So I have been playing with some of the speculative numbers coming out and have noticed that the 2010 Mustang has a lot of potential to dominate the power to weight ratio. Based off of what I’m reading about the 2010 Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger this is what I have concluded and why. What do you think?

Let’s start with the best shall we? The current Mustang GT weighs 3450 lbs. and pumps out 300hp resulting in a respectable 11.5 lbs. per hp. Now, in 2010 the Mustang GT will supposedly be putting out 400hp from a nice little 5.0 L; meaning, if the weight doesn’t change, we’re looking at an astonishing 8.6 lbs. per hp. Wow!!!

We have the numbers for the Challenger and they aren’t impressive. The $40k SRT8 is powered by a 6.1L “HEMI” putting out 425hp. Nice until you consider it tips the scale at 4140 lbs. Still, despite all the weight, with that much hp the SRT8 manages to get 9.7 lbs. per hp. However, that is the high end model and compared to the Shelby Mustang or SS Camaro, it falls short. The base model V8 Challenger will be the R/T, packing a 370hp 5.7L “HEMI”. Plug in these numbers and you are left with 11.2 lbs. per hp. Might as well just get an ‘05-‘09 stang.

And finally, this brings us to the Camaro. This one is a bit harder because in a production form, it does not exist. So I am basing the numbers off of the Pontiac G8 GT which shares a chassis with the Camaro and based off of these new photos I found at http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3728, they might not be too far off. The G8 GT weighs 3995 lbs. and at 361 hp, its carrying 11.1 lbs. per hp. That’s nice and I’m sure is fun, but not being a pony car, its kind of irrelevant at the moment. But let’s say the weight of the Camaro is close to the G8 which I think is quite possible looking at those photos, in which the Camaro and G8 appear to be roughly the same size. And let’s say the Camaro gets GM’s LS3 V8 rated at 430hp. So with those numbers the Camaro is looking at 9.3 lbs. per hp, enough to take on the SRT8, but falling short of beating out the Mustang.

 

Weight should be around 3550-3600 with the 6 speed and 5.0 engine as per 4Cam

That's not too bad of a weight gain considering what is going into it, and what will be put out where the rubber meets the road.

but yes the challenger/Camaro will be heavier by comparison

 

Great post and welcome !

 

power to weight ratios are nice to look at, but no matter the power, lighter is better for cornering, braking and MPG. Nice to see the Mustang isn't supposed to gain too much.

 

I'm guessing to that the '10 will stay within about 100lbs of the current GT, i.e., about 3550 or so, even with an extra cog in the box and an extra poppet for each cylinder. So even if the presumed 5.0 comes in at a fairly modest 400hp, that'll still give it a very competitive power/weight ratio, which is what is really important when figuring straight line performance. Even if the Challenger and Camaro sport bigger engines and hp numbers, any advantage there will be blunted by commensurate dead weight.

In the end, that'll give the Stang competitive gitty up 'n go but with better mileage as it will take less energy to accelerate less mass. Highway mileage might be more equivalent as that's more a factor of aerodynamics, of which the Stang is rather blunt about (pun intended), but maybe they'll slick 'er down a bit for '10.

Handling may be a bit of a draw, with the Stang enjoying less flab to fling about the corners but still saddled with a less adept in the bumps lively axle -- probably a very situational aspect here, presuming all players to an equivalent job in terms of chassis tuning.

Braking too might be somewhat in the Stang's corner, at least the initial stop for the current setup seems to be a bit fade prone -- maybe they slap on some bigger rotors for '10 too in trying to flesh out the Stang's performance envelope beyond the straight and narrow of acceleration.

Ideally, I'd love to see that '10 Stang maintain current mass, add a 425hp GDI 4V 5.0, backed up by a tight six speed, bigger brakes and at least an IRS option to dance in the corners with the other comers. Hold the tab under 30 big base with maybe the 21st century suspension option coming in at another big note and I may be thinking trade in time.

 

Assuming a 3600 lb stang with an honest 400/360 that would give us 9lbs per hp. The new F body will in all likely hood have a LS3 engine. Assuming 4000 lb Camaro with 430 gives us 9.3 lbs per hp. If anything at all from what I have seen the LS3 is underrated. The LS3 is just a killer engine imo.

Lets not forget we will be giving up 65-70 ft pounds if all comes true. What effect will the 70 less ft lbs have on performance? Some of you engineer types may be able to offer some insight on this. I have a feeling it will make up for the added weight. Thoughts?

All I know is Ford better come out with all their stuff in one bag this time or I will be at a Chevy dealer next time around. No more excuses for being short on power for me. Lighten it up and bring the horses and be competitive or lose my sale.

 

The torque difference will be there no doubt. But it's fixable. With the new 6 speed they could up the gear ratio (technically lower). Maybe factory 3.90's or 4.10's for added acceleration. 4v heads will love that. With 6th gear being a perfect highway cruising gear.

 

We'll be giving up some torque but not nearly that much. 400hp and 360lb-ft of torque are almost certainly minimum numbers with the torque prediction sounding particularly low. A telling indicator here could be several of the posts made by JDP80 over on BON, a known source of good info regarding Ford Australia and Ford in general. I have twice seen him report 5.0L power production figures as 400hp and 390lb-ft of torque even claiming that 400lb-ft of torque is not out of the question. Once could be an error but he has stated this more than once making it seem more likely that he knows something others don't or haven't reported yet.

Factor in the benefits of direct injection, the added port velocity gained by the bigger bore/unshrouding of the valves, and the torque benefits of a slightly undersquare design and the torque curve should be phenomenal. Given what we know I would be willing to bet that 80 percent of torque will be online by 2000rpm, which in a 390lb-ft motor would be about 315lb-ft of torque at 2000rpm. That would light the tires and boil them into a nice soup without the slightest trouble.

If this goes well we would genuinely be looking at a 2011 Mustang GT with Terminator matching acceleration. I don't think Ford is going to be the one playing catch up here.

 

I'm not sure using an LS3 is a fair comparison. The LS3 won't be the base V8, probably the L76. So if the 5.0 is the base engine, it should eat a stock L76 alive.

 

Aren't the rumors??

2010: Carry over engine
2011: New 5.0L. Per FourCam, DI might not be introduced right away but phased in.

 

If the 5L premiers in 2011 it will almost certainly have DI, as there is a plant reportedly gearing up to produce it with Job 1 in early 2010 (calender year). However, if you notice on SVTP, 4Cam's thread says clearly says the "2010 GT" will have 400hp. This has led to speculation that the 5L might hit in 2010 as no-DI still with 400 hp, 4cam's fuzzy on this point, he doesn't seem to have a sure DI/no-DI answer but he does have sure figures.

This could mean it would have even more later when DI did arrive. Alternatively, the full 400hp+DI bag of goodies could come from another facility temporarily until the reported plant is ready, or permanently and the reported plant could be for something completely different. We just don't know yet.

 

I was looking at the specs for the 5.0 Infiniti FX and noticed its putting down 390 HP without DI. I'm guessing a luxury SUV is tuned for low end torque and low NVH. I think a Mustang 5.0 without DI can still touch 400 HP at 6500 rpm. The only question is if Ford marketing/bean counters are cool with it.

 

Saleen's 5.0 make 400hp(PJ) and 390hp(H-302). Both use 3v heads. With 4v heads, it can hit 400.

Didn't someone say in the Shelby thread that the 5.0 was coming from Cleveland?

 

Bleh, I must have been tired to leave that double sentence in there last night.

 

Looking at some of the other threads, it looks like 5.0L/400 HP will be the standard engine for the GT. I noticed the G8 GXP was only making 402 HP with a LS3 and weighed 4000 lbs. I have to think a Camaro SS will weigh 3900 lbs. Based on these numbers, a stock 2010 GT has nothing to fear at a red light.

 

Other than those 240hp Crown Vics with the red and blue lights on top.

 

Couldn't agree more

 

They're 250HP, get it right!!

 

The crazy 450 or 485hp underated LS3 scuttlebutt? Alot of people are making a shot in the dark by using the internet standard of a 15% loss through the drivetrain and disregarding the possibility that the vettes running gear could be more efficient or the fact that the vettes running gear only absorbs a total number of horsepower to drive the wheels rather than a clumsy percentage thats making the engine out to be the hero it isnt.

GM campaigned pretty hard to get more accurate results in dyno testing to expose foreign competion that was gaming the system to make thier engines look better, it would be a shame if GM disregarded this notion for thier own products. However I suspect the odd "factory freak" aside (if there is such a thing in this age of near blueprinted factory motors) GM is pretty truthful about the output of thier products.

 

Exactly. I've been fortunate to see a lot of cars run across a Dynojet in my time and I well recall people claiming that LS6 engines were 465hp engines....I've even had somebody recently claim the same thing again. The truth? This isn't what the Dynojet had to say on the issue, not even once. And since the LS3 C6 doesn't run nearly fast enough to indicate 465hp hp or more I am inclined to believe the same applies here. In fact, while the LS6 was apparently at least a bit under-rated probably being more like a 425hp engine than the advertised 405hp, I don't think the LS3 is under-rated much if at all given the kind of times they run.