since. However my personal cars have been, in order...

1. 1967 Chevy Chevelle Malibu
2. 1968 Chevy Camaro RS
3. 1989 Nissan 240SX
4. 1951 Chevy 3100 pickup
5. 1995 Chevy Camaro Z/28
6. 2002 Chevy Tahoe LS
7. 1967 Chevy Camaro RS
8. 1967 Chevy Camaro Coupe
9. 2001 Chevy Tahoe LT 4WD

2 replaced 1; I owned 2 & 3 at the same time; 4 & 5 at the same time; and I still own 5 through 8.

This list doesn't include all cars we purchased for my two step-sons:
1991 Jeep Grand Cherokee
1996 Chevy Blazer (wife owned when we married)
1995 Mustang GT (youngest got from his dad)
1996 Mustang GT (supercharged and modded, which youngest and I bought together)
#9 above, which I purchased from my youngest
2001 BMW M3 (youngest's)
2005 Chevy Trailblazer (oldest's)
2008 Audi A4 (youngest's)

Not to mention the 2008 Mitsubishi Eclipse SE my wife inherited from her brother's estate that we've been trying to sell for months.

I personally choose cars for superior looks, styling and performance. Those tastes just tend to lean toward Chevrolet products.

 

No troll, well... I still pray hope we get the Camaro downunder. If it were down here, I'd have one, period. The fact that GM are confusing the heck out of us with their "yes we will, no we won't" isn't doing my cause any good.

Toyotas? (my wife works there) and I sold my SS because its more economical to drive the Yotas until the Camaro lobs. But if that fails, then my next car will be a HSV Zeta... and that will be a keeper!

 

And there you have it. No data to back anything up - but all the facts none-the-less.

Thanks.

Bob

BTW....I did read the article...including the part where they stated what the LS3 made when "completely cooled down". I'm sure its irrelevant though. And if it isn't, you'll figure out a way to try and make it such.

 

For those still interested in the Oz Ford 5.4L V8's fuel economy, looky here: http://www.webwombat.com.au/motoring...gtp-review.htm

Note: the Ford engine has a rev ceiling close to 6500rpm.

The Coyote will have 7000rpm to make that 411 bhp but it won't come for free. The only saving grace for the engine will be the Mustang's relatively modest weight.

Yes, I know the Coyote is a different beast but I think it's still an interesting comparison to make while Ford continue to drip feed us snippets of information before Coyote's official release.

Bob

Here is the article in full... to supplement your linked piece :
http://www.carsales.com.au/reviews/2.../gt-v-gts-6724

 

I called it on the mileage in the V6 Mustang thread. No one noticed, but I did, I swear.

I have to say, camaro always boasts their active fuel management, but after all of it, the mileage still isn't great. The mustang 5.0 doesn't even use any displacement on demand feature.

 

Ford says, "game on" and that makes the enthusiasts of both winners.

Doesn't matter which camp you're in competition strengthens the breeds.

Too bad neither has figured out how to build a truly desirable convertible.

About SSbaby .... read his comments with an Aussie accent and take them with a grain of salt ... they don't hurt as much ..... ( well ... the "old lady" shot was rude).

 

Interesting article. Here are a few snips from it...

and....

What was your point about fuel economy again?

So what?

I'm sorry, but you're not making a lot of sense here. Under very strigent and identical testing conditions, Car (a) is rated for better mileage than Car (b). No amount of wishing, conjuring, or quoting redlines is going to change that.

Here's a better one....straight from the mag itself...with pics: http://www.wheelsmag.com.au/wheels/s...ullarticle=yes

I read it prior to posting.

 

I think post #14 summed this one up

 

I wish you'd read a bit more carefully and less selectively next time. The 14.3 vs 14.0 numbers are rated numbers. Yet the LS3 was slightly more economical when performance wasn't called upon. Use the LS3's powerband all the way to its redline, don't expect happy fuel figures.

You're saying, if you rev your engine to 7000rpm it won't affect fuel economy much? I don't understand your point about not understanding my point... The EPA numbers have nothing to do with fuel economy at WOT. That's where real world driving returns different results. Both articles prove that basic point.

I quoted the webwombat article to show that the LS3 can show up far better figures on the same roads (there were 5 fuel consumption segments in total). The LS3 is not disgrace by any means despite the fact that Ford quote better Australian rated figures for its 5.4L V8. The Wheels article only serves to verify those results.

Let's wait on the GT vs SS results. I'll be happy to be laughed at if the Mustang's new engine disgraces the LS3 Camaro. I'm sure you'd be first to do it, too (followed by a couple hundred others, it appears).