Comparing the Camero vs the Mustang

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: lurk3r

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
lurk3r, that may be because of a tendency to cheat on the octane rating by the fuel supplier, rather than your car actually preferring 89. You may need to use 89 to be sure you are getting at least 87.

That would not surprise me at all, Canadian gas and Ohio gas are always much better than Michigan gas. (up to 100km a tank better)

I get the same here. Stupid Texas and stupid 10% ethanol content. Running 87 octane feels sluggish in my Focus, so I always run 89 or better, with fantastic results.

 

[punjabiplaya]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: punjabiplaya

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: punjabiplaya
Those are all terrible engines too. The VQ is 3.7 putting out 330. There are so many better engines in sports cars. Ford just put a truck engine in a car. It's a terrible engine, end of story.

Nissan VQ 3.7 Torque: 269 ft-lbs at 5,200 RPM

Ford 4.6 Torque: 320 ft-lbs at 4,500 RPM

Seems to me that the VQ is the crappy engine here. It's down 51 ft-lbs and doesn't peak until 700 RPM higher.

And the 4.6 isn't a "truck engine". The first applications of the Modular engine were in cars. The modular engine debuted in cars in 1991 and didn't show up in trucks until 1997.

You really don't have a clue here at all.

ZV

right, you got me. so now i'll buy a mustang

edit: my silliness aside, serious question though, what is better at providing more torque than more displacement?

edit2: not including forced induction

While I was being abrasive, the point I was making is that hp is not the sole criterion for an engine. If you want an engine that you have to rev the piss out of (and those can be fun engines), the 3.7 litre VQ is a great engine. If you want an engine with torque down low, the 4.6 Modular is a better choice.

Also, power per displacement really doesn't mean much at all. For example, Chevrolet's 5.7 litre V8 is roughly the same physical size and weight as Mazda's 13b Wankel engine. It's also about the same weight as the 2.5 litre 4-cylinder engine in Porsche 944s.

The VQ is a great engine, there's no doubt about that, but you're ridiculously short-sighted if all you are looking at is peak horsepower and displacement.

ZV

That's why I was asking. Since torque is rotational force, you need something pushing harder. So you're look at NM (torque) vs NM/s (hp). I was looking at torque and hp curves for the VQ and LS3 engines, as I will be in the market for a new car and am def looking at the 370 and Camaro. The Camaro might be a little too big and heavy for me, but I'll see that when I go to test drive it. And yes, I understand the Z gets 330 hp @ 7000 rpm.
The Z does have much more grip even vs the Mustang with a Track Pack. Personally, I will never buy a Mustang unless it is over 30 years old. Anyways, the big V8s have a ton of grunt, and the derivative of the torque and hp curves is much much less than the high revving engines. But the Mustang's engine also produces more CO2 per mile than the Z's. Forgive my non-American way of disliking Mustangs oh mighty internet gods. But I am a male, and do love non juice V8s in any form, including pushrod.

 

[DVad3r]

Gas in Canada contains up to 10 % ethenol. But I am curious if this just applies to regular gas or premium also?

Regardless I'm sure my car loses 100 km due to that shit in the tank, as someone posted above.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: punjabiplaya
That's why I was asking. Since torque is rotational force, you need something pushing harder. So you're look at NM (torque) vs NM/s (hp). I was looking at torque and hp curves for the VQ and LS3 engines, as I will be in the market for a new car and am def looking at the 370 and Camaro. The Camaro might be a little too big and heavy for me, but I'll see that when I go to test drive it. And yes, I understand the Z gets 330 hp @ 7000 rpm.
The Z does have much more grip even vs the Mustang with a Track Pack. Personally, I will never buy a Mustang unless it is over 30 years old. Anyways, the big V8s have a ton of grunt, and the derivative of the torque and hp curves is much much less than the high revving engines. But the Mustang's engine also produces more CO2 per mile than the Z's. Forgive my non-American way of disliking Mustangs oh mighty internet gods. But I am a male, and do love non juice V8s in any form, including pushrod.

The Camaro has enough grip for you, but the Mustang doesn't? Even though comparisons between the Camaro and the Mustang have said that the handling of the two cars is a toss-up, a "driver's race"? If the Camaro is grippy enough, the Mustang is as well.

Don't know about the actual curves, but the 4.6 in the Mustang redlines at 6,500 RPM with a power peak at 4,500 RPM. If the VQ doesn't even peak until 7,000 RPM, then it's a dead cert that the 4.6 is making a lot more torque at low RPM.

As far as the "more CO2/mile" than the Z's engine, there's just not enough difference to be relevant to any discussion.

350Z: 17/24
Mustang GT: 15/23

I averaged 21.5 mpg with my '06 Mustang GT when I had it and was commuting in the city every day.

There's not going to be any meaningful difference in how much fuel is consumed by these cars. And since CO2 is purely a function of the amount of fuel burned, the difference in CO2 emitted is irrelevant.

ZV

 

[LTC8K6]

I'll bet the 4.6L doesn't do that...

"Although it never lets us down, the VQ engine isn't known around these circles for smoothness either. This character trait is immediately apparent once the tach speeds past 4,500 rpm and the stick shift starts really trembling. By 6,000 rpm, it's vibrating like a blender full of margarita mix and square ice cubes. The VQ wins countless awards, but it will never be confused with a smooth-running inline- or flat-six. "

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.autoblog.com/photos...n-370z-1/1230670/full/

That awful LCD needs to go...

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: KentState

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: Kroze

Originally posted by: punjabiplaya
The mustang's engine is a joke. It spews the most CO2, it produces the least power, and it's huge. 210 hp from a 3.6 V6 and 310 hp from a 4.6 V8? Terrible engines. It looks good, but everyone has one.

Just FYI, Hyundai (a car company that sell POS transportation not too long ago) 4.6L is making 375hp in the Genesis Sedan vs. Ford Mustang's 4.6L @ 315hp

A Hyundai!!!!

Umm the Hyundai is 37k and the Stang is 28k and you can get the Stang for even cheaper than that. Sorry but that's just a stupid comparison.

The comparison was of the engine. I don't know how you missed that.

Engines of varying complexity and quality cost varying amounts of $$ to make. Nissan has a ~500hp 3.8L in the GT-R, but it's freaking expensive to produce (and presumably, to maintain). It's the same deal with the Genesis motor vs. the Mustang motor. The Genesis 'TAU' 4.6L is set to run on premium fuel, and also has CVVT, meaning more complexity, and higher output.

Yeah, displacement and "power per liter" is a very poor way to measure how high tech an engine is . My Z currently has about 400 hp in its 3.0 liter V6, so a lot of fanboys get excited by that. People knock the Vette engines for being large displacement pushrod V8's.

Yet the Vette engine is physically smaller, lighter, costs less to produce, has lower emissions and gets better gas mileage than the Z engine. Now which engine do you think is better?

I still love the Z though. It's just important to understand what really matters, and what's just an irrelevant figure used in ricer mags.

 

[punjabiplaya]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: punjabiplaya
That's why I was asking. Since torque is rotational force, you need something pushing harder. So you're look at NM (torque) vs NM/s (hp). I was looking at torque and hp curves for the VQ and LS3 engines, as I will be in the market for a new car and am def looking at the 370 and Camaro. The Camaro might be a little too big and heavy for me, but I'll see that when I go to test drive it. And yes, I understand the Z gets 330 hp @ 7000 rpm.
The Z does have much more grip even vs the Mustang with a Track Pack. Personally, I will never buy a Mustang unless it is over 30 years old. Anyways, the big V8s have a ton of grunt, and the derivative of the torque and hp curves is much much less than the high revving engines. But the Mustang's engine also produces more CO2 per mile than the Z's. Forgive my non-American way of disliking Mustangs oh mighty internet gods. But I am a male, and do love non juice V8s in any form, including pushrod.

The Camaro has enough grip for you, but the Mustang doesn't? Even though comparisons between the Camaro and the Mustang have said that the handling of the two cars is a toss-up, a "driver's race"? If the Camaro is grippy enough, the Mustang is as well.

Don't know about the actual curves, but the 4.6 in the Mustang redlines at 6,500 RPM with a power peak at 4,500 RPM. If the VQ doesn't even peak until 7,000 RPM, then it's a dead cert that the 4.6 is making a lot more torque at low RPM.

As far as the "more CO2/mile" than the Z's engine, there's just not enough difference to be relevant to any discussion.

350Z: 17/24
Mustang GT: 15/23

I averaged 21.5 mpg with my '06 Mustang GT when I had it and was commuting in the city every day.

There's not going to be any meaningful difference in how much fuel is consumed by these cars. And since CO2 is purely a function of the amount of fuel burned, the difference in CO2 emitted is irrelevant.

ZV

So I compare the Z's grip to the Mustang's grip and you question my comparison of the Camaro's grip to the Mustang's grip?
Anyways, you won't know the differences between the Camaro and Mustang until you go drive them. The numbers don't tell you everything about the car.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: punjabiplaya
So I compare the Z's grip to the Mustang's grip and you question my comparison of the Camaro's grip to the Mustang's grip?
Anyways, you won't know the differences between the Camaro and Mustang until you go drive them. The numbers don't tell you everything about the car.

*sigh*

If the reason you're ruling out the Mustang is because it doesn't have enough grip, then it makes no sense to also consider the Camaro, which has the same amount of grip. It's basic logic.

Yes, numbers don't tell the whole story. If you had said that you didn't like the feel of the Mustang or didn't like the way the interior looked, then it would make sense as those are subjective. But you didn't say that. You cited an objective, measurable criterion.

ZV

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: punjabiplaya

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Toyota's 4.7L V8 is 276HP
Chrysler's 4.7V8 is 305HP
GM's 4.8L V8 is 295HP
Caddy's 4.6L V8 is 320HP
Nissan's 5.6L V8 is 317HP
Volvo's 4.4L V8 is 311HP
Ford's 4.6L V8 is 315HP

Why are you using the unusual Tau V8 to pick on Ford alone?

Why aren't you hollering about the rest of those "POS" engines that can't keep up?

Particualrly that giant Nissan lump...

This is a silly game to play...

BMW's 4.8L V8 is 25HP shy of the Tau too! Better write a letter of complaint!

Those are all terrible engines too. The VQ is 3.7 putting out 330. There are so many better engines in sports cars. Ford just put a truck engine in a car. It's a terrible engine, end of story.

Bring your 370Z to Tucson and show me just how terrible my little 4.6L DOHC truck engine is. Just make sure you have your windows up or wear ear plugs.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: mariok2006

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Skoorb
There is no comparison. First, the Camaro V6 makes a mockery of the Mustang. Then the V8 again the same happens.

OK, I just compared them

The V6 Camaro is nice, the mustang is really underpowered, IMO.

My 2003 begs to differ.

Not worried about the new Camaro in any trim. ^_^

What's your 1/4 time? Any mods?
Just for comparison against the Camaro SS (13 seconds stock).

Stock '03/'04 Cobras will do mid to high 12s. Cheaply modified versions hit 11s with ease. (Having a SC stock makes adding power a lot easier).

So MUSTANG means Must Use Supercharger or Turbo Against N/A GM?

Wonder if we did apples to apples and had a supercharger on the Camaro :evil:

Don't forget to bump the Cobra's tiny 4.6L DOHC 4 valve engine to a 7.0L while you're at it.

Slap a s/c on the LS7 back to square one.

The LS7 is left at the line because the cylinder walls are too thin? Why do you think they used a LS3 block for the ZR1? High boost isn't advised on a LS7 block, regardless of internals.

Seriously though, with equal displacement and boost, the advantage would then simply be 4v > 2v. Boost + 4V doesn't peak and die at the upper RPM, it just keeps pulling linearly as far as you want to rev it, just as hard as it did at 2k.

Once you reach a certain port velocity, you reach diminishing returns with more boost/RPM where the power drops off rapidly after peak as the engine is doing more work just to pull in the intake charge (think of it like the resisting forces when pulling the plunger on a syringe too fast that sucks the plunger back).

The only way to avoid this is more port area. Given a fixed bore size, the only way that is going to happen is more valves.

Though as long as the engines differ in bore it works out, because the two valves in a larger bore can produce the same area as 4 valves in a smaller bore (even though it has to feed more cylinder volume with the same port capacity), but when all else is equal, 4v > 2v.

 

[Pulsar]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Engines of varying complexity and quality cost varying amounts of $$ to make. Nissan has a ~500hp 3.8L in the GT-R, but it's freaking expensive to produce (and presumably, to maintain). It's the same deal with the Genesis motor vs. the Mustang motor. The Genesis 'TAU' 4.6L is set to run on premium fuel, and also has CVVT, meaning more complexity, and higher output.

While Ford has not advertised it extensively, the 4.6 litre SOHC engine in the Mustang does have variable valve timing. This is one reason why it took a while for cams to become widely available for the new 3-valve heads.

ZV

Interesting, I wonder if purely the difference between the SOHC and DOHC layouts, along with 4 valves per cylinder vs. 3 valves per cylinder, combined with the Premium fuel tuning, explains the 375 vs. 315hp, with similar torque numbers.

The Ford 4.6L in the Mustang has CVT as well.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: lurk3r

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
lurk3r, that may be because of a tendency to cheat on the octane rating by the fuel supplier, rather than your car actually preferring 89. You may need to use 89 to be sure you are getting at least 87.

That would not surprise me at all, Canadian gas and Ohio gas are always much better than Michigan gas. (up to 100km a tank better)

I get the same here. Stupid Texas and stupid 10% ethanol content. Running 87 octane feels sluggish in my Focus, so I always run 89 or better, with fantastic results.

Most stations here in Ohio have a lot of ethanol too. But ethanol has a higher octane rating than gasoline typically.

My 98 Camaro V6 does best with 87 (which is what it calls for anyway). Every time I put 89 in it (twice because the station was out of 87) I get lower mpg. But that's fine by me.

 

[LTC8K6]

GM has had VVT in it's "cam in block" engines for a while now.

 

[TehMac]

This changes things up a little bit.

Holy shit, I really want this :Q

 

[LTC8K6]

Jesus!

 

[TehMac]

For those too lazy to follow the jump:

Some of the options on offer include the choice of GM Performance LS3, LS7, LS9 and even the latest LSX crate engines, a 6-speed manual gearbox transmission or uprated 4L65E automatic with paddle shifters, a Fesler-Moss branded Magnuson Supercharger, three-piece billet wheels, racing suspension, new brakes, and some subtle exterior styling mods.

LS9 supercharged plz, kthx.