Are you joking?

 

Remember that the Mach 1 was a special edition car with a "leftover" Cobra engine and this is a run of the mill GT with better handling... etc.

 

ill just wait to get mine and track it @ Englishtown.

im sick and tired of hearing these "track numbers", granny shifting, with traction control running, on un prepped surfaces.. i have a felling we will be seeing mid 12.5-12.7s AND hitting the rev limiter hitting the traps. ive read 0-60 4.3 - 5.1 thats a huge difference. so either the have some REAL crappy drivers or the "stang" is clearly over rated.. after the 99 cobra fiasco, i don t think they are over rated..

 

The thing is the '11 GT is much more than just a 1/4 mile car. It does everything better than any other GT has ever done. You have to look over the overall package. We will really not know what the car is capable of until they are on the road and at the track. Im sure it is going to be well worth the upgrade from my 08. 100hp is a 100 hp.

 

I hope we see Evan Smith of MM&FF do his review soon, as his runs will be what the 5.0 really can do.

 

Kinda, a little truth to it however. My current mach only puts down around 405 rwhp, so I always knew it would be faster...

However with it weighing in a couple hundred lbs less, and with the current reviews coming forth I just think it will be a lot faster than it than I had expected.

 

Bogus comparo, actually--especially since they had access to a Mustang that was much faster (with its Brembos & summer tires) yet chose to compare the chick pick California Special (all stripes & badges **** for the boulevard cruiser crowd and the chicks who work at the tanning salon) instead of the Mustang GT with the *****. Interesting that the high-perf SS model of the Camaro couldn't win out over the California Special! I am surprised they didn't opt for an automatic in their California Special.

Usually, Inside Line is smarter than this...

Greg "Eights" Ates

 

Fanboy much.

 

oh know the sky is falling!!!

 

Oh Boy someone is going to let Eights out of his box! Duck!

 

yep, he will knock down at 12.2-12.3 at 111-112mph is my guess.

 

I mean with some mods the 2011 Gt will eventually catch up but I think the biggest upgrade from your Mach1 will be the interior and fuel consumption.

Motortrend usually posts the highest numbers, Edmunds usaully just the opposite so I guess that kinda mimics drivers in the real world anyway.

I'll miss my bi-pass valve and on demand power but my current 14mpg not so much.

 

So, I guess you ride slammed to the ground, deleted the AC and backseat, run race fuel going to the grocery store and are too cool me. I know my loss. But, you seem to dismiss why the Mustang is such a success, a steed for every need.

 

True, but they are also what no other driver can do.

 

It's possible there is some confusion here just based on what options everyone's test cars have. Performance wise one Camaro SS is going to be pretty close to any other Camaro SS, as long as it's a manual (note that automatic Camaros have a different engine that only gets 400 HP). Camaros don't really have any performance options, save for different wheels (and I'm guessing tires) and some... ground effects dealer installed option (whatever that is).

On the flip side, Mustang GTs have the Brembo Brake package and three different axles to pick from, and the California Special just to confuse things more. The axle itself is going to be a factor given how close these cars are, and the Camaro comes with a 3.45 standard (and no other options) where the Mustang defaults to 3.31 with optional 3.55 and 3.73... except for the automatic transmission Mustang which defaults to 3.15 with no other options.

And both cases have different wheels/tires.

Fortunately, sane people don't compare Automatic transmissions, though with all this in mind we could debate endlessly the results of Ford's crazy Automatic 1/8th mile runs. On one hand, that Camaro only had 400 HP vs the Mustang's 412, but on the other, that Camaro had 3.45 gearing compared to the Mustang's 3.15, and the Camaro pretty well lost that show. Then we have the automatic transmissions to consider and debate and wonder if Ford just programmed it to launch better than a Camaro.

Anyway, I've typed too much about this. I think I'll just have to await the day someone serious takes a Camaro SS and a Mustang 5.0 with the Brembo package and 3.73 axle to the same track on the same day with summer tires and manuals all around and pit them against one another in a straight up showdown without pretension or prejudice.

This might be a long wait.

As a final note, I have always felt that if one man can do it, then all men can do it (women included!).

 

This.

I can understand wanting to know just how hard the car can be pushed, but why? So when you lose to the SS on the street, you can say "well with Evan Smith driving my car it would beat you!"

This article was pretty poorly written, and not because I wanted them to praise the 2011. Obviously the author was more biased to the Camaro; big deal. These auto journalists will have their biases already in place before writing. It's their objectivity, or lack thereof, that bothers me. Multiple times he compares the CS's performance to the SS, then switches to the Brembo-equipped car in parentheses, and he goes back and forth. Compare the two cars that are similarly equipped and stop using the handicapped car's shortcomings to prove your bias towards the Camaro, when you have another vehicle better equipped for the comparison at your disposal!

 

Thank you! The magazines should run 3 different comparisons: a) Base cars with all available performance options, nothing else; b) automatic equipped premium boulevard cruisers (convertibles even, when the Camaro vert is available); c) Premium/2SS cars with manuals and no other options, makin up the bread and butter of sales.

 

Bah. To many comparo's with different outcomes. And all sides will skew it towards their favor. Of course the C5 boys are now going with this run as gospel, which get counter by the MT run, which is counter by Edmonds, which get counter by the 1~2 people who CLAIMED their Camaro was stock and went 12.5

Ok.....the best thing to do is to wait till the 5.0 gets into a real life driver hands, and see what happens. Everyone claims what they can do. Doing it is a different story. hell, just take a look at C5 fest times and you see what the average driver does. And I can guarantee they were not low 12's or even mids.

So lets wait and see what happens once these cars hit the streets, then we can compare, complain, talk crap, ect.

 

Well said Lancel. I agree totally with your post.

I'd love to see a multiple car comparo with both manual C5/GTs with all the track options, and a pair of autos go at it as well. Match up the options as well as possible, gear ratio, tire size, etc., then compare them. Only then can you really get a feel for things.

I'd also suggest that we start a thread somewhere to keep track of times. Once we do that, someone could make a spreadsheet and if we know what options are on the car and what times they run, we can start to analyze the data and get better averages.

For 2011, the GT Premium with 3.73s and Brembos is our heavy hitter, against the 2SS, and the Challenger R/T with Track Pack. If any magazine or website is going to do it right, then option them out right, and compare both transmissions independently.

 

More important in these comparisons is the relative numbers of the two cars rather than as compared to some other test in some other magazine driven on some other track in some other weather using some other testing protocol... As for the last, a lot of these more general performance mags (C&D, R&T, MT, etc.) tend not to test their cars like they stole them but rather, more like a more average owner would (no speed shifting, racing slicks, etc.) The more drag-racing oriented mags do beat the bejezus out of their cars with little thought of the consequences once the warranty runs out a few years later. They can squeeze out great time but I wouldn't want to own one of their test cars.

Both the C&D and IL head-to-head tests had the Camaro out accelerating the Stang ever so slightly, but the numbers are close enough that I'd call it a drivers race on the strip. IL, when running the summer tire Stang got essentially identical times. And yes, drive 'em like you stole 'em and you'd likely dip into the 12's.

Interesting IL comments on the perennial IRS vs Live Axle debate in how the IRS advantages are less in the raw numbers (how fast the car goes, at least on a test track), but in the driving experience (how well the car goes fast, especially in the lumpy, bumpy real world). Seems like the Stang had the better front suspension and steering while the Camaro has the better rear suspension. However, overall, the lighter, tighter Stang seems to have the better overall suspension at this point, mostly due to better calibration, tuning and balance over the heavier Camaro with its stylish but heavy 20" hoops. 2012 should be interesting here.

In the end though, the Stang has been consistently rated above the Camaro primarily because it is the better driving car if not necessarily the faster one.