Mustangs................

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by Zeus

According to 'my sources' the 5.0L will accompany a 6.2 BOSS engine into the Ford lineup in the next year or so. The 6.2's numbers are not confirmed, though a racing version of the engine makes 500hp...

The 5.0L has been confirmed to make ''at least'' 400hp and 375lb/ft, and that combined with a 6-speed is what is expected for production.

We'll have to see. I wouldn't be surprised if that hp number dropped down to ~360, but I know 400 is possible as well.

[Zeus]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

We'll have to see. I wouldn't be surprised if that hp number dropped down to ~360, but I know 400 is possible as well.

The Engine has the potential, no reason not to use it after the Camaro came out with 426hp and Challenger's 425hp.

[Sleestack]

Originally Posted by Georgie

i don't think there's going to be a z28, heck there may not be a GT500 after 2012

You are probably more right than wrong on this.....

[MustangMnky]

Originally Posted by gtahvit

Play nice...

I only mean by first-hand experience. Ford kind of "cheap-plastics" everything, chevy atleast attempts to make the plastic, non-cheap.

[Tantalizer43]

Originally Posted by comiskeybum

we finally have a good competition on our hands muscle car fans!!!

Can we get AMEN!

Well, until 2016. See the new CAFE standards The President released today?

[Zeus]

Originally Posted by MustangMnky

I only mean by first-hand experience. Ford kind of "cheap-plastics" everything, chevy atleast attempts to make the plastic, non-cheap.

Id say the 'plastics' are of equal 'cheapness' in both the camaro and mustang.

[syr74]

My understanding thus far, in many cases in response to earlier comments.

1: 400hp for the 5.0L is apparently a mild tune compared to what could be. In other words, mod potential is very good, even in n/a trim

2: 5.0L has three stage VVT on intake and exhaust valves and purportedly has a great torque curve, supposedly notably better than the 3-valve 4.6L.

3: There remains absolutely no evidence whatsoever outside of sporatic rumor that the 3.5L EB V6 is slated for Mustang production. This doesn't mean it wont happen, but the similarities in cost and performance make this seem unlikely unless the 5.0L is to draw a relatively large premium over the same, which likewise seems equally unlikely given the new 5.0L V8 engines alterior role as a mainstream pickup mover. Ecoboost is apparently a near certainty for the Mustang, but that doesn't mean that it will be a 3.5L V6 Ecoboost fitment.

4: Coyote's 6.2L Boss cousin has been reported at 500hp, in fact I started the thread here at C5 which points this out. However, even though this is technically what that article stated I do wonder if something wasn't lost in translation and am a bit skeptical that this is the case, even in the Raptor's no doubt tweaked SVT-ified version, for various reasons. I'm thinking mid 400's.

[comiskeybum]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

We'll have to see. I wouldn't be surprised if that hp number dropped down to ~360, but I know 400 is possible as well.

no way no how.

it will be around 420hp i guarantee it. Ford isnt stupid. as much as some of you wish it were.

[comiskeybum]

Originally Posted by MustangMnky

I have a pro to add to the Camaro.

It's a Chevy.

I have a con to add to the Mustang.

It's made by Ford.

and yet you drive one? uhhhh

[MerF]

Originally Posted by MerF

I need sources for common sense?

Ok.

A and B) It's a N/A 5.0L, which means it's going to have to be considerably high c/r to achieve those numbers...or high revving...both of which will mean it's going to be heavily tuned (expensive to engineer) and probably require high octane. It also means unless it is direct injection (is it?) it's not going to handle very much boost without lowering the c/r (decreasing the factory numbers back down to normal in the first place).

C) If you actually belive a new car cna come out without weighing more and being more expensive then you are in the same pipedream that Camaro owners were before the numbers were released on our car.

Better than LLN. I'll concede for now, but I'm still not 100% convinced yet. I reserve that right as a Camaro fanboy.

Just pointing out that noone answered after I was called out and responded.

Convenient.

And stop comparing the heaviest version of the Camaro's handling with the "track pack" of the Mustang. 1SS versus base GT. Camaro wins every time, I would be willing to bet.

[DeathChill]

Originally Posted by MerF

And stop comparing the heaviest version of the Camaro's handling with the "track pack" of the Mustang. 1SS versus base GT. Camaro wins every time, I would be willing to bet.

I'm curious about the GT handling better than the Camaro. I haven't heard it anywhere, the only thing I heard was from MotorTrend that the GT handled great and that neither car was kicking the other's ass in the handling department. It was then pointed out that the GT wouldn't be handling as well on rough surfaces.

I'm just really curious. I know that both cars handle great but it sounds like the GT outhandles the Camaro and I was curious where this information was from.

[MerF]

From Mustang owners.

[Sleestack]

Originally Posted by DeathChill

I'm curious about the GT handling better than the Camaro. I haven't heard it anywhere, the only thing I heard was from MotorTrend that the GT handled great and that neither car was kicking the other's ass in the handling department. It was then pointed out that the GT wouldn't be handling as well on rough surfaces.

I'm just really curious. I know that both cars handle great but it sounds like the GT outhandles the Camaro and I was curious where this information was from.

The Motortrend head-to-head had the GT outpacing the SS in the figure-8 at 25.5 sec vs. 25.8, and pushing .95g on the skidpad vs. .90 for the SS. FWIW

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...test_data.html

[MerF]

Again...the TRACK-PACK versus the fully loaded 2SS. And the differences were minimal.