Maybe if you make her do a bunch of leg exercises and give her some large, extra sticky shoes?

 

Maybe in 1982!

Standard suspension C6 .92g
Z51 .98g
2010 Grand Sport (replaces Z51 option, and gains Z06 rubber) 1.0g

Want to say the Z06 is 1.02g or something like that.

 

I think those who expect the take rate, on the Track Pack, to be low, are in for a surprise. As a person who has followed the Mustang world for a long time, I would not be surprised to see an over 50% take rate.

These are things that GT owners do, outside the factory. Having the factory do it, with extra bennies, is just a great big bonus.

 

Damn those asshats at Car and Driver. I knew this would happen, and I almost made a thread about it. The jackasses tested a Boxster S, Audi TT, BMW Z4, and Corvette. Problem is, they couldn't get a test car from GM. So instead of leaving it out, as they'd have done in the past, they went to Hertz and RENTED a Vette droptop. It only had, oh, 15,000 rental car miles. And it was a non-Z51 (against a Boxster S). They ranked it last, saying the Corvette wasn't aging well. I nearly pulled my hair out.

That stupid car DID only pull 0.83. For that matter, so did the Z4. Even the Boxster S, which (like most C6s I've ever seen) normally posts in the 0.96+ range, only posted 0.93 or 0.94. So already I suspected the test site may have been less than ideal. But when I saw the Vette only got 0.83, I could not believe it. HOW did this not raise flags with them that maybe the rental car tires were not up to snuff after 15k miles of all season use? How would it not stand out to them that a car that hasn't been below 0.9 since the '80s somehow only got 0.83? I've never seen a C5 below 0.92 or so that I recall, and I can't recall a C6 being below 0.95 (though most tests are the Z51).

I KNEW that test number would start making its way around the 'net. Freakin' Car and Driver. They've gone way downhill as a top tier auto journal. Like the second year of the "Lightning Lap" in which they disclosed that the time for the previous year's run for the Z51 C6 was posted despite a malfunction with the timing system (the second year was something like 7 seconds faster). [/rant]

 

Oh, and as for GM having an LSx trick up its sleeve to counter the new Mustang engine, from and ENGINE standpoint it sounds like the Stang will still be behind (in terms of power and torque) compared to the LS3.

Again, the issue there is weight (and gearing). I'm sure a ~400 hp Mustang, if weight is kept steady, should be quite close to a Camaro SS in acceleration...

Oh well. I like 'em both. Well, all three really. But as the Stang is the only one with a droptop, the choice would be pretty much automatic for me were I in the market for a new pony car...

 

Good point, if Ford had any *****, they'd make the 6.2 going into the Raptor the standard GT engine (all aluminum of course)

 

Has anyone seen the torque curve of the new Mustang V-8 yet? Whats the torque rating?

 

This car and driver article says .92 for the SS

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take_road_test

 

That's a neat arguement, and if only engine power mattered, it would make all the difference in the world. Obviously that's not the case, and ends up sounding a lot like the ricer HP/L line.

Reminds me of a time back in....oh....late 1988. I had a brand new 88 5.0 Coupe that was virtually stock. Friend of mine had a 79 Vette (A3) with a cam, headers, and a few other things. I'd beat him in a drag race every time. He got rather mad about it once, and said "the only reason you beat me is because you're car is lighter than mine. Pound for pound, my car is faster".

I was ready to quit the human species right then and there.

 

Hey, I'm on your side here! I'm just saying that the LS3 is NOT the problem. 426 hp is no freakin' joke. The WEIGHT is the problem.

I'd rather the "trick" up GM's sleeve be a 400 lb diet than a power bump. Though I'll take the power too...

 

Don't forget that Ford may use their 6 speed auto in the upcoming Mustang as well. That extra gear may help quite a bit with both economy and performance, as it has the 5th gen.

 

nothing yet, I'm sure Ford is being tight lipped, not only for competitive/development reasons but also so they can get as many 4.6/4.0 cars out the door as possible before Ford goes "hey look at our new Mustang shiny!" and sales drop off a cliff for the pre 5.0/3.7 Mustangs.

 

We're acting as if a TP Mustang and Camaro SS are the end game in performance. Aftermarket is king for both these cars.

 

LOL...well, apologies if my rather blunt style was inappropriate (again).

And believe me, I am a HUGE fan of the LS-series engines....in my mind, they have absolutely DOMINATED the performance scene since being introduced.....what.....almost 13 years ago now?

Bob

 

True. 426hp is some serious firepower. In the 3,200lb vette, it's good for low 12's. In a 3,500lb camaro, it'd probably be good for mid 12's.

A diet (even a minor one) would be nice, but very unlikely. GM's best solution is to add more aggressive gears, and upgraded exhaust/CAI.