2011 Mustang GT 0-60 4.3s, 12.8s 1/4 mile

[mkoesel]

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...rformance.html

Impressive straight line performance for a $30k car. Despite the stick axle I think it will be a good car on the road course also.

[RandyB]

I finally wash my hands of Mustangs and they make a pretty good one. No IRS though, which is still a deal-breaker for me. That's cool that they offer an upgraded brake package and optional rear end ratios. The engine seems like a gem so far.

[BigGuyM3]

i have to say, American muscle cars are getting better, still there is some problems with them like the IRS but for the money (30K) thats a pretty good/fast car.

My friend has a 35k budget and he's between, Mustang and Camaro.

[xxe92xx]

i think the camero looks more unique compared to this, body style is so boring and plain IMO

these cars are easily modifed for less id go with the camero

[330CIZHP]

The only issue is comfort. Nothing else unless it is Top Gear which calls it "medieval suspension" out of sheer bias.

If Ford can win races with solid axles, there is nothing wrong with it as far as performance goes.

If you know about Roush Mustangs, they handle as good as any other car in its class, yet it still has a solid axle.

Originally Posted by BigGuyM3

i have to say, American muscle cars are getting better, still there is some problems with them like the IRS but for the money (30K) thats a pretty good/fast car.

My friend has a 35k budget and he's between, Mustang and Camaro.

[mkoesel]

The stang may have the antiquated live axle, but its main competitors - Challenger and Camaro - have pushrod V8s. I'd take the DOHC with the live axle. Rev's free-er and sounds better.

[adc]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

The only issue is comfort. Nothing else unless it is Top Gear which calls it "medieval suspension" out of sheer bias.

If Ford can win races with solid axles, there is nothing wrong with it as far as performance goes.

Don't know about that - they are doing with what they have, doesn't mean it's optimal.

In my understanding there are definitive theoretical disadvantages to a solid rear axle, such as dynamic camber control and the often mentioned roadholding deficit on bumpy road. I agree in practice they can be minimized as to appear benign, at least on a cursory test drive. And of course, having an IRS doesn't automatically means it works well, there are many more variables involved.

But if you engineered the car for best performance (and not lowest price), there would be absolutely no reason whatsoever to hold onto a solid rear axle. None.

[RandyB]

They can generate the numbers but what do they feel like doing it and does it inspire you - that is the question.

[RandyB]

Originally Posted by adc

But if you engineered the car for best performance (and not lowest price), there would be absolutely no reason whatsoever to hold onto a solid rear axle. None.

Bingo - still too many compromises being made in the name of cost.

[Thrumcap]

Peformance is impressive however I just don't get the whole retro thing- especially the interior. Those gauges look like something from a Pinto. Everything looks so gimmicky and "plasticky". :barf

[Small Yellow]

I think the shifter looks kind of cool, but I agree the gauges look hideous. I can't stand looking at that.

[Chill72]

Yep this new Mustang looks very good on paper...I also like the the design and power. Having said that the interior looks like total trash...at least they'll know what to improve on later. Overall this is a BANG for your buck if the pricing is close to what it is today.

[icemang17]

Nice performance at the low price point....just like the Camaro....

But the bottom line is Ford or Chevy does NOT have the build quality of BMW....yes the "numbers" sound great.....but I didn't buy an M3 because of its "numbers" (not that they are bad)...I bought it because of the package....no other car combines the performance-comfort and luxury that the M3 does at its price point.....everything thats similar costs WAY more

[330CIZHP]

I know very well and agree with what you said.

However, proof is in the pudding. If you keep up with racing news, the Mustang race cars by Ford racing with "medieval" soild axle regularly pummeled German cars with so-called "modern suspension" in track races (including M3, Audis etc.) in the "Speed World Challenge" in 2009.

Originally Posted by adc

Don't know about that - they are doing with what they have, doesn't mean it's optimal.

In my understanding there are definitive theoretical disadvantages to a solid rear axle, such as dynamic camber control and the often mentioned roadholding deficit on bumpy road. I agree in practice they can be minimized as to appear benign, at least on a cursory test drive. And of course, having an IRS doesn't automatically means it works well, there are many more variables involved.

But if you engineered the car for best performance (and not lowest price), there would be absolutely no reason whatsoever to hold onto a solid rear axle. None.

[smmmurf]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

I know very well and agree with what you said.

However, proof is in the pudding. If you keep up with racing news, the Mustang race cars by Ford racing with "medieval" soild axle regularly pummeled German cars with so-called "modern suspension" in track races (including M3, Audis etc.) in the "Speed World Challenge" in 2009.

Not trying to get into an argument about IRS vs. Solid Rear axle, but Race cars ≠ street cars.

Ruleset (weight, allowed modifications to engine, aero, suspension, etc.), drivers, budget, etc. are all factors... Ford had a really good racing program...

[RandyB]

You know they had the technology to build this new engine in time for the introduction of the new Mustang back in 2005, but they knew the car would sell good for a while even with the old engines. Now that sales are slumping, oh here's that 5.0 4V that you guys have been wanting since the late '90s...

[mkoesel]

I hear you on that Randy. I think the first 5.0L MOD motor showed up back in 1999 in the FR500 concept Mustang. That was only about four years after the 4.6L took over for the original 302 pushrod V8, amidst plenty of controversy and criticism. So it "only" took them twelve more years to evolve it into a production motor. I guess other priorities got in the way for Ford and limited the DOHC 5.0 to race cars and the aftermarket until now.

[Gearhead999s]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

I hear you on that Randy. I think the first 5.0L MOD motor showed up back in 1999 in the FR500 concept Mustang. That was only about four years after the 4.6L took over for the original 302 pushrod V8, amidst plenty of controversy and criticism. So it "only" took them twelve more years to evolve it into a production motor. I guess other priorities got in the way for Ford and limited the DOHC 5.0 to race cars and the aftermarket until now.

This 5.0 has totaly different heads than the 5.0 "Cammer" engines that have been used for racing in the past in the Fr500's.It is a much narrower motor and has variable cam timing which the race motors do not have.I looked at both engines about a week ago and there is quite a difference between the 2

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Gearhead999s

This 5.0 has totaly different heads than the 5.0 "Cammer" engines that have been used for racing in the past in the Fr500's.It is a much narrower motor and has variable cam timing which the race motors do not have.I looked at both engines about a week ago and there is quite a difference between the 2

No doubt. And the 5.0L Cammers differ from the original concept in plenty of ways too. But with the new 5.0L production motor, yes, they changed most everything from past MOD designs. It really only shares the bore center and deck height dimensions. The bore itself is smaller and the stroke is longer. The block is reengineered and accessories are relocated. And of course there is the lower profile, VVT-equipped heads as you said. Interestingly, the production shares one important thing with the original concept that the racing motors don't have - a sprayed on bore liner.

Still, what I mean is, the new production motor is essentially the latest evolution of the 5.0L that began back in 1999. And in fact, it will replace the 5.0 Cammer in at least some race applications right away, and probably all of them eventually.

[RandyB]

Originally Posted by Gearhead999s

This 5.0 has totaly different heads than the 5.0 "Cammer" engines that have been used for racing in the past in the Fr500's.It is a much narrower motor and has variable cam timing which the race motors do not have.I looked at both engines about a week ago and there is quite a difference between the 2

I too noticed that the new engine is much more compact. The 5.0 'Cammer' sure would have sufficed back then as well.

[adc]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

I know very well and agree with what you said.

However, proof is in the pudding. If you keep up with racing news, the Mustang race cars by Ford racing with "medieval" soild axle regularly pummeled German cars with so-called "modern suspension" in track races (including M3, Audis etc.) in the "Speed World Challenge" in 2009.

I realize that. For BMW, 2009 was somewhat of a transition year: the E46 platform while still competitive in certain races was really showing its age (or rather lack of power), and the new E92 platform was not yet fully developed.

I have a feeling 2010 might be different...

But to use the other side of your argument - how come the E46 M3 was still able to win races in the past years, when it is so old and has so much less power than the Mustangs?

Originally Posted by smmmurf

Not trying to get into an argument about IRS vs. Solid Rear axle, but Race cars ≠ street cars.

Ruleset (weight, allowed modifications to engine, aero, suspension, etc.), drivers, budget, etc. are all factors... Ford had a really good racing program...

+1.

[Gearhead999s]

Originally Posted by adc

I realize that. For BMW, 2009 was somewhat of a transition year: the E46 platform while still competitive in certain races was really showing its age (or rather lack of power), and the new E92 platform was not yet fully developed.

I have a feeling 2010 might be different...

But to use the other side of your argument - how come the E46 M3 was still able to win races in the past years, when it is so old and has so much less power than the Mustangs?



+1.

The overchieving cars in the Grand Am cup(Continental) are equalized through a bunch of factors which include intake restrictors,weight & tire sizing.The E92 M3's were slapped with a intake restrictor after dominating at Daytona.According to a buddy who drives one of the "Factory" stangs the M3 were 11 mph faster entering corner 1 than the restricted Stangs at pre season testing at Daytona.