2011 Mustang 5.0

[MrHorspwer]

Originally Posted By: rudolphna
There is nothing wrong with the mustang's solid rear axle- remember, we have one. It's a V6, but its the same rear axle and suspension, and guess what, it works just fine. Not to mention it's a [censored] of a lot cheaper than the IRS setup in the camaro and challenger.


Rear drum brakes "work just fine" for most vehicles, but I'd be hard pressed to believe it to be equal when all the competitors have disc brakes.

Ever notice that John Coletti "retired" from Ford just before the new Mustang came out in 2005? Kinda odd for a guy who's career at Ford was defined by making Mustangs better, especially since he didn't actually "retire" and still works in the auto industry. Word from the inside is that he was quite upset when the bean-counters wouldn't give the platform team the money to go with an IRS. Seems that upper management thought that with the major competition out of the game, they could save some cash and stick with the old live axle design instead of going with a more appropriate IRS.

I'm not a Mustang fan and I don't have any particular allegiance to Chevrolet or Mopar, but when an automaker fails to advance a vehicle platform simply because there's no competition, instead choosing to use decades-old technology as a cost cutting measure, I die a little bit on the inside.

 

[LS2JSTS]

I miss John Coletti and the SVT bunch. He spent ten years building that franchise into a formidable team that put out great cars.

"Mainstreamed" into oblivion....lol.....I wonder what a performance guy like Coletti is doing at a place like Eco?

 

[Patman]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL



For example, just browsing a few sites right now:

camaroforums.com:
Threads: 45,612, Posts: 388,801, Members: 22,645

fbodyonline.com:
Threads: 54,508, Posts: 130,510, Members: 3,051

moderncamaro.com:
Threads: 18,952, Posts: 208,938, Members: 7,040

nasty28.com
Threads: 150,346, Posts: 1,714,818, Members: 28,855



VS:

corral.net:
Threads: 843,363, Posts: 6,541,655, Members: 126,767

mustangforums.com:
Threads: 574,014, Posts: 6,712,571, Members: 129,237

even our LOCAL Toronto board is larger than f-body online:
Threads: 63,828, Posts: 821,781, Members: 4,622


You forgot to include CamaroZ28.com, which is probably the biggest message board for f-body owners, I believe it has just under 86,000 members right now and total posts of 4,982,373 (the site is migrating to a new server at the moment, so I don't have the exact numbers but I know I'm not far off)

 

[SteveSRT8]

sure, in some dream world!

Here in the real world pushrod engines do have VVT, might want to go to Allpar.com and look at the new Eagle 5.7.

I will be one of the first in line for the new five-oh. The Mustang's dynamics are WAY better than either GM or Chrysler can muster. You can't escape weight. The freaking Challenger is a Charger underneath, man!

I had a Bullit Stang and it was a great car dynamically, just a little more ooomph needed.

 

[rshaw125]

Ford will sell loads of these. They are the only successful American car company left. In the UK they have the top two selling cars. Beating Honda VW etc. easily.

 

[UNC017]

Originally Posted By: rudolphna
But my point was that maybe GM should look into making more power in a smaller package. Pushrod engines are outdated, they cannot make use of VVT, and VTEC like systems. And 4 valve per cylinder pushrod would be a mess.


There's so much wrong there, I don't know where to start.

Not that I necessarily prefer the GM engines over Ford (if anything I lean toward Ford), but dissing pushrods is just dumb, especially if you're talking about a smaller package- pushrod engines ARE a smaller package (in general) than OHC. You can't categorically say that "purhrods are outdated" either. And there are VVT pushrod engines out there- no reason whatsoever to ASSume that VVT is only compatible with OHC.

 

[UNC017]

Originally Posted By: Ed_T


What's with the porka sized Camaro and Mopars? I witnessed the new Camaro pulling out of a 7-11 not that long ago, and it really is a huge car.


They're about the size of real 60s muscle cars- like the GTO, GTX, Coronet R/T, Charger, GSX, Torino, etc. Those were all midsize (for the time) platforms. Some of us like that instead of the smaller pony cars like the original Mustang, original Barracuda, and original Camaro. The new Camaro may be called a Camaro, but its feel really is more Chevelle SS, just like the new Challenger is more Coronet R/T than Challenger.

And you can't forget that despite its size, the Challenger is built on one of the best-handling, most rigid, and best dynamically balanced everyday-car chassis out there, especially when you factor in price. The LX platform, love or hate the sheetmetal looks of the various cars built on it, is a beauty underneath. I'm not as familiar with the Camaro, but isn't it really based on the same Holden platform as the G8? If so, then almost the same can be said of it.

 

[UNC017]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
I think both Ford and Chrysler have hit a home run with their retro interpretations of the Mustang and the Challenger, especially Ford. The new Mustangs are everything they were back in the day stylewise, but they look modern, cutting edge, and not weird or tacky.

The Camaro on OTOH...


I agree.

Some friends and I were talking the other day and we all basically agreed that the new Challenger looks mediocre in photos, but just blows your eyes out when you stand next to one. The Camaro is just the opposite- it photographs great, but in person the proportions are just all slightly wrong and it looks awkward- the squashed roofline in particular. I hated that look in the Chrysler 300, only liked it slightly better in the Charger, but I REALLY don't think it works in the Camaro.

The Mustang- well, all I can say there is that Ford evoked a total transformation with what are basically very minor styling changes. It looks *sooo* much better than last year's Mustang. And I already *liked* the look of last year's! As always, on a "bang for your buck" scale, the Mustang is pretty unbeatable.

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: rudolphna
But my point was that maybe GM should look into making more power in a smaller package. Pushrod engines are outdated, they cannot make use of VVT, and VTEC like systems. And 4 valve per cylinder pushrod would be a mess.


There's so much wrong there, I don't know where to start.

Not that I necessarily prefer the GM engines over Ford (if anything I lean toward Ford), but dissing pushrods is just dumb, especially if you're talking about a smaller package- pushrod engines ARE a smaller package (in general) than OHC. You can't categorically say that "purhrods are outdated" either. And there are VVT pushrod engines out there- no reason whatsoever to ASSume that VVT is only compatible with OHC.






Sorry you and others were right about VVT in Pushrod engines. Ok VVT fine. But the point still remains that OHC (in general, not all cases) engines have a higher power density than Pushrod engines. I'm not saying pushrod engines are BAD by any means, (heck, MY car IS a pushrod engine). Just that if you want to make more power in the same displacement, going OHC is a pretty good way to do it. They are more efficient (less mass in the valvetrain), have a higher redline (unless you have very strong valvesprings, pushrod engines don't like revving much. Our jeep is a prime example, redline of 4800 because the valvetrain couldn't take much more than that). There isn't really any reason to stick with pushrod compared to OHC, except for that nostalgia factor, and the heads are easier to remove.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Patman
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL



For example, just browsing a few sites right now:

camaroforums.com:
Threads: 45,612, Posts: 388,801, Members: 22,645

fbodyonline.com:
Threads: 54,508, Posts: 130,510, Members: 3,051

moderncamaro.com:
Threads: 18,952, Posts: 208,938, Members: 7,040

nasty28.com
Threads: 150,346, Posts: 1,714,818, Members: 28,855



VS:

corral.net:
Threads: 843,363, Posts: 6,541,655, Members: 126,767

mustangforums.com:
Threads: 574,014, Posts: 6,712,571, Members: 129,237

even our LOCAL Toronto board is larger than f-body online:
Threads: 63,828, Posts: 821,781, Members: 4,622


You forgot to include CamaroZ28.com, which is probably the biggest message board for f-body owners, I believe it has just under 86,000 members right now and total posts of 4,982,373 (the site is migrating to a new server at the moment, so I don't have the exact numbers but I know I'm not far off)


Ahhh, didn't show up when I googled Camaro and F-body, so I didn't see it, sorry. Still put the userbase at less than half that of the 'stang though. I don't think anybody has argued that the Camaro was more popular.

And yep, Camaroz28 is definitely the biggest of the F-body boards:
Threads: 539,873, Posts: 4,983,451, Members: 85,990

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
sure, in some dream world!

Here in the real world pushrod engines do have VVT, might want to go to Allpar.com and look at the new Eagle 5.7.

I will be one of the first in line for the new five-oh. The Mustang's dynamics are WAY better than either GM or Chrysler can muster. You can't escape weight. The freaking Challenger is a Charger underneath, man!

I had a Bullit Stang and it was a great car dynamically, just a little more ooomph needed.


That always puzzled me. The engine existed, Ford used it in the Cobra R. They then used it in the Aussie Falcon. But it was never fitted under the hood of anything less exotic than the "R" here.

 

[kkreit01]

I think they all look great, and I would take either 3.

 

[UNC017]

Originally Posted By: rudolphna

Sorry you and others were right about VVT in Pushrod engines. Ok VVT fine. But the point still remains that OHC (in general, not all cases) engines have a higher power density than Pushrod engines. I'm not saying pushrod engines are BAD by any means, (heck, MY car IS a pushrod engine). Just that if you want to make more power in the same displacement, going OHC is a pretty good way to do it.


What's inherently good about high power density (in terms of power per liter?) Nothing. In fact its kinda bad- higher stress, shorter life. Now its true that in some cases you can shrink the overall SIZE of the engine by increasing power density, but that's not always true either. Pushrod v8s are a good example- an overhead-cam V8 is generally wider and taller than a pushrod v8 of the same displacement or even of bigger displacement. So going pushrod can definitely increase the horsepower per cubic foot of engine bay, even if the horsepower per LITER of DISPLACEMENT is lower. Displacement is just the open space inside and engine's cylinders, and getting more displacement doesn't always require a physically larger package. Just look at the old AMC v8s- a 401 is exactly the same size as a 304. Same with Chevy- a 400 is externally identical to a 283.

Also, I would argue your claim that OHC is a direct contributor to high power/liter. What *is* a direct contributor to high power/liter is high RPM operation, and in some ways that is indeed easier with overhead cams. But given that there are production pushrod engines good to ~7000 RPM with modern lightweight valve components, overhead cams are not as big an advantage as they was back in the stone age of stamped steel rocker arms and solid pushrods.

It really, really bothers me when people zero in on one tiny aspect of engineering and claim that its "better." Things like overhead cams or pushrods, solid axles or independent suspension are all just engineering choices with both advantages and disadvantages, yet over and over people dismiss a car because its got a solid axle or an engine because it has pushrods.

And by the way, your Jeep is not a good example at all, because that WHOLE engine- from the valvetrain to the intake/exhaust manifolding to the compression ratio to the combustion chamber shape, to the intake/exhaust port layout, to the cam timing to the block structure itself was optimized for low-RPM high-torque operation. From the time it was just a drawing on paper, it was intended for offroad capability over high-rpm performance. The valves actuation is *far* from the limiting factor in the redline of a Jeep 4.0 or 2.5.

 

[FADEC]

Maybe I missed it in the article on the Mustang, but when will it be at the dealership and available for sale?? Tom

 

[MrHorspwer]

Originally Posted By: rudolphna
They are more efficient (less mass in the valvetrain), have a higher redline (unless you have very strong valvesprings, pushrod engines don't like revving much.


Beyond what 440Magnum pointed out, a V8 with a crossplane crankshaft, which Ford uses and is generally favored by all American automakers, doesn't like to rev... period. Regardless of whether it is an OHC or OHV design, the practical limit for a production crossplane V8 is about 7,000 RPM. If an engine's practical rev limit is determined by it's inherent crankshaft design and not it's valvetrain configuration, how is this a boon to OHC engines?

Now, don't mistake me, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with Ford's engine or OHC engines in general. I'm just saying that GM has put a lot of effort into their pushrod designs and have been rewarded with a very nice engine platform that produces good torque and great power, revs as far as necessary, is lightweight, is simple in design/manufacturing/assembly/repair, and is easy to package. To reduce this by simply saying, "Pushrods are old tech and should have been dropped years ago," is like me poo-pooing the Mustang because it uses a solid axle or Jeremy Clarkson trashing the Corvette because it uses leaf springs (which is a whole different argument best left for another day).

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
Originally Posted By: rudolphna
They are more efficient (less mass in the valvetrain), have a higher redline (unless you have very strong valvesprings, pushrod engines don't like revving much.


Beyond what 440Magnum pointed out, a V8 with a crossplane crankshaft, which Ford uses and is generally favored by all American automakers, doesn't like to rev... period. Regardless of whether it is an OHC or OHV design, the practical limit for a production crossplane V8 is about 7,000 RPM. If an engine's practical rev limit is determined by it's inherent crankshaft design and not it's valvetrain configuration, how is this a boon to OHC engines?

Now, don't mistake me, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with Ford's engine or OHC engines in general. I'm just saying that GM has put a lot of effort into their pushrod designs and have been rewarded with a very nice engine platform that produces good torque and great power, revs as far as necessary, is lightweight, is simple in design/manufacturing/assembly/repair, and is easy to package. To reduce this by simply saying, "Pushrods are old tech and should have been dropped years ago," is like me poo-pooing the Mustang because it uses a solid axle or Jeremy Clarkson trashing the Corvette because it uses leaf springs (which is a whole different argument best left for another day).


Good post.

Interesting note: The BOSS 302 was rev'd upwards of 9,000RPM. My cam grinder has a (definitely not street) engine with a set of HEAVILY worked BOSS 302 heads, very high compression in an R-Block that is intended to be spun to over 13K.

The cross-plane crank can be used for high RPM builds. Though it is inherently an inferior choice for the application.

 

[UNC017]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

Interesting note: The BOSS 302 was rev'd upwards of 9,000RPM. My cam grinder has a (definitely not street) engine with a set of HEAVILY worked BOSS 302 heads, very high compression in an R-Block that is intended to be spun to over 13K.

The cross-plane crank can be used for high RPM builds. Though it is inherently an inferior choice for the application.


Before NAStyCAR started mandating rear-end ratios a few years back, several teams were building v8s that would sustain 10,000 RPM. Penske started when they were still building Fords and kept it going after they switched to Dodge, Yates built Fords like that, and I'm pretty sure some of the Chevy guys were spinning them almost that fast (this was pre-Toyota). That's insane when you've got 358 cubic inches of displacement!

Quite frankly I think the whole V8 configuration gets questionable at the RPMs where the counterweights on the crossplane crank become a problem. Better to start thinking V12 or inline 6 at that point- something with better higher-order balance

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

Interesting note: The BOSS 302 was rev'd upwards of 9,000RPM. My cam grinder has a (definitely not street) engine with a set of HEAVILY worked BOSS 302 heads, very high compression in an R-Block that is intended to be spun to over 13K.

The cross-plane crank can be used for high RPM builds. Though it is inherently an inferior choice for the application.


Before NAStyCAR started mandating rear-end ratios a few years back, several teams were building v8s that would sustain 10,000 RPM. Penske started when they were still building Fords and kept it going after they switched to Dodge, Yates built Fords like that, and I'm pretty sure some of the Chevy guys were spinning them almost that fast (this was pre-Toyota). That's insane when you've got 358 cubic inches of displacement!

Quite frankly I think the whole V8 configuration gets questionable at the RPMs where the counterweights on the crossplane crank become a problem. Better to start thinking V12 or inline 6 at that point- something with better higher-order balance


Interesting note: The engine I mentioned above is a 8.2" deck 363 ci beast.

 

[jsharp]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum


Some friends and I were talking the other day and we all basically agreed that the new Challenger looks mediocre in photos, but just blows your eyes out when you stand next to one. The Camaro is just the opposite- it photographs great, but in person the proportions are just all slightly wrong and it looks awkward- the squashed roofline in particular. I hated that look in the Chrysler 300, only liked it slightly better in the Charger, but I REALLY don't think it works in the Camaro.

The Mustang- well, all I can say there is that Ford evoked a total transformation with what are basically very minor styling changes. It looks *sooo* much better than last year's Mustang. And I already *liked* the look of last year's! As always, on a "bang for your buck" scale, the Mustang is pretty unbeatable.


I mostly agree with this. The Challenger is the best looking of the bunch when you see them IRL. The latest Mustang is right there but the new wrap around tailight setup is sort of odd.

The Camaro is almost a characature of the early models. The rear looks plain and cheap and the front looks like something a kid would carve into a pumpkin. It's just horrid.

I can't believe the same styling department did the Camaro and the last 2 generations of Corvette since the Corvettes look great.