That's what I am saying!!!! A 2011 GT with presumably factory option 3.73 rear gears as they had in 2010 is almost PERFECT for the drag strip. We are talking about a car that appears highly optimized to kick some *** and take some names. The ONLY thing it doesn't have is the tires, but that can be fixed.

I think we will see some AWESOME times from DR only 2011 Mustang GT's.

Does that sound like you are getting one or is that just me?!?

 

It remains to be seen.

If they are tuning to 470hp the gear choices in the trans don't make a lot of sense when compared to the planned tire sizes as far as making the car anything other than a handfull and it's pretty sketchy to hook that kind of juice to the ground unless they would resort to LOTS of torque management.

The trans ratios discussed are about torque multiplication, if you catch my drift?

Axle wrap control is a tricky deal and controlling a solid rear axle and can lead leads to some handling and braking stability compromises.

Those trans ratios, 468hp, and that weight don't translate to the proposed EPA mpg at my first glance. Considering the proposed small weight gain bantered about? I wasn't under the impression the present 'stang was so overbuilt.

That sort of power and troque multiplication without some stout weight gains? That is certainly possible with more exotic materials. That tends to make pricing move up more than a bit.

As I said, it will all become clear. It really sounds quite impressive in the speculative descriptions.

On the other hand, the 5.0 might make it's max HP as stated and it needs to be spun close to redline to hit the number.

Thus the trans ratios being used and wider tires would kill the mpg numbers to a point Ford doesn't want to have on their fleet average.

This doesn't mean it isn't a cool thought. I'm just thinking like a pragmatist and using Occam's Razor which is usually applicable to more things than just the car business.

 

We shall indeed see. I agree completely that if this thing is wearing "normal" 235 series tires on the rear.....wow! Not a big concern for me personally, as I would swap them out in a heartbeat, but for the average GT buyer....egads.

And yes, I like to think I have a reasonably good grasp of torque multiplication...11.4's @ 116 mph on DR's with 355hp/330 lb ft @ 3340 lbs.....

ZZ...who knows what the future holds, but from what we have seen so far, this is the first Mustang that has really caught my attention in a long, long time. I'll be very interested to see the Bos.....err....special edition Mustang that is rumored to be coming around in the not-to-distant future.

 

The '11 Boss 302 is not a secret... Ford isn't offering a Boss 302R package for road racing without production intent...



AutoAlliance is going to build homogated versions at Flat Rock, most likely.

 

For the record, I personally doubt that 470 horsepower figure for the GT. I do know from those at Ford that the GT's horsepower number was significantly lowballed and ignore the number they'd advertize. I took it to mean 420 to 425. 435 at most.

Then again, I'm not going to be in the neighborhood when and where Ford will get the engine independently verified.

When Ford was finalizing the supercharged Cobra engine, one of the engines ended up at Wagner's company by San Diego (it did all types of outside varifications for car companies) where I was living at the time.

Back then, the site was still pretty cocky that LS1 Camaros were putting out well in excess of 320 horsepower. This Cobra engine belted out the equivlent to 420.

I came back and made posts about how this new Cobra was no joke, and was no doubt going to eat the LS1 alive..... and I was called a heritic, and it took me a year to get all the tar and feathers off. As far as I know, Ford now does all their varifications in house.

Never happen.

Simply bring up both the Z28 and SS at the same time in a conversation (or post) and it quickly degrades into an argument over which car is on top.

Never heard anything like that from Mustang guys back when I when I had one and was running with that crowd.

 

I'll tell you what I think. I don't blame the enthusiasts for that one little bit - I blame Chevrolet. Let's just say that Ford has done a MUCH better job of protecting, nurturing and differentiating it's Mustang models than Chevy has done with it's Camaro models. Ford marketing creates no confusion, no contradictions.

As far as a national Camaro club, you never know, there may come a point in my life when I'm semi-retired and I'd want to tackle that.

 

Well, if someone can rebuild the mess that was called General Motors in a matter of months, then someone else can no doubt be capable of herding the cats that are called the Camaro community into a single organization.

You are right in many regards in your observation of Ford investing more in the Mustang enthusiast's community versus what GM has done.

Scott has done the most amazing job by being essentially a one-man Enthusiasts-General Motors PR and research team. However, there is only so much 1 person can do... even if he does wear a blue cape, and can leap the country multiple times in a single weekend.

But Scott had to work years to get other people at GM to go to Camaro events and get in touch with the Camaro community, and even that's only just happened the past couple of years. Up till then, he was IT. However, when I was with the Mustang group, Ford seemed to have someone at every single Mustang event that wasn't simply a local weekend gathering. When I was on BON (joined them even before I came here) Ford was fishing for opinion on that site for a new Mustang.

The Mustang community killed the original SN95 replacement which was supposed to be an upmarket Mustang with a 3.9V8 that would have been closer to the current G37 coupe that Jac Nasser than what Mustang enthusiasts wanted.

The 5th gen changed a lot of that at GM. But as you said, it's years of neglect of the community that perhaps led to "factions" that make a national Camaro organization an extraordinary thing to pull together while Mustang's seemed to come together from day 1.


Let me get this straight. You are saying that because you mom "looked" at a Mustang that was $1,000 more than an Escort sometime in the 1990s (you were born in the late 80s, right?), that's the basis of why, despite my being around in the 70s and 80s, your statement of what took place back before you were a twinkle in anyone's eye is correct and I'm suffering from a distorted memory, huh?


I'v discovered during my brief time doing investigations people's memories can get distorted immediately after seeing or being shown or told something. A lot of that's because most people filter this input, and then the more they go over it, the more true it is.

However, let me assure you on this subject, my memory's just fine.

To make the 1st correction, the Ford Mustang II wasn't crossshopped with the Escort because the Escort didn't come around till 1981. Mustang II was replaced in late 1978 with the new Fox Mustang. The Fox Stang had a 2 year run without an Escort..... yeah, that was a cheezy pun.


Price and market position differences made the Mustang not exactly cross shopped with Pintos, save the MPG versions (1976-'78).... or when Pinto sales plunged over a cliff after they got a reputation of exploding in rear collisions (or even more colorful, the barbecue that seats 4). Mustangs were the next smallest car at Ford.



In the 1980s the Ford Mustang lost it's V6 engine (1987 if my old distorted memory still serves), and it was then that your only choice of Mustangs were either 4 banger or 5.0.

My friend's older sister purchased a Mustang II when it was still new. A classmate 2 grades ahead of me got a new '79 5.0 Cobra (redish orange...complete with the hood decal) when he graduated (parents got it for him... he was actually a pretty mature guy and didn't abuse the car), and the neighbor 2 houses down who also got a new Mustang Ghia. At least 2 relatives bought Mustang II. They were that popular... and none considered a Pinto (or a years-from-production Ford Escort).

Fact of the matter is that they all just like the hundreds of thousands who bought Mustangs over those years (Ford sold nearly 400,000 Mustang IIs it's first year and a all time record of 418,000 it's 2nd) actually bought Mustangs because they were sporty, they looked good (by the standards of the day), and they were Mustangs.

Sure, you likely had people who looked at both Mustangs and Escorts in the 1980s. Just like you have folks who come into showrooms and look at both Mustangs and Focus, Mustangs and Fusions, or even Camaros and Cobalts today. The flashiest car in the lineup and showroom is going to tempt people there for something else. Camaro likely snagged a few people planning to buy a Cobalt (or back then, a Cavalier), and Mustang likely snagged a few who got seduced away from an Escort.



Nothing wrong with being born in the late 80s. But I wouldn't profess my knowledge trumps those who were around then and very much into (and up to date on) the cars of that era. Looking up sales figures, events (ie: insurence companies jamming up rates on muscle cars in 1969), look at the effects, and drawing conclusions are one thing.

However, when it comes to market issues and what the public was thinking at the time (ie: Why did original '65 Mustang based on a frumpy old compact that came out 4 years earlier see it's 1st two year's sales go absolutely ballistic while the superior, more advanced, and arguably better looking, and better handling Chevrolet Corvair sat on lots and got a fast ticket to oblivion years before Ralph Nader's book), if you weren't there, the only way to learn is from those who were.

Just because it doesn't match what you'd think doesn't mean the other person's reality's distorted. Perhaps they simply are aware of things that someone not around at that time perhaps isn't aware of.

 

I am not gonna get into your little game of arguing people into submission. I am almost 30, so I was born in the early 80's. That Escort my mom had was an 84. After the spark plugs caught fire several times she kept talking about how she wished she spent the extra money on the Mustang.

Also..I am not stupid...Mustang II was not crosshopped with with the the Escort..it was Crossshopped with the the Pinto (which it was based on). Pinto was the predecessor ****ty Ford economy car to the Escort.

My point is..back in the day Mustang was a viable alternative to buying whatever ****ty little economy car Ford was offering. The newer Mustang no longer can go that far down market..and as a consquence, it's sales figures reflect that.

 

Yeah, there's that. Scott has been a one man show with the people of the community, even doing it on his free time and I also appreciate visits from Paul. It's too bad Chevy doesn't have a dedicated team to connect with enthusiasts (as in: THAT'S THEIR JOB!).

But what I was more specifically referring to, was your point about Z/28 vs SS. I mean what do you expect? When the marketing people sow confusion into the enthusiast community, confusion is what you'll reap.

Can you imagine Ford deciding one day that they will strip the features which make an SVT an SVT or a Boss a Boss, bundle these items onto a GT with a price increase, still retain the SVT as a bottom of the line V6 appearing clone, restricting it from anything which traditionally has been associated with it's branding or lineage........and not create confusion, discontent, fear and loathing in the community????!!! Imagine the blood in the streets from the Mustang folks.


Like I said, I don't blame the enthusiast community.

 

I just want to know if this means that Vanilla Ice is going to attempt a comeback and re-release his hit single, Ice Ice Baby!

 

I can tell you and anyone else who wants to consider....

Far more GM enthusiast employees follow the enthusiast sites than anyone might think.

I like you Charlie. You are a passionate fellow and even better? You actually buy cars that you want.

I don't know how many of the really heavy hitters in Ford follow the net, buy I know Bob, multiple marketing managers, brand quality managers, racing, performance parts, and other dedicated folks from GM and Chevy do...

However,
We must be talking a far different online Mustang community than they ones I have read over the years.

I have been around a lot of them and very little camp songs were being sung unless a GM fan showed up to be a fly in the ointment.

The bigger Mustang sites divide their forum sections to separate model/version areas to hold down on pissing contests. I have seen an abundance of Shelby, SVT, Terminator, Mach1, etc., infighting.

It doesn't matter in the long run... and it's all cool if it's in fun.

There is a level of comaraderie among Camaro fans that is inspiring. I have been to enough Camaro events to come away with that feeling in spades.

GM can always improve but I do think we try to meet our customers where they are and how they want to be met.

If Ford is making their fans happy, well that's great.

I do know that Chevy appreciates their enthusiast community and does try to do everything possible to show that appreciation.

As I said, we can always improve.

As a comic aside... Try registering a non-Shelby car with their registry, or park one in their area at any show...

 

LOL, there are Shelby guys that don't consider anything made after 1967 a true Shelby since it didn't come off of Shelby's assembly line, well until the current crop of KRs, Super Snakes, Shelby GTs ect.

These guys are quick to tell you that the current GT500 isn't a Shelby at all since it was engineered in house by Ford (neveremind the small input he had with the knucklehead staggared tires on the same size rims and the royalty Ford pays to put his name on the car).

 

Hehehe....coughcoughGTOcoughcough....

 

He-he, I was a fan of that song... when I got my SS (Commodore) the lyrics "Ice-Ice" were substituted with "S-S"... hence how I got my username. Just some useless trivia.

If any GM engineer were to embrace the thoughts of members on this site:

1. I'm not sure they'd keep their sanity.
2. I'm not sure the Camaro would be as successful as it is.

To copycat the Mustang model isn't necessarily a great development path, IMO. No IRS, relatively tiny brakes and a high revving engine raise some question marks. Though, I'm sure the new '11 model perfectly suits the Mustang's character.

After a long hiatus, I'm sure the 5G Camaro will evolve into something a little different from what we have today... but I like to give GM some credit for giving Camaro fans such a great product. I would think the engineers are aware of some of the car's cons... things which can be fixed.

 

Thanks for the kind words Paul. I agree with you regarding the camaraderie between Camaro enthusiasts. If you want to know the truth, I also feel a level of camaraderie between Camaro and Mustang folks. There might be some good natured ribbing going on, (what the hell, we can't walk on eggshells), but Camaro and Mustang enthusiasts are pretty much the same people and I find that we typically have a mutual appreciation for each others' cars. More than some would like to admit.


Getting back to this national club thing...

I can only imagine what an advantage it might for the Mustang enthusiast, to have a nationally recognized club which can approach Ford and say our members think x, y and z. Conversely, it's probably extremely useful for Ford to have a "GO TO" organization, which represents thousands of active enthusiasts, for input or dissemination of info, etc.


Camaro Club of America - I like the ring of that.