The 2011+ Mustang Thread

[Xanthos]

Originally Posted by SGOS252382

Based on the article, the GT was running the 255/40/19s and it ran the same 0-60mph as the Camaro SS (4.6 sec). The advantge was beyond the 60mph mark.

Camaro SS, 0-100 mph - 10.5 sec
Mustang GT, 0-100 mph - 11.0 sec

Camaro SS ,0-130 mph - 18.0 sec
Mustang GT, 0-130 mph - 19.8 sec

Based on their testing the SS's advantage increases as the speeds increase.

But this is just one test. I'm sure there will be plenty of other maganizes with different results.

I wouldn't expect those results to change much. At the starting line, weight is your biggest enemy. You have to overcome all that inertia. However, once you're already moving, inertia starts to drop off and air resistance starts to increase. At that point, pure horsepower is the biggest factor. I would be very much surprised to see a test where the mustang out accelerated the camaro at speeds of 100+. 24 horsepower may not seem like much, but it does make a difference.

1/4 mile times I think will bounce back and forth between the two. But in high speed acceleration the SS has an advantage.
- X

[HIGHOCTANE]

Originally Posted by SwiftCat

You know much more about modded cars than I...I've never ran S/C myself, although I'd like to sometime in the near future. As to the Kenne Bell I was referring to though, they say it's rated up to 1400 HP, but can reach as high as 1000 HP with nothing more than stock. Why is the range between 774-1000? That seems like a pretty large range between the two stats?
Thanks...Swifty

Been awhile since I looked at the KB site,I see what you are talking about...those numbers are of course FlyWheel #'s. But also just because a kit is capable of making numbers on a "completely stock engine" doesn't mean the engine and driveline will last. The range is because you can change pullies and change the boost...ie run a big pulley make lower boost therefore less power....or run a smaller pulley,make more boost and more power.
Read all the way through on the site...nothing against KB but their site can get a little confusing for some when they start reading the ramble.
At 16psi they bent all 8 rods...even at 14psi they were running C16...again regardless of the big print I still say you won't make even 1000 FWHP(~850RWHP) reliably by just bolting on a KB kit...you can probalby make it ...but I doubt it will last. Also when they say stock with a KB kit even they are including add ons...their 115mm TB,2 BAPS ect...those are add ons to their kits..but that still doesn't help the piston,rods or the driveline live. If you want to make that kind of power reliably you need a purpose built short block with lower comp and at a min forged pistons and forged or billet rods..and that still doesn't adress the rest of the driveline. For instance I doubt the stock clutch will live long behind that power...if you are actually using it...then there is the rear axles..and everything in between...it goes on and on...and gets very expensive very quick to make big useable power..now if all you want it a big dyno number doing it "all stock" might be fine.

HP POTENTIAL Twin Screw superchargers MUST RELY ON LARGE FREE FLOWING INLET SYSTEM TO PRODUCE MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE. The 2.8, 3.6LC and 4.2LC Kits all use a huge air guzzling 4.5” filter, 4.5” MAF meter and 4.5”x4’ long Ram Air Pipe feeding the MAMMOTH™ inlet manifold (accepts up to 115mm throttle body). Compare that to the competition. Kenne Bell “0” restriction - short runner discharge manifold, intercooler and heat exchanger are designed to support 1000+HP on a 100% stock motor. Forged pistons and rods are necessary at some point but the kit components including the 2.8L will support it, so there’s no upgrading of basic components necessary with the 2.8, 3.6 or 4.2 kits. Just upgrade the stock 90mm throttle body to our 115mm. See Tech Tips for dyno tests. It fits the oversized Kenne Bell MAMMOTH™ inlet manifold and 4.5” inlet system

[esperman]

Originally Posted by BlackieRay

None of this is surprising. I'm completely unimpressed with the V-tec Mustang. Despite the hype, the GT is still not a serious competitor for the SS. Ford is going to have to do more than copy Honda technology and put a new coat of paint on the old mod motor. At least it beats that old slug they were pawning off on everyone last year.

have to disagree. These new Ford power plants seem very impressive.
Kudo's to Ford for releasing some real engines for the 21st Century. They also look better under the hood, in my opinion.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by Xanthos

I wouldn't expect those results to change much. At the starting line, weight is your biggest enemy. You have to overcome all that inertia. However, once you're already moving, inertia starts to drop off and air resistance starts to increase. At that point, pure horsepower is the biggest factor. I would be very much surprised to see a test where the mustang out accelerated the camaro at speeds of 100+. 24 horsepower may not seem like much, but it does make a difference.

1/4 mile times I think will bounce back and forth between the two. But in high speed acceleration the SS has an advantage.
- X

24 horsepower does make a difference. the question is, where the hell are you coming up with this 24 horsepower figure from??

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by |BLACKSS|

150 lbs is better than i thought i have intake and exhaust and i also heard that the new GT has a really good intake on it from the factory already and there is not much to gain there plus i saw that the peak hp 412 is at 6500 rpm... is ford spinning this motor high so they can advertise over 400 hp....its more that just peak hp. and before you say anything im not bashing the new gt i think it is cool it has 400 hp ITS ABOUT TIME IT TOOK FOREVER

the camaro never had 400 hp until last year. the mustang had over 400 hp back over 8 YEARS AGO with the Cobra.


and you are right. it's not just about hp. once you account for gearing and torque multiplication, the new mustang also makes more tq at the wheels than the camaro

[Xanthos]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

24 horsepower does make a difference. the question is, where the hell are you coming up with this 24 horsepower figure from??

My bad. 14. It was a long night.
- X

[Zeus]

pointless, like all of these threads.

[meanmike]

I'm going to assume that you all have seen the MT test where the Mustang beat it in every challenge from the 0-60 in 4.3 to the 1/4 mile @ 111mph in 12.7 and even breaking and the skid pad. So yes I believe thing's will be close on average however if you have an auto vs auto it doesn't look good for the Camaro.

[jordan 572]

Originally Posted by SGOS252382

Based on the article, the GT was running the 255/40/19s and it ran the same 0-60mph as the Camaro SS (4.6 sec). The advantge was beyond the 60mph mark.

Camaro SS, 0-100 mph - 10.5 sec
Mustang GT, 0-100 mph - 11.0 sec

Camaro SS ,0-130 mph - 18.0 sec
Mustang GT, 0-130 mph - 19.8 sec

Based on their testing the SS's advantage increases as the speeds increase.

But this is just one test. I'm sure there will be plenty of other magazine with different results.

how come the camaro ran a 13.0 1/4 mile and the gt ran 13.2 1/4 mile? the 0-100 mph mark shows .5 second difference and the camaro keeps pulling away but how come at the 1/4 mile the camaro loses .2 seconds? as the 1/4 mile comes between 0-100 and 0-130. you think the quarter mile difference would be about .6 seconds difference

[SGOS252382]

Originally Posted by meanmike

I'm going to assume that you all have seen the MT test where the Mustang beat it in every challenge from the 0-60 in 4.3 to the 1/4 mile @ 111mph in 12.7 and even breaking and the skid pad. So yes I believe thing's will be close on average however if you have an auto vs auto it doesn't look good for the Camaro.

Yeah, as soon as the Motortrend Mag shows up, the shoe with be on the other foot. And I'm sure Road and Track will then have their results. GM High Tech Performance and MMFF will have there's.

And its pretty easy for a Magazine to create the results they want.

[meanmike]

Originally Posted by SGOS252382

Yeah, as soon as the Motortrend Mag shows up, the shoe with be on the other foot. And I'm sure Road and Track will then have their results. GM High Tech Performance and MMFF will have there's.

And its pretty easy for a Magazine to create the results they want.

It sure is. My reason for posting it was to show that it is clearly capable of some great times especially if MT got the results they did.

[Sax1031]

I do believe as speed increases the Camaro will start to gain the advantage. Bigger displacement motor and the gearing starts to work against the stang at high speed.

[Doc]

It always cracks me up to see people bragging about their choice of car model AFTER they've poured thousands into modifying their car as though the reason they're "walking all over brand xxx car" is because of their model car. Once you start boosting, charging, etc. it has nothing to do with the body style or model. At that point it's money and mods versus money and mods.

Like one poster said there's always that stupid Honda Accord in town that can rip everyone to shreds because the owner put the money and mods in it to get it to that point. Does that make the Honda Accord the best car for performance? No; has nothing to do with it being a Honda Accord anymore; it's money and mods.

The drivers I have respect for are the ones that can line up in identical cars next to you and beat you. To me driver skill is the most impressive "performance mod" and the one I respect the most.

[SWAT 79]

Originally Posted by BlackieRay

None of this is surprising. I'm completely unimpressed with the V-tec Mustang. Despite the hype, the GT is still not a serious competitor for the SS. Ford is going to have to do more than copy Honda technology and put a new coat of paint on the old mod motor. At least it beats that old slug they were pawning off on everyone last year.

Silly Silly Silly. Sometimes I feel like some of the people on this forum just aren't car enthusiasts.