2011 Ford Mustang V6: The Power & the Fuel-Sipping Glory

[SVT666]

What the forum has to realize is that the unprecedented SVT666 and Nethead trolling, sniping, peanut galleryism, hread pollution and general negatively is SOLELY because the Camaro outsells the Mustang, and was otherwise the talk of the automotive year in 2010 (at least earlier in the year). Had this not been the case, their shenanigans, and the correspondingly unrepentant punishment of CarSPIN bytes, would simply not exist.

TL;DR - they's jelly.

You're one to talk Troll.  I love how you call others out for the same damn thing that you do.  Until you gather up the balls to go drive either car, your opinion means nothing to those who have.  Anyone who has driven both say the Mustang is superior.  

Sales can kiss my ass for all I care.  Sales do not dictate what is the better car...and you know that...or at least you should.

[SVT666]

You guys are really fussy about interiors.  I drove the Camaro and didn't even notice.  It's not a luxury car.

People want everything and don't want to pay for it. 

"I want a car that weighs 2,000 pounds, is RWD, has a V8, seats four, and has the interior of a Bentley for $9.99!" 

It's the worst interior in the class.  The Mustang costs the same and has a much nicer interior.

[Rich]

It's the worst interior in the class.  The Mustang costs the same and has a much nicer interior.

Uhhh, the Mustang doesn't have a telescoping wheel.  The Camaro comes with the Driver info center between the guages that has a lot of great info in it (such as tire pressure at all 4 and coolant temp that the Mustang doesn't tell)

Yeah yeah, the Mustang comes with the dummy gauge for coolant and it's not hard to check your own tire pressures... but it's just good business.  If the sensors ($$$) are already in place, just the Camaro reports them better.

the Camaro armrest is much better than the Mustang too

I know the Mustangs design and the dash materials are better, but I wouldn't say it's a blowout

[Nethead]

You guys are really fussy about interiors.  I drove the Camaro and didn't even notice.  It's not a luxury car.

People want everything and don't want to pay for it.  

"I want a car that weighs 2,000 pounds, is RWD, has a V8, seats four, and has the interior of a Bentley for $9.99!"  

RazDude, make that $8.99 US and you got a deal!  Do you have it in Clearcoat Metallic Blue with a 6-speed manual transmission?  No pushrodders.

[Nethead]

You're one to talk Troll.  I love how you call others out for the same damn thing that you do.  Until you gather up the balls to go drive either car, your opinion means nothing to those who have.  Anyone who has driven both say the Mustang is superior.  

Sales can kiss my ass for all I care.  Sales do not dictate what is the better car...and you know that...or at least you should.

SVT666:  No chance The Braying Ass knows that sales do not dictate which is the better vehicle .  It's always been about quality over quantity--why do you think the Camaro has already been extinct once?  Yep.   

[GoCougs]

You guys are really fussy about interiors.  I drove the Camaro and didn't even notice.  It's not a luxury car.

People want everything and don't want to pay for it.  

"I want a car that weighs 2,000 pounds, is RWD, has a V8, seats four, and has the interior of a Bentley for $9.99!"  

I like the Camaro's interior. The dealio is that some may not be aware that it's a straight-up homage to the '69, especially the dash gauge pods and the oddly placed four-pack console gauges. I understand it's not for everyone but its design had purpose.

The two things I'm not a fan of are offset center steering wheel (I have some vertigo issues and spinning that bad boy makes me dizzy) and I'm not a fan of the speedo and tach font. Other than that, I think it's a quality interior (especially the leather seats) that fits the car perfectly.

[GoCougs]

As to the continued harping on the Camaro interior...

Worst in class? Hasn't everyone here sat in the new Challenger? I give it mega props for the coolest retro throwback that is the pistol grip shifter on M/T cars but there was zero effort in making it nothing more than a transplant from the Charger. Bland and cheap, with no retro cues beyond the shifter.

But does that matter? Nah, not really. In this class no one is choosing one car over the other because one interior is "better" than the other. Pony cars have never been about that; well, that is, not until it came time to go on jihad to defend one's preferred choice by any avenue available.

Plus new for MY2011 the Camaro has HUD (not a fan) and has an interior upgrade package akin to that available for the Mustang.

[Nethead]

What the forum has to realize is that the unprecedented SVT666 and Nethead trolling, sniping, peanut galleryism, hread pollution and general negatively is SOLELY because the Camaro outsells the Mustang, and was otherwise the talk of the automotive year in 2010 (at least earlier in the year). Had this not been the case, their shenanigans, and the correspondingly unrepentant punishment of CarSPIN bytes, would simply not exist.

TL;DR - they's jelly.

BlowCougs:  Nah.  What the forum has to realize is that the unprecedented SVT666 and Nethead trolling, sniping, peanut galleryism, hread [sic] pollution and general negatively [sic] is SOLELY because you are a colossally stupid shit.

The three stupidest people I ever met was while I was on active duty in the Army--one was a soldier from Nevada, one was a sailor from Nevada, and one was a soldier from northern California.  This Triumvirate of Imbecility has owned the podium for that dubious accolade since 1970.  

The soldier from Nevada has now been bumped off that podium...

[SVT666]

As to the continued harping on the Camaro interior...

Worst in class? Hasn't everyone here sat in the new Challenger? I give it mega props for the coolest retro throwback that is the pistol grip shifter on M/T cars but there was zero effort in making it nothing more than a transplant from the Charger. Bland and cheap, with no retro cues beyond the shifter.

But does that matter? Nah, not really. In this class no one is choosing one car over the other because one interior is "better" than the other. Pony cars have never been about that; well, that is, not until it came time to go on jihad to defend one's preferred choice by any avenue available.

Plus new for MY2011 the Camaro has HUD (not a fan) and has an interior upgrade package akin to that available for the Mustang.

That;'s actually an option I wish was available on all cars.  HUD is great.

[Submariner]

It's the worst interior in the class.  The Mustang costs the same and has a much nicer interior.

The Challenger isn't that special, and the Genesis coupe not only has no sense of style, but the one I sat in wasn't all that well put together, either. 

The Mustang is best in class, but not by leaps and bounds. 

[Nethead]

Car and Driver does its annual Lightning Lap at Virginia International Raceway (sorta like Laguna Seca, but the flora is green instead of brown).  Each year C&D selects new cars--or cars that have been significantly upgraded--for testing around VIR (I've been to races at Laguna Seca and VIR, and they both offer a variety of challenges).  C&D puts each vehicle into a "class" based on price.  The V6 Mustang (base price $28,690/as tested price $28,690) is in class LL1--under $30,000.  Also in this year's LL1 class were the Subaru Impreza WRX ($26,220/$31,720) and the Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8 R-Spec ($27,550/$27,740)--the Nethead here does not know why C&D did not put the WRX in the LL2 class since it was over $30,000 as tested, but there it is...

Here's the article:

"Perhaps the biggest surprise came from the Mustang V-6.  Despite its 114-MPH governor, the V-6 Stang won its class and posted a faster lap than last year's Mustang GT."

Subaru Impreza WRX (Lap time: 3:16.5  Weight: 3250 lbs  HP: 265):

You may be saying to no one in particular, ?Didn?t you guys bring a WRX last year?? Yes, we did, but since then, Subaru revamped its entry-level speed freak so much that we felt it warranted another go. The 2011 Impreza WRX sedan dons STI sheetmetal, and all models get some suspension tweaks, slightly larger tires, and a wider track. The net result is a 0.1-second gain, for a lap time of 3:16.5.

As with most cars in LL1, braking confidence in the WRX weighed heavy on the driver?s mind. One hot lap?s worth of  braking in the Subie generated enough heat to cause the pedal to go soft and, ultimately, away. The WRX?s updates didn?t help it in the handling department, either. The car plowed through most corners, be they slow or fast. In the winding sector four, the WRX repeatedly drifted off line. A small throttle correction normally repairs this kind of problem, but we kept fighting understeer with throttle, steering, and even brake inputs. And in the slow-speed sector one [see track map, p. 7], the WRX was 0.2 second behind the STI and 0.3 second aft of the most recent WRX we had at VIR. The updated WRX may be a hair quicker, but we wouldn?t call this major progress.

Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8 R-Spec (Lap time: 3:13.8  Weight: 3406  HP: 306):
 
Despite having more horsepower, a lower curb weight, and no asinine top-speed governor, the Genesis 3.8 R-Spec couldn?t beat the V-6?powered Mustang, falling 1.3 seconds behind with a lap time of 3:13.8. But the Hyundai did match the more expensive WRX STI. Where the Genesis stumbled was in the handling guts of the infield, a.k.a. sector four; the R-Spec went in and came out hotter than the Stang but couldn?t maintain speed throughout the five-corner sluice. It ceded only 0.1 second to the ?Mustang there, but another 0.4 second in the final section?again, coming in hotter, but scrubbing more speed once it arrived. And its peakier, less-torquey V-6 doesn?t pull as hard out of the final corner.

Last year, Hyundai inexplicably sent us an automatic-equipped Genesis coupe. Maybe it was the PR department?s way of ensuring that the car would be in our annual test more than once. The transmission?s manumatic function would not allow downshifts where needed, and a high transmission temperature would trigger a safety mode that resulted in shifts a few thousand rpm below redline. Like last year?s car, the R-Spec?s ride is firm and buttoned down, but we would appreciate more feel from the steering wheel.

The manual was quicker, yes, but only by 1.0 second and not without problems. If you hurry the shifts, the powertrain hesitates, almost as though there is something binding in the gearbox. It is similar to an aggressive stability-control system killing the fun. To maximize the car?s potential, you have to be constantly thinking, ?shift slowly,? when, ideally, the task of shifting should be second nature.

Ford Mustang V6 (Lap time: 3:12.5  Weight: 3513 lbs  HP: 305):

Taking the LL1 crown this year and tying the class-record time of 3:12.5 was Ford?s 305-hp V-6 Mustang. We have little doubt that it could have unseated the co?class-champ 2006 Nissan 350Z Track if the Ford hadn?t been equipped with a 114-mph governor, which the car banged into for more than 15 seconds per lap. Yet despite the interference of the electric anchor, the new V-6?powered car still managed to beat last year?s 315-hp V-8 Mustang by 0.8 second.

We might have found our minds wandering on the speed-limited straights, but the Mustang had no problem holding our attention in the corners. Equipped with the Performance package, which adds 255/40R-19 Pirelli P Zero rubber and a firmer, track-friendly chassis, the car swept through the rest of the track with an ease that masked its 3513-pound curb weight and solid rear axle. Under trail braking?braking past the point of turning into a corner?the easily modulated binders enabled impressive front-end grip as the Mustang tucked into tight, low-speed corners with the nimbleness of a much lighter car. A cinch to balance through the middle of a corner, the chassis tends toward neutrality and is only disturbed by big, foolish control inputs.

Even though effort through the leather-wrapped wheel is light and doesn?t increase much in response to cornering loads, the steering is resolutely accurate and faithful. Some initial roll compliance made the Mustang feel slightly disconnected, but the stability of its chassis makes sport of the downhill corners before the straightaway (sector five) and the uphill esses. The seats could use more support, and the V-6 lacks the torque and sound of the 5.0-liter V-8, but this model sacrifices nothing when it comes to handling.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this point, 'might as well toss in the Mustang GT's performance (base price $35,785/as tested price $36,280) in the LL2 class:

Mustang GT (Lap time: 3:08.6  Weight: 3626  HP: 412):

The Mustang GT gives you the best parts of the V-6?powered car, only with more ponies. Its 412-hp V-8 is 107 horses stronger than the 113-pound-lighter V-6 model, and it?s 138 horses short of the 198-pound-heavier, V-8?powered Shelby GT500. The GT?s additional juice, without a correspondingly significant weight penalty, is a key reason why we ?singled it out for this year?s 10Best Cars award and why it performs so well on a track. It is worth noting, though, that a mandatory option for hot lapping is the $1695 Brembo front brake package, which also brings sticky Pirelli P Zero tires. With that package, the GT turns a 3:08.6 lap, 0.9 second quicker than its longtime pony-car rival, the Camaro SS, managed in last year?s Lightning Lap, and third in class despite being the second-least-expensive LL2 car, at $36,280. (The Mazda RX-8 R-3 was the least expensive vehicle in LL2 at $33,085)

Like the V-6, the GT?s steering is above average. Turn-in is crisp, handling near neutral, and controlled trail braking is possible. The GT?s shifter?unlike the GT500?s?is never too quick, never induces grinding, and is light enough in hand that missing a shift is a rare event. The GT exhibits a little more body roll than the GT500, which makes the side-to-side-in-your-seat banging around less intense and more tolerable. Still, the GT would benefit greatly from a more heavily bolstered seat.

Sector two is the only place where the GT outperforms the GT500. The GT requires few throttle changes, and carrying speed is easier because the Shelby requires a significant lift to stay on track. Is it the ?80s again? Because the 5.0-liter is, once again, cool as ice. Vanilla Ice.