The 2011+ Mustang Thread

[2SSARMY]

He doesn't. He's wondering why motor trend has given worse numbers to the camaro now that the 2011 gt is out, than before. If anything the numbers the SS produces should be the same OR better... not worse.

[Gunsmoke]

Originally Posted by Sax1031

The only thing we have to go on right now is the MT test and yes it was biased. Just like when the SS came out. They played it up much the same way.

I still want to see production '11 GTs and the numbers people get out of them.

But for MT to get a 12.7 @ 111mph out of the GT, when they can't drive a lick, shows the car is definitely quick.

I hate mag racing but that is about the only thing we can go on right now. And multiple places testing the 2011 GT got better times than they did when they tested the 2010 SS. Not a fair comparison because it wasn't the same day or track.

It will really come down to the driver. But the GT should have the advantage, if just ever so slightly.

Yup! the rivalry is definitely reborn. that's why i said when they come out, it....is.....on....das....donkey kong... as das germans would say.

[Sax1031]

Originally Posted by 2SSARMY

He doesn't. He's wondering why motor trend has given worse numbers to the camaro now that the 2011 gt is out, than before. If anything the numbers the SS produces should be the same OR better... not worse.

You seriously telling me that a 1 tenth difference at .2 mph difference is clearly MT sand bagging the 2010 SS?

And why should the numbers be the same or better?

[ViperTomcat]

Originally Posted by Mr CLuTcH

I've just watched both reviews from Motor Trend, one from when they first reviewed the 2010 SS vs the Challenger and 2010 Mustang GT, and the other from now with the 2010 SS and Challenger SRT8 vs 2011 Mustang GT...and what I've came to find is that, Motor Trend is totally bias and full of s***. They're comparison data for each car is way off, and they totally put they're foot in they're own mouths when you review they're before and after comments.

Let's review some of them......

Braking

In they're current review of the 2010 Camaro SS vs the 2011 Mustang GT, they score the Camaro SS breaking during this review as

Braking: 60-0 (108ft) Mustang- 60-0 (104ft)

Yet when Motor Trend first did they're comparison of the 2010 SS it's braking from 60-0 was then scored at 60-0(105ft). So what I'd like to know is how in the hell does the Camaro SS' braking score go from 105ft with brembos equipped THEN to "108ft" with brembos equipped NOW? I mean, are they're testers holding back on the brakes to achieve a higher number for the Mustang's sake? When considering the SS' true braking distance was 105ft to the 2011 Mustang's 104ft, that's not a significant difference; with the same brakes equipped, that puts the Camaro SS' braking and the new 2011 Mustang's braking at "nearly" even numbers with the Mustang stopping only 1 foot shorter than the Camaro which is heavier. Wow.

Interior


"The interior is quite nice on this Camaro too, the materials a little higher grade than the Mustangs(2010); very well executed. Maybe not quite as overtly stylish as the Ford but you gotta admire the way GM has put this car together. All in all a very impressive interior. "-Motor Trend (FIRST REVIEW of the Big 3)

"The styling, while it's really popular, alot of people are snapping cell phone pictures, ....since it's in transformers yellow and everything, but it exacts quite a huge price on the interior, the windows are very small, and visibility out...in all directions is POOR, the pillars are very wide. I mean, theres other things like, the steering wheel rim is very THICK, and the shifter knob is OVER SIZED. All those kind of features, make me feel small. And I don't want my "muscle car" to make me feel small. All these things combined make most editors believe, they rather not own this car. And that's what put it in 3rd place...."-Motor Trend (2011 Mustang vs Camaro Vs Challenger Review)

Oh so basically, back then the Camaro SS was an amazingly impressive car, but now, "people are only snapping pictures because it's in transformers yellow". WOW,.....wtf. Motor Trend should totally remove this guy from reviewing anything. I mean,the 2010 Camaro has been out for quite a while now, and STILL I have people snapping pictures and going nuts at gas stations even though my car is in Silver Ice Metallic. I totally feel like Motor Trend is bias and purposely bashing the Camaro only to make the 2011 Mustang look better than it really is in an attempt to ignite a war between enthusiast, when it really shouldn't be any of that. Cars are only great in light of what they can do for it's consumer. Motor Trend totally "flip flops" the Camaro when during they're first review they couldn't get enough of it.

But the 2011 Mustang's interior is exactly the same as the 2010 Mustang, and what do you know, so is it's exterior styling. Oh wait,....a glass roof?! That's different! What else!? The 2011 Mustang has the exact same styling as the 2010, nothing has changed about the car except that Ford has added a "5.0" badge and gave it a new engine which equals otherwise better performance; oh my goodness that's so dramatically different from the other Mustangs you've produced that still travel the road like robots. Looks wise, it's still in the dumps. The 2010 Camaro has won World Best Car Design Of The Year Award, yet the Mustang didn't even make it into the finals. I'm wondering, has any Mustang ever won that type of award? But Motor Trend is going to score the Camaro 3rd in comparison to the other 2 cars? No one wonder they're subscription is only 10 dollars. It's probably so cheap because they're opinions are at times....worthless. No matter how "visually retro" the challenger may looks, it pales in comparison to the 2010 Camaro looks wise, the 2010 Camaro deserves at least second place. Better yet, I would have still given it first considering the performance of the new Mustang and Camaro is so close.

1/4 Mile
In the new 2011 Mustang Comparison, Motor Trend scores the Mustang in the 1/4 mile as:

12.7 @111.3MPH

YET......

They scored the Camaro SS at 13.1@ 110.8MPH

But during they're first review the Camaro SS scored 13.0 flat at 111.0MPH
So let me get this straight, the 2011 Mustang can pull a 12.7@111.3mph but the Camaro can run 3 tenths slower at the same speed (111.0) and have a significantly lower quarter mile time with 13.0? Someone please explain that to me. I think in reality, the 2011 Mustang GT and 2010 SS are almost dead even performance wise, it's soo a drivers race. I refuse to believe the Mustang GT scored that high in the quarter mile over the SS while trapping the same speed as the SS in they're first review. Other sites scored the 3 cars in what would seem to be unbiased, but Motor Trend went way overboard with they're times, test, and some of the statements they made towards each car, especially the Camaro. I suggest everyone stay far way from Motor Trends reviews, the best car is heavily based on "what's in" the now. So that means, even if your car has nearly the same performance as a newer model car of a different make, they're going to give the win to the newer car, ......simply because "it's new".

Were they totally bias here?



I'm guessing they were totally, completely biased against the Camaro here too, loved the Mustang and voted it as the best car of the 2010 model year.

Right?

Oh..thats right..they didnt. They voted the Camaro as first, Mustang second..Challenger third. The Camaro turned in a flat 13 second 1/4 mile ET in the first review. It turned in a 13.1 in the second, thats one tenth of a second! You're seriously throwing a fit over a tenth of a second? Have you considered the air might be different then? different temps? different barometric pressure? If ONE of those is even slightly different it could result in a different time. JUST ONE.

The Mustang is 200 or so pounds lighter than the Camaro, that equates to about two 10ths in the 1/4 mile, sometimes more..sometimes less..depends on weather conditions that day.


Also..your quote about still putting it first? It lost, period. It was slower, heavier and didnt grip or turn as well. It deserved to NOT be in first because it came in at MINIMUM second in all areas.

BTW the Mustang won the best new sports/muscle car for 2005 in Canada(thats a big deal). It took second place in the 2005 Detroit North American International Auto Show(thats a big deal) , behind the 300C. The Mustang INVENTED the pony car class and led the way.

Dont even think about making a jab at the Challenger either, I know it isnt as fast, but I'm happy with my car.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by 2SSARMY

He doesn't. He's wondering why motor trend has given worse numbers to the camaro now that the 2011 gt is out, than before. If anything the numbers the SS produces should be the same OR better... not worse.

why should they be better? i don't see that logic. 104 ft compared to 108 ft. is BASICALLY the same. So to argue about how it got 105 ft. before doesn't matter. But the magazine had to pick a better of the two, and it did. It's not that serious.

And i believe the mustang would have trapped higher with more correct gearing. The mustang is out of gear at 110-111 mph and has to be shifted into 5th. I don't think it's costing it too much in the time (another ~.1) but the mph would suffer (~2 mph).

[DeathChill]

I am honestly curious to see more comparisons from other magazines (not that there is anythIng wrong with this review). Wondering if the differences stay consistent between the three cars for performance.

[2SSARMY]

He's wondering why the hell the car is now being rated WORSE than it was before. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Captain Awesome]

Quick question for you guys comparing weights...

Does the difference in fuel tank volume count as extra weight when they list the spec for the SS weight in these comparisons? I read somewhere that gas was something like 7 pounds per gallon, so the larger gas tank on the SS would count against it "on paper".

In reality, you could be sitting at a stoplight and a 2011 mustang pulls up to race and you have say 12 or 13 less gallons in the tank on a given day. That would be 100 pounds or so, right?

[ULTRAZLS1]

Camaro is out of gear at 110 as well. THe mustang is out of gear at 111.5 I believe...sounds like exactly where it needs to be to maximize its trap speed as well as ET. If the mustang loses some trap the camaro loses just as much or more...you have no choice but to shift if you want to break 110 in the camaro...yet it still does it frequently.

Also Motor trend (or any mag) will get certain times to prove a point. Not all out cheating...but slight bias.

For example...

They ran a 12.9 with the camaro when racing it against the GT500 at a 12.8. The camaro was the new best thing then and they wanted to prove that they were right in saying this.

Now in a heads up comparison they run a 13.1 (with the same trap..so conditions are same for performance...only difference this time is launch and or driver) in the camaro and an even better time in the mustang at 12.7. this further backs the new claim they are making as the mustang being the new best thing. It wouldnt have made a very big statement and or backed their claim about the mustang if they would have pulled another 12.9 or better with the camaro.

[garagelogic]

Originally Posted by 2SSARMY

He's wondering why the hell the car is now being rated WORSE than it was before. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.

Different car, different day, different conditions; go figure. How can one magazine get a 12.4 of of the 2010 GT500 and another get a 12.8? Was the GT500 being rated worse than it was before? No. Anybody who has actually raced their car where they hand out timeslips will tell you that the same exact car making the same exact power will register different performance numbers due to variations in conditions.

[snakekiller]

Originally Posted by ViperTomcat

Were they totally bias here?



I'm guessing they were totally, completely biased against the Camaro here too, loved the Mustang and voted it as the best car of the 2010 model year.

Right?

Oh..thats right..they didnt. They voted the Camaro as first, Mustang second..Challenger third. The Camaro turned in a flat 13 second 1/4 mile ET in the first review. It turned in a 13.1 in the second, thats one tenth of a second! You're seriously throwing a fit over a tenth of a second? Have you considered the air might be different then? different temps? different barometric pressure? If ONE of those is even slightly different it could result in a different time. JUST ONE.

The Mustang is 200 or so pounds lighter than the Camaro, that equates to about two 10ths in the 1/4 mile, sometimes more..sometimes less..depends on weather conditions that day.


Also..your quote about still putting it first? It lost, period. It was slower, heavier and didnt grip or turn as well. It deserved to NOT be in first because it came in at MINIMUM second in all areas.

BTW the Mustang won the best new sports/muscle car for 2005 in Canada(thats a big deal). It took second place in the 2005 Detroit North American International Auto Show(thats a big deal) , behind the 300C. The Mustang INVENTED the pony car class and led the way.

Dont even think about making a jab at the Challenger either, I know it isnt as fast, but I'm happy with my car.

Motor trend has always been complaining about the interior of the camaro.
they never liked the oversized steering wheel and shift nob, and how cramped it felt. and they liked the mustang on mostly everything except the power. as i recalled both cars where so close they called it a photo-finish.
the camaro also din't will all the comparo's, car & driver chose the mustang.

Ford basically fixed everything that was wrong with the mustang, and made it better.

this is indeed a worthy rival

[ViperTomcat]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

Quick question for you guys comparing weights...

Does the difference in fuel tank volume count as extra weight when they list the spec for the SS weight in these comparisons? I read somewhere that gas was something like 7 pounds per gallon, so the larger gas tank on the SS would count against it "on paper".

In reality, you could be sitting at a stoplight and a 2011 mustang pulls up to race and you have say 12 or 13 less gallons in the tank on a given day. That would be 100 pounds or so, right?

If the Camaro was running near empty and the Mustang was running with a completely full..the difference would only be about 100 pounds or so..yes, maybe a little over or under.

Curb weight is measured as the weight of the car with a full tank, options (for that trim), operating fluids (washer fluid, coolant, oil etc) minus driver. So the 200 lb difference is between a fully loaded, driverless GT and a fully loaded, driverless SS.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

why should they be better? i don't see that logic. 104 ft compared to 108 ft. is BASICALLY the same. So to argue about how it got 105 ft. before doesn't matter. But the magazine had to pick a better of the two, and it did. It's not that serious.

And i believe the mustang would have trapped higher with more correct gearing. The mustang is out of gear at 110-111 mph and has to be shifted into 5th. I don't think it's costing it too much in the time (another ~.1) but the mph would suffer (~2 mph).

It has to be shifted into 4th not 5th. And like I said...its the same (actually a little worse) for the camaro.

[Sax1031]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

(with the same trap..so conditions are same for performance...only difference this time is launch and or driver)

Not exactly true. The weather and DA could be roughly the same meaning the engine was making the same hp for each race but then you have to factor in the track surface along with other variables.

Trap speed is not nearly as dependent on track/surface conditions as ET.