|
|
 |
|
09-01-2009, 01:48 PM
|
#1
|
|
Resident Avatar Gambler
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,997
|
2011-12 Mustang Info
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInsider
- 3.7L V6 to be rated at 315 horsepower: Same as 2010 GT; 15 hp more than Camaro V6
- No immediate plans for EcoBoost V6 Mustang due to small horsepower gap between EcoBoost and 5.0L V8 (365 vs 400)
- 2011 Mustang GT to be rated at 400 horsepower, will get increase in 2012
- 2011 Mustang GT to get 6-speed transmission and variable valve timing
- 2011 Mustang GT Track Pack to include Brembo brakes
- 2011 Mustang GT 5.0L V8, 6-speed, track pack, Brembo brakes ran even with 414-hp BMW M3, which is 200 lbs lighter, at GingerMan Raceway in South Haven, Michigan
- 2011 Shelby GT500 to get Aluminum Block
- Next special edition: 2012 Boss
|
This leaked out today - it looks interesting... 
__________________
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
|
|
|
|
|
09-01-2009, 01:51 PM
|
#2
|
|
Resident Avatar Gambler
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,997
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Formula51
Hmm, this would make for an interesting shoot out with the Camaro.
The LS3 in the Camaro is making over 300tq at the wheels off-idle and peaks at 420tq.
Depending on how much heft the Mustang gains, it could be a close battle.
Current Mustang is at 3533#'s by most accounts and with the Track Pack it is at 3572#'s (that number has always stuck in my head for some reason).
With a 5.0L 4V, bigger/better brakes (lets hope), bigger wheels, future safety standards, and a few other odds and ends, I could easily see 3,600#'s.
Personally I am still leaning towards 3,650#'s for a Mustang Premium. That would only be 75# more than the current Track Pack. Big brakes and 4V heads will eat a nice chunk of that right away.
Some numbers to contemplate while we wait:
Camaro: 3860/426 = 9.06 lbs/ho
Camaro: 3860/420 = 9.19 lbs/tq
Mustang: 3650/400 = 9.125 lbs/hp
Mustang: 3650/360 = 10.14 lbs/tq (if Mustang stays with 3.73 gears then that will help here)
|
I love that everyone is still putting out more and more powerful cars. I just wish that they could get the weights down...
__________________
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
|
|
|
|
|
09-01-2009, 01:59 PM
|
#3
|
|
Neanderthal
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 5,320
|
Any pictures of the 2012 Boss? Now, that may be the car to wait for. 
__________________
64 Vette Roadster 400 ci
1990 F150 351 ci SuperCharged
48 Harley Pan Head 76 ci
2016 Nissan Altma
|
|
|
|
|
09-01-2009, 03:12 PM
|
#4
|
|
I, Vettezuki
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 14,754
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanPlunk
I love that everyone is still putting out more and more powerful cars. I just wish that they could get the weights down...
|
I'm at 3,100lbs and 450BHP (390WHP) and shorter gearing now in a front mid engine. Dynamically, I think any of these would be a bit disappointing to me. Though what Ford can do with a Live Axle defies comprehension. (But there's limits no matter what.)
__________________
Motorgen on
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Motorgen on
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Motorgen Project Car
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(active)
Motorgen Project Car
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(back burner)
|
|
|
|
|
09-01-2009, 03:47 PM
|
#5
|
|
Neanderthal
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 5,320
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vettezuki
I'm at 3,100lbs and 450BHP (390WHP) and shorter gearing now in a front mid engine. Dynamically, I think any of these would be a bit disappointing to me. Though what Ford can do with a Live Axle defies comprehension. (But there's limits no matter what.)
|
You know with a more modern suspension, there would be nothing that could touch you ( short of a super car) on the twisties. 
So how about upgrading the suspension on that "1963" design. 
__________________
64 Vette Roadster 400 ci
1990 F150 351 ci SuperCharged
48 Harley Pan Head 76 ci
2016 Nissan Altma
|
|
|
|
|
09-01-2009, 03:53 PM
|
#6
|
|
I, Vettezuki
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 14,754
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRUTAL64
You know with a more modern suspension, there would be nothing that could touch you ( short of a super car) on the twisties.
So how about upgrading the suspension on that "1963" design. |
I'm not sure what options there really are. The big problem is in the rear end with the trailing arm setup and all the nifty camber/toe change you get with travel. The best option I've found still seems to be the Guldstrand 5-link. That would take it up to C4, which ain't too shabby. Now, if there was an SLA setup that'd be slick as all hell. I tried to talk TT into shedding some light (details) on his design, but that's like a cold war secret. 
Do you know of any available "modern" options to fit under the C3 rear that are any good. That Shark Bite one "looks" cool, but is plagued with many problems in both design and manufacture.
Even as it is, there aren't too many modern performance cars in stock form that can hang, or get a rude surprise that I can be right with them without too much trouble. I do love my old Vette. Some aluminum brakes and lighter rotors would make a huge difference too.
__________________
Motorgen on
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Motorgen on
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Motorgen Project Car
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(active)
Motorgen Project Car
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(back burner)
|
|
|
|
|
09-01-2009, 03:55 PM
|
#7
|
|
I, Vettezuki
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 14,754
|
BTW, I do have VB&P Dual mount setup, heim jointed camber rods, and metal spherical joints instead of rubber in the trailing arm. Also the wheel bearings were setup to Guldstrand specs, by Guldstrand. So compared to the average C3, I'm on rails. But all the geometry is as you say, from the 60s.
__________________
Motorgen on
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Motorgen on
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Motorgen Project Car
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(active)
Motorgen Project Car
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(back burner)
|
|
|
|
|
09-01-2009, 04:09 PM
|
#8
|
|
Neanderthal
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 5,320
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vettezuki
I'm not sure what options there really are. The big problem is in the rear end with the trailing arm setup and all the nifty camber/toe change you get with travel. The best option I've found still seems to be the Guldstrand 5-link. That would take it up to C4, which ain't too shabby. Now, if there was an SLA setup that'd be slick as all hell. I tried to talk TT into shedding some light (details) on his design, but that's like a cold war secret.
Do you know of any available "modern" options to fit under the C3 rear that are any good. That Shark Bite one "looks" cool, but is plagued with many problems in both design and manufacture.
Even as it is, there aren't too many modern performance cars in stock form that can hang, or get a rude surprise that I can be right with them without too much trouble. I do love my old Vette. Some aluminum brakes and lighter rotors would make a huge difference too. |
Right, now I don't know of any options besides Guldstrand's.
As soon as I do, I'll be all over it. Yes, I will share with you.
Hell, I need brakes before I do anything else. 
__________________
64 Vette Roadster 400 ci
1990 F150 351 ci SuperCharged
48 Harley Pan Head 76 ci
2016 Nissan Altma
|
|
|
|
|
09-01-2009, 04:11 PM
|
#9
|
|
Neanderthal
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 5,320
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vettezuki
BTW, I do have VB&P Dual mount setup, heim jointed camber rods, and metal spherical joints instead of rubber in the trailing arm. Also the wheel bearings were setup to Guldstrand specs, by Guldstrand. So compared to the average C3, I'm on rails. But all the geometry is as you say, from the 60s.
|
The front suspension is based off a 1958 design.   
__________________
64 Vette Roadster 400 ci
1990 F150 351 ci SuperCharged
48 Harley Pan Head 76 ci
2016 Nissan Altma
|
|
|
|
|
09-02-2009, 09:07 AM
|
#10
|
|
Resident Avatar Gambler
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,997
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahddm
Boss:
Better handling car(out handle Track Pack 2 with ease) will be high power N/A in between GT and GT500. Pricing close to that of GT500(optioned out to about 47) but that is fine since it plays to a different audience. Production number less than GT500. Styling will not see a radical change as from GT to GT500 but will be fairly noticeable even to those not engulfed in the world of cars.
I have said nothing.
Is it worth the wait?
Let's just say I will be purchasing more that one toy in the coming years.
|
Hmmmm 
__________________
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
