2011 Mustang Embargo Lifted

[Blue II]

Funny you're the first one to mention this. I heard the real power figures start with 6's... and if GM really is putting the LSA into the new Z28, it makes sense.

 

LSA Likely Slow Also. The Shelby ain't to be messed with.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Color me impressed. It's fairly obvious that both the Camaro SS and the Mustang GT are traction limited. I believe that I read that the mustang GTs numbers were best when traction control was left on.

 

What I'd like to know is, on a prepared drag strip, with over the counter drag radials of proper dimensions fitted to the rear of both cars, what are the 0-60 and quarter mile times and traps of both the GT and the camaro SS are.

 

As for the GT500, we know that it sheds a bunch of weight over the front axle. This will both improve handling and improve it's quarter mile times. They'd also be crazy to not give it a bit of a power boost at the same time. I'm fairly sure that it's not going to be running in fear of any factory camaro. I'm also fairly confident that it's also not going to be running in fear of any base vettes either. I'd be interesting in seeing what it's true performance is, especially as compared to any other vehicle that can be purchased at within 5% of it's MSRP.

 

And, for those of you looking longingly at the V6 Performance pack numbers, remember, the EB 3.5L up front would add about 60-80 lbs and deliver more horsepower and torque than the current 5.0L v8 does. If Ford were to unleash an EB 3.5L mustang with all the handling bells and whistles that the GT500 has and let's the engineers really look for the maximum power numbers that that engine can lay down, that would be one heck of a scary mustang indeed. And don't think for a minute that the coyote in it's current form doesn't have a bit of headroom left in it. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that Ford can get another 10% out of that engine at the drop of a hat. There's also the supercharged version going down under and the possibility of a twin turbo version appearing as well. At this point, the mustang really has no top end from the factory on power. They seem to have nailed down that SRA setup as well. So, its reasonable that their future performance focus will be on reducing weight and front suspension improvements (not that it's begging for it right now).

[Versa-Tech]

Really, you guys think Ford n' Dodge don't have an awnser for this at all?

Why would Ford have an answer to their own class leading product? As far as Dodge goes, I'm not sure they have enough time left to answer anything.

[atvman]

Color me impressed. It's fairly obvious that both the Camaro SS and the Mustang GT are traction limited. I believe that I read that the mustang GTs numbers were best when traction control was left on.

 

What I'd like to know is, on a prepared drag strip, with over the counter drag radials of proper dimensions fitted to the rear of both cars, what are the 0-60 and quarter mile times and traps of both the GT and the camaro SS are.

 

As for the GT500, we know that it sheds a bunch of weight over the front axle. This will both improve handling and improve it's quarter mile times. They'd also be crazy to not give it a bit of a power boost at the same time. I'm fairly sure that it's not going to be running in fear of any factory camaro. I'm also fairly confident that it's also not going to be running in fear of any base vettes either. I'd be interesting in seeing what it's true performance is, especially as compared to any other vehicle that can be purchased at within 5% of it's MSRP.

 

And, for those of you looking longingly at the V6 Performance pack numbers, remember, the EB 3.5L up front would add about 60-80 lbs and deliver more horsepower and torque than the current 5.0L v8 does. If Ford were to unleash an EB 3.5L mustang with all the handling bells and whistles that the GT500 has and let's the engineers really look for the maximum power numbers that that engine can lay down, that would be one heck of a scary mustang indeed. And don't think for a minute that the coyote in it's current form doesn't have a bit of headroom left in it. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that Ford can get another 10% out of that engine at the drop of a hat. There's also the supercharged version going down under and the possibility of a twin turbo version appearing as well. At this point, the mustang really has no top end from the factory on power. They seem to have nailed down that SRA setup as well. So, its reasonable that their future performance focus will be on reducing weight and front suspension improvements (not that it's begging for it right now).

I've wanted to see the EB in the Stang since it was first released. SHO's have run as quick as 13.6, and that is with severly limited power in a 4300lb car! As far as the GT500 goes, It should outrun the base Corvette on the straights, but the Corvette should get it through the corners.

Edited March 30, 2010 by atvman

[Fgts]

Why would Ford have an answer to their own class leading product? As far as Dodge goes, I'm not sure they have enough time left to answer anything.

 

Man i hate typing tired, Chevy n Dodge. BTW you realise Chrysler went though BK nearly erased all thier debt and shrinking thier overhead. Meaning they can sell 1,000,000 cars directly to Avis and still break even or even have profit. You know no cash loss = no BK.

[Edstock]

Meaning they can sell 1,000,000 cars directly to Avis and still break even or even have profit. You know no cash loss = no BK.

They should do that. Lots of rental fleet sales, as many as they can make.

[twintornados]

The runs were done on an airport runway, with no burnouts or staging allowed. Also remember that Fords using the same 225 skinnies for fuel economy. Essentially,>lack of < traction killed the party.

There...fixed it for ya...

[atvman]

Car and driver's results are less than impressive, 13.1 at 109mph and 4.6 to sixty. I guess we'll have to wait until the Mustang and Camaro go head to head to see how they really compare.

[blksn8k2]

C&D's 2011 GT review is pretty negative in my view. Not only are they blatantly anti US anything but they can't drive either. They are owned by a French company afterall...

 

The only comparison I have seen so far between the Mustang and Camaro was on that airport runway in Mexico and it was automatic trans in both cars. The Mustang was supposedly about 2 tenths quicker in the 1/8 mile. The Camaro with the auto trans is rated at 400 hp.

[timmm55]

C&D's 2011 GT review is pretty negative in my view. Not only are they blatantly anti US anything but they can't drive either. They are owned by a French company afterall...

 

.

 

 

You can read the minute technical details of this engine elsewhere on this site, but here’s what you need to know: It’s utterly fabulous, a 7000-rpm cavalry charge that generates incredibly smooth, linear thrust across its broad rev band. Were you to paint the cam lids red and stick on a chrome trident, most Maserati owners would never know the difference. Yes, it’s that good.

 

What Was Good Is Now Even Better

Fitted with the 255/40ZR-19 Pirelli P Zero tires that are standard on the GT, the car pulled 0.94 g on the skidpad, a testament to the grip afforded by these tires (which are now found on both Mustangs and Camaros). Last year, a 2010 Mustang beat a Camaro and a Challenger in a comparison test based largely on its handling merits, and the new model is even better. It turns sharply and holds a precise trajectory through a turn. Although the rear end remains a live axle, the body isn’t tossed off course by pitching pavement or camber changes. In matchups with the independently sprung Camaro, we’ve come away lauding Ford’s decision to stick with the live axle. The company has made it work, and if it saves weight and the customer money, so much the better.

 

That's negative?

The only things they complained about was the base (deluxe) interior and the capless fueling.

[RichardJensen]

How would the presence of a fuel cap keep these idiots from spilling gas on their shoes?

[probeGT]

Here's what CD said about the new Probe in August 1992:

 

"The new 2.5-liter 24-valve V-6 gives up none of the turbo's performance, but it sets the class standard for refinement and pulls to 7000 rpm as eagerly as another V-type engine with red heads made in Italy."

 

This proves 2 things:

 

1. CD keeps endlessly recycling its writing;

2. Maybe the 2011 Mustang is finally a worthy successor to my Probe :happy feet:

[blksn8k2]

Has anyone seen any mention of the skip-shift feature on the Getrag in any of the road tests? Or could it be possible that all of the journalists have been too busy beating the snot out of these things that they never had it engage? Just seems odd that no one has complained about it yet. Maybe its not the monster that some people have been making it out to be...

Edited April 1, 2010 by blksn8k2

[Versa-Tech]

Here's what CD said about the new Probe in August 1992:

 

"The new 2.5-liter 24-valve V-6 gives up none of the turbo's performance, but it sets the class standard for refinement and pulls to 7000 rpm as eagerly as another V-type engine with red heads made in Italy."

 

This proves 2 things:

 

1. CD keeps endlessly recycling its writing;

2. Maybe the 2011 Mustang is finally a worthy successor to my Probe :happy feet:

Uhhh

[FoMoCobra]

Has anyone seen any mention of the skip-shift feature on the Getrag in any of the road tests? Or could it be possible that all of the journalists have been too busy beating the snot out of these things that they never had it engage? Just seems odd that no one has complained about it yet. Maybe its not the monster that some people have been making it out to be...

 

I first heard about the skip shift yesterday myself. Someone mentioned it on svtperformance.com. My understanding is that it would only be noticed under light to moderate acceleration. I believe the older Camaros had a similar setup. Anyone accelerating under full throttle would not notice the skip shift as it would disengage...

 

Mods were created for the older Camaros so i imagine that to be the case for the Mustang as well. Overall, it really doesnt hurt performance... its just a fuel saving nuisance.

[OHV 16V]

Alright, this seems like a good place to post this. I'm sure it's on BON somewhere and I just missed it, but... Will the Stang receive MyFord Touch for 2012? I've been waiting for the new powertrains since I ordered/bought my '08 brand new, and I was getting ready to be one of the first ones who ordered an '11 GT, but now, after seeing the kick-ass demo on Ford's website of MyFord Touch, I want to know when it will be available on the Mustang. If it's just one more year, then I'll wait.

 

Thanks to anyone who can supply an answer.

Edited April 1, 2010 by OHV 16V

[StevenCaylor]

Alright, this seems like a good place to post this. I'm sure it's on BON somewhere and I just missed it, but... Will the Stang receive MyFord Touch for 2012? I've been waiting for the new powertrains since I ordered/bought my '08 brand new, and I was getting ready to be one of the first ones who ordered an '11 GT, but now, after seeing the kick-ass demo on Ford's website of MyFord Touch, I want to know when it will be available on the Mustang. If it's just one more year, then I'll wait.

 

Thanks to anyone who can supply an answer.

 

The answer is no. I asked the Ford rep the same question the other day when two of the 2011 Mustangs were on display for a few hours the other day at South Bay Ford. He said the dash would require a complete redesign so that means next complete redesign of the Mustang.

[Fgts]

They should do that. Lots of rental fleet sales, as many as they can make.

 

Alright chuckle up but remember Ford and Hyundai was like that in 04-06'. Every carmaker have thier strengths and weakenesses. Thier retail sales are up for the month with 9 new models before the year is out also Chrysler do have some vehicales Ford lack like RWD sport sedans, true off-road SUVs and Minivans.

[Edstock]

Chrysler do have some vehicales Ford lack like RWD sport sedans, true off-road SUVs and Minivans.

And I wish them well, because they've got product problems: the "true off-road SUV" market just ain't what it used to be, and their minivans get to compete against Toyota and Honda at the high-end, and Hyundai/Kia at the budget end, and the competition just keeps getting better and better. The "RWD sport sedans" will hopefully benefit from the new V-6, as the iron-block Hemi's a boat anchor and Chrysler doesn't want to move to an alloy block.

 

The question is, can Chrysler hold on to its marketshare, or will it be taken by Ford and the Asians?

[F250]

Both engines in the 11 Mustang are outstanding. Beyond that the entire car is class leading and Ford has proven the worth of a strong, light, inexpensive solid rear axle.

 

Noticed the Motor Trend article started out with the same tired old 4.9L crap:

Since its debut in 1968, Ford's 302-cubic-inch V-8 has always displaced 4942 cubic centimeters. Or, as any engineer, mathematician, or quick-witted second-grader would tell you, 4.9 liters. Despite this fact, back in 1975 Ford began calling its 4.9-liter, 302cc V-8 a "5.0 L." Why? Well, when it comes to V-8s, bigger is better, even if it's just for perception

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_1003_2011_ford_mustang_gt_premium_test/index.html#ixzz0jw3QJ2O4

 

Man that's old and stupid. The original production 5.0L V8 was the 1968 302ci engine and Ford didn't call it a 4.9L because the existing 300ci straight-6 was 4.9L so they bumped it a little to 5.0.

Edited April 2, 2010 by F250

[Deanh]

Alright chuckle up but remember Ford and Hyundai was like that in 04-06'. Every carmaker have thier strengths and weakenesses. Thier retail sales are up for the month with 9 new models before the year is out also Chrysler do have some vehicales Ford lack like RWD sport sedans, true off-road SUVs and Minivans.

and you wonder ( of the Big three ) why Chrysler is struggling the most, RWD sport sedan? face it, the 300 is long in the tooth, and the Challenger is low volume and overweight. Jeeps?....also a niche market with shitty drivetrains. And Minivans = low volume, and their interpretation comes in 3rd place....