It's Official: 2011 Ford Mustang GT has 5.0-liter V8
04-05-2010, 01:08 AM
#661
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...t_numbers.html
Motortrend just posted up an article where they take and compare the 2011 GT vs the 2010 SS vs 2010 SRT8 Challenger.
They got a 12.7 @ 111.3 mph this time out of the stang.
Motortrend just posted up an article where they take and compare the 2011 GT vs the 2010 SS vs 2010 SRT8 Challenger.
They got a 12.7 @ 111.3 mph this time out of the stang.
Did Charlie fit them with mind-control eye glasses?
This'll only make Camaro better.
04-05-2010, 05:11 AM
#662
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,123
BORREGO HILL CLIMB
Armed with all the facts and figures, we setup camp in Borrego Springs and ran each car 12 miles up the scenic and serpentine Montezuma-Borrego highway's eight-percent grade and back down again. The combination of open and blind increasing and decreasing-radius turns gave each car a serious workout, with engines straining on the way up and brakes scorching on the way down. Is it any wonder that our average fuel economy, including the 140-mile highway run from the test facility down to Borrego Springs ranged from 11.5 to 13.3 mpg? But what self-respecting V-8 pony pilot gives a rip about his Clydesdale-like carbon hoofprint? We'll take them in alphabetical order:
Chevy's donor sedan endowed the Camaro with some admirable bones. The 52/48-percent front/rear weight distribution is closest to ideal, leading to admirably neutral chassis dynamics and impressive responsiveness. As Loh observed, "You can never say it serves up less than a totally planted feel. Brakes are fantastic. Might be the best here." The 6.2-liter small block is always ready to thrust occupants into their seatbacks, and the indefatigable Brembos inspire confidence. We always leave stability control systems fully engaged when running on public roads, and the Camaro's Stabilitrak system is astutely calibrated, metering the fuel and brake intervention as conservatively as possible to keep the car on its intended line without dousing the fire. And at $36,465, our SS's lowest as-tested price represents strong value.
2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS
But on the negative side of the ledger, most editors agreed the styling of this car has grown old quickly, or at least it isn't compelling enough to make us forgive the huge penalties the cartoonish proportions exact on the packaging. The Normandy pillbox visibility and redwood-trunk A-pillars make it difficult to look ahead through left-turn apexes, the gauge fonts and location make them hard to read, and the exaggerated and oversized steering wheel rim and shifter make the driver feel small (aren't these cars supposed to do the opposite?). The V-8's snarl is the angriest and noisiest of this trio as well, with a bit too much unwelcome staccato exhaust-bark.
"Inside this hulk of a two-door is a fine sports car clambering to escape," opines editor-at-large Arthur St. Antoine, concluding "the Mustang feels like a scalpel; the Camaro a hammer." Loh concurs "The Camaro feels like a concept car or a toy. Fun in a big plastic Lego blocks kinda way, but certainly not the kind of place you'd like to spend a lot of time. It's the one I'd want to rent for a weekend trip, not live with." Ouch.
Armed with all the facts and figures, we setup camp in Borrego Springs and ran each car 12 miles up the scenic and serpentine Montezuma-Borrego highway's eight-percent grade and back down again. The combination of open and blind increasing and decreasing-radius turns gave each car a serious workout, with engines straining on the way up and brakes scorching on the way down. Is it any wonder that our average fuel economy, including the 140-mile highway run from the test facility down to Borrego Springs ranged from 11.5 to 13.3 mpg? But what self-respecting V-8 pony pilot gives a rip about his Clydesdale-like carbon hoofprint? We'll take them in alphabetical order:
Chevy's donor sedan endowed the Camaro with some admirable bones. The 52/48-percent front/rear weight distribution is closest to ideal, leading to admirably neutral chassis dynamics and impressive responsiveness. As Loh observed, "You can never say it serves up less than a totally planted feel. Brakes are fantastic. Might be the best here." The 6.2-liter small block is always ready to thrust occupants into their seatbacks, and the indefatigable Brembos inspire confidence. We always leave stability control systems fully engaged when running on public roads, and the Camaro's Stabilitrak system is astutely calibrated, metering the fuel and brake intervention as conservatively as possible to keep the car on its intended line without dousing the fire. And at $36,465, our SS's lowest as-tested price represents strong value.
2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS
But on the negative side of the ledger, most editors agreed the styling of this car has grown old quickly, or at least it isn't compelling enough to make us forgive the huge penalties the cartoonish proportions exact on the packaging. The Normandy pillbox visibility and redwood-trunk A-pillars make it difficult to look ahead through left-turn apexes, the gauge fonts and location make them hard to read, and the exaggerated and oversized steering wheel rim and shifter make the driver feel small (aren't these cars supposed to do the opposite?). The V-8's snarl is the angriest and noisiest of this trio as well, with a bit too much unwelcome staccato exhaust-bark.
"Inside this hulk of a two-door is a fine sports car clambering to escape," opines editor-at-large Arthur St. Antoine, concluding "the Mustang feels like a scalpel; the Camaro a hammer." Loh concurs "The Camaro feels like a concept car or a toy. Fun in a big plastic Lego blocks kinda way, but certainly not the kind of place you'd like to spend a lot of time. It's the one I'd want to rent for a weekend trip, not live with." Ouch.
The car was balanced, neutral and planted. Wouldn't expect anything less from a Zeta based chassis.
04-05-2010, 06:45 AM
#664
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,123
04-05-2010, 08:00 AM
#665
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 6,166
"the Mustang feels like a scalpel; the Camaro a hammer." Loh concurs "The Camaro feels like a concept car or a toy. Fun in a big plastic Lego blocks kinda way, but certainly not the kind of place you'd like to spend a lot of time. It's the one I'd want to rent for a weekend trip, not live with."
The 2010 model with 97 fewer horses barely lost to the big-bore Camaro SS last time out, and the chassis we all went gaga over...
"Very nice. Lots of stick, well-balanced grip. Just world's more fun than the similarly fast but far more massive Chevy."
The galloping-away winner this time out is the Ford Mustang GT. It's simply the one pony car most of us covet, and it's the one that hews closest to the original concept of a lightweight (they weren't called draft-horse cars, after all), nimble body and chassis choc-full-o' V-8 muscle.
Last edited by Z28Wilson; 04-05-2010 at 08:11 AM.
04-05-2010, 08:13 AM
#666
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Confederate States of America
Posts: 1,049
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...t_numbers.html
Motortrend just posted up an article where they take and compare the 2011 GT vs the 2010 SS vs 2010 SRT8 Challenger.
They got a 12.7 @ 111.3 mph this time out of the stang.
Motortrend just posted up an article where they take and compare the 2011 GT vs the 2010 SS vs 2010 SRT8 Challenger.
They got a 12.7 @ 111.3 mph this time out of the stang.
04-05-2010, 08:59 AM
#667
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 378
So what does everyone have to say now that they were both run at the same time to compare times? Did the Mustang beat it enough this time or should it have run 11's now?.4 is a pretty good beating for similar cars but I'm sure there will still be people complaining it didn't run 115mph traps now. Let's see, Mustang is faster, lighter, handles much better, better visibility, but oh yeah it gets worse mpg if you beat the hell out of it, I'm sure people will use that as an excuse now, lol! There is a quote from resevoir dogs that comes to mind about the waitress not going the extra little bit that fits perfectly into the mindset I keep seeing on here.
on a side note, these cars get better mileage driven like rentals than mine does when driven like a tree hugger.
04-05-2010, 09:17 AM
#668
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SeVa
Posts: 2,977
Pretty good showing by the Mustang in the M/T article, its to bad Ford sent the car with a glass top.
I wonder if the curb weight is from the manufacturer's data? 3600 lbs with the glass roof seems kinda light given the info put out beforehand.
Anyways, I want to see what the aluminum block does for the GT500.
I wonder if the curb weight is from the manufacturer's data? 3600 lbs with the glass roof seems kinda light given the info put out beforehand.
Anyways, I want to see what the aluminum block does for the GT500.
04-05-2010, 09:27 AM
#669
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 3,650
Sounds like what many on here have been saying is true: The Camaro needs a steeper rear gear and some fatter front rubber / suspension work to even the table (at least as far as the numbers go). Maybe a "Track Pak" setup similar to the Mustang's. The SS already has the kickass brakes, so all it would need are the wider tires and some suspension retuning.
0.92 g isn't bad, but the Mustang pulls 0.97. If the Camaro had 275s up front to match the rears (like my '96 does), instead of those skinny 245s, it might have been much closer. This would also aid in the braking department (though both were pretty stellar). I was shocked to see the Mustang's weight distribution so far off (55 / 45), though obviously they make it work in the handling department.
Top gear revs at 60 mpg = 1450 for the Camaro, 1900 for the Mustang. That means the Camaro is at 1933 rpm @ 80 mph (about where my old school LT1 is with its 0.50:1 sixth gear and 3.42 axle), while the GT would be at a busier 2533 (still not bad). The Camaro could run a 3.73 or 3.90 or thereabouts and still offer lower cruise RPM than the Mustang.
None of this will fix the Camaro's packaging issues created by the wild (and sexy) styling, which is the main thing that would point me toward a Mustang these days, but they would fix the slight performance deficit.
I did have to laugh when skimming that article, as the Motor Trend goon said that the Camaro's styling has already gotten old. Um, I don't think so. One can argue with the aesthetics (as I've said a million times, I think the greenhouse is too squashed and the rear end needs some work), but there is no freaking way that car is "old" looking. It still looks like a damn concept car going down the road, and that is 4 years after the unveiling of the actual concept in January 2006. Outside of true exotics and maybe the Challenger, I can't name too many cars that turn heads like the Camaro. That said, I've no doubt that the 2011 Mustang will win most / all of the magazine comparos, even if the performance is more or less equal. The 315 hp, slower 2010 version even won a few, despite getting trounced in the speed department. The tossable nature and more airy interior with somewhat nicer materials were already high on the testers' lists. Now the car has the horsepower to match or slightly exceed the Camaro, along with those advantages. I think the Camaro's handling can be tuned to match the Mustang (again, wider front rubber would help), but the car will still feel "big" not so much in its responses or capabilities, but because of the weak visiblity and high, imposing dashboard / cowl / beltline.
Oh yeah, $40k for a Mustang GT COUPE? Holy crap. Just as with the SS, unless I need a backseat, I'm walking right past both of them and into a targa C6 at that price range.
Nice work Ford. Really, all three of these cars are suitably badass.
Side note, what's up with the weak showing of the SRT8? That trap speed isn't much better than that of the Challenger R/T from the last test.
0.92 g isn't bad, but the Mustang pulls 0.97. If the Camaro had 275s up front to match the rears (like my '96 does), instead of those skinny 245s, it might have been much closer. This would also aid in the braking department (though both were pretty stellar). I was shocked to see the Mustang's weight distribution so far off (55 / 45), though obviously they make it work in the handling department.
Top gear revs at 60 mpg = 1450 for the Camaro, 1900 for the Mustang. That means the Camaro is at 1933 rpm @ 80 mph (about where my old school LT1 is with its 0.50:1 sixth gear and 3.42 axle), while the GT would be at a busier 2533 (still not bad). The Camaro could run a 3.73 or 3.90 or thereabouts and still offer lower cruise RPM than the Mustang.
None of this will fix the Camaro's packaging issues created by the wild (and sexy) styling, which is the main thing that would point me toward a Mustang these days, but they would fix the slight performance deficit.
I did have to laugh when skimming that article, as the Motor Trend goon said that the Camaro's styling has already gotten old. Um, I don't think so. One can argue with the aesthetics (as I've said a million times, I think the greenhouse is too squashed and the rear end needs some work), but there is no freaking way that car is "old" looking. It still looks like a damn concept car going down the road, and that is 4 years after the unveiling of the actual concept in January 2006. Outside of true exotics and maybe the Challenger, I can't name too many cars that turn heads like the Camaro. That said, I've no doubt that the 2011 Mustang will win most / all of the magazine comparos, even if the performance is more or less equal. The 315 hp, slower 2010 version even won a few, despite getting trounced in the speed department. The tossable nature and more airy interior with somewhat nicer materials were already high on the testers' lists. Now the car has the horsepower to match or slightly exceed the Camaro, along with those advantages. I think the Camaro's handling can be tuned to match the Mustang (again, wider front rubber would help), but the car will still feel "big" not so much in its responses or capabilities, but because of the weak visiblity and high, imposing dashboard / cowl / beltline.
Oh yeah, $40k for a Mustang GT COUPE? Holy crap. Just as with the SS, unless I need a backseat, I'm walking right past both of them and into a targa C6 at that price range.
Nice work Ford. Really, all three of these cars are suitably badass.
Side note, what's up with the weak showing of the SRT8? That trap speed isn't much better than that of the Challenger R/T from the last test.
04-05-2010, 10:26 AM
#671
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 603
For me, if the Camaro had the Mustang interior, it would be the perfect car. After sitting in the 2011 Mustang at the auto show (or maybe it was a 2010...not sure), I really liked the new Mustang. I sat in the Camaro, and the interior looked unfinished. I'm glad Ford finally stepped up to the plate in the HP department.
04-05-2010, 01:22 PM
#672
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Okemos, MI
Posts: 9,488
In typical Motor Trend fashion:
I fail to see how the paragraph corresponds to a Dodge win here. The Camaro stopped shorter and had better pedal feel, and never faded or shuddered.
The Mustang stopped shortest, but pedal feel wasn't ideal, and elsewhere in the article it says they had shudder problems.
The finishing order that makes sense to me (for the brakes only) is: Chevy, Ford, Dodge.
All three ponies are shoed with Brembo stoppers, and they all performed admirably, with the featherweight Mustang stopping shortest in just 104 feet, followed by the Camaro at 108 and the Challenger in 113, but that's not the whole story. The Challenger's brakes are arguably the best, generating 751 horsepower of stopping force to the Camaro's 716 and the Mustang's 697. They're also the only ones that never faded or shuddered at all during repeated hard use. The Mustang's pedal effort is perhaps a tad lighter than ideal, the Camaro's firmer, more confidence-inspiring pedal feels practically perfect.
FINISHING ORDER: Dodge, Chevy, Ford.
FINISHING ORDER: Dodge, Chevy, Ford.
The Mustang stopped shortest, but pedal feel wasn't ideal, and elsewhere in the article it says they had shudder problems.
The finishing order that makes sense to me (for the brakes only) is: Chevy, Ford, Dodge.
04-05-2010, 01:28 PM
#674
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Elgin,SC
Posts: 604
04-05-2010, 01:58 PM
#675
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 378
In typical Motor Trend fashion:
I fail to see how the paragraph corresponds to a Dodge win here. The Camaro stopped shorter and had better pedal feel, and never faded or shuddered.
The Mustang stopped shortest, but pedal feel wasn't ideal, and elsewhere in the article it says they had shudder problems.
The finishing order that makes sense to me (for the brakes only) is: Chevy, Ford, Dodge.
I fail to see how the paragraph corresponds to a Dodge win here. The Camaro stopped shorter and had better pedal feel, and never faded or shuddered.
The Mustang stopped shortest, but pedal feel wasn't ideal, and elsewhere in the article it says they had shudder problems.
The finishing order that makes sense to me (for the brakes only) is: Chevy, Ford, Dodge.