UltraZLS1

iTrader: (13)

First short take road test. 13.2 @ 109.

First short take road test for SS. 13.0 @ 111.

just passing along info.

We now have 3 tests from supposedly NON BIASED mags. Edmunds both cars at 13.0. Motor trend 12.9 and 12.8. Now Car and Driver with 13.0 and 13.2.

Camaro with same trap or higher in all 3.

Looks like a

travismcgillsdaddy

imo all the tests are gonna be biased, ford is gonna show it smokes the ss and chevy is gonna show the ss smokes the gt. only way to find out for sure is a real track scenario. we all know its gonna be a driver race though.

01formula6

iTrader: (7)

Interesting how the Camaro has run dead consistent across 3 tests while the Mustang times have varied 4 tenths. I'm looking forward to a comparison test between the two.

ThisBlood147

Call me crazy but the Camaro should trap the same or higher should it not? It does have more HP than the GT. The C+D article doesn't mention what options its test GT had. Wonder if that was with the 3.55 rear end or the optional 3.73. Either way, I think we'll see that every mag test reveals this new Stang to be right on par with its Camaro counterpart in the 1/4 mile department....which is what most of us have been saying since last weekend.

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

Well having slightly more hp isn't the only factor that will dictate trap speed, weight and driver will play a roll there as well.
And though not entirely relevant to this particular topic, only among the manuals does the SS have more power (426 versus 412)...in the automatics the Mustang GT's 412 does exceed the Camaro SS's 400.

ThisBlood147

So I never did get the full skinny on the whole auto vs manual SS. Is the L99 indeed slower than the LS3.....or is it roughly as fast? I ask because I've heard it both ways even up until recently, and I don't keep up with the current track times for the 5th gens.

Either way, I don't think its out of the ordinary that the new GT and the SS both are trapping similar. The auto SS isn't that far behind the GT's hp and the LS3 isn't that far ahead. I don't know why ppl keep acting like they're surprised about the trap speeds.

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

That's a tough call but in my opinion it's likely still a driver's race with the advantage still going to the well driven (that's key right there) manual, just like with the LS1 cars.

UltraZLS1

iTrader: (13)

Stock record so far for an L99 is 12.8 . Stock record for the LS3 is 12.5.

Highest trap I have seen from L99 is 109 and average 107. Highest trap from LS3 is 112-113 and average 109-111.

Its about a .3 tenth and 3mph trap difference between the two on average. If the L99 is running correctly

Though the big problem with the L99 it seems as that A LOT of the cars had a tune problem from the factory. Many of them needed a fuse pull and even above that some more even needed to be re-tuned. Many customers with the L99 were reporting 6 second 0-60 times and very sub par performance. Part of the problem was shown to be low octane being put in the cars from the dealer and the L99 system being slow to change or not change at all back to high octane mode.

Although the stock times arent that far apart between the two. It seems like an awful lot of L99 cars are running poorly for some reason (even without a confirmed tune problem). I dont know how many threads I have read of people posting mid to high 13's and traps around 104 or so....very sub par. It think the system has some issues this first year if you ask me (being a new L99 with deactivation etc etc). the car has been VERY inconsistent.

kennyxg

iTrader: (1)

Just face it the Camaro is slower than the Mustang with the same or more power than the Camaro and lighter. at least the other magazine backed up the time with a vid... but hey, we will see in just a few short weeks.

Darksol

Could it be that the horrid IRS in the Camaro is making launches easier to duplicate across the board???

I couldn't help but notice that this thread was brought to light by a G.M. and the article with the '11 GT being faster was posted by a blue over fan. hmmm....

bad2000z

iTrader: (4)

They are both sweet cars in stock form. The LS3 can easily make 650rwhp with a cam/blower, how much power can the 5.0 make with boost? Remains to be seen. I'm guessing 550-560rwhp max.

I don't know why we keep having this discussion about which car is faster. Very few of us leave them stock, and those who do leave them stock rarely race anyway.

I think it's fairly safe to say the 5.0 will not respond to mods as well as the LS3, less displacement, high compression, headers from the factory, etc. I can't quite picture the 5.0 making another 40rwhp with long tubes and a cai like the LS3 does.

ThisBlood147

3V 4.6 GT's were generally not considered safe to mod past 450rwhp (on the stock shortblock).......yet there are tons of 05-09 GT's making well north of that. Why? Because when ppl want their car to become a monster, they do what is necessary to make it happen. The new 5.0's higher CR might limit boost potential on stock internals (although I still see this car making well north of 500bhp with just 8 lbs of boost), it is nevertheless just a set of rods and pistons away from becoming a boost monster. Will it cost more than a push stick for an LS3? Sure. Will it stop gearheads from doing it? Nope.

bad2000z

iTrader: (4)

Ya, according to Whipple the 5.0 will make 550rwhp on pump gas with their blower on top. Can it make 600rwhp with a little more boost/meth? Prolly. The Mustang does have two major advantages imo, less weight and solid rear. I am actually trying to decide between the two as we speak, I don't know enough about the 5.0 to make an informed decision. Time will tell how they respond to mods, reliability, etc.

ss1129

iTrader: (16)

I have a feeling when the gt comes out the weight is going to be a bit higher than advertised.

They advertised mpg with the 3.55 gears if the 3.73 is an option.

Which leads me to believe they advertised the cars weight without the brembos and larger rotos or 19" wheels ect ect..which will add weight. Of course thats just speculation on my part, but it makes sense.

ThisBlood147

The option packages are not factored into standard weights and measures, no. MPG ratings are done with base gearing as well. I'm sure if you get the optional seat, electronics, stereo, and brake packages you'll probably pack on some pounds. But that's really no different than with any other car. Some options always add weight. And the current Mustangs have a LOT of available options. But I guess that in itself is a good thing.

ss1129

iTrader: (16)

Which leads me to believe the weight difference is going to be a lot closer than people think.

The camaro is alreay weighed with brembos/14" rotors and 20" wheels.

The mustang is not weighed in with them or the bigger wheel. I dont give a **** about stereo equipment weight. Looking at if from a "camaro is a pig" stand point, its going to be closer than people wish to believe.