Laughing at his response.

Of course he hasn't seen numbers yet, but basic reasoning skills make his claim pretty legitimate.

Based on the relatively skinny tires on the 2011 GT (looks like Track Pack will get 255's), 390ft-lbs. of torque, and the 3.73 rear gears, traction is likely not going to be the Mustangs friend.

So far the Camaro has had good traction even with its 420ft-lbs. of torque. Attribute it to 275 rear tires, better weight balance than the Mustang, and its utterly WEAK gearing.

What I am getting at is that the Camaro SHOULD be able to handle a lower rear gear, somethig like a 3.73 or 3.90 sounds reasonable from a factory Track Pack and the Camaro SHOULD be able to hook-up very well with that gearing. Because of the Camaro's large tire and transmission gearing, this will result in a SIGNIFICANT improvement in track times. Grippier tires may not even be necessary but would be a nice addition.

I think you may be suprised that a base Mustang GT runs very close to a base Camaro SS in all but the hands of the best drivers on the best prepped tracks. The reason I say this is I just can't fathom how Ford is going to get 390ft-lbs. to hook up on 235 wide tires in a unbalanced car without severly compromising handling/ride which they woulnt do.

235 wide tires!!!!!! Man I can't get over that bonehead move. How many people are going to get injured or die because they lose control of their new Mustang due to overcoming the tires? For example: 370z's have wider tires eventhough they have less weight and way less torque.

If I bought a new base Mustang GT I would have wider wheels and tires on order before I signed the papers. Shoot, I would do this even for the Track Pack. 255 tires on the Track Pack is pathetic too.

I like the new Mustang very much and wheels/tires are easy to change, but why does it seam Ford is always behind in a critical area? They finally gave the car real power, 6-speed transmission, and atleast optional quality brakes, but they gave it skinny tires. WHY!!!!! Well, and I guess they are still behind in gas mileage from their V8's too.

 

... and what you're forgetting is that torque and horsepower advantage is whiped out by Camaro SS' heavier weight.

Remember, the current 4.6L, 315hp, 325 lbs/ft torque Mustang GT with the 3.73 axle came to 1/10 of a second to the SS in 0-60 and a mere 6/10 of a second in a quarter mile despite the SS' 426hp and 420 lbs/ft.

With new ratings of at least 415hp and 390 torque (roughly the same as the stock supercharged Cobras, at roughly the same weight), and a 200 pound advantage all make a pretty open and shut case that "Track Pack" or not, the outcome between the 2 cars is going to be as predictible as death and taxes. The GT's certain to have the upper hand for 2011 over the SS.

Correct.



By no means is my intention to be disrespectful or condensending, but one would have to actually be around in the late 70s early 80s and into cars at that time in order to give an opinion of peoples buying habits or what certain cars meant at that time.

And Mustang WAS sold as a sporty car. Comparing it to an Escort is akin to comparing the current Camaro to a Cobalt. Just as ridiculous then as it is today.

And I guarantee you that every person on this site today who was old enough to have their 1st car in the late 70s will agree with me on that.

When the '82 Camaro came out, the Fox Mustang was already [color=red]FOUR[/color=red] years old. Back then, a car not refreshed in 4 years was ancient. It's sales numbers had already fallen badly, and this fresh exciting Camaro showed up. It stopped as much traffic as today's Camaro. I drove up to Akron one evening from Pittsburgh (to my mom's disapproval)because a dealer there had one well before we got any in Pittsburgh.

That year, the 1st Mustang GT came out. In a day when the functional hood scoop on the '79-81 Z28s were big news, having a car with a marine cam, twin snorkle intakes, reverse firing order, 4 speed manuals, and could smoke tire at will (due as much to very little weight over the rear as to any real torque), especially after 2 years of anemic 4.2 V8s with mandatory autos and turbo 4s that tended to implode when you suddenly lifted off the gas after a long, hot high speed run, was suddenly hot news to anyone with gasoline in their veins.

Back then, regular people bought sports coupes. The same people who buy Mustangs today bought Mustangs back then. It's just because of the baby boom there was more of them, and because 4 doors and Japaneese cars were still a foreign notion back then as were SUVs, you had a far greater pool of people who were single, newly married, and just starting out who wanted a sporty looking car.

The 5.0 and GT Mustangs that started in 1982 saved the Mustang, and created a legend that continues to this very day. Every single year, Ford did something different to the Mustang to improve it's performance and handling (and keep intrest going).

In 1983, it replaced it's high capacity 2 barrel with a 4 barrel not from their own Motorcraft brand, but.... from frigging Holley!!!

1984 brought changes to the suspension.

1985 brought stainless steel headers, a quasi-dual exhaust, roller cams, new heads, the FOUR shocks on the rear axle,

1986 bought fuel injection.

1987 brought better breathing heads, a facelift, new interiors.

The following years bought a number of tweaks from mass airflow sensors to airbags to revised guages.

In the fall of 1977, if you asked any gearhead what would be the best performance car behind the Trans Am, there's a chance they would have mentioned the Ford Cobra with the metric tires and TRX suspension. By 1981, Mustang was pretty much old news. The design had aged far too quickly (partially due to the high sales volume of the 1st 2 years) and it wasn't backed up by any real performance anymore (the V8 put out 120hp).


Although today's Mustang is a far more compelling piece of machinary, at the moment it really can not compete with Camaro's great looks. Odd thing is that while the Camaro is edging Mustang out, it's not exactly slaying the Mustang in sales. That's a point that should be troubling more than a few people. We should be asking WHY is the Camaro not distancing itself from the Mustang in sales. Is it the interior? Is it the "Fun To Drive" factor?

As it stands, I fully well expect the Mustang to even the score for 2011.

Ford has pulled out the playbook from the 1980s, but unlike the early 80s, they have a far superior car to work with. Also, unlike the 80s they are pulling out a legendary name "the 5.0" to help out.

My prediction?

2011 & 2012 will easily be the best pony car matchup in history.

Lost in all of this is the fact the 2011 Challenger will also gain a bit of power and a few handling related tweaks, and the 2012 Challeneger will have a series of upgrades and a mild facelift.

 

You can think and try to explain all you want,
but the end result is you are comparing a car that isn't even out yet with a pack that doesn't exist.

You have no idea what either car can and would do.
You're just hoping.

 

the camaro's power advantage isn't so much wiped out by its weight, its wiped out by its gearing. 3.45s with 29" tall tires is terrible gearing. The people who have been drag racing the camaros are sticking 18" Z06 wheels on them and lowering the effective gear ratio with shorter tires. the cars pick up big time in the quarter. I wish GM would offer a factory 4.10 gear so bad.

I also don't call a 6/10ths and 6 mph difference in the 1/4 "mere". that is an *** whooping. if the camaro ran a 12.9 @ 110 and the mustang ran a 12.3 @ 116 you would be saying the mustang walked all over it.

as for the cobra reference, before we ever had performance numbers on the camaro I suggested its times will be similar to an 03/04 cobra. lo and behold, they are. if the '11 mustang is supposedly similar to a cobra, and the '10 camaro is similar to a cobra... where is the hard evidence that the mustang is gonna handily beat the camaro?

this is all a moot point though. most people who buy the cars and then race them will modify them.

 

Here's the deal.

GM's potential next step after the supercharged Z28 is direct injected SS. My guess is at least a 50 horse increase.

Ford's upcoming Shelby GT500 features a much lighter aluminum supercharged engine that is slated to put out only slightly more than the current version, while Ford will also address the GT500s somewhat slippery tires (the current Car & Driver points out that the regulat Mustang GT Track Pack is much quicker around sparts of the track they used than the GT500).

The lighter engine weight with same horsepower is enough to top the expected 4000 pound Camaro Z28, let alone a mild hp or gearing change.

Ford most certainly has a direct injected 5.0 locked and loaded, and we'll see it as soon as GM starts putting it on the next gen LS engine. That will send the GT's power into the 460+hp range.... still with a weight advantage.


This goes back to the other thread I started.

We are at a horsepower stalemate. Any further increase of power can easily be mat by anyone else, but we're going to see more weight as the chassis of these cars increase to support this mega horsepower.

Only an idiot will mistake the current Team Mustang with Ford's 1990s approach of simply making Mustangs "good enough" performance-wise. These guys today, with 110% backing from their CEO himself aren't going to let anyone put Mustang in 2nd place. Now GM no longer has 8 divisions to worry about, Chevrolet has become their defacto performance division with Cadillac seemingly testing out the heavy (almost litterally) artillery. SRT ain't dead, Challenger ain't dead, and in fact we're see some more surprising signs of life (perhaps in grand fashion) pretty soon.

You can just see where no one is going to back down until things get so bad and outrageous that the Feds step in and (in the typically overboard fashion of a parent slapping both kids around for being obnoxious) clamp down on everyone.

Cars today are as quick and fast as they should be. Once you get into the 4 second range 0-60 and top speeds over 155 mph on mid-level sports cars (the base Camaro's 157mph V6 still floors me!), it's time to focus on handling and other improvements.

It's time to call off the horsepower race, and focus on getting more fuel economy without in anyway degrading performance and return to handling.

 

Ahh, yeah I was comparing those things because thats what was I said.

As for hoping, I hope both cars do great. Competition will be good for both cars and I personally like both of them. At this point I would see myself in a Mustang GT before a Camaro SS, but that doesn't mean the Mustang doesn't have too skinny of wheels or that the Camaro isn't too heavy.

 

I agree the GT's have the upperhand of the SS in 2011, but you are forgetting some KEY POINTS in your comparison of the Mustang GT to the Cobra.

Cobra had more power. Are you honestly telling me you think a 2011 GT will be so underrated that it will dyno 370/370+ at the wheels like the Cobra did?

Cobra torque curve > 2011 GT torque curve
Cobra 275 rear tires > 2011 GT 235 or 255 rear tires

Not sure who the gearing favors, no time to look it up. Maybe someone can chime in.

And the Cobra ran an ABSOLUTE BEST of 12.4 stock. Based on the above, I do not expect the new Mustang to be as fast as the Cobra stock. The Camaro has gone a best of high 12's stock. 12.7 or 12.8 I think it is. The Mustang GT Track Pack has gone a best of 13.2 I believe. Will the 2011 T T/P shave off over half a second......we will see.

So like I said, I agree the Mustang has the upper hand in 2011, but it isn't going to be some blowout guarnatee such as death like you stated above.

And if GM doesn't let us down, a Camaro SS Track Pack would put the Camaro on top of the Mustang. As we have seen in the comparisons of suped up Camaros and Mustangs, not to mention what the CTS-V has done, the Camaros can stick and stick good when given the proper tires. The Mustangs have had lots of problem with wheel hop and spinning the tires. We will see if Ford addressed those issues and if GM gives the Camaro a Track Pack.

 

Can I bookmark this post for future reference?

Ain't gonna happen. Fuel economy.

With a 116hp and a 95lbs/ft torque advantage, the numbers alone would suggest a massive difference, not a mere half second. Closing the gap to 5-10hp and the torque gap to 25-30 lbs/ft will certainly close the gap.

The only wild card is the 3.31 axle versus the current 3.73.

Supercharged Cobras ran 4.5-4.7 0-60s and qyuarters in the mid-to-upper 12s at 110+ mph. Camaro SSs seem to run 60 in the 4.6-4.8 range and have the quarter times right at 13 seconds, also at 110+mph.

The Cobra had 3.27 axles.
The new GT has 3.31.

The Cobras weighed in at 3665.
The new GT is expected to be 3650.

The Camaro SS runs similar times that the Cobra ran, but it seems the Cobra will edge it out.

The Mustang GT does have numerous items that would give it the edge over a stock supercharged Cobra.

If A>B and C>A, then C>B.

Actually, most people who race (by far) are the impromtu street racers who race stock. Sure, you might find those who might change pulleys, exhaust, or even reprogram the timing if they can.

But the fact is that 99% of the people who buy brand new cars... even if they do occasionally race them.... keep them stock insofar as that they won't void the warranty. The new cars you see chopped and raced-out on the cover of Hot Rod Magazine isn't from real people. Those are the few professionals who make their livelyhood racing and have the funds to back them up, not from the rest of us who make monthly payments.

 

Facts.

1. If you hook up a 2011 Mustang GT's 5.0 to a flywheel and it churns out at least 415 horsepower, then it is in fact as powerful as the stock supercharged Cobra. It does, so it is.

2. The point you bring up about gearing is a good one. While the transmission gearing is something I have not looked at yet, the new GT's 3.31 axle versus the Cobra's 3.27 gives the GT the edge in that department.

3. The Cobra's 275 tires versus the GT's 255s do seem to give the edge to the Cobra because of better grip. But go below the surface and you'll recall that the Cobra's IRS ate up alot of forward momentum from a standing start. Ford engineered this in to tame axle hop on hard acceleration. There are pages of examples on the internet and in Ford mags of people dumping the IRS and installing a solid axle in order to get better times. The new GT has a live axle, so all else equal, this alone will give the GT better times than the Cobra.

Opinion based on facts, logic, and resoning;

1. The GT will hook up better than the Cobra due to a live axle, potentially giving it more grunt off the line.

2. The 3.31 axle will potentially make up for the immediate grunt the Cobra's supercharged engine might have over the freebreathing race developed 5.0 GT.

3. Both cars seem to weigh within 50 pounds of each other (Cobra being the heavier), and the new Mustang will have far less weight in it's nose (no heavier supercharger, no iron block engine), which should give it far better balence on a track than the already quick Cobra had.

4. Tires do make the difference, and the 275s on the Cobra were similar to the tires on the current GT500 which have not exactly been winning praise in any comparison test. Slippery is the word that comes up most. The Pirelli P-Zeros are far more stickeier and have earned praise in every article I've read about. If they do a better job sticking than the Cobra's did, then again, all else equal, that alone will best the Cobra's times.



Does this mean the Mustang GT will blowout the Camaro SS?

Hell no.

But it will be more than enough to edge it out

Similar performance cars today are closely grouped together in acceleration than ever before. In the old days, one car might do a speed a second quicker than it's competitor. Today, that same measurement is down to 1 or 2 tenths.

The other issue is that today, acceleration times are so low that it's going to take 50 and 100 horsepower infusions to gain any clear performance gains in a 400+ horsepower car.

The days of blowouts between 2 cars of the same class are over.

It's all about a scant tenth in order to win bragging rights in car mags.

On the streets, it's becoming nothing more than an issue over who's the better driver.

 

I dont understand its like youre disagreeing but agreeing? Its the terrible gearing holding the camaro back.
okay, here is how I see it. it all boils down to gearing. all cars are gonna have similar hp:weight.
the new mustang is running 3.31 gears but has a 27" tall tire. 03/04 cobras had 25.6" tires. the gearing advantage the '11 mustang had is gone. the new GT weighs the same as a cobra. no advantage. the new GT is going to make less average power over its RPM band. no advantage there. The new GT has narrower, less grippy tires than the 03/04 cobra. no advantage there. where are these facts that make the '11 GT a sure thing 03/04 cobra beater?
It must be the areas we live in. My friends aren't "professionals" yet I know a bunch of guys who bought their cars new/1-2 years old and immediately started modding them. the further south to philly I would travel the more non-stock cars I will start seeing. these aren't cars I read about in magazines or see at the SEMA show. these are real people.

In the end we're just gonna have to wait and see.

 

Did you really type that with a straight face?

 

I have to take issue with this. This statement ignores power under the "curve." We have no way of knowing how much the '11 has under the curve at the moment.

 

Gotta go down to Monterey soon, so lets clear a few things up.


Gearing:

It seems that the only gearing anyone is aware of is rear axles gearing. Seems one can look at tire height and rear axle and suddenly become an expert on how a car will accelerate. I mentioned that I haven't seen the gear ratios Ford is placing in the new 6 speed for the GT. I mention this with very good reason.

In 1994, Ford got an extra 20 horsepower and torque from the Thunderbird's supercharged engine. In order to keep this car from blowing away the Mustang GT (and even the Cobra of the day), Ford stuck on a smaller pulley and changed out the transmission gearing. One of the tricks in the SC community is changing out a '94 manual transmission with a more aggressively 1st, 2nd, and 3rd geared 89-93 version. Final drive ratio stayed the same.

Saying the only thing holding Camaro back is gearing is pretty silly because it's what GM put into the car and what you can actually buy. One can say the only thing holding the Cobalt SS back is it isn't RWD, but the Cobalt is what it is and sold the way it's sold.

GM is selling Camaro with the gears it has for the reasons it had as do all automobile makers.

End of story.


Unless there is some variable that's not yet known (dismal engine, traction, or stability control programming, poor low-mid range torque curve, or...again...bad transmission gearing... all nothing more than wishful thinking knowing Ford), or some OEM supplier does a '99 Cobra act (subsitute inferior parts once production starts that kill horsepower and create lawsuits), or you have a direct hotline to the almighty and are spending all your free time kneeling in prayer, the bottom line is based on the information available at the moment is the numbers do not favor Camaro SS in a 2011 5.0 GT matchup.

That's the real deal, folks.


As far as modifying new cars, again, it doesn't happen outside the professional racers market unless we're talking rich folks who can spare the loss or the griping and bitching group that post on sites that simply don't understand how their warranties were voided simply because they did this or that "minor" tweak.... the group I call "Genuine Morons".

Throwing a exhaust kit, or tweaking a 2 year old car that is worth half or less of the value it was when new is a far cry from walking into a showroom, buying a $32,000-38,000 Camaro SS, paying 600+ per month for 6 years, and almost half again that much in insurence and showing a real willingness to void the warranty 30 ways to Sunday by opening the engine or screwing with the engine computer.

If you know a "bunch" of people who do that (void warranties of brand new cars), then you either roll in more financially well off circles than us mere mortals, or they're not a group of people you should want to be associated with.

 

Mustang M6

Trans multiplied by rear gear = overall gearing (not accounting for tire height)

1st 3.66 * 3.31 = 12.11
2nd 2.43 * 3.31 = 8.04
3rd 1.69 * 3.31 = 5.59
4th 1.32 * 3.31 = 4.37
5th 1.00 * 3.31 = 3.31
6th 0.65 * 3.31 = 2.15

27.3" Tire (standard tire/wheel)

Camaro M6

1st 3.01 * 3.45 = 10.38
2nd 2.07 * 3.45 = 7.14
3rd 1.43 * 3.45 = 4.93
4th 1.00 * 3.45 = 3.45
5th 0.84 * 3.45 = 2.90
6th 0.57 * 3.45 = 1.97

28.7" Tires (standard tire/wheel)

 

Surely

The 2011 GT in its 'fuel efficient'/lowest possible gears mode, will turn heads, what do you think the 'track packed/ohhh i want those checkboxes' version will do
It will surprise a LOT of people... and that's before mods.

This is going to be an interesting tennis match if GM lets them play.