Bob, did you type that correctly. From the looks of it, a 4.30 gear will require shifting to 5th before the traps. Even with the 3.31 rear gear, the top of 4th is around 130mph. I figure this car should trap in the 110-112 range on a good run and 4.30 gears will be too much. This is kind of funny, because 3.73's from the factory may be about perfect and if you go any faster you will need to change tire size, raise rev limit (how much higher can it go?), or actually raise the rear gear. Thats just crazy talk!

I have been struggling with this too becuase you have to completely change the way you think of traditional rear gearing in these cars due to the insanely aggressive tranny gears Ford is using. A 3.31 is like a 3.73 and a 3.73 is almost your 4.30 It's kind of hard to wrap your mind around and really cool at the same time. Looks to me like the optional 3.55's will be the best gear for the open track guys but I think that will mean you will have to pass on the Track Pack as it was only available with 3.73's in 2010 anyway.

 

he's saying that if the 5th gear is on the mainshaft in the trans, and therefor a strong gear you can powershift in to, it would be beneficial to use an axle ratio that allows you to use all of the 5 performance gears. ford only has one overdrive gear, 6th gear. ideally you'd want to cross the traps between your hp peak and red line in your 1:1 gear, that would be 5th in the new mustang.

 

Ageed, I just thought I read it as Bob saying 4.30's would be good if you could NOT use 5th gear and that if 5th gear was on the mainshaft that even lower gears would be best.

My point was that the transmission gearing is so low that even 4.30's will require you to use 5th gear.

 

You know what I find remarkable here? Not that Ford would dedicate a model to a club, but that the Mustang community has an active and vibrant NATIONAL club. That's awesome! I wish there could be a respected organization called Camaro Club of America. We simply don't have that. I mean, I'm a long time member and sponsor of the Illinois Camaro Club. We have maybe 250 members, including a couple of interesting guys from the UK (go figure??) and can get 40-ish cars to any one event, and there are afew other clubs of that size dotted across the nation. But we don't have one umbrella organization like MCA. Getting the Camaro (and Firebird) community together is kinda like herding cats.

Someone needs to work on that.

 

You should have said something like this in the other thread a month ago.
Does this mean you agree with me that ALL of these cars (Camaro, Mustang, and Challenger) are being mis-managed and heading into territory that traditionally and eventually lands the model in "hiatus" or extinction?


I think Guy is actually pretty close to being on-point regarding the appeal and marketing strategy that worked back then. I myself have preached until I'm tired of writing it that Ford INTENTIONALLY kept the Mustang 5.0 at decent performance levels in stock form, but gave you TONS of ptential to do more with it. They wanted the buyer to mod it with parts from their catalog and suppliers to suit themselves - for numerous reasons. There is no trophy or award that puts money in the bank for offering "the fastest bone-stock production pony car"... only bragging rights, and THAT does not pay the bills. You need to SELL CARS - and the more the better. Not only that, but we can clearly see that they all sold better when the basic cars were just that - basic. Iron Dukes, V6s, I4s and such sold far more volume than any performance models. That's why I have a HUGE issue with GM or Ford letting a Focus or Cobalt take over wooing the teeny-boppers that Mustang and Camaro used to. Those kids that accept the Focus and Cobalt as their entry units will go straight from those to the SUVs when they marry and have kids, and then to the richer "old fart" cars like CTS and MKZ when they become empty nesters - missing the entire pony car experience. They never join the Mustang or Camaro clubs, likely start restoring older ones instead of buying a new one, or generally never get the "experience" that only comes in riding/driving one.

I say they are all moving too far out of the traditional markets they were most successful at selling in, but especially the Mustang. $25-$30k is too much for a basic transportation vehicle with a sporty look to it - period - inflation and cost-of-living trends be-damned. When Hyundai has a "sporty-looking" coupe that is on TV for $9998 out-the-door, any potential for that buyer considering a Mustang or Camaro is long-gone.

Enough about this - we beat it to death in the other thread.
Interesting that someone else is finally starting to post similar thoughts - that's all.

 

Proud, I hear you on the price ranges, but unfortunately, you can't just say "inflation be damned." Well, I mean, you can say it (it's still sort of a free country), but it really does matter.

I just glanced through the recent Motor Trend that contains the truck of the year results. It was a pretty light year for new truck offerings, so they included the "Work Truck" package on the Toyota Tundra as one of the contenders. It was a regular cab, two wheel drive, short bed stripper of a truck. It had the midlevel engine, a 310 hp 4.6L V8, and a six speed auto. They called it a "good work truck and a legitimate blue collar hauler", at $25,770. This thing has manual locks, windows, mirrors, NO cruise control, blacked out trim everywhere, steely wheels, etc. I've seen new F150s and Silverados advertised for $11k - $12k (after rebates; I know the sticker is quite a bit higher). Even if you can buy this truck for $15k after negotiating to invoice and incentives, the point is that the MSRP is nearly $26k for an absolute stripper of a truck.

You can't compare the Mustang's MSRP (which only a fool pays for a car, unless the car is just SUPER hot or limited in number, like a ZR1 or something) with a $9999 Korean super subcompact dealer advertised price. Just as I wouldn't assume, using my above example, that I can actually buy a stripper F150 or Silverado for HALF the price of a stripper Tundra.

Comparing sticker to sticker, or advertised to advertised, the Mustang's price of entry (at the base end) isn't really out of whack.

There is still merit to your concern, of course. The Kia Forte is a decently stylish little car that stickers in the $15k-$20k+ range. With the Mustang moving to 305 hp for the base model, there really isn't a Mustang variant to line up directly across from it. The base Mustang would line up more directly against, say, the base Genesis coupe (and handily destroy it, just as the base Camaro does). Of course, the Genesis coupe is a dedicated "sporty car" which may or may not have a long shelf life. Which is sort of your point, I think.

 

ZZ...yes and know. When I posted that, I did some quick math in my head without checking results when I came up with the 4.30s w/o being able to powershift 5th. That would indeed mean a shift to 5th gear at ~100 mph (assuming stock redline). Not good, and oops - I should have checked before I posted. So if 5th cannot handle being powershifted, then something down around a 3.90 would probably be as good as it gets (and still the same as a much steeper gear with any Tremec 5 or 6 speed).

If I can indeed powershift 5th, then I'm in with my 4.56s, 26" tall tires that are REALLY sticky (cause I'll have mega torque multiplication in 1st gear), and some pretty neat wheelies off the line.

 

This 'rumor' seems to back up Guy's earlier post in regards to Ford low-balling horsepower numbers for the Coyote...

You'd think that Ford would allow themselves some room for future upgrade paths but you never know. It's a great time to be a Ford fan right now... just as it will be for GM fans when GM eventually release the GenV.

 

I'll readily admit my Ford bias (though I'll argue with anyone that wants to argue that I stoop to "nutswinger" status ), however, I have a very, very hard time believing the motor will be anywhere near 468 crank HP, and thus very near 400 RWHP. Would be nice if I were wrong, but I just can't see it.

Bob

PS....I probably could be accurately described as an "LSx nutswinger".

 

Bob

You, you... you Ford fan you!

Just think of what is currently possible... The BMW M3 V8 displaces only 4.0L yet the engine puts out 420 hp. The Coyote displaces 5.0L and is brimming with similar technology. You'd think that 470 hp should be quite attainable.

I know it's far fetched to be comparing BMWs to Fords but the technology is out there, today. All good!

 

I am not saying the new 5.0 isn't capable of making 460+ HP from the factory - what I'm saying is that I don't think the version that will be in the 2011 GT will make that, or very close.

Be it known that I have no inside knowledge, nor do I claim to have.

And this is one time I'd be more than happy to be dead wrong!

Bob

 

But the BMW revs quite a bit higher, which helps a lot in the hp/l department. 412 from a PI 5.0 is already a really good number.

 

Yes, I'm aware of that. That's how most of BMW's engines make most of their power and the reason why companies like Ford/GM cannot touch them...

But if you notice the M3 V8's bore/stroke relationship, the Coyote has identical bore size. The difference in capacity between the two V8s is purely from the extra stroke on the Ford V8, hence, lower rpms for max power. By the same token, the BMW only has 290 lb-ft of torque compared to 390 lb-ft for the Ford. Interesting comparison, I find.

Yes, I do agree, the Coyote is quite an impressive powerplant.

 

Well, I think you will find that there will soon be 2 flavors of 5.0. One, will be the detuned version that will be in the regular GT................ flavor #2.............. hmmmm, what special edition do you think they could make, with a 302 engine???

However, others have said that the actual numbers for the GT may be a bit higher. Ford does seem to be enjoying themselves, with this. Another thing to remember is, the Ecoboost 3.5L was reported to produce 340hp, when it was announced. Yet, in production form, it produces 355-365hp.

 

Grande?