2011 Mustang 5.0
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
The new Mustang looks so much better then the new Camaro it's almost laughable!
So when it comes to power/liter ford wins again. 5.0L 32V V8 412HP, GM 6.2L V8 Pushrod 400 HP (Automatic Transmission) or 426HP (Manual transmission). Tsk.
Drew99GT: Maybe, but they still both pale in comparison to the Dodge Challenger.
Drew99GT: Maybe, but they still both pale in comparison to the Dodge Challenger.
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
The new Mustang looks so much better then the new Camaro it's almost laughable!
I think you have that exactly backwards.
The new Mustang looks so much better then the new Camaro it's almost laughable!
I think you have that exactly backwards.
Originally Posted By: rudolphna
So when it comes to power/liter ford wins again. 5.0L 32V V8 412HP, GM 6.2L V8 Pushrod 400 HP (Automatic Transmission) or 426HP (Manual transmission). Tsk.
power/liter is irrelevant.
Especially when comparing 2010 Camaro vs 2011 Mustang.
We shall see quarter mile and 0-60 times when the new engined Mustang comes out and what the Camaro does at that time.
So when it comes to power/liter ford wins again. 5.0L 32V V8 412HP, GM 6.2L V8 Pushrod 400 HP (Automatic Transmission) or 426HP (Manual transmission). Tsk.
power/liter is irrelevant.
Especially when comparing 2010 Camaro vs 2011 Mustang.
We shall see quarter mile and 0-60 times when the new engined Mustang comes out and what the Camaro does at that time.
Well considering that with only 315HP the mustang is running a 4.9 sec 0-60, I can only think that it will be faster than the much heavier camaro with 412. 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 Pushrod engines are outdated, they cannot make use of VVT, and VTEC like systems.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.
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: DeeAgeaux
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
The new Mustang looks so much better then the new Camaro it's almost laughable!
I think you have that exactly backwards.
No, I think he's got it exactly right.
The good, the bad, and the ugly:
Mustang and the two big piggies:
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
The new Mustang looks so much better then the new Camaro it's almost laughable!
I think you have that exactly backwards.
No, I think he's got it exactly right.
The good, the bad, and the ugly:
Mustang and the two big piggies:
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: DeeAgeaux
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
The new Mustang looks so much better then the new Camaro it's almost laughable!
I think you have that exactly backwards.
No, I think he's got it exactly right.
The good, the bad, and the ugly:
The Challenger is by FAR the best looking of the three. I would buy the V6 SE just because it looks like that.
Originally Posted By: DeeAgeaux
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
The new Mustang looks so much better then the new Camaro it's almost laughable!
I think you have that exactly backwards.
No, I think he's got it exactly right.
The good, the bad, and the ugly:
The Challenger is by FAR the best looking of the three. I would buy the V6 SE just because it looks like that.
Both car's are easy on the eye but I think Chrysler has a nicer looking ride in CHarger and Challenger myself. The Camro is a bit too 7 year old Match Box Car looking and the Mustang looks like it was carvedout of soap and left in the tube too long. SO while neither the FOrd or the Chevy are ugly niether one strikes me as sexy and masculine both are too Metro Sexual for me.
I am guessing the nany is going to censor this post even thought the word as used is not an obscene word at all and is part of the lexicon of common AMerican English and was used years ago on Seinfield and is often heard on radio both of which are regulated by the FCC. Like most things context is everything so if it my post doesnot make sense PM me and I will fill in the blank.
I am guessing the nany is going to censor this post even thought the word as used is not an obscene word at all and is part of the lexicon of common AMerican English and was used years ago on Seinfield and is often heard on radio both of which are regulated by the FCC. Like most things context is everything so if it my post doesnot make sense PM me and I will fill in the blank.
Originally Posted By: rudolphna
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: DeeAgeaux
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
The new Mustang looks so much better then the new Camaro it's almost laughable!
I think you have that exactly backwards.
No, I think he's got it exactly right.
The good, the bad, and the ugly:
The Challenger is by FAR the best looking of the three. I would buy the V6 SE just because it looks like that.
The Charger is the worst design of the three. Slab sided, shapeless and with almost no detailing, it looks like it was built off of a luxobarge chassis (and it is).
In 10 years the Challenger will look cheesy as [censored]. It will not age like the original.
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: DeeAgeaux
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
The new Mustang looks so much better then the new Camaro it's almost laughable!
I think you have that exactly backwards.
No, I think he's got it exactly right.
The good, the bad, and the ugly:
The Challenger is by FAR the best looking of the three. I would buy the V6 SE just because it looks like that.
The Charger is the worst design of the three. Slab sided, shapeless and with almost no detailing, it looks like it was built off of a luxobarge chassis (and it is).
In 10 years the Challenger will look cheesy as [censored]. It will not age like the original.
You all are crazy.
The camaro has the complete pkg.
Rudolph- you gotta be kidding right? There's no silver lining for loosing on the street or the track. The only car that can rave about HP per CI is the 57 Chev 283/283, after that, it's simply irrelevant. And Ford has been trying the 'smaller is better' thing for 30 years or so, and without looking I bet not 1 GT has had a faster quater mile or 0-60 when compared to a Z28 (when it was around) or an SS. There's no way GM is gonna leave the HP where it is for the camaro, I bet its up to 440-450 in the SS in '11
When a stock head from GM flows around 340cfm with a 2.125 valve on a production LQ9 engine, you don't need VVT (even though they have a rough cam phaser setup).
Displacement is king, anywhere, anyday.
But in all honesty, I like the Mustang alot better since the redesign and that bright blue color, it is awsome. And the fact that Ford can actually stand on its own two feet.
I like the Challenger also but it's simply too heavy.
Here's a critique for all of them.
Camaro- ditch the independent rear suspension, adds too much to the price tag. Ride quality and handling aren't that important to old men reliving the 60's.
Mustang- redesign the modular engine without the crazy under square bore/stroke combo. Once you get a bigger bore and smaller stoke, the engine will perform much better (maybe not in emission terms though).
Challenger- I don't know, there is very few cost/saftey effective ways to drop 500-750 lbs.
Please take this all in good fun.
The camaro has the complete pkg.
Rudolph- you gotta be kidding right? There's no silver lining for loosing on the street or the track. The only car that can rave about HP per CI is the 57 Chev 283/283, after that, it's simply irrelevant. And Ford has been trying the 'smaller is better' thing for 30 years or so, and without looking I bet not 1 GT has had a faster quater mile or 0-60 when compared to a Z28 (when it was around) or an SS. There's no way GM is gonna leave the HP where it is for the camaro, I bet its up to 440-450 in the SS in '11
When a stock head from GM flows around 340cfm with a 2.125 valve on a production LQ9 engine, you don't need VVT (even though they have a rough cam phaser setup).
Displacement is king, anywhere, anyday.
But in all honesty, I like the Mustang alot better since the redesign and that bright blue color, it is awsome. And the fact that Ford can actually stand on its own two feet.
I like the Challenger also but it's simply too heavy.
Here's a critique for all of them.
Camaro- ditch the independent rear suspension, adds too much to the price tag. Ride quality and handling aren't that important to old men reliving the 60's.
Mustang- redesign the modular engine without the crazy under square bore/stroke combo. Once you get a bigger bore and smaller stoke, the engine will perform much better (maybe not in emission terms though).
Challenger- I don't know, there is very few cost/saftey effective ways to drop 500-750 lbs.
Please take this all in good fun.
Last edited:
The whole camaro vs mustang line is just old. There is not a hairs difference in either one of them so just buy which ever is cheaper. The dodge is easily the best looking but its a whole different monster because it does not even seem to be constructed as a sports car and it weighs as much and the chevy and ford put together.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
The new Mustang looks so much better then the new Camaro it's almost laughable!
When Walt Disney first had the idea for Disneyland, he took it to a bunch of contractors and they said it was impossible. He then took it to a bunch of movie set designers and they said, it was doable. The difference being that where Walt Disney wanted a house, all the movie set designers needed to do was use some cardboard to give the illusion of a house where the contractors wanted to build a fully functioning house that had rooms, lighting, etcetera that no one would ever use. The movie set designers could make it look much better than what the contractors could do for much less, but it had no utility aside from how it looked.
The same is true for cars. You can make a car out of wax, and make it look very good, but as for actually driving it, a wax car will not take you anywhere. There is so much more to a car than how it looks. A vehicle's appearance is insignificant in comparison to its engineering specifications. For instance, does the car have a flat underbody? Does it have catalytic combustion (having the piston heads coated with a catalyst)? Has the displacement been minimized through the use of super-charging to maximize the fuel economy? Has weight been minimized through use of carbon fiber? What materials were used to produce the engine, the suspension, system, etcetera, a cheap plastic or an actually decent material? The list goes on and on.
The new Mustang looks so much better then the new Camaro it's almost laughable!
When Walt Disney first had the idea for Disneyland, he took it to a bunch of contractors and they said it was impossible. He then took it to a bunch of movie set designers and they said, it was doable. The difference being that where Walt Disney wanted a house, all the movie set designers needed to do was use some cardboard to give the illusion of a house where the contractors wanted to build a fully functioning house that had rooms, lighting, etcetera that no one would ever use. The movie set designers could make it look much better than what the contractors could do for much less, but it had no utility aside from how it looked.
The same is true for cars. You can make a car out of wax, and make it look very good, but as for actually driving it, a wax car will not take you anywhere. There is so much more to a car than how it looks. A vehicle's appearance is insignificant in comparison to its engineering specifications. For instance, does the car have a flat underbody? Does it have catalytic combustion (having the piston heads coated with a catalyst)? Has the displacement been minimized through the use of super-charging to maximize the fuel economy? Has weight been minimized through use of carbon fiber? What materials were used to produce the engine, the suspension, system, etcetera, a cheap plastic or an actually decent material? The list goes on and on.
Originally Posted By: genynnc
Mustang- redesign the modular engine without the crazy under square bore/stroke combo. Once you get a bigger bore and smaller stoke, the engine will perform much better (maybe not in emission terms though).
The 4.6 is not undersquare, the new 5.0 Coyote/Modular also makes 412 HP and will bust the '10 SS at will.
This is one of those horrible undersquare N/A Modulars (5.4 4V):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehMS3mztPwo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ORq_zuyzxI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ApIYjTpWIo
Mustang- redesign the modular engine without the crazy under square bore/stroke combo. Once you get a bigger bore and smaller stoke, the engine will perform much better (maybe not in emission terms though).
The 4.6 is not undersquare, the new 5.0 Coyote/Modular also makes 412 HP and will bust the '10 SS at will.
This is one of those horrible undersquare N/A Modulars (5.4 4V):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehMS3mztPwo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ORq_zuyzxI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ApIYjTpWIo
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: genynnc
Mustang- redesign the modular engine without the crazy under square bore/stroke combo. Once you get a bigger bore and smaller stoke, the engine will perform much better (maybe not in emission terms though).
The 4.6 is not undersquare, the new 5.0 Modular also makes 412 HP and will bust the '10 SS at will.
This is one of those horrible undersquare N/A Modulars (5.4 4V):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehMS3mztPwo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ORq_zuyzxI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ApIYjTpWIo
Maybe it would be better to go with a large electric engine with a 2.5L V4 engine supercharged diesel generator. With some ultra-capacitors to act as a buffer for sudden acceleration and regenerative braking courtesy of the electric engine, they probably could get similar performance out of it and it would have much better fuel economy.
Originally Posted By: genynnc
Mustang- redesign the modular engine without the crazy under square bore/stroke combo. Once you get a bigger bore and smaller stoke, the engine will perform much better (maybe not in emission terms though).
The 4.6 is not undersquare, the new 5.0 Modular also makes 412 HP and will bust the '10 SS at will.
This is one of those horrible undersquare N/A Modulars (5.4 4V):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehMS3mztPwo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ORq_zuyzxI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ApIYjTpWIo
Maybe it would be better to go with a large electric engine with a 2.5L V4 engine supercharged diesel generator. With some ultra-capacitors to act as a buffer for sudden acceleration and regenerative braking courtesy of the electric engine, they probably could get similar performance out of it and it would have much better fuel economy.
Excuse me Ben, I was thinking of the 5.4. Either way though, Ford is off on the wrong track with their smaller bore designs. I hope they have fixed that with the 'new' 5.0. I guess we will see which car 'wins' in the coming months.
Regarding the vids, not really impressed with the mustang. I could take a 302 Gen I Chevy and make 650 at 8K- naturally aspirated.
Regarding the vids, not really impressed with the mustang. I could take a 302 Gen I Chevy and make 650 at 8K- naturally aspirated.
Well considering the Redline of the new 5.0 is 7,000...
Originally Posted By: genynnc
Excuse me Ben, I was thinking of the 5.4. Either way though, Ford is off on the wrong track with their smaller bore designs. I hope they have fixed that with the 'new' 5.0. I guess we will see which car 'wins' in the coming months.
The new 5.0L bore s 3.63", and will happily wax the 4.06" bore Camaro SS.
Quote:
Regarding the vids, not really impressed with the mustang. I could take a 302 Gen I Chevy and make 650 at 8K- naturally aspirated.
Not impressed by a 720+ HP N/A 327ci (over 600 to the wheels) that does 9.1s @ 148 mph?
And good luck with the 650 HP N/A 302ci Chevy.
Excuse me Ben, I was thinking of the 5.4. Either way though, Ford is off on the wrong track with their smaller bore designs. I hope they have fixed that with the 'new' 5.0. I guess we will see which car 'wins' in the coming months.
The new 5.0L bore s 3.63", and will happily wax the 4.06" bore Camaro SS.
Quote:
Regarding the vids, not really impressed with the mustang. I could take a 302 Gen I Chevy and make 650 at 8K- naturally aspirated.
Not impressed by a 720+ HP N/A 327ci (over 600 to the wheels) that does 9.1s @ 148 mph?
And good luck with the 650 HP N/A 302ci Chevy.
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: DeeAgeaux
Originally Posted By: DeeAgeaux
Drew99GT said:
These cars are kind of cool, and mechanically they are quite impressive. What I'm not impressed by is the level of design ingenuity being offered up by the big 3. What I'm talking about is that these cars are basically a warmed over interpretation of something that was probably jaw-dropping and original 40 years ago.
While good to look at, these cars aren't original - in the design sense. Who gets credit for the design of these 2009 cars... really. Is it the designer that came up with the revolutionary designs in the 60's or is it the designers who warmed them over 40 years later?
What I'd like to see is something as original and cutting edge for 2009 as these cars were in 1969. I'd really like Detroit show us what they've got TODAY in terms of design, instead of throwing up their hands and reverting to 40 year old design inspiration. I hope these cars are not the symptom of a bankruptcy of design innovation/courage. I for one enjoy new design and the forward-looking advancement and evolution of car design and have never been a fan of the retro styled cars like the PT Cruiser and these.
What does this mean for the big 3? This is not a bash, but as attractive as these cars and their late '60's inspirations are/were, does this not quite sit right with anyone else?
Originally Posted By: rudolphna
Pushrod engines are outdated, they cannot make use of VVT, and VTEC like systems. And 4 valve per cylinder pushrod would be a mess.
???? GM has patents on VVT technology for cam in block engines for a long time, I thought they had some in current production.
The LS1 in my GTO was a fine engine, maybe the best engine I have ever owned, and I have owned some nice ones. The OHC Mustang V8 engine never impressed me much. Maybe the new ones are better. Hopefully Ford transferred as much technology from the Jaguar AJ V8, Aston, and Cosworth as they could while they owned those companies. Ford will be hard pressed to duplicate these premium engineering resources in the future, particularly with their debt burden. Maybe Ford Australia can prop them up.
There is still a lot of life left for cam in block engines.
Pushrod engines are outdated, they cannot make use of VVT, and VTEC like systems. And 4 valve per cylinder pushrod would be a mess.
???? GM has patents on VVT technology for cam in block engines for a long time, I thought they had some in current production.
The LS1 in my GTO was a fine engine, maybe the best engine I have ever owned, and I have owned some nice ones. The OHC Mustang V8 engine never impressed me much. Maybe the new ones are better. Hopefully Ford transferred as much technology from the Jaguar AJ V8, Aston, and Cosworth as they could while they owned those companies. Ford will be hard pressed to duplicate these premium engineering resources in the future, particularly with their debt burden. Maybe Ford Australia can prop them up.
There is still a lot of life left for cam in block engines.
- Status
Similar threads
