LOL, good catch! I was worried I used the wrong animal. Usually people use a 800 lb gorilla. Guess my concern was valid, but misplaced.

Your 3rd gen comment is a good example, I think. Weren't the notchback Mustangs the lighter ones? Maybe the fact that the 3rd gen was just lighter overall (<3600lbs) is what he liked about the 82-92 car. Hell, I don't know. I do know that weight wasn't ever that big a deal to me, but that might be because I'm not really in the market for a new Camaro.

/thread hijack

So how about that 5.0 Mustang fuel economy? Impressive, right?

 

As far as I know Job1 is Monday the 22nd. The 15th was the original but was postponed a few weeks ago. First tests are almost 2 weeks away....

 

The kind of assumption you rail other people for. Have you seen the dyno graphs yet?

Like Bob said, who in the hell measures fuel consumption at or near redline? You seem to have a problem with the EPA's fuel economy numbers now. In fact, it seems every time you are confronted with a fact or number that is not in Camaro's favor, you work your hardest to discredit it (regardless of whether your argument makes sense or not) - or worse, resort to personal attacks on the bearer of the bad news.

Are we looking at the same graph? The blue curves (HPV GT) are above the white curves (HSV GTS) throughout the entire band. The difference is only more pronounced at the top end. If the Holden is actually quicker in tests, or "feels" quicker, is it because the Ford is heavier (Imagine that BTW!) or has more aggressive gearing? That says nothing about the motors themselves though, which I thought was the focus of the discussion.

 

But you're focused on the graphs? What about actual performance? Does that count for something? Although the lines are similar up to the point, where the Boss overwhelms the LS3 is over the last 1000rpms. So, why is the LS3 the better performer, all things being equal (weight, power)? I'll answer that point below. The conclusion to draw is that you can't arrive at conclusions based on statistics alone. Read the text to get the proper meaning.

To explain the comment about heatsoak... the 'heatsoak effect' actually places the LS3 in a different, less efficient, mode. Timing is pulled, and mixtures are enriched because ECTs and IATs are too high! The ECM is programmed this way to protect the engine. Static airflow on a dyno is not the best way to determine performance parameters for this exact reason.

In other words, if the cars are at the track, the ambient conditions change. The coolant temps are lower and the incoming air is cooler. The engine reads from higher timing values in its timing map, the mixtures lean off due to the dynamic incoming air, the engine is essentially operating at the more efficient mapping range. It could even run better fuel economy figures at the track compared to WOT bursts on the dyno.

Fuel consumption at high revs serves to explain why some lower capacity engines use more fuel than other bigger capacity engines. Do you ever wonder why Ferrari engines at just 4.3L capacity use more fuel than LS3 Corvettes? The high revs certainly don't help... but power comes at a cost and smaller capacity, multi-valve engines need all the revs they can get to make the power they do. This is exactly the point I wanted to get across earlier. That's why I make the distinction between EPA figures and the penalty to fuel economy when engines are redlined ... because both Mustang and Camaro will be redlined frequently to extract performance. As a result, the fuel consumption figures could look very distorted and it wouldn't surprise me if the Coyote uses more fuel at the end of a test.

There is no magic behind the Coyote's power. It will rely on revs as it lacks the cubes in comparison to the mild ex factory LS3.

Btw, I rile people that pretend to know what they talk about without any basis. You don't often make a blanket statement on an automotive forum and be allowed to get away... without some casualty.

 

One thing to keep in mind Jeremy, is that yes, the 3rd gens were heavier than the the Fox Mustangs by about 150-200 pounds, (which weighed about the same as the Corvette) - but they were dramatically better cars than the Fox Mustangs.

In many ways, the 5.0's were one trick ponies, thrilling in a straight line, but with crappy brakes (yes, even crappier than F-cars), scary high speed dynamics, and archaic suspension, cheap interiors and fairly poor handling. And when GM got it's powertrain act together, the 5.0's weren't even faster, (or that much faster) in a straight line in most cases.The F-car was the finer car in most categories including looks, handling, steering feel, high speed stability, interior, etc. It was both nicer and more FUN to drive.

Compare all that with today's cars...

 

I think I'd enjoy that too. Actually, every time I meet someone in real life from this forum, I really enjoy it. I've met some REALLY good people!

As far as SSbaby, he is now on my ignore list, no cold ones with him...

 

Something just occurred to me. My grandfather (also a Ford man) had a janitorial service. One of his biggest clients was the local Ford dealer. During the summers and spring breaks my grandparents would care for my brother and I while my mom was working. This was in the mid 1970s. I used to go with my grandparents to the dealership to "help". However most of the time I just drooled all over the cars and swiped sales brochures. I vaguely remember staring for hours at a white/blue King Cobra Mustang, and even the Starsky and Hutch Torino.

With all that early Ford influence in my formidable years, how the heck did I ever end up becoming a Chevy man, let along a Camaro enthusiast?

 

3rd Gens are the best cars ever...

The Corvette was 10 points better than the Z28 in the objective tests.

 

To me, there is a HUGE difference between weighing 3300 pounds and 3900 pounds, regardless of where you're at compared to Mustang at each point. While the 5th Gen's chassis is clearly superior than anything the 3rd Gen could have dreamed of, 600 pounds is like 3 grown adult males tagging along for the ride.

 

Of course it does. But like I said, the original point is that we're comparing engines in a vacuum so to speak, not the cars that surround each. You can't measure an engine's output using anything other than a dyno. Your "butt dyno" doesn't qualify because the car is the variable.

I perfectly understand what you're saying about heatsoak BTW.

The keyword here is "some". You have to rev the crap out of a lot of Honda 4-cylinders to keep them in the powerband, but they'll still get decent mileage. It just depends on how you want to drive it.

Again, the EPA test is not perfect but it does seem to say that the 5.0 will be just a little bit more efficient over a full range of driving than the LS3. This makes your point about high-revving efficiency moot. Maybe we shouldn't blame the LS3, maybe we should blame it on the extra junk in the trunk which it is tasked to haul around.

 

Yeah, when ever someone throws out that 3rd gen/Fox weight comparo, it is a non-starter with me. In the '80's the Camaro simply did just about everything better than it's Mustang competitor - something which is not the case today.

I remember once, I was on the Florida interstate driving a 1990 5 speed Mustang GT at around 80 or 90 mph. It nearly required a death grip on the steering wheel, I mean that car had my undivided focus, it was so squirrely and unstable. I remember thinking, if I were in my IROC-Z at that speed, I'd calmly be scanning radio stations for a good song.

It would be hard to complain about weight in the 5th gen if you couldn't feel it. Or if it's dynamics belied it's mass. Or if it gave you goosebumps when you drove one. Or if it so completely outclassed the Mustang, the way the 3rd gens did. Of course, none of that is true.

 

You guys are failing the grasp the physics of it all. Sure adding 600 pounds to an existing chassis is going to effect handling. However if the vehicle is designed from the ground up to include that additional weight, it doesn't matter a hill of beans. You all would have fit in well back in the day when folks were complaining to Henry Ford about how the additional weight added to the Model A would make it perform inferior to the Model T.

 

What if you dropped 600 pound from that?

 

Perhaps not from a pure performance perspective on the street or big track (Solo, which is my motorsport of choice, is different), however, you need more energy to accelerate, turn and stop the additional mass which increases the initial and ongoing co$t$, therefore it does in fact matter.

 

If performance for the dollar is big on your list, you should never buy a new car. Best performance for the dollar will always be had by buying a used performance car.