The 2011+ Mustang Thread

[wbt]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

Yeah, so putting down similar power, the mustang has a very slight advantage (about 0.2s)... exactly what we are seeing. If the rule of thumb of 100 lbs = .1s is true and the gears are that much of an advantage, the mustang should have a .2 advantage + the advantage of the gears so like a half second? That's obviously not the case...

So by your account:

12.58 run in a 3.31 means that a Camaro SS will run a 12.78 given the same conditions?

Lets be realistic...it is not apples to apples.

Camaro has taller tires (along with more inertial mass), wider spaced transmission ratios, and a disadvantaged rear gear ratio.

Mustang:
1st 3.66
2nd 2.43
3rd 1.69
4th 1.32
5th 1.00
6th 0.65
Final drive 3.31:1

Camaro:
First: 3.01
Second: 2.07
Third: 1.43
Fourth: 1.00
Fifth: 0.84
Sixth: 0.57
Final Drive: 3.45

Do the math and the Camaro needs a 4.10 to balance it out (not factoring in the taller wheel which would bump it to a 4.30). This is far more important than the <200 lbs. weight difference any way you swing it.

[2SSARMY]

Once my weight reduction plans come into full effect, the 5.0 will be feeling the wrath of my car!

Using this car as a template to start my weight reduction


Yeahhh try and beat my 1,500lbs camaro now

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

What are the tranny gears like in the camaro? Did you actually calculate using axle and tranny gears to find what you would need in the rear to equal the final drive of the mustang? I think 4.55's would be extremely short in the camaro. The key advantage isn't in the gears, as proven by the 12.58 run in a 3.31 car, the advantage is the weight. Of course, I'm arguing anything else in your post. I completely agree. I just have a feeling with 4.55's you'd be shifting like crazy and the already hindering IRS would just have more problems. Of course I'm just speculating and I could be wrong.

Transmission gearing in the Mustang is much more aggressive. I drove a 5.0 this weekend. With 3.73 gearing, it could be in 5th at 20 mph, and hits redline at about 60 in 2nd.

Camaro Mustang

1st: 3.01 3.66
2nd: 2.07 2.43
3rd: 1.43 1.69
4th: 1.00 1.32
5th: 0.84 1.00
6th: 0.57 0.65

Also, don't forget wheel size. The Mustang has 19s compared to the Camaro's 20s, so even with the standard Mustang 3:31 rear end, the combination of rear end gear AND wheel size is also functionally shorter in the Mustang than in the Camaro with the 3.45 rear end.

EDIT: Crap, someone else beat me to it. People on this forum are fast.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by wbt

So by your account:

12.58 run in a 3.31 means that a Camaro SS will run a 12.78 given the same conditions?

Lets be realistic...it is not apples to apples.

Camaro has taller tires (along with more inertial mass), wider spaced transmission ratios, and a disadvantaged rear gear ratio.

Mustang:
1st 3.66
2nd 2.43
3rd 1.69
4th 1.32
5th 1.00
6th 0.65
Final drive 3.31:1

Camaro:
First: 3.01
Second: 2.07
Third: 1.43
Fourth: 1.00
Fifth: 0.84
Sixth: 0.57
Final Drive: 3.45

Do the math and the Camaro needs a 4.10 to balance it out. This is far more important than the <200 lbs. weight difference any way you swing it.

what about the other aspect of gearing, like RPM's?

[wbt]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

what about the other aspect of gearing, like RPM's?

You need to elaborate.

Are you referring to the higher redline of the Mustang?
Are you referring to optimal RPM when crossing the finish?
Are you referring to RPM vs. power under the curve?

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by wbt

You need to elaborate.

Are you referring to the higher redline of the Mustang?
Are you referring to optimal RPM when crossing the finish?
Are you referring to RPM vs. power under the curve?

did you take those into account when doing the calculations as to what gears would be equivalent?

[Merlinnnn]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

What are the tranny gears like in the camaro? Did you actually calculate using axle and tranny gears to find what you would need in the rear to equal the final drive of the mustang? I think 4.55's would be extremely short in the camaro. The key advantage isn't in the gears, as proven by the 12.58 run in a 3.31 car, the advantage is the weight. Of course, I'm arguing anything else in your post. I completely agree. I just have a feeling with 4.55's you'd be shifting like crazy and the already hindering IRS would just have more problems. Of course I'm just speculating and I could be wrong.

Yes, that is how I calculated it - without taking tire sizes into account. It's a lot bigger difference than most realize is all I am saying - would love to see some SS times with more equal gearing just to see how they stack up then.

[DeathChill]

So switching the gears and throwing on the Mustang's 19's would make an interesting test, no?

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by wbt

So by your account:

12.58 run in a 3.31 means that a Camaro SS will run a 12.78 given the same conditions?

Lets be realistic...it is not apples to apples.

No, that was by your account (you brought up the .1 = 100 lbs rule). If all else were equal, the 260 lb, according to the 3860 listed on this site, weight advantage should equal about two tenths of a second correct? So where is this huge gearing advantage coming into play? Are you saying the mustang has more of an advantage than we have seen thus far? Gearing is not the same, but neither is power delivery, at all. Shorter gearing is not always better, but lighter always is. Gearing is about balance and a higher spinning engine will benefit from shorter gearing much more (I know there isn't a huge difference ls3 to 5.0, just making a general statement). 4.10's or as said earlier 4.55's, may not actually make the car run any faster down the 1320, but taking off 200 pounds sure as hell will.

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by DeathChill

So switching the gears and throwing on the Mustang's 19's would make an interesting test, no?

It would be interesting to see if the Mustang's transmission could handle the LS3's torque. (That transmission is made in China after all).

[8cd03gro]

Considering evo is cutting 1.4 60's with it, I would be comfortable saying definitely yes lol

[wbt]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

did you take those into account when doing the calculations as to what gears would be equivalent?

Again do the math...

Tire diameter:

3.45
Camaro -
28.66" - 20" 112MPH = 4,530RPM (in 4th gear)

3.31
Mustang -
27.25" - 18" 112MPH = 5,940RPM (in 4th gear)
27.68" - 19" 112MPH = 5,940RPM (in 4th gear)

Huge difference. To get the Camaro in the same area:

4.10 = 5,384RPM (in 4th gear)
4.30 = 5,646RPM (in 4th gear)

Pretty clear picture.

[wbt]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

No, that was by your account (you brought up the .1 = 100 lbs rule). If all else were equal, the 260 lb, according to the 3860 listed on this site, weight advantage should equal about two tenths of a second correct? So where is this huge gearing advantage coming into play? Are you saying the mustang has more of an advantage than we have seen thus far? Gearing is not the same, but neither is power delivery, at all. Shorter gearing is not always better, but lighter always is. Gearing is about balance and a higher spinning engine will benefit from shorter gearing much more (I know there isn't a huge difference ls3 to 5.0, just making a general statement). 4.10's or as said earlier 4.55's, may not actually make the car run any faster down the 1320, but taking off 200 pounds sure as hell will.

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by wbt

Right back at ya. Put some 4.30's in an otherwise stock camaro and hit the track. Then do 260 lbs of weight reduction on one and hit the track. 4.30's would be way too short for the ls3 SS in stock form.