It's Official: 2011 Ford Mustang GT has 5.0-liter V8
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
I think the last Mustang was just about the right size. And yes, the current one has bulked up more than I would like. No one talked about how "lightweight" the Mustang was until the Camaro came on scene as a reference point. In fact, I do believe the word "pig" was thrown around quite liberally when it came to describing the 2005 + Mustang.
On the larger point, yes cars keep growing with every gen, and new smaller ones are developed to take their previous slot. I'd say that's more than just regs, there's a good bit of marketing involved in those trends, and I'm not fond of that either.
And yes #2, GM had better get the mass of Epsilon 2 under control. It's getting out of hand. Lambda too.
Last edited by Z284ever; Apr 20, 2010 at 02:03 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
I like to use the Miata as a yardstick, since it has increased in size only as necessary to meet new regs, and Mazda has always tried as hard as possible to make it lightweight and fun to drive. It has gained 400 pounds or so, or about 20%. The Porsche 911 would be another example, though it has gained more HP, I think, than the Miata.
The Corvette really isn't a good example, as the 1990 variant was much larger and heavier than it needed to be.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,650
From: Indianapolis, IN
430 hp in a 32xx lb coupe is pretty impressive. The Vette has lost weight, while the Porsche 911 has gotten larger and heavier over the years.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
C5 / C6 are bigger than the C4 was. And roomier. And lighter. The Vette is an outstanding example of how to do this stuff right (however overweight the C4 was).
430 hp in a 32xx lb coupe is pretty impressive. The Vette has lost weight, while the Porsche 911 has gotten larger and heavier over the years.
430 hp in a 32xx lb coupe is pretty impressive. The Vette has lost weight, while the Porsche 911 has gotten larger and heavier over the years.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 2,022
From: MD
So now both Car and Driver AND Edmunds have tested the Camaro SS and Mustang GT head to head.
It looks like the press ringers from before are no longer floating around. The newly tested cars are resulting in the expected performance, behind the SS, in every category, including price.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/..._camaros-video
http://www.insideline.com/2011-ford-mustang.html
It looks like the press ringers from before are no longer floating around. The newly tested cars are resulting in the expected performance, behind the SS, in every category, including price.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/..._camaros-video
http://www.insideline.com/2011-ford-mustang.html
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,165
From: Sterling Heights, MI
Inside Line seems especially critical of Camaro's interior. And for all the praise they give Camaro for its styling, they give the exterior nod to Mustang as well. 
I suppose they factored visibility into the styling equation.
I suppose they factored visibility into the styling equation.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 3,252
From: Knoxville, TN
I think you'll find that the cars are matched pretty evenly, performance wise. Power-to-weight for the two cars (on paper) are almost identical, so I would expect about the same 1/4 mile times, when equipped similarly.
There wasn't much info on how the cars were optioned in the C&D test (maybe there was - I couldn't listen to the whole thing), so its hard to draw any further conclusions on that.
For Edmunds, the GT with summer tires (like were on the Camaro SS) had essentially identical acceleration numbers. For braking and handling, the same should be taken into consideration (Mustang on all season tires, Camaro on summer only tires).
Price....well....base price of one is slightly lower than the other, and options aren't directly comparable, so that one is rather hard to draw purely objective conclusions on, IMO.
Certainly the IRS over a bumpy road has its advantages, as the Edmunds test pointed out.
There wasn't much info on how the cars were optioned in the C&D test (maybe there was - I couldn't listen to the whole thing), so its hard to draw any further conclusions on that.
For Edmunds, the GT with summer tires (like were on the Camaro SS) had essentially identical acceleration numbers. For braking and handling, the same should be taken into consideration (Mustang on all season tires, Camaro on summer only tires).
Price....well....base price of one is slightly lower than the other, and options aren't directly comparable, so that one is rather hard to draw purely objective conclusions on, IMO.
Certainly the IRS over a bumpy road has its advantages, as the Edmunds test pointed out.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,650
From: Indianapolis, IN
Originally Posted by Edmunds
The Camaro and Mustang have never been more different from each other than they are now. And yet they've never been more evenly matched. Go figure.
I think they've been more different in the past. Like the rocketship / performance focused 4th gens compared to the '94-'04 Mustangs, for example.
Ah, the mighty LS3!!
Check out the specs / results sheet for the Car and Driver comparison.
Look at the gearing difference. Camaro SS's third gear is effectively taller than the Mustang's 4th!
Also, note that the V6 cars both outbraked their respective V8 counterparts, despite having smaller brakes. I'm sure the bigger Brembos on the V8 cars will be better for fade resistance during road course work, but for street driving, the lighter weight of the V6 cars combined with identical tires between V6 and V8...
Come on, GM. Give us a 3.70 or 3.90 rear and some 275s up front to match the rears.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,650
From: Indianapolis, IN
The Mustang GT had the advantage in the skidpad (0.94 vs. 0.90 for the SS), but the SS turned in a better speed in the lane change maneuver.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 604
From: Elgin,SC
I was talking about the inside the line test.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,214
From: City of Champions, MA, USA
Ford has never tuned the Mustang's suspension better than on the '11 GT. There's a certain eagerness to how the Mustang reacts to steering inputs, as if the car just can't wait to move. Even with the traction control engaged, the Mustang GT is always dancing, ready to pounce and excited to test the limits of its P245/45R19 Pirelli P Zeroes. It's flat fun.
As well tuned as the Mustang's solid axle is, however, it's still not an independent system. The Mustang's rear end takes its time to calm down after knocking against a pothole or bump, and this sort of skittishness can be unnerving. On the rugged freeway surfaces of Southern California, the Mustang's rear end never quite has a chance to settle in completely. It's as if the coil springs are always working back there and they want you to know it.
Meanwhile the Camaro SS feels as if its summer-spec 245/45R20 Pirelli P Zeroes are sutured to the pavement with steel cables. The independent rear suspension produces a poised, comfortable ride the Mustang can't match, and deals with pavement hiccups almost casually. If the Mustang feels like it's skipping over the road, the Camaro feels like it's a smothering steamroller. The steering doesn't have the same giddy, light feel that you sense in the Mustang, but it's precise and quick enough. It's reassuring where the Mustang is entertaining.
On the slalom course, the Mustang GT waltzes through at a respectable 65.9 mph while the Camaro goes full blitz at 68.2 mph. At the skid pad the Mustang orbits at 0.87g, while the Camaro is slightly better at 0.89g. The Camaro may not win the argument when it comes to the sense of subjective engagement by the driver, but its handling performance is undeniably impressive.
The Brembo-equipped Camaro dominates the braking zone with consistent 111-foot stops from 60 mph. The best that the Mustang can do on its all-weather rubber is 117 feet. We should note, however, that the blue Mustang GT with the optional Brembos and summer tires did the job in just 109 feet.
As well tuned as the Mustang's solid axle is, however, it's still not an independent system. The Mustang's rear end takes its time to calm down after knocking against a pothole or bump, and this sort of skittishness can be unnerving. On the rugged freeway surfaces of Southern California, the Mustang's rear end never quite has a chance to settle in completely. It's as if the coil springs are always working back there and they want you to know it.
Meanwhile the Camaro SS feels as if its summer-spec 245/45R20 Pirelli P Zeroes are sutured to the pavement with steel cables. The independent rear suspension produces a poised, comfortable ride the Mustang can't match, and deals with pavement hiccups almost casually. If the Mustang feels like it's skipping over the road, the Camaro feels like it's a smothering steamroller. The steering doesn't have the same giddy, light feel that you sense in the Mustang, but it's precise and quick enough. It's reassuring where the Mustang is entertaining.
On the slalom course, the Mustang GT waltzes through at a respectable 65.9 mph while the Camaro goes full blitz at 68.2 mph. At the skid pad the Mustang orbits at 0.87g, while the Camaro is slightly better at 0.89g. The Camaro may not win the argument when it comes to the sense of subjective engagement by the driver, but its handling performance is undeniably impressive.
The Brembo-equipped Camaro dominates the braking zone with consistent 111-foot stops from 60 mph. The best that the Mustang can do on its all-weather rubber is 117 feet. We should note, however, that the blue Mustang GT with the optional Brembos and summer tires did the job in just 109 feet.
Last edited by super83Z; Apr 26, 2010 at 03:29 PM. Reason: copy/pasted wrong
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,650
From: Indianapolis, IN
The GT posted a good skidpad number, but trailed both the SS and the RS V6 in the lane change test. The Mustangs stopped just a bit shorter, too (though all put up some damn impressive stops), while the SS walked the GT in acceleration.
As expected, they picked the GT as the winner based on the Camaro's bigger car "feel" (much of which, I believe, is due to the sitting in a bunker visibility more than it is actual transient responses, given the lane change results). But in terms of performance, the cars are pretty much in a dead heat in V8 form.