: 305hp, 30mpg



Jesda
03-04-10, 01:59 AM
7000rpm
10,000mi OCI
3.7L
$22,000

DO WANT.

http://www.autoguide.com/gallery/gallery.php/d/134992-4/IMG_0339.JPG

And me being me, I'd have the convertible. I think I'd take one over the Camaro now since its a good bit lighter.

Aron9000
03-04-10, 02:24 AM
No sense in buying a v6 Mustang or Camaro IMO. The V8 is only $5,000 more, and offers the proper driving experience. Its not like you buy a sports car for practicality or good gas mileage anyways.

Also in Mustang news, the 2011 GT gets a brand new v8. 5.0L displacement, DOCH with variable valve timing, 412 hp, 380lbft torque. Should give the new Camaro a good run for its money.

itschrome
03-04-10, 02:59 AM
http://www.autoguide.com/gallery/gallery.php/d/134992-4/IMG_0339.JPG


Not a fan, how ever Love that blue!



Also in Mustang news, the 2011 GT gets a brand new v8. 5.0L displacement, DOCH with variable valve timing, 412 hp, 380lbft torque. Should give the new Camaro a good run for its money.
yeah even gave it a cool name, the coyote 5.0.. not to mention i think it looks better..
http://www.wintersvolvo.com/car-pictures/2009/12/Ford-Mustang-GT-2011-Front-Side-View.jpg

Stingroo
03-04-10, 07:28 AM
Nope. I hate hate HATE the new redesign. It looks very scrunched from the front end.

I'll take the older Mustang over that.

Or really, hell, I'd just rather drive a Camaro. lol

V-Eight
03-04-10, 09:08 AM
I'd take the 5.0 over that v6. Still a DOHC pony car....not my cup of tea.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-04-10, 09:18 AM
I saw them both, back to back yesterday, and now I think the Mustang is the better looker.

Stingroo
03-04-10, 09:29 AM
In that second pic, the Mustang looks like it's pouting. It has that spoiled-Florida-girl look to me.

Only thing I like about this one is the directional turn signals. Otherwise, I'd take the previous. To each their own I suppose.

V-Eight
03-04-10, 10:00 AM
I saw them both, back to back yesterday, and now I think the Mustang is the better looker.

Hopefully we see a refresh of the Camaro in a few years, I'd be interested to see what they come up with. The new Mustang certainly is good looking, Especially the hood. My friend has a 2010, but just the V6, and trust me I bust his balls all the time about it.

The Tony Show
03-04-10, 11:11 AM
The Camaro is already getting redesigned- it's sharing the same platform as the new "sub CTS" Cadillac that's due in 2012.

As far as the Mustang goes, I like it. V6 models often handle better than the V8s due to less weight hanging over the front tires, and with 300+ hp, there's not much need for the 8 unless you plan on drag racing or like paying tickets for unnecessary acceleration or show of speed from a stoplight.

Kick94sts
03-04-10, 11:12 AM
I never like those convertibles.

gary88
03-04-10, 11:28 AM
I loves me the new Mustang. I've been pretty impressed with Ford lately.

orconn
03-04-10, 12:36 PM
All in all, I'll take a used BMW 335i over anyone of those cars. As pony cars they are all just fine, but here in Virginia we have great twisty roads, but also roads that are in need of resurfacing so I think the BMW would be a better all-rounder!

Also if that Mustang needs 412 HP to get out of its' own way it must weigh three tons!

nickc50310
03-04-10, 12:43 PM
Isnt it amazing that a Modern NA V6 can make light work of a lot of V8s from only a decade ago? Still blows my mind.....

C&C
03-04-10, 02:32 PM
Just heard the Mustang V-6 officially rated at 31 mpg/hwy; not bad............................................... but make mind CAMARO.

Night Wolf
03-04-10, 03:30 PM
No sense in buying a v6 Mustang or Camaro IMO. The V8 is only $5,000 more, and offers the proper driving experience. Its not like you buy a sports car for practicality or good gas mileage anyways.

Also in Mustang news, the 2011 GT gets a brand new v8. 5.0L displacement, DOCH with variable valve timing, 412 hp, 380lbft torque. Should give the new Camaro a good run for its money.

It wasn't too long ago a V8 Mustang or Camaro was putting out around 300hp, and it wasn't too long before that, that the V8's were putting out a good bit less then 300hp.

Gristle Boy
03-04-10, 04:01 PM
I prefer the Camaro in every respect EXCEPT that I find the interior so horrific that I would buy a Mustang over a Camaro. I hate it that much!

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-04-10, 08:03 PM
Hopefully we see a refresh of the Camaro in a few years, I'd be interested to see what they come up with. The new Mustang certainly is good looking, Especially the hood. My friend has a 2010, but just the V6, and trust me I bust his balls all the time about it.

How's that V6 for power?


As far as the Mustang goes, I like it. V6 models often handle better than the V8s due to less weight hanging over the front tires, and with 300+ hp, there's not much need for the 8 unless you plan on drag racing or like paying tickets for unnecessary acceleration or show of speed from a stoplight.

I suppose. 300hp is more than enough power, but half the fun of a muscle car is getting it as manly as you can, which often includes the V-8 and as many performance modifications as you can get. I've got mixed feelings about this. One one hand, it's great they (aside from Dodge lol) offers a 300+ hp V6 engine, but on the other hand, it's not a "true" muscle car without a V8.


Isnt it amazing that a Modern NA V6 can make light work of a lot of V8s from only a decade ago? Still blows my mind.....

Yeah, it's amazing. Funny to think that 20 years ago, 225hp was a lot, as that was what the 5.0 Mustangs were making back then, and the 5.7 TPI Camaros weren't much better at 225-245.

LS1Mike
03-04-10, 08:25 PM
Here is the deal though "300 HP" F-Bodies were running 12.90 to 13.50. Depending on gears and Transmission.
No V-6 Pony car does that. Also 6 speed V-8 F-bodies will pull down 26 to 30MPGs on the Highway easy w/ a 3.42 rear gear.
When the F-bodies were "305 hp" They were dynoing at what would be 350 hp crank hp. The biggest thing going for them was torque.
You can have a the V6. I will keep my "old" car.

Stingroo
03-04-10, 09:14 PM
Here is the deal though "300 HP" F-Bodies were running 12.90 to 13.50. Depending on gears and Transmission.
No V-6 Pony car does that. Also 6 speed V-8 F-bodies will pull down 26 to 30MPGs on the Highway easy w/ a 3.42 rear gear.
When the F-bodies were "305 hp" They were dynoing at what would be 350 hp crank hp. The biggest thing going for them was torque.
You can have a the V6. I will keep my "old" car.

True story.

thebigjimsho
03-05-10, 12:34 AM
Yeah, it's amazing. Funny to think that 20 years ago, 225hp was a lot, as that was what the 5.0 Mustangs were making back then, and the 5.7 TPI Camaros weren't much better at 225-245.
The 4.9 Mustangs were actually making 205hp, not 225. Ford had to go back and adjust their hp claims for every in-house engine. The 220hp Yamaha SHO motor remained 220, however...

thebigjimsho
03-05-10, 12:35 AM
But I am VERY interested to see what the Coyote motor can do. A V8 with torque that can breathe up top? If it has revving traits anywhere close to the Yamaha engine, good night!

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-05-10, 12:37 AM
The 4.9 Mustangs were actually making 205hp, not 225. Ford had to go back and adjust their hp claims for every in-house engine.

Really? For the 1988-93's, or the 94-95's?

thebigjimsho
03-05-10, 12:50 AM
Really? For the 1988-93's, or the 94-95's?
They changed in '93, I believe...

thebigjimsho
03-05-10, 12:53 AM
Got this off a Mustang forum...





Ok here it goes.... Ford did start due to having to be compliant with new regulations in 8/92 (which didn't affect anything until the 93 model year which was being produced at that time) rating horsepower with all optional and standard accessories. Prior to that they were rated as free-spun engines with no accessory loads (including water pumps). The 93 model year was rated at 205hp with all accessories (smog pump, alt, waterpump, ac, and power steering). Prior to that Ford rated all 87-92 cars with 225 with no accessories. The 94-95 Model year cars were also rated with the accessories at 215. Even though there was an electric fan and bigger MAF meter, the more restrictive intake/air filter track and differences in ECM programming, offset the horsepower that could have been gained. The fuel and timing parameters had to be altered due to newer epa compliances, preparing for the transition to the newer OBD II (http://forums.corral.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1002679#) that was mandated in 1996 for all passenger cars/light trucks to be sold in the United States. The shorter runners on the intake for hood clearance had little or no effect, due to also relocating the throttlebody. Which made the "main chamber" in the plenum longer, which so to speak compensates for the shorter runners in the rest of the plenum.

Aron9000
03-05-10, 01:01 AM
Here is the deal though "300 HP" F-Bodies were running 12.90 to 13.50. Depending on gears and Transmission.
No V-6 Pony car does that. Also 6 speed V-8 F-bodies will pull down 26 to 30MPGs on the Highway easy w/ a 3.42 rear gear.
When the F-bodies were "305 hp" They were dynoing at what would be 350 hp crank hp. The biggest thing going for them was torque.
You can have a the V6. I will keep my "old" car.

Good point, but you forgot to mention weight. An LS1 fbody weighs about 3500lbs, the new Camaro weighs 3900lbs. Also, the old 5.0 Mustang of the 80's might have only had 225hp, but it only had to push around 3000lbs worth of car, making it pretty darn quick.

Also, you got to have that v8 rumble in your muscle car. Six cylinder cars sound like ass with an exhaust on them.

hardrockcamaro@mac.c
03-05-10, 03:18 AM
The latest Mustang redesign is awful. Ford have done what they always do which is take a good initial design and mess it up.

It's lost the mean look and looks squished and too curvy.

The new engines are meant to be a lot better though as is the interior quality and while the handling isn't as good as the Camaro the steering feel and turn in is supposedly better than the FBody..

I am giving serious consideration to the the previous shape Mustang as a potential future purchase though...

Stingroo
03-05-10, 07:25 AM
The latest Mustang redesign is awful. Ford have done what they always do which is take a good initial design and mess it up.

It's lost the mean look and looks squished and too curvy.


Finally! Someone agrees with me! Thank you! :highfive:

Jesda
03-05-10, 07:44 AM
No way. Its gorgeous. The '05 was hot but too geometric compared to the leaner, lower '10.

thebigjimsho
03-05-10, 10:20 AM
No way. Its gorgeous. The '05 was hot but too geometric compared to the leaner, lower '10.
I don't hate the redesign but it's nowhere near as good looking as the last gen...

Stingroo
03-05-10, 11:21 AM
Hooray! This makes three of us.

All your Mustangs are belong to us.

thebigjimsho
03-05-10, 01:25 PM
Hooray! This makes three of us.

All your Mustangs are belong to us.
Every once in a while, Ford hits a home run. The last Mustang was one of them. Give me a new interior with the last gen exterior and the Coyote motor for absolute WIN!

V-Eight
03-05-10, 01:59 PM
How's that V6 for power?



Pretty good actually. Admittedly, he doesn't trust me behind the wheel of it yet, so I haven't got to drive it. From what I've felt though, its pretty good for what it is.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-06-10, 06:58 AM
My favorite Mustangs:

1969
1987-93
2005-09
2010

70eldo
03-12-10, 04:08 AM
I think it is sad Ford needs 0.1L more to get the same performance the 3.6L GM has...
But it was truely needed after that poor V8 with 300hp Ford had.

Will GM finally come up with a new small block V8? About time!!!
I guess we'll see a 3.6L TT in stead of a V8. That could be smart as well in some way.

thebigjimsho
03-12-10, 09:05 AM
I think it is sad Ford needs 0.1L more to get the same performance the 3.6L GM has...
But it was truely needed after that poor V8 with 300hp Ford had.

Will GM finally come up with a new small block V8? About time!!!
I guess we'll see a 3.6L TT in stead of a V8. That could be smart as well in some way.
Ohnoes! A whole .1 liter???

I love the LS6 in my V, but check out the previously mentioned Coyote motor. Does GM have anything close?

V-Eight
03-12-10, 09:11 AM
I think it is sad Ford needs 0.1L more to get the same performance the 3.6L GM has...
But it was truely needed after that poor V8 with 300hp Ford had.

Will GM finally come up with a new small block V8? About time!!!
I guess we'll see a 3.6L TT in stead of a V8. That could be smart as well in some way.

.1L is negligible IMO

LS1Mike
03-12-10, 09:23 AM
GM made a prototype 302 LS1 that made 435 HP and reved higher then a stock LS1 or LS6 back in 2000. It was 11 to 1 compression ratio and used LS6 heads. There was really no reason to produce it though because the cars that ran LS1s and LS6s were all already running low 13's to Mid 12's and getting better MPGs then the Ford car with the Modular motors. Ford had no choice but to build the Coyote motor so they could keep up with current HP and mpg raitings.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-12-10, 06:14 PM
I wish GM would offer a 6.0 or 6.2L V8 (or something else in that family) with a dual overhead cam/ 32v setup. It would work great as a seperate motor for Buick/Cadillac and replace the Northstar as well. Because a DI turbo V6 is good, but it's no V8.

V-Eight
03-12-10, 06:25 PM
^ I don't, it would destroy what I love about their motors...LOW END TORQUE. However, if they added that in ADDITION to the OHV motors, then I would like to see it. Still, something like that doesn't really belong in a Camaro unless they can find a way to boost low end torque.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-12-10, 06:29 PM
No, they would offer them seperate. Much like the LT1 and the LT5 back in the early '90s. I love the OHV engines, but they need a DOHC to go head to head with the imports.

Aron9000
03-13-10, 12:30 AM
No, they would offer them seperate. Much like the LT1 and the LT5 back in the early '90s. I love the OHV engines, but they need a DOHC to go head to head with the imports.

I don't think they need DOCH to be competitive. GM has been cleaning the Germans clock with the LSA in the CTS-V. Same thing with the 403 hp L92 in the Escalade.

concorso
03-13-10, 11:53 AM
I think it is sad Ford needs 0.1L more to get the same performance the 3.6L GM has...
But it was truely needed after that poor V8 with 300hp Ford had.

Will GM finally come up with a new small block V8? About time!!!
I guess we'll see a 3.6L TT in stead of a V8. That could be smart as well in some way.
Was this a serious post?

70eldo
03-14-10, 06:08 PM
Was this a serious post?

Yes!
0.1L is an efficiency matter. If it didn't matter, why didn't Ford get that performance out of 3.6L? And I hate ignorance! We're in a freakin' nano-era so please don't come with centi-ignorance!

V-Eight
03-14-10, 06:47 PM
No... .1L is not a large enough difference to even acknowledge. They redesigned a bunch of the internals for better efficiency/power. I have an article on it in my house somewhere, I'll try to find it so I can post the exact details.

ejguillot
03-14-10, 08:34 PM
Yes!
0.1L is an efficiency matter. If it didn't matter, why didn't Ford get that performance out of 3.6L? And I hate ignorance! We're in a freakin' nano-era so please don't come with centi-ignorance!

I sense some serious parody/sarcasm here, LOL! :duck:

Seriously, I personally don't care AT ALL about horsepower per liter. It's a meaningless figure. The figure that SHOULD count is BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption): HOW EFFICIENT is the engine in turning fuel into horsepower?

I'd rather have an engine that's 75hp/L and gets a better BSFC figure than one that is 120hp/L.

C0RSA1R
03-15-10, 05:10 PM
Isnt it amazing that a Modern NA V6 can make light work of a lot of V8s from only a decade ago? Still blows my mind.....

Me too dude. Me too. I often have to remind myself of that fact before I go bragging about my ETC's performance. It's a good thing she's such a fine-looking car or I'd consider a trade-in. As it stands, I'm keeping her till Hell freezes over, and garaging her when I decide to get a newer DD. Always wanted to learn about cars by restoring a classic. By about 2025, I reckon I'll get my chance.

93DevilleUSMC
03-15-10, 05:51 PM
Every once in a while, Ford hits a home run. The last Mustang was one of them. Give me a new interior with the last gen exterior and the Coyote motor for absolute WIN!

I wonder if Ford will offer the Coyote 5.0 as a crate motor?

70eldo
03-17-10, 05:53 AM
I sense some serious parody/sarcasm here, LOL! :duck:

Seriously, I personally don't care AT ALL about horsepower per liter. It's a meaningless figure. The figure that SHOULD count is BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption): HOW EFFICIENT is the engine in turning fuel into horsepower?

I'd rather have an engine that's 75hp/L and gets a better BSFC figure than one that is 120hp/L.

I agree with you too. Let's take the 3.7L from Infiniti. It gets 320 hp but it gets it at high revs and has BAD mpg.

concorso
03-17-10, 11:36 AM
I agree with you too. Let's take the 3.7L from Infiniti. It gets 320 hp but it gets it at high revs and has BAD mpg.Im sorry, this is a 16 yr olds bench racing argument during a high school recess. Specific HP is a stupid argument.

concorso
03-17-10, 11:38 AM
.1L is negligible IMO...........

70eldo
03-18-10, 04:46 AM
Im sorry, this is a 16 yr olds bench racing argument during a high school recess. Specific HP is a stupid argument.

As an engineer I am well aware of torque vs hp.
Maybe I focussed too much on the hp, but I meant the whole efficiency of the engine. It seems nitpicking over .1L, but all in all it is still a less efficient engineering result.
I am totally not surprised that I get so much comments on my post. The USA has had a Cid based automotive perfomance culture for decades, where in Europe every weight and displacement was saved with engine efficiency.

Typically in the US you would be amazed about how big the engine is. Typically in Europe we are amazed how small the engine is for its power.

I hope this helps to bring the eyebrows down again :p

MauiV
03-18-10, 11:47 AM
V6 FTL

and that color is pure FAIL