• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Rollin' in my 5.0...395HP at the wheels

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
No links? Specifics? I really want to see how close a Mustang can come to an M3.
Click to expand...

Why? It's not a competitor of that car and it's about half it's price.

The competiton is the Camaro, and since the old Mustang GT was just as quick to 60, and handled better than the Camaro SS, it does not bode well for the Camaro SS...
 
Atty said:
No links? Specifics? I really want to see how close a Mustang can come to an M3.
Click to expand...

The closest we can get to confirmation at this time is from here :

http://blog.caranddriver.com/2011-f...rack-pack-to-complement-the-400-hp-5-0-liter/

Basically, the GingerMan course is a good mixed road course at 1.88 miles long, and has elevation changes and 11 curves, which makes it roughly in the league of something like Laguna Seca, only with shorter straights. Ford uses the track frequently, the Ford GT was tested there as well.

http://www.na-motorsports.com/Tracks/MI/Gingerman.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gingerman_Raceway

Now that we've established what the track is, let's look at the data so far.

The older '10 and previous Mustang GT's with track pack put down times in the high 1:39 range with the 300hp 4.6L V8 motor. The new Mustang GT 5.0 is putting down times in the low 1:38s according to the link from Motor Trend. Also according to Motor Trend, the current-gen 414hp M3 puts down those times, with a caveat being that it's a car with some worn-in brakes and a driver who may or may not be the equal of the Mustang test driver. Also unknown is what tires will be on the final '11 GT. Racing tires vs. street tires can easily make a gigantic difference. Nonetheless, it's impressive.

What will really tell the tale will be final showroom-spec cars battling it out on 'ring or lightning lap testing.
 
Last edited:
Arkaign said:
The closest we can get to confirmation at this time is from here :

http://blog.caranddriver.com/2011-f...rack-pack-to-complement-the-400-hp-5-0-liter/

Basically, the GingerMan course is a good mixed road course at 1.88 miles long, and has elevation changes and 11 curves, which makes it roughly in the league of something like Laguna Seca, only with shorter straights. Ford uses the track frequently, the Ford GT was tested there as well.

http://www.na-motorsports.com/Tracks/MI/Gingerman.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gingerman_Raceway

Now that we've established what the track is, let's look at the data so far.

The older '10 and previous Mustang GT's with track pack put down times in the high 1:39 range with the 300hp 4.6L V8 motor. The new Mustang GT 5.0 is putting down times in the low 1:38s according to the link from Motor Trend. Also according to Motor Trend, the current-gen 414hp M3 puts down those times, with a caveat being that it's a car with some worn-in brakes and a driver who may or may not be the equal of the Mustang test driver. Also unknown is what tires will be on the final '11 GT. Racing tires vs. street tires can easily make a gigantic difference. Nonetheless, it's impressive.

What will really tell the tale will be final showroom-spec cars battling it out on 'ring or lightning lap testing.
Click to expand...

So in reality, these armchair poser ATOT racers would never be able to tell the difference.
 
I dunno even coming close to the M3 impresses me, the E92 is a seriously engineered and focused piece of machinery.

But the Mustang is lighter and has ~100lbft TQ extra at peak and I'm guessing a sizable advantage in that area through most of the rev range.
 
BouZouki said:
So in reality, these armchair poser ATOT racers would never be able to tell the difference.
Click to expand...

In sheer performance, probably not. Looking at dynos, most non-expert drivers could probably get more out of the GT as well, wider powerband means late shifts/etc won't penalize your performance quite as much.

It can't be denied that getting into a $60k+ machine will have a different feel altogether than a budget V8 sports car, but this is looking like the most competitive matchup ever between these two icons which have always been in different leagues in every way. A stock '95 Mustang GT vs. a stock '95 M3? Hah. Ditto a '01 GT vs. an '01 M3, just wildly disparate capability. Even the '10 vs. '10, still a good gap there.

I can't say it enough, I'm not a Mustang guy at all, even though I did heavily respect the '03/'04 Cobras. This '11 GT is shaping up to be legendary.
 
Zap said:
Hasn't Ford done this in the past? I seem to remember the 2005 Cobra being underrated, and maybe even the original 1980's Taurus SHO.
Click to expand...

Ford does seem historically conservative. A lot of the current gen 4.6L Mustang owners report higher than expected dyno numbers as well.
 
Zap said:
Hasn't Ford done this in the past? I seem to remember the 2005 Cobra being underrated, and maybe even the original 1980's Taurus SHO.
Click to expand...

The late 90's cobra was rated at 320 and didn't make that much power. Ford fixed it with a recall, but I imagine they'd rather under-rate and have people say "wow, it's even more awesome than we thought" than over rate and catch a lot of shit for it.
 
This is one of the first Mustangs I have actually wanted to own. Shame I've no income for it though.
 
Listening to that...man I like the way it sounds even with all the ambient noise getting in the way. Very powerful...but smooth at the same time... good stuff.
 
Atty said:
I understand that but someone earlier claimed they compared it to an M3 and it held its own, which I don't believe for a second tbh.
Click to expand...

Well we'll know for sure in a just a couple of days, I think you're in for a real surprise.

Edit - Just for fun, I popped over here: M3Post

Looks like some people are feeling just a touch insecure over there.
 
Last edited:
LordMorpheus said:
The late 90's cobra was rated at 320 and didn't make that much power. Ford fixed it with a recall, but I imagine they'd rather under-rate and have people say "wow, it's even more awesome than we thought" than over rate and catch a lot of shit for it.
Click to expand...

Found it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_SVT_Cobra
Debuting in early 2002, the 2003 Cobra nicknamed the "Terminator" came with a supercharged 4.6 L DOHC engine. The motor was underrated at 390 bhp (291 kW) at 6000 rpm and 390 lbf·ft (530 N·m) of torque at 3500 rpm. The true output of the motor was closer to 430 bhp.
Click to expand...
 
I like the look of the exterior of the mustang and the performance speaks for itself. Just wish it was a little nicer inside.
 
crazySOB297 said:
No, he was talking about the 1999 Cobra which was advertised at 320hp and didn't even get close. Ford had a recall and brought them up to spec.
Click to expand...

There was a bend in the exhaust that caused too much backflow, which in turn dragged down it's numbers. Will look for a link...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top