I read this in yesterday's Wall Street Journal print edition, thoroughly-enjoyed it. It set me thinking; my wife wants a convertible...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304370304575152042180219912.html
APRIL 3, 2010
The Power and the Fuel-Sipping Glory
Ford's new Mustang V6 pairs 305 horses with 31 mpg on the highway, but those side mirrors have to go
By DAN NEIL
By now checking my side-view mirrors before I change lanes is an autonomic neural function, somewhere between breathing and cringing at the sound of a shrieking fan belt, or Sarah Palin.
So I was just a little surprised when, after glancing in my left-side mirror, I was nearly obliterated by a large white pickup truck speeding down Ventura Boulevard in Los Angeles. Where the hell did he come from?
Oh, right. Alaska.
(http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-IA343_mustan_D_20100402122632.jpg)
Welcome to the 2011 Ford Mustang V6, which has many things to recommend it?a stonky, turgid-with-horsepower sixer, a choice of new six-speed transmissions, All-American provenance and rather astounding 31 mpg highway fuel economy?and one thing that cries out for the ministrations of a sharp screwdriver: a driver's-side "spot mirror," a small convex affair glued to the face of the streamlined side-view mirror, precisely where large white pickups hide. Dear Mr. Ford, about these mirrors. Hate them. Dangerous. Trash.
The Ford Mustang is rapidly becoming America's low-rent, GED-educated version of the Porsche 911. They've both been around since the mid-'60s, both core syntax in automotive culture, both as rich with symbolism as the Book of Kells. Both cars are bound as if by blood oath to an inferior technology: in the case of the Porsche, the less-than-optimum rear-engine layout; for the Mustang, the widely disdained?though damned effective?solid rear axle, as opposed to an independent rear suspension. And both cars, by their sheer longevity, are examples of a kind of engineering perfectibility, as their respective design teams continue to refine and improve the car, year after year, in a kind of Darwinian fire of adaptation. They may be platypuses but you won't find a better duck-billed fur-bearing egg-layer anywhere.
In 2009, Ford's product elves took the Mustang dramatically forward with a redesigned exterior and interior, major chassis upgrades and a laundry list of subtle improvements, which made the car almost terrific. Indeed, the current-model-year (2010) Mustang GT, I think, easily outpoints the key competitors (Chevy Camaro SS and Dodge Challenger SRT) in handling and ride quality, mostly by virtue of the fact that the competitors are, as sports cars, mullet-coiffured lard butts.
The 40-foot asterisk beside Mustang has lately been its engines, which have varied from dated to utterly Pleistocene. This has been particularly true of the entry-level Mustangs powered by the V6?a villainous antique outputting 210 horsepower from 4.0 liters of displacement and sucking gas like no tomorrow. For reference, note that the 2010 Mustang V6 returns an official 16 mpg in the city and 24 mpg on the highway and?at the risk of hitting this nail too hard?it moves like it's been quaffing Propofol.
Yes, sure, Ford has sold a lot of these cars?the low-buck Mustang is the perennial choice of bank tellers and spirit-squad captains. But among enthusiasts, the Mustang V6 is about as popular as flesh-eating bacteria.
For the 2011 model year, the Mustang line gets two new engines, neither of which is exactly state of the art but both nonetheless vast improvements over the previous piston-equipped anvils. The Mustang GT gets a 5.0-liter, 32-valve DOHC V8 good for 412 horsepower (replacing the 4.6-liter, 315-hp engine). And the new V6?our focus today?is a 3.7-liter, 24-valve Duratec V6, with dual overhead cams, variable valve timing on the intake and exhaust sides, cold-air induction, and a nice toasty 10.5:1 compression ratio. This aluminum-block unit churns 305 horsepower at 6,500 rpm and a thick-wristed 280 pound-feet of torque.
This engine does for the Mustang V6 what a trip to Lourdes does for intractable VD. It's a miracle cure, sheer deliverance, salvation. Zero-to-60 acceleration feels easily in the high five-second range as car comes off the line with a big smooth rushing moment over-vaulting the car's 3,400-pound inertia, with almost no axle tramp or other squirrelly-ness. Awesome. Big righteous torque is available in the upper rpm registers, and the handling hardware?revised front and rear suspension and antiroll bars, redesigned rear-end lower control arms, tuned tires and other esoterica?puts a seriously athletic leg under the whole project.
The base-model Mustang?previously a good-looking, clumsy doofus (note the restraint with which I avoid mentioning Matthew McConaughey)?is now actually fun to drive. Actually, it's kind of a riot.
Meanwhile, thanks to the new engine, a six-speed automatic transmission, freer-breathing dual exhaust (formerly a single pipe), and a host of measures that nibble at the efficiency equation (including electric-assist power steering with?I kid you not?Active Nibble Control), the Mustang is rated at 19 mpg city and 31 mpg highway, the highest in the class of V6-powered American sport coupes including the base-model Chevy Camaro LT and Dodge Challenger. The base Mustang all but crushes the direct Asian import competitor, the Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8?quicker, cheaper, more fuel-efficient and more charismatic by, oh, light-years.
Ah, but nothing comes for free, and among the means the Mustang employs to achieve its celebrated highway mpg is a host of fine-grain aerodynamic tweaks, including smaller, more streamlined side mirrors, which some misbegotten son-of-a-dog safety engineer decided needed spotter mirrors.
Enter?almost, at least?the aforementioned large white pickup.
Indeed, the 31 mpg number?which has been marketing catnip for Ford?is achieved at some cost to Mustang V6's overall drivability; it's a good thing the Mustang has it to spare. For instance, the rear-axle ratio on the base-model car is a sky-high 2.73, which means that at highway speeds the engine is loafing along at low rpm. The downside is that tall rear gears tend to smother torque and kill off-the-line acceleration. As quick as this car is out of the hole, it would be significantly more responsive with a shorter rear gear. That option is available in the V6 performance package.
Meanwhile, the computer programming governing the new six-speed automatic transmission demonstrates a deep, almost irresistible urge to jump to higher gear in the interests of fuel saving?and that can make the car a little frustrating to drive hard in canyon country. Forget "D" for Drive; best slap the shifter over to the manual gate and wring out the rpm. Ah, but then you're not getting 31 mpg, are you?
The high-mileage Mustang also gives up a measure of road-holding by using Michelin Energy radials, what are known as low-rolling-resistance tires. But you can't take it away from the Ford chassis guys. They have managed to tune the Mustang's suspension and stability control programming so that, while the tires aren't particularly grippy, the way the car slides around on them is easily manageable and actually pretty entertaining.
In canyon country, the Mustang feels well sorted and competent. The electric power steering, while as numb as a sled dog's nose, is responsive and direct. The car feels very honest, balanced and confidence-inspiring. With the stability control set to Sport?or better yet, Off?it's effortless to pitch the rear end around with generous application of noise and gas. Would I like more lateral grip? Oh yeah. But the V6 Mustang has no bad manners or ugly surprises in store. For 2011, the base Mustang gets the big honking brakes from the Mustang GT, so that stopping distance is not an issue. Brake-pedal feel is quite good, too.
For, well, ever, it's seemed to enthusiasts that the Mustang to have would be the V8 because, otherwise, why bother? But here's a radical thought. What if, one day, the V6-powered car, with its over-achieving performance and conscientious fuel economy, and available Performance package (bigger wheels, stickier tires, stiffer suspension, a general upgrade in orneriness) became the aspirational Mustang, the one kids want to buy? Oh, brave new world....
Meantime, let's raise a cheer for government fuel-economy regulations. Free-market choristers can be counted on to lament the feds' Corporate Average Fuel Economy requirements, particularly the Obama administration's finalizing of rules to require 35.5-mpg CAFE standard by 2016. Yes, of course, the end of capitalism as we know it, the death of innocents, etc. Except that CAFE is working. Imperfectly, true, but cars are getting better, faster and more efficient?and doing so in the absence of meaningful market forces, like drastically higher fuel prices?and you need only look to the Mustang V6 for proof. A decade ago, such a car was beyond the imaginings of the most wild-eyed, patchouli-reeking green gearhead.
The future is coming up fast. Objects in your tiny mirrors are closer than they appear.
As much as I love the Camaro, I'd take the Mustang over it.
I really, really want a Mustang. I never thought I'd ever say that I would want a Mustang V6.
I still only like the V8 ones. Perhaps it's all in my head but to me it's the only way to do it right.
I've just turned in a 2010 V6 Mustang Convertible. It was even in Grabber Blue like the on depicted.
Before everyone eulogises about the convertible too much - and I admit it does look great - you'd better test one. The scuttle shake/body flex was just awful on even some of SoCal's less rough freeways and other streets. I would generally describe the rad as "bad", with too much pitching from the suspension even on the smoothest of surfaces. Sadly, I don't believe the 2011 changes will make much difference to this.
I know that 'Stang vs Camaro is like religion...... having recently sampled both and a Challenger, I ahve to conclude that the Dodge wins if you need to put people in the back and have luggage. In SE spec it also wins the refinement game (but why are you buying a car like this if that is your criterion?)..... the Ford clearly wins by default if you want a Convertible. If it was my money, I'd be headed to the Chevrolet dealer..... I did not find the things which others have listed here to be particularly irksome, so on a preference basis (at least until the 2011 Mustangs come out and I can get to try a V8 Challenger) it would be the one I'd pick.
Full reports on the Challenger and Mustang to come in due course.
Great article, especially from a non-car publication.
I don't know that I could pick a Mustang GT over a used G35 coupe or even a new Genesis 3.8 coupe. I still have reservations about the Mustang's size and exterior (though again it does look damn good). The interior is still a bit cheesy. I just prefer a more Japanese/Euro character in design. But I would be hating if I said it was a good (or possibly better) car than either a used G or a new Genesis 3.8. Good job Ford
Quote from: Colin on April 04, 2010, 04:14:48 PM
I've just turned in a 2010 V6 Mustang Convertible. It was even in Grabber Blue like the on depicted.
Before everyone eulogises about the convertible too much - and I admit it does look great - you'd better test one. The scuttle shake/body flex was just awful on even some of SoCal's less rough freeways and other streets. I would generally describe the rad as "bad", with too much pitching from the suspension even on the smoothest of surfaces. Sadly, I don't believe the 2011 changes will make much difference to this.
I know that 'Stang vs Camaro is like religion...... having recently sampled both and a Challenger, I ahve to conclude that the Dodge wins if you need to put people in the back and have luggage. In SE spec it also wins the refinement game (but why are you buying a car like this if that is your criterion?)..... the Ford clearly wins by default if you want a Convertible. If it was my money, I'd be headed to the Chevrolet dealer..... I did not find the things which others have listed here to be particularly irksome, so on a preference basis (at least until the 2011 Mustangs come out and I can get to try a V8 Challenger) it would be the one I'd pick.
Full reports on the Challenger and Mustang to come in due course.
Did you find any major complaints that wouldn't be fixed by the 2011 engine or by choosing a model with a roof?
Quote from: sportyaccordy on April 04, 2010, 04:51:16 PM
Great article, especially from a non-car publication.
Neil is a Pulitzer winner who used to work for C/D and Autoweek.
Quote from: ifcar on April 04, 2010, 05:49:28 PM
Neil is a Pulitzer winner who used to work for C/D and Autoweek.
So am I.
Quote from: Colin on April 04, 2010, 04:14:48 PM
Before everyone eulogises about the convertible too much - and I admit it does look great - you'd better test one. The scuttle shake/body flex was just awful on even some of SoCal's less rough freeways and other streets. I would generally describe the rad as "bad", with too much pitching from the suspension even on the smoothest of surfaces. Sadly, I don't believe the 2011 changes will make much difference to this.
I think it must be some kind of law that Ford can't make the Mustang into a good convertible. You think this one is bad then you should try out one from the 90's. They're wet noodles. If I was going to get a Mustang then it have to be a coupe and not a convert. I was a long time Ford hater. I loathed the Mustang. But I've come around over the last few years on the new ones. But Ford still makes cheap looking convertible tops that don't impress me much. But so do the other domestic makers for that matter.
The BMW 3 series always comes to mind when trying to recall reviews of convertibles where scuttle shake is not a problem. The Infiniti G37 convertible has been a huge disappointment.
Unless a car is made to be a convertible from the start then it will be an up hill battle.
From www.caranddriver.com. It an't the convertible, but it is the new V6:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/10q1/2011_ford_mustang_v6-short_take_road_test
Ford shows its base pony car some love and churns out a sweetheart.
BY MIKE SUTTON, PHOTOGRAPHY BY JOHN ROE AND THE MANUFACTURER
April 2010
Highs and Lows
Highs: Impressive power, six forward speeds, performance options create a back-road sweetie, not too thirsty.
Lows: Steering could be heavier, Mustang Club of America package is gaudy.
Specifications
VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE AS TESTED: $30,675 (base price: $22,995)
ENGINE TYPE: DOHC 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection
Displacement: 227 cu in, 3726 cc
Power (SAE net): 305 bhp @ 6500 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 280 lb-ft @ 4250 rpm
TRANSMISSION: 6-speed manual
DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 107.1 in Length: 188.1 in
Width: 73.9 in Height: 55.6 in
Curb weight: 3520 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.4 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 13.0 sec
Street start, 5?60 mph: 5.8 sec
Standing ?-mile: 14.0 sec @ 104 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 113 mph
Braking, 70?0 mph: 152 ft
Roadholding, 200-ft-dia skidpad: 0.95 g
FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 19/29 mpg
C/D observed: 18 mpg
Although most of the hubbub surrounding the 2011 Ford Mustang is centered on the GT?s fantastic new 412-hp, 5.0-liter V-8?our test of which you can read here?Ford made damn sure not to forget about the volume V-6 model, which now sports a high-tech 305-hp, 3.7-liter V-6 as standard equipment. Yes, 305 ponies in a base Mustang, or just 10 fewer than in last year?s GT. Given that our last test of Ford?s standard pony car left us about as warm as a dip in a frozen lake, we tempered our enthusiasm when sliding behind the wheel of this new one. Lucky for us?and for all Mustang fanatics?Ford did its homework. The 2011 Mustang V-6 is an astonishingly good car.
Reveling in a Revelation
For perspective, previous V-6 Mustangs were forever plagued by a thrashy SOHC 4.0-liter V-6 with a meager 210 hp and 240 lb-ft of torque. The new all-aluminum DOHC engine?a range-topping variant of Ford?s Duratec V-6 architecture with variable valve timing on both the intake and exhaust cams?produces 305 hp at 6500 rpm and 280 lb-ft at 4250 rpm. It?s not as strong at low revs as the V-8?nor as fiercely bellowing?but the mill quickly spins to its 7000-rpm redline with a husky howl emanating from its dual three-inch exhaust outlets; only a little straining is audible near the top of the rev range. Fueled by regular unleaded and capable of returning 19 mpg in the city and up to 31 mpg on the highway with the optional six-speed automatic transmission ($995), this is impressive stuff.
Strapped with our test gear, we spurred a new V-6 Mustang with the standard six-speed manual to 60 mph in 5.4 seconds and through the quarter-mile in 14 flat at 104 mph. That?s over one second better in both tests than the previous V-6 model and just a half-second or so off the paces of the quickest 2010 GT we tested. More important, the 3520-pound Mustang V-6 is 0.5 second quicker than the 3800-pound Chevy Camaro V-6 in both measures?cue the chirping from the peanut gallery?and the Ford also outruns the slightly lighter and more powerful Hyundai Genesis V-6 coupe. A set of sharp, black-painted 19-inch wheels wrapped in optional Pirelli P Zeros?size 255/40ZR-19, same as on the GT?meant that traction off the line wasn?t an issue.
Back-Road Surprise
But we already knew that the 2011 car was going to be quicker than last year?s model; we just didn?t expect Ford to dial up the entertainment value so high. All 2011 V-6 models sport revised suspension tuning, a standard limited-slip differential, and larger brakes?11.5 inches up front, 11.8 in the rear?and our tester also had Ford?s factory-installed Performance package ($1995), which will be available in late summer and essentially brings the car up to GT spec. In addition to the aforementioned Pirelli gumballs ($360 each) and 19-inch wheels, the kit includes the GT?s upgraded shocks, springs, and anti-roll bars; the V-6?s optional 3.31:1 rear axle (a 2.73:1 ring and pinion is standard); GT brake calipers with upgraded pads; a front strut-tower brace; a revised stability-control system with a more-liberal sport mode; and a couple of unique badges.
What results is a sharper, better-balanced whole that is an absolute blast to toss through the twisties. The V-6 may be only 60 pounds lighter than the new GT, but the difference feels greater from the driver?s seat; it?s more nimble and neutral-handling, with a surprising amount of feedback from the electric power-steering rack. Despite the solid-axle layout, our tester?s ride felt compliant and controlled, with little if any uneasiness during hard cornering on rough pavement.
We?ll say the steering is a bit too light for our liking, and the suspension tuning made for an occasional ass-out surprise during abrupt, high-speed directional changes. But we can?t fault the big-league numbers: a 152-foot stop from 70 mph and a neck-straining 0.95 g around the skidpad, both of which slightly better the 2011 GT?s and approach those of far more expensive stuff. We also didn?t notice any fade from the stock brakes, which should hold up fairly well even if you plan to hit the track regularly. (Did we just suggest frequent track use of a V-6 Mustang? I think we did.)
Manual-transmission V-6s are rated at 19 mpg in the city and 29 on the highway. We only managed 18 mpg over 300 miles of what was pretty aggressive running through Southern California?s canyons, but we should get a better figure when we can test one back home and factor in some normal commutes.
It?s About Time
With last year?s already extensive updates powering the 2010 Mustang GT to a win in a three-way with a Camaro SS and Dodge Challenger R/T, we?re delighted to see Ford spreading the love to the V-6 model. We didn?t get a chance to sample the base car with the normal suspension, but at $22,995 to start, the 2011 Mustang V-6 is the least-expensive way to get rear-wheel drive and 300 hp; 2010 Camaros base at $23,530, and the Genesis coupe with a 3.8-liter V-6 starts at $25,750. The Dodge Challenger SE starts at $23,460 but is so grossly outmatched as to be easily dismissed from the conversation.
Our Grabber Blue Mustang was decked out in Premium trim, which at $26,695 to start nets leather hides for the seats and steering wheel, a booming Shaker 500 audio system, and various chrome and aluminum detailing, among other amenities. Also featured were the Security package ($395) with wheel locks and an anti-theft alarm; Comfort package ($595) with a six-way power driver?s seat and heaters for the front chairs; the Performance package; and the $995 Mustang Club of America package, which includes a blingy stainless-steel billet grille, fog lights, flat-black stripes down the body sides, a similar appliqu? between the taillights, a prominent decklid spoiler, unique 18-inch wheels, and several other bits. Total: about $30,675.
We?d definitely recommend the Premium model because the plastic-heavy base interior is bland and uninviting, but we?re cool with skipping the MCA package; it might grab attention at the local Steak ?n Shake, but it?s a bit much for our tastes. Loaded with additional options such as navigation ($2340), a glass roof ($1995), a Shaker 1000 audio upgrade ($1295), and xenon headlights ($595), the V-6 model could easily climb past $35,000, at which point we?d remind you that the GT starts at $30,495 and that the new 5.0-liter V-8 is really, really good. But given this car?s status as the volume model, we guarantee legions of buyers are going to be plenty pleased with the Mustang V-6.
350Zs were horrifically flexy convertibles too; the Nissan FM platform just wasn't designed to be convertible. Same issue with the Mustang, the SN197 Mustang's donor chassis just wasn't designed for it.
Boo, light steering. Give me a meaty V8 version and I'll be happy, although it seems I'll need to order the shorter gear ratios.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 05, 2010, 08:31:05 AM
350Zs were horrifically flexy convertibles too; the Nissan FM platform just wasn't designed to be convertible. Same issue with the Mustang, the SN197 Mustang's donor chassis just wasn't designed for it.
I suppose keeping costs down has always been a Mustang trademark. Even so it's a pity, per Colin's post, that the D2C platform does not do a better job in the roof-off variants.
Hmm, I thought the new 3.7 was DI. Pretty impressive numbers with port fuel injection.
Quote from: R-inge on April 05, 2010, 09:24:35 AM
Hmm, I thought the new 3.7 was DI. Pretty impressive numbers with port fuel injection.
Too 'spensive...at least initially...
Ah, I see. Well, still impressive. The GM mill requires DI to get its numbers. That's promising for Ford.
Quote from: R-inge on April 05, 2010, 11:23:53 AM
Ah, I see. Well, still impressive. The GM mill requires DI to get its numbers. That's promising for Ford.
DI is reserved for the EcoBoost right now. Ford said DI didn't produce significant enough advantages in power or fuel economy to warrant the cost.
Quote from: SVT666 on April 05, 2010, 11:36:04 AM
DI is reserved for the EcoBoost right now. Ford said DI didn't produce significant enough advantages in power or fuel economy to warrant the cost.
Yeah, Ford says GDI only adds one percent in non-boosted applications. In boost applications, GDI still adds the one percent but goes further to allow higher boost because GDI allows the same engine to run cooler than that engine would run with port injection. That's why GDI is used in EcoBoost engines--it allows more boost without an increase in the likelihood of detonation due to the lower operating temperatures of GDI engines.
But room for GDI was provided in the heads of the 3.7 V6, obviously, and in the heads of the TiVCT 5.0L V8 in the event of boosted 5.0s being offered in the future.
Was that minor percentage increase verified using the existing compression ratio or with hardware optimised for the capabilities of DI? Just curious.
Either way, it'll be a good way to upgrade the current engines, and I'm glad they had the foresight to at least make room in the current design for it.
Before this the V6 mustang was arguably just a chick car; I never even considered owning one. Now though, I think it's a legitimate pony car, something I would consider owning.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 05, 2010, 08:31:05 AM
350Zs were horrifically flexy convertibles too; the Nissan FM platform just wasn't designed to be convertible.
Where did you get that idea?
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/03q3/2003_audi_tt_vs.bmw_z4_honda_s2000_nissan_350z_porsche_boxster-comparison_tests/2003_nissan_350z_roadster_touring_page_4
"Highs: No waiting for the torque, and the sweet symphony of twin pipes that accompanies it; the refined ride;
the feeling of enduring solidityThis car has a low pulse rate and a sense of gravitas about it.
Nothing flexes. Ride smoothness tops all the others. Interior noises are muted. Cockpit drafts are least bothersome of the group.
But the Z wears its weight well. The feeling is deliberate rather than ponderous, self-assured rather than tentative. And the weight doesn't ruin the sports-car feeling. The grip ramps up confidently in turns, and the suspension keeps its poise.
No hip fakes, no stutter steps. By comparison C&D never mentioned the others for being particularly solid (they did say that the Porsche and Audi were flexy).
When C&D tested the 370Z, they also remarked they remembered the 350z for being rigid.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/09q3/2010_nissan_370z_touring_roadster-short_take_road_test
"When it came along in 2003,
the droptop Z car scored well on the rigidity meter. In our August ?03 comparo [?The Blow Dryers?], we noted a ?feeling of enduring solidity? and that ?nothing flexes.?"
Basically Nissan was willing to add weight to the 350z until it was stiff enough.
Quote from: 565 on April 05, 2010, 07:27:56 PM
Where did you get that idea?
Cougs just makes shit up now. He's the new Nethead.
My MTBing ride buddy had a 350Z vert (Indian guy); hated the car for many (good) reasons, one of which was the ultra mega flexy body. To show me he parked one side of the car up on the curb, and you could visibly see the door gaps change, and that the point on the A-pillar where the 'vert interfaces was all out of whack. It was simply a terrible car IMO though I have to admit his constant diatribes have me forever biased no matter how many articles you guys uncover.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 05, 2010, 07:44:05 PM
My MTBing ride buddy had a 350Z vert (Indian guy); hated the car for many (good) reasons, one of which was the ultra mega flexy body. To show me he parked one side of the car up on the curb, and you could visibly see the door gaps change, and that the point on the A-pillar where the 'vert interfaces was all out of whack. It was simply a terrible car IMO though I have to admit his constant diatribes have me forever biased no matter how many articles you guys uncover.
Sounds like he expects too much from a convertible in general. Parking with a wheel on a curb and expecting no flex is a hard test for any vert to pass. The 350Z is very stiff amongst convertibles, but obviously won't compare to a closed top vehicle in general. I once posted a big list of torsional rigidities and as a whole sports cars aren't as rigid as people expect and often much flexier than sedans or even SUVs. It's because the low slung shape of a sports car isn't an ideal shape for rigidity to begin with, think cube vs pancake, and rigidity often comes at the cost of weight.
Well, and with lower weight stiffness isn't as necessary to maintain good handling traits, or so it would seem to me.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 05, 2010, 07:44:05 PM
My MTBing ride buddy had a 350Z vert (Indian guy); hated the car for many (good) reasons, one of which was the ultra mega flexy body. To show me he parked one side of the car up on the curb, and you could visibly see the door gaps change, and that the point on the A-pillar where the 'vert interfaces was all out of whack. It was simply a terrible car IMO though I have to admit his constant diatribes have me forever biased no matter how many articles you guys uncover.
Just about any convert will do that. You do it on some Mustangs and you can't even open the door.
Do it to a Grand Am and it'll fold like a taco. It's true. I did it once.
Quote from: 565 on April 05, 2010, 08:01:03 PM
Sounds like he expects too much from a convertible in general. Parking with a wheel on a curb and expecting no flex is a hard test for any vert to pass. The 350Z is very stiff amongst convertibles, but obviously won't compare to a closed top vehicle in general. I once posted a big list of torsional rigidities and as a whole sports cars aren't as rigid as people expect and often much flexier than sedans or even SUVs. It's because the low slung shape of a sports car isn't an ideal shape for rigidity to begin with, think cube vs pancake, and rigidity often comes at the cost of weight.
Well, I had to listen to it enough on rides and the like that I'm converted on the issue of the 350Z drop top (ha - dig that pun).
Quote from: R-inge on April 05, 2010, 08:24:07 PM
Do it to a Grand Am and it'll fold like a taco. It's true. I did it once.
I use to jack up Mustangs on their side or from the front and then couldn't open the doors to pull the hood latch. I've never took a 350Z conv for a test ride. But working on them I found them to be strong.
I'd have to say one of the strongest conv I've ever had to pull the frame on was a FC RX-7. That was one strong car.
Yeah, I mean I was joking there but just putting one on a four-point lift was enough to make the doors very difficult to open.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 05, 2010, 08:25:27 PM
Well, I had to listen to it enough on rides and the like that I'm converted on the issue of the 350Z drop top (ha - dig that pun).
Yup, sounds just like you. Your opinion on cars can't be changed, despite the fact that you have no personal experience with them.
Quote from: SVT666 on April 05, 2010, 08:45:23 PM
Yup, sounds just like you. Your opinion on cars can't be changed, despite the fact that you have no personal experience with them.
Why would you be so concerned about what/why others think of cars. OH RIGHT! I forgot - Mustang Jihadic Apologism by Proxy. Silly me.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 06, 2010, 09:39:31 AM
Why would you be so concerned about what/why others think of cars. OH RIGHT! I forgot - Mustang Jihadic Apologism by Proxy. Silly me.
You are afraid to drive these cars because you are afraid of being wrong.
Quote from: SVT666 on April 06, 2010, 09:46:52 AM
You are afraid to drive these cars because you are afraid of being wrong.
Yeah, we get it - no one could POSSIBLY like the Camaro more if one has driven the Mustang.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 06, 2010, 10:21:42 AM
Yeah, we get it - no one could POSSIBLY like the Camaro more if one has driven the Mustang.
You have never driven the 350Z, but because a friend of yours bitched about it, you're mind can never be changed to believe it is anything other then a floppy wet noodle, despite the fact that every single person on the board with personal experience with the car says differently. You even said as much.
The G8 is luxurious? Riiiiiiight. Have you ever been in one? It's a nice car, but it's anything but luxurious.
You refuse to drive the Camaro or Mustang, yet you "know" the Camaro is the better car despite the fact that virtually every person on this board that has actually driven both cars disagrees with you, and the fact that every magazine disagrees with you, you keep up this Camaro apologism. Now that the Camaro is totally and completely outclassed by the Mustang in both V6 and V8 trim, you still "know" the Camaro is better.
Maybe you should actually drive some of these cars and form your own, properly informed, opinion. You won't do that though because you know you are wrong. You don't want anything to actually burst this little fantasy of yours, so you find every excuse in the book not to drive them. "Oh my buddy who promised me I could drive a Camaro was overruled by his boss"....yeah whatever Cougs. I told you where you could drive one and you refuse to go.
You don't know shit when it comes to cars and you keep proving it over and over again. I feel sorry for you.
No matter how powerful or economical it is, a Mustang without a V8 is just wrong.
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on April 06, 2010, 10:39:39 AM
No matter how powerful or economical it is, a Mustang without a V8 is just wrong.
Which is why I will never buy a V6 Stang...no matter how much power it has.
Quote from: R-inge on April 05, 2010, 11:57:43 AM
Was that minor percentage increase verified using the existing compression ratio or with hardware optimised for the capabilities of DI? Just curious.
Either way, it'll be a good way to upgrade the current engines, and I'm glad they had the foresight to at least make room in the current design for it.
R-inge: The article--from
5.0 Mustang--did not get more specific than GDI offering only a one percent gain over port injection, and thus it didn't justify increasing the cost of a naturally-aspirated Mustang to get that one percent.
Of course, the 3.7L TiVCT V6 and the 5.0L TiVCT V8 flow enormous air, so the efficiency of the port injection in those engines is very high to begin with. Engines that flow less air might gain more than one percent by going to GDI--ChrisV probably knows that answer.
Yeah, it's great that they protected the heads for installing GDI later on--already the GT350 offers supercharging on the new 5.0 and Ford is apparently gonna offer three versions of the 5.0L TiVCT V8 in Australian Fords--starting at 420 HP and going up in horsepower twice from there. w00t!!! :thumbsup:
Hot Rod Magazine still has the article online featuring a new-build '34 Ford with an EcoBoost 3.5L V6 dropped into it, which was re-tuned for 400 HP. Here's an excerpt about the engine form that article:
"...The 3.5L EcoBoost is one of the most advanced engines currently offered by an American automaker. The trick piece features all-aluminum construction, dual overhead cams, four valves per cylinder, variable cam timing, direct fuel injection, and twin, intercooled Honeywell turbochargers. For 2010, the EcoBoost is offered in the Taurus SHO, where it is rated at 365 hp, and also in the Lincoln MKS and Ford Flex. In Ford's future, the company foresees the EcoBoost V-6 used in many of the applications that once called for a small to midsize V-8.
Technosports handled the adaptation of the EcoBoost V-6 into the '34 chassis, also fabricating the satin-finish exhaust megaphones with silencers hidden inside.Adapting this sophisticated engine to street rod use while making all that magnificent high-tech gadgetry work correctly can't be easy. Further complicating matters: While longitudinal applications are currently in the works, thus far the EcoBoost has been used only in transverse front-drive, east/west applications. The engine would have to be rotated 90 degrees and repackaged in a north/south configuration to fit in the '34 chassis.
That tricky task was ably covered by Technosports Inc. of Livonia, Michigan, another Detroit-area firm that specializes in prototype and development work for the automakers and the motorsports industry as well. Technosports relocated the turbos and charge coolers, fabricated new intake and exhaust systems, made accommodations for the Vintage Air A/C system, and hooked the whole thing up to a Tremec TKO five-speed manual gearbox. Final tuning and calibration were performed at Ford Powertrain, the mother ship, where the combination made 400 hp and 400 lb-ft on the dyno..." :rockon:
Quote from: SVT666 on April 06, 2010, 10:34:34 AM
You have never driven the 350Z, but because a friend of yours bitched about it, you're mind can never be changed to believe it is anything other then a floppy wet noodle, despite the fact that every single person on the board with personal experience with the car says differently. You even said as much.
The G8 is luxurious? Riiiiiiight. Have you ever been in one? It's a nice car, but it's anything but luxurious.
You refuse to drive the Camaro or Mustang, yet you "know" the Camaro is the better car despite the fact that virtually every person on this board that has actually driven both cars disagrees with you, and the fact that every magazine disagrees with you, you keep up this Camaro apologism. Now that the Camaro is totally and completely outclassed by the Mustang in both V6 and V8 trim, you still "know" the Camaro is better.
Maybe you should actually drive some of these cars and form your own, properly informed, opinion. You won't do that though because you know you are wrong. You don't want anything to actually burst this little fantasy of yours, so you find every excuse in the book not to drive them. "Oh my buddy who promised me I could drive a Camaro was overruled by his boss"....yeah whatever Cougs. I told you where you could drive one and you refuse to go.
You don't know shit when it comes to cars and you keep proving it over and over again. I feel sorry for you.
:hesaid: :clap:
There are more than a few armchair experts here who think they know lots about cars they've never driven.
The only way to form your own (valid) conclusion is to test the cars yourself. Sometimes I agree with the consensus of the motoring press, and sometimes I don't. Anyone who's owned 3 x Alfa and 3 x Audi and no BMWs and been very happy with every choice, as I have done, could only have done this from their own judgment even when it flew in the face of so called perceived wisdom. If I had believed the journalists, I'd be on my 6th BMW by now, but in the era when there are few truly bad cars available, it is more a case of balancing the strengths of a car against your personal priorities, and what is important to you (me) may not be quite the same as what matters to the journos............ living with a car (and paying for it) for years is very different from borrowing one for a few days of fun, and could well lead to some very different conclusions.
Quote from: SVT666 on April 06, 2010, 10:44:44 AM
Which is why I will never buy a V6 Stang...no matter how much power it has.
I don't have that problem. But I'd be happier if it were a turbo.
I say shove the SHO engine into it and call it the new SVO.
Hey, good call there Raza. :ohyeah:
Quote from: SVT666 on April 06, 2010, 10:44:44 AM
Which is why I will never buy a V6 Stang...no matter how much power it has.
This is where I'm torn. Part of my revulsion towards a non-V8 'Stang is because, SVO excluded, all of the non-V8 models of the past were lame efforts. They sold almost exclusively on style. They didn't handle that great and the motors were more at home in an old pickup than a sporting car. On top of that, V8 rumble > V6 howl in the vast majority of cases.
On the flip side, the new V6 Mustang, when fitted with the Performance Package, is apparently a more adept handler than the V8. It pulls more lateral Gs and the remarks have been that it's more balanced. And it's certainly not short on power in its own right.
It's basically the GT of last year with less weight over the nose... It would be hard not to take it seriously, IMO.
Quote from: MX793 on April 06, 2010, 04:44:38 PM
This is where I'm torn. Part of my revulsion towards a non-V8 'Stang is because, SVO excluded, all of the non-V8 models of the past were lame efforts. They sold almost exclusively on style. They didn't handle that great and the motors were more at home in an old pickup than a sporting car. On top of that, V8 rumble > V6 howl in the vast majority of cases.
On the flip side, the new V6 Mustang, when fitted with the Performance Package, is apparently a more adept handler than the V8. It pulls more lateral Gs and the remarks have been that it's more balanced. And it's certainly not short on power in its own right.
Oh I get what you're saying and I wouldn't criticize anyone for buying the new V6 Stang...but for me, a Mustang has to have that V8 rumble. There's something really not right about a Mustang that doesn't rumble.
That distinctive Mustang V8 sound is truly music to my ears as well. :wub:
Quote from: SVT666 on April 06, 2010, 10:34:34 AM
You have never driven the 350Z, but because a friend of yours bitched about it, you're mind can never be changed to believe it is anything other then a floppy wet noodle, despite the fact that every single person on the board with personal experience with the car says differently. You even said as much.
The G8 is luxurious? Riiiiiiight. Have you ever been in one? It's a nice car, but it's anything but luxurious.
You refuse to drive the Camaro or Mustang, yet you "know" the Camaro is the better car despite the fact that virtually every person on this board that has actually driven both cars disagrees with you, and the fact that every magazine disagrees with you, you keep up this Camaro apologism. Now that the Camaro is totally and completely outclassed by the Mustang in both V6 and V8 trim, you still "know" the Camaro is better.
Maybe you should actually drive some of these cars and form your own, properly informed, opinion. You won't do that though because you know you are wrong. You don't want anything to actually burst this little fantasy of yours, so you find every excuse in the book not to drive them. "Oh my buddy who promised me I could drive a Camaro was overruled by his boss"....yeah whatever Cougs. I told you where you could drive one and you refuse to go.
You don't know shit when it comes to cars and you keep proving it over and over again. I feel sorry for you.
LOL - and because I like the Camaro better than the Mustang.
Seriously, it's just the Internets...
Quote from: GoCougs on April 06, 2010, 07:18:39 PM
LOL - and because I like the Camaro better than the Mustang.
Seriously, it's just the Internets...
No. You have unchangeable opinions about cars you've never driven and refuse to drive. There are other cars I mentioned besides the Camaro and Mustang.
Quote from: SVT666 on April 06, 2010, 10:44:44 AM
Which is why I will never buy a V6 Stang...no matter how much power it has.
I'd usually be inclined to agree, but I do have a confession to make. If ever the need arose for me to replace my car with something cheaper, a used V6 Mustang convertible would be high on my list. Cheap, plentiful, affordable to operate. The new V6 puts my mind at ease in that I won't have to sacrifice in ending up with a shitty motor in the name of affordability. God bless America (and Canada) :cheers:
From www.autoblog.com:
Inside Line runs the numbers on 2011 Ford Mustang and Chevy Camaro V6 models
by Zach Bowman (RSS feed) on Apr 7th, 2010 at 12:31 PM
Before your palms get all sweaty, let's be clear ? the boys and girls at Inside Line have put the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro LT and the base 2011 Ford Mustang toe-to-toe. This isn't the big bad SS vs GT throwdown the world has been clamoring for, but that's fine by us. Both models dish out over 300 horsepower, and when it comes right down to it, there will be more V6 engines battling it out in high school parking lots that V8s.
So how'd they do? The big-boned Camaro V6, complete with its 3,790-pound curb weight, managed to dish out a 6.1-second 0-60 mph run, a 14.3-second quarter-mile time and .86 g on the skidpad. Coming down from 60 mph, the Bowtie delivered a stopping distance of 111.78 feet. Those are all solid numbers, to be sure, but they don't quite stack up to what Ford brought to the table with its pony.
The Mustang is a considerably smaller car in nearly every way, and right off the bat, it has 282 fewer pounds to lug around. With a curb weight of 3,508 pounds, the Mustang clicked off a 5.6-second 0-60 mph sprint, a 13.9-second quarter-mile and .91 g on the skidpad. Can you say "smoked?" Throw in 60-0 mph in 103 feet, and it's clear Ford wanted to ensure that the 'Stang not only puts the hurt on its arch rival from General Motors, but it's also clear that the Blue Oval was seeking to build a solid all-around performer.
Before the Chevrolet faithful start clamoring about price, it should be noted that both cars fall within $1,000 of each other. The General clearly has a lot of work to do before the 2011 models roll out, but we have it on good authority that their engineers are hard at work. Fortunately for enthusiasts, this clearly isn't the end-all, be-all... it's just the latest volley.
From www.chevy.com
Camaro V6 whoops some Mustang ass
by Jimi Hendrix (RSS feed) on Apr 9th, 2013 at 79:51 AM
Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck.
Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck.
Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 07, 2010, 02:42:24 PM
Oh, the horror. I have an opinion (READ: EVERYONE KNOWS THE MUSTANG IS BETTER THAN THE CAMARO).
Sorry, dude, your Internetry is simply fraudulent. Get over the fact that not despite your prediction and efforts the Camaro not only didn't fail but pwned the market I prefer it versus the Mustang.
Fraudulent? How so?
Quote from: SVT666 on April 06, 2010, 08:08:15 PM
No. You have unchangeable opinions about cars you've never driven and refuse to drive. There are other cars I mentioned besides the Camaro and Mustang.
Oh, the horror. I have an opinion (READ: EVERYONE KNOWS THE MUSTANG IS BETTER THAN THE CAMARO).
Sorry, dude, your Internetry is simply fraudulent. Get over the fact that not despite your prediction and efforts the Camaro not only didn't fail but pwned the market and that I also prefer it to the Mustang without having ever driven it.
In short, BUCK UP.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 07, 2010, 02:45:57 PM
Oh, the horror. I have an opinion (READ: EVERYONE KNOWS THE MUSTANG IS BETTER THAN THE CAMARO).
Sorry, dude, your Internetry is simply fraudulent. Get over the fact that not despite your prediction and efforts the Camaro not only didn't fail but pwned the market and that I also prefer it to the Mustang without having ever driven it.
In short, BUCK UP.
You prefer the styling then, because you certainly can't prefer the way it drives since you've never driven either car.
How about the 350Z then? How can you possibly have an informed opinion about the stiffness of the car when your only source of info is a friend who wasn't happy? You even went so far as to say your opinion on that can't be changed. WTF?
In short...fuck it. You got owned and the only person who doesn't know it is you.
Quote from: SVT666 on April 07, 2010, 02:53:03 PM
You prefer the styling then, because you certainly can't prefer the way it drives since you've never driven either car.
How about the 350Z then? How can you possibly have an informed opinion about the stiffness of the car when your only source of info is a friend who wasn't happy? You even went so far as to say your opinion on that can't be changed. WTF?
In short...fuck it. You got owned and the only person who doesn't know it is you.
I'm sure you're a nice guy and all but not only are you fraudulent you are a coward.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on April 07, 2010, 02:14:30 PM
From www.chevy.com
Camaro V6 whoops some Mustang ass
by Jimi Hendrix (RSS feed) on Apr 9th, 2013 at 79:51 AM
Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck.
Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck.
Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck. Camaro V6 wins the world. Mustangs suck.
Pwnd. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
by John McElroy (RSS feed) on Apr 7th 2010 at 6:02 PM
COUNT THE POUNDS, NOT JUST THE PONIES
Gearheads the world over have always talked in terms of horsepower. The bigger the number, the better we like it. The type of engine and its output are always one of the first statistics covered in any test drive or car review, because we want to know!
But our fixation on horsepower is kind of a meaningless metric. Just because a car has a big engine, or big output, doesn't necessarily mean it will perform well. Conversely, a car with a small engine and modest output can actually be a blast to drive.
It all depends on how much weight that engine has to lug around. And that's why, as enthusiasts, we should be looking at the power-to-weight ratio of a vehicle to get an idea of its potential performance. That is far more revealing than knowing the horsepower or torque.
It's an easy calculation. All you have to do is look up the curb weight of a car and divide it by the horsepower that the engine puts out. Or if you speak metric, you can divide kilowatts into kilograms.
I know you purists out there will deride me for calling this a power-to-weight ratio, instead of weight-to-power. But saying "power-to-weight" just trips off the tongue more naturally. Besides, it's easier to remember how many pounds an engine has to lug around, rather than trying to figure out fractions of a horsepower per pound.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about. The 2011 Ford Mustang with the new 3.7 liter V6 is rated at 305 horsepower, one more horsepower than the 304 hp that comes out of the Chevy Camaro's 3.6-liter V6. One more horsepower, you might say, who cares?
Well, the base Mustang is nearly 300 pounds lighter than a comparable Camaro. That means the Mustang has to lug around 11.3 pounds per horsepower, compared to the 12.3 pounds in the Camaro. Or, to write it as a ratio, the Mustang is at 1:11.3, while the Camaro is at 1:12.3. That is a significant difference, and indicates the Mustang will easily blow the doors off the Camaro despite having only one more pony under the hood.
Here's another example. Which vehicle would you think accelerates faster? The Ram Power Wagon with a 5.7-liter Hemi V8 that pumps out 383 horsepower? Or a Nissan Altima hybrid with 198 horsepower (combined with its electric motor)? According to Motor Trend, the hoary Power Wagon takes 8.5 seconds to accelerate from 0 to 60 miles an hour. The milquetoast Altima hybrid does it in 7.1 seconds. See? It's about power-to-weight, not raw horsepower.
My staff put together a simple little chart that lets you estimate the probable 0-60 time a vehicle might generate, based on its power-to-weight ratio. It sure is a lot better predictor than just knowing the horsepower.
We're never going to give up talking about horsepower. It's just ingrained in our psyche. But by adding power-to-weight ratios to our discussions we can gain a lot more insight into the cars we're talking about.
QuoteI know you purists out there will deride me for calling this a power-to-weight ratio, instead of weight-to-power. But saying "power-to-weight" just trips off the tongue more naturally. Besides, it's easier to remember how many pounds an engine has to lug around, rather than trying to figure out fractions of a horsepower per pound.
I somewhat prefer the British metric of hp/ton.
This is all about marketing, and no one cares about hp:lbs. except for enthusiasts.
Power/weight ratio ain't the be-all and end-all by any means. Even if it is presumed there are no practical problems with poor traction or nanny TC systems, there are a whole host of other issues at play, most notably gearing and engine power band, and to a lesser extent, anything from wheel size to aerodynamics. In short, power/weight ratio is only a very loose approximation.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 07, 2010, 08:25:40 PM
I'm sure you're a nice guy and all but not only are you fraudulent you are a coward.
Fraudulent and cowardly? I love how you throw words around without backing them up in any way at all like everyone is just supposed to take your word for it. Care to explain these comments?
BTW, the coward here is you. You refuse to meet anyone from the Spin and you refuse to test drive any cars that you talk about with such conviction.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 08, 2010, 10:37:17 AM
Power/weight ratio ain't the be-all and end-all by any means. Even if it is presumed there are no practical problems with poor traction or nanny TC systems, there are a whole host of other issues at play, most notably gearing and engine power band, and to a lesser extent, anything from wheel size to aerodynamics. In short, power/weight ratio is only a very loose approximation.
It's a very good indicator. It's very seldom that the car that has to lug around more weight per horsepower is the faster car. It does happen, but it's very few and far between.
Quote from: SVT666 on April 08, 2010, 12:47:59 PM
Fraudulent and cowardly? I love how you throw words around without backing them up in any way at all like everyone is just supposed to take your word for it. Care to explain these comments?
BTW, the coward here is you. You refuse to meet anyone from the Spin and you refuse to test drive any cars that you talk about with such conviction.
Yes, the whole 350Z 'vert issue; you were fraudulent in the source of your anger and your unrepentant use of straw man tactics, and too cowardly to admit that it all boils down to the different sides that we fall on in Mustang vs. Camaro.
The only person I've ever refused to meet is you, and it's because I think you're hostile. And my opinions need absolutely no justification. Don't like 'em, ignore 'em.
Quote from: SVT666 on April 08, 2010, 12:49:21 PM
It's a very good indicator. It's very seldom that the car that has to lug around more weight per horsepower is the faster car. It does happen, but it's very few and far between.
Not at all "very" few and far between. To use a vehicle noted in the article, the Hemi Ram and 5.7L Tundra are virtually identical in (peak) power/weight ratio yet the Tundra simply walks on the Ram - more than full second 0-60 and 1/4 mile. Careful review shows two primary issues: the Ram is hamstrung with an obscenely tall second gear and the Tundra 5.7L has a broader power band.
Another example is the GTR - 480 hp and 3,800 lbs. It utterly walks on cars with similar or better (peak) power/weight ratios - for example, the GT500. But as we know the advantage boils down to AWD, DSG, and killer launch control sequence.
Yet another example are VQ powered vehicles. Despite having 330 hp and 7sp AT, the G37 sedan either struggles and/or can't keep up with the 300hp/6sp IS350 or 335i. And per the recent test in the "Luxury" forum, the new M56 needed 40 more hp to run with the identically weight E550.
Yet another example is the pre-face lift S197 Mustang GT and the '11 Mustang V6. Virtually identical power/weight ratios yet the Mustang GT is the plainly quicker vehicle. This is attributable to at least a broader power band of the 4.6L V8.
There are probably more example than not of it being a good predictor of which would be the quicker vehicle, but it is far from being an authority. There are many, many, many exceptions.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 08, 2010, 01:02:27 PM
Yes, the whole 350Z 'vert issue; you were fraudulent in the source of your anger and your unrepentant use of straw man tactics, and too cowardly to admit that it all boils down to the different sides that we fall on in Mustang vs. Camaro.
No. It started with that. Other things, like your BS steadfast opinion on the 350Z's torsional rigidity add to it. I've never claimed otherwise.
QuoteThe only person I've ever refused to meet is you, and it's because I think you're hostile. And my opinions need absolutely no justification. Don't like 'em, ignore 'em.
Yeah? The last real fight I was in was in Grade 6 and it was over a girl. The last time I hit anyone was in Grade 11 when I had finally had enough of the bully in my school physically assaulting me everyday and I hit him...once. Beyond that, I've never been hostile. It's all in your head...cause damn, there's nothing else in there.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 08, 2010, 01:14:21 PM
Not at all "very" few and far between. To use a vehicle noted in the article, the Hemi Ram and 5.7L Tundra are virtually identical in (peak) power/weight ratio yet the Tundra simply walks on the Ram - more than full second 0-60 and 1/4 mile. Careful review shows two primary issues: the Ram is hamstrung with an obscenely tall second gear and the Tundra 5.7L has a broader power band.
Another example is the GTR - 480 hp and 3,800 lbs. It utterly walks on cars with similar or better (peak) power/weight ratios - for example, the GT500. But as we know the advantage boils down to AWD, DSG, and killer launch control sequence.
Yet another example are VQ powered vehicles. Despite having 330 hp and 7sp AT, the G37 sedan either struggles and/or can't keep up with the 300hp/6sp IS350 or 335i. And per the recent test in the "Luxury" forum, the new M56 needed 40 more hp to run with the identically weight E550.
Yet another example is the pre-face lift S197 Mustang GT and the '11 Mustang V6. Virtually identical power/weight ratios yet the Mustang GT is the plainly quicker vehicle. This is attributable to at least a broader power band of the 4.6L V8.
There are probably more example than not of it being a good predictor of which would be the quicker vehicle, but it is far from being an authority. There are many, many, many exceptions.
And when you consider how many cars are on the market, it is few and far between. Gearing is a big deal, of course it is, and anyone who says otherwise is an idiot. But, weight/power ratio is a very good indicator 90% of the time. By the way the 2011 Mustang V6 acceleration times have been pretty much on par with the 2005 Mustang GT with 300 hp. Times for the 2005 GT range from 5.1-5.4 to 60 mph in different tests, and the V6 has been timed at 5.1-5.4 for the same feat in different tests.
Chverolet announces more powerful Camaro V6 for 2011
04/08/2010, 12:10 PM
BY DREW JOHNSON
With the 2011 Ford Mustang V6 squarely in its aim, General Motors has announced a new and improved version of its Chevrolet Camaro V6 for the 2011 model year. The 2011 model features more horsepower and torque than the 2010 Camaro but, more important, also trumps the 305 horsepower 2011 Mustang V6.
For the 2011 model year, the V6 Chevy Camaro comes packing 312 horsepower and 278 lb-ft of torque. That?s up from the current car?s 304 horsepower and 273 lb-ft of torque.
?The 304 horsepower in the 2010 Camaro was actually a conservative rating on our end,? said Tom Sutter, GM V6 chief engineer. ?But we knew already that this award-winning engine produced at least the amount of power we stated, but now we?ve gone the extra step in certifying the engine for this application and have verified an additional 8 horsepower.?
The 2011 Mustang V6 currently holds a fuel economy advantage of the 2010 Camaro V6 ? 31mpg versus 29mpg, respectively ? but GM failed to mention if the updated Camaro will leapfrog the Mustang in efficiency. However, with fuel economy tops on buyers? minds, we suspect at least some improvement.
Other changes for the 2011 model year include the availability the Synergy Green exterior color on any Camaro model ? for $395 ? and the addition of a Head-Up Display system to the Camaro?s option list. Production of the 2011 Chevrolet Camaro will begin on June 7.
That just reeks of desperation.
Quote from: SVT666 on April 08, 2010, 05:05:17 PM
That just reeks of desperation.
I want to see what the fuel economy numbers before I make any conclusions. If they managed to improve them, good for them.
Quote from: Schadenfreude on April 08, 2010, 05:17:03 PM
I want to see what the fuel economy numbers before I make any conclusions. If they managed to improve them, good for them.
There were no changes made to the engine. They just gave it a new rating.
Quote from: SVT666 on April 08, 2010, 02:20:20 PM
And when you consider how many cars are on the market, it is few and far between. Gearing is a big deal, of course it is, and anyone who says otherwise is an idiot. But, weight/power ratio is a very good indicator 90% of the time. By the way the 2011 Mustang V6 acceleration times have been pretty much on par with the 2005 Mustang GT with 300 hp. Times for the 2005 GT range from 5.1-5.4 to 60 mph in different tests, and the V6 has been timed at 5.1-5.4 for the same feat in different tests.
Not at all, I could go on and and on just beyond those three examples. Just from my current edition of C&D as I thumb through the pages:
599 GTB: Same power/weight ratio as Z06 yet it is much quicker; DSG tranny, launch mode IIRC and a broader power band.
The TL; the base A/T 280 hp and M/T AWD 305 hp car have identical power/weight ratios, yet the latter has a full 1 second advantage 0-60 and 1/4 mile (Honda makes a terrible A/T when it comes to performance).
The 911 GT3: virtually identical power/weight ratio as the C6 yet has 0.5-0.7 second advantage 0-60 and 1/4 mile (which is HUGE with cars running in the 12s). Point to broader power band and better traction (rear engine).
V6 , V8.. meh.. for 2011, I'll be test driving or renting both versions of this Mustang and I expect I will be quite pleased with both iterations. This sounds like a pretty badass 6.
I'll still take a turbo-four over a comparable 6 (I just love the surge of a turbo, but YMMV), but there aren't many turbo-fours any longer that can keep up. I think that at sea-level I'd be outrun by a V6 mustang. It would be about even at my current altitude. Even an STI or EVO, costing more than 33k out the door in most cases, wouldn't be much quicker if at all in everyday driving at sea level.
People will be finding ways to boost output of these 'stang and 'maro V6's before you know it. The 4 cyl modder crowd won't be laughing at the entry level pony cars anymore. ( at least not in a straight line.. :lol: )
Yeah, anymore we will soon be getting to the point that people sort of just give the WRX/STI and Evo a token nod of respect and then blow your doors off. :(
Hell, I had a hard time keeping up with a fuckin' Maxima the other day. :cry:
Meh, it's still fun to drive anyhow, and in traffic I never get to really max it out anyway so it's all wasted potential.
Quote from: SVT666 on April 08, 2010, 05:25:08 PM
There were no changes made to the engine. They just gave it a new rating.
Are you sure? I mean, they could've changed the tune or something along those lines. Besides, aren't the HP ratings SAE certified now? They had to do something to increase the number, no?
Quote from: Schadenfreude on April 08, 2010, 09:44:15 PM
Are you sure? I mean, they could've changed the tune or something along those lines. Besides, aren't the HP ratings SAE certified now? They had to do something to increase the number, no?
SAE Certified doesn't mean you can't slightly under-rate the engine. They went back and convinced themselves, and the SAE, that they could justify rating it slightly higher than they did originally.
Quote from: MX793 on April 09, 2010, 04:13:51 AM
SAE Certified doesn't mean you can't slightly under-rate the engine. They went back and convinced themselves, and the SAE, that they could justify rating it slightly higher than they did originally.
Was the 2010 rating SAE certified? I just read on car and driver that "Chevrolet says its original numbers were conservative and that these new ones are SAE-certified."
Quote from: HotRodPilot on April 09, 2010, 04:22:03 AM
Was the 2010 rating SAE certified? I just read on car and driver that "Chevrolet says its original numbers were conservative and that these new ones are SAE-certified."
And now they want the SAE to certify 17 ounces as a
Camaro pound so they can reduce the weight of the Camaro without having to do anything more than they did to the V6 that they now want the SAE to certify at 312 HP :praise:.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on April 09, 2010, 04:22:03 AM
Was the 2010 rating SAE certified? I just read on car and driver that "Chevrolet says its original numbers were conservative and that these new ones are SAE-certified."
IIRC, GM was one of the first automakers to fully adopt the "SAE Certified" process for their power ratings when it first came out a few years back with the revision to standard J1349. I suppose it's possible that one wasn't "certified". I do know that there is a 1% tolerance range that manufacturer's are given that allow them to stray from what the engine that is actually tested produces. So if the motor puts out 305 hp during the test in front of the 3rd party certification witness, the manufacturer may rate that engine anywhere between 302 and 308 hp and still claim "SAE Certified".
I would like to see this measure in every road test & review. It makes a lot of sense.
www.autoblog.com has this brief V6 brief & audio--that V6 is LOUD:
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/03/video-2011-ford-mustang-with-305-hp-v6-gets-seen-and-heard-in-m/#continued
Here's the full www.autoblog.com article (sans pics) on the 2011 Mustang:
Revealed: 2011 Ford MustangNew V-6 Engine Pumps 305 HP, Gets 30 MPG
Posted: Nov, 30 2009 | By: Chris Paukert
It would be reasonable to expect that Ford might pass over the Mustang and instead devote more attention to its other models since it's fresh off a comprehensive revamp for the 2010 model year. However, that's not what is shaping up in the House That Henry Built.
For 2011, the Blue Oval is introducing a new 3.7-liter V6 Mustang that should give it the firepower and refinement needed to take on Chevrolet's six-cylinder Camaro and Hyundai's upstart Genesis Coupe. But it isn't just the spanking all-aluminum powerplant and its 305 horsepower and 280 foot-pounds of torque that's making the scene for the forthcoming model year. In addition to the Cleveland-sourced mill, there are a pair of fresh gearboxes, a new V6 performance package, and a host of nip/tucks to the interior and elsewhere.
Now, we could grouse on behalf of 2010 MY 'Stang owners everywhere that these upgrades weren't part of last year's mid-life updo, but instead, we'll just be happy that these advancements are arriving at all.
Despite being smaller than the outgoing 4.0-liter V6, the dual-overhead cam 3.7-liter's horsepower and torque ratings represent massive improvements over the 2010 model (305 HP dismisses 210 HP and 280 lb-ft. plays 240 torques). In fact, that's more horsepower than the 4.6-liter V8 Mustang made just a few years ago. While the 305-horse figure only allows the Mustang to pip the crosstown Camaro by a single all-important stallion in the pony car bragging wars, Ford says the powertrain will be good for 30 miles-per-gallon on the highway when paired with its new six-speed automatic, also one notch better than the Chevy.
That impressive fuel economy figure isn't just the result of the new engine -- a suite of new pieces have been developed in order to maximize performance, including a revised air intake, a pair of new six-speed transmissions (both automatic and manual), electric power steering, and even some aerodynamic tidying, including a revised front fascia, deeper front air dam, rear-wheel tire spats, different underbody shields, and a new rear decklid seal.
The Heart Transplant
Despite those incremental improvements, the centerpiece of the 2011 Mustang is obviously the 24-valve Duratec V6, and it includes Twin Independent Variable Camshaft Timing (Ti-VCT) and polished buckets and roller finger followers in the direct-acting mechanical bucket valvetrain, among other features. Ford officials promise that V6 buyers won't miss the roar of the V8's extra cylinders thanks to a retuned air intake and throaty standard dual exhaust. At the sneak-peek event for this new Mustang motor, Autoblog had the chance to hear the new engine fire up and rev -- and it indeed sounds sporty and purposeful. To be fair, however, we only heard the powertrain briefly in an enclosed space (a large development garage on Ford's Dearborn campus), so we'll have to wait until it's out in the open and we're behind the wheel to really get a feel for the 3.7's aural character. Other noteworthy features of the drivetrain include a deep-sump aluminum oil pan that enables less-frequent 10,000-mile oil change intervals and a 7,000-RPM redline.
On the transmission front, Ford has fitted a new six-speed 6R60 automatic with hill-start assist that allows for the 30 MPG highway bogey, as well as 19 MPG in the urban cycle (a 25 percent improvement over the 2010's 16 mpg city / 24 mpg highway figures). Prefer to shift for yourself? Expect fuel economy to suffer an iota for your enjoyment, with numbers for the six-speed manual falling to 18/29 (2010 MY: 18/26).
Naturally, with an all-new powertrain and its differing weight properties, Ford's engineers also had to turn their attention to the suspension. To that end, the 2011 V6 gets new damper and spring rates, a different rear lower control arm, and stiffer stabilizer bar bushings.
A More Electrifying Steer?
We always get a bit nervous when vehicles move to electronic power steering. Such systems may improve performance by lowering parasitic drag on the engine, but they rarely do any favors for steering feel. Ford assures us that they've worked hard to build a robust "feedback loop" into the system, but again, we'll have to wait and see for ourselves. In the meantime, we'll remain curious about how effective Ford's so-called Pull-Drift Compensation system is at accounting for road crowns and crosswinds, not to mention the amusingly named Active Nibble Control, which apparently helps to exorcise high-speed vibrations caused by wheel balance issues and warped brake rotors. And about those brakes -- they're bigger. 12.5-inches in front and 11.8-inchers out back have been borrowed from the GT's parts bin, and there's also a standard limited-slip differential to help get the V6 model's newfound power to the ground.
What V6 Mustang are we most eager to drive? The new Performance Package model, which is scheduled to go on sale next August, as it promises to provide increased grip and go. For starters, the Perf Pack borrows the uprated front struts and rear shocks/springs from the V8 GT model, along with its thicker front and rear anti-roll bars and the rear lower control arms from the Shelby GT500. Also included is a 3.31 axle ratio for better acceleration, model-specific 19-inch alloys wrapped in Pirelli summer rubber, more lenient stability control programming with a dedicated sport mode, as well as a strut tower brace and the usual assortment of badges.
How will street spotters identify the new V6 Mustang? If the dual exhaust isn't enough of a tip-off, you'll probably have to check the glass. For 2011, all Mustangs get nifty integrated blind-spot mirrors -- and if you peek inside the driver's side window, you might catch a glimpse of the new-look instrument cluster which features a 160 MPH speedo and an 8,000-RPM tach.
How Much -- and What's Next?
Ford has yet to release any performance estimates or pricing, but despite the big jump in power and content, we don't expect pricing to increase dramatically. Given that the augmented V6 nearly shades the current 4.6-liter V8's horsepower figure (and the fact that the latter engine is comprehensively outgunned by the Camaro SS' 6.2-liter engine's 426 hp and 420 pound-feet of torque, it's no surprise that a new V8 engine is rumored, and we fully expect to see it before this domestic auto show season is out.
The takeaway from all of this? For those who thought that the rekindled pony car wars reached a fever pitch this year with the advent of the refreshed Mustang, long-awaited Camaro and still-warm Dodge Challenger, well ... we ain't seen nothin' yet.
From www.autoblog.com, a first for the new Mustang V6:
2011 Ford Mustang V6 rated 31 mpg highway, most efficient 300+ HP car ever
by John Neff (RSS feed) on Mar 4th 2010 at 12:01 AM
The pony car wars are about one-upsmanship if nothing else. The Ford Mustang held court for years while Chevrolet and Dodge had their horses on hiatus, but times have changed. The new Camaro has been whaling on the Mustang ever since its return, beating the Ford in sales for nine months straight and offering a range engines that are at once more powerful and efficient than the Blue Oval's aging mills. Advantage: Camaro. But that was then.
The Mustang, however, received a nicely executed redesign for its 2010 model year and, as is Ford's way, the automaker waited another model year to introduce its new range of engines. You already know all about the return of the storied 5.0 moniker on this year's new Mustang GT. You also know that the V6 model is replacing its Civil War era 4.0-liter engine with a more powerful and efficient 3.7-liter. Powerful as in 305 horsepower, but how efficient? We didn't know before but we do now. The 2011 Ford Mustang V6 will achieve 19 miles per gallon in the city and, more noteworthy, 31 mpg on the highway.
The V6 model's rating of 31 mpg highway (when paired with the six-speed auto mind you, the manual version achieves 30 mpg) is noteworthy because, well, it's 2 mpg more than the slightly less powerful 304-hp Camaro V6. Also, it's a record for being the first 300+ hp vehicle to be officially rated at 30 mpg or more. Wow, think about that. It's never been done before. Sure, the new Mustang V6 is only marginally more powerful and efficient than its Camaro counterpart, but clawing above that 30 mpg mark will no doubt get Ford's thoroughbred some extra ink in the press.
Follow the jump for Ford's official press release on the matter, in which it explains a little more how those magic numbers were achieved (Spoiler: aerodynamics, super smart six-speed auto and electric power assisted steering).
[Source: Ford]
NEW MUSTANG WITH 305 HP CERTIFIED AT 31 MPG HIGHWAY; MAKES HISTORY AS FIRST CAR WITH 300+ HP AND 30+ MPG
New 2011 Ford Mustang V-6 final fuel economy certified by EPA this week at 31 mpg on the highway and 19 mpg in the city
On sale this spring, Mustang with new 3.7-liter V-6 achieves 305 hp with available six-speed automatic transmission; first car ever to achieve 300-plus horsepower and 30-plus mpg
The new Mustang already has more than 11,000 orders, half for the new V-6
DEARBORN, Mich., March 4, 2010 ? The 2011 Ford Mustang today breaks new ground, cracking the record books as not only the most fuel-efficient Mustang ever, but also the first production car in history to produce more than 300 horsepower and more than 30 mpg highway.
The Mustang's official EPA ratings ? completed this week ? certify that models equipped with the 305-hp 3.7-liter V-6 and available six-speed automatic transmission achieve 31 mpg on the highway and 19 mpg in the city. The standard six-speed manual transmission is rated at 30 mpg on the highway and 19 mpg in the city.
Mustang is powered by a lightweight, all-aluminum 3.7-liter dual-overhead-cam (DOHC) V-6 engine that uses advanced engineering to deliver its combination of power and economy. Twin Independent Variable Camshaft Timing (Ti-VCT) adjusts the valvetrain in microseconds depending on driver inputs, further contributing to the engine's overall efficiency.
The fact that Mustang achieves its top fuel economy rating with the convenience of an automatic transmission also marks a shift in conventional wisdom. Ford engineered a modern six-speed automatic transmission with carefully calibrated gear ratios and shift programs to maximize economy, while still delivering high-horsepower driving fun.
"Advanced powertrains like our Ti-VCT V-6 and six-speed automatic really speak to the future of Mustang," says Barb Samardzich, Ford vice president of Global Powertrain Engineering. "We've proven that, using technology, Ford can deliver both power and fuel economy."
In addition to engine improvements, upgrades to Mustang's body, powertrain and chassis design contribute to the higher fuel economy numbers for 2011. Examples include:
New Electric Power Assist Steering (EPAS) system eliminates the drag of an engine-operated hydraulic power steering pump
Six-speed manual and automatic transmissions allow lower cruising revs without sacrificing off-the-line performance
Aerodynamic changes include improvements like a new front fascia, tire spats on the rear wheels, modified underbody shields, a taller air dam and an added rear decklid seal
The new 2011 Mustang already has more than 11,000 orders. Half of all the nationwide orders are for the car's fuel-efficient 3.7-liter V-6 engine. The 2011 Mustangs are also being equipped with record levels of technology, giving customers the option of choosing navigation, high-intensity discharge (HID) headlamps and rearview cameras.
The new 2011 Mustang goes on sale this spring and will be built at the AutoAlliance International Plant in Flat Rock, Mich.
WTF was the point in posting those two articles? There is absolutely nothing new there.
The V6 sounds like nothing special in that video clip. Vreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.........
Maybe he's just excited. :huh: :lol:
That engine sounds better than I expected it to. Still doesn't match what those lovely Nissans sound like though.
Quote from: SVT666 on April 09, 2010, 11:49:56 AM
WTF was the point in posting those two articles? There is absolutely nothing new there.
Mannnnnn, no matter where you go the Royal Canadian Hemi Police tracks you down... :pullover:
Quote from: Laconian on April 09, 2010, 12:21:11 PM
The V6 sounds like nothing special in that video clip. Vreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.........
Listen to the older models. Yikes. :facepalm:
From www.edmunds.com:
IL Track Tested: 2010 Chevrolet Camaro V6 vs. 2011 Ford Mustang V6
By Ed Hellwig | April 6, 2010
Inside Line tests hundreds of vehicles a year, but not every vehicle gets a full write-up. The numbers still tell a story, though, so we present "IL Track Tested." It's a quick rundown of all the data we collected at the track, along with comments direct from the test drivers. Enjoy.
Yes, these are both all-American muscle cars. No, neither one has a V8. Does that make this any less of a grudge match? Well...yeah, but consider the numbers for a moment.
Both the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro LT and the 2011 Ford Mustang V6 put out over 300 horsepower. That was a big number not too long ago. Still is. They also have six-speed manual transmissions, limited-slip differentials and at least 19-inch wheels and tires. That's some pretty decent equipment for what many consider "base" models.
And you know what? They turn some pretty good numbers, too. Nothing that will strike fear into anything with a V8, but certainly good enough to hold their own against a 370Z or Hyundai Genesis Coupe. How fast exactly? Click the jump to find what these two V6-powered American muscle cars can do at the track.
Chevrolet Camaro LT Ford Mustang V6
0-30mph 2.5 2.2
0-45mph 4.1 3.8
0-60mph 6.1 5.6
0-75mph 9.0 8.1
0-60mph with roll out 5.7 5.3
1/4 mile 14.3 @ 98.0 13.9 @ 101.2
30-0mph 28.0 ft 26.0 ft
60-0mph 111.8 ft 103.0 ft
Skidpad 0.86 G 0.91 G
Slalom 68.2 MPH 68.6 MPH
As-tested weight 3790.0 3508.0
Vehicle: 2010 Chevrolet Camaro LT
Odometer: 3,285
Date: 3/30/2010
Driver: Josh Jacquot
Price: $29,175
Specifications:
Drive Type: Rear-wheel drive
Transmission Type: 6-speed manual
Engine Type: V6
Displacement (cc/cu-in): 3,564/217
Redline (rpm): 7,000
Horsepower (hp @ rpm): 304 @ 6,400
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm): 273 @ 5,200
Brake Type (front): Ventilated disc
Brake Type (rear): Ventilated disc
Steering System: Variable-ratio rack-and-pinion
Suspension Type (front): Double-ball-joint, multilink strut; direct-acting stabilizer bar; progressive-rate coil springs; fully adjustable camber, caster and toe
Suspension Type (rear): Multilink independent; progressive-rate coil springs over shocks; stabilizer bar; fully adjustable camber and toe
Tire Size (front): 245/45ZR20 103Y
Tire Size (rear): 275/40R20
Tire Brand: Pirelli
Tire Model: P Zero
Tire Type: Summer Performance
Wheel Size: 20-by-8 inches (front), 20-by-9 inches (rear)
Wheel Material (front/rear): n/a
As Tested Curb Weight (lb): 3,790
Test Results:
0 - 30 (sec): 2.5
0 - 45 (sec): 4.1
0 - 60 (sec): 6.1
0 - 75 (sec): 9.0
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 14.3 @ 98.0
0 - 60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 5.7
30 - 0 (ft): 28
60 - 0 (ft): 111.78
Braking Rating: Good
Slalom (mph): 68.2
Skid Pad Lateral Acceleration (g): 0.86
Handling Rating: Very good
Db @ Idle: 42.5
Db @ Full Throttle: 82.6
Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 70.8
Acceleration Comments: There's good speed here, but the V6 doesn't do anything to satisfy from a sound or feel perspective. Shifts are met with an unpleasant wind-up in the powertrain. Shifter is high in effort and somewhat notchy, but finds gears without a fight.
Braking Comments: Very good stopping distance, but pedal feel is lacking. Hard to determine if ABS is active with a pedal this soft. Not confidence-inspiring at the limit.
Handling Comments: Largely the same less-than-inspiring feel of the V8 Camaro. Front tires wash out with little feel or feedback on the skid pad, and despite decent numbers, the V6 Camaro isn't terribly satisfying in these tests either. Again, it feels as if this chassis is constantly trying to manage a huge wheel and tire combo. Nothing here is truly bad, but it's also not truly rewarding.
Vehicle: 2011 Ford Mustang V6
Odometer: 2,811
Date: 3/30/2010
Driver: Josh Jacquot
Price: $30,600
Specifications:
Drive Type: Rear-wheel drive
Transmission Type: 6-speed manual
Engine Type: V6
Displacement (cc/cu-in): 3,731cc (228 cu-in)
Redline (rpm): 6,850
Horsepower (hp @ rpm): 305 @ 6,500
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm): 280 @ 4,250
Brake Type (front): Ventilated disc
Brake Type (rear): Ventilated disc
Steering System: Electric speed-proportional power steering
Suspension Type (front): Independent MacPherson struts, coil springs, stabilizer bar
Suspension Type (rear): Non-independent solid-axle, coil springs, trailing links, panhard rod, stabilizer bar
Tire Size (front): 255/40ZR 19
Tire Size (rear): 255/40ZR 19
Tire Brand: Pirelli
Tire Model: P Zero
Tire Type: Summer performance
Wheel Size: 19-by-8.5 inches
Wheel Material (front/rear): Cast aluminum
As Tested Curb Weight (lb): 3,508
Test Results:
0 - 30 (sec): 2.2
0 - 45 (sec): 3.8
0 - 60 (sec): 5.6
0 - 75 (sec): 8.1
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 13.9 @ 101.2
0 - 60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 5.3
30 - 0 (ft): 26
60 - 0 (ft): 103
Braking Rating: Excellent
Slalom (mph): 68.6
Skid Pad Lateral Acceleration (g): 0.91
Handling Rating: Very Good
Db @ Idle: 45
Db @ Full Throttle: 82.4
Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 71.8
Acceleration Coments: Holy crap, this is a hard-running V6, more than enough power to overwhelm its tires leaving the line. Managing wheelspin is key in this car to get good acceleration times. Also gets good rubber on the 2-3 shift. Tranny doesn't like to rush that shift, however. We missed 3rd gear several times. Otherwise, though, this is a powerful, free-revving, nice-sounding V6.
Braking Comments: 103 feet? From a Mustang? Wow. Pedal feel isn't anything special, but there's no sign of fade and the short distance is outstanding.
Handling Comments: Truly impressive manners from a live-axle car. Balance is good as is typical with recent Mustangs, but there's more than that. There's a true sense of what's happening at the wheels with this Mustang, which provides ample driver confidence. And it's better than the independently sprung Camaro in both tests. Ford is doing something right.
From www.motortrend.com:
Comparison: 2011 Mustang V-6 vs 2010 Genesis Coupe 3.8 vs 2010 Camaro RS vs 2010 Challenger SE
Camaro RS V6 as tested: $30,020
Challenger SE V6 as tested: $31,400
Mustang V6 as tested: $25,385 :thumbsup:
Genesis Coupe V6 as tested: $31,470
DOWNSIZING = UPSIZING
To be fair, the 2010 Mustang's old 4.0-liter V-6 was just that -- old. With origins dating back more than 40 years, the 12-valve 210-horse iron-block anchor, um, engine, wasn't exactly the epitome of modern efficiency and progressive design. Conversely, the 2011's 3.7-liter-utilizing an aluminum block, twin independent variable cam timing, and four valves per cylinder-is everything the 4.0-liter isn't, and thus produces 305 horsepower and 280 pound-feet. The effects, we learned, were somewhat startling.
At the drag strip, the Mustang chirped its Pirellis to a blistering 0-to-60 blast of 5.1 seconds and a scorching quarter-mile sprint of 13.7 at 102.0 mph :thumbsup:, both quickest of the group and not that far off the numbers from last year's 4.6-liter V-8 GT. "The 3.7 liter growls at low rpm, then yells with a raspy tone. It's thoroughly powerful and sounds healthy," says Martinez. Equally new is the Mustang's six-speed manual, which delighted every editor with its fluid movement and pinpoint precision. "Shifter feels great -- the action is nice and crisp," claims Markus.
Our red V-6 came equipped with the $1995 Performance Package (GT suspension and brakes, 19-inch wheels with summer Pirellis, front strut tower brace), a must-have option, in our opinion, and a steal at under two grand. Not only did the PP add-ons provide best-of-test lateral grip (0.96 g) :ohyeah: and 60-0 braking (104 feet) :ohyeah:, but they also transformed what used to be a stylish rental car into an all-out performance coupe. "Handling is very impressive," says Loh. "This is a car you can have complete confidence in."
Then there's the blowout pricing. Both the Mustang's base and as-tested prices were the bargains of the bunch. A sub-14-second, 0.96g car for $25,000? Awesome :rockon:. Of course, with that budget bottom line comes a budget-conscious interior fitted with cloth seats and swarms of hard- and soft-touch black plastic. Want a richer ambiance? You'll need to write a $3700 check for the Premium Package.
"Ford has pretty much nailed what the Mustang is supposed to be: light, fun, simple yet effective interior, lively powertrain, driving dynamics to please a real enthusiast-all at a bargain price," says St. Antoine. "Subject to driving the Genesis, Mustang looks tough to beat."
Quote from: Nethead on April 12, 2010, 11:25:45 AM
From www.motortrend.com:
Comparison: 2011 Mustang V-6 vs 2010 Genesis Coupe 3.8 vs 2010 Camaro RS vs 2010 Challenger SE
Camaro RS V6 as tested: $30,020
Challenger SE V6 as tested: $31,400
Mustang V6 as tested: $25,385
Genesis Coupe V6 as tested: $31,470
DOWNSIZING = UPSIZING
To be fair, the 2010 Mustang's old 4.0-liter V-6 was just that -- old. With origins dating back more than 40 years, the 12-valve 210-horse iron-block anchor, um, engine, wasn't exactly the epitome of modern efficiency and progressive design. Conversely, the 2011's 3.7-liter-utilizing an aluminum block, twin independent variable cam timing, and four valves per cylinder-is everything the 4.0-liter isn't, and thus produces 305 horsepower and 280 pound-feet. The effects, we learned, were somewhat startling.
At the drag strip, the Mustang chirped its Pirellis to a blistering 0-to-60 blast of 5.1 seconds and a scorching quarter-mile sprint of 13.7 at 102.0 mph, both quickest of the group and not that far off the numbers from last year's 4.6-liter V-8 GT. "The 3.7 liter growls at low rpm, then yells with a raspy tone. It's thoroughly powerful and sounds healthy," says Martinez. Equally new is the Mustang's six-speed manual, which delighted every editor with its fluid movement and pinpoint precision. "Shifter feels great -- the action is nice and crisp," claims Markus.
Our red V-6 came equipped with the $1995 Performance Package (GT suspension and brakes, 19-inch wheels with summer Pirellis, front strut tower brace), a must-have option, in our opinion, and a steal at under two grand. Not only did the PP add-ons provide best-of-test lateral grip (0.96 g) and 60-0 braking (104 feet), but they also transformed what used to be a stylish rental car into an all-out performance coupe. "Handling is very impressive," says Loh. "This is a car you can have complete confidence in."
Then there's the blowout pricing. Both the Mustang's base and as-tested prices were the bargains of the bunch. A 14-second, 0.96g car for $25,000? Awesome. Of course, with that budget bottom line comes a budget-conscious interior fitted with cloth seats and swarms of hard- and soft-touch black plastic. Want a richer ambiance? You'll need to write a $3700 check for the Premium Package.
"Ford has pretty much nailed what the Mustang is supposed to be: light, fun, simple yet effective interior, lively powertrain, driving dynamics to please a real enthusiast-all at a bargain price," says St. Antoine. "Subject to driving the Genesis, Mustang looks tough to beat."
Here are the final standings of that test. Look at the as-tested prices though. The Mustang is cheapest by nearly $5000 and is cheaper then the winner by $6000.
4th place: Dodge Challenger SE ($31,400)
A yacht trying to keep up with speedboats, but the ride and style are smooth.
3rd place: Chevrolet Camaro RS ($30,020)
A quick coupe whose weight sacrifices fun and cartoonish cabin compromises comfort.
2nd place: Ford Mustang V-6 ($25,385)
New 3.7 is nearly as quick as last year's 4.6-liter V-8, and more fun to drive, too.
1st place: Hyundai Genesis 3.8 Track ($31,470)
The only one that looks and feels like a sports car. Surprise, we liked it best.
How is it that the only one that's under $30,000 (under $26,000 as a matter of fact :praise:) is the only one that can turn the quarter in under 14 seconds at over 100 MPH? :huh: Or generate .96 G? :huh: Or stop in 104 ft? :huh:
"...That's the way you do it
Your money for nothin'
And your chicks for free!
Lawd, that ain't workin'..."
Quote from: SVT666 on April 12, 2010, 11:37:15 AM
Here are the final standings of that test. Look at the as-tested prices though. The Mustang is cheapest by nearly $5000 and is cheaper then the winner by $6000.
4th place: Dodge Challenger SE ($31,400)
A yacht trying to keep up with speedboats, but the ride and style are smooth.
3rd place: Chevrolet Camaro RS ($30,020)
A quick coupe whose weight sacrifices fun and cartoonish cabin compromises comfort.
2nd place: Ford Mustang V-6 ($25,385)
New 3.7 is nearly as quick as last year's 4.6-liter V-8, and more fun to drive, too.
1st place: Hyundai Genesis 3.8 Track ($31,470)
The only one that looks and feels like a sports car. Surprise, we liked it best.
It's cheaper than the winner by $6K because it comes with $6K less stuff. The Genesis track has as standard:
-heated leather seats, power driver's seat (Mustang has cloth, manual, no heat)
-Premium 8 or 9 speaker stereo with CD changer and steering wheel mounted audio (Mustang gets 4 speaker stereo w/ single CD and no steering mounted controls)
-HID headlamps (optional on the Mustang)
-Power moonroof (not available on Mustang)
-Automatic climate control (optional on Mustang)
-Proximity key ("keyless") ignition (not available on Mustang)
Not to mention the little things like interior appointments, where the base Mustang interior is pretty poor (worse even than the rental Chevy Cobalt I had this weekend, which might have cost all of $14K). Leather wrapped wheel and shifter (vs plastic made to simulate rhino skin in the Mustang), leather door insert (Mustang doesn't even get cloth inserts in base trim, something that some of the lowliest economy cars have), metal door pulls...
A Mustang V6 with the same equipment and comparable appointments as a Genesis 3.8 Track would sticker for $34.5K per Edmunds' configurator.
Mustang V6 Premium - $25,845
Electronics package (Nav + auto climate control) - $2,340
Comfort Group (heated seats) - $595
Glass Roof (closest you can get to a sunroof) - $1,995
HIDs - $525
Security pack (required for HIDs) - $395
Performance Pack - $1,995
Destination - $850
A Genesis 3.8 Track w/ Nav is $31,250 including destination.
That's fair, but to get all the go-fast bits in the Mustang still costs less then the Genesis...and the Mustang is much faster.
Quote from: SVT666 on April 12, 2010, 02:49:29 PM
That's fair, but to get all the go-fast bits in the Mustang still costs less then the Genesis...and the Mustang is much faster.
The differences between a Genesis 3.8 Track and base 3.8 are fewer than those between a base Mustang and a Mustang PP. Performance wise, all the "Track" model gets you are Brembos (which don't actually enhance stopping distance, just fade resistance), summer tires (of the same width as the standard all seasons), a limited slip, firmer dampers and slightly larger anti-roll bars. Of those, the tires probably make the most difference for instrumented testing, with the LSD probably being the second biggest player. The base GenCoupe is still plenty stiffly sprung.
In addition to the upgraded suspension (although there's more done than just dampers and anti-roll bars in the Mustang) and brakes and summer rubber which the GenCoupe also enjoys, the Mustang PP gets significantly wider tires (255s vs 225s on the base car), a significantly shorter rearend gear (3.31 vs 2.73 on the base car), and a strut tower brace.
I'd wager the base 3.8 Genesis @ $26K (which still gets you a much more nicely appointed/equipped car than a base Mustang) offers at least 95% of what the 3.8 Track does performance-wise. Summer tires alone would probably put it within the noise compared to a Track model.
One other bit to ponder. According to C&D's first drive test, the V6 Mustang is governed at 113 mph. Genesis and Camaro are both governed at 150+. Now, 113 isn't a problem for public streets or even the strip, but if you plan on doing any track days you might find yourself slamming into the governor on longer straights. During the latest Lightning Lap, C&D was getting top speeds of over 120 mph on VIR from cars like the MS3, WRX265, 2010 Mustang GT and Genesis 3.8. The 300 hp Mustang V6 should be able to post similar numbers to any of those cars... assuming there isn't a governor in place to cut the speeds.
I remember the Genesis having a very very nice interior in the 3.8 track... def worth the price of admission
I would net 113 mph is a typo.
Quote from: r0tor on April 12, 2010, 05:42:52 PM
I remember the Genesis having a very very nice interior in the 3.8 track... def worth the price of admission
I also felt the interior of the Genesis was pretty nice. It certainly looked like it belonged in a car in the $25K-$30K price point. To be fair, I felt the Mustang Premium's interior is every bit as good, if not better (the metal accents are actually metal, not silver plastic like the Genesis). The Genesis has better seats, though.
Unfortunately, Ford simply went too cheap with the base Mustang interior. And it wouldn't take much to bring it to a higher level. Cloth inserts in the doors, metal interior door handles, leather-wrapped wheel and shifter...
Quote from: SVT666 on April 12, 2010, 05:48:01 PM
I would net 113 mph is a typo.
113-117 is a pretty common governor setting range. The base Challenger is governed at 117 and the 2010 Mustang V6 is governed at 114. My guess is it's derived from the base tires on the V6. According to Edmunds, the base tire is a skinny, energy saver all-season Michelin instead of a performance A/S.
Quote from: MX793 on April 12, 2010, 06:04:23 PM
113-117 is a pretty common governor setting range. The base Challenger is governed at 117 and the 2010 Mustang V6 is governed at 114. My guess is it's derived from the base tires on the V6. According to Edmunds, the base tire is a skinny, energy saver all-season Michelin instead of a performance A/S.
MX793: Solid conjecture, MXDude. The ratings of the tires are probably the biggest consideration on the MPH at which governors are set--and not just on V6 Mustangs. Sensible, actually.
Performance packages should include revised MPH governing if the ratings of the tires in those packages are higher.
Quote from: SVT666 on April 12, 2010, 02:49:29 PM
That's fair, but to get all the go-fast bits in the Mustang still costs less then the Genesis...and the Mustang is much faster.
And that's what matters--those who have to have nav & auto climate control & heated seats & power moonroofs & audio controls in the steering wheel have relegated vehicular performance to secondary or tertiary importance anyhoooo :(. They buy the go-faster stuff and then pile on the go-slower stuff :facepalm:, probably because they'll never drive beyond seven-tenths unless they obey the nav system's "Turn right here" and drive off the cliff on the passenger side. "Ding." "Ding." "Ding." "Turn right, here."
:confused:
:confused:
:confused:
:confused:
:confused:
:confused:
:confused:
:confused:
:confused:
:popcorn: :confused:
:confused:
:confused:
Last Updated: April 08. 2010 2:12PM .
Scott Burgess: Auto review
Ford's V-6 Mustang ramps up power
In the pony car world, there's a code.
It's pretty simple really. Real men drive V-8s.
The much overlooked and often maligned V-6 versions were the equivalent of women motorcycle gangs: They looked meaner than they rode. The V-6 pony cars were "secretary cars" before men got to them. The implication: They were inadequate, according to the code.
But Ford rewrote the code when it rolled out the 2011 Mustang -- a V-6 pony car that rumbles with power, bites through corners and hits 31 miles per gallon on the highway. Ford, with this stunning new car, has done something even President Barack Obama has failed to do: Provide power to the poseur.
Oh, you can still call the V-6 Mustang a chic car, Mustang Lite or anything else you can dream up, but it will knock your Piloti racing shoes into a ditch if you're not paying attention. It can pass you on a mountain road, on the highway and at the gas station.
Nowadays, that's a pretty good combination.
Slicing up canyon roads around Malibu, I was impressed with how well the Mustang charged into corners and stuck to the road. I jammed on the accelerator coming out of a turn, trying to get that solid rear axle to skip.
The direct competitors -- the Chevrolet Camaro and Dodge Challenger -- have independent suspensions that feel smoother than Ford's chunk of iron connecting the two rear wheels. In the past, the axle wanted to hop if you goose the throttle in a turn and run over a seam, a rock or hit a slight wind gust. I have the coffee stains on multiple shirts to prove it.
But this time, I waited and as I hit the apex, I held my grip on the steering wheel and gunned it. Nothing. Just smooth, quick exits every time.
Third gear on this car totally rocks, as long as you keep your revs up.
European sophistication
Between the car's grip and precise steering, the Mustang felt more European thoroughbred than American pony. The steering, which is now electric power-assisted, has a firm feel that's taut all the way through a turn but remains easy to parallel park.
OK, I thought, this must be the new track pack on the V-6 Mustang. Basically, Ford stole the idea from the more powerful Mustang GT: The V-6 track pack bolsters the suspension with pieces from the GT and GT500, giving it a better axle for faster launches, strapping on 19-inch wheels with Pirelli performance tires, adding an engine strut tower brace to tighten up body rigidity and including performance brake pads.
The idea is perfect for a car with Ford's new 3.7-liter V-6 that pushes out an impressive 305 horsepower and 280 pound-feet of torque. It's the best thing to come out of Cleveland since Lorenzo Carter set up shop in 1797. This Mustang has got power, it's got a growl that makes the hair on your arms stand up, so why not give it a suspension that will get the ones on your neck to come to attention too?
But when I stepped out of it, I noticed my magnificently performing V-6 Mustang lacked the track-pack badging, and I had been riding around on 18-inch all-season radials. This was the regular Mustang.
Later, I discovered, the track-pack Mustang is even more surefooted at faster speeds without rattling your fillings loose.
Then there's that high mileage number that the Mustang hits. The base-level Mustang outperforms just about any V-6 car around. The Camaro, which has similar power, hits 29 mpg on the highway. This Mustang even provides better highway mileage than the V-6 powered Toyota Camry and Honda Accord.
A beauty and beast
The Mustang V-6 has the looks of a beast. Redesigned for the 2010 model year, it honors its past while maintaining a modern edge.
With the addition of 19-inch wheels, this Mustang adds a more powerful face and excellent proportions from the side. In the back, the chamfered corners and cutout three-piece tail lights, which includes sequential firing for turn indicators, are crisp.
Every line has purpose and every detail seems to fit. If the engine didn't match the looks, this car might as well come with a double Venti Mocha Frappa Chino Latte with extra caramel cup holder, a Moleskin notebook/pen holder and a Mustang-embossed Bluetooth earbud to signify the driver's self importance.
It's never enough to look the poseur's part, you need the uniform. You've got to own it.
Distinct comfort
The Mustang separates itself from the other pony cars with its interior. The Camaro and Challenger have distinctive exteriors but don't measure up to the Mustang inside. Just about anyone will feel comfortable inside this car. The lines of sight are excellent, and Ford continues to show its interior prowess with well-made consoles, seats and overall craftsmanship.
Once again, it's the little things stand out. The soft touch materials on the dash, the inlaid bezels on the vents, the classic tachometer and speedometer, all look great.
But the most important feature inside is the metal trim parts that feel cool to the touch. Shiny plastic looks cheap because it is. Real metal trim tells you it's important every time you touch it.
When the interior was reworked last year, Ford shortened the emergency hand brake to stop drivers from resting their knee against it until their leg bruised.
Designers created a nice curved line along the center console that includes a USB port and auxiliary jack to play music.
And then there's Sync, simply the best voice-operated, hands-free system in the industry. It can operate your phone and play music via a Bluetooth connection. It can find you on a map, it can tell you the weather, and it can tune the stereo without you ever having to take your hands off the wheel.
Through and through, the Mustang just continues feels more complete. It includes a back-up camera (visible on the navigation screen on the center stack; a nice addition because it is difficult to see behind you in this vehicle). If you don't have a navigation screen, the camera's picture will show up on your rear view mirror -- the perfect spot.
Now, I could quibble over a few things. The backseat is a shame, with room for two very short people, and first gear in the manual never felt right to me. And the 1-4 Skip Shift on the manual should be outlawed from all cars.
But when was the last time you had an adult in the second row of your car? And how often do you drive in only first gear? This Mustang is the real deal and fantastic from bumper to bumper.
Poseurs beware. Throw away that ear bud and drink your coffee at home. The V-6 Mustang means business -- and, if we're lucky, all future V-6 Mustang drivers will mean it too
From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100408/OPINION03/4080361/1149/auto01/Ford-s-V-6-Mustang-ramps-up-power#ixzz0kzNIoxHb
We don't need the V8 anymore, soon we won't need the V6s.
Ford announces 2016 Mustang
"We are confident that the 1.4L Ecoboost four cylinder engines will help Ford achieved levels of frugality and economy unparalleled among state enterprises. These will also enable us to comply with the CAFE regulations issued by Premier Obama back in 2010. Work is well under way by officials in the Bureau of Planning and Economic Allocation to terminate the wasteful V6 cars and create the resources needed to embark upon production of this, the 'People's Mustang.'"
Sheila Jackson Lee, Department of Transportation, Ford Division.
March 31, 2015
:devil:
Quote from: Morris Minor on April 13, 2010, 09:21:21 AM
We don't need the V8 anymore, soon we won't need the V6s.
Ford announces 2016 Mustang
"We are confident that the 1.4L Ecoboost four cylinder engines will help Ford achieved levels of frugality and economy unparalleled among state enterprises. These will also enable us to comply with the CAFE regulations issued by Premier Obama back in 2010. Work is well under way by officials in the Bureau of Planning and Economic Allocation to terminate the wasteful V6 cars and create the resources needed to embark production of this, the 'People's Mustang.'"
Sheila Jackson Lee, Department of Transportation, Ford Division.
March 31, 2015
:devil:
And in 2642, the new Mustang will be powered by a 1/2 cylinder direct-nuclear-waste-injected quad-fusion reactor ecoboost hybrid with virtual-reality gasoline V8 sound effects that will transmit wirelessly into your brain.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on April 13, 2010, 09:25:23 AM
And in 2642, the new Mustang will be powered by a 1/2 cylinder direct-nuclear-waste-injected quad-fusion reactor ecoboost hybrid with virtual-reality gasoline V8 sound effects that will transmit wirelessly into your brain.
:confused:
cooooooooooooooooooooool
The Mustang has a 1-4 skip shift? I thought that was just a GM thing.
'Just googled on 2011 Mustang and got the reply "1-19 of 6,150,000 results" so I added quotes around 2011 Mustang--thinkin' to narrow down the hits a bit--and got the reply "1-10 of 31,500,000 results".
Methinks the 2011 Mustang is gonna be a serious hit...
There's an aftermarket supercharger kit for the new Mustang DOHC TiVCT 5.0L on the www that needs only seven pounds of boost to generate 600 horsepower. That's almost half again the naturally-aspirated engine's power with only seven pounds of boost. Interesting... :wub:
Quote from: Nethead on April 13, 2010, 11:49:18 AM
'Just googled on 2011 Mustang and got the reply "1-19 of 6,150,000 results" so I added quotes around 2011 Mustang--thinkin' to narrow down the hits a bit--and got the reply "1-10 of 31,500,000 results".
Methinks the 2011 Mustang is gonna be a serious hit...
There's an aftermarket supercharger kit for the new Mustang DOHC TiVCT 5.0L on the www that needs only seven pounds of boost to generate 600 horsepower. That's almost half again the naturally-aspirated engine's power with only seven pounds of boost. Interesting... :wub:
WAIT... adding almost half again to atmospheric air pressure results in almost half again naturally-aspirated engine's power? Interesting, indeed.
If the Mustang must have a V8, why not build a 3.5L V8?
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on April 13, 2010, 11:59:19 AM
If the Mustang must have a V8, why not build a 3.5L V8?
Why not build a 3.5L V12? Why not? I want one. For the base Mustang. The GT can have a 5.0 V8, I want the base V12.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on April 13, 2010, 12:00:16 PM
Why not build a 3.5L V12? Why not? I want one. For the base Mustang. The GT can have a 5.0 V8, I want the base V12.
Then check out www.wmsracing.com, scroll down, and click on "Vanquish'd."
Big displacement + low cylinders = great if vibration can be controlled
Small displacement + a million cylinders = running costs of a Ferrari for the power output of a Fiat. Id be damned if I had to pay for 12 spark plugs. coil packs and wires for anything less than 500 hp
Quote from: Nethead on April 13, 2010, 11:49:18 AM
There's an aftermarket supercharger kit for the new Mustang DOHC TiVCT 5.0L on the www that needs only seven pounds of boost to generate 600 horsepower. That's almost half again the naturally-aspirated engine's power with only seven pounds of boost. Interesting... :wub:
imagine that... you add boost to 1.5x atmospheric pressure and you get 1.5x the amount of power
Quote from: r0tor on April 14, 2010, 11:49:53 AM
imagine that... you add boost to 1.5x atmospheric pressure and you get 1.5x the amount of power
You got beat to the punch by about a whole day
These new Mustangs are fantastic value. First time in my life I totally respect them as an enthusiast.
From www.edmunds.com, comparing its recent testing of a V6 Mustang with the Performance Package to comparable testing of a Genesis 3.8--but different days and different places. So, it's figures versus figures instead of impressions versus impressions, but it does have the two side-by-side for easy cross reference. Josh Jacquot was the driver in both tests.
Note that this is the Mustang v6--at the intro of the Genesis a year or so ago, Hyundai wanted you to think that the Genesis was a true performance competitior to the V8-equipped Mustang GT. Not true then, and preposterous now! :tounge:
Here it is:
IL Track Tested: 2011 Ford Mustang V6 vs. 2010 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8
By Erin Riches | April 13, 2010
Inside Line tests hundreds of vehicles a year, but not every vehicle gets a full write-up. The numbers still tell a story, though, so we present "IL Track Tested." It's a quick rundown of all the data we collected at the track, along with comments direct from the test drivers. Enjoy.
Oh, perhaps you've heard there's a new 305-horsepower, 3.7-liter V6 in the 2011 Ford Mustang. We're not quite sold on its performance in the real world, but there's no doubt this V6 transforms the character of the base Mustang for the better. It also sets the stage for an interesting new rivalry: 2011 Ford Mustang V6 versus Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8.
Hyundai's rear-drive coupe is more fun to drive than anyone could have predicted, and it matches up nicely with the Mustang V6 in both power and pricing. The Hyundai's 3.8-liter V6 is rated at 306 horsepower, though it gives up some torque to the Mustang (266 pound-feet at 4,700 rpm versus 280 at 4,250 in the Ford).
In addition, the last Genesis Coupe 3.8 we tested (and the one whose numbers we're comparing here) cost $30,375. Our 2011 Mustang V6 comes in at $30,600.
Note that our V6 Mustang tester has the Performance package option, which includes stiffer spring rates off the Mustang GT, a slightly fatter front stabilizer bar, a 3.31 rear axle ratio, a Panhard rod off a Shelby GT500 to help locate the live rear axle, bigger brakes off the GT with performance friction pads, a strut tower brace for increased body rigidity and unique stability control calibration with a sport mode for performance driving.
Read on to see how close the rivalry is when we take the coupes to our test track. Bear in mind of course that this is a bit of a "bench racer" comparison, as the coupes were tested on different days in different conditions.
Mustang V6 Genesis Coupe 3.8
0-30 (sec): 2.2 2.4
0-45 (sec): 3.8 4.1
0-60 (sec): 5.6 5.9
0-75 (sec): 8.1 8.7
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 13.9 @ 101.2 14.2 @ 98.2
0-60 With 1-ft Rollout (sec): 5.3 5.5
30-0 (ft): 26 28
60-0 (ft): 103 114
Skid Pad Lateral Acceleration (g): 0.91 0.89
Slalom 68.6 67.2
Vehicle: 2011 Ford Mustang V6
Odometer: 2,811
Date: 3/31/2010
Driver: Josh Jacquot
Price: $30,600
Specifications:
Drive Type: Rear-wheel drive
Transmission Type: 6-speed manual
Engine Type: Naturally aspirated, port-injected V6
Displacement (cc/cu-in): 3,731cc (228 cu-in)
Valvetrain: DOHC, 4 valves per cylinder, variable intake and exhaust-valve timing
Compression Ratio (x:1): 10.5
Redline, Indicated (rpm): 6,850
Horsepower (hp @ rpm): 305 @ 6,500
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm): 280 @ 4,250
Rear Axle Ratio (x:1): 3.31
Suspension (front): Independent MacPherson struts, coil springs, stabilizer bar
Suspension (rear): Non-independent solid-axle, coil springs, trailing links, panhard rod, stabilizer bar
Steering Type: Electric speed-proportional power steering
Steering Ratio (x:1): 15.7
Tire Make and Model: Pirelli P Zero
Tire Type: Summer performance
Tire Size (front): 255/40ZR19
Tire Size (rear): 255/40ZR19
Wheel Size: 19-by-8.5 inches
Wheel Material: Cast aluminum
Brakes (front): 12.4-inch ventilated cast-iron discs with 2-piston sliding calipers
Brakes (rear): 11.8-inch ventilated cast-iron discs with single-piston sliding calipers
Curb Weight As Tested (lb): 3,508
Test Results:
0-30 mph (sec): 2.2
0-45 mph (sec): 3.8
0-60 mph (sec): 5.6
0-75 mph (sec): 8.1
1/4-mile (sec @ mph): 13.9 @ 101.2
0-60 With 1 Foot of Rollout (sec): 5.3
Braking, 30-0 mph (ft): 26
60-0 mph (ft): 103
Braking Rating: Excellent
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft (mph): 68.6
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft (mph) ESC ON: 65.8
Skid Pad, 200-ft diameter (lateral g): 0.91
Skid Pad, 200-ft diameter (lateral g) ESC ON: 0.90
Handling Rating: Very Good
Sound Level @ Idle (dB): 45
@ Full Throttle (dB): 82.4
@ 70 mph Cruise (dB): 71.8
Engine Speed @ 70 mph (rpm): 2,000
Acceleration Comments: Holy crap, this is a hard-running V6. More than enough power to overwhelm its tires leaving the line. Managing wheelspin is a serious issue in this car to get good acceleration times. Also, good rubber from the 2-3 shift. Tranny doesn't like to rush that shift, however. We missed 3rd gear several times. Otherwise, though, this is a powerful, free-revving, nice-sounding V6.
Braking Comments: 103 feet? From a Mustang? Wow. Pedal feel isn't anything special, but there's no sign of fade and the short distance is outstanding.
Handling Comments: Truly impressive manners from a live-axle car. Balance is good as is typical with recent Mustangs, but there's more than that. There's a true sense of what's happening at the wheels with this Mustang, which provides ample driver confidence. Ford is doing something right.
Vehicle: 2010 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8
Odometer: 5,578
Date: 8/28/2009
Driver: Josh Jacquot
Price: $30,375
Specifications:
Drive Type: Rear-wheel drive
Transmission Type: 6-speed manual
Engine Type: Naturally aspirated, port-injected V6
Displacement (cc/cu-in): 3,778cc (231 cu-in)
Valvetrain: Double overhead camshaft, 4 valves per cylinder, variable intake and exhaust valve timing
Compression Ratio (x:1): 10.4
Redline (rpm): 6,500
Horsepower (hp @ rpm): 306 @ 6,300
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm): 266 @ 4,700
Rear Axle Ratio (x:1): 3.54
Suspension (front): Independent MacPherson strut, 25mm antiroll bar, front strut tower brace
Suspension (rear): Independent five-link, 22mm antiroll bar
Steering Type: Engine-speed-sensitive, power-assisted rack-and-pinion steering
Steering Ratio (x:1): 14.9:1
Tire Brand: Bridgestone
Tire Model: Potenza RE050A
Tire Type: Summer performance
Tire Size (front): 245/40R19 89Y
Tire Size (rear): 245/40R19 94Y
Wheel Size: 19-by-8 inches front -- 19-by-8.5 inches rear
Wheel Material: Cast aluminum
Brakes (front) : 13.4-inch ventilated disc, 4-piston fixed caliper
Brakes (rear): 13.0-inch ventilated disc, 4-piston fixed caliper
Curb Weight As Tested (lb): 3,469
Test Results:
0-30 mph (sec): 2.4
0-45 mph (sec): 4.1
0-60 mph (sec): 5.9
0-75 mph (sec): 8.7
1/4-mile (sec @ mph): 14.2 @ 98.2
0-60 With 1 Foot of Rollout (sec.): 5.5
Braking, 30-0 mph (ft): 28
60-0 mph (ft): 114
Braking Rating: Very Good
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft (mph): 67.2
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft (mph) ESC ON: 66.5
Skid Pad, 200-ft diameter (lateral g): 0.89
Skid Pad, 200-ft diameter (lateral g) ESC ON: 0.83
Handling Rating: Good
Sound Level @ Idle (dB): 40
@ Full Throttle (dB): 74.5
@ 70 mph Cruise (dB): 63.3
Engine Speed @ 70 mph (rpm): 2,600
Acceleration Comments: Best acceleration yet from a Genesis Coupe. This car has 4,000 miles on the clock and appears to have been driven and maintained adequately. Feels faster than the 3.8 coupe we tested earlier, too. No special launch technique. Dialing up 3,500 rpm or so and keeping wheelspin down to a few axle-hopping chirps seems to work best. Shift smoothing/drivetrain protection intervention (read: engine power cut) still apparent if shifts are too aggressive.
Braking Comments: Solid pedal lacks the immediacy of a sports car but still offers confidence. Brake performance a little inconsistent but no fade.
Handling Comments: Again, handling numbers aren't identical to past tests. Slalom isn't as good and skid pad is better. Car still feels solid with no obvious deficiencies. Different car, different numbers.
Why is a V6 Mustang $30k already? :facepalm:
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on April 15, 2010, 07:58:12 AM
Why is a V6 Mustang $30k already? :facepalm:
It wuz prolly lowded, mayne.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 15, 2010, 08:01:43 AM
It wuz prolly lowded, mayne.
I'd rather take a stripper and a 128i.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on April 14, 2010, 02:24:48 PM
These new Mustangs are fantastic value. First time in my life I totally respect them as an enthusiast.
MexicoCityM3: They are! Welcome to the club!
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on April 13, 2010, 11:52:32 AM
WAIT... adding almost half again to atmospheric air pressure results in almost half again naturally-aspirated engine's power? Interesting, indeed.
Eye of the Tiger & r0tor: Think. Ouch, that must hurt! :cry:
That's 600 HP on 302 cubic inches. A smidgen under two horsepower/cubic inch on seven pounds of boost. Stock internals, too--although a reflash is likely a given.
A ZR-1 has 620 HP on 378 cubic inches, which is a little bit under one-and-two-thirds horsepower per cubic inch on ten-and-a-half pounds of boost. Also stock internals, but those internals include titanium connecting rods--parts that can be afforded when you get into six-figure sticker prices.
is there suppose to be a point to that? Perhaps a musclecar V8 numbnutz now not only comming to the reality that V-TEC is a great advantage, but there also is a replacement for displacement - BOOOOOOST?????????????
:popcorn:
r0tor: If you're into gettin' really big performance outta an engine that retains its emissions legality, there is. If you're content with OEM engine performance, there isn't. Luckily, in this particular case the OEM engine performance is pretty damned good.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on April 15, 2010, 07:58:12 AM
Why is a V6 Mustang $30k already? :facepalm:
If you look at their cost roll-up, it doesn't make sense. The Performance Package is supposed to come with the 3.31 gears (which can also be purchased stand-alone), but they had both the cost of the 3.31 rearend AND the Performance Pack added into their price tally. So you can subtract cost of the rearend gear option. They also added the $850 destination fee twice (they started with the base price including destination and then added destination again as its own line item). However, they didn't have enough money for the Premium trim upgrade by several hundred dollars. IIRC, when I tallied up the correct numbers, I got something in the low $29K range. Still pricey, but not $30K+ pricey.
Quote from: MX793 on April 15, 2010, 02:46:11 PM
If you look at their cost roll-up, it doesn't make sense. The Performance Package is supposed to come with the 3.31 gears (which can also be purchased stand-alone), but they had both the cost of the 3.31 rearend AND the Performance Pack added into their price tally. So you can subtract cost of the rearend gear option. They also added the $850 destination fee twice (they started with the base price including destination and then added destination again as its own line item). However, they didn't have enough money for the Premium trim upgrade by several hundred dollars. IIRC, when I tallied up the correct numbers, I got something in the low $29K range. Still pricey, but not $30K+ pricey.
Sharp eye, MXDude!
From the June, 2010 Car & Driver. See the online or the hardcopy for test sheets, final points per category, and "Complete Specs & Performance Data"...
2011 Ford Mustang V6 vs. 2010 Chevrolet Camaro RS - Comparison Tests
Speedier Sixes: Can Camaro compete with Ford?s new V-6 Mustang?
BY TONY SWAN, PHOTOGRAPHY BY JOHN ROE
April 2010
?Second: 2010 Chevrolet Camaro RS The Verdict: Long on menace, short on muscle.
?First: 2011 Ford Mustang V-6 The Verdict: A captivating V-6 pony with more than one trick.
You?re forgiven if you feel you may have seen this movie before, because you probably have. Like Hamlet, or Macbeth, its core is a classic confrontation that never seems to get old, thanks to the arrival of new players and fresh productions, as one generation succeeds another.
You may be thinking, ?New? Don?t see no new here.? With little more than a year in Chevy showrooms, the Camaros roll into summer unchanged. And it takes the experienced eye of a longtime Mustang cognoscente to see the updates for these 2011 models. The dashboard surface is revised, softened to make impacts with one?s head a little less unpleasant. There are also suspension tweaks aplenty, but the real giveaway is a 5.0 badge on the flanks of GT models.
That badge panders to hallowed memories of the Mustang?s revered old Windsor V-8 (1979??95), which, as any member of the Mustang club will admit, fell 58 cc short of 5.0 liters. Ford?s 4.6-liter V-8s never seemed to eclipse memories of the not-quite-5.0, but it may be a different story with this barely 5.0 (4951 cc) successor. All aluminum, double overhead cams, 32 valves, variable valve timing on all four cams, a high compression ratio (11.0:1), four-bolt mains?the new V-8 shares bore centers but little else with the 4.6.
Ford stopped short of direct injection, saving about $200 per engine, but output is potent nevertheless: 412 horsepower at 6500 rpm, 390 pound-feet of torque at 4250?burlier by 97 horses and 65 pound-feet. There?s also a new V-6 for the base Mustang, a more vigorous version of the 3.7-liter aluminum engine found in the Lincoln MKS and MKT: 305 horses and 280 pound-feet of torque.
With Mustang?s power now comparable to Camaro?s across the board, these two longtime rivals needed another face-off. We rounded up our four-horse field in Los Angeles and drove to Buttonwillow Raceway Park, near Bakersfield. Some of the results were predictable. But there were surprises, too.
Buyers strap themselves into V-6 pony cars because they like the look but don?t require V-8 muscle. Or, more accurately, they don?t need that power enough to fork over the additional seven or eight grand for two more cylinders.
In the past, this has meant a pony car severely deficient in giddyup, something particularly true of the base Mustang?s old boat anchor, the 4.0-liter V-6.
But these are no longer children of a lesser god. The V-6 Camaro and Mustang both come to the starting gate with more than 300 horsepower, as well as distinctly better fuel economy than their quicker stablemates.
So being thrifty no longer means having to give up fun to drive. But just how much of the FTD factor is retained? That?s what we set out to determine.
Chevrolet Camaro RS
What you get here is the bad-ass, hunkered-down, assault-vehicle looks without the bad. The engine?a 3.6-liter, DOHC 24-valve aluminum V-6?is willing enough, but it?s tethered to a lot of Camaro: 3800 pounds. Mass plus big gear spacing plus the tallest rear end in the group equals relatively sluggish performance: distinctly slower than the Mustang in the sprints.
Handling responses were equally indifferent. Softer spring rates and slow steering made the mountain-road pursuits too much like work. To its credit, the RS was quiet, smooth, stable, and thoroughly predictable. It was quicker in the lane change than both Mustangs?go figure?and its braking performance was slightly better than the Brembo-equipped SS. But no test driver wrote the word ?fun? in the Chevy?s logbook.
Inside, the RS sports the same mix of engagingly offbeat design, supportive seats, and one or two trim touches that don?t quite work: the big hard plastic trim panels in the door panels, for example. And, of course, there?s that high beltline and low roof that some find too confining.
But if cruising in sinister comfort appeals to you, here?s a good place to do it.
Ford Mustang V6
We mentioned surprises, and this was the big one. Not so much because of the straight-ahead performance?305 horsepower in a 3520-pound car, the lightest in the group, produced about what we expected: 0-to-60 in 5.4 seconds, the quarter-mile in 14 flat at 104 mph.
The surprise was what this Mustang could do on mountain roads. Where the GT was nimble, the V-6 was eager, with a lighter touch and better balance. Our test car was a Premium version, equipped with 19-inch alloy wheels and those summer Pirellis, which helped it put up the best skidpad performance of the foursome: 0.95 g. We?re not entirely sure that you?ll be able to order this wheel-and-tire combo with either the Premium or American Mustang Club packages. But we?re sure that this car was the dancing champ on the high roads of the Los Padres National Forest, one of the most involving production Mustangs in our experience.
This makes the car?s lane-change behavior equally surprising?astonishing, in fact. For all its agility in decreasing-radius turns, switchbacks, and fast sweepers, the V-6 Mustang was almost unmanageable in this exercise, scattering cones galore. Further study indicated here.
Our V-6 test car was loaded with optional features?leather, Sync, audio upgrade, power driver?s seat?making it almost as expensive as the GT and a more pleasant place to be.
There were several minor kvetches in the logbook. As in last year?s comparo, the V-6 Mustang?s capless fuel filler leaked in hard cornering. Ford?s idea of a power seat still doesn?t include power adjustability for the seatback, and the development still doesn?t include a telescoping steering column. The black-tape accent on the sides had an aftermarket look to it, and the latticework grille doesn?t have the cachet of the classic floating pony that distinguishes the GT. We?re also curious as to why a car with Z-rated tires is limited to a top speed of 113 mph.
But these are minor flaws in a mostly brilliant product. With its lower base price, its excellent road manners, robust power, and its outstanding EPA fuel-economy ratings?19/29 manual, 19/31 automatic (our barnstorming average was 18, best in test)?the V-6 Mustang can satisfy just about anyone!
_________________________________________________________________________________
Epilogue
Quo Vadis, Mustang?
?Gung-ho? is too tame a term for the Mustang fervor espoused by Ford staffers at the recent introduction of the new 5.0 V-8. Lots of cheerleading. Lots of enthusiastic hyperbole about the ?next 45 years,? a time span reflective of the 45 years the Mustang has already survived.
Given the performance of the new 5.0-liter eight, as well as the new 3.7-liter V-6 and the slick new transmissions, the troops responsible for the 2011 Mustangs can be forgiven for a little innocent zeal.
But amid all the euphoria, we did catch one ominous portent of a possible survival challenge in the not-too-distant future. This came from no less an authority than Dave Pericak, the Mustang?s personable chief engineer. We asked Pericak about reaction to the new 5.0 V-8 in consumer group clinics.
He reported enthusiasm among over-30 types and outright jubilation among Mustang-club types. But it was a different story with under-30 groups.
?Everybody loves a good-looking car with power,? he said. ?But a lot of the younger buyers won?t consider a V-8. They don?t even want to hear about it.?
Pericak and his cohorts perceive the challenge as educational in nature.
?Environmental responsibility and fuel economy are increasingly important,? he said. ?But we can justify a V-8. It?s a matter of getting people to understand that a V-8 engine can perform efficiently.?
As a case in point, Pericak cites the 5.0?s impressive EPA fuel-economy ratings?17 mpg city and 26 mpg highway?and the even more impressive ratings for the V-6: up to 31 mpg highway, a first for an engine rated at more than 300 horsepower, according to Ford.
We hope Pericak is right about the future of Mustang power because we can remember two episodes when Ford product planners looked into the future and declared the day of the V-8 pony car over.
The first of these tea-leaf readings led to the subcompact Mustang II, which made its debut with a lot of Pinto parts and a four-cylinder engine. It was definitely not one of Ford?s better ideas, and was duly interred after five years (1974??78).
The second was the front-drive coupe that eventually became the Ford Probe (1989??97), diverted from Mustanghood at the last minute by a deluge of anguished mail from club members and other friends of the pony.
Well, good luck to Mr. Pericak and his colleagues with their education program. One ride in a Mustang GT could well sway some of the fence sitters.
You know what comparison I really want to see? The 2011 Mustang V6 vs. 2010 Mustang GT.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=21698.msg1316793#msg1316793 date=1272481954
You know what comparison I really want to see? The 2011 Mustang V6 vs. 2010 Mustang GT.
Raza: That would be interesting, and even better would be the 2011 Mustang V6 vs the 2010 Camaro SS. :thumbsup:
The mags have sorta moved beyond comparing the 2011 Mustang GT to the Challenger SRT and the Camaro SS and are now comparing the 2011 Mustang GT to the BMW M3 and the Audi A5, although TMK no mag has done it head-to-head yet (See the Teuton's "Mustang GT or M3" thread in the "Head to Head" section).
Jalopnik has compared the 2011 Mustang GT's roadtest to an M3 roadtest, but they were not side-by-side. By now, there shoulda been a 2011 Mustang GT compared to the 370Z as there were tons of comparisons of the '05 Mustang GT to the 350Z. I'll alert you if I see one.
Quote from: Raza on April 28, 2010, 01:12:34 PM
You know what comparison I really want to see? The 2011 Mustang V6 vs. 2010 Mustang GT.
If they run the '11 V6 on VIR for their Lightning lap, it'll have to be hella fast in the turns to even match the '10 GT to make up for the fact that it's governed at 113 mph even with the Track Pack (confirmed by C&D's latest comparo between the '11 Mustang and '10 Camaro V6 models).
Quote from: MX793 on April 28, 2010, 02:54:59 PM
If they run the '11 V6 on VIR for their Lightning lap, it'll have to be hella fast in the turns to even match the '10 GT to make up for the fact that it's governed at 113 mph even with the Track Pack (confirmed by C&D's latest comparo between the '11 Mustang and '10 Camaro V6 models).
Limited to 113? Well, isn't that just Poopies McPooperson?
113 is retarded. They don't even make tires that are rated at 113. I bet they do it to keep the owners from killing themselves quickly enough for a class action lawsuit against Ford for selling such a fast car to the masses of secretaries and poseurs who just bought it for the styling.
I'm a little upset I can't call the new V6 'Stang owners posers anymore.
EDIT: 113? Alright, posers they remain!
Pretty sure I can hit 113 in the Aveo under the right conditions. :facepalm:
When was the last time anyone here actually went 113 mph in a car?
Quote from: SVT666 on April 29, 2010, 01:11:46 PM
When was the last time anyone here actually went 113 mph in a car?
Like 2 weeks ago.
About a year ago.
Quote from: SVT666 on April 29, 2010, 01:11:46 PM
When was the last time anyone here actually went 113 mph in a car?
A month ago... and way more than 113.
But that was the last car I drove that was actually capable of that speed.
Ha!
Quote from: SVT666 on April 29, 2010, 01:11:46 PM
When was the last time anyone here actually went 113 mph in a car?
Back in '99 in Montana in the SVT Contour. 143 actually. But I see no need of doing that on the street in most places.
Quote from: ChrisV on April 29, 2010, 02:51:31 PM
Back in '99 in Montana in the SVT Contour. 143 actually. But I see no need of doing that on the street in most places.
Exactly. I can pretty much guarantee that less then 1% of all Mustang V6 buyers will ever get to that velocity anyway. So why all the fuss?
Quote from: SVT666 on April 29, 2010, 03:10:36 PM
Exactly. I can pretty much guarantee that less then 1% of all Mustang V6 buyers will ever get to that velocity anyway. So why all the fuss?
Get off the mustangs penis for 2 seconds please. FFS
Quote from: SVT666 on April 29, 2010, 03:10:36 PM
Exactly. I can pretty much guarantee that less then 1% of all Mustang V6 buyers will ever get to that velocity anyway. So why all the fuss?
Right, and by that logic, why offer this new, more powerful V6? Most owners wouldn't benefit from the added power.
Quote from: CALL_911 on April 29, 2010, 03:23:47 PM
Right, and by that logic, why offer this new, more powerful V6? Most owners wouldn't benefit from the added power.
It's Camaro's fault.
Quote from: CALL_911 on April 29, 2010, 03:23:47 PM
Right, and by that logic, why offer this new, more powerful V6? Most owners wouldn't benefit from the added power.
Acceleration. I don't care what a car's top speed is because in all my years of driving I've reached the top speed of only one of my cars and it scared the hell out of me going 150 mph on a public road. Acceleration is all that matters for cars driven on public streets. Top speed matters to cars that go to track days where they can hit those speeds on the back straight, and people who take their car to the track will just remove the governor.
Quote from: Minpin on April 29, 2010, 03:14:24 PM
Get off the mustangs penis for 2 seconds please. FFS
Oh fuck off.
Quote from: SVT666 on April 29, 2010, 03:10:36 PM
Exactly. I can pretty much guarantee that less then 1% of all Mustang V6 buyers will ever get to that velocity anyway. So why all the fuss?
What's the point in limiting it if no one's going to go that fast?
Quote from: BimmerM3 on April 29, 2010, 04:15:48 PM
What's the point in limiting it if no one's going to go that fast?
I don't care if they limit it or not. All I'm saying is I don't know why people are complaining when virtually no one ever goes that fast.
Quote from: SVT666 on April 29, 2010, 01:11:46 PM
When was the last time anyone here actually went 113 mph in a car?
A couple months ago.
Quote from: SVT666 on April 29, 2010, 04:19:06 PM
I don't care if they limit it or not. All I'm saying is I don't know why people are complaining when virtually no one ever goes that fast.
It's the principle of the matter. Cougs can take over from here (personal freedom, big government analogy, etc.).
Quote from: BimmerM3 on April 29, 2010, 04:29:08 PM
It's the principle of the matter. Cougs can take over from here (personal freedom, big government analogy, etc.).
Personal Freedom? It's I-L-L-E-G-A-L anyway. If you were caught driving that fast, it's an automatic court date. Big government? Ford put the governor on the car, not the government.
Quote from: SVT666 on April 29, 2010, 04:34:23 PM
Personal Freedom? It's I-L-L-E-G-A-L anyway. If you were caught driving that fast, it's an automatic court date. Big government? Ford put the governor on the car, not the government.
I was exaggerating the point, but whatever. I don't feel like getting into an argument over this.
It's gonna be hard to suck me into this one, boys. I'm starting to learn my lesson that my direct involvement in anything remotely Mustang critical quickly destroys the thread.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on April 29, 2010, 04:37:31 PM
I was exaggerating the point, but whatever. I don't feel like getting into an argument over this.
I'm not defending it or criticizing it. I don't really care either way. I just don't understand the fuss people are making.
Quote from: SVT666 on April 29, 2010, 01:11:46 PM
When was the last time anyone here actually went 113 mph in a car?
Why offer a serious track package with $370+, Z-rated tires if you're going to limit it to such a low speed? Anybody who takes their car for a track day at a real race track would likely ram into the speed limiter. FYI, the slowest peak speed for the C&D lightning lap this year was 116 mph (VW GTI). The '10 Mustang GT clocked 127 and change and the Genesis Coupe clocked well into the 120s as well. There have only been 4 cars ever tested in the Lightning Lap that clocked lower than 113 on VIR (Mini Cooper S, MX-5, 2007 GTI, 2006 Civic Si). For a family sedan or economy car that has pretty much a 0% chance of ever being taken to a race track 113 mph is fine. For a 300 hp sporting coupe, especially boasting a capable "Track Package", 113 mph is ridiculously low.
Quote from: SVT666 on April 29, 2010, 04:55:23 PM
I'm not defending it or criticizing it. I don't really care either way. I just don't understand the fuss people are making.
I'm criticizing it, even though I don't think it's a big deal. I like the new Mustang, and the governor wouldn't keep me from purchasing it, but I still think it's stupid.
In this forum, we have hundreds, if not thousands, of posts about all aspect of the Mustang. I don't think a handful of people :facepalm:'ing a speed governor in half a page of comments constitutes a "fuss."
Quote from: SVT666 on April 29, 2010, 01:11:46 PM
When was the last time anyone here actually went 113 mph in a car?
I shut it down at 100. Haven't gone faster than that, I have no need to go to jail anytime soon.
Speed limiter aside, I think, strangely enough, that the V6 'Stang is the one that I would be interested in buying. Its sort of in a unique place in the market where the only other performance car that I'm interested in is the MX-5, which is obviously a different style of car. If I were looking at the GT's price range, there are many more vehicles that I would be interested in.
Its weird for me to say that though because I used to think that the only real Mustangs had V8s, but I find it hard to have issues with 305 HP, regardless of cylinder count.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on April 30, 2010, 10:25:40 AM
Speed limiter aside, I think, strangely enough, that the V6 'Stang is the one that I would be interested in buying. Its sort of in a unique place in the market where the only other performance car that I'm interested in is the MX-5, which is obviously a different style of car. If I were looking at the GT's price range, there are many more vehicles that I would be interested in.
Like what? I'm not criticizing, I'm genuinely interested in knowing what other cars you would be interested in at that price range.
At least I now have a strategy next time someone in a new V6 Stang wants to mess with me.... its like racing my friend in his 240SX all over again - just play with him until he hits the speed limiter and then point , laugh, and wave
Quote from: SVT666 on April 30, 2010, 10:28:31 AM
Like what? I'm not criticizing, I'm genuinely interested in knowing what other cars you would be interested in at that price range.
I'm on my phone right now, but I will type up a real response to this a bit later when I'm at my computer.
There used to be a guy back at my high school with a supercharged V6 Mustang. He said his was much faster than a normal GT.
I wonder if...the natural progression of an EcoBoost V6 would almost make the GT irrelevant.
Quote from: the Teuton on April 30, 2010, 04:26:01 PM
There used to be a guy back at my high school with a supercharged V6 Mustang. He said his was much faster than a normal GT.
I wonder if...the natural progression of an EcoBoost V6 would almost make the GT irrelevant.
Ecoboost V8. :lol:
Quote from: SVT666 on April 30, 2010, 10:28:31 AM
Like what? I'm not criticizing, I'm genuinely interested in knowing what other cars you would be interested in at that price range.
Alright, here we go. First of all, know that this post does have a few assumptions:
1. I have no interest in owning a Mustang as a second car. If I were to get one, it would be my daily driver.
2. While more power certainly doesn't hurt, anything with 300+hp is plenty for a daily driver.
3. I am biased towards imported cars. Just am. That said, I haven't driven any of the cars in this price range (except for the E90), and if I were actually in this situation, I'd go test drive all of these cars before I made a decision.
The "ideal" Mustang GT I built came to a total of just under $40,000. Granted, I could knock off a few of those options, but I'm going to use $40k as my price limit. For that or less, cars I'd be interested in include:
Well equipped 135i
Well equipped 328i
Base 335i (a slight stretch... starting at $40,600)
Cadillac CTS
Infiniti G37
Mazda RX-8 (loaded to the brim)
Nissan 370Z
Audi A4
MB C300
Pretty much all of these cars are going to have some advantage over the Mustang GT, whether it be fuel economy, luxury, handling, practicality or some combination of the above. Obviously the Mustang has way more power than any of them, but I've already decided that the extra power offered by the GT is largely unnecessary and even useless for a daily driver.
On the other hand, the Mustang V6 that I priced out came out to roughly $30k, which is a completely different market. The only car I listed above that I could get for $30 would be a base RX-8, and other cars that I'm really interested in at that price point are a lot more limited:
MX-5
VW GTi
Mazdaspeed 3
Base RX-8
The Mustang V6 is going to be just as quick or quicker than any of these and still is somewhat comparable in luxury, handling and fuel economy, with practicality being kind of a wash.
I also think that a lot of it has to do with the fact that I would have a hard time paying $40k for a Mustang, even if the car is worthy of that price bracket.
And like I said above, I haven't really driven any of these cars, so things would be likely to change if I were actually spending this kind of money on a car.
Fair enough. I do find it funny though how so many people say they would never pay that much for a Mustang even if it is worthy of that price tag. I don't understand that.
Quote from: SVT666 on April 30, 2010, 06:05:13 PM
Fair enough. I do find it funny though how so many people say they would never pay that much for a Mustang even if it is worthy of that price tag. I don't understand that.
People say that same thing about a lot of cars. VW Phaeton, the current Taurus, and didn't the Supra struggle a lot during it's final iteration where it had a high price tags? It's just a mental stigma.
Quote from: SVT666 on April 29, 2010, 01:11:46 PM
When was the last time anyone here actually went 113 mph in a car?
Today.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on April 30, 2010, 05:29:01 PM
Alright, here we go. First of all, know that this post does have a few assumptions:
1. I have no interest in owning a Mustang as a second car. If I were to get one, it would be my daily driver.
2. While more power certainly doesn't hurt, anything with 300+hp is plenty for a daily driver.
3. I am biased towards imported cars. Just am. That said, I haven't driven any of the cars in this price range (except for the E90), and if I were actually in this situation, I'd go test drive all of these cars before I made a decision.
The "ideal" Mustang GT I built came to a total of just under $40,000. Granted, I could knock off a few of those options, but I'm going to use $40k as my price limit. For that or less, cars I'd be interested in include:
Well equipped 135i
Well equipped 328i
Base 335i (a slight stretch... starting at $40,600)
Cadillac CTS
Infiniti G37
Mazda RX-8 (loaded to the brim)
Nissan 370Z
Audi A4
MB C300
Pretty much all of these cars are going to have some advantage over the Mustang GT, whether it be fuel economy, luxury, handling, practicality or some combination of the above. Obviously the Mustang has way more power than any of them, but I've already decided that the extra power offered by the GT is largely unnecessary and even useless for a daily driver.
On the other hand, the Mustang V6 that I priced out came out to roughly $30k, which is a completely different market. The only car I listed above that I could get for $30 would be a base RX-8, and other cars that I'm really interested in at that price point are a lot more limited:
MX-5
VW GTi
Mazdaspeed 3
Base RX-8
The Mustang V6 is going to be just as quick or quicker than any of these and still is somewhat comparable in luxury, handling and fuel economy, with practicality being kind of a wash.
I also think that a lot of it has to do with the fact that I would have a hard time paying $40k for a Mustang, even if the car is worthy of that price bracket.
And like I said above, I haven't really driven any of these cars, so things would be likely to change if I were actually spending this kind of money on a car.
BimmerM3: All good points, and all valid considerations when $40,000 is on the table! When talkin' forty big ones, a lot more automotive interests can be satisfied than can be satisfied at the 2011 Mustang GT's starting price of about $31,795. And that's the key here: Mustangs are above all about affordable performance--the performance of the 2011 Mustang GT and the current BMW M3 are essentially identical (refer to the "Mustang GT or M3?" thread in the "Head to Head" section), but the M3 lists for an additional $28,180 US--or pretty close to the price of two 2011 Mustang GTs. The M3 is one of the ten greatest vehicles of all time, which makes that additional $28,180 worth every penny spent to get it. Worth it ALL!
Buy a 2011 Mustang GT with a few delete codes and specify only the options that improve the performance--the Brembos, for instance--and there you have the essence of the Mustang GT and why it is what it is. And a geat deal of why it has been what it is for forty-five years & counting. All the excellent cars you listed as alternatives to the Mustang GT & Mustang V6 have lots to offer--and many of them have things Mustangs have never offered, such as four doors.
Sure, there are luxury options offered on Mustang GTs, such as heated seats. Providing customers what they want--and will pay for--precedes the invention of the automobile by millenia. And where affordable performance is not a high priority of a customer, the Mustang probably won't be on the shopping list--or if it is, the customer may need to rethink that list since now even the Mustang V6 is hot.
It was high time Ford re-thought affordable performance, and it's great that they gave us over 300 horsepower and over 30 miles per gallon in their first real effort at affordable performance for every version of Mustang. This is ALL good!
It's not so much the attributes of the car but the legacy of the car that would make a $40k Mustang very hard to swallow for most people. I have a strong hunch Ford will be selling very few loaded Mustang GTs.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 06, 2010, 11:18:58 PM
It's not so much the attributes of the car but the legacy of the car that would make a $40k Mustang very hard to swallow for most people. I have a strong hunch Ford will be selling very few loaded Mustang GTs.
The 2011 Mustang GT is about to write its own legacy--auto journalists saw quickly that the oh-eleven has gone well beyond the Camaro and the Challenger and they're now comparing it conjecturally to BMW M3s and Audi A5s/S5s, a whole different level of automobile. At this level, the performance available is Grand Theft Auto at only $40,000 (that's optioned up seriously--the standard 412 HP / 390 ft lbs of torque oh-eleven 5.0L Mustang GT is still under $32,000 well-equipped "as is").
And then there's the GT500, with a 5.4L aluminum block, a substantially bigger intercooler, a properly-spec'd Tremec 6060, a 12 percent to 15 percent stiffer body/frame, more horsepower, better tires, and an even better suspension.
Interesting roadtests ahead :thumbsup:
At $40k i'd take an S4 for a few grand more over the Mustang in the blink of an eye
Quote from: Nethead on May 07, 2010, 01:12:14 PM
The 2011 Mustang GT is about to write its own legacy--auto journalists saw quickly that the oh-eleven has gone well beyond the Camaro and the Challenger and they're now comparing it conjecturally to BMW M3s and Audi A5s/S5s, a whole different level of automobile. At this level, the performance available is Grand Theft Auto at only $40,000 (that's optioned up seriously--the standard 412 HP / 390 ft lbs of torque oh-eleven 5.0L Mustang GT is still under $32,000 well-equipped "as is").
And then there's the GT500, with a 5.4L aluminum block, a substantially bigger intercooler, a properly-spec'd Tremec 6060, a 12 percent to 15 percent stiffer body/frame, more horsepower, better tires, and an even better suspension.
Interesting roadtests ahead :thumbsup:
I'm sorry, but the base Mustang GT is not particularly "well equipped" at under $32K. Maybe compared to the standards of 15 years ago when cars were still coming with manual windows and locks as standard and AC was optional, but by today's standards, it's spartan (both aesthetically and by amenities). Crappy 4-speaker stereo, monochrome black plastic interior, plastic/rubber steering wheel and shift knob, no steering wheel-mounted audio controls... you'd have to look to sub $15K econo-cars to find such low levels of feature content and interior appointments. Even the 370Z, which itself has been criticized as being spartan, has a leather-wrapped wheel, steering wheel mounted audio controls, auto-climate control, heated mirrors and HID headlamps as standard, plus bits of aluminum trim to dress up the interior, at the same price point.
Oh, and it's not like 31 MPG is astonishing, either.
I got 35.1 MPG from Boston to my house last week, mind you, in a full size vehicle.
The 35.1 was from the trip computer. Calculated via actual gallons put in, it was about 34, but I always give myself a one gallon +/- difference...
How the hell do you peeps get such great mileage? It has to be gearing. I'm at 3,000 RPM at 70 mph, and I average about 33 at that pace in a real so-called economy car.
Quote from: the Teuton on May 07, 2010, 07:59:13 PM
How the hell do you peeps get such great mileage? It has to be gearing. I'm at 3,000 RPM at 70 mph, and I average about 33 at that pace in a real so-called economy car.
It's at 70mph, too.
I don't recall what the RPM's are...I'll have to check next time I am out.
Before all of the stations switched to E10, I could get 34+ on the highway at 70-75 mph. IIRC, my car is rated 29 mpg highway by the EPA (was 32 before they revised the ratings). I can still get 32-ish even on watered down gas. If the Mustang is rated 31 by the EPA under the current, more conservative ratings, I'd think that beating that shouldn't be too hard.
And it's all gearing in the Mustang's case. With the standard rearend gear, the manual version is turning just shy of 1500 RPM @ 60 mph in top gear and only about 1800 RPM at 75 mph. Not sure if the ratios are different for the auto.
Haven't read the thread.
However i've been absent awhile(I have a note). I guess i've missed the whole "mustang V6 stomps a fucking mudhole in the overweight v6 camaro's ass and the new 5.0 will really put a hurting on fatty fat fat camaro's pathetic bailout government motors pathetic ass."
*checks ford stock*
Ahhh....Refreshing.
I think it's rather interesting that my old '95 Neon (that I paid $1400 for) was actually faster than a 300hp, $30k sports car is. Of course there is really no reason to go that fast, but it's certainly nice knowing that you can.
Quote from: TBR on May 09, 2010, 10:45:24 AM
I think it's rather interesting that my old '95 Neon (that I paid $1400 for) was actually faster than a 300hp, $30k sports car is. Of course there is really no reason to go that fast, but it's certainly nice knowing that you can.
lol... It took me awhile to realize that you meant top speed, not acceleration. I was sitting at my computer with this face :confused: for several minutes while I looked up 0-60 times for the 2010 'Stang and your 1995 Neon.
Quote from: MX793 on May 07, 2010, 01:51:09 PM
I'm sorry, but the base Mustang GT is not particularly "well equipped" at under $32K. Maybe compared to the standards of 15 years ago when cars were still coming with manual windows and locks as standard and AC was optional, but by today's standards, it's spartan (both aesthetically and by amenities). Crappy 4-speaker stereo, monochrome black plastic interior, plastic/rubber steering wheel and shift knob, no steering wheel-mounted audio controls... you'd have to look to sub $15K econo-cars to find such low levels of feature content and interior appointments. Even the 370Z, which itself has been criticized as being spartan, has a leather-wrapped wheel, steering wheel mounted audio controls, auto-climate control, heated mirrors and HID headlamps as standard, plus bits of aluminum trim to dress up the interior, at the same price point.
MX793: Sure it is: Air conditioning, one-touch windows, remote power mirrors, and a 60-40 split fold-down rear seat.
These are the essentials, and arguably more than you really need/want on a performance car--the one-touch windows and the remote power mirrors are frosting on the cake. Other stuff adds weight, and if it doesn't add more performance than it adds weight it really doesn't belong on a performance car. Therein lies the justification for the summer tires and the Brembos.
Here in The Beaver, even the air conditioning is debatable--although it probably isn't debatable south of the Mason-Dixon line. Unless you intend to rip out the back seat and possibly even the front passenger seat (some rollcages can render them both functionally unusable anyway), the 60-40 split fold-down rear seat adds too much to the value/utility of the vehicle to ever consider having a rear seat that isn't of the 60-40 split fold-down persuasion.
Once you start adding 60-way heated buckets, leather, STYNC, lighted door sills, nav, and other silly shit, you weren't serious about getting a performance car anyhoooo....You may have spec'd out a luxury car that's quick, but the penalty you pay in handling, braking, acceleration, yada yada yada is with you forever--and the dude or chick who bought the identical car to yours except for the silly shit got more performance for their cash than you did--and probably for considerably less cash than you paid.
Quote from: Nethead on May 11, 2010, 08:20:30 AM
MX793: Sure it is: Air conditioning, one-touch windows, remote power mirrors, and a 60-40 split fold-down rear seat.
These are the essentials, and arguably more than you really need/want on a performance car--the one-touch windows and the remote power mirrors are frosting on the cake. Other stuff adds weight, and if it doesn't add more performance that it adds weight it really doesn't belong on a performance car. Therein lies the justification for the summer tires and the Brembos.
Here in The Beaver, even the air conditioning is debatable--although it probably isn't debatable south of the Mason-Dixon line. Unless you intend to rip out the back seat and possibly even the front passenger seat (some rollcages can render them both functionally unusable anyway), the 60-40 split fold-down rear seat adds too much to the value/utility of the vehicle to ever consider having a rear seat that isn't of the 60-40 split fold-down persuasion.
Once you start adding 60-way heated buckets, leather, STYNC, lighted door sills, nav, and other silly shit, you weren't serious about getting a performance car anyhoooo....You may have spec'd out a luxury car that's quick, but the penalty you pay in handling, braking, acceleration, yada yada yada is with you forever--and the dude or chick who bought the identical car to yours except for the silly shit got more performance for their cash than you did--and probably for considerably less cash than you paid.
This is not the 60's anymore.... for $30k I have a car with superior handleing, superior braking, and a far and away better interior with more features.
Quote from: r0tor on May 11, 2010, 08:56:50 AM
This is not the 60's anymore.... for $30k I have a car with superior handleing, superior braking, and a far and away better interior with more features.
r0tor: Nope, it ain't the 'Sixties--but "more features" is more weight, just like it was in the 'Sixties. If "more features" is what you seek, only you can decide how much performance you're willing to sacrifice for "more features". I listed the four features I'd sacrifice some performance for, but three of those would get tossed overboard if the car is meant to track occasionally. The split fold-down back seat is the most important of the four. If I want a rollcage that interferes with the function of the back seat, then out goes the back seat, too. Easy sacrifice.
How 'bout you?
I'll take my 3,000 pound car with leather interior, power and heated seats, sunroof, HIDs, Bose audio system, bajillion airbags, ect ect thank you very much
I'm not sacrificing shit performance wise either over a base model car
Nah, the base Mustang will attract more or less the same "secretary" demographic its always targeted - girls, rental agencies, and non-enthusiasts. It will take quite some time and effort by Ford to elevate the base Mustang beyond said station.
Quote from: Nethead on May 11, 2010, 08:20:30 AM
MX793: Sure it is: Air conditioning, one-touch windows, remote power mirrors, and a 60-40 split fold-down rear seat.
These are the essentials, and arguably more than you really need/want on a performance car--the one-touch windows and the remote power mirrors are frosting on the cake. Other stuff adds weight, and if it doesn't add more performance than it adds weight it really doesn't belong on a performance car. Therein lies the justification for the summer tires and the Brembos.
Here in The Beaver, even the air conditioning is debatable--although it probably isn't debatable south of the Mason-Dixon line. Unless you intend to rip out the back seat and possibly even the front passenger seat (some rollcages can render them both functionally unusable anyway), the 60-40 split fold-down rear seat adds too much to the value/utility of the vehicle to ever consider having a rear seat that isn't of the 60-40 split fold-down persuasion.
Once you start adding 60-way heated buckets, leather, STYNC, lighted door sills, nav, and other silly shit, you weren't serious about getting a performance car anyhoooo....You may have spec'd out a luxury car that's quick, but the penalty you pay in handling, braking, acceleration, yada yada yada is with you forever--and the dude or chick who bought the identical car to yours except for the silly shit got more performance for their cash than you did--and probably for considerably less cash than you paid.
I drove a Chevy Cobalt rental car (so it wasn't exactly top-of-the-line) that was maybe $15K new with more feature content and better interior appointments than the base Mustang GT. The car is spartan by today's standards.
I'm not looking for the base car to have heated, power leather seats. I do think it should offer steering wheel audio controls like practically every other car costing more than $20K dollars (at a weight gain of maybe 2 lbs). Or door inserts that are cloth instead of cheap plastic (like practically every car costing more than $15K), which would add no weight. Or leather touch surfaces on the steering wheel and shift knob (like pretty much any car over $20K, and again without any real weight penalty). As I've said many times, it would not take much at all to make the base Mustang's interior much more palatable.
Quote from: MX793 on May 11, 2010, 04:07:50 PM
I drove a Chevy Cobalt rental car (so it wasn't exactly top-of-the-line) that was maybe $15K new with more feature content and better interior appointments than the base Mustang GT. The car is spartan by today's standards.
I'm not looking for the base car to have heated, power leather seats. I do think it should offer steering wheel audio controls like practically every other car costing more than $20K dollars (at a weight gain of maybe 2 lbs). Or door inserts that are cloth instead of cheap plastic (like practically every car costing more than $15K), which would add no weight. Or leather touch surfaces on the steering wheel and shift knob (like pretty much any car over $20K, and again without any real weight penalty). As I've said many times, it would not take much at all to make the base Mustang's interior much more palatable.
MX793: As always, MXDude's points are well thought out and valid. When it came down to the money, the Mustang was given the performance over the trim items. Don't stage your deluxe rental Cobalt in a lane next to a 2011 Mustang V6, or you'll feel what Ford's decision is all about when the tree goes green.
It ain't the route every vehicle takes, but the 2011 Mustang V6 is meant to be within the financial reach of enthusiasts who want a performance 2+2 with a lot of worthwhile standard equipment and a long list of excellent options but who can't afford the payments that a $31,000 412 HP 2011 Mustang GT will require. 'Been there, done that.
When the trade-off is the performance of a 2011 Mustang V6 versus the amenities of which you speak, I think Ford made the right calls better than anyone else for the bucks a new Mustang V6 will set you back. You get a solid-performing, rigid, reasonably practical 2+2 that can be optioned to suit most tastes--probably ninety-five percent of folks under fifty can spec out a Mustang V6 that they really like. Those folks fifty and up, not so much...
For a decently equipped V6 Mustang that I would actually want to own (leather, upgraded interior, HID's, heated seats) it came out to $29k. For that price I'd rather have a WRX premium package, Genesis Coupe, or RX-8.... or a slightly used BMW 328i or 135i
Quote from: Nethead on May 13, 2010, 08:23:34 AM
MX793: As always, MXDude's points are well thought out and valid. When it came down to the money, the Mustang was given the performance over the trim items. Don't stage your deluxe rental Cobalt in a lane next to a 2011 Mustang V6, or you'll feel what Ford's decision is all about when the tree goes green.
It ain't the route every vehicle takes, but the 2011 Mustang V6 is meant to be within the financial reach of enthusiasts who want a performance 2+2 with a lot of worthwhile standard equipment and a long list of excellent options but who can't afford the payments that a $31,000 412 HP 2011 Mustang GT will require. 'Been there, done that.
When the trade-off is the performance of a 2011 Mustang V6 versus the amenities of which you speak, I think Ford made the right calls better than anyone else for the bucks a new Mustang V6 will set you back. You get a solid-performing, rigid, reasonably practical 2+2 that can be optioned to suit most tastes--probably ninety-five percent of folks under fifty can spec out a Mustang V6 that they really like. Those folks fifty and up, not so much...
You missed my point. When a budget car (not a luxury car, a car for people who need a way to get from A to B for cheap) has more amenities and better appointments, you're not "well equipped".
For well less than $26K, you can go to any Hyundai dealer TODAY and pick up a V6 Genesis coupe with leather seats, auto climate control, Bluetooth, steering wheel mounted audio controls, plus the standard compliment of power windows, mirrors and locks with remote entry. You also get 18" wheels with staggered width (225/245 f/r) performance all-seasons. Then you have interior appointments like the leather wrapped wheel and shifter, aluminum (and faux aluminum) trim bits, leather door inserts....
The only V6 Mustang you can get for <$26K today is a base V6 with none of those amenities save the power windows/mirrors/locks, vastly cheaper interior appointments, and 17" wheels with narrow (215 width!!!), non-performance tires. You can at least get the shorter rearend gear so you might stand a chance of keeping up with the Genesis (the super-tall standard rearend gear won't cut it), assuming you can find traction from the skinny, "high efficiency" tires. The only thing the Mustang has at this price point that the Genesis does not is a limited slip differential, which is an absolute necessity for the Mustang given how grossly under-tired it is.
Quote from: MX793 on May 13, 2010, 04:28:57 PM
You missed my point. When a budget car (not a luxury car, a car for people who need a way to get from A to B for cheap) has more amenities and better appointments, you're not "well equipped".
For well less than $26K, you can go to any Hyundai dealer TODAY and pick up a V6 Genesis coupe with leather seats, auto climate control, Bluetooth, steering wheel mounted audio controls, plus the standard compliment of power windows, mirrors and locks with remote entry. You also get 18" wheels with staggered width (225/245 f/r) performance all-seasons. Then you have interior appointments like the leather wrapped wheel and shifter, aluminum (and faux aluminum) trim bits, leather door inserts....
The only V6 Mustang you can get for <$26K today is a base V6 with none of those amenities save the power windows/mirrors/locks, vastly cheaper interior appointments, and 17" wheels with narrow (215 width!!!), non-performance tires. You can at least get the shorter rearend gear so you might stand a chance of keeping up with the Genesis (the super-tall standard rearend gear won't cut it), assuming you can find traction from the skinny, "high efficiency" tires. The only thing the Mustang has at this price point that the Genesis does not is a limited slip differential, which is an absolute necessity for the Mustang given how grossly under-tired it is.
MX793: And perhaps you and I have both missed each other's point(s).
Motor Trend just ran a 4-way comparo of the 6-cylinder Camaro, Challenger, Mustang, and Genesis.
They ranked the Genesis number one and the Mustang number two, with the Mustang winning every performance category handily as well as bang-for-the-buck except for the figure-eight: the Genesis completed the figure-eight in 25.4 secs averaging .71 G and the Mustang completed the figure-eight in 25.8 secs averaging .71 G.
The base price of the Genesis was $25750 and $31470 as tested. The base price of the Mustang was $22995 and $25385 as tested (still over $300 less than the base Genesis and a little over $6000 less than the Genesis as tested).
The Mustang won all acceleration tests to every speed above 30 MPH, even with the 3.31:1 rear gears compared to the Genesissies 3.54:1 (final drive ratios were 2.32:1 and 2.81:1 respectively). This includes Passing (45 MPH to 65 MPH) at 2.7 secs to 3.1 secs. The Mustang was the only vehicle to get through the quarter-mile in under fourteen seconds (13.7) and the only vehicle to exceed 100 MPH (102.0) in the quarter-mile
The Mustang won the braking test from 60 MPH at 104 ft to 111 ft.
The Mustang won the lateral acceleration test averaging .96 G to .94g.
The Mustang could maintain 60 MPH at 1800 RPM, the Genesis needed 2200 RPM (those drive ratios show up here)
EPA MPG is 19/29 for the Mustang and 17/26 for the Genesis, and MT got a real world 16.2 MPG out of the Mustang in this series of drives and tests and MT got a real world 15.5 out of the Genesis. The Mustang emits .86 lbs of CO2 per mile and the Genesis emits .96 pounds per mile. Both were tested using unleaded regular.
You can see clearly where Ford has spent the bucks--although not that many of 'em since at a mere $25385 it was the only one of the four that was under $30000 as tested. That leaves a lot of bread on the table for those amenities you are so adamant about.
This is bang-for-the-buck. The cars tested were what they were: If the Genesis had been the $25750 base Genesis--much closer to the Mustang's $25385 as tested price--would the Genesis have finished first? I dunno. :huh:
Or if the Mustang had been optioned comparably up to the Genesissies $31470 as tested price, would the Mustang have finished first? 'Still dunno. :huh:
What I do know is that this ain't apples-to-apples--the Mustang's price is one hundred percent affordable performance--the sub-$26000 Mustang outperformed handily every $30000 car in the comparo. The Genesissies price is about a different set of goals, and its first place finish shows how well it met those goals! The Mustang hit its goals on the head and the Genesis hit its goals on the head. Two winners, actually--like determining which is the best apple and which is the best orange in the bowl of fruit. They're the two best, but not at the same things...
Quote from: Nethead on May 14, 2010, 02:09:54 PM
MX793: And perhaps you and I have both missed each other's point(s). Motor Trend just ran a 4-way comparo of the 6-cylinder Camaro, Challenger, Mustang, and Genesis.
They ranked the Genesis number one and the Mustang number two, with the Mustang winning every performance category handily as well as bang-for-the-buck except for the figure-eight: the Genesis completed the figure-eight in 25.4 secs averaging .71 G and the Mustang completed the figure-eight in 25.8 secs averaging .71 G.
The base price of the Genesis was $25750 and $31470 as tested. The base price of the Mustang was $22995 and $25385 as tested (still over $300 less than the base Genesis and a little over $6000 less than the Genesis as tested).
The Mustang won all acceleration tests to every speed above 30 MPH, even with the 3.31:1 rear gears compared to the Genesissies 3.54:1 (final drive ratios were 2.32:1 and 2.81:1 respectively). This includes Passing (45 MPH to 65 MPH) at 2.7 secs to 3.1 secs. The Mustang was the only vehicle to get through the quarter-mile in under fourteen seconds (13.7) and the only vehicle to exceed 100 MPH (102.0) in the quarter-mile
The Mustang won the braking test from 60 MPH at 104 ft to 111 ft.
The Mustang won the lateral acceleration test averaging .96 G to .94g.
The Mustang could maintain 60 MPH at 1800 RPM, the Genesis needed 2200 RPM (those drive ratios show up here)
EPA MPG is 19/29 for the Mustang and 17/26 for the Genesis, and MT got a real world 16.2 MPG out of the Mustang in this series of drives and tests and MT got a real world 15.5 out of the Genesis. The Mustang emits .86 lbs of CO2 per mile and the Genesis emits .96 pounds per mile. Both were tested using unleaded regular.
You can see clearly where Ford has spent the bucks--although not that many of 'em since at a mere $25385 it was the only one of the four that was under $30000 as tested. That leaves a lot of bread on the table for those amenities you are so adamant about.
This is bang-for-the-buck. The cars tested were what they were--if the Genesis had been the $25750 base Genesis--much closer to the Mustang's $25385 as tested price, would the Genesis have finished first? I dunno. :huh:
Or if the Mustang had been optioned comparably up to the Genesissies $31470 as tested price, would the Mustang have finished first? 'Still dunno. :huh:
What I do know is that this ain't apples-to-apples--the Mustang's price is one hundrd percent affordable performance--the sub-$26000 Mustang outperformed handily every $30000 car in the comparo. The Genesissies price is about a different set of goals, and its first place finish shows how well it met those goals! The Mustang hit its goals on the head and the Genesis hit its goals on the head. Two winners, actually--like determining which is the best apple and which is the best orange in the bowl of fruit. They're the two best, but not at the same things...
The Mustang tested was equipped with a package that you cannot currently buy or even order (it is not on their configurator). The Performance Package is not currently available to consumers and will not be available for probably another 5 months. The Genesis was one I could walk into any Hyundai dealer TODAY and drive away in. The only Mustang I can walk into a dealership TODAY and purchase that is under $26K does not come with the wide, sticky tires or suspension and brake upgrades and without such equipment, does not outperform a V6 Genesis coupe (even the cheaper, non-Track Genesis coupe). Not only is it short on some essential performance hardware (like decent tires), it's painfully short on features and amenities and interior appointments.
And to equip a Mustang with comparable stuff as the $31K Genesis that MT tested, you'd have to fork over roughly $34K.
All of that aside, nothing said above in any way supports the claim that a <$26K Mustang is "well equipped", as performance does not determine what is or isn't "well equipped". Even Motortrend referred to their Mustang test car as "spartan" when it came to features/appointments/amenities.
The track pack parts for the V6 Mustang will be available "this summer"--a nebulous at best statement encompassing June, July, August, and September. The dealerships that sell GT500s will probably order one or two track pack V6 Mustangs for their showrooms since they have the ear of the performance shopper. And they'll get 'em if for no other reason than to have a backup plan to use on the customers who want a Mustang GT 5.0 but who can't get the financing for the 5.0. Those dealerships that don't sell GT500s probably won't stock track pack V6 Mustangs--there are mindsets among dealerships that seem to divide them into two types: those who cater to older customers and those who cater to younger customers. The Chevy dealership where I worked (the only Chevy dealership in a small town) would not stock Corvettes because the first three they ever stocked had to be re-possessed within two years of their dates of sale. That was decades ago, and they've never stocked Corvettes again. Ownership has changed hands, but that dealership still doesn't stock Corvettes. IMO, it survives only because it is the only Chevy dealership there.
But I digress...Clearly, there's a mindset that sees fluff as necessary to be "well equipped". IMO, a heater with defroster, air conditioning, power remote mirrors, one-touch windows, and a rear wiper on hatchbacks/wagons/minivans is "well-equipped". Everything else needs to add performance greater than its weight, in a context that adding safety (such as rollbars/rollcages, bigger brakes, ABS, yada yada yada) is also adding to a vehicle's performance. I would direct you to the "as tested" price of the V6 Mustang in the four-car comparo, and again to the measured performance of that V6 Mustang relative to its three over-$30,000 imitators.
If you want a Genesis with all the deluxe trim features of the Genesis that MT tested, grab your $31,470 and hustle on down to the Hyundai dealership today. If you want a $23,585 car that'll kick its ass, it's coming this summer. Patience is cheap, especially if you haven't saved up the $31,740 or the $23,585 yet...
Will the track pack remove the speed limiter?
Quote from: Raza link=topic=21698.msg1326974#msg1326974 date=1274105199
Will the track pack remove the speed limiter?
Raza: The road tests that covered speed limiters at all (maybe it was just one road test) said that the V6 Mustang is speed limited to 113 MPH. r0tor, I think it was, conjectured that this is the limit of the speed rating of the tires that are standard on the non-track-pack V6 Mustang. That's an oversight that needs to be corrected on track packs, but who knows if that will happen. Having never had a vehicle with a speed limiter, the Nethead here cannot speculate as to how much effort is necessary to disable or to disconnect a speed limiting device.
Quote from: Nethead on May 17, 2010, 08:43:51 AM
Raza: The road tests that covered speed limiters at all (maybe it was just one road test) said that the V6 Mustang is speed limited to 113 MPH. r0tor, I think it was, conjectured that this is the limit of the speed rating of the tires that are standard on the non-track-pack V6 Mustang. That's an oversight that needs to be corrected on track packs, but who knows if that will happen. Having never had a vehicle with a speed limiter, the Nethead here cannot speculate as to how much effort is necessary to disable or to disconnect a speed limiting device.
I believe it's quite simple to remove. Two of my cars have had limiters, but I've never bothered to remove either, though they're both easily capable of more than the limited amount (130).
Quote from: Nethead on May 17, 2010, 08:43:51 AM
Raza: The road tests that covered speed limiters at all (maybe it was just one road test) said that the V6 Mustang is speed limited to 113 MPH. r0tor, I think it was, conjectured that this is the limit of the speed rating of the tires that are standard on the non-track-pack V6 Mustang. That's an oversight that needs to be corrected on track packs, but who knows if that will happen. Having never had a vehicle with a speed limiter, the Nethead here cannot speculate as to how much effort is necessary to disable or to disconnect a speed limiting device.
Anyone who tracks their cars will have an aftermarket tune and they usually remove any speed limiters when they do that.
Much astonishment: www.autoblog.com compares the Sport Pack 370Z, the Genesis Coupe 3.8 Track, and the Mustang V6 to see which is the best V6 sportscar. Times were--back in '05, to be exact--that auto journalists compared the Nissan Z to the Mustang GT and perhaps to a third or fourth vehicle--an RX-8 woulda been par for the course, for example. Now, they're comparing the Mustang V6 to the 370Z with the Sports Pack package. The comparo is very detailed as to what they considered important and what they considered to be elements that V6 sportscars should possess--that usually doesn't include backseats but with Rapides and Panameras coming out of the closets all over everywhere I suppose you can have a backseat in your sportscar if you don't ask/don't tell. Sure, the Z kicked the V6 Mustang's ass, although hardly the $9,000 worth that the Sport Pack Z cost over the as tested sticker of the Mustang V6. The Genesis Coupe performed well against both the Z and the Mustang V6, too, but was hindered by its equipment more than the others. See for yourself:
Battle of the Sixes: Ford Mustang V6 takes on Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8 and Nissan 370Z
by Jonny Lieberman (RSS feed) on May 17th 2010 at 11:56 AM
This comparison test couldn't have happened just a few short months ago. Sure, the Hyundai Genesis Coupe has been around since 2009. And not counting a seven-year walkabout, the Datsun/Nissan Z has been with us in one form or another since the first moon landing. Want to talk old? The Ford Mustang dates back to the invention of the wheel. At least it seems that way.
So why no comparison until now? Because until quite recently, Ford's entry level V6-powered Mustang was never really a sports car. The heavy, near impotent Cologne iron-block V6 was a joke, fit for little more than rental car duty, and it wasn't even terribly adept at that. But the non-V8 pony car has undergone some significant changes for 2011 ? the biggest being its all-aluminum V6 producing 305 horsepower and 280 pound feet of torque ? allowing it to finally hang with these two V6-powered competitors from across the Pacific.
At least on paper.
Read on to find out which V6-powered sports car reigns supreme. If you can't wait, skip right to the results.
Looking at nothing but numbers, all three cars match up rather well. All have high-revving V6s that produce in excess of 300 horsepower and 265 pound-feet of torque. Aside from their potent mills, each ride comes with prima facie sports car stuff: rear-wheel drive, six-speed manual gearboxes and some form of manufacturer-supplied go fast/stop fast parts. For instance, all three cars featured strut tower braces. Better yet, all three lie within 200 pounds of each other.
Specifically, our blue 370Z tester has Nissan's Sport Pack that includes a limited slip differential, sychro-matching downshifts, and massive yet lightweight 19-inch forged RAYS wheels covered in sticky Bridgestone Potenza 245/40R/19 front rubber and 275/35R/19 in the rear. The Z also came equipped with upgraded NISMO brake pads. The Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8 Track also sports a limited slip diff, 19-inch wheels and beefed up brakes ? Brembo units, in fact. The Genny even featured the same performance Potenzas as the 370Z, only much narrower at 225/40R/19 up front and 245/40R/19 out back.
The Mustang, or as Senior Editor Lavrinc called it, the "Comparison Test Special" featured not a single interior option (honestly, the trim is called "Black Cloth"), yet came with the all-important $1,995 Performance Pack. This includes big 19-inch wheels slathered with Pirelli P-Zero 255/40/ZR19 rubber at all four corners, the same stiffened suspension found on the Mustang GT, the aforementioned strut-brace, heavy-duty brake pads and a limited slip differential tucked into a 3.31:1 rear-end. Once more, just lining these cars up numerically made this look like quite the comparison.
Looking at the cars side by side, it's a much difference story. Nissan spilled much ink bragging about the 370Z's "golden ratio" wheelbase. Measuring a scant 99 inches from hub-to-hub and 167 inches long overall, the Z is visually much more compact that its two opponents, especially the glossy red Mustang. While the somewhat lumpen-looking Genesis coupe is actually within six inches of the big Ford's length (182 inches long for the Hyundai vs. 188 inches for the 'Stang), the Mustang is without question the visible heavyweight of the group. The scales bear this out. The two-seat Nissan is still the baby of the bunch, clocking in at a respectable 3,250 pounds. Both the Ford and the Hyundai offer rear seats (and the Mustang's are even inhabitable), inevitably adding to their curb weights. That would be 3,452 pounds for the American and 3,389 pounds for the Korean. To reiterate, while it is physically bigger than both the Nissan and the Hyundai, the Mustang looks it.
An important note about our methodology for this comparison. After some back and forth, we decided that this was to be a sports car competition. Meaning that while other factors will come into play, what would matter most at day's end would be the contestants' inherent sportiness. For instance, the Mustang absolutely dominates the Nissan 370Z in the cupholder department. But we weren't going to let fluff like that ? or other trifling non-sequiturs such as day-to-day livability, comfort, ride quality or infotainment systems ? interfere with our sporty pronouncement. That said, the bargain basement steering wheel on the Mustang felt like a Tupperware container. As fellow editor Harley commented, "How much does a piece of McDonalds cow leather cost?"
We headed out to a very good road in the canyons north of Los Angeles (Harley again: "A road in the top ninety-ninth percentile of all roads on earth!") and would each take back-to-back-to-back 25-mile runs in the cars. At the end, we'd put our skulls together and come up with a winner. Before we began, and because we were running on public roads with borrowed cars, Lavrinc cautioned all of us to "Keep 'em in your pants, boys." As you might imagine, within seconds, our trousers were unzipped. To paraphrase General Patton, we had precisely the right weapons at the right moment in history, and subsequently let it all hang out.
It quickly became obvious that the 370Z and its mighty 332-hp, 270-lb/ft VQ V6 was the stud. On the straights, it could easily pull away from both the Mustang and the Genesis Coupe. That said, the 305-hp Ford and 306-hp, 266-lb/ft Genesis were no slouches in the straight line department. But the Z's engine ? and its lighter weight and rear tire-width advantage ? simply outgunned the other two.
As fast as the Nissan went, we found the VQ to be overly harsh and buzzy. Same with the Hyundai's powerplant. In fact, both the Z and the Genesis Coupe had to be flogged harder to get at the grunt. Harley noted, "Annoying vibrations aside ? and none of these six-cylinder engines would ever win a smoothness contest ?
It turned out that we all agreed on the finishing order of our V6 sports cars.the Mustang's new 3.7-liter V6 is my top choice. It delivered consistent power at the low end of the tach." Quite unlike the other two. In fact, both the Z and the Genny preferred to tackle the canyon in second gear, while the Mustang was much happier in third. As a result, the Ford was easier to drive and needed to be shifted less. The aluminum-engined Ford also won our informal Best Noise competition.
Of course, Harley wouldn't have gushed so hard over our chosen road it if just went straight. With the exception of one or two sections, the road bent mercilessly, with a series of fast lefts and rights for several miles until the stretch we dubbed "the Alpine Section," which was made up of super-tight, decreasing radius turns; huge sweeping circles; and even a tricky changing-elevation 180 that put each car's rear end through its paces. Then it was seven more miles on constant switchbacks. We all agreed that we liked the Genesis best in terms of feel, though Harley felt the Z was a very close second. The Hyundai's steering was light and precise, and the Genesis Coupe was the only car of the group that provided anything resembling feedback. It wasn't Porsche Boxster-like, but it also wasn't muted and heavy like the 370Z or comparatively dead-numb like the Mustang.
The Ford, however, surprised us with its fondness for corners and ability to keep up with both the Z and Hyundai over some severely twisted tarmac. In the same situation, a 2010 Mustang V6 would have rolled over and died. Harley was actually reluctant to drive the 2011 version, fearing he'd meet a similar fate, however, "Its flat cornering attitude had me running hard after just a few corners." The Mustang felt planted and the car's limits were surprisingly high, especially considering its size and history. However, when you did cross the Mustang's threshold, those same limits came up quickly. The other two cars were much more forgiving. Harley said, "Even though it was optioned with the so called 'Performance Package,' the Mustang wallowed too much ? it still needs firmer shocks." We all felt the Mustang's bulk on the tight, constantly narrowing back road. While never a serious problem, the Ford's mass made for the sloppiest lines.
The 370Z, however, had the most grip. Lavrinc described its canyon manners as, "Hard. Core." And went on to say, "This is a vehicle designed for backroad bombing ? and it shows in nearly every aspect." My own notes state, "GRIP - Big time, big league grip," while Harley commented that the rather harsh suspension tuning, "translated into excellent transitional handling when pushed hard ? really hard."
The Genesis Coupe was somewhere in the middle, let down by its skinny tires. While the Nissan and the Ford just dug in and smoothly transitioned from corner to corner, the Hyundai squealed and bopped all over the place. It was without question the most taxing and tiring car of the three, yet paradoxically was also by far the most rewarding, fun and satisfying to drive. The 370Z was like driving a fist. Brutal, mean, unapologetic and somehow mindless. Our Mustang, despite its option-free skid row interior, was the closest to a luxury ride up in the canyons. Easygoing, nonchalant and almost effortless. Harley noted that the Mustang might very well be his pick for a daily driver, but the best of the three for a long distance run. The Genesis, by contrast, was the Goldilocks of the trio. It moved the right way, it's ride was firm without being jarring and was without question the sportiest feeling car on hand. On one run at the limits of both grip and sanity, I was thrilled by the Coupe's excellent moves. However, no matter how hard I pushed the Hyundai there was a bright blue 370Z (and Lavrinc's smile) up my tailpipe.
Aside from its undersized tires, the area where the Genesis Coupe fell down the hardest was its traction control system. While we were running our tests on a practically deserted stretch of road, 150-foot straight drops were all around us. Because of that, all of our testing was done with the traction control systems fully engaged. On a good run, the Z's yellow idiot light would flicker constantly, but its inputs and corrections were so subtle that you rarely noticed any actual electronic interference other than the blinky light. Similarly, the Mustang's upgraded nanny (part of the Performance Pack) was damn near ideally tuned. A dab of braking would get applied here and there, but you really didn't notice the corrections.
Not so for the Hyundai. Both Harley and myself felt we broke the Genesis Coupe on various runs. Somehow, all the pounding overwhelmed the car and it decided to stop working. Lavrinc determined that what was actually happening was the traction control coming down like Thor's hammer. Lavrinc explains, "If there were ever a vehicle in need of a two-stage TC setup, the Genesis Coupe is it. Coming out of several tight, second-gear turns the traction control would abruptly limit the engine's revs to 4,000 rpm, no matter the actual amount of throttle. The TC would shut the engine down for what felt like eons, but turned out to be three seconds. You could count it: Turn in, overcook it, throttle, flickering dash light and then 1...2...3... power!" Again, it was disconcerting to the point that two of us thought something was wrong with the car. A system this severe in its intervention has no place in a minivan, let alone a sports car.
All three cars featured good-but-not-great row-your-own transmissions. While we all appreciated the Nissan's high-tech auto-downshifting, we all turned it off after a few corners. The reason why is that if you're used to performing rev-matched downshifts yourself, you wind up over-throttling the engine ? not to mention all three vehicles had perfectly placed pedals for heel-and-toe downshifting. That said, we all liked the Z's gearbox the best. Oddly, it was the sloppiest of the three, but somehow also the easiest to use ? it just worked the best. The Hyundai's was the most masculine of the bunch and featured the longest throws. However, its clutch engaged so quickly (more like an on/off switch than a progressive meshing) that Harley and I wound up regularly stalling the car in first gear. The Mustang's six-speed was the crispest of the bunch, with the shortest throws. However, the throws were so short that downshifting from third to second-gear happened faster than you could reasonably let the clutch out, overwhelming the rear-wheels and sending the car into a tizzy. Says Harley, "I wasted too much time looking for gears."
Our trio all came with excellent (and optional) brakes. In fact, we felt that the Hyundai had more brakes than tires. It also had the best pedal feel. As a result, it was the most reassuring to drive. None of us had any confidence issues while stomping on the big Brembos. Though they did get hot to the point of not only smoking (after a particularly brutal run), but also heating up to the point where the brakes shut down the Coupe's traction control system. Sort of a mixed blessing. The Mustang's brakes astounded us because Fords traditionally have lousy brakes (Taurus SHO, anyone?) and these were anything but. Harley did note that the front calipers were the only single piston jobs of the bunch, and when they got hot, strange and unnerving vibrations would suddenly come shimmying up the steering wheel. That said, we were pushing the base Mustang much harder and longer than most V6 owners ever will. Like everything else about the 370Z, what the brakes lacked in feel they more than made up for in results. Said Harley, "The Nissan's brakes are the strongest ? almost too good for a street car."
At the end of our runs, we sat down to a big, unhealthy breakfast and talked shop. As it turned out, we all agreed on the finishing order of our V6 sports cars. Third place goes to the Ford Mustang V6, The Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8 gets second and the blue ribbon goes to the unflappable Nissan 370Z. Said Lavrinc, "I like a little sadomasochism in my cars, and the Z's rough nature and pavement punishing chops easily give it the win." Harley elaborates, "The 370Z is right at home in the canyons. Of the three, the Nissan arrived with the shortest wheelbase, lightest weight, lowest center of gravity, firmest suspension and it threw the most horsepower at its rear wheels." Simply and honestly put, the 370Z is the best sports car of the three, hands down.
However, and riddled with complications, there are several caveats to the Z's win. We all feel that with some tweaking, the Genesis Coupe might have prevailed in our comparison. Going into the day, we all had the suspicion that the Hyundai might just eek out the win. However, the car was massively under-tired compared to its competitors and featured a traction control system that's at least one generation out-of-date. While the 370Z, with its power and weight advantage, will remain the faster car, we felt that the Hyundai could take top honors by dint of its more communicative chassis, better steering and overall "fun to drive" character. But not this time.
Here's the real kicker: Our Nissan tester stickered for a whopping $9,000 more than the Mustang V6. At $34,605, the 370Z is also nearly $4,000 more than the $30,875 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8. This means that our third place Mustang verdict comes with a big old asterisk. We knew the Ford was punching above its weight, but we didn't know exactly how much until we looked at the numbers. At $25,780 then, the 2011 Mustang V6 is something of a hero. Our point is this: if one were to pour $9,000 into a Mustang, not only would that tick nearly every single option box, but you would also get a 'Stang GT stuffed full of Ford's righteous new 5.0-liter Ti-VCT V8 with 412 hp and 392 lb-ft. Gussied up in that garb, and complete with a set of Brembos, we strongly suspect the Mustang GT would wipe the floor with the Genesis Coupe 3.8 and wholly humble the winning Nissan 370Z. But alas, that's another comparison.
Battle of the Sixes: Best V6 Sports Car
2010 Nissan 370Z
The first Datsun 240Z rolled into American showrooms in 1969. Four decades later, we've got our hands wrapped around the thick steering wheel of its direct descendant, the 370Z, which reigns supreme in this six-cylinder sports car comparison.
2010 Hyundai Genesis Coupe
A surprisingly competent first stab at a sports car from the equally surprising Korean car maker. The best driving car of the test, yet one that's desperately in need of larger wheels.
2011 Ford Mustang V6
In the minds of most people, the Mustang hasn't changed all that much in the 4.5 decades since it was created... until now. Consider the new V6-powered 2011 model a revelation for Mustang fans.
I'm still unmoved by the 370Z. Much like the 350Z tin top, it's unmoving to drive; it's a cold, unemotional experience that does little to engage you at anything but the limit. I've yet to sample the Genesis V6 manual, but the V6 automatic was a pretty good car (and yet, the I4 6MT felt stodgy and overburdened) or the Mustang V6.
Quote from: Nethead on May 17, 2010, 01:43:01 PM
Much astonishment: www.autoblog.com compares the 370Z, the Genesis Coupe 3.8 Track, and the Mustang V6 to see which is the best V6 sportscar. Times were--back in '05, to be exact--that auto journalists compared the Nissan Z to the Mustang GT and perhaps to a third or fourth vehicle--an RX-8 woulda been par for the course, for example. Now, they're comparing the Mustang V6 to the 370Z with the Sports Pack package.
Looks like it's finally time for a 420-hp V8 560Z :wub:
Quote from: Nethead on May 17, 2010, 07:43:10 AM
The track pack parts for the V6 Mustang will be available "this summer"--a nebulous at best statement encompassing June, July, August, and September. The dealerships that sell GT500s will probably order one or two track pack V6 Mustangs for their showrooms since they have the ear of the performance shopper. And they'll get 'em if for no other reason than to have a backup plan to use on the customers who want a Mustang GT 5.0 but who can't get the financing for the 5.0. Those dealerships that don't sell GT500s probably won't stock track pack V6 Mustangs--there are mindsets among dealerships that seem to divide them into two types: those who cater to older customers and those who cater to younger customers. The Chevy dealership where I worked (the only Chevy dealership in a small town) would not stock Corvettes because the first three they ever stocked had to be re-possessed within two years of their dates of sale. That was decades ago, and they've never stocked Corvettes again. Ownership has changed hands, but that dealership still doesn't stock Corvettes. IMO, it survives only because it is the only Chevy dealership there.
But I digress...Clearly, there's a mindset that sees fluff as necessary to be "well equipped". IMO, a heater with defroster, air conditioning, power remote mirrors, one-touch windows, and a rear wiper on hatchbacks/wagons/minivans is "well-equipped". Everything else needs to add performance greater than its weight, in a context that adding safety (such as rollbars/rollcages, bigger brakes, ABS, yada yada yada) is also adding to a vehicle's performance. I would direct you to the "as tested" price of the V6 Mustang in the four-car comparo, and again to the measured performance of that V6 Mustang relative to its three over-$30,000 imitators.
If you want a Genesis with all the deluxe trim features of the Genesis that MT tested, grab your $31,470 and hustle on down to the Hyundai dealership today. If you want a $23,585 car that'll kick its ass, it's coming this summer. Patience is cheap, especially if you haven't saved up the $31,740 or the $23,585 yet...
Everything I've read says the Track Pack will show up in August.
And seeing as the Track Pack is a $2000 option (what a crock that is, the $1500 Track Pack for last year's GT actually added more unique hardware, everything but the springs and wheels are lifted right from the regular GT model), an otherwise stripped TP Mustang V6 is not going to sticker for $23.5K. It'll be 10 bucks shy of $25K.
And again, "well equipped" is a statement about how many creature comforts the car has compared to what the average car of the time comes with. 20 years ago, power windows, power locks, A/C, alloy wheels and cruise control was certainly well equipped. Today? That's pretty much the basics for anything but the cheapest of transportation. It has nothing to do with performance. A Lotus Elise or Exige is very performance-centric, and neither is "well equipped".
And most in the press give similar criticisms of how spartan the base Mustang interior is.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 17, 2010, 12:09:48 PM
Anyone who tracks their cars will have an aftermarket tune and they usually remove any speed limiters when they do that.
Assuming Ford doesn't decide to start lifting their control units from Mazda. They've probably cracked it by now, but when the Mazda3 first came out there was no way to reprogram the ECU to eliminate the governor (or other tuning) because they used some kind of new encoding that was very hard to crack.
Fords are easy. Ford's aftermarket is so big that they wouldn't dare piss anyone off by making stuff like that not easily changed.
Quote from: MX793 on May 17, 2010, 03:50:29 PM
Assuming Ford doesn't decide to start lifting their control units from Mazda. They've probably cracked it by now, but when the Mazda3 first came out there was no way to reprogram the ECU to eliminate the governor (or other tuning) because they used some kind of new encoding that was very hard to crack.
Cobb cracked it now for the RX8 and MS3... many have tried and failed miserably
Here's a question: who tracks a V6 Mustang when there's a V8 car available?
the same person that would track a terbow 4 Genesis instead of the V6
Quote from: the Teuton on May 17, 2010, 06:03:05 PM
Here's a question: who tracks a V6 Mustang when there's a V8 car available?
Lighter weight, (supposedly) better balanced, likely competes in a lower vehicle class, not everybody can afford the V8...
Quote from: MX793 on May 17, 2010, 03:43:31 PM
Everything I've read says the Track Pack will show up in August.
And seeing as the Track Pack is a $2000 option (what a crock that is, the $1500 Track Pack for last year's GT actually added more unique hardware, everything but the springs and wheels are lifted right from the regular GT model), an otherwise stripped TP Mustang V6 is not going to sticker for $23.5K. It'll be 10 bucks shy of $25K.
And again, "well equipped" is a statement about how many creature comforts the car has compared to what the average car of the time comes with. 20 years ago, power windows, power locks, A/C, alloy wheels and cruise control was certainly well equipped. Today? That's pretty much the basics for anything but the cheapest of transportation. It has nothing to do with performance. A Lotus Elise or Exige is very performance-centric, and neither is "well equipped".
And most in the press give similar criticisms of how spartan the base Mustang interior is.
MX793: The Nethead here ain't sayin' that what you're sayin' ain't right--but as the prices of vehicles have begun to increase exponentially somebody had to deal with how to get the customer the most bang for the buck. It was worth the sacrifice of a lot of comfort/convenience/infotainment/bling to offer an all-aluminum DOHC TiVCT 3.7L V6 with a choice of six-speeds. If it wasn't for that engine, this thread wouldn't exist. Name another car that pulls .96 G, comes to a full stop in only 104 feet from 60 MPH, turns the quarter-mile in under fourteen seconds at over 100 MPH, and gets 31 MPG. That list ain't long...The EPA says the 2011 Mustang V6 is the only vehicle they've ever tested that has over 300 horsepower and gets over 30 miles per gallon, but they don't test & certify cars that aren't sold in the US.
Those who want the fluff can still get it--but it's optional so that those who don't need/want it don't havta pay for it in order to get what they DO want. I fail to see a problem with that. With a few performance options (but still less than the cheapest Hyundai Genesis V6), this Mustang puts the hurt on a lotta vehicles out there that woulda demolished all previous V6 Mustangs. This is the first time a six-cylinder Mustang has ever been in comparos with Mustang GTs, Challenger SRT8s, and Camaro SSs, and it won out over the the Camaro SS and came very close to upsetting the Challenger SRT8! And did damned well against a Sport Pack 370Z and a Genesis Coupe 3.8 Track for thousands less than either! This may shake up the six-cylinder performance market like the '68 Road Runner shook up the high performance intermediate market (SS396s, GTOs, 4-4-2s, Gran Sports, GoTeXs, et al) when it came out as the anti-musclecar musclecar in the late Fall of 1967. Zing without the bling...
Mustangs AREN'T the icons of affordable luxury, they AREN'T the icons of affordable comfort, they AREN'T the icons of affordable convenience, but they
ARE the icons of affordable performance. That's why people buy 'em, that's why people love 'em, and that's why they've been in continuous production since April of 1964 :praise:. Not a lot of cars can say that...
Quote from: the Teuton on May 17, 2010, 06:03:05 PM
Here's a question: who tracks a V6 Mustang when there's a V8 car available?
You know that thing that people say? "There are no stupid questions."
It's a big lie.
Quote from: the Teuton on May 17, 2010, 06:03:05 PM
Here's a question: who tracks a V6 Mustang when there's a V8 car available?
A good rhetorical question but I'll 'answer' nonetheless: no one will track a V6 Mustang. It's still very much the secretary's car the base model Mustang has been for 45+ years. Ford has not changed the legacy of the Mustang by putting new power trains into a seven-year-old car.
Quote from: MX793 on May 17, 2010, 06:11:33 PM
Lighter weight, (supposedly) better balanced, likely competes in a lower vehicle class, not everybody can afford the V8...
Nor does everybody want or even need one. When you get down to it 300+ HP is quite sufficient for most people and the driving situations they are likely to face.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 18, 2010, 08:51:46 AM
A good rhetorical question but I'll 'answer' nonetheless: no one will track a V6 Mustang. It's still very much the secretary's car the base model Mustang has been for 45+ years. Ford has not changed the legacy of the Mustang by putting new power trains into a seven-year-old car.
And yet, when all the data is in and the analysis is complete the Mustang, both V6 and V8 versions, are better than their GM and Chrysler competitors.
Quote from: EtypeJohn on May 18, 2010, 09:08:48 AM
And yet, when all the data is in and the analysis is complete the Mustang, both V6 and V8 versions, are better than their GM and Chrysler competitors.
Not sure how this is relevant (and of course it's false).
Quote from: GoCougs on May 18, 2010, 08:51:46 AM
Ford has not changed the legacy of the Mustang by putting new power trains into a seven-year-old car.
Has GM changed the legacy of V6 camaros by putting a modern V6 engine in an old porcine Holden chassis? They have had the benefit of an 8 yr absence though, perhaps people have forgotten about base camaros.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 18, 2010, 09:22:21 AM
Not sure how this is relevant (and of course it's false).
You have me as ignored, so it really doesn't matter what I say here to you....so, you're a fucking idiot and you don't know shit about anything car related.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 18, 2010, 09:22:21 AM
Not sure how this is relevant (and of course it's false).
That's right, don't let the facts confuse you. :rolleyes:
And it's as relevant as anything you've ever posted concerning the Ford Mustang.
So out come the torches and pitchforks...
Seriously guys, grow up. It got old many moons ago.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 18, 2010, 09:28:00 AM
You have me as ignored, so it really doesn't matter what I say here to you....so, you're a fucking idiot and you don't know shit about anything car related.
Actually, earlier today I removed the block thinking things had changed. Wow was I ever wrong.
-> Back to 'Ignore' it is for you.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 18, 2010, 09:56:46 AM
Actually, earlier today I removed the block thinking things had changed. Wow was I ever wrong.
-> Back to 'Ignore' it is for you.
YES!!! The only reason I don't "ignore" you is because your posts are getting more and more like Nethead's every day...and I find it really entertaining. You are doing everything you accuse Mustang fanboys of.
Quote from: EtypeJohn on May 18, 2010, 09:06:48 AM
Nor does everybody want or even need one. When you get down to it 300+ HP is quite sufficient for most people and the driving situations they are likely to face.
EtypeJohn: Absolute evidence that you are correct: The fabulous XKE was a six! When it came out in the 'Sixties, it knocked us off our feet. Only the later Miura was better-looking.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 18, 2010, 09:59:38 AM
YES!!! The only reason I don't "ignore" you is because your posts are getting more and more like Nethead's every day...and I find it really entertaining. You are doing everything you accuse Mustang fanboys of.
just quoting so coug's can read it :lol:
:popcorn:
Quote from: GoCougs on May 18, 2010, 08:51:46 AM
A good rhetorical question but I'll 'answer' nonetheless: no one will track a V6 Mustang. It's still very much the secretary's car the base model Mustang has been for 45+ years. Ford has not changed the legacy of the Mustang by putting new power trains into a seven-year-old car.
These are hot secretaries: Driving V6 Mustangs that bested all models of Camaros--which must be humbling indeed to the portly Camaro SS--in the seven-car ponycar comparo. And just barely got bested by the Challenger SRT8 in that comparo.
They also drive V6 Mustangs that Auto Blog compares to Sport Pack 370Zs (note that Auto Blog didn't think a non-Sport-Pack "regular" 370Z would be a worthy competitor) and they didn't waste anyone's precious time with the six-cylinder models of Camaros or Challengers.
The quarter in under fourteen/over one hundred and pulling .96 Gs while sipping over 30 MPG on regular unleaded indicates that secretaries are becoming as sharp as they are hot! Danica and Ashley get it, BlowCougs does not...
And yet, when all the data is in and the analysis is complete the Mustang, both V6 and V8 versions, are better than their GM and Chrysler competitors imitators.
Fixed. :cheers:
Quote from: Nethead on May 18, 2010, 11:35:25 AM
They also drive V6 Mustangs that Auto Blog compares to Sport Pack 370Zs (note that Auto Blog didn't think a non-Sport-Pack "regular" 370Z would be a worthy competitor) and they didn't waste anyone's precious time with the six-cylinder models of Camaros or Challengers.
More like the Sport Pack 370Z was the only version Nissan had in their press fleet...
Quote from: Raza on May 18, 2010, 08:26:34 AM
You know that thing that people say? "There are no stupid questions."
It's a big lie.
Admit it, you wouldn't track a V6 'Stang.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on May 18, 2010, 05:33:07 PM
I would.
No you wouldn't. No V6 'Stang would be able to follow in the footsteps of the mighty Swift.
Quote from: r0tor on May 18, 2010, 11:25:28 AM
just quoting so coug's can read it :lol:
:popcorn:
Nah - best to leave it be - he and his ilk know perfectly well that they got rightly called out for crapping on yet another thread..
Quote from: GoCougs on May 18, 2010, 07:19:56 PM
Nah - best to leave it be - he and his ilk know perfectly well that they got rightly called out for crapping on yet another thread..
:facepalm:
Have you driven the Camaro yet? How about the Mustang?
Quote from: the Teuton on May 18, 2010, 05:17:39 PM
Admit it, you wouldn't track a V6 'Stang.
I absolutely would.
Quote from: MX793 on May 14, 2010, 03:10:21 PM
The Mustang tested was equipped with a package that you cannot currently buy or even order (it is not on their configurator). The Performance Package is not currently available to consumers and will not be available for probably another 5 months. The Genesis was one I could walk into any Hyundai dealer TODAY and drive away in. The only Mustang I can walk into a dealership TODAY and purchase that is under $26K does not come with the wide, sticky tires or suspension and brake upgrades and without such equipment, does not outperform a V6 Genesis coupe (even the cheaper, non-Track Genesis coupe). Not only is it short on some essential performance hardware (like decent tires), it's painfully short on features and amenities and interior appointments.
And to equip a Mustang with comparable stuff as the $31K Genesis that MT tested, you'd have to fork over roughly $34K.
All of that aside, nothing said above in any way supports the claim that a <$26K Mustang is "well equipped", as performance does not determine what is or isn't "well equipped". Even Motortrend referred to their Mustang test car as "spartan" when it came to features/appointments/amenities.
MX793: Not everyone agrees with your touting of the Genesis as better equipped than a Mustang, as found within this roadtest of the Mustang V6 by www.TheTruthAboutCars.com:
Review: 2011 Ford Mustang V6
By Jack Baruth on March 29, 2010
Forget the Challenger V-6. It?s heavy, crippled by an antiquated transmission, and severely down on power. And forget the Camaro V-6; the car once championed as the musclecar for the smart set looks distinctly porky at nearly four hundred pounds above the Mustang?s curb weight of 3,459. Ford?s after bigger game, and while the Accord Coupe was mentioned early and often during the media briefing, I suspect the real target of this stalking horse is the Hyundai Genesis.
The Genesis has proven to be rather popular with young people who don?t much care for the eight-cylinder engine and its attendant social baggage. It?s the ponycar for the twenty-first century, as important to some people as the original Mustang was in 1964. Except, of course, for the fact that this new Mustang is superior in virtually every respect, from interior quality to high-speed handling.
Oh, yes. I would disappoint the fine readers of TTAC if I didn?t run out to America?s mean streets for a bit of the old ultraviolence, and I do not mean to disappoint. I aim to misbehave. And I certainly did, aided by a six-speed manual, a 7000-rpm redline, and a limited-slip differential.
The results were more than surprising. After forty-plus years of being a consolation prize, the six-cylinder Mustang has finally found its voice. No, it?s not a charming engine, at least not compared to the bellowing five-liter with which it will share showroom-floor space, but it revs with abandon and chirps the rear wheels in third gear. Triple digits are less than fourteen seconds away at any moment.
When it?s time to slow the car, I?d recommend using your time machine and going back in time to choose the Performance Pack, which adds the suspension and brake pads from last years?s Mustang GT Track Pack. No car at this price level ($22,995, since you asked) will have brakes that are truly good enough. If you want twenty fade-free laps of VIR, I?d suggest purchasing a Boxster 2.7. Just be careful when you see the Mustang behind you on the long back straight., because you won?t have the pull to hold it off.
Through the infamous canyon roads surrounding Los Angeles, I regularly stretched out my perception and ran this Civic-priced Mustang at a pace traditionally reserved for the likes of BMW?s 335i. It?s plenty fast, and the light nose makes it a subtle handler. Ford?s introduced EPAS this year in the Mustang, and while some of the wannabes in the press will no doubt criticize the feel at the wheel, there?s enough information to do fast work.
Through undulating high-speed sweepers, I identified the pony?s biggest problem: lack of rebound damping. It?s so damned fast, and the front end bites so well, that it?s possible to really unsettle the rear and send it skyward. It?s not the fault of the axle, because the five-liter doesn?t suffer from the same issue. Come to think of it, the Performance Package car, which I couldn?t drive under identical conditions, might not have the problem either. On the positive side, the car rides well enough.
To get the most from your Mustang, you will want to punch the option chads until you clear the $30,000 mark. Doing that will obtain such goodies as Bimmer-style brown leather seating, a full aluminum interior which would probably cost five grand in a 911, and Ford?s sublime SYNC system. Thirty Gs for a six-cylinder Mustang? It sounds crazy, but the Hyundai isn?t much cheaper, and a similarly equipped Camaro actually costs more.
This car is not everyone?s cup of tea, and it?s ridiculous to think that the emotional needs of Accord Coupe buyers can be met by a snorting pony. Still, for those willing to look beyond the stereotypes, the Mustang is rapid, economical, and amusing to drive. It?s worth a look for almost any $25,000 import intender out there. If your neighbors worry that you?ve become Joe Dirt, show ?em the EPA sticker and explain that you?ve become, ahem, Al Green.
Quote from: the Teuton on May 18, 2010, 05:17:39 PM
Admit it, you wouldn't track a V6 'Stang.
If I had to I would... if i had the choice and wanted a real track car I'd chose something that from the ground up was built to be a sportscar - like a used rx8, rx7, miata, 350z, 370z, S2000, vette, boxer, M3, ect ect
I'd track anything with an engine. I just wouldn't necessarily expect to run quicker than everyone depending on what it was. ;)
If your buying a track car why start with a car thats built off of a chassis that is in itself a compromise. The best handling cars out there (Miata,RX8, Lotus, Porsche, Vette, exotics) get to there because they start out with a chasis designed for that car and that applications. Everything else is a hogwash compromise that needs big ass sticky tires or an overly stiff suspension that does not lead to enjoyment on a track. Actually from my above list i'm subtracting the 350z, 370z, and the M3 is close to being dropped off as well.
Unless your in an actual racing class (in which case your driving and actual race car with a rollcage), your actual speed is pointless anyway because most track days for an average Joe are not timed, are not a positional race, and have passing zones that are restricted - so you might as well have a slower car with a better feel and a joy to drive hard rather then a monster fast car that chews up tires and provides no excitement in the steering wheel.
Quote from: r0tor on May 20, 2010, 07:27:02 AM
If your buying a track car why start with a car thats built off of a chassis that is in itself a compromise. The best handling cars out there (Miata,RX8, Lotus, Porsche, Vette, exotics) get to there because they start out with a chasis designed for that car and that applications. Everything else is a hogwash compromise that needs big ass sticky tires or an overly stiff suspension that does not lead to enjoyment on a track. Actually from my above list i'm subtracting the 350z, 370z, and the M3 is close to being dropped off as well.
Unless your in an actual racing class (in which case your driving and actual race car with a rollcage), your actual speed is pointless anyway because most track days for an average Joe are not timed, are not a positional race, and have passing zones that are restricted - so you might as well have a slower car with a better feel and a joy to drive hard rather then a monster fast car that chews up tires and provides no excitement in the steering wheel.
Because if I'm going to driving a car every day and only taking it the track a few times a year, I'm going to get the car that's the best DD. (Not necessarily saying that the Mustang is the best DD of those choices, but you get the point).
Quote from: r0tor on May 20, 2010, 06:48:31 AM
If I had to I would... if i had the choice and wanted a real track car I'd chose something that from the ground up was built to be a sportscar - like a used rx8, rx7, miata, 350z, 370z, S2000, vette, boxer, M3, ect ect
How is the M3 less compromised than the Mustang? The Mustang is a purpose-built GT where the M3 is rooted in a family sedan.
Quote from: Nethead on May 20, 2010, 06:41:24 AM
MX793: Not everyone agrees with your touting of the Genesis as better equipped than a Mustang, as found within this roadtest of the Mustang V6 by www.TheTruthAboutCars.com:
Review: 2011 Ford Mustang V6
By Jack Baruth on March 29, 2010
Forget the Challenger V-6. Its heavy, crippled by an antiquated transmission, and severely down on power. And forget the Camaro V-6; the car once championed as the musclecar for the smart set looks distinctly porky at nearly four hundred pounds above the Mustangs curb weight of 3,459. Fords after bigger game, and while the Accord Coupe was mentioned early and often during the media briefing, I suspect the real target of this stalking horse is the Hyundai Genesis.
The Genesis has proven to be rather popular with young people who dont much care for the eight-cylinder engine and its attendant social baggage. Its the ponycar for the twenty-first century, as important to some people as the original Mustang was in 1964. Except, of course, for the fact that this new Mustang is superior in virtually every respect, from interior quality to high-speed handling.
Ok I read the whole thing looking for ways the author mentioned that the Mustang is better than the Genesis. No such mention. As a matter of fact, he even admits that the Genesis is still cheaper.
Quote from: Nethead on May 20, 2010, 06:41:24 AM
MX793: Not everyone agrees with your touting of the Genesis as better equipped than a Mustang, as found within this roadtest of the Mustang V6 by www.TheTruthAboutCars.com:
In Premium trim, the Mustang's interior is nicer than the GenCoupe's. Assuming that the red one with the pony package pictured in the second photo down in the article was the exact car sampled, then their test car was a Premium trim model. But you'll pay more to get comparable equipment and the article says as much ("...the Hyundai isn't much cheaper"..., meaning the Mustang is more expensive). To get comparable equipment to a 25.8K GenCoupe V6, you're looking at roughly $28.1K for a Mustang. To match a 29.3K GenCoupe 3.8GT, you'll have to fork over $32K for a Mustang. And to match a $31K GenCoupe Track, $34K for the Mustang (when the Track Pack actually becomes available). Although I can't vouch for the handling of the base V6 suspension in the Mustang. The GenCoupe's non-track suspension is still very firm. Firm enough that I actually wouldn't want the stiffer track suspension on the rough roads around here. If the Mustang's base suspension isn't up to snuff with the base Genesis and the track suspension is a must, add $2K to the first two Mustang prices quoted.
Quote from: Raza on May 21, 2010, 11:43:15 AM
How is the M3 less compromised than the Mustang? The Mustang is a purpose-built GT where the M3 is rooted in a family sedan.
i retracted in the next p0st... although its close because it is a great chassis
My regular ole 328i feels like more of a sports car than the last Mustang I drove. Just saying. (It was a ~2007 model, however. Haven't driven a 2011 yet)
Quote from: Vinsanity on May 21, 2010, 12:17:52 PM
Ok I read the whole thing looking for ways the author mentioned that the Mustang is better than the Genesis. No such mention. As a matter of fact, he even admits that the Genesis is still cheaper.
Vinsanity: Yo! You went to the trouble to "Quote" the article I posted, but seem to have
missed the following statement multiple times:
"Except, of course, for the fact that this new Mustang is superior (to the Genesis) in virtually every respect, from interior quality to high-speed handling." Now, the Nethead here admits the author didn't actually say "better" but in the English language "superior" is an acceptable synonym for "better" and actually connotes a broader scale of "better".
And this was the $22,995 base Mustang ("No car at this price level ($22,995, since you asked) will have brakes that are truly good enough.")
without the Premium trim,
without the Performance Pack,
without the summer tires, etc. The author recommends those options, quite understandably, but the V6 Mustang he tested didn't have any of 'em.
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 23, 2010, 07:15:44 PM
My regular ole 328i feels like more of a sports car than the last Mustang I drove. Just saying. (It was a ~2007 model, however. Haven't driven a 2011 yet)
I agrees
Quote from: Nethead on May 24, 2010, 08:39:40 AM
Vinsanity: Yo! You went to the trouble to "Quote" the article I posted, but seem to have
missed the following statement multiple times:
"Except, of course, for the fact that this new Mustang is superior (to the Genesis) in virtually every respect, from interior quality to high-speed handling." Now, the Nethead here admits the author didn't actually say "better" but in the English language "superior" is an acceptable synonym for "better" and actually connotes a broader scale of "better".
For such a grabbing statement, I would have expected more detailed comparisons in the paragraphs to follow. But nothing. And I have to admit my skepticism that a stripper Mustang without the Premium trim has better interior quality than the Genesis.
Quote from: Nethead on May 24, 2010, 08:39:40 AM
And this was the $22,995 base Mustang ("No car at this price level ($22,995, since you asked) will have brakes that are truly good enough.") without the Premium trim, without the Performance Pack, without the summer tires, etc. The author recommends those options, quite understandably, but the V6 Mustang he tested didn't have any of 'em.
That's incorrect. The driver sampled both Track Pack and non-Track Pack versions, and the car pictured (well, most of the pictures are actually of a GT with the CS package) is of a V6 w/ Pony Package, which is only available on the Premium trim model.
Quote from: Vinsanity on May 24, 2010, 09:50:00 AM
For such a grabbing statement, I would have expected more detailed comparisons in the paragraphs to follow. But nothing. And I have to admit my skepticism that a stripper Mustang without the Premium trim has better interior quality than the Genesis.
Quality, in terms of panel gaps and some of the plastics (like the Olefin dash) might be as good or better, but the appointments are certainly a step below the Genesis. The base Genesis V6 has aluminum sill plates, metal door pulls, leather surfaces on the wheel and shifter, leather seats and leather inserts in the door panels. The base Mustang has plastic door pulls, plastic rhino-skin textured wheel and shifter, cloth seats, and plastic door inserts.
I'm fine with cloth seats (in fact, I often prefer them), but it's the little stuff like the plastic door inserts, plastic steering wheel and shift knob, and the door pulls that really stands out as "cheap". Look at the door on a base Mustang and every surface is black (or gray) plastic. They could have at least put cloth inserts in the doors (like on the 4-banger Genesis with cloth seats, as well as most other cars these days) and slapped some leather on the wheel and shifter. Maybe a metal door pull handle. It wouldn't have cost much and would have made the base car's interior much more palatable.
that would annoy the shit out of me not at least having a leather wheel and shifter...
Quote from: r0tor on May 24, 2010, 04:21:50 PM
that would annoy the shit out of me not at least having a leather wheel and shifter...
Must have leather. Always.
Even my Accord has a leather shifter and leather steering wheel cover (pseudo-aftermarket though).
Quote from: Nethead on May 14, 2010, 02:09:54 PM
MX793: And perhaps you and I have both missed each other's point(s). Motor Trend just ran a 4-way comparo of the 6-cylinder Camaro, Challenger, Mustang, and Genesis.
They ranked the Genesis number one and the Mustang number two, with the Mustang winning every performance category handily as well as bang-for-the-buck except for the figure-eight: the Genesis completed the figure-eight in 25.4 secs averaging .71 G and the Mustang completed the figure-eight in 25.8 secs averaging .71 G.
The base price of the Genesis was $25750 and $31470 as tested. The base price of the Mustang was $22995 and $25385 as tested (still over $300 less than the base Genesis and a little over $6000 less than the Genesis as tested).
The Mustang won all acceleration tests to every speed above 30 MPH, even with the 3.31:1 rear gears compared to the Genesissies 3.54:1 (final drive ratios were 2.32:1 and 2.81:1 respectively). This includes Passing (45 MPH to 65 MPH) at 2.7 secs to 3.1 secs. The Mustang was the only vehicle to get through the quarter-mile in under fourteen seconds (13.7) and the only vehicle to exceed 100 MPH (102.0) in the quarter-mile
The Mustang won the braking test from 60 MPH at 104 ft to 111 ft.
The Mustang won the lateral acceleration test averaging .96 G to .94g.
The Mustang could maintain 60 MPH at 1800 RPM, the Genesis needed 2200 RPM (those drive ratios show up here)
EPA MPG is 19/29 for the Mustang and 17/26 for the Genesis, and MT got a real world 16.2 MPG out of the Mustang in this series of drives and tests and MT got a real world 15.5 out of the Genesis. The Mustang emits .86 lbs of CO2 per mile and the Genesis emits .96 pounds per mile. Both were tested using unleaded regular.
You can see clearly where Ford has spent the bucks--although not that many of 'em since at a mere $25385 it was the only one of the four that was under $30000 as tested. That leaves a lot of bread on the table for those amenities you are so adamant about.
This is bang-for-the-buck. The cars tested were what they were: If the Genesis had been the $25750 base Genesis--much closer to the Mustang's $25385 as tested price--would the Genesis have finished first? I dunno. :huh:
Or if the Mustang had been optioned comparably up to the Genesissies $31470 as tested price, would the Mustang have finished first? 'Still dunno. :huh:
What I do know is that this ain't apples-to-apples--the Mustang's price is one hundred percent affordable performance--the sub-$26000 Mustang outperformed handily every $30000 car in the comparo. The Genesissies price is about a different set of goals, and its first place finish shows how well it met those goals! The Mustang hit its goals on the head and the Genesis hit its goals on the head. Two winners, actually--like determining which is the best apple and which is the best orange in the bowl of fruit. They're the two best, but not at the same things...
The Nethead here posted the above upstream in this thread. If your leather door inserts, leather-covered steering wheels, and leather-covered shift knobs provide you with the warm fuzzies after some chick in a V6 2011 Mustang just handed your Genesissy its ass, that's a good thing--as omniscient BlowCougs pointed out, there are shitloads of secretaries preparing to hand your Genesissy its ass 24/7. Get used to it...
Personally, I haven't seen leather coverings add much performance to the cars which have 'em, but maybe I'm missing out. In my DD Bronco, which still has it's steel steering wheel from the Johnson Administration, I wrapped the steering wheel with the tape the WifeDude had around for her tennis rackets--I prefer baseball bat tape, but it was what we had on hand at the time and it has been sufficiently grippy to never motivate me to re-wrap the wheel with bat tape. 'Cleans up well with Armor All, too, although liquid dish detergent removes the mud 'n' sweat well enough. The shift knob is walnut, which came standard with the aftermarket floorshift conversion. The interiors of the two doors and the tailgate have paint-over-sheetmetal--to match the paint-over-sheetmetal dashboard--and wear better in all weather than any upholstery could ever manage to do. Especially when you have the top off and it's raining eels and catfish. I gotta invent paint-over-sheetmetal sun visors, a glaring omission in an otherwise Desert Storm interior. A planned mod is to re-paint the interior with bedliner, although I admit that the forty-four-year-old interior paint looks to be good for another forty-four so this is a low-priority project...
I'm smirking from afar at the effort of what I presume to be the pimping up of the Mustang's interior...
No one EVER bought a Mustang based upon interior appointments.
I have to have a leather steering wheel and a leather shift knob. Other then that, I could take or leave leather seats in a sporty car. My SVTF has leather bolsters and fabric inserts.
Quote from: Nethead on May 25, 2010, 09:28:13 AM
The Nethead here posted the above upstream in this thread. If your leather door inserts, leather-covered steering wheels, and leather-covered shift knobs provide you with the warm fuzzies after some chick in a V6 2011 Mustang just handed your Genesissy its ass, that's a good thing--as omniscient BlowCougs pointed out, there are shitloads of secretaries preparing to hand your Genesissy its ass 24/7. Get used to it...
Personally, I haven't seen leather coverings add much performance to the cars which have 'em, but maybe I'm missing out. In my DD Bronco, which still has it's steel steering wheel from the Johnson Administration, I wrapped the steering wheel with the tape the WifeDude had around for her tennis rackets--I prefer baseball bat tape, but it was what we had on hand at the time and it has been sufficiently grippy to never motivate me to re-wrap the wheel with bat tape. 'Cleans up well with Armor All, too, although liquid dish detergent removes the mud 'n' sweat well enough. The steering knob is walnut, which came standard with the aftermarket floorshift conversion. The interiors of the two doors and the tailgate have paint-over-sheetmetal--to match the paint-over-sheetmetal dashboard--and wear better in all weather than any upholstery could ever manage to do. Especially when you have the top off and it's raining eels and catfish. I gotta invent paint-over-sheetmetal sun visors, a glaring omission in an otherwise Desert Storm interior. A planned mod is to re-paint the interior with bedliner, although I admit that the forty-four-year-old interior paint looks to be good for another forty-four so this is a low-priority project...
Why compromise that? It's a simple fix for a new Mustang to come with leather, Ford is just being cheap.
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 25, 2010, 01:09:34 PM
Why compromise that? It's a simple fix for a new Mustang to come with leather, Ford is just being cheap.
Raison ne vit pas ici.
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 25, 2010, 01:09:34 PM
Why compromise that? It's a simple fix for a new Mustang to come with leather, Ford is just being cheap.
It's a shitload cheaper to get a leather steering wheel cover, a leather shift knob cover, and leather door inserts for a V6 Mustang--from Ford or from dozens of aftermarket suppliers--than it would be to get a Genesissy to turn 13.7s at 102+, generate .96 G, and get 31 MPG. Ditto for the Camaro V6 and the Challenger V6--neither of these three could do it, even at over $30,000.
Besides, there's no pleasin' everyone--consider the choices available in custom knobs, custom inserts, and custom steering wheels. Why should you have to pay for the leather when you're gonna replace the door inserts, the instruments surround, and the console insert with carbon fiber units with your next paycheck? Or stainless or brushed aluminum or engine-turned aluminum, or whatever? If you want leather, Ford will sell you leather--doubtless some option box you check off on the order form. Whatsamatter wi' dat?
Forcing others to have to pay for leather trim to suit your tastes shows just how deeply Socialism has insinuated itself into the basic fabric of our society--or at least into the basic automotive interior trim of our society--right, BlowCougs? :lol: First, they force you to pay for leather interior trim, and then they slip a pod under your bed while you're up late writing your Congressman to complain about cow leather being used instead of horsehide on your Mustang. Socialists are so cruel :popcorn:
It's a V6 Mustang. It would be a better business decision to upgrade the interior than make it faster. V6 buyers are much less likely to base their decision on performance than interior quality.
Quote from: Nethead on May 25, 2010, 02:10:57 PM
It's a shitload cheaper to get a leather steering wheel cover, a leather shift knob cover, and leather door inserts for a V6 Mustang--from Ford or from dozens of aftermarket suppliers--than it would be to get a Genesissy to turn 13.7s at 102+, generate .96 G, and get 31 MPG. Ditto for the Camaro V6 and the Challenger V6--neither of these three could do it, even at over $30,000.
The Mustang that performs like that isn't getting 31 mpg. 31 mpg is with the automatic with the tall rearend and high efficiency tires. With a manual (and tall rearend gear), that drops to 29 mpg. Short rearend gear will no doubt drop that further. So will the wider, sticky tires. The Genesis also supposedly gets 10 more HP when you fill it with premium instead of the recommended regular unleaded. Not sure if any of the tests have tried that.
QuoteBesides, there's no pleasin' everyone--consider the choices available in custom knobs, custom inserts, and custom steering wheels. Why should you have to pay for the leather when you're gonna replace the door inserts, the instruments surround, and the console insert with carbon fiber units with your next paycheck? Or stainless or brushed aluminum or engine-turned aluminum, or whatever?
Or Ford could have just fitted the car with some of that stuff from the get go and done so for less (a lot less considering the quantity scale factor) than it would cost an owner to replace all of those bits. It likely would have been cheaper for them to equip all Mustangs with the same steering wheel than to have two totally different wheels depending on trim level. Of course, since the base stereo doesn't support steering wheel controls and thus they'd be forced to use two different wheels, perhaps that's why the base wheel is so cheaply done in all plastic.
QuoteIf you want leather, Ford will sell you leather--doubtless some option box you check off on the order form. Whatsamatter wi' dat?
Yeah, Ford will sell you leather... if you check the "premium trim" option box which jacks the price another $3000. That was another mistake, IMO. You used to be able to get leather seats as a stand-alone option on base Mustangs (as well as the Shaker 500 stereo). In fact, many of the '05-'09 Mustangs I see in the local used listings are base GTs with leather and/or the Shaker 500 stereo upgrade. Ford doesn't offer that anymore. If you want leather or the better stereo, you have to get the Premium trim.
QuoteForcing others to have to pay for leather trim to suit your tastes shows just how deeply Socialism has insinuated itself into the basic fabric of our society--or at least into the basic automotive interior trim of our society--right, BlowCougs? :lol: First, they force you to pay for leather interior trim, and then they slip a pod under your bed while you're up late writing your Congressman to complain about cow leather being used instead of horsehide on your Mustang. Socialists are so cruel :popcorn:
It would likely add all of $5-$10 to add leather to the steering wheel rim and another $5-$10 for the shifter. Cloth instead of cheap plastic door inserts also would have been of minimal cost. Impressions count for a lot, and simple, cheap stuff like that can really change people's impression from "Plastic door inserts?! My 1991 base model Cavalier even had cloth in the doors! Just how cheap is this thing?" to "Well it's a little light on creature comforts but there was at least some attention to detail."
Quote from: MX793 on May 25, 2010, 05:18:13 PM
It would likely add all of $5-$10 to add leather to the steering wheel rim and another $5-$10 for the shifter. Cloth instead of cheap plastic door inserts also would have been of minimal cost. Impressions count for a lot, and simple, cheap stuff like that can really change people's impression from "Plastic door inserts?!
true dat
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 25, 2010, 02:50:30 PM
It's a V6 Mustang. It would be a better business decision to upgrade the interior than make it faster. V6 buyers are much less likely to base their decision on performance than interior quality.
hotrodalex: Exceptionally good points, well-made by the hotrodDude!
The short view is that you are totally correct--"typical" V6 buyers
ARE much less likely to base their decision on performance than on interior quality. Note the lame performance of the Camaro V6 and the even lamer Challenger V6--clearly aimed at their vision of what comprises the "typical" V6 buyer. The Mustang and the Genesis are out to change that view of the V6 buyer, although certainly that change will not transform all of the V6 buyers (for those folks, there's still the serene mediocrity of the Camaro and the Challenger).
The longer view is that the 2011 Mustang V6 will become the Plymouth Roadrunner of the ponycar market--musclecar performance (under 14 secs at over 100 MPH in the 1320--plus 104' from 60 MPH and .96 G that none of the classic musclecars could hope to approach--and that little six gets to 60 MPH just as fast as a 376 HP Hemi Challenger R/T and is only behind that Hemi by one-tenth of a second in the 1320) without the glitz (GM always used their most expensively-trimmed intermediates for their musclecars until the Roadrunner created a mild sensation in 1968--forcing GM to scramble to bring out a de-contented GTO Judge as a too little too late response). Again I point out that the flabby Camaro V6, the porcine Challenger V6, and the quirky Genesis V6 offered significantly less performance than the Mustang V6 yet each cost over $30,000--making the superb 2011 5.0L Mustang GT an easy reach at $31,745.
And you can always add leather trim and a glass roof (unless you ordered a convertible) and STYNC and nav and all the fluff that sucks the pus out of scabs when you put the hammer down.
OTOH, Ford asks for product improvement suggestions on a website they set up for this (just try finding "Leather steering wheel cover" among the pages and pages of "Put the EcoBoost V6 in the Mustang" responses--one of which was mine, admittedly). After all, the Nethead here is outvoted by r0tor, MX793, hotrodalex, HemiDude, BimmerM3--and that's just on this page of this thread! But it's pointless to beat on the Nethead here--make your opinions actually count on that website! Much, much more effective is to buy a 2011 Mustang and check off the box for leather interior upgrades--everyone listens to cash.
MX793: "My 1991 base model Cavalier even had cloth in the doors!" That is the most degrading thing I've ever heard anyone do just to get a set of cloth door inserts. And the Nethead here thought the fool who boarded an airliner with explosives in his crotch was depraved :facepalm: Sad, sad, sad...
Moving right along, my point is made that you can get leather in a V6 Mustang if you want it. It comes at a premium price (That's likely why the call it the Premium package, huh?), but leather is available straight from the factory already installed, as we all knew all along.
Now, if you feel it's justified to increase the Mustang's base price to cover some leather trim accessories, let Ford know :rage:. If enough people feel the same way :rage: :rage: :rage:, it might happen. The Nethead here ain't the person to take it up with since my Bronco has no interior trim at all other than paint. Read this quote from my posting earlier this morning:
"OTOH, Ford asks for product improvement suggestions on a website they set up for this (just try finding "Leather steering wheel cover" among the pages and pages of "Put the EcoBoost V6 in the Mustang" responses--one of which was mine, admittedly). After all, the Nethead here is outvoted by r0tor, MX793, hotrodalex, HemiDude, BimmerM3--and that's just on this page of this thread! But it's pointless to beat on the Nethead here--make your opinions actually count on that website! Much, much more effective is to buy a 2011 Mustang and check off the box for leather interior upgrades--everyone listens to cash."
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 25, 2010, 02:50:30 PM
It's a V6 Mustang. It would be a better business decision to upgrade the interior than make it faster. V6 buyers are much less likely to base their decision on performance than interior quality.
Ford could outfit it with the 100 hp pushrod 2.9L V6 of the '80s and cover the interior in vinyl and sales would be affected little.
Quote from: Nethead on May 14, 2010, 02:09:54 PM
MX793: And perhaps you and I have both missed each other's point(s). Motor Trend just ran a 4-way comparo of the 6-cylinder Camaro, Challenger, Mustang, and Genesis.
They ranked the Genesis number one and the Mustang number two, with the Mustang winning every performance category handily as well as bang-for-the-buck except for the figure-eight: the Genesis completed the figure-eight in 25.4 secs averaging .71 G and the Mustang completed the figure-eight in 25.8 secs averaging .71 G.
The base price of the Genesis was $25750 and $31470 as tested. The base price of the Mustang was $22995 and $25385 as tested (still over $300 less than the base Genesis and a little over $6000 less than the Genesis as tested).
The Mustang won all acceleration tests to every speed above 30 MPH, even with the 3.31:1 rear gears compared to the Genesissies 3.54:1 (final drive ratios were 2.32:1 and 2.81:1 respectively). This includes Passing (45 MPH to 65 MPH) at 2.7 secs to 3.1 secs. The Mustang was the only vehicle to get through the quarter-mile in under fourteen seconds (13.7) and the only vehicle to exceed 100 MPH (102.0) in the quarter-mile
The Mustang won the braking test from 60 MPH at 104 ft to 111 ft.
The Mustang won the lateral acceleration test averaging .96 G to .94g.
The Mustang could maintain 60 MPH at 1800 RPM, the Genesis needed 2200 RPM (those drive ratios show up here)
EPA MPG is 19/29 for the Mustang and 17/26 for the Genesis, and MT got a real world 16.2 MPG out of the Mustang in this series of drives and tests and MT got a real world 15.5 out of the Genesis. The Mustang emits .86 lbs of CO2 per mile and the Genesis emits .96 pounds per mile. Both were tested using unleaded regular.
You can see clearly where Ford has spent the bucks--although not that many of 'em since at a mere $25385 it was the only one of the four that was under $30000 as tested. That leaves a lot of bread on the table for those amenities you are so adamant about.
This is bang-for-the-buck. The cars tested were what they were: If the Genesis had been the $25750 base Genesis--much closer to the Mustang's $25385 as tested price--would the Genesis have finished first? I dunno. :huh:
Or if the Mustang had been optioned comparably up to the Genesissies $31470 as tested price, would the Mustang have finished first? 'Still dunno. :huh:
What I do know is that this ain't apples-to-apples--the Mustang's price is one hundred percent affordable performance--the sub-$26000 Mustang outperformed handily every $30000 car in the comparo. The Genesissies price is about a different set of goals, and its first place finish shows how well it met those goals! The Mustang hit its goals on the head and the Genesis hit its goals on the head. Two winners, actually--like determining which is the best apple and which is the best orange in the bowl of fruit. They're the two best, but not at the same things...
I picked up a copy of Motor Trend in a waiting room the other day and saw this written in an editorial and it seemed very appropriate:
Quote"Lap times only matter if you're feeding your family with your racing"
and, in the same article:
Quote...You're putting food on the dinner table with your race winnings? Of course you want the machine that will get you to the checkered flag first. Period. But if you're going to live with a car, interact with it, take pleasure in how it responds to your inputs, delight in the sounds of its breathing, drink in its curves and contours, spend the time to appreciate more subtle qualities like smoothness and refinement and breeding...well, the numbers won't tell you a damn thing.
That's what the fanboys will never understand. For them, specs are an absolute. Black and white. Everything. My number beats your number. I win. What an awful way to evaluate a machine as complex, as multifaceted...as soulful...as an automobile.
Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/features/editorial/1006_the_asphalt_jungle_wrong_numbers/index.html#ixzz0pRggR6kB
There is alot of truth in the "Lap times only matter if you're feeding your family with your racing"...
I think it was someone in Autoweek that did a similar editorial bitching about how all the top sportcars were becomming too focused on N-Ring times and not focused enough on actual driver pleasure. Putting super wide super sticky rubber on a car will do wonders for lap times, however it absolutely kills steering feel, makes it completely dangerous to explore the cars limits on a street, and once you hit those limits the handling is similar to racing slicks that tend to not give you any warning when they are about to loose grip.
MX793: 'Sorry I'm so tardy with this response, but we opened another overseas branch so I've been busier than a Camaro repair technician in a power outage.
Your statement "The Mustang that performs like that isn't getting 31 mpg. 31 mpg is with the automatic with the tall rearend and high efficiency tires. With a manual (and tall rearend gear), that drops to 29 mpg. Short rearend gear will no doubt drop that further. So will the wider, sticky tires. The Genesis also supposedly gets 10 more HP when you fill it with premium instead of the recommended regular unleaded. Not sure if any of the tests have tried that.", while technically true, ignores the fact that the tested V6 Mustang still got better mileage than the tested Genesissy in their strip/track hell-raising and general public highway driving (16.2 MPG vs. 15.5 MPG).
Of the two, you actually can get a V6 Mustang that gets 31 MPG--but you can't get a V6 Genesissy that gets 31. V6 Mustangs so equipped ain't everybody's choice, but the customers do have that choice. Some individual V6 Genesissies out there might indeed manage to get 31 MPG, but there are likely just as many V6 Mustangs out there that manage to get 34 MPG (or even 48.5 MPG!).
All four V6 cars were tested using unleaded regular. If using premium in the V6 Genesissy would improve some aspects of the performance of the V6 Genesissy, then using premium in the V6 Mustang would improve the same aspects of the performance of the lighter V6 Mustang just as much, with no changes in the relative outcomes of the testing.
Quote from: Nethead on June 17, 2010, 09:04:58 AM
If using premium in the V6 Genesissy would improve some aspects of the performance of the V6 Genesissy, then using premium in the V6 Mustang would improve the same aspects of the performance of the lighter V6 Mustang just as much, with no changes in the relative outcomes of the testing.
Not true. Not all motors gain horsepower with higher octanes. Some, in fact, lose horsepower. C&D did some dyno tests a few years ago on a number of vehicles to see if octane had any effect. Some cars that called for regular ran better on premium. At least one car that called for regular ran worse on premium. Some vehicles that called for premium ran worse on regular. Some vehicles saw no difference whatsoever between the two octane levels. It's a function of the engine management. The Genesis is tuned to run on regular, but it's (supposedly) not optimized for regular unleaded which is why (supposedly) it gets a boost from using higher octane. The Mustang is also tuned for regular, but it is unknown how it reacts to higher octanes. I've yet to hear mention that the Mustang's engine management is set up to get more power from higher octanes.
Quote from: MX793 on June 17, 2010, 03:46:30 PM
Not true. Not all motors gain horsepower with higher octanes. Some, in fact, lose horsepower. C&D did some dyno tests a few years ago on a number of vehicles to see if octane had any effect. Some cars that called for regular ran better on premium. At least one car that called for regular ran worse on premium. Some vehicles that called for premium ran worse on regular. Some vehicles saw no difference whatsoever between the two octane levels. It's a function of the engine management. The Genesis is tuned to run on regular, but it's (supposedly) not optimized for regular unleaded which is why (supposedly) it gets a boost from using higher octane. The Mustang is also tuned for regular, but it is unknown how it reacts to higher octanes. I've yet to hear mention that the Mustang's engine management is set up to get more power from higher octanes.
Higher octane fuels ignite at a higher temperature. That is why you need to use high octane in boosted vehicles and high compression motors. To take advantage of the higher octane a motor has to be able to sense the difference in fuel and advance the engine timing. This is usually done with knock sensors which are common on today's cars. If you put higher octane fuel in a car that is not programmed to handle it you just end up sending more raw fuel out of the exhaust ports which gives you lower gas mileage and worse emissions.
It is really kind of funny that higher octane fuels have always been sold as "premium" which encourages people to often put the wrong grade of fuel in their vehicles which does nothing for their car and only serves to line the pockets of the gasoline industry.
I am sure that you understand that but I know many people that fill their cars with "premium" to give their car a "treat."
Quote from: RomanChariot on June 17, 2010, 04:47:13 PM
Higher octane fuels ignite at a higher temperature. That is why you need to use high octane in boosted vehicles and high compression motors. To take advantage of the higher octane a motor has to be able to sense the difference in fuel and advance the engine timing. This is usually done with knock sensors which are common on today's cars. If you put higher octane fuel in a car that is not programmed to handle it you just end up sending more raw fuel out of the exhaust ports which gives you lower gas mileage and worse emissions.
It is really kind of funny that higher octane fuels have always been sold as "premium" which encourages people to often put the wrong grade of fuel in their vehicles which does nothing for their car and only serves to line the pockets of the gasoline industry.
I am sure that you understand that but I know many people that fill their cars with "premium" to give their car a "treat."
Yup, and I've told them flat out that they're stupid.
Quote from: r0tor on June 01, 2010, 08:50:50 AM
There is alot of truth in the "Lap times only matter if you're feeding your family with your racing"...
I think it was someone in Autoweek that did a similar editorial bitching about how all the top sportcars were becomming too focused on N-Ring times and not focused enough on actual driver pleasure. Putting super wide super sticky rubber on a car will do wonders for lap times, however it absolutely kills steering feel, makes it completely dangerous to explore the cars limits on a street, and once you hit those limits the handling is similar to racing slicks that tend to not give you any warning when they are about to loose grip.
:popcorn:
I think this warrants its own thread
Quote from: RomanChariot on June 17, 2010, 04:47:13 PM
I am sure that you understand that but I know many people that fill their cars with "premium" to give their car a "treat."
They probably think it's better quality, not just a higher octane. :facepalm:
Quote from: MX793 on June 17, 2010, 03:46:30 PM
The Mustang is also tuned for regular, but it is unknown how it reacts to higher octanes. I've yet to hear mention that the Mustang's engine management is set up to get more power from higher octanes.
Both the 3.7 V6 and 5.0 are adaptive from 87 to 91 octane, changing spark advance etc. If I remember the article I do not think it goes beyond 91 so 93 would be useless.
My impressions of the new V6 copied from the "Driven Today" thread in general automotive
QuoteJust took a short spin in a 2011 V6 Mustang.
This was a base model. The interior was well put together and the plastics seemed of high quality, there was just way too much plastic. Would it have killed them to put a few little pieces inside that weren't black plastic?
The cloth seats are pretty comfortable and attractive (thank you, Ford, for getting rid of the cheesy "pony pattern" upholstery). Seating position was a little strange to me. The seat was a little higher than I'd like and there was no height adjust (only fore-aft and seatback angle were adjustable). However, the pedals were placed pretty well relative to the seat. Brake pedal was a little further from the throttle than I'd like so I had difficulty performing heel-n-toe downshifts (in fact, I was not able to pull off a heel-n-toe in my short drive, but I only made one or two attempts). The (all plastic) steering wheel has only tilt control. Visibility was good. The GenCoupe and RX-8 are both a bit better in this regard, but it's still lightyears better than the Camaro. The rear headrests ate up more of the rear view than I'd like and I think I'd either fold them down or remove them. I wish the door arm rest was a little higher, I couldn't comfortably rest my left arm on the armrest while still holding the wheel at 9 o'clock.
The shifter was very good. Far better than I ever expected. Throws were very short and crisp and the pattern was very compact. Almost reminiscent of the RX-8 I drove last fall. The clutch throw was average and effort was neither too light nor too heavy. Lighter than Genesis coupe, perhaps a smidge heavier than the RX-8. The friction point was predictable and controllable, not nearly the on-off lightswitch of the Genesis. Unfortunately, this car had the standard rearend gear, which is absurdly tall (2.73) and kind of spoiled the experience. The short throws let you shift this car very fast, but if you want to be smooth, you have to pause for a near eternity before letting the clutch out or the car will lurch. How tall is the gearing? You can do about 50 mph in 1st (based on the math, I didn't actually try it). At 35 mph in 3rd, it was turning 1500-1600 rpm (which is about what my car does in 5th). At 65-70 in top gear, you're chugging along at only 1500 rpm (gee, I wonder how they got those great fuel mileage ratings...). I actually stalled it 3 times in rapid succession at one light early in the drive because the gearing was so much taller than I'm used to. Merging onto the highway, I stomped on it in 2nd at ~35 mph and it hit 60 at around 5000 RPM, well short of peak power (and redline) and the thrust wasn't that impressive for a 300+ hp car as a result. The GenCoupe felt much much stronger thanks to significantly shorter rearend gearing (and would have eaten this particular car alive in a drag race). Unless you're super conscious of fuel mileage, the optional 3.31 gears are a must.
The engine was smooth and had a healthy torque band based on what I experienced. Even when it was only turning 1200 rpm, it never felt like it was being lugged (even on uphills). The engine note is kind of muted, even at WOT. It's not as aggressive or vocal as the GenCoupe's mill, but it didn't sound bad. Some louder pipes would be nice. Due to the tall gearing it was hard to even get this car into the more vocal range of its power band without breaking the speed limit (unless you just want to drive around in 1st gear all the time).
The ride was comfortable but still fairly firm. Probably comparable to the sportier end of the mainstream car segment (think 1st gen Mazda6) More compliant than the GenCoupe, which bordered on harsh on pock-marked roads. I'm sure the fairly tall tire sidewalls helped here (225/60R17). I didn't really get to toss it into the corners hard enough to get a sense of what it does when pushed. Based on darting around city streets, it didn't feel like the most flickable or agile car on the planet. But then, the GenCoupe gave me a similar impression, though I think the steering ratio was a bit faster than the Mustang's. The new EPAS electric power steering surprised me. It was kind of numb (especially at low speeds), which I expected, but it was consistent and precise. Much better than the EPS system in the Cobalt loaner I had earlier this year which was kind of "lumpy" and inconsistent.
Overall, I was impressed. Given the nicer interior of the Premium model and the shorter rearend gear, I think this car would be a serious contender as my next car. I'd rate the driving experience about on par with the Genesis Coupe V6, but behind the RX-8. Compared to the GenCoupe, this car had a much better clutch and shifter, better ride (although it probably doesn't handle quite as well), and more cargo room. With the premium package (which is how I'd spec the car), the Mustang's interior is also, IMO, a bit better. The Genesis has better seats, better visibility, better sound (from the cabin) and is a fair bit cheaper for the same equipment.
Quote from: SVT32V on June 18, 2010, 10:42:57 AM
Both the 3.7 V6 and 5.0 are adaptive from 87 to 91 octane, changing spark advance etc. If I remember the article I do not think it goes beyond 91 so 93 would be useless.
SVT32V & MX793: I've read this, too. There are pics of a disassembled TiVCT 5.0L V8 that shows where the two knock sensors are attached in the "V" of the engine block. They do work--one article finding that sequential quarter-mile times were reduced on each successive run as the ECU fine-tuned its settings based upon feedback from these and other sensors that determined the exact octane of the fuel mix (doubtless some regular and some premium, varying a bit at each fill-up as the relative percentages change) in the tank. The ECU advances the spark until knock is detected and then backs off a little, thereby getting the most out of whatever brew is in the tank. TiVCT--don't leave home without it...
Quote from: hotrodalex on June 18, 2010, 09:34:50 AM
They probably think it's better quality, not just a higher octane. :facepalm:
The gasoline manufacturers have long promoted high octane fuels as being a better quality product, what else would consumers think? I remember many commercials touting that the premium grade had special cleaning additives. They need to justify the extra $.10-$.20 per gallon. Nobody is going to buy the stuff if you tell them that most cars don't need it and it could actually cause your car to be less efficient if it is not designed to handle "premium" fuel.
Quote from: RomanChariot on June 21, 2010, 10:03:57 AM
The gasoline manufacturers have long promoted high octane fuels as being a better quality product, what else would consumers think? I remember many commercials touting that the premium grade had special cleaning additives. They need to justify the extra $.10-$.20 per gallon. Nobody is going to buy the stuff if you tell them that most cars don't need it and it could actually cause your car to be less efficient if it is not designed to handle "premium" fuel.
RomanChariot: 'Remember "Super Shell with Platformate"?
A thousand laps at Bristol in a stock 2011 V6 Mustang. 'Probably could get a few more laps if the fuel pick-up is on the right side of the tank, huh :lol:??
Four engineers and a good ol' boy doin' the driving--'Seems like there were supposed to be some celebrity drivers involved, too, but I guess they couldn't find four that were able to post bail or get a hardship release from detox...
MUSTANG V-6 PREP IN FINAL STAGES FOR 1000-LAP CHALLENGE
6/21/2010
Dearborn, Mich. ? Ford Mustang has always been fast, fun, and affordable. But on Wednesday a team of four Ford Mustang engineers, along with NASCAR driver David Ragan, will showcase the 2011 Mustang V-6?s class-leading fuel economy when they attempt to drive more than 1,000 laps, or 533 miles, at Bristol Motor Speedway on a single tank of fuel.
?We all know how much fun it is to drive Mustang, but in today?s market customers also care about fuel economy,? said Jamie Allison, director, Ford North America Motorsports. ?By going at least 1,000 laps on one of NASCAR?s most popular tracks, we expect to show that when it comes to Mustang, you can have both performance and fuel economy.?
The Mustang 1,000-Lap Challenge will cap a four-month, online sweepstakes designed to highlight the Mustang V-6?s blend of power and fuel efficiency that enabled engineers to reach 305 horsepower and 31 miles per gallon with the new 3.7-liter V-6 engine.
As the 2011 Mustang V-6 prepares to make history, fans can still get in on the action by registering their guess for the total number of complete laps that Mustang will complete during the Challenge.
Consumers have until 10 a.m., Wednesday to submit their completed laps guess to www.Mustang1000LapChallenge.com One lucky fan randomly selected from all those who correctly guess the number of laps completed during the Challenge will take home a 2011 Mustang V-6 coupe.
The Challenge will begin early Wednesday morning with a team of four Ford Mustang engineers continuously circling the track billed as ?the world?s fastest half-mile? until the vehicle runs out of fuel. Ragan, driver of the No. 6 UPS NASCAR Ford Fusion, will join the Challenge team in the afternoon to try to help put the Mustang beyond the 1,000-lap mark.
?I think it will be cool to be involved with this Challenge,? said Ragan. ?I?ve driven plenty of Mustangs over the years, and I?ve also driven Bristol many times, so I know how hard the challenge really will be for the team. Racing 500 laps in a NASCAR Sprint Cup race can wear on you, so doing twice that many laps without a fuel stop is impressive.?
Mustang is powered by a lightweight, all-aluminum 3.7-liter dual-overhead-cam V-6 engine that uses advanced engineering to deliver its combination of power and economy. Twin independent variable camshaft timing adjusts the valvetrain in microseconds depending on driver inputs, further contributing to the engine?s overall efficiency.
In fact, the Mustang used at the Challenge will have no special modifications for the event and is the same Mustang V-6 that is available to consumers on the showroom floor.
?This car we will be driving at Bristol is exactly the same Mustang that consumers can purchase at their local Ford dealership,? said Tom Barnes, vehicle engineering manager, Mustang.
?We?re not doing any tricks or making any modifications. The base car delivers 31 mpg and this is what you can buy. It has standard tire pressure, standard ride height, standard octane fuel. We?re just going to be driving it.?
Quote from: Nethead on June 21, 2010, 09:31:14 AM
SVT32V & MX793: I've read this, too. There are pics of a disassembled TiVCT 5.0L V8 that shows where the two knock sensors are attached in the "V" of the engine block. They do work--one article finding that sequential quarter-mile times were reduced on each successive run as the ECU fine-tuned its settings based upon feedback from these and other sensors that determined the exact octane of the fuel mix (doubtless some regular and some premium, varying a bit at each fill-up as the relative percentages change) in the tank. The ECU advances the spark until knock is detected and then backs off a little, thereby getting the most out of whatever brew is in the tank. TiVCT--don't leave home without it...
TiVCT has nothing to do with spark timing. Even the old 4.6 could advance/retard the ignition timing to compensate for knock.
Quote from: MX793 on June 21, 2010, 03:34:57 PM
TiVCT has nothing to do with spark timing. Even the old 4.6 could advance/retard the ignition timing to compensate for knock.
MX793: Yeah, "
ECU--don't leave home without it" woulda been a better choice of acronyms, since it controls the spark timing
and the independent internal rotation of the four cams within their sprockets. My bad!
Well, the V6 Mustang exceeded everyone's highest expectations on the racetrack in Bristol, TN, as detailed in the article below. Average speed was 44 MPH, including times for driver changes (some of the drivers took only one-hour stints, so more stops were made than would have been necessary--the entire run was on a single tank of gasoline so fuel and tire change stops were not applicable). The results are rather remarkable, and shot to Hell my prediction--and by extension my shot at winning a V6 Mustang :(:
1 GAS TANK: MUSTANG RUNS 1457 LAPS (776.5 MILES), 48.5 MPG
6/24/2010
Bristol, Tenn. ? The 2011 Ford Mustang, which made history when it became the first car ever to deliver more than 30 mpg and 305 horsepower, has set a new record by running 1,457 laps at Bristol Motor Speedway while averaging 48.5 mpg :ohyeah:.
The Mustang 1,000 Lap Challenge was designed to demonstrate that a stock production Mustang V-6 could run 1,000 laps and 533 miles on a single of tank of fuel. With the aid of fuel efficient driving techniques by Ford engineers, the Mustang far surpassed its goal of 1,000 laps.
?To see a Mustang post average fuel economy of 48.5 mpg while running at Bristol is impressive,? said Dave Pericak, Mustang chief engineer. ?The new V-6 engine along with the advanced six-speed transmission in the car is a key element in delivering both fuel economy and performance for Mustang.?
Ford is committed to being a fuel economy leader in every segment it competes in and Mustang?s class-leading fuel economy along with other Ford fuel economy leaders like the Ford Fiesta, Fusion Hybrid and new Lincoln MKZ Hybrid, America?s most fuel efficient luxury sedan.
The Challenge team, which included NASCAR driver David Ragan and four Ford Mustang engineers, completed the challenge in 17 hours and 40 minutes, showing off the 2011 Mustang V-6?s class-leading fuel economy by averaging 48.5 mpg during the course of the 776.5 miles logged during the Challenge. That distance is more than the two complete NASCAR Sprint Cup races that take place on BMS every year.
Ragan pushed the Mustang past the 1,000-lap mark at 7:26 p.m., 12 hours and 26 minutes into the Challenge, but the car wasn?t close to being out of fuel. Mustang engineer Seong Park was behind the wheel when it finally came to a halt (on the backstretch) of the famed NASCAR track at 12:41 a.m. local time.
Other Mustang Challenge team drivers included Tom Barnes, Jonathan Mehl, Carl Ek, who along with Park each took one-hour driving stints during the event, which took place on the world?s fastest half-mile track.
?When we hit 1,000 laps we still had a quarter of a tank of gas left,? said Ragan, driver of the No. 6 UPS Ford Fusion for Roush Fenway Racing, and the man who drove the 2011 V-6 Mustang past the 1,000 lap mark. ?The last driving stint before I passed 1,000 laps I was averaging 43.7 miles a gallon and that is unbelievable. These guys have run the distance of more than two Sprint Cup races at Bristol and they still have fuel left. Congratulations to everyone behind the Mustang and to everyone at Ford, because this 2011 Mustang V-6 is really something special.?
A team of Ford engineers prepared for the challenge by implementing fuel efficient driving tips including minimizing the use of air conditioning, steady and consistent driving, avoiding sudden stops/starts and keeping the RPMs low. The engine in the Mustang is powered by a lightweight, all-aluminum 3.7-liter dual-overhead-cam V-6 engine that uses advanced engineering to deliver its combination of power and economy. Twin independent variable camshaft timing adjusts the valve train in microseconds depending on driver inputs, further contributing to the engine?s overall efficiency. The Mustang used in the challenge is a stock production vehicle that can be purchased through a Ford dealer.
?This is beyond our wildest dreams,? said Barnes, the lead engineer for the Ford Mustang 1,000 Lap Challenge. ?There have been a lot of people who have done a lot of things in preparing this 2011 Mustang V-6 to run the Mustang 1,000 Lap Challenge and have the success we have had today. It was great when we went past the 1,000 lap mark with David, but nobody could ever imagine that we still had five hours ahead of us. This is a fantastic feeling and it shows again what a great car the 2011 Mustang V-6 is.?
:confused:
Wow.
An additional report about the V6's record from www.automobilemag.com:
2011 V-6 Ford Mustang Smashes EPA Rating at Bristol
Posted Today 08:00 AM by Steve Diehlman
To prove its all-new V-6 engine is an engineering marvel, Ford decided to test the engine's range on a new Mustang. Yesterday, at the Bristol International Speedway in Tennessee, the 2011 V-6 Mustang set out to travel 533 miles on a single tank, but didn't meet its goal. It completely obliterated it, logging 776.5 miles on a single tank.
Back in March, as Ford began to drum up excitement for its new 3.7-liter V-6 Mustang, it set out to perform a seemingly impossible mileage goal. The plan was to circle Bristol International Speedway 1000 times on a single tank of fuel, but the car performed nearly 50 percent better by circling the .533-mile oval 1457 times. While the EPA estimate for a V-6 Mustang coupled to a six-speed automatic transmission is 31 mpg highway, the pony car beat that rating by a long shot, recording an amazing 48.5 mpg. Its 16 gallon tank should've run out of fuel after 496 miles.
"The new V-6 engine along with the advanced six-speed transmission in the car is a key element in delivering both fuel economy and performance for Mustang," said Dave Pericak, chief engineer for the Mustang.
The team of drivers was advised about efficient driving techniques before the challenge. To achieve their goal, they limited the use of air conditioning, kept the RPMs low, and minimized abrupt stops and starts. The task took 17 hours 40 minutes to complete, with a driver swap every hour. Average speed was roughly 44 mph, helping to minimize wind resistance.
We suspect that with fewer stops and even better technique, the Mustang could possibly reach the 50 mpg mark. What do you think?
Of course they drove in a circle at a speed lower than average highway speeds with no traffic or other interference that would cause them to use more gas. And they employed hypermiling techniques that most of us would shun. Still though it's an impressive performance. I wonder what tire pressure they ran.
I find myself wanting a V6 Stang more and more. I just might have to go test drive one tomorrow.
Not to sound like a hater, but I'm sure there was quite a bit done to the car to improve it's performance that couldn't be seen by the public.
Quote from: EtypeJohn on June 24, 2010, 11:04:04 AM
Of course they drove in a circle at a speed lower than average highway speeds with no traffic or other interference that would cause them to use more gas. And they employed hypermiling techniques that most of us would shun. Still though it's an impressive performance. I wonder what tire pressure they ran.
EtypeJohn: No coasting was permitted except to enter the pits--which evidently was done hourly to allow the drivers plenty of rest (drive one hour, rest for four--talk about generous rest allowances! 'Hadta been UAW guys, right BlowCougs? :lol:). All those driver changes are certainly gonna drop the MPH average--in seventeen hours and twenty-six minutes I guess that would be at least sixteen stops. WTF were they thinking :nutty:?
Cruise control was probably set at least at 50 MPH to average 44 MPH with all those driver changes. If there happens to be a more efficient MPH above 50 MPH for the Mustang 3.7L V6 known beforehand, I'm sure they set the cruise control to maintain that more efficient MPH. Maybe some follow-up article will provide the cruising MPH.
Tires were the stockers--tall & narrow compared to any of the optional tires on the Mustang V6. My guess is that they were run at exactly the OEM-recommended pressures--no need to overinflate to gain a few percent when you're stopping every effin' hour to change drivers.
I gotta get me a union job... :praise:
Quote from: Submariner on June 24, 2010, 11:30:33 AM
Not to sound like a hater, but I'm sure there was quite a bit done to the car to improve it's performance that couldn't be seen by the public.
Submahater :lol: : No, the car was a well-tuned stocker with no non-OEM parts. No duct-taped grilles, no trick fuel tanks (Pontiac got caught cheating in EPA testing with doctored fuel tanks back in the 'Seventies, and the PR hurt 'em badly in those very mileage-conscious times), no special ring-&-pinion sets, whatever. There's just too much bad PR possible to risk a disgruntled employee spilling all the sordid details on a website--especially when cheating was so utterly unnecessary.
They knew from testing that the V6 could well exceed 40 MPG (at least in coupe body style) at generally steady speeds, so they were confident the thousand laps would be a straightforward feat for the basic OEM product. Running in cold weather probably would have extended the lap count before the tank ran dry--Bristol got into the nineties on test day, so they didn't wait until the weather got more favorable (too bad for the dudes running with the A/C off in a black car--but they did get relieved after a challenging sixty minutes of stressfully turning left with only a skimpy four hours to recover). I gotta get me a union job...
Quote from: Nethead on June 24, 2010, 11:59:07 AM
Submahater :lol: : No, the car was a well-tuned stocker with no non-OEM parts. No duct-taped grilles, no trick fuel tanks (Pontiac got caught cheating in EPA testing with doctored fuel tanks back in the 'Seventies, and the PR hurt 'em badly in those very mileage-conscious times), no special ring-&-pinion sets, whatever. There's just too much bad PR possible to risk a disgruntled employee spilling all the sordid details on a website--especially when cheating was so utterly unnecessary.
They knew from testing that the V6 could well exceed 40 MPG (at least in coupe body style) at generally steady speeds, so they were confident the thousand laps would be a straightforward feat for the basic OEM product. Running in cold weather probably would have extended the lap count before the tank ran dry--Bristol got into the nineties on test day, so they didn't wait until the weather got more favorable (too bad for the dudes running with the A/C off in a black car--but they did get relieved after a challenging sixty minutes of stressfully turning left with only a skimpy four hours to recover). I gotta get me a union job...
Right...
Quote from: Nethead on June 24, 2010, 11:32:46 AM
EtypeJohn: No coasting was permitted except to enter the pits--which evidently was done hourly to allow the drivers plenty of rest (drive one hour, rest for four--talk about generous rest allowances! 'Hadta been UAW guys, right BlowCougs? :lol:). All those driver changes are certainly gonna drop the MPH average--in seventeen hours and twenty-six minutes I guess that would be at least sixteen stops. WTF were they thinking :nutty:?
Cruise control was probably set at least at 50 MPH to average 44 MPH with all those driver changes. If there happens to be a more efficient MPH above 50 MPH for the Mustang 3.7L V6 known beforehand, I'm sure they set the cruise control to maintain that more efficient MPH. Maybe some follow-up article will provide the cruising MPH.
Tires were the stockers--tall & narrow compared to any of the optional tires on the Mustang V6. My guess is that they were run at exactly the OEM-recommended pressures--no need to overinflate to gain a few percent when you're stopping every effin' hour to change drivers.
I gotta get me a union job... :praise:
By hypermiling I meant no quick acceleration, no unnecessary braking, no sudden speed changes. On a closed course with no traffic there is virtually no place or reason to coast except when pulling into the pits for driver changes.
I'm sure they knew before hand what the most efficient constant speed would be. I keep experimenting with my Mazda 3 and now can get 40+ MPG on my daily commute of both highway and city driving and that's driving at, but not above, the speed limits. other times I've found if I set the cruise control at around 45-50 MPH with the windows up and the AC off I get MPG in the mid 50's.
Quote from: EtypeJohn on June 24, 2010, 01:14:23 PM
By hypermiling I meant no quick acceleration, no unnecessary braking, no sudden speed changes. On a closed course with no traffic there is virtually no place or reason to coast except when pulling into the pits for driver changes.
I'm sure they knew before hand what the most efficient constant speed would be. I keep experimenting with my Mazda 3 and now can get 40+ MPG on my daily commute of both highway and city driving and that's driving at, but not above, the speed limits. I've found if I set the cruise control at around 50 with the windows up and the AC off I get MPG in the mid 50's.
EtypeJohn: Mid-fifties is terrific, even for a skateboard!
Quote from: Nethead on June 24, 2010, 01:18:30 PM
EtypeJohn: Mid-fifties is terrific, even for a skateboard!
Yeah, but at that speed it would take forever to get anywhere. I remember when the national limit was 55. God, that was slow. Sometimes it seemed like I had accidently selected reverse.
Considering how tall that car is geared, I wouldn't doubt they could get mileage like that if using proper hypermiling techniques. At 65 mph in top gear, the car is chugging along at only 1500 RPM with the manual (the auto may be geared even a bit taller still). The car was likely only turning 1100 RPM, maybe a little less (so it was basically barely above idle). Steady speed at a speed low enough that air resistance is still pretty low on a big banked oval, so minimal turning to eat into economy. The stock tires are narrow, low-rolling resistance fuel savers (the kind of tires you'd find on a hybrid, not even H speed rated) on the auto.
And actually, hot weather probably helped the mileage (hot air = lower density air = less fuel consumed).
Quote from: EtypeJohn on June 24, 2010, 02:19:21 PM
Yeah, but at that speed it would take forever to get anywhere. I remember when the national limit was 55. God, that was slow. Sometimes it seemed like I had accidently selected reverse.
All the interstate within and including I285 in Atlanta are 55mph. That said, the flow of traffic is normally closer to 70-75 with the cops not caring a damn bit.
The video shows that the Bristol Mustang was a V6 Premium, with STYNC, the optional glass roof, and other packs typical of a car ordered by a dealership for its stock on hand. Seems like an oddball for record-setting since traditional record-setters are very focused on strictly the equipment that contributes something to the performance needed for setting the record in question. This is just a typical try-to-please-the-broadest-customer-spectrum-possible dealership vehicle--the black finish, not so much. At least it didn't have a stripes package :praise:
Go figure :huh: A stripper probably coulda broken 50 MPG, but there it is...
The thing is, a lot of people are hypermiling in normal cars to get those kinds of mileage figures, but none of them have 300 hp on tap for those times when youDON"T want to hypermile. That's the real beuty of it, like the Corvettes that got over 30 mpg highway. Great cruising efficiency whan that's what you want AND power available that no actual economy car has when THAT'S what you want.
I really don't see a downside. I mean, I don't care WHAT you did, you couldn't hypermile an older Mustang GT with that kind of power to anywhere NEAR 45+mpg. And iof you can get 47-48+ mpg when hypermiling, any of us should be able to get maybe 40 mpg without trying all that hard on the highway.
Quote from: ChrisV on June 29, 2010, 06:26:32 AM
The thing is, a lot of people are hypermiling in normal cars to get those kinds of mileage figures, but none of them have 300 hp on tap for those times when youDON"T want to hypermile. That's the real beuty of it, like the Corvettes that got over 30 mpg highway. Great cruising efficiency whan that's what you want AND power available that no actual economy car has when THAT'S what you want.
I really don't see a downside. I mean, I don't care WHAT you did, you couldn't hypermile an older Mustang GT with that kind of power to anywhere NEAR 45+mpg. And iof you can get 47-48+ mpg when hypermiling, any of us should be able to get maybe 40 mpg without trying all that hard on the highway.
ChrisV: A point not to be forgotten! 48.5 MPG with 305 HP--plus all sortsa amenities (glass roof, STYNC, and all the fluff that comes with the Premium package) that diminish absolute mileage by some amount. Corvette's got great mileage for the power, too, as you pointed out.
If it hadda been me, I woulda gone with the lightest V6 Mustang available--meaning the most basic available except for the higher-mileage automatic transmission and a "mileage" differential ratio if there was a smaller numeric ratio available than the standard ratio found in 2011 Mustang V6 coupes. If you're gonna go for a record, go for the one that will be toughest for someone to top afterwards, 'know what I mean?
I would notta gone with a black car, either, since they were using the air conditioning only sparingly (and changing drivers after sixty challenging minutes of turning left) and temps were in the nineties in the heat of the day. And WTF were they thinkin' when they decided to change drivers every sixty minutes--UAW shop rules or what????????????? I gotta get a union job!
Now consider that the EPA's more varied testing (and doubtless more equivalent to "daily driving" unless there's a banked oval surrounding your townhouse complex) got 31 MPG highway out of a 2011 V6 Mustang automatic. The drivers upped this to 48.5 MPG on the oval at Bristol, a 56.45 percent improvement. Could these drivers use the same techniques to get a 2011 Mustang GT 5.0L automatic from the EPA's 26 MPG rating up to 40.7 MPG??? :huh: That would be an interesting follow-on to this test :popcorn:
Quote from: ChrisV on June 29, 2010, 06:26:32 AM
The thing is, a lot of people are hypermiling in normal cars to get those kinds of mileage figures, but none of them have 300 hp on tap for those times when youDON"T want to hypermile. That's the real beuty of it, like the Corvettes that got over 30 mpg highway. Great cruising efficiency whan that's what you want AND power available that no actual economy car has when THAT'S what you want.
I really don't see a downside. I mean, I don't care WHAT you did, you couldn't hypermile an older Mustang GT with that kind of power to anywhere NEAR 45+mpg. And iof you can get 47-48+ mpg when hypermiling, any of us should be able to get maybe 40 mpg without trying all that hard on the highway.
Seems like smart PR to me, show the world you can get a mustang with 300+ hp and great fuel economy. Ford did the market research showing younger buyers are less passionate about a V8, so here you go have a mustang and be green. Seems like an excellent way to expand the buyer base. Of course this is all PR and not real world, but it is thinking out of the box.
Quote from: ChrisV on June 29, 2010, 06:26:32 AM
The thing is, a lot of people are hypermiling in normal cars to get those kinds of mileage figures, but none of them have 300 hp on tap for those times when youDON"T want to hypermile. That's the real beuty of it, like the Corvettes that got over 30 mpg highway. Great cruising efficiency whan that's what you want AND power available that no actual economy car has when THAT'S what you want.
I really don't see a downside. I mean, I don't care WHAT you did, you couldn't hypermile an older Mustang GT with that kind of power to anywhere NEAR 45+mpg. And iof you can get 47-48+ mpg when hypermiling, any of us should be able to get maybe 40 mpg without trying all that hard on the highway.
My problem with the test is that is wasn't done in normal circumstances. I want them to test it on a real highway.
Quote from: hotrodalex on July 01, 2010, 07:06:19 PM
My problem with the test is that is wasn't done in normal circumstances. I want them to test it on a real highway.
hotrodalex: Define normal...Here in The Beaver, we got hills, shit traffic, and even shittier roads. In Topeka, this ain't so. In Tuscola, even less so. Go with the EPA's figures of 31 MPG since they try to test all vehicles that they test under as nearly identical conditions as they can. Normal ain't ever normal unless it's in a lab--and how normal is that :confused:?
And who (other than you) ever said anyting about normal circumstances? The stated intent from Day One was to drive at least a thousand laps around a NASCAR oval on one tankful (sixteen and some fraction gallons) of gasoline--the goal was to see if it could be done by a stock 305 HP 2011 Mustang :popcorn:. One thousand four hundred and fifty-seven laps later it was established that it could, and with a stock vehicle that stopped every sixty minutes or so for driver changes.
I think this test just sticks out awkwardly. What is there to compare it to? Does that mean if a Civic did the same test it would get 25% better results, do like 2000 laps? Just sounds like a marketing scheme to make the new Mustang look better. I mean it is a much better stang don't get me wrong, just seems arbitrary to have this test. I think i'd wait for the user ratings to come out on fueleconomy.gov, sure it's not entirely accurate since it's regular joes just using trip/gas fill calculations and we don't know their tire/mods/etc, but it's also something I can compare to my own car and test.
So far none of the 2011 models have had any users submissions.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList2&make=Ford&model=Mustang
Quote from: Sigma Projects on July 04, 2010, 02:06:19 AM
I think this test just sticks out awkwardly. What is there to compare it to? Does that mean if a Civic did the same test it would get 25% better results, do like 2000 laps? Just sounds like a marketing scheme to make the new Mustang look better. I mean it is a much better stang don't get me wrong, just seems arbitrary to have this test. I think i'd wait for the user ratings to come out on fueleconomy.gov, sure it's not entirely accurate since it's regular joes just using trip/gas fill calculations and we don't know their tire/mods/etc, but it's also something I can compare to my own car and test.
So far none of the 2011 models have had any users submissions.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList2&make=Ford&model=Mustang
Exactly, the test is pointless IMO.
Quote from: Sigma Projects on July 04, 2010, 02:06:19 AM
I think this test just sticks out awkwardly. What is there to compare it to? Does that mean if a Civic did the same test it would get 25% better results, do like 2000 laps? Just sounds like a marketing scheme to make the new Mustang look better. I mean it is a much better stang don't get me wrong, just seems arbitrary to have this test. I think i'd wait for the user ratings to come out on fueleconomy.gov, sure it's not entirely accurate since it's regular joes just using trip/gas fill calculations and we don't know their tire/mods/etc, but it's also something I can compare to my own car and test.
So far none of the 2011 models have had any users submissions.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList2&make=Ford&model=Mustang
Sigma Projects: I dunno if there is anything "to compare it to"--and one would
hope a dedicated econobox Civic :facepalm: would get more than 1,457 laps and could beat 48.5 MPG.
OTOH, said Civic ain't packin' 305 HP available by the mere application of the right foot (no aftermarket cams, no boost, no aftermarket higher-compression pistons, no aftermarket CAI, no aftermarket cat-back exhaust with requisite fartcan, or whatever required) :thumbsup:.
Sure, it was done to make the Mustang look better (well, duh :confused:)--the mags & blogs cover this-and-that, but no one had taken a run-of-the-mill dealer-stock (a V6 Premium with leather, STYNC, glass roof, yada yada yada) 2011 Mustang and gone for the distance that TiVCT can squeeze out of a tankful (a fraction over sixteen gallons) of unleaded.
The V6 Mustang is more that just raw whupass on V6 Camaros, Challengers, and Genesissies--although it is certainly that, too--it has a frugal side for those who think an under-fourteen-second-ET-at-over-one-hundred-MPH vehicle only comes in pushrod big-blocked musclecar flavors that weigh a whopping 3850 or more pounds.
There's performance gained by displacement and there's performance gained by finesse. Now, that finesse can be had for under $26,000 and even the EPA can get 30-31 MPG out of it. This test shows you can get more--well over 50 percent more if you're truly serious about it--without having to give up the whupass when you feel like it. :clap:
Is this arbitrary? To kick V6 Camaros, Challengers, and Genesissies costing thousands more in the cods and then get 776 miles on sixteen gallons of gas? "Arbitrary" may become the new "awesome" if it is...
And here's two V6 Mustang entries from the Edmunds Inside Line "Most Wanted Awards", which were based on polling responses of the public in fifteen automotive market segments. Included are some of the responses received in the two segments won by the V6 Mustangs:
Convertible Under $30,000: Ford Mustang
Inside Line says: For all you conspiracy theorists who believed we divided the Miata entries into hardtop and soft-top versions to split the Mazda's vote, know that even if we combine the Miata scores, it still loses to the juggernaut that is the 2011 Mustang.
You say:
Because I have to choose a Mustang on at least one thing...
Nice job, Ford.
Mustang beats all these chick cars.
The new 305-hp V6 makes the Mustang a real contender now, providing enough chassis and quality improvements to compete against the Japanese and entry-level European models, and better performance to match its aggressive pony car styling.
I'm biased; I own a convertible Mustang and love it.
305-hp convertible.
I had a four-cylinder hatchback Mustang as a kid. I've always wanted a cool Mustang because the one I had was definitely not cool!
American four-seat convertible with tons of power = nice.
I don't like any of them, but the Mustang is the least disgusting.
At 6-foot-1 and 310 pounds, I can't imagine that I'd fit comfortably in anything but the Mustang.
Mitsubishi? Gross!
With that new V6, you couldn't ask for more.
Speed Under $30,000: Ford Mustang V6
Inside Line says: The 2011 Mustang V6 certainly wins our award for most improved.
You say:
The new Mustang is the fastest, best-handling car in this segment. 305 hp for $22K? ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?
Uh, it's a Mustang!
I love the new V6 engine and the looks of the Mustang. It has great presence. It is less bulky than the Camaro and looks better than the Genesis.
Good looks, good price, good handling and good visibility (unlike the Camaro).
A V6 worth owning that can give you the muscle-car satisfaction without breaking your wallet at the pump.
Ford led the retro-styled muscle-car movement with the redesign of the Mustang, but unlike Chevy and Dodge they got it right under the hood, too.
300 hp and Mustang GT looks for less than $30,000!
Great-looking car, 30 mpg-plus and 300-plus hp makes this a no-brainer.
Finally a base Mustang that I'd buy.
Options such as the performance package make it a must-have.
Ford owns it.
The V6 Mustang is a well-balanced blend of performance and economy, with style that evokes the Mustang heritage without making it a caricature of its former self (i.e., Camaro).
Slight edge over the Camaro for one reason: weight. Being built in the USA is a huge bonus.
Ford has done some impressive upgrades to the Mustang in the past two years.
Style, power and Sync.
Red, white and BLUE all the way!
It is built in America and not by Government Motors.
The EcoBoost V6 is a natural for racing: 3.5L all-aluminum block & heads, twin-turbos, DOHCs, Twin Independent Variable Camshaft Timing, self-adjusting Direct Acting Mechanical Buckets on all 24 valves, direct injection, yada yada yada...Did I mention twin turbos?...Leave it to Jack Roush to go the next step and drop it into an ALMS Lola. Maybe it'll keep Jack out of the cockpits of business jets and raise his life expectancy by decades...
Meanwhile, ProDrive has approached Ford Powertrain about building V12 versions of the EcoBoost heads for the next Aston Martin V12, and Ford responded that the block advances in the 3.5L V6 need to be part of the package in order to take max advantage of the new tech and the greater strength of the EcoBoost's block design. ProDrive/Aston Martin are considering the counter-proposal...
But I digress...here's the www.autoblog.com ALMS EcoBoost Lola article:
Roush Yates to supply Ford EcoBoost V6 for 2011 ALMS competition
by Sam Abuelsamid (RSS feed) on Aug 6th 2010 at 6:31 PM
Roush Yates Engines has announced that it will be offering up a race-prepared version of Ford's 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6 for American Le Mans Series prototype competition in 2011. Roush Yates is developing the engines for use under the new 2011 LMP2 rules that require production-based engines. This will be the first competition application for Ford's twin-turbocharged and direct injected V6 that debuted in 2009.
The first chassis constructor to announce support for the Ford V6 is Lola, with installation kits available for both its open-top and closed coupe 2011 LMP2 cars. According to Roush Yates spokesperson Kenna Primm, the race engine will be reduced down to the 3.2-liter maximum allowed under ALMS rules compared to the 2.8-liter displacement of the twin-turbo V6 announced by Honda at Le Mans in June. Output will likely be somewhere around 400 horsepower.
In addition to the EcoBoost V6, Roush Yates is also evaluating a race version of the Mustang's 5.0-liter V8 for ALMS competition.
[Source: American Le Mans Series]
Morris Minor: The EcoBoost 3.5L V6 and the naturally-aspirated 3.7L V6 are being added to the 2011 F-150s engine line-up (along with the DOHC TiVCT 5.0L V8 and the 411 HP SOHC dual-sparkplug 6.2L V8 from the current Raptor), wherein the N/A 3.7L V6 will tow 6,100 pounds (compared to the GM 4.3L V6's 5,400 lbs, the Ram 3.7L V6's 3,800 lbs, and the Toyota 4.0L V6's 5,200 lbs). The EcoBoost 3.5L V6 will tow an astonishing 11,300 lbs (compared to the GM 6.2L V8's 10,600 lbs, the GM 5.3L V8's 10,000 lbs, the Ram 5.7L Hemi V8's 10,450 lbs, the Toyota 5.7L V8's 10,800 lbs, and the Nissan 5.6L V8's 9,000 lbs).
All this trucktalk means that with a properly installed towbar and safety equipment, some serious towing could commence. No need to have an SUV or a pickup for a second vehicle to tow the trailer to Yellowstone or the boat to the ocean--hook 'em up to the Mustang V6 and hit the highway. :thumbsup:
In the event that anyone's interested, it looks like the V6 Performance Package is now available.
From www.autoblog.com:
Consumer Reports picks side in V6 pony car wars
by Zach Bowman (RSS feed) on Sep 7th 2010 at 12:58 PM
If you've found yourself stuck on the fence between the sultry styling of the Chevrolet Camaro V6 and the downright impressive sports car performance of the Ford Mustang V6, Consumer Reports may just have something to help you make up your mind one way or the other. Those responsible for some of the most aggressive consumer testing in the industry have awarded the Blue Oval a 'Very Good' :praise: road test score while the Bowtie was saddled with a mere 'Good' :( rating. The testers went so far as to say that picking the six-pot in the Mustang didn't take too much away from the car's fun factor, while doing the same in the Camaro did.
That's no surprise to us. We felt the six-cylinder Mustang was fit enough to go toe-to-toe with the likes of the Nissan 370Z and Hyundai Genesis Coupe in our recent Battle of the Sixes ? something we wouldn't have even bothered to try with the Camaro, let alone the Dodge Challenger :tounge:.
Consumer Reports also said that the Mustang is 'Recommended' by the company, but the Camaro is too new to have accurate reliability data. Hit the jump for the press release.
REPORTS: FORD MUSTANG V6 OUTPERFORMS CHEVROLET CAMARO IN V6 FACE-OFF
YONKERS, NY -The Ford Mustang earned a Very Good road test score and outscored the Chevrolet Camaro which earned a Good score, in a face-off between V6 versions of the two vehicles in Consumer Reports' October issue.
In last year's CR face-off between V8 versions of these two iconic cars, the Mustang also outscored the Camaro, despite being an older design.
Opting for a V6 engine did not overly dilute the fun factor in driving the Mustang, but it did for the Camaro. The Ford's new V6 engine is not only more refined than the Camaro's, it delivered stronger acceleration and better fuel economy. The Camaro provides decent acceleration, but it's not as readily available. The car rides well enough but it's almost 300 pounds heavier than the Mustang.
"The Mustang is the more agile and enjoyable car to drive of the two," said David Champion, senior director of Consumer Reports' Auto Test Center in East Haddam, Connecticut.
Prices for the vehicles were $28,660 for the Mustang to $28,195 for the Camaro.
While the Mustang is Recommended, the Camaro is too new for Consumer Reports to have reliability data. CR only Recommends vehicles that have performed well in its tests, have at least average predicted reliability based on CR's Annual Auto Survey of its more than seven million print and Web subscribers, and performed at least adequately if crash-tested or included in a government rollover test.
Full tests and ratings for both vehicles appear in the October issue of Consumer Reports, which goes on sale September 7. The reports are also available to subscribers of www.ConsumerReports.org.Updated daily, ConsumerReports.org is the go-to site for the latest auto reviews, product news, blogs on breaking news and car buying information.
The Mustang corners well, with good steering and little body lean. The Ford Mustang V6 Premium ($28,660 Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price as tested,) is powered by a 305-hp 3.7 liter V6 engine that is quick and gets 24 mpg overall in CR's own fuel economy tests. The six-speed manual transmission shifts crisply. Braking is Very Good. The interior is well-finished and the dashboard has a retro look, reminiscent of the 1960s.
The Camaro feels relatively ungainly, with slower steering response than the Mustang and more lean. The ride is taut yet not uncomfortable. The Chevrolet Camaro 2LT ($28,195 MSRP as tested,) is powered by a 304-hp 3.6-liter V6 engine and gets 21 mpg overall. The six-speed manual transmission is rather stiff and imprecise. Braking is Very Good. The interior is well-finished, and the thick-rimmed, leather-covered steering wheel is nicer than the Mustang's.
The Detroit News described it this way:
September 08, 2010 3:22 PM
Consumer Reports chooses Mustang over Camaro in face-off
Scott Burgess / The Detroit News
True believers won't care about the Consumer Reports muscle car face-off. If they already are in the Mustang lot or Camaro corner, wild horsepower couldn't drag them away from their favorite.
But for everyone else, Consumer Reports picked the 2011 Ford Mustang V-6 over a 2011 Chevrolet Camaro V-6, the magazine announced Tuesday.
The Mustang earned a "Very Good" rating and is recommended by the magazine, which has become one of the leading automotive authorities for its 7 million print and online subscribers.
The Camaro earned a "Good" rating and is not recommend by the magazine because it is a new vehicle, and Consumer Reports doesn't have enough reliability information on it yet, said Jake Fisher, a senior engineer at Consumer Reports and a test driver.
"The Mustang was virtually better than the Camaro at nearly every level," he said. "It was quicker, more fuel efficient, and when you're in the Camaro, it's like you're in a cave."
In the news release announcing the comparison, David Champion, senior director of Consumer Reports' Auto Test Center in East Haddam, Conn., said: "The Mustang is the more agile and enjoyable car to drive of the two."
While both cars have some new improvements for the 2011 model year, the Mustang introduced its 305-horsepower, all-new 3.7-liter V-6 engine. The 2011 Camaro uses a direct-injection, 3.6-liter V-6 for its power, which was increased for this model year to 312 horsepower from 304.
However, Fisher said the Mustang, which is a naturally aspirated engine, offers a much better rumbling sound than the Camaro and a much more spirited ride.
"We even managed to get 24 miles per gallon in combined city and highway driving," Fisher said. "For an engine that powerful, that's incredible." The Camaro averaged 21 mpg.
While both vehicles were rated well for their interiors and exteriors, the difference seemed to be weight-related. The Mustang was just more nimble, in part, Fisher said, because it's nearly 300 pounds lighter than the Camaro.
Ford Motor Co. officials were, naturally, excited with the results of the comparison.
"Consumer Reports is highly respected by consumers," said Amy Marentic, Ford's car marketing manager.
"It's very important (to win the Consumer Reports recognition), not only to our consumers, but to us, too."...
There's a question mark about EcoBoost Mustangs here, but you know the momentum is building. From www.autoblog.com:
Report: Ecoboost for all Ford models
by AutoblogGreen Staff (RSS feed) on Sep 15th 2010 at 7:56 AM
Once again, reports are making the rounds that each model in Ford's stable will soon be available with an Ecoboost engine option. While this isn't the first time we've heard such murmurings, The Detroit News reports that Jim Farley, the Ford global head of sales, says that his company's product plans include direct-injection and turbocharging at the core of each vehicle's future powertrain lineup. Don't think that those high-tech, smaller-displacement engines will command a price tag that's any easier to swallow, though.
Farley believes consumers will be willing to pay more for Ecoboost-powered vehicles. Why? Because the fuel economy savings can offset the MSRP premium in as little as two years. That may help to explain why the Blue Oval has priced the Ecoboost four-cylinder Explorer above the equivalent V6 model.
Even so, Farley didn't make mention of whether or not the Blue Oval is meditating on situating a forced-induction engine into the likes of the mighty Mustang. While we know the new F-150 will arrive with a twin-turbo 3.5-liter V6 under its hood this fall, the brand's pony car has been hallowed ground for the naturally-aspirated faithful... for now.
A five-part video series of 2011 Performance Pack V6 Mustangs vs. 2011 Performance Pack V8 Mustangs from www.autoweek.com, with Editor Dutch Mandel and racer Paul Dallenbach takin' turns, literally and figuratively:
http://www.autoweek.com/assets/mustang/intro.html (Intro)
http://www.autoweek.com/assets/mustang/eng.html (The V6 specs)
http://www.autoweek.com/assets/mustang/sus.html (That V6 sounds terrific in the in-car video)
http://www.autoweek.com/assets/mustang/paulv6.html (Editor in the V8, pro in the V6)
http://www.autoweek.com/assets/mustang/dutchv6.html (Pro in the V8, editor in the V6)
http://www.autoweek.com/assets/mustang/wrap.html (Wrap-up)
One bitchin' set of videos!
Short & sweet:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/video-hub/featured/featured-videos/faceoff-mustang-vs-camaro/17387256001/594183805001/
The full test article, of which the above video is only a small part, is entitled "Face-off Mustang vs. Camaro" in the October 2010 Consumer Reports on pages 56--58.
The Camaro 2LT V6 six-speed manual won the steering wheel comparo and the driver knee room comparo, and the Mustang Premium V6 six-speed manual won the remaining areas of automotive comparison. The Mustang Premium V6 even beat a 1970 Boss 302 in this comparo on page 58!
Certain accolades were awarded in the vehicle class of "Sports cars over $25,000 Equipped with manual transmission"--which included the BMW 135i at $37,650; the Subaru Impreza WRX STi at $37,640; the Mazda RX-8 at $31,305; the Volkswagen GTI (4-door) at $27,504; the Subaru Impreza WRX at $26,088; the Mustang GT Premium 5.0 at $36,310; the Misti Bushi Lancer Evolution GSR at $38,078; the Mustang Premium (V6) at $28,680; the Camaro 2SS (V8) at $35,425; the Hyundai Genesis Coupe Grand Touring (V6) at $28,195; the Camaro 2LT (V6) at $28,195; and the Dodge Challenger R/T (V8) at $36,600, in that order. "Best for all-around performance" had two recommendations: the Subaru Impreza WRX STi and the Mustang GT Premium 5.0. "A good balance of performance and fuel economy" had one recommendation: the Mustang Premium (V6). "Best for fun, versatility, and affordability: the Volkswagen GTI (4-door). The Subaru Impreza WRX STi, Volkswagen GTI (4-door), Mustang GT Premium 5.0, and the Mustang Premium (V6) were the only Recommended vehicles. The Mustang Premium (V6) was the only vehicle with a Predicted Reliability rating of Excellent. The Subaru Impreza WRX-STi, Volkswagen GTI (4-door), Mustang GT Premium 5.0, and the Dodge Challenger R/T (V8) were a ways back of that at Predicted Reliability ratings of Good, but still ahead of the rest. The two Mustangs were the only vehicles to achieve a Safety rating of Very Good.
Next month, Consumer Reports tests the Mustang GT 5.0 coupe & convertible! :popcorn:
Living with a 2011 Mustang V6 coupe day-to-day, likes & dislikes:
Daily Log: 2011 Mustang V6 MCA Edition
By Sam Haymart
Published: October 21, 2010
This week we are driving the new 2011 Mustang V6 MCA Edition. That?s Mustang Club Of America?.Edition. How cool is that. Ford has recognized the years of dedication to the brand of the national Mustang Club by giving them their own special edition Mustang.
The package includes specific visual appearance items including a billet aluminum style grille, lower fog lamps, and a unique stripe on the sides. At the rear of the car you will find a black-out trim appliqu? between the tail lamps and a deck lid spoiler. Additionally, a set of upgraded 18? aluminum wheels round out the package.
Under the hood of course is the fire breathing 3.7 liter DOHC V6 mated to a six-speed automatic transmission. We would have chosen a manual, but this car represents what the majority of V6 Mustangs sold will be equipped like. So lets test what the masses will drive.
We will be updating our log book here each day through next week when we will file our final report.
10/21/10: We picked the car up and drove some twenty miles back to our office on the freeway. At about 70 mph we watched the instant MPG reading on the dash hover between 31-34 all the way. Pretty cool. The seats were easy to get set up to a comfort zone, but where?s the telescoping steering wheel? It tilts only. Power is plentiful, chassis feels solid. Off to the twisty roads to see how it plays. More on that tomorrow.
10/22/10: A drive up in the twisty tight curves of Apache Trail near Phoenix was spirited. To our surprise, even the V6 Mustang was rewarding and fun to throw through the curves. The chassis is not only competent and up for the challenge, but gives you reason to play. It handles better and is much more adept than the Taurus SHO we tested earlier this month. This thing is a GT in sheep?s clothing.
10/23/10: Filled the trunk up with karate gear, man this thing has space. Interior is such a dead ringer for the 1967 Mustang deluxe, real aluminum trim. Wish they would have put some on the console too. The Shaker 500 sounds better than the factory looking switchgear would suggest. Nice. The leather seats are comfortable as stated before and have a retro look too.
10/24/10: We took the MCA Edition Mustang out to our local cruise night in Scottsdale, AZ. This is probably the first V6 Mustang in a long time that actually gets looks, interest and appreciation at a car show. We parked among Cobras, new 5.0 2011 Mustangs and even a Camaro Transformers Edition. Wasn?t out of place at all. The nice wheels, graphics, and grille really make the car stand out.
--------------------------------------------------------------- To be continued -----------------------
www.themustangnews.com will continue the daily logs until the full report--all the pros and cons--at the end of next week. Those considering a Twenty-Eleven-Three-Point-Seven now have a source :thumbsup: albeit a six-speed automatic :facepalm:
The inevitable hasn't happened yet, but apparently it's being tested. From www.autoblog.com:
Spy Shots: Ford Mustang GT EcoBoost spotted?
by Zach Bowman (RSS feed) on Oct 27th, 2010 at 3:28 PM
Forced induction may be making its way back into the Ford Mustang bloodstream very soon. A gaggle of fresh spy shots have cropped up on the interwebs showing a FoMoCo mule with a few interesting attributes, including a new fascia that may or may not be scooting air to an intercooler, and a hefty 9,000 rpm :confused: has been spotted on the tachometer. Even more telling is the huge PREMIUM ONLY sticker slapped across the dash. Now, the last time we checked, the meaty 5.0-liter V8 in the 2011 Mustang GT didn't spin to those lofty heights, and while it makes maximum power on premium fuel, it can just as happily chug along on regular 87 octane swill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inside Line's pic shows a red coupe with black GT500 wheels, big dual exhausts, Mustang GT tires, possibly a GT/CS splitter, and wicked cooling ducts for the front brakes! It's worth the skip to www.edmunds.com's Inside Line to see the exterior shot and the face of the tach with the redline covering 8500-9000 RPM. :rockon:
So what gives here? It's entirely possible that Ford has plopped a massaged version of its twin-turbocharged, direct-injection EcoBoost V6 under the hood. In fact, Ford officials have said that they plan to offer EcoBoost technology in just about everything.
If that's what this is, it would seem to account for the higher octane fuel requirement and the bodywork up front, but what about that redline? As it sits, the Ecoboost sixer is happier at around 6,000 rpm, so either Ford has been putting some serious time into helping that engine spin much faster, there's something that we haven't seen yet lurking under the hood, or it could be that engineers may have simply let out the redline just for durability testing purposes. Head over to Inside Line for a better look at what could be a latter-day SVO.
Quote from: Nethead on October 27, 2010, 02:23:05 PM
So what gives here? It's entirely possible that Ford has plopped a massaged version of its twin-turbocharged, direct-injection EcoBoost V6 under the hood. In fact, Ford officials have said that they plan to offer EcoBoost technology in just about everything.
If that's what this is, it would seem to account for the higher octane fuel requirement and the bodywork up front, but what about that redline? As it sits, the Ecoboost sixer is happier at around 6,000 rpm, so either Ford has been putting some serious time into helping that engine spin much faster, there's something that we haven't seen yet lurking under the hood, or it could be that engineers may have simply let out the redline just for durability testing purposes. Head over to Inside Line for a better look at what could be a latter-day SVO.
It's widely believed to be a Boss 302 mule.
Looks like the Boss to me.
More of the living-with-a-V6-Mustang-day-to-day series in the
Daily Log: 2011 Mustang MCA V6 Edition:
10/25/10: The more we get used to the feel of the 2011 Mustang V6, it has a familiar aura to Mustangs of the 1960?s to be sure. The sound and vibration tune of the engine is related to that of the past but has a modern tint. Average fuel economy with city driving in the mix is about 23, dead on what the window sticker says.
10/26/10: The build quality is hard to fault. As we look at the panel gaps, the application of the vinyl graphics, and the fit of the trim Ford has come a long way with the S-197 body. The interior is course a great improvement over the 2005-2009 models. There are still some odd finishes and details that seem to have been overlooked, but it is still of the best in Mustang interiors of all time.
10/27/10: On our final day with the 2011 Mustang 3.7 V6 we are out taking photos for our full review. The car has been a welcome machine in our garage and one of the few we have been getting questions about from neighbors. The dark metallic wheels do well to hide brake dust from our stint up in the mountains driving athletically. Now to write that final review.
Comments [1]Digg it!Facebook..1 Comment
Doug Gompertz
Posted October 25, 2010 at 8:07 PM
Knowing that Ford would be coming out with new engines, we waited until we could get a new stang with one of the new power plants. After reading about the new V6, I couldn?t really figure out why anyone would want the V8, and when I read about the MCA Edition, I knew that I just had to have one.
We were/are not disappointed. This V6 is every bit as powerful and as fast as my Cadillac Northstar was. The plus? Much better gas millage! On our trip up to the Grand National MCA Show in Bellevue we averaged 29MPG ? most of the time driving over 70MPH.
I do not know how fast the car will go . . . haven?t been able to find a road where there was no traffic or cops (when my wife was not with me) so I could let it all out.
Yeah, there are things I would like to have ? like telescoping steering wheel, and memory seats.
I was disappointed to not find any MCA identification on the car ? if you don?t know what you are looking at you would never know it?s a MCA Edition. Someone sure missed the boat with that one!
This car is definitely one of Fords Better Ideas.
Quote from: Cobra93 on October 27, 2010, 03:43:06 PM
It's widely believed to be a Boss 302 mule.
Cobra93: Why would they need mules for the Boss 302 when there are actual Boss 302s and Boss 302 Laguna Secas making the rounds of racetracks/auto shows/photo sessions/whatever?
Quote from: Nethead on October 28, 2010, 07:28:24 AM
Cobra93: Why would they need mules for the Boss 302 when there are actual Boss 302s and Boss 302 Laguna Secas making the rounds of racetracks/auto shows/photo sessions/whatever?
I doubt development is done. The car isn't even coming out until spring.
Quote from: SVT666 on October 28, 2010, 08:51:15 AM
I doubt development is done. The car isn't even coming out until spring.
Basically, this. Plus, the Boss 302 has a 9K tach and calls for premium fuel. I also don't follow the logic of developing an Ecoboost application when the car was just released with 2 new powertrains. It's probably just a Boss 302 undergoing real world endurance testing.
It's got the Boss front clip too. The only EcoBoost motor I could see getting installed in this thing is the 4 banger and produce around 280 hp. I can't see the EcoBoost V6 going in the Mustang simply because it would have comparable HP and more torque than the GT and cost more. It doesn't makes sense.
Quote from: SVT666 on October 28, 2010, 09:27:06 AM
It's got the Boss front clip too. The only EcoBoost motor I could see getting installed in this thing is the 4 banger and produce around 280 hp. I can't see the EcoBoost V6 going in the Mustang simply because it would have comparable HP and more torque than the GT and cost more. It doesn't makes sense.
Exactly.
Quote from: SVT666 on October 28, 2010, 09:27:06 AM
It's got the Boss front clip too. The only EcoBoost motor I could see getting installed in this thing is the 4 banger and produce around 280 hp. I can't see the EcoBoost V6 going in the Mustang simply because it would have comparable HP and more torque than the GT and cost more. It doesn't makes sense.
And if the 4-banger is pushing 280 hp, it'll likely be pretty darn close to the V6 in performance (and probably cost as much or more). If Ford drops an ecoboost 4-banger in the Mustang, I'm guessing it'll be the 2.0L that's slated for the new Explorer with 230-240 hp.
C'mon guys, there won't be any 4-cylinder in a Mustang anytime soon...
Quote from: GoCougs on October 28, 2010, 05:26:52 PM
C'mon guys, there won't be any 4-cylinder in a Mustang anytime soon...
They've done turbo 4-bangers before, I won't be surprised to see it again. That said, the current V6 starts at such a low price point that I'm not sure I see where a turbo-4 would really even slot into the lineup except possibly as a V6 replacement.
Quote from: MX793 on October 28, 2010, 05:34:48 PM
They've done turbo 4-bangers before, I won't be surprised to see it again. That said, the current V6 starts at such a low price point that I'm not sure I see where a turbo-4 would really even slot into the lineup except possibly as a V6 replacement.
But that was at a performance (or at least power level) above the V8 though; i.e., it wasn't a cheapo/econo trim model.
Quote from: GoCougs on October 28, 2010, 07:23:00 PM
But that was at a performance (or at least power level) above the V8 though; i.e., it wasn't a cheapo/econo trim model.
Yes, the turbo model was at the same performance level as the GT, but at the same time the base Mustang was also powered by a 4-cylinder (albeit naturally aspirated).
SVO! SVO! SVO!
Quote from: Cobra93 on October 28, 2010, 09:08:44 AM
Basically, this. Plus, the Boss 302 has a 9K tach and calls for premium fuel. I also don't follow the logic of developing an Ecoboost application when the car was just released with 2 new powertrains. It's probably just a Boss 302 undergoing real world endurance testing.
Then wouldn't it be smart to at least use the tires (and why not the wheels as well?) of the Boss 302 if you're doing "real world endurance testing" on a Boss 302? And the Boss 302 exhausts?
Nevertheless, I will concede it could be a mule to prove out performance kits for the Mustang's naturally-aspirated 3.7L V6--Ford's said it is developing an aftermarket parts program for the 3.7, so this could be one of the mules for that effort. But it could just as easily be the Mustang team's "Hell, why not?" effort to see what happens when a longitudinally-configured F150 EcoBoost V6 is dropped into a Mustang GT chassis--this oughtta be an easy task since I think the tranny uses the identical bolt pattern and we know the V6 block has the engine mounts in the proper locations (ALL of 'em are cast with engine mounts for transverse AND longitudinal mounting).
Or a mule for the second edition of the Terlingua Racing Team Mustang :wub: post-title package, a vehicle whose time has truly come now that the best V6 in North America sits in everybody's 2011 V6 Mustang...
I think an Ecoboost 4 banger makes 100x more sense than an Ecoboost V6
Boost it up to 300 HP w/strong low end, ditch the V6. You get a lighter nose/car, better gas mileage and more aftermarket potential. Plus it will work better for the typical base Mustang crew. I like the V6 but it doesn't make sense with an available equally powerful lighter more fuel efficient turbo 4.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on October 29, 2010, 09:27:50 AM
I think an Ecoboost 4 banger makes 100x more sense than an Ecoboost V6
Boost it up to 300 HP w/strong low end, ditch the V6. You get a lighter nose/car, better gas mileage and more aftermarket potential. Plus it will work better for the typical base Mustang crew. I like the V6 but it doesn't make sense with an available equally powerful lighter more fuel efficient turbo 4.
A 300 hp version of the 2.0L Turbo is going to have major turbo lag and not be nearly as flexible as the 3.7. The breadth of torque on that V6 is fantastic. There's a hill near my parent's place that climbs 280 ft over 1/4 mile (21% average grade). Most vehicles I've driven or ridden in have to drop 2 gears to really be able to pull the hill. My Mustang pulled this hill at 2200 RPM in 5th without losing speed.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on October 29, 2010, 09:27:50 AM
I think an Ecoboost 4 banger makes 100x more sense than an Ecoboost V6
Boost it up to 300 HP w/strong low end, ditch the V6. You get a lighter nose/car, better gas mileage and more aftermarket potential. Plus it will work better for the typical base Mustang crew. I like the V6 but it doesn't make sense with an available equally powerful lighter more fuel efficient turbo 4.
sportyaccordy: SportDude, is there a longitudinal-mounting I4 amongst current Ford engines? If
yes, does that I4 use dual exhausts as does this mule?
Consider that an I4 Mustang is still a more-or-less 3300-3400 lb vehicle. The S197's engine compartment can hold all versions of the Boss 429, the 427 SOHC, the modular 4-valve engines, the 3-valve V10, and the Aston Martin V12 without Sawzalling the wheelwells or sledgehammering the firewall and you see how big a vehicle this is for a dimunitive I4, and the chassis is beefy enough to handle the the torque those muthas can slam into the body/frame structure (stiffness of 29,000 Newton meters or thereabouts, maybe more).
Every journalistic asshole and his brother will then be putting I4 Mustangs in comparos with tiny compacts, subcompacts, and any other rolling chassis offering an I4 and talkin' trash about how the "heavy" I4 Mustang wasn't competitive with the (MINI/Fiesta/Focus/whatever). If you gotta have an I4, go with a vehicle with a chassis designed for an I4--the thousands of chasses that have been designed for I4s would play Hell handling a Boss 302 (much less a Boss 429), but these comparos won't bother to point out anything other than that the "heavy" Mustang I4 wasn't as quick & agile as the 1100 pounds lighter Whatever I4.
Just because it can be done doesn't mean it should be done. MUCH better would be to offer a two/three door Focus & Fiesta for those who lust after fourbangers and < four doors...
Quote from: Nethead on October 29, 2010, 10:03:04 AM
sportyaccordy: SportDude, is there a longitudinal-mounting I4 amongst current Ford engines?
Ford uses an I4 (Duratec/MZR family, I believe) in some of their truck applications, so yes.
QuoteIf yes, does that I4 use dual exhausts as does this mule?
Dual pipes are easy to implement and say nothing about the motor itself. Dual pipes are often purely aesthetic. The 3.0L Mazda6 had dual pipes out the back while the Fusion/Milan, with the same engine and drivetrain, did not. The Mazda3 sedan has dual pipes, but the hatchback with the same engine does not (same goes for the Subaru Impreza and WRX hatch vs sedan).
Quote from: MX793 on October 29, 2010, 10:12:56 AM
Ford uses an I4 (Duratec/MZR family, I believe) in some of their truck applications, so yes.
Dual pipes are easy to implement and say nothing about the motor itself. Dual pipes are often purely aesthetic. The 3.0L Mazda6 had dual pipes out the back while the Fusion/Milan, with the same engine and drivetrain, did not. The Mazda3 sedan has dual pipes, but the hatchback with the same engine does not (same goes for the Subaru Impreza and WRX hatch vs sedan).
MX793: MXdude here has established that there are permutations and combinations within Ford Motor Company's Powertrain Division that could conceivably provide a four-cylinder powerplant under the hood of a certain Mustang mule.
He has not explained a rationale, but he has established the physical possibility of such a crime against nature--er, make that "innovative concept". Consider that the turbo I4 SVO Mustang of a bygone era sold less than 10,000 units in three years when the hope was that this SVO model would at least manage 10,000 units per year. In this austere era, can you see any way in Hell that a stressed Product Manager is gonna say "Go for it!" to a turbo I4 Mustang today???? :confused: Nope, the Nethead here can't either...
Quote from: MX793 on October 29, 2010, 09:58:40 AM
A 300 hp version of the 2.0L Turbo is going to have major turbo lag and not be nearly as flexible as the 3.7. The breadth of torque on that V6 is fantastic. There's a hill near my parent's place that climbs 280 ft over 1/4 mile (21% average grade). Most vehicles I've driven or ridden in have to drop 2 gears to really be able to pull the hill. My Mustang pulled this hill at 2200 RPM in 5th without losing speed.
Wow! :clap:
Quote from: Nethead on October 29, 2010, 10:25:53 AM
He has not explained a rationale, but he has established the physical possibility of such a crime against nature--er, make that "innovative concept". Consider that the turbo I4 SVO Mustang of a bygone era sold less than 10,000 units in three years when the hope was that this SVO model would at least manage 10,000 units per year. In this austere era, can you see any way in Hell that a stressed Product Manager is gonna say "Go for it!" to a turbo I4 Mustang today???? :confused: Nope, the Nethead here can't either...
Bear in mind that this is the same Ford that intends to charge more for a turbo V6 in place of a traditional V8 in the very conservative pickup truck market.
With rising fuel economy standards and greater acceptance of turbocharged engines by the American consumer (compared to 25+ years ago), yes, I could see a turbo-4 finding its way into a Mustang again. But not as a V8 alternative like the SVO. I imagine it would be a base engine. Many affordable performance cars (and non-performance cars) are now coming with turbocharged mills these days. Far more than when the SVO could be purchased new from the dealer lot.
Quote from: MX793 on October 29, 2010, 09:58:40 AM
A 300 hp version of the 2.0L Turbo is going to have major turbo lag and not be nearly as flexible as the 3.7. The breadth of torque on that V6 is fantastic. There's a hill near my parent's place that climbs 280 ft over 1/4 mile (21% average grade). Most vehicles I've driven or ridden in have to drop 2 gears to really be able to pull the hill. My Mustang pulled this hill at 2200 RPM in 5th without losing speed.
Very impressive...but I thought the twin-turbo arrangement on the EcoBoosts were used to eliminate turbo lag.
Quote from: MX793 on October 29, 2010, 09:58:40 AM
A 300 hp version of the 2.0L Turbo is going to have major turbo lag and not be nearly as flexible as the 3.7. The breadth of torque on that V6 is fantastic. There's a hill near my parent's place that climbs 280 ft over 1/4 mile (21% average grade). Most vehicles I've driven or ridden in have to drop 2 gears to really be able to pull the hill. My Mustang pulled this hill at 2200 RPM in 5th without losing speed.
Not necessarily. The 2.0 in the Sonata 2.0T has plenty of low end pull. With the right turbo & VVT tech they can do it.
Quote from: FoMoJo on October 29, 2010, 10:42:05 AM
Very impressive...but I thought the twin-turbo arrangement on the EcoBoosts were used to eliminate turbo lag.
The V6 has twin turbos, but the 4-cylinder EcoBoost motors are single turbo.
Quote from: MX793 on October 29, 2010, 12:36:14 PM
The V6 has twin turbos, but the 4-cylinder EcoBoost motors are single turbo.
Hyundai 2.0T has 1 turbo and makes copious low end torque (and decent mid to top end power too).
Quote from: sportyaccordy on October 29, 2010, 12:51:40 PM
Hyundai 2.0T has 1 turbo and makes copious low end torque (and decent mid to top end power too).
The fact that it makes lots of torque at low RPM doesn't mean it is free from turbo lag.
Quote from: MX793 on October 29, 2010, 12:36:14 PM
The V6 has twin turbos, but the 4-cylinder EcoBoost motors are single turbo.
I didn't know that. Some blurbs had claimed that turbo-lag was, virtually, eliminated.
Quote from: FoMoJo on October 29, 2010, 01:59:04 PM
I didn't know that. Some blurbs had claimed that turbo-lag was, virtually, eliminated.
They may have very low lag. I'd also point out that they aren't putting out nearly 300 hp. The current 2.0T EcoBoost in Europe is rated at either 200 hp or 237 hp depending on the state of tune.
Quote from: MX793 on October 29, 2010, 10:39:17 AM
Bear in mind that this is the same Ford that intends to charge more for a turbo V6 in place of a traditional V8 in the very conservative pickup truck market.
With rising fuel economy standards and greater acceptance of turbocharged engines by the American consumer (compared to 25+ years ago), yes, I could see a turbo-4 finding its way into a Mustang again. But not as a V8 alternative like the SVO. I imagine it would be a base engine. Many affordable performance cars (and non-performance cars) are now coming with turbocharged mills these days. Far more than when the SVO could be purchased new from the dealer lot.
MX793: Well said, MXdude! There is a different level of general public automotive knowledge than was the case during the brief history of the SVO turbo fours. Done exactly as you described it above, maybe it could work. But still I say don't, because it's still a large vehicle among featherweights that were designed without a single thought of withstanding big, big V8 power. But once you put any four-banger in a Mustang, the comparos to cars with four-bangers that weigh a half-ton less will begin immediately--regardless of the fact that the Mustang comes in versions with at least 550 HP/510 lbs. ft. from the factory without any body/frame strengthening required.
Again I say, leave the I4s to Fiestas and Focuses. For the same reasons that a Mustang does not need a Harley V-twin even though it'll fit under the hood with room to spare...
In any case, the mule snapped by the Priddy Posse ain't packin' no four-banger so the discussion is sorta moot...
Quote from: MX793 on October 29, 2010, 01:06:41 PM
The fact that it makes lots of torque at low RPM doesn't mean it is free from turbo lag.
It can't be a big or laggy turbo if it spools basically off idle
Quote from: sportyaccordy on October 29, 2010, 02:52:53 PM
It can't be a big or laggy turbo if it spools basically off idle
It's the size of a grapefruit :huh:.
Quote from: MX793 on October 28, 2010, 08:30:14 PM
Yes, the turbo model was at the same performance level as the GT, but at the same time the base Mustang was also powered by a 4-cylinder (albeit naturally aspirated).
You're right - forgot about that - however that Mustang was based off an econo car (Ford Fairmount) to the I4 was in effect a freebie. The current Mustang is much larger and heavier, and sits on its own chassis that is only remotely related to the Lincoln LS.
Nah - a 300 hp turbo-4 ain't going to get appreciably better MPG than a N/A 300 hp V6 given that each engine has the same level of technology.
Quote from: GoCougs on October 29, 2010, 07:29:55 PM
Nah - a 300 hp turbo-4 ain't going to get appreciably better MPG than a N/A 300 hp V6 given that each engine has the same level of technology.
In everyday driving it probably will, as long as the driver stays out of the boost. (of course that means the car isn't as fast)
Quote from: hotrodalex on October 30, 2010, 09:24:29 AM
In everyday driving it probably will, as long as the driver stays out of the boost. (of course that means the car isn't as fast)
Nah - when each is driven the same; racing vs. stop-n-go vs. loafing along; they'll still both get about the same MPG.
Specifically about a turbo motor, it will have a lower compression ratio so it will be inherently a less efficient engine and even when not on boost the turbo is still in the exhaust stream causing back pressure, both of which erase most any disadvantage in weight and pumping and internal losses of a larger motor.
Shows how much you know Cougs. EcoBoost uses higher compression.
:facepalm:
A smattering of ~300 hp V6s:
GM 3.6L V6, 11.4:1
Honda 3.7L V6, 11.2:1
Nissan 3.7L V6, 11.0:1
Lexus 3.5L V6, 10.8:1
Ford 3.7L V6, 10.5:1
And direct injection turbo I-4 (only two I can think of):
Ecoboost 2.0T, 10:1
Hyandai 2.0T, 9.5:1
10.5 is hardly lower compression. Most turbo motors are in the high 8s to low 9s.
Quote from: GoCougs on October 30, 2010, 01:43:27 PM
:facepalm:
A smattering of ~300 hp V6s:
GM 3.6L V6, 11.4:1
Honda 3.7L V6, 11.2:1
Nissan 3.7L V6, 11.0:1
Lexus 3.5L V6, 10.8:1
Ford 3.7L V6, 10.5:1
And direct injection turbo I-4 (only two I can think of):
Ecoboost 2.0T, 10:1
Hyandai 2.0T, 9.5:1
The two engines in question are, for all intents and purposes, the same CR.
And a turbo 4 can't have the same amount of tech as an N/A V6; the turbo adds another dimension of engine management, along with extending the range of power and fuel consumption.
Again, if what you said was true, Hyundai wouldn't throw the 2.0T into the ring, Ford wouldn't waste $$$ on developing Ecoboost motors, BMW wouldn't have implemented the 3.0TT across their range, etc. etc. Multiple manufacturers don't jump on technology that doesn't make sense.
The FACT is, smaller turbo motors, especially with equal compression ratios, will always be more efficient in part throttle operation than a significantly larger + equally powerful big N/A motor. I've already discussed why ad nauseum, can you please post some evidence or reasoning to validate your anti-turbo jihad?
Some examples
2011 S4 (330 HP, 3900lb, S/C 3.0 V6)- 18/27
2007 S4 (340 HP, 3800lb, N/A 4.2 V8)- 13/15
2008 335i (300HP, 3500lb, 3.0TT I6)- 17/26
2008 328i (230HP, 3450lb, N/A 3.0 I6)- 18/28
2011 Sonata 2.4 (190HP?, 3300lb, N/A 2.4 I4)- 22/35
2011 Sonata 2.0T (270HP?, 3300lb, 2.0T I4)- 22/33
Etc
You claim these tests can be gamed but make no claims as to how they're gamed
You claim big N/A motors are just as efficient as smaller equally powerful turbo ones but post no examples
Etc etc... cmon Cougs
Quote from: sportyaccordy on October 30, 2010, 06:12:16 PM
The two engines in question are, for all intents and purposes, the same CR.
And a turbo 4 can't have the same amount of tech as an N/A V6; the turbo adds another dimension of engine management, along with extending the range of power and fuel consumption.
Again, if what you said was true, Hyundai wouldn't throw the 2.0T into the ring, Ford wouldn't waste $$$ on developing Ecoboost motors, BMW wouldn't have implemented the 3.0TT across their range, etc. etc. Multiple manufacturers don't jump on technology that doesn't make sense.
The FACT is, smaller turbo motors, especially with equal compression ratios, will always be more efficient in part throttle operation than a significantly larger + equally powerful big N/A motor. I've already discussed why ad nauseum, can you please post some evidence or reasoning to validate your anti-turbo jihad?
No, they are not the same CR, especially the other engines.
You've cherry picked three automakers, all of which (especially Ford) have never been anywhere near the forefront of engine performance. Pretty much no one else is going F/I in the US. The Japanese overall make the best plebeian engines (I4, V6), and surprise, at least for the US market, have only a couple of F/I motors.
Like I said, a turbo motor at part throttle will still have lower compression ratio, the turbo will still be in the exhaust stream, and there is the practical byproduct that turbo motors tend to run a bit richer as an extra measure against detonation (that may be going away though with better engine tech, I'm not sure).
Quote from: sportyaccordy on October 30, 2010, 06:37:10 PM
Some examples
2011 S4 (330 HP, 3900lb, S/C 3.0 V6)- 18/27
2007 S4 (340 HP, 3800lb, N/A 4.2 V8)- 13/15
2008 335i (300HP, 3500lb, 3.0TT I6)- 17/26
2008 328i (230HP, 3450lb, N/A 3.0 I6)- 18/28
2011 Sonata 2.4 (190HP?, 3300lb, N/A 2.4 I4)- 22/35
2011 Sonata 2.0T (270HP?, 3300lb, 2.0T I4)- 22/33
Etc
You claim these tests can be gamed but make no claims as to how they're gamed
You claim big N/A motors are just as efficient as smaller equally powerful turbo ones but post no examples
Etc etc... cmon Cougs
How many times do I have to learn these things to people? 1-4 M/T skip shift, DoD, quick A/T upshifts in full auto, locking torque converter in lower gears, and probably all sorts of other stuff, that not only is not engine related, it only works when a car is limped along as in the EPA tests. Plus there are plenty of other - from drive type, to transmission type, to gearing, to vehicle weight, to all sorts of other factors that have nothing to do with the engine.
Mag racing MPG figures, especially the list you put together, is :facepalm: and I won't be a part of it for the exact reason pooprod pimps crow on about a Corvette getting great mileage but put that same engine in a Silverado or Escalade and it gets abysmal MPG just every other full size truck or SUV.
I think it should be pointed out that you can't really use compression ratio as an efficiency indicator for turbocharged engines. Works great for a naturally aspirated Otto cycle, but once you slap a turbocharger onto that engine you're recapturing some otherwise rejected heat which is in turn used to compress incoming air. In a sense, a turbocharged engine is sort of like a Brayton/Otto cycle hybrid.
Quote from: MX793 on October 30, 2010, 09:03:26 PM
I think it should be pointed out that you can't really use compression ratio as an efficiency indicator for turbocharged engines. Works great for a naturally aspirated Otto cycle, but once you slap a turbocharger onto that engine you're recapturing some otherwise rejected heat which is in turn used to compress incoming air. In a sense, a turbocharged engine is sort of like a Brayton/Otto cycle hybrid.
True, but their claims however are concerning being "off boost."
Cougs would you agree that for example, at idle, a 2 liter 4 banger consumes less fuel than a 4 liter V6 with the same valves/cylinder + technology?
Quote from: GoCougs on October 30, 2010, 08:18:59 PM
How many times do I have to learn these things to people? 1-4 M/T skip shift, DoD, quick A/T upshifts in full auto, locking torque converter in lower gears, and probably all sorts of other stuff, that not only is not engine related, it only works when a car is limped along as in the EPA tests. Plus there are plenty of other - from drive type, to transmission type, to gearing, to vehicle weight, to all sorts of other factors that have nothing to do with the engine.
1-4 M/T skip shift? :facepalm:
Does the EPA get cars with DoD that aren't available to the public?
How could the EPA control when the A/T shifts or the torque converter locks?
Drive type/transmission type/gear ratios are irrelevant in the examples I posted.
More importantly though, many people's real life experiences reflect the reality of the EPA's figures. Especially after they changed their test procedures to better reflect reality.
Quote from: GoCougs on October 30, 2010, 08:18:59 PM
Mag racing MPG figures, especially the list you put together, is :facepalm: and I won't be a part of it for the exact reason pooprod pimps crow on about a Corvette getting great mileage but put that same engine in a Silverado or Escalade and it gets abysmal MPG just every other full size truck or SUV.
Yea, I'm sure the difference in the Corvette's gas mileage has nothing to do with the fact that it has half the frontal area and curb weight. Your density is approaching that of a singularity.
Fact is, small turbo motors are more efficient than big equally powerful N/A ones.
Quote from: GoCougs on October 30, 2010, 07:49:48 PM
You've cherry picked three automakers, all of which (especially Ford) have never been anywhere near the forefront of engine performance.
I've picked 3 manufacturers who made cars whose main differences were turbocharging.
And lol @ BMW & Audi not beign at the forefront of engine performance. Seriously?
Quote from: sportyaccordy on October 30, 2010, 11:25:03 PM
Cougs would you agree that for example, at idle, a 2 liter 4 banger consumes less fuel than a 4 liter V6 with the same valves/cylinder + technology?
In theory, sure, but in practicality the losses are so low at idle that a minor change, like a lower viscosity oil in the V6, could make it better.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on October 30, 2010, 11:30:39 PM
1-4 M/T skip shift? :facepalm:
Does the EPA get cars with DoD that aren't available to the public?
How could the EPA control when the A/T shifts or the torque converter locks?
Drive type/transmission type/gear ratios are irrelevant in the examples I posted.
More importantly though, many people's real life experiences reflect the reality of the EPA's figures. Especially after they changed their test procedures to better reflect reality.
The point being, when you drive a car normally, most all that stuff is bypassed - and exactly why the EPA toughened up its test procedure.
Quote
Yea, I'm sure the difference in the Corvette's gas mileage has nothing to do with the fact that it has half the frontal area and curb weight. Your density is approaching that of a singularity.
Fact is, small turbo motors are more efficient than big equally powerful N/A ones.
Right, the point being the vehicle has lots and lots to do with it.
You have not posted one result bit of viable 'evidence' backing your claim. An equally-powerfully turbo motor will not get appreciably better MPG.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on October 30, 2010, 11:35:15 PM
I've picked 3 manufacturers who made cars whose main differences were turbocharging.
And lol @ BMW & Audi not beign at the forefront of engine performance. Seriously?
All those examples
prove my point, especially as it concerns the weakness of EPA test procedure.
BMW and especially Audi build mediocre motors - Honda and Toyota have for quite some time built better motors (at a fraction of the cost, BTW).
They build mediocre motors? You should stick to politics Cougs.
Quote from: GoCougs on October 31, 2010, 02:27:56 PM
You have not posted one result bit of viable 'evidence' backing your claim. An equally-powerfully turbo motor will not get appreciably better MPG.
I have posted evidence. Where's yours? A gut feeling that the EPA tests are rigged?
Quote from: GoCougs on October 31, 2010, 02:35:40 PM
All those examples prove my point, especially as it concerns the weakness of EPA test procedure.
BMW and especially Audi build mediocre motors - Honda and Toyota have for quite some time built better motors (at a fraction of the cost, BTW).
Mediocre? By what metric? This is why I ask for something to substantiate your views as you just seem to make stuff up.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on October 31, 2010, 03:47:43 PM
I have posted evidence. Where's yours? A gut feeling that the EPA tests are rigged?
It's not so much that EPA tests are "rigged" as it is the manufacturers can add "features" to the cars to make them perform better on an EPA test that don't have quite the same effect in real world driving. For instance, the 1-4 skip shift feature that a number of cars use. The EPA test has set shift points and does not allow for the skipping of accessible gears. Lock a couple of gears out and now the next accessible gear is 4th, essentially creating a loophole in the test rules. On cars with automatics, the manufacturers program their cars to shift in accordance with how the throttle is applied in the test (which is why you read so many complaints about many cars not downshifting unless you really put your foot into it).
Quote from: sportyaccordy on October 31, 2010, 03:47:43 PM
I have posted evidence. Where's yours? A gut feeling that the EPA tests are rigged?
Mediocre? By what metric? This is why I ask for something to substantiate your views as you just seem to make stuff up.
Dude, you've posted examples of effectively same car with a more powerful engine using more fuel = EPA test is poor determinant and turbo motors are not more MPG friendly. If I wanted to play this game:
2010 Lexus LS460 AWD; 4,800 lb, 389 hp, 16/23
2010 Subaru Legacy H6; 3,500 lb, 256 hp, 17/25
2010 Subaru Legacy GT; 3,450 lb, 265 hp, 17/25
Mediocre by any metric - power, economy, NVH, cost, w/e - Neither BMW, Audi or even MB can build as good an engine as a Toyota or Honda I4 or V6; not as powerful (at least N/A), not as refined, not as durable/reliable, and much more expensive to boot.
I'm with Cougs on this one - a smaller turbo engine isn't the be all and end all of fuel efficiency as we're led to believe. Lean on the accelerator ever so slightly, and suddenly those sharp-looking official numbers don't look so good after all.
Quote from: omicron on November 01, 2010, 08:19:39 AM
I'm with Cougs on this one - a smaller turbo engine isn't the be all and end all of fuel efficiency as we're led to believe. Lean on the accelerator ever so slightly, and suddenly those sharp-looking official numbers don't look so good after all.
Yes, but every engine will suck back more fuel if you get on the gas. But driven normally that Turbo 4 will definitely get better mileage than a V6.
Quote from: SVT666 on November 01, 2010, 08:48:12 AM
Yes, but every engine will suck back more fuel if you get on the gas. But driven normally that Turbo 4 will definitely get better mileage than a V6.
I don't think it's an absolute. I'd definitely want to have a test car for a day or two to see for sure.
Quote from: GoCougs on October 31, 2010, 04:03:58 PM
Dude, you've posted examples of effectively same car with a more powerful engine using more fuel = EPA test is poor determinant and turbo motors are not more MPG friendly. If I wanted to play this game:
2010 Lexus LS460 AWD; 4,800 lb, 389 hp, 16/23
2010 Subaru Legacy H6; 3,500 lb, 256 hp, 17/25
2010 Subaru Legacy GT; 3,450 lb, 265 hp, 17/25
IIRC, the new Legacy has a big frontal area + isn't all that aerodynamic. Most importantly though, the Lexus has a new, highly efficient 8 speed transmission + transfer case vs the Subaru's old school 5 speed AT. The cars are in no way similar. Can you find some other fuel economy results that would more realistically reflect the inherent differences between the two cars?
Quote from: GoCougs on October 31, 2010, 04:03:58 PM
Mediocre by any metric - power, economy, NVH, cost, w/e - Neither BMW, Audi or even MB can build as good an engine as a Toyota or Honda I4 or V6; not as powerful (at least N/A), not as refined, not as durable/reliable, and much more expensive to boot.
BMW's motors have been pretty power efficient since the 170HP 2.5L M20 6 cylinder of the 80s and have pretty much had the same HP+TQ/L as their Japanese counterparts or better, so that's out. You have no standardized metric of fuel economy and have not, unless I'm mistaken, ever owned or driven a German car so I'm not sure how you can state that with such certainty either. Ditto to a degree for NVH- BMW's engines are world renowned for their combination of mechanical smoothness and enjoyable sounds. Honda has some smooth running engines but in my experience Toyota does not. Cost is not directly comparable either as none of the companies sell crate motors, and unless I'm mistaken do not publish the breakdown of component costs of their cars publicly.
The only metric by which you come close to having a point is in durability/reliability; but even in that we're comparing apples to oranges; a Honda Accord of the 90s generally had a pretty simple, low compression, low engine speed 4 banger. These were not complicated or highly stressed lumps. By contrast, during the same period BMW had engines of close displacement with more cylinders (more running $$$), more technology (some of which were industry firsts- VANOS for example was IIRC the first general production implementation of cam phasing), higher engine speeds and more HP/L (M50 2.5L I6 in '92 was putting down 76HP/L and was BMW's bread and butter motor; what non VTEC N/A Honda/Toyota/Nissan engines were doing that?). Let's not forget Toyota's sludge debacle, Honda's V6 head gasket woes on the C series and transmission problems on the Js. Cmon now
For all these assertions no one has posted any evidence and data that backs up these superior MPG claims about a turbo motor and basic fundamental engineering concepts point to approximately equivalency in MPG as well. Plus, the V6 will be more reliable and durable, have no turbo lag, and will be better in NVH.
IMO the turbo mill really only makes sense either when it comes to space constraints (e.g., 911 Turbo - there's simply no room for a 500+ N/A engine with today's engine technology) or development cost savings (turbo charging an existing engine family/architecture).
2010 Ford Taurus SEL 3.5L V6 (263 hp) = 17/25 mpg
2010 Ford Taurus SHO Twin Turbo 3.5L V6 (365 hp) = 17/25 mpg
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 01, 2010, 09:51:42 AM
IIRC, the new Legacy has a big frontal area + isn't all that aerodynamic. Most importantly though, the Lexus has a new, highly efficient 8 speed transmission + transfer case vs the Subaru's old school 5 speed AT. The cars are in no way similar. Can you find some other fuel economy results that would more realistically reflect the inherent differences between the two cars?
I would say probably not on frontal area - the LS460L is a whale of a car that absolutely dwarfs the Legacy GT and especially the WRX (same MPG as the LGT). Plus, the Legacy GT has a 6sp M/T which will be more efficient than
any torque converter-style A/T even like that in the LS460. I don't know the specifics on the two transfer cases, but I imagine it being that big of a difference. IMO, the two cars are very similar in the context you created. But we can also add others. The G37x and Acura TL SH-AWD also have identical or a bit better MPG ratings than the Legacy GT, all the while being larger, heavier, more powerful cars that are also use torque convert-style ATs.
I will say this however; Subaru really doesn't have to worry too much about MPG as it doesn't have SUVs, sports cars, or other MPG-unfriendly vehicle types can sink CAFE numbers. Plus its cars have a cult following and in general Americans don't care about MPG all that much (that's primarily politicians and certain sectors of society clamoring for power in various ways). This means Subaru doesn't care too much about MPG.
QuoteBMW's motors have been pretty power efficient since the 170HP 2.5L M20 6 cylinder of the 80s and have pretty much had the same HP+TQ/L as their Japanese counterparts or better, so that's out. You have no standardized metric of fuel economy and have not, unless I'm mistaken, ever owned or driven a German car so I'm not sure how you can state that with such certainty either. Ditto to a degree for NVH- BMW's engines are world renowned for their combination of mechanical smoothness and enjoyable sounds. Honda has some smooth running engines but in my experience Toyota does not. Cost is not directly comparable either as none of the companies sell crate motors, and unless I'm mistaken do not publish the breakdown of component costs of their cars publicly.
The I6 architecture is old and limited technology, and as competition demanded more power BMW has been playing catch-up, having to result to F/I to keep pace. The Japanese Big 3's 300 - 330 hp N/A V6s are better motors in every regard save for maybe Toyota and Nissan's NVH.
QuoteThe only metric by which you come close to having a point is in durability/reliability; but even in that we're comparing apples to oranges; a Honda Accord of the 90s generally had a pretty simple, low compression, low engine speed 4 banger. These were not complicated or highly stressed lumps. By contrast, during the same period BMW had engines of close displacement with more cylinders (more running $$$), more technology (some of which were industry firsts- VANOS for example was IIRC the first general production implementation of cam phasing), higher engine speeds and more HP/L (M50 2.5L I6 in '92 was putting down 76HP/L and was BMW's bread and butter motor; what non VTEC N/A Honda/Toyota/Nissan engines were doing that?). Let's not forget Toyota's sludge debacle, Honda's V6 head gasket woes on the C series and transmission problems on the Js. Cmon now
The M50 was a relatively low production, specialized engine. Sure BMW has had innovations but I'm not talking about technology for technology's sake per se, I'm talking about results - power, economy, NVH, reliability/durability and cost (of the overall vehicle). And when talking NVH I was primarily thinking of BMW's I4, of which they build plenty.
Quote from: GoCougs on November 01, 2010, 11:11:05 AM
I would say probably not on frontal area - the LS460L is a whale of a car that absolutely dwarfs the Legacy GT and especially the WRX (same MPG as the LGT). Plus, the Legacy GT has a 6sp M/T which will be more efficient than any torque converter-style A/T even like that in the LS460. I don't know the specifics on the two transfer cases, but I imagine it being that big of a difference. IMO, the two cars are very similar in the context you created. But we can also add others. The G37x and Acura TL SH-AWD also have identical or a bit better MPG ratings than the Legacy GT, all the while being larger, heavier, more powerful cars that are also use torque convert-style ATs.
I will say this however; Subaru really doesn't have to worry too much about MPG as it doesn't have SUVs, sports cars, or other MPG-unfriendly vehicle types can sink CAFE numbers. Plus its cars have a cult following and in general Americans don't care about MPG all that much (that's primarily politicians and certain sectors of society clamoring for power in various ways). This means Subaru doesn't care too much about MPG.
Well mean the Subaru is using 15 year old engines with pretty much no efficiency technology besides VVT and turbochargers. I think both the H4 & H6 have relatively low compression ratios compared to the competition, whereas the Lexus has VVT, DI, and an 11.8:1 CR, along with an 8 spd auto that has efficiency close to an M/T (C&D did an article on it), and much smarter efficiency management than a cavedude with a stickshift...
I'm sure in the real world their fuel mileages are close as well. I'm sure it's less the Lexus being re-engineered to cheat the test as much as it is "Subaru not having to worry too much about MPG as it doesn't have SUVs, sports cars, or other MPG-unfriendly vehicle types [that] can sink CAFE numbers. Plus its cars have a cult following and in general Americans don't care about MPG all that much (that's primarily politicians and certain sectors of society clamoring for power in various ways). This means Subaru doesn't care too much about MPG.", which means their efforts to make their cars more efficient are nil...
All I need to be convinced is some evidence that cars are getting much lower real world gas mileage than EPA numbers suggest, as you assert that manufacturers are spending money on tech that boosts gas mileage on the EPA test, but not in real life (????).
Quote from: GoCougs on November 01, 2010, 11:11:05 AM
The I6 architecture is old and limited technology, and as competition demanded more power BMW has been playing catch-up, having to result to F/I to keep pace. The Japanese Big 3's 300 - 330 hp N/A V6s are better motors in every regard save for maybe Toyota and Nissan's NVH.
BMW went the F/I route to save $$$ on developing a bigger block, as IIRC its I6 is at the outer limits of bore spacing and the bore/stroke ratio they want to keep vibrations low. It definitely worked. The N54/N55 motors are just as powerful and efficient as the Japanese V6s, but deliver significantly more low end torque (and overall performance) and none of the ugly thrashy NVH. The turbo + DI combo is also much less complex than Valvetronic, or Nissan's incredibly complex infinitely variable valve lift system they have on their latest VQ (a one shot application).
In my personal experience, some of the Japanese V6s can get downright nasty. Never, ever, ever heard an ugly sounding/thrashy BMW engine.
Quote from: GoCougs on November 01, 2010, 11:11:05 AM
The M50 was a relatively low production, specialized engine.
The M50 is about as specialized as Toyota or Nissan's V6s. The architecture of the M50 was the basis of every BMW 6 cylinder from 1991-2005, including the ///M cars. In that regard it's actually less specialized than the Japanese 6s, as during the same period they delegated their thrashy V6s to lower end cars and used I6s for applications where higher power or lower NVH was more critical...
Quote from: GoCougs on November 01, 2010, 11:11:05 AM
Sure BMW has had innovations but I'm not talking about technology for technology's sake per se, I'm talking about results - power, economy, NVH, reliability/durability and cost (of the overall vehicle). And when talking NVH I was primarily thinking of BMW's I4, of which they build plenty.
Again- not sure what metrics you're using but from what I know and have seen + read BMW is either on equal footing or only second to Honda as a general production engine manufacturer. Their mainstream I4s are nothing to write home about, but that's really the only place where they play second fiddle to Honda; their 6 cylinder engines are better and their 8-10-12 cylinder engines are better by default (outside of F1, which I know nothing about). There are reasons McLaren came to BMW over Lotus, Honda, etc to commission the building of the F1's V12, and much of that motor's tech was carried over from the M50. So claims of BMW being a second rate engine company are downright silly; it's right in the name- Bavarian
Motor Works.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 01, 2010, 01:31:19 PM
BMW went the F/I route to save $$$ on developing a bigger block, as IIRC its I6 is at the outer limits of bore spacing and the bore/stroke ratio they want to keep vibrations low. It definitely worked. The N54/N55 motors are just as powerful and efficient as the Japanese V6s, but deliver significantly more low end torque (and overall performance) and none of the ugly thrashy NVH. The turbo + DI combo is also much less complex than Valvetronic, or Nissan's incredibly complex infinitely variable valve lift system they have on their latest VQ (a one shot application).
Only the N54 goes without Valvetronic. When they went to a single turbo on the newer N55, they put Valvetronic (continuously/infinitely variable lift) back into the motor. Both have Double-VANOS.
Sorry sporty, I don't agree on any level. Turbo motors will not be inherently much more efficient and the Japanese build better motors than ze Germans.
But you're right about a meatier powerband for a F/I motor; but what with 6 to infinite # speeds in most cars these days, that is basically a moot issue.
'Hate to disrupt The Braying Ass diatribe about Japanese versus German engines--but since no one gives a shit, I will:
The Top 10 Cars of 2011: Auto Excellence Awards
PERFORMANCE VEHICLE OF THE YEAR:
Throughout the year, (the editors of Popular Mechanics) record the functionality, technology, value and feel of new cars from our test drives. Near the end of the year, we gather and argue for the best cars and trucks of 2011. Here they are, the year's top 10 cars and trucks. By The Editors
Ford Mustang
Base Price: $22,145
Last year, we picked the Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 as the best performance car, and we didn't expect to bestow the honor on the original ponycar again for quite some time. After all, the performance category is brimming with dynamic-handling, powerfully motivated competitors from around the globe?the BMW M3 and the Chevrolet Corvette were recent winners?and they're all improving, all the time.
But over the course of the past few months, Ford has re energized the entire Mustang lineup. First, the new (base Mustang) arrived with an astonishingly versatile V6 engine that developed 305 hp while attaining more than 30 mpg. Alongside that entry-level engine, we witnessed the rebirth of the 5.0, a nostalgic number that represents high performance?by virtue of its 412 hp?like none other.
Except, perhaps, for the 302. Ford reincarnated the Boss 302 nameplate for 2011 as a naturally aspirated 440-hp race car you can drive to the racetrack. You can manually tune the adjustable shocks to their hardest settings, win the race, and then revert to the softer street settings and drive home.
Finally, the 2011 Shelby GT500 still sits at the extreme side of the spectrum, featuring a new, lighter aluminum block for its supercharged 5.4-liter V8 (which makes 550 hp and 510 lb-ft of torque). Race ya' for pinks?
Quote from: SVT666 on October 31, 2010, 03:35:56 PM
They build mediocre motors? You should stick to politics Cougs.
All I can say is :wtf:
Quote from: omicron on November 01, 2010, 08:19:39 AM
I'm with Cougs on this one - a smaller turbo engine isn't the be all and end all of fuel efficiency as we're led to believe. Lean on the accelerator ever so slightly, and suddenly those sharp-looking official numbers don't look so good after all.
I would think that adding direct injection to the equation and a shitload of new software that the concept has been somewhat improved. Ford has 125 new 'powertrain' patents on EcoBoost mainly involving minimizing fuel consumption and emissions as well as turbo plumbing to ensure the back side of the butterfly flap is always pressurized. It's a far cry from the early turbo engines when, under boost, half of the fuel went straight out the tailpipe.
Some may remember the F1 'turbo' era with 4 pot bangers spluttering and popping with 10 foot flames shooting out of the back side. Not only did they waste half of their fuel, the drivers had to time their acceleration to hit the gas pedal 2 seconds before they needed the power to the rear wheels in order to allow for the turbos to spool up. Worst ever F1 engines; though they did serve, somewhat, to advance turbo technology.
Quote from: MX793 on October 31, 2010, 03:55:30 PM
It's not so much that EPA tests are "rigged" as it is the manufacturers can add "features" to the cars to make them perform better on an EPA test that don't have quite the same effect in real world driving. For instance, the 1-4 skip shift feature that a number of cars use. The EPA test has set shift points and does not allow for the skipping of accessible gears. Lock a couple of gears out and now the next accessible gear is 4th, essentially creating a loophole in the test rules. On cars with automatics, the manufacturers program their cars to shift in accordance with how the throttle is applied in the test (which is why you read so many complaints about many cars not downshifting unless you really put your foot into it).
Good points. Even still though, I think a lot of the "all the time" features, like direct injection, better aerodynamics etc really do boost fuel efficiency, and their effectiveness is still reflected in long term road test mileage averages.
My whole thing is, if EPA ratings are essentially useless, and fuel economy is a meaningful stat for me to choose a car with, how can I figure out what range of mileage I should expect?
October 2010 sales figures:
Mustang: 5,317
Camaro: 5,013
Challenger: 3,182
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 03, 2010, 12:26:42 PM
My whole thing is, if EPA ratings are essentially useless, and fuel economy is a meaningful stat for me to choose a car with, how can I figure out what range of mileage I should expect?
At the bare minimum, EPA mileage gives you an indication of how fuel efficient one vehicle is compared to another when driven in the exact same fashion and conditions. But since your driving conditions may not be the same as those used in the test, "your mileage may vary" when it comes to the actual mileage you may attain when you are driving the car.
That said, the EPA has been taking strides to make their estimated window-sticker numbers (which are indeed estimates, they apply a fudge factor to the actual measured mileage from the test) more reflective of what kind of mileage one could reasonably expect in the real world.
But Cougs' point is that vehicle fuel mileage is not dependent solely on the engine. It is a measure of how fuel efficient the vehicle as a whole is, and this is a function of vehicle weight, gearing, transmission efficiency, aerodynamics, tire size, tire compound, etc... It is possible to put a very fuel efficient engine in a not so fuel efficient package to produce a vehicle that gets terrible fuel mileage. One can also put a not-so-fuel-efficient engine in an otherwise very efficient package and get very good fuel economy. Thus, comparing fuel efficiency of engines by citing the EPA fuel economy of entire vehicles (particularly when you're comparing Engine A to Engine B by citing the fuel efficiency of Vehicle A to completely different Vehicle B) doesn't make much sense. EPA mileage is a measure of the package, not the engine.
Quote from: MX793 on November 03, 2010, 03:26:43 PMThus, comparing fuel efficiency of engines by citing the EPA fuel economy of entire vehicles (particularly when you're comparing Engine A to Engine B by citing the fuel efficiency of Vehicle A to completely different Vehicle B) doesn't make much sense. EPA mileage is a measure of the package, not the engine.
Well, I figured in comparing different engines in the same bodies (or relatively close ones) that difference would be wiped out. Obv it's silly to compare completely different cars, say, like comparing an LS460 to a Legacy; but I don't think it's fair to say the EPA figures between a Sonata 2.4 & 2.0T are not comparable; I'm pretty sure that outside of the engine they're the same exact car, so any variance in fuel economy has to be wholly due to the engine- which comes back to my point of EPA figures being completely meaningless.
2010 sales numbers through October:
Camaro: 71,512
Mustang: 64,1171
Challenger: 30,964
Posting the same numbers in 3 threads again eh Neth......oh it's Cougs!
Quote from: GoCougs on November 03, 2010, 06:49:38 PM
2010 sales numbers through October:
Camaro: 71,512
Mustang: 64,1171
Challenger: 30,964
Yearly sales numbers 1965-2001
Mustang: 7,899,556
Camaro: 4,821,768
:lol:
Quote from: Cobra93 on November 03, 2010, 08:08:04 PM
Yearly sales numbers 1965-2001
Mustang: 7,899,556
Camaro: 4,821,768
:lol:
Yearly sale numbers 2002-2009
Mustang: A shitload
Camaro: 0
:lol:
Hmmm. My Internetry has a challenger...
sportyaccordy: Why take a chance? Get a 2011 Mustang V6 that is the only car the EPA has ever tested that has over 300 HP and gets over 30 MPG. And it turns the quarter-mile in under fourteen seconds at over 100 MPH :thumbsup:.
No other new car you can buy in North America can do that--nothing from GM, nothing from Chrysler, nothing from Germany, nothing from Japan, nothing from Italy, nothing from Korea...
Except the one this thread is about.
Now you know :rockon:
Quote from: Nethead on November 04, 2010, 08:09:34 AM
sportyaccordy: Why take a chance? Get a 2011 Mustang V6 that is the only car the EPA has ever tested that has over 300 HP and gets over 30 MPG. And it turns the quarter-mile in under fourteen seconds at over 100 MPH :thumbsup:.
No other new car you can buy in North America can do that--nothing from GM, nothing from Chrysler, nothing from Germany, nothing from Japan, nothing from Italy, nothing from Korea...
Except the one this thread is about.
Now you know :rockon:
Been over this many times. A Mustang equipped to get 30 MPG won't run a sub-14 1/4 mile. You can have a Mustang that runs a sub-14 OR you can have a Mustang rated at 30 MPG highway. You won't get both.
Quote from: MX793 on November 04, 2010, 02:58:54 PM
Been over this many times. A Mustang equipped to get 30 MPG won't run a sub-14 1/4 mile. You can have a Mustang that runs a sub-14 OR you can have a Mustang rated at 30 MPG highway. You won't get both.
MX793: Y'know, methinks you
CAN get over 30 MPG and under fourteen seconds in the same V6 Mustang.
Why?
Motor Trend's four-way comparo of V6s used a 3.31:1 differential Mustang V6 six-speed manual, which in 6th gear was pullin' 2.32:1 as a final drive ratio. That's pretty stingy for a vehicle that used these gears to turn the quarter mile in 13.7 seconds @ 102.0 MPH!
AND it only needed 1800 RPM to maintain 60 MPH, which is stingy, too.
Consider that a regulation Mustang V6 Premium with fairly typical fluff (including, IIRC, the glassroof option) drove 770+ miles on one tank of gas (about 16 gallons) on a NASCAR oval--which means averaging over 48 MPG on regular fuel. And they changed drivers every hour so time & fuel were lost hourly.
Soooooooo:
Take a base Mustang V6 coupe with no options but the 3.31:1s and whatever wheels/tires equipped the Motor Trend test car. If necessary, add cruise control (Maybe standard--I dunno. Cruise control is standard in our Flex). In the sub-fourteen-second Mustang and in the 48+ MPG Mustang, the engines were the same 305 HP V6s.
Do the factory recommended break-in procedure, and change the oil if the manual says to do so after the break-in mileage is reached.
Bring each tire up to its recommended pressure.
Fill 'er up with unleaded regular (no racing gasoline or auto parts store additives--just a name-brand unleaded regular).
Get out on the open road and set the cruise control to five-over the speed limit. Or simplify it and go with a setting of 60 MPH, which requires 1800 RPM with the sub-fourteener's 3.31:1s.
Then go. That's all.
When a vehicle can get over 48 MPG under whatever conditions prevailed at that NASCAR track, switching to 3.31:1 gears and to whatever tires turned the 13.7 seconds ET ain't gonna drop that kinda mileage a whopping 18 MPG, IMO. Remember, we ain't talkin' a V6 Premium with whatever fluff that entails and NO glassroof--just a base V6 with 3.31:1s, the tires and wheels that turned the 13.7, and cruise control (which may be standard on base V6 Mustangs, AFAIK).
I definitely think you'll get 31 MPG--or better. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Better still, do you have a base V6 2011 Mustang equipped as described above? If you do, it's game on!
I wonder just what MPG a TiVCT DOHC 5.0L V8 Mustang GT could get under similar circumstances?
From www.cars.com:
Shoppers' Choice Award
Millions of shoppers visit Cars.com each month as they search for their next car, truck or SUV. While here, they make contacts with and send leads to dealers, and often review their own cars as well. From all of that activity (and a little online voting), we determine which car best represents the voice of our shoppers.
And the winner is:
Ford Mustang
The American muscle-car classic scored very highly in search and leads to dealers, and got high marks from many of the consumers who reviewed it.
Award Nominees
Cadillac Escalade
Chevrolet Corvette
Chevrolet Silverado 1500
Ford Fusion
Ford Expedition
Ford Mustang
Mazda Mazda6
Nissan Murano
Subaru Impreza
Toyota Prius
Motor Trend online ran its second comparo of the Mustang V6 and its three V6 imitators to see which one would win the title of "The People's Ponycar". As MT describes it: "...Our quest was to find the holy grail of the people's ponycar, the one that best combines sport, functionality, and value in a daily driver..." Soooooo, "...When it comes to the real world, people buy high-content, automatic/V-6 pairings. In this gang, that combo accounts for around 50 percent of each marque's volume (the Genesis is the exception, mostly selling with the far less-expensive turbo 2.0-liter mill)..."
All four had automatic transmissions, which the Nethead here wishes MT had expounded whether these contribute to the "sport", to the "functionality", or to the "value". :huh:
Chevy couldn't (Or is that wouldn't?) provide a Camaro V6 to do battle against the others, so a properly-equipped, properly-serviced rental car with 11,000 on the odo was obtained for the comparo.
The Challenger had the new Pentastar 3.6L V6 and a "Super Sport Pack" handling package.
Hyundai could (Or is that would?) only provide the Track model which competed in the first comparo of these four.
The Mustang was a regulation V6er with the usual interior toys, but no performance upgrades.
Soooooooo, how'd they rank?
4th Place: The Camaro, summed up by MT thus: "If the Camaro can't do either of these tasks well, there's no reason it should take anything above last place."
3rd Place: The Challenger--which MT considers the most improved vehicle in this comparo, now ranking it above the Camaro instead of below it as they did in the initial comparo back in July.
2nd Place: The Genesis. Its quirks would be acceptable in a sub-$15,000 vehicle, but this car was $33,190 as tested--even more than the Challenger!
1st place: The forty-seventh year of continued improvement, development, and refinement is hard to beat--and it can't be matched for the money. With the new 3.7L V6, the picture is complete--price, performance, value, reliability, resale, comfort, and satisfaction. Add EcoBoost and the sky's the limit!
:facepalm:
So, the Camaro was a bit quicker and a bit better handler, had a better ride and weight distribution, had more power, had a much lower as-tested price, and had virtually identical braking and MPG, relatively to the Mustang.
The Camaro finished last because, "(T)he biggest omission is the optional navigation system, a feature that every other car in this group has" and because apparently the two tasks that make or brake pony car is driving through a parking lot and using the stereo. I literally LOL'd.
The Camaro is the better performing car than the Mustang in this test. If you disagree you're wrong. Ha, ha. Maybe MY2012 Ford, just maybe.
Why would Ford pay him to troll such a small forum community? Same with atomic and Chrysler.
Quote from: the Teuton on December 21, 2010, 10:32:00 AM
Why would Ford pay him to troll such a small forum community? Same with atomic and Chrysler.
Or rather, why would GM pay Cougs to troll the forum?
Quote from: the Teuton on December 21, 2010, 10:32:00 AM
Why would Ford pay him to troll such a small forum community? Same with atomic and Chrysler.
I don't think he's paid and I even suspect he's not really a Ford fan. I just think he's a pro troll and possibly an alter ego of an existing member. In all seriousness, he's pretty good at it. The tenacity is unparalleled in my experience.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 21, 2010, 10:38:02 AM
I don't think he's paid and I even suspect he's not really a Ford fan. I just think he's a pro troll and possibly an alter ego of an existing member. In all seriousness, he's pretty good at it. The tenacity is unparalleled in my experience.
Who needs to troll when you're right? Note that
Motor Trend said,
and I quote "We learned there are
three very good cars here that are as close to a tie as you can get."
I know that went over your head, BlowCougs, so I'll elaborate: There were
four cars in the test. You with me so far? The
top three are very good cars--the
fourth, not so much...
The Nethead here was a bowtie fanboy as a kid. I grew up, and became an importphile. I got smart, and became a Ford fan. The other domestic makes are for those who didn't.
For under $26,000 you can get the performance options for the V6 Mustang that'll kick the V6 Camaro's ass so hard that it bleeds (Under 14 seconds at over 100 MPH, .86 G, with better mileage and re-sale plus lower emissions. Uhhh, a win-win-win-win-win-win, etc. situation). But with not even one of those performance options the Mustang won this comparo. Clearly, you need to read that July Motor Trend comparo yet again.
You can read, can't you? :confused:
I believe there are some videos with that July comparo that should get you past the literacy challenge well enough...
Ha, ha! Maybe Nethead will look at the stats and read the article before boasting about a "win" or disparaging those that didn't. LOL.
One would think with these continued losses, embarrassments and shellackings Nethead there would be better with his Internetry.
Trolls like Nethead do serve a valuable purpose make no mistake, but sometimes it's painful to watch the self abuse.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 21, 2010, 12:45:47 PM
Ha, ha! Maybe Nethead will look at the stats and read the article before boasting about a "win" or disparaging those that didn't. LOL.
One would think with these continued losses, embarrassments and shellackings Nethead there would be better with his Internetry.
Trolls like Nethead do serve a valuable purpose make no mistake, but sometimes it's painful to watch the self abuse.
Actually Cougs.....you lost. Give it up Troll.
Quote from: SVT666 on December 21, 2010, 01:40:11 PM
Actually Cougs.....you lost. Give it up Troll.
I'm no Chevy guy, but I gotta say, the article did seem to give a lot of credit to the Camaro - it's a bit odd that it came in dead last.
Quote from: Submariner on December 21, 2010, 04:06:29 PM
I'm no Chevy guy, but I gotta say, the article did seem to give a lot of credit to the Camaro - it's a bit odd that it came in dead last.
It's in last place because it's a Chevy. Not matter how good of a product they produce it will be belittled in the mags (especially against a Ford or compitition from overseas) for the most trivial BS. For example we all know everyone hates the seats in all Vettes. OK! GM gives us Recaros in the CTS-V and they still complain. C&D couldn't find anything negative about the CTS-V Coupe so they complained about the sound that the blinkers make. :nutty: If you guys remember when the Camaro first hit the scene (even tho the lesser performing GT was still picked as the winner) all the mags praised the handling and the feel of the car. Some mags even compared it to the Infinity coupes. Now both Camaros still still outperform or are even in performance with the Mustangs but they still gets shitted on bacause it weighs in a lil heavier than the 'Stang or the 'Stang has Navi (I feel the Camaro should have a true Navi option) and other non performance related BS. The GM bashing is getting as old as the Camaro mullet jokes. :huh:
Note that The Nethead there did not include a link to the article. Thinking about it may have been because the justification was so laughable and he wanted to hide things from the forum - really, no optional nav and because it's hard to drive in parking lots and they don't like the radio? And what of the Camaro being the best overall performer including most notably acceleration (of the three Pony cars) and the cheapest? I quote the summation of the Camaro and its last place finish (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1102_2011_chevrolet_camaro_vs_dodge_challenger_vs_ford_mustang_vs_hyundai_genesis_coupe_v_6_comparison/chevrolet_camaro.html) :
The biggest omission is the optional navigation system, a feature that every other car in this group has. Our rental had a Hertz unit called Neverlost sprouting from the dash, reminding us that a buyer's only recourse rests with the aftermarket.
Commuters spend much of their drive playing with infotainment systems and winding through grocery store parking lots. If the Camaro can't do either of these tasks well, there's no reason it should take anything above last place.
LOL - remember, this is from a magazine that gave the Ford Fusion COTY, despite the fact it was a five-year-old design, SOLELY because it had a hybrid option.
:facepalm:
Quote from: GoCougs on December 21, 2010, 05:23:08 PM
Note that The Nethead there did not include a link to the article. Thinking about it may have been because the justification was so laughable and he wanted to hide things from the forum - really, no optional nav and because it's hard to drive in parking lots and they don't like the radio? And what of the Camaro being the best overall performer including most notably acceleration (of the three Pony cars) and the cheapest? I quote the summation of the Camaro and its last place finish (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1102_2011_chevrolet_camaro_vs_dodge_challenger_vs_ford_mustang_vs_hyundai_genesis_coupe_v_6_comparison/chevrolet_camaro.html) :
The biggest omission is the optional navigation system, a feature that every other car in this group has. Our rental had a Hertz unit called Neverlost sprouting from the dash, reminding us that a buyer's only recourse rests with the aftermarket.
Commuters spend much of their drive playing with infotainment systems and winding through grocery store parking lots. If the Camaro can't do either of these tasks well, there's no reason it should take anything above last place.
LOL - remember, this is from a magazine that gave the Ford Fusion COTY, despite the fact it was a five-year-old design, SOLELY because it had a hybrid option.
:facepalm:
I just read that article. Pure Bullshit! I guess the BOSS Mustang will finish in last place against the competition because it doesn't offer a Navigation/Sync system also?
I'd point out that the test wasn't to find the best performance or enthusiast's car (which was the point of their previous comparison between these cars). To quote the article:
"Our quest was to find the holy grail of the people's ponycar, the one that best combines sport, functionality, and value in a daily driver."
None of these cars came equipped with a manual gearbox. All of them were decked out with luxury goodies like navi. It was a game where ergonomics, comfort and ease of use were weighted as heavily as, if not moreso, than performance. The Camaro had the most cramped interior, the smallest trunk (along with the smallest trunk opening), the worst sight-lines, and poor ergonomics when it came to the user interface (button and control placement). Beyond ride quality, it was well behind the others in the daily driver department and its performance was not heads and shoulders above the others. Why wouldn't it finish last?
So basically it was a competition to see which pony car is most like a fully loaded Accord.
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on December 21, 2010, 05:41:57 PM
I just read that article. Pure Bullshit! I guess the BOSS Mustang will finish in last place against the competition because it doesn't offer a Navigation/Sync system also?
I understand they gotta rank the cars but c'mon - droning on about a small trunk opening and an oddly-shaped steering wheel? C'mon.
Quote from: MX793 on December 21, 2010, 06:33:10 PM
I'd point out that the test wasn't to find the best performance or enthusiast's car (which was the point of their previous comparison between these cars). To quote the article:
"Our quest was to find the holy grail of the people's ponycar, the one that best combines sport, functionality, and value in a daily driver."
None of these cars came equipped with a manual gearbox. All of them were decked out with luxury goodies like navi. It was a game where ergonomics, comfort and ease of use were weighted as heavily as, if not moreso, than performance. The Camaro had the most cramped interior, the smallest trunk (along with the smallest trunk opening), the worst sight-lines, and poor ergonomics when it came to the user interface (button and control placement). Beyond ride quality, it was well behind the others in the daily driver department and its performance was not heads and shoulders above the others. Why wouldn't it finish last?
I understand that the test wasn't focused solely on performance but they simply didn't like the styling. Enough to place it last? Sure, fine, but let's expect them to be honest. They just should have said, "we hate the styling so we rank it last despite it being way cheaper , the best performer, and offering the best mix of ride and handling."
I didn't like the way the Camaro SS I drove handled. Just felt...odd. The steering wheel was also extremely odd and cumbersome. Didn't like that. Considering that's what you're going to be touching the entire time you're driving the vehicle, it's important that your steering wheel be pleasant. The Camaro's isn't.
Quote from: CJ on December 22, 2010, 12:28:17 AM
I didn't like the way the Camaro SS I drove handled. Just felt...odd. The steering wheel was also extremely odd and cumbersome. Didn't like that. Considering that's what you're going to be touching the entire time you're driving the vehicle, it's important that your steering wheel be pleasant. The Camaro's isn't.
The Troll will argue with you to death about that...but he hasn't driven it, so.....
Can't say that I've driven the new Camaro but I don't care much for its lego interior. I rented a 2010 V6 Mustang in Las Vegas and it was really nice, just wished the 2011 was already out.
Quote from: hotrodalex on December 21, 2010, 07:13:13 PM
So basically it was a competition to see which pony car is most like a fully loaded Accord.
Of course the irony being navigation ain't really used for a commuter/daily driver yet apparently it was a huge factor in this test.
:facepalm:
I actually have to agree with the Troll that Nav shouldn't matter in any test. It's a $2500 option and I can buy a TomTom for $99.
The thing is though, everything that makes the Camaro cool (the styling) is also what's wrong with it. It is a pain in the ass to see out of, it's big, it has a postage slot for a trunk opening, the interior is not good, and the steering wheel is awful. I've driven the SS. I was addicted to the rush real quick, but a 4-way stop was made dangerous for me because I couldn't see a car that was hidden by the A-Pillar/mirror. When I leaned forward to look around the A-pillar, the rearview mirror (which is in the middle of the windshield) got in the way, and seeing a stoplight is virtually impossible on a road with less than 4 lanes. It's actually a job to drive the car in city traffic and that's not cool. If I ever had one, it would be for weekend blasts only, because I would hate driving it every day.
Automobile Magazine agrees with Motor Trend, and for lots of the same reasons:
Automobile Magazine names 2011 All-Stars
by Jeff Glucker (RSS feed) on Dec 16th 2010 at 5:33PM
Automobile has compiled a list of the 2011 model year vehicles deserving of all-star recognition. To show off each choice, the buff book has enlisted illustrator Daniel Stolle to turn each vehicle into a child's toy. The list of 2011 Automobile All-Stars features:
BMW 3 Series
Cadillac CTS-V Sport Wagon
Dodge Ram 1500
Ford Mustang
Honda Odyssey
Hyundai Sonata
Jaguar XJ
Porsche Boxster/Cayman
Volkswagen GTI
Volvo S60
It's hard to argue with that rundown and you can head over to Automobile for more insight into how and why the pub's editors picked this group to be honored.
And here's Automobile Magazine's reasons for choosing the 2011 Mustang over any of the imitations:
FEATURES:
2011 Automobile Magazine All-Stars
Ford Mustang
Just one year after we gave the 2010 Chevy Camaro an All-Star award, the Ford Mustang brings home the prize for 2011. This is just the latest chapter in the punch-for-punch pony-car battle that has been going on for the better part of forty years. This year's knockout blow came when Ford brought the 5.0-liter V-8 back from the dead, but even Vanilla Ice knows that the new "five point oh" isn't the only engine that the frequently revised Mustang has going for it.
The base 2011 Mustang's very capable, very impressive V-6 makes 305 hp, gets 31 mpg on the highway, and starts at less than $23,000. Although the V-6 is suitable for many buyers, it's the V-8-powered GT and the supercharged Shelby GT500 that get our enthusiast blood pumping. With 412 hp and 550 hp, respectively, it's nearly impossible to keep a big, fat grin off your face-and points off your driving record-when you're behind the wheel of either of these ponies. The GT gallops to 60 mph in just 4.6 seconds-not too shabby for a $30,000 car. The hot-rod GT500 does it about half a second quicker.
Despite all this new performance, the Mustang still uses one of the oldest technologies in the business: a live rear axle. But, honestly, Ford pulls it off just fine. The Mustang's nimble chassis, lighter weight, and close-ratio transmission give it a clear advantage over the heavier, less fluid Camaro on a curvy road. The Ford's cabin is much nicer, too, compared with the unattractive plastics that plague the Camaro.
This pony-car fight is certainly not over, and with the Z28 model on its way, the Chevy Camaro isn't down for the count. But we can definitively say that this round goes to the Mustang and that it is well-deserving of a 2011 Automobile Magazine All-Star award.
- Mike Ofiara, Road Test Coordinator
BASE PRICE RANGE: $22,995-$54,495
ENGINES: 3.7L V-6, 305 hp, 280 lb-ft; 5.0L V-8, 412 hp, 390 lb-ft; 5.4L supercharged V-8, 550 hp, 510 lb-ft.
:pullover: CAUTION: The Braying Ass has it on good authority (the Etch-A-Sketch he got for Christmas last year) that Automobile Magazine is staffed by professional trolls on the payroll of FoMoCo--as is Motor Trend, Car & Driver, Consumer Reports, Edmunds, J.D. Power, the NHTSA, the EPA, yada, yada yada... :pullover:
Nethead, surely you see the irony in calling others trolls when your entire existence on these boards is to fap over Ford products even when some of the articles you post are hilariously inept at proclaiming Ford "victory"
That's not to say Ford doesn't have some good products - the Mustang is at least visually, fantastic. The Super Duty trucks are (from what I have read) best in class, and I strangely like the Transit Connect. You really need to tone down the fanboyism, though.
Quote from: Submariner on December 22, 2010, 10:08:15 AM
Nethead, surely you see the irony in calling others trolls when your entire existence on these boards is to fap over Ford products even when some of the articles you post are hilariously inept at proclaiming Ford "victory"
That's not to say Ford doesn't have some good products - the Mustang is at least visually, fantastic. The Super Duty trucks are (from what I have read) best in class, and I strangely like the Transit Connect. You really need to tone down the fanboyism, though.
Nethead doesn't call him a troll, he calls him
The Braying Ass. I call him the
Troll.
Quote from: SVT666 on December 22, 2010, 10:27:37 AM
Nethead doesn't call him a troll, he calls him The Braying Ass. I call him the Troll.
Ahh, my mistake. :lol:
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.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 22, 2010, 08:11:04 AM
Of course the irony being navigation ain't really used for a commuter/daily driver yet apparently it was a huge factor in this test.
:facepalm:
What's worse is that factory satnav is retardedly overpriced. I got a nav system for my car. It sits in unused space (so well my friend thought it was integrated) below the dash, doesn't draw attention, and works very well. $100.
I'm no Camaro fan (it's okay, but I'd get the Mustang over it 100% of the time), but from what I'm reading it got shafted in this comparison.
Quote from: Raza on December 22, 2010, 11:01:41 AM
What's worse is that factory satnav is retardedly overpriced. I got a nav system for my car. It sits in unused space (so well my friend thought it was integrated) below the dash, doesn't draw attention, and works very well. $100.
I'm no Camaro fan (it's okay, but I'd get the Mustang over it 100% of the time), but from what I'm reading it got shafted in this comparison.
The Droid's navigation is also great - no worries about outdated hardware and it's a freebee app. (The iPhone it's a third party app with a hefty monthly fee.)
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on December 22, 2010, 01:35:25 AM
Can't say that I've driven the new Camaro but I don't care much for its lego interior. I rented a 2010 V6 Mustang in Las Vegas and it was really nice, just wished the 2011 was already out.
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!" :rolleyes:
Quote from: GoCougs on December 22, 2010, 10:49:56 AM
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.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=21698.msg1443958#msg1443958 date=1293041507
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!" :rolleyes:
It's the worst interior in the class. The Mustang costs the same and has a much nicer interior.
Quote from: SVT666 on December 22, 2010, 11:14:42 AM
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
Quote from: Raza link=topic=21698.msg1443958#msg1443958 date=1293041507
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!" :rolleyes:
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.
Quote from: SVT666 on December 22, 2010, 11:13:24 AM
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 :facepalm:. It's always been about quality over quantity--why do you think the Camaro has already been extinct once? Yep. ;)
Quote from: Raza link=topic=21698.msg1443958#msg1443958 date=1293041507
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!" :rolleyes:
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.
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.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 22, 2010, 10:49:56 AM
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...
Quote from: GoCougs on December 22, 2010, 12:22:59 PM
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.
Quote from: SVT666 on December 22, 2010, 11:14:42 AM
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.
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.