[rayhawk]

Originally Posted by syr74

MT reported observed mileage and mileage as rated by the epa which is 17/26 for the GT manual whichever gear set you have, I'm not sure what else they could have done here?



It says the same thing for Mustang GT, which has a recommended octane rating of 91. If it's true and hurting the Camaro, then it's hurting the Mustang too.



There is no Track Pack for 2011, and the 3.73:1 gears are going to have a higher take rate than 10%. Either way, it's factory offering and complaining about is just sounds like sour grapes.



Mustang does not and, according to Ford, will not offer 20 inch rims since they offer no performance advantage on cars of this size.

As for price parity, option for option the Mustang costs less which isn't really a surprise. A Mustang with the Brembo brake package does cost more than the base Camaro SS because Ford wont let you get the brake package without getting the Premium package which includes leather, etc.

So, to put is simply,Ford will sell you a 3.73:1 equipped Mustang GT for less than GM will sell you a base Camaro 1SS, but they wont let you order the Brembo brake package on that trim level. GM will sell you a base Camaro 1SS for less than a Brembo equipped Mustang GT, but that Camaro will have much less in the way of feature content since you have to opt for a GT Premium to get the brakes. If you option up the Camaro to match the Mustang Premium in terms of feature content, the Camaro will cost more even if you add the Brembo brakes to the Mustang.



Nobody associated with the 5.0L engine program, whether that be as a Ford employee or as a contractor, has suggested this. In fact, they have suggested the exact opposite, that the 5.0L is running in a very mild state of tune.

The 'it's tapped out' argument just sounds like wishful thinking.

There is a loophole in the EPA rating which allows manufacturers to rate the car with one gearset, but offer an optional gearset as well without getting it re-rated. They only have to test different engine/transmission combinations, not rear axle changes. How the hell would a 3.31 get the same mileage as a 3.73. Oh wait, the Mustang is magic, I forgot.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/which_tested.shtml