Why does Ford give same engine for auto?

[mikeSS]

Originally Posted by Fiftydriver

For an everyday driver I would never trade my L99. That said, with a Roto-Fab CAI, Dynatech LT Headers, HF cats, Corsa Exhaust and a Jannetty tune, she is a bit over what a stock LS3 will get you and from what I have seen, the L99 needs less HP to keep up with the manual.

On paper it may look like a weaker design but in the real world, its not really that way.

Again, saying that, My plans include an LSX376 long block with a Magnacharger 2300 bolted on in the next few years. That engine is made for high boost applications so turn up the boost and you could smoke anything that the stock LS3 with Blower could produce and likely last alot longer.

There is an Unopened L99 with magnacharger and some other add ons here on Camaro5 that is running in the solid 10.5 sec, 1/4 mile range. Most impressive, and thats with only around 550 HP to the ground.

Don't cry to hard to use L99 drivers.

On a side note, I turned off the AFM system and get better milage now then before with the Jannetty tune, plus with the torque management systems turned off basically, its a totally different car.

Yes the L99 is pretty de-tuned, but all that means is that there is ALOT of room for improvement!!!!

if i had like 600 hp and i went to the drag and wanted the best times, i would get a auto hands down... but if my car was a weeken car and i wanted to burn some rubber and have a bust driving it and not really care about the best drag times,,,, it better be a manaul

[Entaille]

the ford auto is fail at the moment. the shifter is sloppy and easily slides past each gear without locking firmly in place. it's a 6 speed auto tranny that you can manually shift 1st through 3rd, after that it's drive.

no sort of fun factor gimmick such as slapshift / paddle shifters etc. it's still a fun drive, just too easy to slide it past gears when you are ripping into it, and it felt very laggy compared to most.

if I was to get a 2011 mustang it would HAVE to be manual.

I think the Z cars have done their auto trans well, the 370 especially.

[mikeSS]

Originally Posted by Entaille

the ford auto is fail at the moment. the shifter is sloppy and easily slides past each gear without locking firmly in place. it's a 6 speed auto tranny that you can manually shift 1st through 3rd, after that it's drive.

no sort of fun factor gimmick such as slapshift / paddle shifters etc. it's still a fun drive, just too easy to slide it past gears when you are ripping into it, and it felt very laggy compared to most.

if I was to get a 2011 mustang it would HAVE to be manual.

I think the Z cars have done their auto trans well, the 370 especially.

ya this kid i know has a 370z with auto its really nice

[MG]

I dont think the LS engines are any less advanced than the 5.0. In fact, the power:efficiency ratio is better in the LS3 IMO.

Ford got the Mustangs MPG's up using other clever methods, mainly electric steering, underbody aerodynamics, and other stuff. Not to mention lighter weight.

[phenixdragon]

Originally Posted by mikeSS

why cant chevy do that

Well because the company is failing and gets free money from our taxes, therefor, they don't need to step it up to make things better. Whereas Ford, not being backed by our taxes and doesn't want to be. Therefor, they make things better as they care about making a profit.

[Bonanza7]

Back in the late 60's Chrysler gave different engines in some of their cars. Seems an auto just could not cope with the engine that went into the m/t's. Therefore, they got a slightly toned down version for tranny life and driveability. One would think that tranny development had gone a long way since then, but maybe not.

[ViperTomcat]

Originally Posted by MG

I dont think the LS engines are any less advanced than the 5.0. In fact, the power:efficiency ratio is better in the LS3 IMO.

Ford got the Mustangs MPG's up using other clever methods, mainly electric steering, underbody aerodynamics, and other stuff. Not to mention lighter weight.

The 5.0 is a more advanced engine. While it is your opinion, its not fair to say the LS3 is actually a more advanced or somehow superior engine. I dislike it when people compare a very young engine, like the 5.0 Coyote which has been out in the US for only about 4 months now, to the LS3 which has been around for for 3 years.

The LS series engines are OLD, older than the current gen Hemi's found in Mopar's. GM should do VERY VERY well when they introduce their next generation of small blocks in the next 18 months.

[Jayson9]

If they did not meet the CAFE standards, then all Camaros (auto's & manuals) would have to pay the guzzler tax. And that could kill some sales because of the higher prices.

I just plan on puting a Diablo on mine w/93 octane tune - that should even it up. I think you can also turn off the AFM using the Diablo.

[HDDAN]

Corporate Average Fuel Economy. I don't know if Ford has a guzzler tax like the SRT8 and the Shelby Mustang have. Think about this, Chevy does not with the LS3 thanks to the skipshifter. Exactly how would GM put a skipshifter in an automatic transmission? The guzzler tax adds $1,500.00 to the price of a car and gives nothing back like $1,500.00 in stereo equipment or performance goodies would. Chevy opted for the AFM to keep the price down for those of us that prefer an automatic.

[bolteon593]

Originally Posted by HDDAN

Corporate Average Fuel Economy. I don't know if Ford has a guzzler tax like the SRT8 and the Shelby Mustang have. Think about this, Chevy does not with the LS3 thanks to the skipshifter. Exactly how would GM put a skipshifter in an automatic transmission? The guzzler tax adds $1,500.00 to the price of a car and gives nothing back like $1,500.00 in stereo equipment or performance goodies would. Chevy opted for the AFM to keep the price down for those of us that prefer an automatic.

easy killer...

no gas guzzler here on this 2011 gt500... and no skip shift either! just some damn fine engineering to get it to 23.4mpg.

[wbt]

Originally Posted by Entaille

the ford auto is fail at the moment. the shifter is sloppy and easily slides past each gear without locking firmly in place. it's a 6 speed auto tranny that you can manually shift 1st through 3rd, after that it's drive.

no sort of fun factor gimmick such as slapshift / paddle shifters etc. it's still a fun drive, just too easy to slide it past gears when you are ripping into it, and it felt very laggy compared to most.

if I was to get a 2011 mustang it would HAVE to be manual.

I think the Z cars have done their auto trans well, the 370 especially.

No different than the A6 Camaro. A tune is needed to get then most out of it. Fastest stock and modified times for the Mustang have been in the auto.

[wbt]

Originally Posted by MG

I dont think the LS engines are any less advanced than the 5.0. In fact, the power:efficiency ratio is better in the LS3 IMO.

Ford is producing almost the same power level out of 1.2L less displacement.

Regarding MPG...
My LS3 Camaro averaged the same MPG in town and a little better on the hwy than my Mustang however my Mustang is much more aggressively geared with the 3.73. It would take a 4.30 in the Camaro M6 to get close to the same ratio which would cause MPG to suffer bringing it at the same if not a little lower than my Mustang on the hwy.

Not sure how you could classify the LS3 as being more efficient.

Food for thought.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Rage

I have an LS3, but just curious as to why the my little pony guys get the same engine for the auto and our auto brethren get the toned down L99? Not flaming, just curious......

Because the Mustang GT auto gets 18/25 (vs 17/26 in the Manual). Nothing required to avoid the gas guzzler tax. If there were an LS3 automatic in the Camaro, it wouldn't do any better than about 15/23. Probably 15/22. In which case, it would get slapped with the gas guzzler tax.

Now, I don't really see the point of the LS3 vs L99 divide. For the most part, unless you're an excellent driver, are concerned with paper numbers, or want an aftermarket exhaust (without tuning AFM out) the performance difference is minimal to non-existent.

Originally Posted by wbt

Ford is producing almost the same power level out of 1.2L less displacement.

Ah, hp/L. I chuckle every time I hear someone praise an engine with more hp/L. More often than not, there are an awful lot of downsides to it for little to no practical benefit. But it sure does sound impressive ...

[wbt]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Ah, hp/L. I chuckle every time I hear someone praise an engine with more hp/L. More often than not, there are an awful lot of downsides to it for little to no practical benefit. But it sure does sound impressive ...

If the new 5.0 was getting it's ass kicked at the strip compared to it's competition I would agree with you however that is just not the case.