The 2011+ Mustang Thread

[Sax1031]

Originally Posted by VADER SS L99

I agree with you too. I would have rather have the SRA but I am in the minority that likes my car performing very well in a straight line. If you remember Ford tried using the IRS in the 99-04 Cobra and we all know how that turned out. I have a friend that broke one on stock tires and stock power. Most all those cars that run fast have switched to the SRA.

I have several friends that busted 10 bolts on stock rubber and power.

I would like to get a 2003/4 Cobra and yes I would swap the IRS for an 8.8".

[5thGenOwner]

Originally Posted by wbt

So at no time did I ever mention "modified" car insurance. When you purchase insurance, do you list all the mods on your car when it is time to quote? Did not think so.... I would not expect my insurance company to cover the mods I performed. Do you expect the same from yours?

That's why I asked it that way. Your post made it sound like... after mods, the Mustang would be a considerable lower insurance expense than the Camaro. I'd never heard of an insurance company rating Cars differently when modified... but I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Originally Posted by wbt

My insurance premium went down about $100 on the Mustang vs. the Camaro over 6 months.

And there's the answer. Your "motivator" is $100 bucks every 6 months. Should you really be so worried about getting into 11's if $200 bucks a year means that much to you? Just saying...

Originally Posted by wbt

The less cost for insurance is just the added bonus. The point of the post was getting a 2011 Mustang GT into the 11's and it be consistent without having to worry about breaking parts at the track will cost almost half as much as the Camaro.

In all honesty, the choice between the Camaro and Mustang is all about bias. Your's is showing through, just as mine is. A few grand over the lifetime of a beloved piece of art... is a very minor, almost mute, point.

(And since you are speculating on parts breaking, speculate that the Ford products break 2x as often... then run the math? Jus' saying... you can never predict the future.)

[SSC Super Venom]

Originally Posted by SS 376

Yet another pointless 5.0 vs. SS thread. Time to roll this into the mega 5.0 thread or lock it down, mods.

Because he thinks he is cool and no one cares for a person who wants to shut a thread down for no reason...

[SSC Super Venom]

Originally Posted by 5thGenOwner

That's why I asked it that way. Your post made it sound like... after mods, the Mustang would be a considerable lower insurance expense than the Camaro. I'd never heard of an insurance company rating Cars differently when modified... but I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt.



And there's the answer. Your "motivator" is $100 bucks every 6 months. Should you really be so worried about getting into 11's if $200 bucks a year means that much to you? Just saying...




In all honesty, the choice between the Camaro and Mustang is all about bias. Your's is showing through, just as mine is. A few grand over the lifetime of a beloved piece of art... is a very minor, almost mute, point.

(And since you are speculating on parts breaking, speculate that the Ford products break 2x as often... then run the math? Jus' saying... you can never predict the future.)

In your sig is your Camaro hunting Mustangs???

[5thGenOwner]

Originally Posted by SSC Super Venom

In your sig is your Camaro hunting Mustangs???

At the time, it was just enjoying the beautiful view...

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by Sax1031

I have several friends that busted 10 bolts on stock rubber and power.

I would like to get a 2003/4 Cobra and yes I would swap the IRS for an 8.8".

the 7.5" 10 bolt should had no business being in a 4th gen--- pile of crp. they were okay in the 80's with 180hp.


they definately should have used the 8.5" 10 bolt. much much stronger.

[9c1ny]

Originally Posted by redsap05

I do agree with you however if you tune that l99 you would be surprised

As a diehard lsx guy it pains me to have to admit that new stang as several advantages ove the 5th gen.

my L99 was tuned
(engine and tranny) and had a CAI, it might have been able to keep up with a A6 5.0 on a 87 octane tune

[Camaro_hx]

Today, a tuned 2010 SS with CAI (my friend's) raced a 2010 mustang Shelby... results.... Camaro: Winner!

[chain777]

Originally Posted by Camaro Freak

Thanks for your replys guys. I can always count on this forum, with any questions I may have.

Well, you didn't really get the whole story.

First, not every 5.0 is going to have the badge. The CS (California special), doesn't have the 5.0 badge.

Also, this model doesn't have fogs in the grill. They're small, and in the lower fascia. They actually look similar the V6 models.

And as mentioned, they all have dual exhaust.

And honestly, unless you're heavily modded, I wouldn't mess with any of the 2011's. It will be ugly.


*don't know what's up with the quote, can't seem to get it to work.

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by big hammer

the camaros pushrods are one of it's biggest assets, IMO. to hell with expensive, complex DOHC systems that offer little gain.

Little gain? To hell with the expense? This is exactly the point I was trying to make. Who here thinks GM should have saved money by putting the 3.9L V6 out of the Impala into the Camaro LT instead of the 3.6L?

As for the V8s, Fords 5.0L makes as much power with 74 fewer cubic inches of displacement, and gets significantly better fuel economy without resorting to cylinder deactivation systems that limit what you can do with exhaust systems. I know that no one here thinks they care about fuel economy, but you will if the next Camaro SS is forced to go to a turbo V6 instead of a V8 because GM can't get their inefficient pushrod engines past escalating CAFE requirements. I'm not trying to start an argument about or support CAFE, I'm just pointing out a reality that has to be dealt with in the very near future. These cars are not being built in a vacuum. Other considerations have to be taken into account besides drag racing. They have to compete in the same environment as every other car out there.

Originally Posted by garagelogic

And the SRA under the Mustang is one of its biggest assets, IMO, but that does not stop people from making it out as a detriment to the vehicle. So to paraphrase you, "to hell with expensive, complex suspension systems that offer little if any benefits over a properly engineered solid rear axle setup."

See how that works?

Originally Posted by VADER SS L99

I agree with you too. I would have rather have the SRA but I am in the minority that likes my car performing very well in a straight line. If you remember Ford tried using the IRS in the 99-04 Cobra and we all know how that turned out. I have a friend that broke one on stock tires and stock power. Most all those cars that run fast have switched to the SRA.

The Mustangs SRA has been a detriment to both the Mustang and Ford in general. It's been reported that the Mustang's SRA, due to limited part sharing, has actually cost Ford more per car than using an IRS would have. It is also a big reason why any notion of other RWD Ford cars being sold in the US market have fallen through.

There is a reason why the Mustang is the ONLY SRA car sold in the US that isn't a truck. If these cars are going to be successful in the marketplace they are going to have to be built for mass appeal, and sold to people who occasionally drive off a dragstrip around such road challenges as corners, and worse, over road hazards known as bumps. I understand why some want to keep it old school for drag racing and modding purposes, but at the same time, you have to realize that if these cars don't keep up with the rest of the automotive world technology wise, they may end up going out of production all together, just like the 4th gen Camaro did.

So what would you rather have, IRS and DOHC cars in prodction, or SRA and pushrod cars out of production?

[JonMan503]

Originally Posted by antimatr

MSRP for a GT Premium is $33695 including destination. Where did you get $39900 from?

(although if I were 10 years younger, I probably would've bought a base GT, as I really didn't give a rat's ass about how an interior looked back then...but, then again, 10 years ago I had a 4th-gen Camaro).

No for all the interior and upgrades your paying a very pretty penny for the car close to 40k. I don't car if the ugliest package is 29k i do want some look some looks in it. and i feel that the camaro gives you more bang for the buck.

[KungFuHamster]

Originally Posted by JonMan503

i feel that the camaro gives you more bang for the buck.

i guess that depends on what you mean by "bang for the buck". for me, doing a couple of bolt ons and running low 12s is "bang for the buck"...not to mention having parts that are cheap (by todays standards)

[DeathChill]

Originally Posted by KungFuHamster

i guess that depends on what you mean by "bang for the buck". for me, doing a couple of bolt ons and running low 12s is "bang for the buck"...not to mention having parts that are cheap (by todays standards)

Aren't both cars easily capable of that?

[garagelogic]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

The Mustangs SRA has been a detriment to both the Mustang and Ford in general. It's been reported that the Mustang's SRA, due to limited part sharing, has actually cost Ford more per car than using an IRS would have. It is also a big reason why any notion of other RWD Ford cars being sold in the US market have fallen through.

There is a reason why the Mustang is the ONLY SRA car sold in the US that isn't a truck. If these cars are going to be successful in the marketplace they are going to have to be built for mass appeal, and sold to people who occasionally drive off a dragstrip around such road challenges as corners, and worse, over road hazards known as bumps. I understand why some want to keep it old school for drag racing and modding purposes, but at the same time, you have to realize that if these cars don't keep up with the rest of the automotive world technology wise, they may end up going out of production all together, just like the 4th gen Camaro did.

So what would you rather have, IRS and DOHC cars in prodction, or SRA and pushrod cars out of production?

Do you really think having an IRS under the Mustang is going to translate to any significant difference in sales versus the SRA it already has? I mean, to the vast majority of everyday buyers, the Mustang rides and handles just as well, if not better, than any of the vehicles it competes with. If you are suggesting that somehow the Mustang will fade away into the sunset unless it gets IRS as the standard suspension, I would disagree. It seems to me differences between IRS vs SRA is much more of a debate on paper/the internet than it is in the "real" world.