Track Tested: 2011 Ford Mustang GT

I'd imagine the gears are so short at least partly because you opted for the 3.73 (not 3:73) final drive ratio, no?

I feel sorry for all the chumps who bought the 2010 Mustang.

^ yes I agree. These are awesome numbers.

i saved $7000 buying my 2010 gt in december. chump change?

Jughandle, well no its not chump change but not everyone paid what you did. Wasn't the 2010 version about as expensive?

A 5.0 0-60 for this car is wonderfully appropriate.

AHHH, finally a reason to sing the Mustangs praises. I never doubted that this car could/would turn in good numbers, but I do hope there are more rewarding, "living with the car" postings in the near future.

It has wider wheels on the back, but the tires are the same all around. Can someone explain what the advantage is?

For a car that has a better power to weight ratio than the Camaro ss and has 373's I am not very impressed.... This flys in the face of all the Mustang Fan boys saying the Mustang runs circles around the Camaro they are so close it's unreal and the Mustang is 250lbs lighter! Great car but for almost 3k more than a 2ss it's a choice of style not performance on paper at least they are a virtual tie. The mustnag has slightly better grip and less than 1mph faster in the Slalom and stops a mere 2feet shorter. But in the 1/4 the Camaro is going 1mph faster this is a drivers race plain and simple. But to say things like the Mustang runs circles around the Camaro is just plain wrong!

Camaro SS
Acceleration, 0-30 mph (sec.) 2.3
0-45 mph (sec.) 3.5
0-60 mph (sec.) 5.1
0-75 mph (sec.) 7.0
1/4-mile (sec. @ mph) 13.1 @ 110.4
0-60 with 1 foot of rollout (sec.) 4.8
Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.) 27
60-0 mph (ft.) 111
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) 68.2
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) 0.89

http://www.insideline.com/ford/mustang/2011/comparison-test-2011-ford-mustang-gt-vs-2010-chevrolet-camaro-ss.html

At least it's not a slug(like my MS3)...

Why not install the Ford Racing premium fuel upgrade? It's ridiculously inexpensive(less than $500), it is EPA and CARB compliant, and it doesn't affect the new car warranty.

I need more doors and a back seat. Please make another G8!

Terrific to the point of being world-class. It is a shame the 0-60 is hurt by the short gearing. Kinda strage for Ford to allow this, considering how important 0-60 times are.

American automakers need to make more cars like this.

Ford is shooting itself in the foot by not marketing this car outside of North America much.

The point is the Mustang does what it does WITHOUT an expensive IRS and does it with a steering wheel and shift knob made for the human species....and without the ugliest interior on the planet. Oh and you can actually see out of it.....

Why are IL's numbers so slow? According to MT, the 5.0 does 0-60 in 4.3 seconds. Even if they use a 1-ft rollout (not sure if they do or not) that's still half a second faster than your rollout time. What gives?

MotorTrend gets a 4.3 sec 0-60 and 12.8 1/4mile. Same trans, same rear end. I normally never compare between websites but quite a huge difference... Wonder what gives?

"the Mustang Fan boys saying the Mustang runs circles around the Camaro"

you are right, we should say that it will run circles inside the camaro circle. it has better grip and handling and can take the faster line. the bite of the front end on a mustang and its communication is way better then the camaro and thus it is easier and more fun to drive (according to the myriad of reviews i have read by journalists and professional racers).

the camaro has always had great engines and been very fast; especially in a straight line. the mustang finally is as fast in a straight line and much faster in the curves.

"Wheel size: 19-by-8.5 inches front, 19-by-9.5 inches rear"

i was unaware of that. interesting. have you confirmed that or is the 9.5" rear wheels with the 2-piston calipers?

Sorry, used the wrong chart. 19-by-9.0 all around. 19-by-9.
-mm

Here are some numbers I just found with a quick Google search (and one is from memory):

Car and Driver test, 2005 Mustang GT vs. 2005 Pontiac GTO (5.1 and 4.9 seconds to 60)
Motor Trend test, 2011 Mustang GT (4.3 second 0-60)
Car and Driver test, 2010 Camaro SS vs. 2011 Mustang GT (both ran a 4.6 second 0-60)

Also, Motor Trend tested a V6 Mustang 0-60 of 5.3 seconds. Popular Mechanics was able to eek out a 5.4 second 0-60 sprint for the V6 'Stang.

So, not only are your times slower than many Camaro SS reviews, but are barely faster than the 2005 GT with 100 less HP and SLOWER than an 05 GTO. Something is amiss, here. The new GT seems easily capable of a 4.5 second 0-60.

Why are your times always slower than everyone else's (this applies to all cars, not just the Stang)?

Maybe Chris Walton is just a slower driver.

w/the 3.73 a third shift at 59.5mph is gonna add a tenth or two i bet.

my '06 with the 3.55 rear end runs to just over 60 in second gear.

but, that doesn't explain inside line's times compared to other tests. were these times corrected?

said it before, will say it again.

screw the weather, screw the surface, screw the corrected times.

tell me what it went from a dead stop to sixty.

cite the weather, cite the location, fine. what did it actually run?!!!

having said that, the times vary so much i hardly see the point in arguing over tenths.

the proper way to compare cars is with lap times/drag-strip runs with the same driver on the same day.

every other argument is theoretical.

w/the 3.73 a third shift at 59.5mph is gonna add a tenth or two i bet.

my '06 with the 3.55 rear end runs to just over 60 in second gear.

but, that doesn't explain inside line's times compared to other tests. were these times corrected?

said it before, will say it again.

screw the weather, screw the surface, screw the corrected times.

tell me what it went from a dead stop to sixty.

cite the weather, cite the location, fine. what did it actually run?!!!

having said that, the times vary so much i hardly see the point in arguing over tenths.

the proper way to compare cars is with lap times/drag-strip runs with the same driver on the same day.

every other argument is theoretical.

"having said that, the times vary so much i hardly see the point in arguing over tenths.

the proper way to compare cars is with lap times/drag-strip runs with the same driver on the same day"

Agreed (even though I was the one arguing over tenths). The gain in power over the previous GT is evident in their trap times through the quarter mile (the old GT hit 101-102 mph).

^Meant trap speeds.

Impressive handling numbers! I was expecting a bit better on the acceleration tests as others have stated. All in all, it's putting out very close #s to the Camaro SS based on the link above.

I wonder if the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times would be even better if they opted for the standard rear gears or 3.55:1 vs. the 3.73:1 to avoid the extra shift?

Mike,
Two questions for you:
1. Can IL track test the identical car with stock rear gears to see how they compare?
2. When the EPA publishes fuel economy ratings on the Mustang GT manual, they only post one city # and one hwy #. However 3 rear end gear ratios are available. Do you know how they do the calculation? Is it just the average of all 3? Or, did they do all testing with the standard gear ratio and assume the others would be the same (which is not a good assumption). Would appreciate your insite on this.

There is a reason IL always reads slow versus C&D or Motortrend, they are very precise and accurate with exactly how they do their measurements.

http://www.insideline.com/features/how-we-test-cars-and-trucks.html

I wonder if the Automatic Mustang can post similar numbers?

Hate to say this, but I agree with the others. IL is so slow compared to everyone else... Car and Driver and Road & Track are pretty accurate too. I read them both. Don't like Motor Trend that much...

Having said that, I also feel that it's pointless to compare numbers between different magazines and stuff. But if the discrepancy is huge like we see here, then something weird is going on here.

Perhaps IL actually records the 0-60 instead of 0-59.5?

(2-3 shift @ 59.5!)

Whereas the other car magazines will be like, "Eh, that's close enough. Let's just round up our 0-59.5 to 0-60 to make our times look better."

Wondering if some of the other magazines were testing pre productions cars?

Most car companies are not above sending out ringers to magazines when a new model is released. It's an old trick that was around even in the 60's.

hybris says:
03:57 PM, 01/23/11
"I wonder if the Automatic Mustang can post similar numbers?"

"Mike,
Two questions for you:
1. Can IL track test the identical car with stock rear gears to see how they compare?"

+100

By the way, in the full test review, they said that Ford engineers told them that the automatic Mustang was even faster than the manual.

Fast car! Almost as fast as the Shelby, too, as evidenced by the times in C/D's Lightning Lap comparo. Definitely take it over a Camaro, although I like that car, too.

With the Brembo Package: with your foot on the brake, double-tap the ESC button and the car goes into SPORT mode. The steering tightens up nicely, throttle is awesome, and stability doesn't kick in until things get VERY hairy... great for the track. You'll also get faster launches.

Is there any wheelhop when launching hard?

"By the way, in the full test review, they said that Ford engineers told them that the automatic Mustang was even faster than the manual."

Considering the automatic has slow shift points and only comes with a 3.15 gear, I doubt the automatic is faster. With a tune and gear swap it probably is, automatics usually are.

For those quoting 0-60 times from other publications - provide the quarter mile times as well. Because as far as I can see, people are quoting .5 second advantages at 60 miles per hour that degrade to ~.2 seconds faster at 109-110.

Meaning: If IL is so slow, how are they catching up as the speeds increase?

My answer: others are rounding up from 59.5 pre gear change, or using equipment that rounds up at the gear shift point.

Insideline: Does fuel-cut at 59.5? Or can someone simply run it an extra .5 mph worth of gearing before fuel cut arrives?

This is a damn impressive machine. I'm glad Ford waited this long to bring the 5.0 back, because they are doing it justice.

For all those wondering why Inside Line's 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are "slower" than what other places record: I can't speak about Motor Trend, but Car and Driver corrects their recorded times for weather, among other things. See:

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/06q4/tires_and_testing-column
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/05q2/correcting_for_weather-feature

for some brief explanations.

IIRC Automobile and C&D are both in MI, where 93 octane is available. That might make the difference.

I don't know why everyone is so obsessed with 0-60 or even 1/4 mile ETs. The 1/4 mile trap speed reflects the performance that you FEEL when you smash the throttle, especially when rolling.

For a clearer example, an AWD car with an abusive launch will pull a good 0-60 and 1/4 mile ET, but the "true" performance will be reflected in the trap speed, because the AWD advantage applied for the 0-15mph range, or so (after which point it actually hurts performance, but nevermind). Mash the throttle above that and AWD does nothing for you because there isn't a traction issue.

That said, I have seen 110+ trap speeds for this car in some auto rags but the octane may indeed cost 1mph.

Back in the day I recall that the trap speeds published by the common auto rags could usually be beat at a real drag strip, or at least an east coast strip. These days that seems to be less common. For example, auto rags put my 05 CTS-V at a 109mph trap but stock cars at the strip really only manage 105-106mph.

If the trap speeds are the same but 0-60 or 1/4 mile ET is different, between two cars, or even the same car but different reviewers, it basically means the launch was different. Wheelspin, or too conservative. The trap speed reflects the power-to-weight and is the figure you should be looking at.

those comparing the acceleration to the Camaro SS have to remember the Camaro has 30 more lb-ft of torque and a larger engine with more low end grunt. The STang is consirably lighter, but its 5L DOHC V8 is high revving and cannot match the low rpm torque of the LS3. The cars are basically in a dead heat if you average out the numbers from all the magazines.

Another fact that gets ignored is that all Mustang's tested by the mags have the optional braking/tire package (last year it was track pack) which allows the car to slightly outperform the SS. The SS has no optional performance upgrades and it would be interesting to see a regular GT compared to the SS. In 2010 when the Mustang GT was first tested with the old V8 the magazines were using cars with the track pack even before it was priced, much less available to consumers. I would love to know what % of GTs are equipped with the package on this test car.

how hard would it be to create and attach testing data on a .pdf file?

i have seen other magazines do it on their websites.

you can put your weather data, location, results (actual v. corrected), tire pressure, etc... then the guys that like to argue tenths can pour over the data with a fine tooth comb and really get into some good arguments!

roadburner says:

11:25 AM, 01/23/11

Why not install the Ford Racing premium fuel upgrade? It's ridiculously inexpensive(less than $500), it is EPA and CARB compliant, and it doesn't affect the new car warranty.

---

Because IL lives in CA where you can't buy gas with sufficient octane level to justify the change.

"There is a reason IL always reads slow versus C&D or Motortrend, they are very precise and accurate with exactly how they do their measurements."

The other sources say the same thing. They all use GPS based equipment to measure acceleration.

"Why are your times always slower than everyone else's (this applies to all cars, not just the Stang)?"

I don't think that's the case. C/D and IL usually get similar results and will flip-flop on who gets faster times depending on the car. IL, for example, got faster times for their long-term STI than C/D (4.8s versus 5.1s). I think the differences you see between the two publications are just the result of octane differences, C/D's adjustment for weather, specific differences in the cars tested, etc. I do agree that M/T almost always gets faster times than the rest (I think they may do a 1-foot rollout for their tests).

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/07/22/take-rate-on-brembo-package-for-2011-ford-mustang-higher-than-ex/

+1 to fuhteng, tomslick2

IL is pretty honest with their reporting - despite my irritation with some of their posts, their methodology is sound. Also, the 91 octane makes a difference. Finally, they bought this car outright, rather than being given one. I have more faith when they purchase the car - so +1 to IL.

I, too, was disappointed with the numbers. When I compare IL's numbers for the 'Stang GT vs the Nissan 370Z (which IL long-term tested), I come up curious. Is it the weight? The gearing?

2011 Mustang GT
412 hp
390 lbs tq
3,629 lbs
5.0 sec 0-60

2009 370Z
332 hp
270 lbs tq
3,359 lbs
5.1 sec 0-60

Just seems slow for the power/weight.

Kevin

in car and driver's mustang comparo with the camaro they got 0-60 in 4.6 with both cars. that is only .2 off inside line's result with 1' roll out.

their car was more broke-in at over 5k miles and weighed in 50lbs less (could be your shaker 1000 amp/subs).

they also said the mustang's time was hampered by the extra shift and the narrower rear tires (255/mustang vs 275/camaro).

be interesting to see how the wrap-up numers compare.

"Why are your times always slower than everyone else's (this applies to all cars, not just the Stang)?"

"The other sources say the same thing. They all use GPS based equipment to measure acceleration. "

Because C/d and M/T pad their numbers and ALWAYS have. Since many of you are not old enough to remember back to 1981 let me give you a great example. In late 1981 the new 82 GT came out with the 156HP 302 with 4 speed trans....."The Boss Is Back" was the tag line on the cover of Motor Trend "0 to 60 in 5.9 seconds!!!!!" was actually on the cover. Complete and total BS......a few GT tests later and they had the guts to say "we wonder why our first test was so much faster"..like selling magazines was not the reason for the lie. No way in hell it was that fast.....it was more like 8.4 or so to 60 and that was still fast for the time. My brother had a 84 GT with the 175hp 3024V and it ran a bit less than 8 to sixty with a 5 speed trans. I always wondered why CR always had such slower numbers than the car mags......it is because the did not lie about it...they just get in the car and floor it....like 99% of drivers do. If you look at CR and IL they have about the same times for their tests......not BS like C/D and M/T.

hi5 to bodyblue

I think the stock mustang sits too high. It looks much better with Roush suspension mods.

"When I compare IL's numbers for the 'Stang GT vs the Nissan 370Z (which IL long-term tested), I come up curious. "

There is too much that can influence 0-60 runs, like how long 2nd gear is, and the launch, especially when the whole event takes a mere 5 seconds.

The long term 370Z ran the 1/4 in 13.4 @ 104.6, faster than the 2011 IPL for some reason. This Mustang was 13.1 @ 109.5. I assure you a 5mph difference in trap speeds represents a significant power to weight advantage for the Mustang, a difference that you can feel and would be proven if the two cars ran into each other in a non-track situation, particularly while rolling.

Even off the line, trap speed usually indicates the result of a non-track race because the magaszines can take all day to get that perfect launch. You see the one best 0-60 run and it is temping to run around thinking "that's what this car does." Well, no, only if you have all day to practice launching it. In the real world, when you feel like running hard, you just launch conservatively and floor it, or maybe dump the clutch and haze the tires. Either way, you aren't getting the "rated" 0-60. But the way the car accelerates otherwise WILL be indicative of its 1/4 mile mph.

The interesting secret about 1/4 mile trap speed is that it is MUCH more tolerant of things like bad launches because the MPH is representative of how fast you got going in a set distance. It doesn't matter if you waste time burning out.

A 1/4 mile is also a lot more time to normalize out things like ill-timed shifts.

I wish magazines would just stop testing 0-60.

I wish US magazines would follow Autocar's example and time 30-50, 40-60, and 50-70 mph runs in 4th, 5th, and 6th gears- maybe 3rd as well. It gives you a better and repeatable measure of the overall power and flexibility of the powertrain. I used an in-gear test to verify the power increase of the cold air intake of my MS3- and my results were within .01 second of the results obtained by Grassroots Motorsports Magazine on their MS3.

Is it possible the other magazines are also finagling rear tire pressure to optimize the launch? I've read it is not an uncommon practice to let the tire pressure down to just below 30 psi (compared to a typical 40-ish psi for low profile, performance tires?) when taking these kinds of cars to a drag strip.

To reiterate my earlier comment that may have been missed...anybody observe any wheelhop with these cars on hard launching?

so BB is saying MT and C&D use the exact same methods to calculate and measure performance as they did in 1981? Interesting. Any proof? Didn't think so.

I agree the acceleration times are a little slow compared to other publications. The only thing I would point out about this excample is the low mileage on the Mustang motor. 1451 miles isn't a lot. It may need broken in a little more to reach it's potential. The Camaro SS referenced in the IL comparison test posting better times had over 14K miles on it. The comparison isn't truly apples to apples.

While the total package is undeniably attractive, as a big time Chevy small block fan, I find it kind of interesting that Ford poured all this money into this new V8 with size, weight and output characteristics that finally rival what GM was doing since the early 90s LT1. This is a combination Ford hasn't really offered since the 302, and after almost 2 decades of mostly uninteresting mod motors (the interesting ones had lots of trouble fitting into cars), it merely reaches parity with the Camaro's LS3 with regard to acceleration. And GM is about to announce Gen V with direct injection (they would have already if it weren't for that pesky bankruptcy).

@ kevm14

But the Mustang revs higher. The real impressiveness is the handling capabilities they've gotten out of the SRA.

@ BB

Agree w/ 1487, to believe that MT uses the same methods they used 30 years ago is preposterous. Most of the tech and software they use today wasn't even around in '81. You should know better. I believe Angus M. (the EIC) wrote a blog about how they test that mentioned a video of their testing methods. Here it is:

http://blogs.motortrend.com/why-we-test-1051.html

0-60 is such an abused and worthless test presently. I'd like to see a "foot off the gas, and take throttle delay into account" 0-60 tests. Something that actually relates how people actually drive their cars stop light to stop light ...

@ teampenske3 and @ 1487

Actually, if you read bodyblue's post more comprehensively, you'd understand that he's not trying to say MT uses the same testing methods that they used 30 years ago. He said that MT outright LIES about the numbers they get, which I agree with 100%. I've been reading Motor Trend for about 10 years now, and for some reason, they ALWAYS get better numbers than anybody else, even when it doesn't make sense sometimes.

I've noticed a trend with MT. What they do is, whenever there's a new car out, they always give it outrageous numbers and claim it's far superior than its older models and its competition. But a few comparos later, when they retest the same car, suddenly it has "slower numbers" than before, and they can never match the performance of the first tester.

And I agree with people who say that 0-60 is worthless. 1/4 time and trap speed are a better indicator of a car's performance. 0-60 is all about off the line traction.

Here is another point. Maybe the car is not fully broken in yet. Some cars actually perfrom better with more miles on them.

Lt1boy.....thanks....that is indeed what I meant.

1487, this is about cars and how they drive...you know WAAAAY over your head. Back in 1982...again back when you were crapping in your pants.....they tested cars the exact same way they do now, stupid. The test equipment has changed of course but HOW they do it is the same. I have been reading those magazines since the mid 70's and their times were ALWAYS better than anyone elses. Mechanics Illustrated never had the times that the others did and they were very respected at the time for car tests. You dont have the smarts or experience to even be close to having a clue in this thread, so just butt out. This is another reason your anti-IL BS you puke out every day makes even less sense when you use C/D and M/T as a source. The have had the rep (especially M/T) as being the industrys lap dog.....you know, like you ar GMs lap dog?

lostboyz says:
03:42 AM, 01/24/11
"By the way, in the full test review, they said that Ford engineers told them that the automatic Mustang was even faster than the manual."

"Considering the automatic has slow shift points and only comes with a 3.15 gear, I doubt the automatic is faster. With a tune and gear swap it probably is, automatics usually are."

Besides your good thoughts against what was claimed by actual Ford engineers, u have some links or data to share? That would be nice.

Backing up this sweet dish is either a six-speed Getrag manual or six-speed automatic transmission. We didn't test an automatic, but Ford engineers claim there is no performance loss at all with the automatic. In fact, they claim the best quarter-mile times they've turned were with an automatic GT, leaving the stability control system on.

Per IL full test.

Seems like the Mustang needs alot of flawless work by the driver to keep up with the SS and new SRT8. FOUR shifts and a careful launch to avoid bogging. I have always preferred wider gearing to enjoy that midrange torque for a little longer in each gear. If I wanted to shift every two seconds I would get an S2000. Great numbers but I just don't see your average driver being able to recreate them consistently at the strip.

"Besides your good thoughts against what was claimed by actual Ford engineers, u have some links or data to share? That would be nice."

Go to ford.com and see you can't get any optional gears with it, so you are stuck with 3.15, and go drive one to see how slow (relatively) the automatic shifts. After a tune the automatic comes alive and a 4.10 gear swap and the thing is extremely quick.

@gmforlife32, read your name and stopped. Let me know when you guys switch to the alpha platform so us mustang guys actually might have some competition. Lets compare sales for the last 10 years, let me know what numbers you get.

@copmotor440cid, if you are planning on only going to a drag strip, just get an automatic. No serious drag racer uses a manual.

And then there was gmforlife....1487s doppelganger. I could not hit the "report it" button fast enough.

To Camaro Fan boys from what I seen at the strip the 5.0 is putting the hurting on the SS. All’s the 5.0 needs is bigger rubber on the ground and its game over. Also the 5.0 is shown to have a lot more potential with mods. The Auto 5.0 is much faster than the Auto SS seen it with my own eyes at the track several times, it’s no contest. Gmforlife32 you now have the slowest autoV-8 Pony car period the SRT 392 is faster and so is the Mustang 5.0 with the Auto. It amazes me how GM has to always uses a bigger engine and still not be any faster. You do not want to race your Auto Camaro against the 5.0 auto it’s not pretty trust me on that. In auto form the Mustang has more power than the auto Camaro. The auto Camaro has only 400 horsepower down from the 426 of the manual. Now that the Boss has 444 horsepower, that will be the next upgrade for the base 5.0 in the future. The Boss will put the hurting on the SS with mid to low 12's in the 1/4 straight-line and on a track it will be even worst from what I heard. Also when we say circles we are talking about track times, which usually are how race tracks are configured in circles. I now you Camaro Guys are a little slow circles are not straight lines. So yes the 5.0 runs circles around a SS on a racetrack, as in faster.

13.1 in the 1/4? There's a guy running the new V6 Mustang @ 13.02 with a few bolt-ons, on stock tires, in an automatic. It's embarrassing to your driving skills that you guys can't do any better with 110 more horsepower and torque.

I find it interesting that some of you guys use sales figures to determine which is the better car. Personally, I don't want a car that I see a lot of. That's why I hate Mustangs. They are EVERYWHERE. I liked the new pony cars from Dodge and Chevy, but now those are EVERYWHERE. So thanks, but no thanks. I'm sticking with cars that are less common.

Cobra..... R@T put the 5.0 and the SS on the track and the 5.0 was .1 faster I would hardly call that circles keep dreaming! on lighting lap it was a little better .8 faster but the freaking mustang is much lighter and has better power to weight ratio. People who quote from M/T are funny because that is the ONLY MAG THAT HAS THE MUSTANG FASTER! Go to C@D or R@T they both have the Camaro Faster in the 1/4! The fact is you Mustang guys can't accept that even with a new more powerful engine and lighter weight the 5.0 STILL can't out run the SS!

@ cobra32

MT is the only magazine I have seen that has the 5.0 in the twelves and theres got what ? 12.7? Every other publication I have read has them 13.0-13.3 with the 3.73's and even slower with other gears. Either MT is the king of correction factors or their car was a ringer. In contrast EVERY Camaro test I have seen is nearly identical (and faster than the 5.0) 13.0-13.1 @ 109-110. SS is the most consistent car I think I have ever seen in that regard. So I am sure the new Boss will probably run mid to low twelves as long as Motor Trend is behind the wheel. Does Petersen also publish Mustangs and Fast Fords? I wonder.

man this is getting good here fellas.....especially since the truth from at least IL point of view and many other online car magazines are stating the obvious here...

while the 2011 Mustang 5.0 GT is a great car in terms of fit and finish...... but performance wise its still lagging to being somewhat on par with the camaro in terms of the performance test numbers(especially the 2011 Camaro), if it be the manual or automatic....

its seems like every other car(online)magazine are in agreement with each other when comparing the mustang and camaro.....all accept the 2(Motortrend and RoadandTrack) i know are saying that the new 5.0 mustang will leave the camaro ss standing in its dusts and i wonder why they are saying such??, going and showing all video links of the mustang being ahead of the camaro and other competitors in their tests.....what is this great motivation of hateration against the Chevy Camaro LS/LT/SS and the upcoming "Z-28"?? from these mustang fan boys(fanatics)

everyone else here including myself do know the obvious reasons why such idiot jackasses boasting so much about their precious mustang(including other vehicles)and why the ford motor company didn't need to barrow any money from our government.....nothing but "Ford Junkies and Mustang Junkies, all upset that the mustang is not proving to be the better pony car then the camaro like all of u was hoping for it to be and still believing that our US Federal Government is still running GM and that the car company is un or anti-american.......

ok new news flash and common sense thinking to the Ford lovers(especially Mustang Lovers) don't think for once our government in terms of money didn't help out the ford motor company in any way and from time to time when they was going thru their own money troubles but wasn't like in the millions amount of dollars use to help Chrysler and GM(because the good "Ol' General" did used more of the millions) to help bail them out of their bankruptcies, but still ford is not so independent like it wants everyone to believe it is.....our government still do have a unseen voice in the inner workings of the ford motor company, trust me on that fact everyone if u all want to believe it or not

so anyways the camaro is good performance car.......with the potential of being the best pony car the 21st century has to offer, i mean unlike the mustang, the fit and finish of the camaro is not quite all the way there yet but believe me on what i will tell u there is a difference between the first production 5th gen camaros to ones that are being produce now

if it be the base LS V6 to the 2SS V8, there are some small but suttle improvement, performance wise with this car but GM and Chevy are keeping a tight lip on it, maybe just to see if Ford will keep taking the bait on the horsepower and performance numbers that car keep maintaining on ......who knows, but it seems like that "Ol' General's" tricks are working well for in favor of the camaro

and for u all baby boomers, the guys that are like in the early 50's to 60's that was in the thick of the late 60's to early 70's horsepower and performance pony car wars, u should know what i'm talking about.....and man i did even know it was that serious and personal then during them years and it was hell of fun from i can tell(especially if the car u have was a winner) and its a happening all over again for my generation(Generation X to be exact)

but its seems like all the hopes and dreams for yall mustang fans boys are a comin' crashing down to reality, playing to the fact that most of u and even some car editors(Motortrend and RoadandTrack) saying that the new 2011 Mustang will circles around(my)2010 to 2011 Camaro(the true peoples modern muscle car).......BULLSHIT!!! nothing but pure BULLSHIT!!.....especially if the fact is being stated so well that the mustang can't even really make itself a clear run away winner in this battle of the best modern pony car and now since the newly retooled 2011 Dodge Challenger is making its own statement now it seems like the 2011 Mustang 5.0 GT is not the only big bad dog on the block.......not any more guys

so also let not forget the korean muscle car......the Hyundai Genesis Coupe(2.0T to 3.8V6)
and the always tried and true japanese muscle car.....the Nissan 370 coupe or convertible
i wonder if toyota will finally bring back the ''Supra" because they need to bring it back other
than that Lexus LFA that costs more then some 6 figure house out there......

but all the same everyone and i really hope u all understand this, that us as a consumers do make our choices of what we think on which is the better car.....my pick is the camro, others will say its the mustang....now a growing few(alot) are saying the newly retooled challenger, and the rest have their say for their asian counterparts......

thats beauty about being born in a nation that values freedom of choice with freedom of speech and pls everyone who like hate on people that like leave their own but well respective to factual statements and opinions in where someone who always reads then some reason to disagree with the person that left it.....

i mean really for all for thoses who don't agree on what has been written, find another online magazine the agrees with yout thoughts, so get out and get a real soical life and leave the internet alone for a while, the air outside is not that toxic yet so go out get some of it will do u some good, but pls don't be here or in other places on the web blogging worthless to pennyless opinions that no one really cares about........

but u always seem to have only a few that it does, just to have a word argument with some people they don't know, just to get their shitty points across that is being based off their own research of fact and figures, just prove on whos right and accurate because i seen this a lot here but one good advice for anyone who is looking for facts and figures......go to google and wiki u will find all there is to know about these great vehicles(or anything else for that matter).....

this is a free forum of comments and opinions and as long as u all keep your facts actual and legit on this and other subject matters dealing on what car(s)is the best in this class.....in which case, is the mustang is a better value then the camaro for the money???......in light of the new but no so impressive performance numbers from the mustang.....is it still the better buy then its rival, the camaro???

Damn, I thought they banned gmforlife, I saw all his posts deleted on the TSB thread.

Who all thinks we should just ignore gmforlife? Perhaps if no one responds to him, he'll eventually go away.

GMforlife....your other post was deleted.....want to go for two?

Gmforlife.. You need to go look at every single test drive review of the gt. They all say it is better than the camaro. Motertrend puts the camaro in last compared to the challenger and the gt.also. They got 0-60 times of 4.5 seconds. The camaro is not even close.

Gmforlife.. You need to go look at every single test drive review of the gt. They all say it is better than the camaro. Motertrend puts the camaro in last compared to the challenger and the gt.also. They got 0-60 times of 4.5 seconds. The camaro is not even close.

Let's return to some perspective, folks?...any of these 3 cars is more car than all but a handful of drivers can really handle or use. We should all just be grateful that there are 3 fine choices here to best fit your tastes, that can still be bought with American cash, yes?

they must do they're testing in a very high or uphill elevation or maybe they dondt use the accurate video vbox because (here comes the controversy) how when they tested the 2005 mustang 4.6 5 speed 5.2 seconds and the 2012 5.0 6speed only gained 80 pounds with over 100 more hp and 80 more torques pull the same 0-60 times hmmmmmmm somebody is screwing up bad..... all of the oher motor mags motor trend car and driver road and track motor week ect records the stang hitting 60 in 4.3, 4.0 with roll out oh and the more funny thing is on youtube there is a stock drag race of the old 4.6 and the new 5.0 and the old 4.6 got molested bad lol so insideline GET THE FACTS TOGETHER