Based on the main page article information (click here to read it), can the 2010 Mustang compete with the camaro and challenger, dollar for dollar?

 

Before anyone goes off half cocked about dealer markup. You can get Challengers for MSRP now.

 

C'mon Ford, you should have made the 5.4L 4V aluminum with high compression the standard in the new GT to keep up with the new Camaro. And then made them the same price as the new Camaro, that way it's an even race, maybe not with the weight advantage of the mustang, but either way, the mustang is going to ride better and look better so................ But now the Chevy people are going to be bragging about that new camaro

 

you should probably include the torque ratings in the article, it seems to level th playing field a bit

camaro LS and LT (v6 models) has 273 ft-lbs
the SS will do 408 and 395, (with LS3 and L99 respectively)

mustang v6 has 240 ft-lbs (dont call them a torque monster for nothing)
mustang gt has 325 ft-lbs (with the 2010 tune)
shelby GT500 has 480 ft-lbs

Chally SE (v6) will have somewhere around 232 ft-lbs (if they use the 3.5L)
chally RT has 404 ft-lbs
chally srt8 has 425 ft-lbs


all of those are at the flywheel, of course
keep in mind the weights of these cars, and the mustang still competes at the right scale price wise (and challenger is kind of drowning)

 

o Fuggin a people...two things are significant enough to be considered when trying to compare apples to apples, one is the weight which that article addressed, the other is TQ.
A 300hp car is not the same as a 300Hp car that has 325 tq vs only say 280tq. All things equal (including weight) and the car with the higher TQ will accelerate faster. Period, Physics trumps all. When are people going to understand that? So long as half assed articles and posting about HP alone perpatuate the myths, the average person will continue to think that a 300hp camaro is as fast as a 300 or 315 hp Mustang.
>:I I'm going to laugh my **** off when I have a V6 pull up next to me and start talkin shizz and I leave them eating asphalt on green when I pull several car lenths on them.

 

Yeah Ford dropped the ball on the new GTs powerplant. 15 hp increase!?!? come on I could go out and get a JLT with a Brenspeed tune and get that....and more! Im more then dissapointed. I knew they wouldnt put the 5.0 in the GTs, but they should have done something.......I was hoping to see around 400 N/A

 

400hp was seriously wishful thinking. 335-350 was more "reasonable".

Is this the lowest gain in hp for the mustang ever from one body style or refresh to the next?

 

This is very disappointing. I understand that Ford will sell more mustangs (especially the v6) and they do not worry too much about hp and performance, but we do. I understand your statement Derf about a v6 pulling and thinking he can beat you, but thats embarrassing considering that a v6 is only a few modifications of being just as fast if not faster. The v6 is not even in the ame class as the GT, but its only a few ponies away. If the camaro ss is only 3k more than the GT, then that is a deal to me. Putting 3k in a gt will not give you the 423hp that the camaro has. Overall, chevy owners are going to brag and they have all the reason to do so. Its just frustrating.

 

I'd rather have the lighter car, period. Weight is the enemy of performance - whether it be acceleration, braking or handling. The current size and mass of my S197 is the most I would ever accept.

The mustang will still crush the competition in sales, just like always. I guanrantee the challenger won't be made 3 years down the road. Quote me on this.

 

AGAIN. We had to hear it for years about "10 year old LS1 cars pwning new GTs" and it looks like Ford has set us up for a repeat of history.

Wunderbar!