It's Official: 2011 Ford Mustang GT has 5.0-liter V8
12-19-2009, 12:56 AM
#48
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
"In fact, the big Chevy is actually quicker off the line than the GT500 and only starts to get reeled in by the more powerful supercharged Shelby mid-track. The trap speeds -- 115.3 mph versus 110.7 mph -- show the Ford's power advantage at work at the top end.
The Ford's big problem is traction. The rock-hard Goodyear Eagle F1 tires grip about as well as a pair of bowling *****, and you have to feather the gas otherwise the GT500 will be left standing in a cloud of tire smoke as the Camaro simply digs in and grunts away."
Fact is the only reason why the Camaro SS came within 1 tenth of the GT500 was the GT500 simply vaporised it's tires, and was hard to hook up, NOT because the Camaro somehow transversed the physics of weight versus horsepower to top the Shelby's advantage.
There is a Car and Driver article in which the current Mustang GT comes to within a tenth of the Camaro SS to 60. In that instance, it was the Camaro that had the disadvantage off the line.
The GT's softer compound Pirelli P-Zeros grip better than the F1s, the Mustang's lighter weight means less mass to launch, and the horsepower and torque numbers are clearly enough to match LS3 Camaros.
As far as the GT not being quicker than the GT500, if the GT500's issue is only tires and launch grip I suspect that issue will be resolved pretty easily.
Last edited by guionM; 12-19-2009 at 01:08 AM.
12-19-2009, 01:30 AM
#49
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Snow Belt, PA
Posts: 654
Here's the other half of the story from the Motor Trend article:
"In fact, the big Chevy is actually quicker off the line than the GT500 and only starts to get reeled in by the more powerful supercharged Shelby mid-track. The trap speeds -- 115.3 mph versus 110.7 mph -- show the Ford's power advantage at work at the top end.
The Ford's big problem is traction. The rock-hard Goodyear Eagle F1 tires grip about as well as a pair of bowling *****, and you have to feather the gas otherwise the GT500 will be left standing in a cloud of tire smoke as the Camaro simply digs in and grunts away."
Fact is the only reason why the Camaro SS came within 1 tenth of the GT500 was the GT500 simply vaporised it's tires, and was hard to hook up, NOT because the Camaro somehow transversed the physics of weight versus horsepower to top the Shelby's advantage.
There is a Car and Driver article in which the current Mustang GT comes to within a tenth of the Camaro SS to 60. In that instance, it was the Camaro that had the disadvantage off the line.
The GT's softer compound Pirelli P-Zeros grip better than the F1s, the Mustang's lighter weight means less mass to launch, and the horsepower and torque numbers are clearly enough to match LS3 Camaros.
As far as the GT not being quicker than the GT500, if the GT500's issue is only tires and launch grip I suspect that issue will be resolved pretty easily.
"In fact, the big Chevy is actually quicker off the line than the GT500 and only starts to get reeled in by the more powerful supercharged Shelby mid-track. The trap speeds -- 115.3 mph versus 110.7 mph -- show the Ford's power advantage at work at the top end.
The Ford's big problem is traction. The rock-hard Goodyear Eagle F1 tires grip about as well as a pair of bowling *****, and you have to feather the gas otherwise the GT500 will be left standing in a cloud of tire smoke as the Camaro simply digs in and grunts away."
Fact is the only reason why the Camaro SS came within 1 tenth of the GT500 was the GT500 simply vaporised it's tires, and was hard to hook up, NOT because the Camaro somehow transversed the physics of weight versus horsepower to top the Shelby's advantage.
There is a Car and Driver article in which the current Mustang GT comes to within a tenth of the Camaro SS to 60. In that instance, it was the Camaro that had the disadvantage off the line.
The GT's softer compound Pirelli P-Zeros grip better than the F1s, the Mustang's lighter weight means less mass to launch, and the horsepower and torque numbers are clearly enough to match LS3 Camaros.
As far as the GT not being quicker than the GT500, if the GT500's issue is only tires and launch grip I suspect that issue will be resolved pretty easily.
12-19-2009, 04:11 AM
#50
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
Actually, the Camaro SS is something like 50 pounds lighter, depending on equipment. Maybe with all the options (auto+everything else) the Camaro SS is a little heavier.
12-19-2009, 04:14 AM
#51
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
I don't think it's that bad for Camaro. The IRS will still be better on bumpy surfaces, for example. But it looks like the Mustang guys have really executed well.
12-19-2009, 06:46 AM
#52
West South Central Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Kilgore TX 75662
Posts: 3,372
I haven't driven a Ford lately, but when this is released, I just might have to...
I am in agreement with several other posters. There is no doubt that this will be a very potent pony that does a bunch of stuff right (looks, drivetrain, interior), but the Camaro is a very nice package also.
I haven't seen the 2 side by side, up close in person yet. I would love to have that chance.
Good job Ford.
I am in agreement with several other posters. There is no doubt that this will be a very potent pony that does a bunch of stuff right (looks, drivetrain, interior), but the Camaro is a very nice package also.
I haven't seen the 2 side by side, up close in person yet. I would love to have that chance.
Good job Ford.
12-19-2009, 09:28 AM
#53
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: TX Med Ctr
Posts: 4,000
12-19-2009, 11:22 AM
#54
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SeVa
Posts: 2,977
I'd give a lot of credit to the Camaro. It weighs slightly more than the GT500 and has 114 less HP. Yet it is only behind by 4.6mph through the traps. Shouldn't Ford be able to gain more than 4.6mph with 114 extra ponies? I'm not putting down Ford, I love Fords. But aren't you guys taking a lot of the credit away from the SS??? Everyone's talking about it getting smoked by a car with 14 less HP and and an even further gap in the torque department.
Well can you bolt on a set of slicks and run deep into the 11's with a factory stock SS?. guionM had the reason bolded and in red why the SS is so close to the Shelby in performance.
GM did an excellent job sorting out the rear suspension on the F5, weight aside its a win/win situation when it comes to the twisties and straight line acceleration with a good tire. The S-197 on the other hand in order to make it competent in the turns and offer a decent ride had to compromise straight line stability.
The fix is easy enough, but not suitable from an NVH standpoint since harder bushings on the rear suspension would kill the ride.
The F5 is a great car, but its also a relatively new car compared to the Mustang and Ford was able to use that "tired" five year old chassis to its advantage.
12-19-2009, 12:33 PM
#55
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,217
But you are forgetting that the Mustang is unbalanced which hurts traction. Currently, it is not a problem as the 255 P-Zeros are enough to handle the cars 315hp and 325tq even with 3.73 gears. This is why we have seen the 2010 Mustang GT Track Pack car run such good times, despite its relatively low trap speed.
However, it appears the 2011 Mustang GT may come with those same 255 P-Zero tires and I expect the car to gain weight upfront from the DOHC vs. SOHC engine. Therefore, will they still be enough to handle the new cars 412hp/390tq and perhaps equal or worse weight balance? How about when that power is multiplied through optional 3.73 rear gears?
I'm not so sure 255's will be enough. Remember that a lightweight car is easier to start moving but friction force is the friction coefficient (Pirelli P-Zero tire compound) times the normal force. Perhaps this is why heavy cars like the SRT8 Chargers and Challengers can get by with their relatively skinny 245/255 tires....
12-19-2009, 01:46 PM
#56
West South Central Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Kilgore TX 75662
Posts: 3,372
I'm not so sure 255's will be enough. Remember that a lightweight car is easier to start moving but friction force is the friction coefficient (Pirelli P-Zero tire compound) times the normal force. Perhaps this is why heavy cars like the SRT8 Chargers and Challengers can get by with their relatively skinny 245/255 tires....
I can't find what size tires the Mustang uses on Ford's website
12-19-2009, 03:29 PM
#57
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Snow Belt, PA
Posts: 654
Well can you bolt on a set of slicks and run deep into the 11's with a factory stock SS?. guionM had the reason bolded and in red why the SS is so close to the Shelby in performance.
GM did an excellent job sorting out the rear suspension on the F5, weight aside its a win/win situation when it comes to the twisties and straight line acceleration with a good tire. The S-197 on the other hand in order to make it competent in the turns and offer a decent ride had to compromise straight line stability.
The fix is easy enough, but not suitable from an NVH standpoint since harder bushings on the rear suspension would kill the ride.
The F5 is a great car, but its also a relatively new car compared to the Mustang and Ford was able to use that "tired" five year old chassis to its advantage.
GM did an excellent job sorting out the rear suspension on the F5, weight aside its a win/win situation when it comes to the twisties and straight line acceleration with a good tire. The S-197 on the other hand in order to make it competent in the turns and offer a decent ride had to compromise straight line stability.
The fix is easy enough, but not suitable from an NVH standpoint since harder bushings on the rear suspension would kill the ride.
The F5 is a great car, but its also a relatively new car compared to the Mustang and Ford was able to use that "tired" five year old chassis to its advantage.
12-19-2009, 03:41 PM
#58
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Snow Belt, PA
Posts: 654
We'll see. I'm thinking the 5.0L Mustang will be very competitive with the Camaro in a straight line. The TP will also get 3.73 gears for it.
BTW, GT500 number are all over the place depending on traction, technique, etc., so I wouldn't take that one test as gospel.
That's what I've heard, right between the GT and GT500. Figure it'll cost as much as a loaded SS. As far as GM not having a problem raising the bar - I'd say GM has a tough job ahead of it. Both the Mustang V6 and GT will have better power to weight, better MPG, better handling, better braking, better steering than their Camaro counterparts. It's NOT simply about adding more power.
Unless Camaro pulls a rabbit out of it's hat - it's gonna be an ugly magazine comparo season for the Camaro.
BTW, GT500 number are all over the place depending on traction, technique, etc., so I wouldn't take that one test as gospel.
That's what I've heard, right between the GT and GT500. Figure it'll cost as much as a loaded SS. As far as GM not having a problem raising the bar - I'd say GM has a tough job ahead of it. Both the Mustang V6 and GT will have better power to weight, better MPG, better handling, better braking, better steering than their Camaro counterparts. It's NOT simply about adding more power.
Unless Camaro pulls a rabbit out of it's hat - it's gonna be an ugly magazine comparo season for the Camaro.
12-19-2009, 05:31 PM
#59
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SeVa
Posts: 2,977
You missed the point completely. I was referencing trap speeds. What do good 60' times have to do with trap speeds? My point was that 114 extra horsepower in a car that weighs roughly the same as the SS only netted it an extra 4.7mph... which is less than noteworthy. So what makes every so sure the Mustang is going to spank the Camaro??? If 114 extra horsepower gives the Mustang a 4.7mph advantage, what do you think they are going to be capable of with 128hp less than that, not to mention a considerable torque disadvantage?
The bottom line is this, its easier to extract fast times from the Camaro by dint of its more tractable suspension and engine (and layout compared to the GT500) so I agree that the Mustang isn't going to impress most GM guys most of the time in the "real world" but in the right hands (pending final weight which is almost sure to be lighter) its got the goods to beat the F5 even in GT trim.
Only slightly related...
Not that I care for them, but the Mustang could probably make better use of a DSG before it gets IRS with the new engine.
<---edit--->
Also I hear the '11 GT500 is coming with staggered rim sizes - 255/40R19's in the front and 295/30R20's in the rear (remeber Ford likes to keep the overall diameter right around 27" I guess they will also be staggered in width as well to take better advantage of the tires. The current car uses the same diameter and width rim fore and aft but different size tires.
Last edited by bossco; 12-19-2009 at 05:38 PM.
12-19-2009, 05:32 PM
#60
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
I'd give a lot of credit to the Camaro. It weighs slightly more than the GT500 and has 114 less HP. Yet it is only behind by 4.6mph through the traps. Shouldn't Ford be able to gain more than 4.6mph with 114 extra ponies? I'm not putting down Ford, I love Fords. But aren't you guys taking a lot of the credit away from the SS??? Everyone's talking about it getting smoked by a car with 14 less HP and and an even further gap in the torque department.
But lets set a few facts straight:
1. Camaro SS IS at least 100 pounds lighter than the GT500, so the gap in horsepower is partially covered by the weight difference, as is the explaination to why both cars are closer than you'd expect with the horsepower difference.
2. When you get to horsepower figures that high, you need proportionally more to make the same difference than you do at lower horsepower numbers.
The new Mustang GT although at 412 horsepower also has the advantage of lighter weight and a more launch friendly solid axle. If the tires hook up and Ford keeps the 3.73s, I don't see any way the SS will out accelerate it.
