The 2011+ Mustang Thread

[DeathChill]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

looks like they used 1/4 times from another source. According to the article they tested it on a 1/8mi.

they said they both were running neck and neck run after run.

looking at the video, the 1/8 there was downhill considerably which probably helped the Camaro overcome the inertia of its weight problem better

Where do you see this? I see them saying that they went to a grudge night match and raced locals (as well as each other) but nowhere does it say that they never tested for the 1/4 mile results.

I can't tell if the last part is sarcasm or not.

[ULTRAZLS1]

And we got a solid 1 second advantage to 120 as well.

[wbt]

Originally Posted by KungFuHamster

so do you think the 3.55 will be an ideal gear for these cars? or perhaps the 3.73 will still be the best all around gear once a tune is applied and the rev limit is raised?

what do you think would be best...trying to go through the traps in 4th or making the shift into 5th?

Yes, 3.55 is the optimal gear for the Mustang with either rim/tire size. 3.73 comes in handy if you plan to run a taller tire. 28" tall ET Street equals 27.6" in diameter which on a stock car would prevent a shift into 5th before the traps.

3.55 provides some room with the 1.32 4th gear to allow for mods without the need to shift into 5th.

[wbt]

Originally Posted by EnvyTerra

Picked up motortrend today interesting article about the whole muscle car comparison, but also this was interesting..."There's more to acceleration than weight-to-power. "shorter" gearing magnifies engine torque en route to the tires like a longer lever.
Chevy and Dodge make 8% more torque than ford, but Ford exerts 10-25% more tire force in the first three gears, stretching it's 3-11% lb/hp advantage.
Chevy and Dodge would need 4.40:1 or higher axle ratios to achieve the Mustang's tire force.

1st gear force exerted on tires at peak torque
Chevy:1826lb
Dodge:2016lb
Ford:2364lb.
I learn something new everyday.

This is right on. 4.30 is the optimal gear for the LS3 with stock tire/wheel size.

[rayhawk]

Originally Posted by Bob Cosby

Well, there's even more to it than that - and I bet the article doesn't mention it: One can make better use of the power available from the LS3 than from the 5.0, in bone stock trim.

What hurts the 5.0 is the 6850 rpm redline - coming only 250 rpm after peak power. This means that one must shift well before what would otherwise be the optimum shift point (likely 7200-7300 rpm). I'm not sure about the Dodge, but in stock trim, the LS3 can make better use of its powerband, taking away some of the "on paper" power-to-weight advantage of the 5.0. This is one reason the cars are as close as they are in 1/4 mile acceleration.

It would be interesting to take a dyno run from each car (Camaro and Mustang) from the same dyno, then do the math to figure out the AVERAGE power in each gear and obtain a power-to-weight ratio from that. Bet they'd be even closer than they are now.

One final thing....any mag that tests a 2011 GT with 3.73 gears in the 1/4 mile will be hitting the limiter in 4th gear at ~109 mph.

Another thing people overlook when looking at gearing and torque multiplication is that a more aggressive rear end ratio requires shifting to the next gear earlier, giving you less time (distance) to take advantage of that additional multiplication. When comparing the Camaro to the Mustang, the Mustang starts with a gearing advantage in first gear, but when shifted at 42 mph, the SS has another 10mph to go in the higher numerical first gear. The advantage swings back to the mustang when the Camaro has to shift to second, but the same thing happens when the Mustang has to hit third significantly earlier than the Camaro.

The higher overall gearing definitely gives the Mustang an advantage off the line though.

[J4R3D]

With the 3.73's am I going to have to shift 1-2nd driving around my neighborhood? Would 3.55's let me cruise in 1st?

[RedJewel2SS]

i don't think the webpage says mustang5.com does it?

[assasinator]

Originally Posted by J4R3D

With the 3.73's am I going to have to shift 1-2nd driving around my neighborhood? Would 3.55's let me cruise in 1st?

im driving a 3.73 car right now. why not start in 2nd if shifting is an issue. or get an automatic.


i cruise through town in 6th at 40mph - ~1200rpms. engine is smooth as butter accelerating up and down from there in town. a tune clears teh shifting at the end of the 1/4 mile and lets you stay in gears longer. the other guy shifts and you keep pulling the gear your in. im not tuned. and im not going to be racing it a lot. i have a track car. i do intend to keep killing other cars off of the track.

[nester7929]

I rarely see GT500's, but I see GT's everyday.

[Bob Cosby]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Cosby...I thought I had read many times that a partial fuel cut-off starts at 6850 but the rev-limiter does not come on until 7000. Pretty much every source I can find states 7000 for actual red-line.

Even this recently posted road and track article shows them taking the car to 7000 rpm in the data panel

To my understanding, it isn't a fuel cutoff that starts at 6850, but rather the computer either starts to close the throttle, or ramps back the timing. I can't say for sure, and I haven't heard what is yet from someone that I trust. Either way, power drops at that point, and then apparently fuel does cut off at 7k. Regardless, with 3.73s, you're getting into the limiter before the traps - not good for trap speed, though that will have very little effect on ET.

Originally Posted by KungFuHamster

so do you think the 3.55 will be an ideal gear for these cars? or perhaps the 3.73 will still be the best all around gear once a tune is applied and the rev limit is raised?

what do you think would be best...trying to go through the traps in 4th or making the shift into 5th?

For a bone stock car, my bet is 3.55s are the ticket. However, for anything that has the stock rev limiter raised, I'd go 3.73s.

I would not want to shift into 5th just before the line - too big a drop in rpm and thus power and momentum.

Originally Posted by rayhawk

Another thing people overlook when looking at gearing and torque multiplication is that a more aggressive rear end ratio requires shifting to the next gear earlier, giving you less time (distance) to take advantage of that additional multiplication. When comparing the Camaro to the Mustang, the Mustang starts with a gearing advantage in first gear, but when shifted at 42 mph, the SS has another 10mph to go in the higher numerical first gear. The advantage swings back to the mustang when the Camaro has to shift to second, but the same thing happens when the Mustang has to hit third significantly earlier than the Camaro.

Its not that simple. Taking your first gear example....the Mustang has the gearing advantage from 0-42, and the Camaro has it from 42-52. Which will make more difference? Also, you are equal once the Camaro is in 3rd and the Mustang is in 4th.

And please....let me be clear...I'm not trying to make my posts sound "Mustang vs Camaro" -ish. I'm just posting thoughts, some facts, and an occasional opinion. No offense intended (I do my offending on other sites.... ).

Bob

[KungFuHamster]

Originally Posted by Bob Cosby

And please....let me be clear...I'm not trying to make my posts sound "Mustang vs Camaro" -ish. I'm just posting thoughts, some facts, and an occasional opinion. No offense intended (I do my offending on other sites.... ).

Bob

ahhh. i miss the good ole "Bob vs BigBake" threads in TWR. that was some great reading.

[fazm]

i almost shit myself at the 415rwhp tuned number lol.

im curious how high this thing can rev and be safe (7600? 7700?)

[wbt]

Originally Posted by fazm

i almost shit myself at the 415rwhp tuned number lol.

im curious how high this thing can rev and be safe (7600? 7700?)

I think the limitation would come down to the lift/duration on the cams. May do no good to rev that high if there is not enough flow to support it.

I foresee the day of solenoid actuated valves. When that happens, 8-10K RPM will be no issue. We may start to see this in the next 5 to 10 years.

The days of the camshaft may be coming to a close.

A little info/discussion: http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.c...=128000&page=1

[GQ4Life]

its doable.. just need the new design for opening and closing the valves.. has to be strong but fit in the limited space..

http://hackaday.com/2009/06/24/evic-engine/