Priced - Refreshed 2010 Ford Mustang
02-20-2009 | 02:38 PM
#21
I would expect them to do better in the real world.
Last edited by mzoomora; 02-20-2009 at 02:43 PM.
02-20-2009 | 05:37 PM
#22
Considering the new Camaro's release has been pushed back atleast 2-3 years since it was "announced," I wouldn't be too pessimistic. For a while now Ford has been saying the OHC 5.0 was coming in 2011, so I don't know why some people are so surprised. But like Casey said, I don't think Ford is very worried about the initial power deficit, considering how well the Mustang sold before when the Camaro outgunned it. And since the 2011 GT looks like it will equal the Camaro's straightline performance (and be considerably lighter), it's gonna get real interesting.
On the other hand, IF the market improves enough for Ford to really justify that 400hp GT, what kind of HP could the Camaro SS be putting out at that point? GM can very easily up the HP in the L99, far easier than Ford can, and the only thing stopping that is the fact that it's ludicrousy in the current market. So I suppose what i'm saying here is that i'm dissapointed and so should you be. All we have right now is NOW. The future (of power) is not guaranteed in any way. I'm thanking God that we have a 422hp Camaro...I was really hoping to see a 400hp Mustang so that the very least we'd have one last big show by the big three.
As for which car sold what...it's all a moot point now. The Camaro, Mustang, and Challenger only have a future as low-volume look-what-we-can-do cars. I niether expect nor care for the Camaro to outsell the Mustang. As long as it outperforms it, it'll be in my garage.
Originally Posted by irunelevens
OMG I'm so tired of hearing that "F-bodies did that 'XX' years ago." Gets very old, very quick. Mustang GTs use 5spds instead of 6spds to keep costs down. Maybe if GM had put some effort in keeping F-body costs down (and advertised, and had a better interior) there would have been 2003-2009 Camaros and Firebirds.
2 - the $1800 price difference between a Camaro Z28 and Mustang GT was a bargain considering what you got. More power, better handling, a better interior, and all that with better efficiency.
3 - The f-body was discontinued in 2002 simply because it was the smart decision. Ford didn't take the smart route, it took the gamble. Thanks to the fact that Ford doesn't have the overhead that GM has, it worked out for them. Switch the cars' makers - if the Mustang had been a GM product, it still would have been axed despite it's sales, and the f-body would have continued production if under Ford.
Originally Posted by irunelevens
Originally Posted by USA Today
The new Camaro will get 26 miles per gallon on the highway, GM said. It will hit showrooms in the first quarter of 2009.
Originally Posted by CNN
The Camaro SS, powered by a 6.2-liter V8 engine, will get about 23 mpg on the highway, according to GM.
Last edited by Blakbird24; 02-20-2009 at 05:53 PM.
02-20-2009 | 08:03 PM
#23
***Repost Police***
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
From: DFW, TX
Camaro made it to production by the skin of it's teeth. Remember how many awesome cars GM had in the pipeline that have been deleted thanks to this recession. If Camaro had not been delayed despite it's advanced status, and actually been 2-3 years further behind in development, we would never see it. We are reaching the end of the road here for big power, I can't say where exactly the final cutoff is going to be, but it can't be far off. The Camaro SS made it under the bar, but I doubt we'll ever see the planned 500hp+ version. That's why I doubt we'll ever see the mythical 400hp Mustang GT now.
On the other hand, IF the market improves enough for Ford to really justify that 400hp GT, what kind of HP could the Camaro SS be putting out at that point? GM can very easily up the HP in the L99, far easier than Ford can, and the only thing stopping that is the fact that it's ludicrousy in the current market. So I suppose what i'm saying here is that i'm dissapointed and so should you be. All we have right now is NOW. The future (of power) is not guaranteed in any way. I'm thanking God that we have a 422hp Camaro...I was really hoping to see a 400hp Mustang so that the very least we'd have one last big show by the big three.
As for which car sold what...it's all a moot point now. The Camaro, Mustang, and Challenger only have a future as low-volume look-what-we-can-do cars. I niether expect nor care for the Camaro to outsell the Mustang. As long as it outperforms it, it'll be in my garage.
1 - The fact that the Mustang, a PERFORMANCE vehicle, offered only a 5-spd when it's competitor was offering a 6-spd, is a BAD THING. As you can see, the 6-spd allowed for better performance AND better fuel mileage.
2 - the $1800 price difference between a Camaro Z28 and Mustang GT was a bargain considering what you got. More power, better handling, a better interior, and all that with better efficiency.
3 - The f-body was discontinued in 2002 simply because it was the smart decision. Ford didn't take the smart route, it took the gamble. Thanks to the fact that Ford doesn't have the overhead that GM has, it worked out for them. Switch the cars' makers - if the Mustang had been a GM product, it still would have been axed despite it's sales, and the f-body would have continued production if under Ford.
Seeing as the C6 Z06 with a 505hp 427 gets 26mpg highway, it's safe to say that the 23mpg rating is either very conservative, or for the automatic trans-equipped Camaro. You can count on 25-26mpg for the manual trans-equipped SS.
On the other hand, IF the market improves enough for Ford to really justify that 400hp GT, what kind of HP could the Camaro SS be putting out at that point? GM can very easily up the HP in the L99, far easier than Ford can, and the only thing stopping that is the fact that it's ludicrousy in the current market. So I suppose what i'm saying here is that i'm dissapointed and so should you be. All we have right now is NOW. The future (of power) is not guaranteed in any way. I'm thanking God that we have a 422hp Camaro...I was really hoping to see a 400hp Mustang so that the very least we'd have one last big show by the big three.
As for which car sold what...it's all a moot point now. The Camaro, Mustang, and Challenger only have a future as low-volume look-what-we-can-do cars. I niether expect nor care for the Camaro to outsell the Mustang. As long as it outperforms it, it'll be in my garage.
1 - The fact that the Mustang, a PERFORMANCE vehicle, offered only a 5-spd when it's competitor was offering a 6-spd, is a BAD THING. As you can see, the 6-spd allowed for better performance AND better fuel mileage.
2 - the $1800 price difference between a Camaro Z28 and Mustang GT was a bargain considering what you got. More power, better handling, a better interior, and all that with better efficiency.
3 - The f-body was discontinued in 2002 simply because it was the smart decision. Ford didn't take the smart route, it took the gamble. Thanks to the fact that Ford doesn't have the overhead that GM has, it worked out for them. Switch the cars' makers - if the Mustang had been a GM product, it still would have been axed despite it's sales, and the f-body would have continued production if under Ford.
Seeing as the C6 Z06 with a 505hp 427 gets 26mpg highway, it's safe to say that the 23mpg rating is either very conservative, or for the automatic trans-equipped Camaro. You can count on 25-26mpg for the manual trans-equipped SS.
02-20-2009 | 08:56 PM
#24
Originally Posted by irunelevens
As for the gas mileage, the person I was talking to quoted manufacturer's figures for the Mustang, and I quoted manufacturer's numbers for the Camaro. Which is all we can do until it comes out. But considering it's gonna weigh as much as a GT-500, I don't see it getting the mileage that the 4th gens got.
However the heaviest official curb weight listed for the production Camaro is 3860lbs, which is only about 100lbs more than a fully loaded Mustang GT of the current year, and almost 200lbs less than the GT500. Not too shabby.
02-20-2009 | 09:11 PM
#25
***Repost Police***
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
From: DFW, TX
Mustang GT coupes start under 3,400lbs. A fully-loaded Mustang GT convertible automatic might weigh close to 3,700lbs, but that's about it. And I have never owned an F-body, but it's not like I haven't driven several for extended amounts of time. The Mustang has the more practical/pedestrian/"user-friendly" interior, while the F-body interior was (in some opinions) sportier. The reason I brought up sales was that there was a reason, regardless of what our opinions of it may be, that the Mustang outsold the Camaro and Firebird combined 4 to 1. And only a small portion of it was because of poor advertising.
02-20-2009 | 10:32 PM
#26
Launching!
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 248
Likes: 3
From: Indianpolis, IN
Im not saying this as a joke but 85% of 16 year old girls I know or knew and prob 90% of guys who didnt know cars always wanted a Mustang GT. I never understood it but it has always been the bandwagon thing to get a Mustang GT around here. I do blame alot of that on advertising. I never like the sn95 interior, they handle worse, and were slower than a comparable fbody but everybody always thought they were a supercar, and I have to give credit to Ford for making them think that. I live in a college town and the 4.6 2v caters to people who want to be in the "fast car crowd" but dont know anything about them.
02-20-2009 | 10:38 PM
#27
And whos fault is it Ford was cheap and only put in 5 gears? If you can use that excuse as to why the Mustang gets worse mileage, than I can use the excuse that GM put more expensive parts in thus making the price up thus why it failed.
See? Pointless.
Anywho, I think it looks good. Glad to see the Pony wars back on!!!
02-20-2009 | 10:39 PM
#28
Mustang GT coupes start under 3,400lbs. A fully-loaded Mustang GT convertible automatic might weigh close to 3,700lbs, but that's about it. And I have never owned an F-body, but it's not like I haven't driven several for extended amounts of time. The Mustang has the more practical/pedestrian/"user-friendly" interior, while the F-body interior was (in some opinions) sportier. The reason I brought up sales was that there was a reason, regardless of what our opinions of it may be, that the Mustang outsold the Camaro and Firebird combined 4 to 1. And only a small portion of it was because of poor advertising.
According to Ford's build sheet, the 2008 Ford Mustang GT Premium weighs in at 3722lbs. That's the coupe, not the convertible. I have no idea what the convertible weighs because I don't know anyone who owns one, and Ford doesn't list the weights on their site. I noticed that alot of car sites (Edmunds types) list the same weight for the base through the GT convertible. Obviously that's inaccurate. The base Mustang is about 3400lbs, a stripped GT should be around 3550lbs minimum.
I'm sorry but I couldn't help but laugh at the user friendly interior comment. Now keep in mind i'm speaking of the previous gen interior, which would have competed with the 4th gen f-bodies...but next to the Viper, there is no poorer design ergonomically than that Mustang's interior. The shifter is awkwardly low and forward...so far so that they had to use a highly offset shifter in order to fix the problems the 96-98 cars had with knuckle-crunching on third gear upshifts. The seats are flat and unsupportive, and the beltline obstructs downward visibility to a nearly unacceptable level unless you are at least my height (6'2"). I could go on and on, but it's not going to matter anyway.
02-20-2009 | 10:41 PM
#29
TECH Regular
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
From: Western Kentucky
Somone said this will probably be the last big hp war we ever see....
I doubt that, since they were probably thinking that in the mid 70's. Or during the recession in the 80's. This recession is no worse than what we have seen. For the car companies its worse since we have these liars jumping around saying cars and global warming no no, on top of gas prices which are down now, for now. And the fact GM F were losing the quality image. Though I believe they are winning that one back, Ford for sure.
Will see big gas engine big hp wars again. And will probably see big hp electric cars too.
By 2011 the Camaro SS will fade out a bit and the trendy crowd will move on, the mags will be done publishing articles. and wham Ford drops in 400 hp in a lighter sports car. Chances are if the GT500 is still around expect 600 hp by then.
I doubt that, since they were probably thinking that in the mid 70's. Or during the recession in the 80's. This recession is no worse than what we have seen. For the car companies its worse since we have these liars jumping around saying cars and global warming no no, on top of gas prices which are down now, for now. And the fact GM F were losing the quality image. Though I believe they are winning that one back, Ford for sure.
Will see big gas engine big hp wars again. And will probably see big hp electric cars too.
By 2011 the Camaro SS will fade out a bit and the trendy crowd will move on, the mags will be done publishing articles. and wham Ford drops in 400 hp in a lighter sports car. Chances are if the GT500 is still around expect 600 hp by then.
02-20-2009 | 10:44 PM
#30
***Repost Police***
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
From: DFW, TX
You can stop wasting your breath on the sales argument. It means nothing to me. The LAST thing that even crosses my mind when i buy a car is what other people think of it. The only reason I would be the slightest bit concerned about how well a car sells is if I was concerned about other's opinions. I'm not. At all. There are 10,000 reasons why one car outsells another...none of them are going to help this argument.
According to Ford's build sheet, the 2008 Ford Mustang GT Premium weighs in at 3722lbs. That's the coupe, not the convertible. I have no idea what the convertible weighs because I don't know anyone who owns one, and Ford doesn't list the weights on their site. I noticed that alot of car sites (Edmunds types) list the same weight for the base through the GT convertible. Obviously that's inaccurate. The base Mustang is about 3400lbs, a stripped GT should be around 3550lbs minimum.
I'm sorry but I couldn't help but laugh at the user friendly interior comment. Now keep in mind i'm speaking of the previous gen interior, which would have competed with the 4th gen f-bodies...but next to the Viper, there is no poorer design ergonomically than that Mustang's interior. The shifter is awkwardly low and forward...so far so that they had to use a highly offset shifter in order to fix the problems the 96-98 cars had with knuckle-crunching on third gear upshifts. The seats are flat and unsupportive, and the beltline obstructs downward visibility to a nearly unacceptable level unless you are at least my height (6'2"). I could go on and on, but it's not going to matter anyway.
According to Ford's build sheet, the 2008 Ford Mustang GT Premium weighs in at 3722lbs. That's the coupe, not the convertible. I have no idea what the convertible weighs because I don't know anyone who owns one, and Ford doesn't list the weights on their site. I noticed that alot of car sites (Edmunds types) list the same weight for the base through the GT convertible. Obviously that's inaccurate. The base Mustang is about 3400lbs, a stripped GT should be around 3550lbs minimum.
I'm sorry but I couldn't help but laugh at the user friendly interior comment. Now keep in mind i'm speaking of the previous gen interior, which would have competed with the 4th gen f-bodies...but next to the Viper, there is no poorer design ergonomically than that Mustang's interior. The shifter is awkwardly low and forward...so far so that they had to use a highly offset shifter in order to fix the problems the 96-98 cars had with knuckle-crunching on third gear upshifts. The seats are flat and unsupportive, and the beltline obstructs downward visibility to a nearly unacceptable level unless you are at least my height (6'2"). I could go on and on, but it's not going to matter anyway.
02-20-2009 | 10:47 PM
#31
TECH Apprentice
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
From: Bessemer City NC
One could argue that the V6 Camaro is a better deal than the Mustang GT.
- MSRP is $6,000 less
- 300hp (only 15hp less)
- better gas mileage
- IRS
- better weight distribution
- probably a more rigid chassis
- better gas mileage
- better driving dynamics
The new Camaro takes everything that was good about the 4th gen (power/handling/looks) and improves all of the not so good things (interior/cat hump/seating position, etc).
- MSRP is $6,000 less
- 300hp (only 15hp less)
- better gas mileage
- IRS
- better weight distribution
- probably a more rigid chassis
- better gas mileage
- better driving dynamics
The new Camaro takes everything that was good about the 4th gen (power/handling/looks) and improves all of the not so good things (interior/cat hump/seating position, etc).
02-20-2009 | 10:56 PM
#33
TECH Apprentice
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
From: Bessemer City NC
Mustang GT vs V6 Camaro = Mustang 15 extra HP and 200lbs lighter.
Mustang GT vs SS Camaro = Mustang 115 LESS HP and 300lbs lighter.
The V6 Camaro will likely be a little slower than the GT, but it makes up for it with the features I listed:
- better gas mileage
- IRS
- better weight balance
- stiffer chassis
- $6,000 less MSRP vs MSRP
- better driving dynamics
In the end, when you consider the total package, you could argue Camaro V6 > Mustang GT
02-20-2009 | 11:04 PM
#35
400hp in the Mustang GT will at best put it in a dead heat with the 422hp SS. It's only about 100lbs lighter.
As for the 600hp GT500...Ford doesn't have a 600hp engine yet...GM already does. Enough said.
02-20-2009 | 11:06 PM
#36
***Repost Police***
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
From: DFW, TX
Dude, the Mustang GT does not weigh 3,700lbs. It weighs right around 3,500lbs. I've seen some figures as low as 3375lbs. So I don't know why you keep quoting that. If the 2011 Mustang GT has 400hp and similar characteristics to the current car, it should run mid 12s. Which the Camaro would be lucky to see. But we'll have to see what the future holds, because right now we're all just speculating.
02-20-2009 | 11:07 PM
#37
Launching!
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 248
Likes: 3
From: Indianpolis, IN
Ford WILL have to step it up for people like this. Let alone the guys who have to have a v8 and see a 115hp differance.
02-20-2009 | 11:10 PM
#38
TECH Apprentice
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
From: Bessemer City NC
Oh, and to answer your question - Camaro V6 = $22,995 (destination included). That's $1,000 more than a V6 Mustang and $6,000 less than a Mustang GT.
BTW, here is what the 3.6 direct injection engine is capable of with just a few mods...
Exhaust:
Exhaust + intake:
Mustang GTs....watch your backs...
02-20-2009 | 11:18 PM
#39
Dude, the Mustang GT does not weigh 3,700lbs. It weighs right around 3,500lbs. I've seen some figures as low as 3375lbs. So I don't know why you keep quoting that. If the 2011 Mustang GT has 400hp and similar characteristics to the current car, it should run mid 12s. Which the Camaro would be lucky to see. But we'll have to see what the future holds, because right now we're all just speculating.
You are 100% totally, certifiably, out of your ******* mind if you think ANY mustang GT of the current generation weighs under 3400lbs.
Oh, and face it, the V6 Camaro is going to embarrass the Mustang GT. The fact that it's even close on paper is proof of that. It could end up being faster in the real world...you don't know. Regardless, alot of GT owners are going to be pissed when they run across one on the highway and can't put more than a fender on it.
The above statement is precisely why I am very dissapointed that the new GT only has 315hp. I'm not anti-mustang, i'm just really dissapointed in what Ford has been bringing to the table as of late. All these years without competition, and Ford did very little to improve it's position. They were unable to pick up more than a handful of former f-body owners (and they only did so really with the 03-04 cobras). Now that they Camaro is coming back, it's going to put the Mustang right back where it was in 2002, firmly in second place.
02-21-2009 | 12:40 AM
#40
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
The above statement is precisely why I am very dissapointed that the new GT only has 315hp. I'm not anti-mustang, i'm just really dissapointed in what Ford has been bringing to the table as of late. All these years without competition, and Ford did very little to improve it's position. They were unable to pick up more than a handful of former f-body owners (and they only did so really with the 03-04 cobras). Now that they Camaro is coming back, it's going to put the Mustang right back where it was in 2002, firmly in second place.
Why would they show their hand when theres no competition? To make you happy?