2016 Mustang GT vs. 2016 Camaro SS mag comparos

[RichardJensen]

HP per displacement doesn't really mean a lot in the real world when, in the real world, others have MORE displacement.

 

Would you be making the same argument if the Mod displaced 6.2L and produced less power per liter than a 5.0L LS motor?

 

I think not.

 

And I don't like sloppy argumentation, or people who confuse their opinions with facts.

 

That's why I don't like you trying to pretend your Mod disdain is something with an ounce of externally verifiable evidence.

[fuzzymoomoo]

HP per displacement doesn't really mean a lot in the real world when, in the real world, others have MORE displacement.

It does when that smaller displacement engine weighs less than the larger one. Remember, the move across the industry is for lightweight construction, and smaller, more powerful and efficient engines are a big part of that.

[timmm55]

The comments about the visibility in the Camaro were for the 2016 model. It hasn't improved. You sit in a tub, can't see out the rear window at all, the sides are like gun slits. While the Mustang isn't exactly as airy as a 1990 CRX it is a driveable car.

 

It may be "bad ass" for a movie car, it doesn't 'transform' well to the street. Perhaps 360 degree cameras?

[jpd80]

Did anyone notice that on the LS7 Vs Voodoo power curves, the 5.2 makes around 480 hp or so at 6500 rpm

and then slowly crests to near 530 hp at 8,000. That last 1500 revs only yields around 50 hp suggesting that

the engine is being held back at the top either by intake/exhaust breathing ot electronically.

 

Also remember the genesis of Coyote.

When first launched, we saw three power levels 360 hp truck, 412 hp Mustang and 440 hp Boss 302.

The next iteration of GT Mustang then gained 435 hp @ 6500 or almost 1000 rpm lower than the Boss 302.

 

Now, take that succession plan and apply it to today's coyote, why couldn't we ultimately see a 480-500 hp

engine in the GT Mustang but the power delivered say, 1,000 revs lower than the GT350's frenetic 8250 rpm.

 

Needlless to say that non of this would ever be possible in a fully warrantied Pushrod 2 valve engine,

those RPM limits are way over the upper limits for valve train and spring pressures required to avoid

warranty work. Yes, Ford should keep pressing on and drive home the advantage of DOHC tech

Edited November 28, 2015 by jpd80

[Edstock]

It does when that smaller displacement engine weighs less than the larger one. Remember, the move across the industry is for lightweight construction, and smaller, more powerful and efficient engines are a big part of that.

 

Can't seem to find any comparison on engine weights. Can anyone find that data between the 5.2 and the GM V-8's like the 6.2?

[Sizzler]

The comments about the visibility in the Camaro were for the 2016 model. It hasn't improved. You sit in a tub, can't see out the rear window at all, the sides are like gun slits. While the Mustang isn't exactly as airy as a 1990 CRX it is a driveable car.

 

It may be "bad ass" for a movie car, it doesn't 'transform' well to the street. Perhaps 360 degree cameras?

Let’s talk about the hood indicators. First, I love the primitiveness of it—heads-up display, old school. Second, I love how arcane it is. Man, that’s some Mustang deep tracks. Third, the hood turn signals make a virtue of necessity, because the Mustang GT’s bulging hood and high scuttle are blocking the driver’s view anyway. It’s not a complaint. I wouldn’t want to change the seating position or emasculate the Mustang’s domed hood. But these aren’t the easiest cars to see out of, even with the top down. So maybe the hood indicators are quietly brilliant.

All new cars seem to have higher sides, consquencially more slit-like Windows due to all the occupant-safety structure in the doors. I had to buy a spacer kit for my Kia Cadenza to raise the passenger side seat up...no power height adjustment. This is why MANY manufacturers are coming out with the 360° camera systems. I think if you are sitting in any unfamiliar car and haven't spent some quality time adjusting and getting used to the vehicle, that you would have issues.

[silvrsvt]

How tall was the reviewer on the Wall Street Journal? If my memory serves me right, there was a similar complaint from a woman reviewer...I know my wife has hard time seeing out of the passenger side of my 2006 Mustang at 5'4, but I have zero visibility issues with it at 6'2. My SHO is another beast all together...I can see fine out the front, but seeing out the back is useless...but it boils down to seating position again...parents had a 2008 Sable and I felt like I was in a high chair when driving it...I felt like I sat up too high in it.the 2010 redesign dropped both the seat position and roof on the D3 platform.

Add in the popularity of Trucks/SUVs/CUVs and going back to a car like seating position is a big change for a lot of people since they aren't use to it and then bitch about it.

[atomcat68]

HP per displacement doesn't really mean a lot in the real world when, in the real world, others have MORE displacement.

 

You aren't pulling or accelerating with a ratio, it's the answer to the overall equation that moves things along. And it's not in the rpm stratosphere that the numbers matter, just talk to Honda folk about how well-received (in the real world, by real people) their high-revving S2000 was.

 

Seriously, I'm starting to think you have a mod motor snuggle pillow. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but by the same token, I should be entitled to mine.

 

Could someone do the math for me please? 237HP from 2L. I eyeball that to be almost 120HP per liter. Is that any good? That's what the Honda S2000 was making in the 100,000 engines sold under warranty...they had a redline of over 8,000.

The problem with the Honda engine was its low torque. It didn't give the driver the "kick in the rear" when they floored the gas. People looked only at the HP and assumed the car was ultra fast and powerful and it didn't feel like it when they drove it. Even my 200 HP Mustang at the time felt like a Ferrari next to it due to the much higher torque at 245 at a fairly low rpm.

[bdegrand]

http://www.motortrend.com/news/2016-ford-shelby-gt350r-and-2015-chevrolet-camaro-z28-go-head-to-head-wvideo/photos/

Didn't want to bore everyone so I think the photo shows who got spanked!

Edited November 29, 2015 by bdegrand

[SoonerLS]

And the idea of a large displacement, flat plane Ford V8 is not new, I've had a set of flat plane headers for a 427 Tunnelport pass through my hands.

So, where is the production 427 with a flat-plane crank? Was it ever even run in a race?

 

The 5.2 FPC does have an unusually large displacement for a production FPC V8 engine. I haven't done an exhaustive search, but what I have found indicates that there aren't many (if any) other production FPC V8s with a displacement of more than 4.5L.

[fuzzymoomoo]

So, where is the production 427 with a flat-plane crank? Was it ever even run in a race?

 

The 5.2 FPC does have an unusually large displacement for a production FPC V8 engine. I haven't done an exhaustive search, but what I have found indicates that there aren't many (if any) other production FPC V8s with a displacement of more than 4.5L.

That's because they started with the already existing block from the 5.0 and went from there rather than using a brand new from the ground up design, which would have been more expensive.

[Sizzler]

So, where is the production 427 with a flat-plane crank? Was it ever even run in a race?

The 5.2 FPC does have an unusually large displacement for a production FPC V8 engine. I haven't done an exhaustive search, but what I have found indicates that there aren't many (if any) other production FPC V8s with a displacement of more than 4.5L.

Look up the Ford GAA engine, 18 liters, 1100 cubic inches, flatplane crank.

 

http://www.fordgaaengine.com/

[timmm55]

All new cars seem to have higher sides, consquencially more slit-like Windows due to all the occupant-safety structure in the doors. I had to buy a spacer kit for my Kia Cadenza to raise the passenger side seat up...no power height adjustment. This is why MANY manufacturers are coming out with the 360° camera systems. I think if you are sitting in any unfamiliar car and haven't spent some quality time adjusting and getting used to the vehicle, that you would have issues.

No not ALL cars. The Camaro doubled down on the "Transformer" claustrophobia. The Mustang was better, and is better still. Look at a Miata! LOL. "All cars"? hardly.

[CurtisH]

How tall was the reviewer on the Wall Street Journal? If my memory serves me right, there was a similar complaint from a woman reviewer...I know my wife has hard time seeing out of the passenger side of my 2006 Mustang at 5'4, but I have zero visibility issues with it at 6'2. My SHO is another beast all together...I can see fine out the front, but seeing out the back is useless...but it boils down to seating position again...parents had a 2008 Sable and I felt like I was in a high chair when driving it...I felt like I sat up too high in it.the 2010 redesign dropped both the seat position and roof on the D3 platform.

 

Add in the popularity of Trucks/SUVs/CUVs and going back to a car like seating position is a big change for a lot of people since they aren't use to it and then bitch about it.

I'm 5'5 and have no trouble seeing out of my 2005 Mustang GT. My wife is shorter than me and doesn't like the visibility from the passenger seat (manual seat). She doesn't have a problem from the driver's seat (power seat).

[silvrsvt]

Look up the Ford GAA engine, 18 liters, 1100 cubic inches, flatplane crank.

 

http://www.fordgaaengine.com/

It also barely went over 3200 RPM also...and the GAA was never used in an automotive application.

[Deanh]

Sizzler...insider info...there are on commodity issues on the 5.2, we have been told they will be as many built as deemed necessary...its will NOT be a limited production engine. It would be nice to see it utilized in something else other than the mustang....perhaps a Gt spinoff?....don't rightfully know. But apparently theres no cap on production numbers. And I wont iss GMs 6.2 although I do deem it old school, and seriously how much further can it go...it HAS to have forced induction to compete with the rev happy Coyote iterations, but the playing field changes completely when Ford does the same and bolts on a Whipple....reality is, its a technological step up from the 6.2...theres a reason practically every manufacturer has stepped away from Pushrods in vehicles such as the Mustang.

[coupe3w]

...theres a reason practically every manufacturer has stepped away from Pushrods in vehicles such as the Mustang.

And what is that reason? I think when Ford switched to the MOD because they said they couldn't meet the emissions going forward. But GM has done a masterful job with their OHV engines in packaging, weight, HP / torque, simplicity and cost with that engine. Hey I am a Ford guy but that is the reality. Now go ahead and beat me up.

[Deanh]

coupe..easy answer...efficiency and ability to rev......no beating up at all, not sure where that came from, GMs 6.2 as awesome as it is, is antiquated, pure and simple....I will even go as far as predicting the 6.2, at least in car applications, has a limited lifespan....dare I say it, maybe the same could be said for the 5.0, seems everyone is downsizing and force feeding....

Edited November 30, 2015 by Deanh

[coupe3w]

coupe..easy answer...efficiency and ability to rev......no beating up at all, not sure where that came from, GMs 6.2 as awesome as it is, is antiquated, pure and simple....I will even go as far as predicting the 6.2, at least in car applications, has a limited lifespan....dare I say it, maybe the same could be said for the 5.0, seems everyone is downsizing and force feeding....

I'll give you the ability to rev, but efficiency (as in MPG) pretty much equal.

[RichardJensen]

simplicity

 

I don't think those engines are all that simple once you factor in DoD & cam phasing.

 

(BTW, I'm not going to say I *suspect* GM of cheating on emissions and FE testing, but if you told me tomorrow that they had code that activated displacement-on-demand much more aggressively in a test environment, I would not be surprised)

[Deanh]

we could go back and forward on efficiency, but I think a 5.0 that can pretty much compete on a level playing ground as a car with 20 % more displacement speaks loudly...then, when the 5.2 gets mentioned all hell breaks loose...lol. I wouldn't even say they are direct competitors, I believe the 6.2 would compete more with Dodges big boy...Ford went, as per usual, a different route, and a route I believe both GM and Dodge will ultimately end up following...

[coupe3w]

 

I don't think those engines are all that simple once you factor in DoD & cam phasing.

 

(BTW, I'm not going to say I *suspect* GM of cheating on emissions and FE testing, but if you told me tomorrow that they had code that activated displacement-on-demand much more aggressively in a test environment, I would not be surprised)

A single cam phasing with a single timing chain compared to up to 4 cam phases and 4 timing chains with tensioners and it's not simpler?

[Deanh]

well, theres no pushrods and rocker arms.....lol....

[coupe3w]

well, theres no pushrods and rocker arms.....lol....

 

So true. But they have a clever way to hold up the lifters to change cams so you don't have to pull the heads. But the radiator still has to come out. LOL

[RichardJensen]

A single cam phasing with a single timing chain compared to up to 4 cam phases and 4 timing chains with tensioners and it's not simpler?

 

Simpler? Yes. Simple? No.