THSCC Forums

Dang, you guys should have come of driving age in 1974. The 2011 Mustang GT does 13.2@109mph in the 1/4 mile with 0-100mph in 11.0 seconds. The 109 trap is damn fast car imo. Heck, when I got my license any car that would do 0-60mph in less than 8 seconds was considered a rocket.

Anyway, C&D (where test data above is from) shows it weighed 3580lbs. So in that sense, the car should actually be faster than a 109mph trap speed with its rated HP. My M5 has about the same HP ratings with a bit less peak torque rating, and it weighs 3920lbs, but numerous tests showed it turns just about exactly the same times as the new GT (i.e. low 13's with 108-109 trap and 0-100mph in ~11.0 sec). So something would seem to be up with one or the other...

_________________
Current stable:
2019 BMW M2 Competition slicktop 6MT
2011 BMW M3 sedan slicktop 6MT
2007 BMW 328i wagon (slushbox for now)
1975 CanAm 125MX2

Motortrend recorded a 12.8 @ 110mph.

_________________
In need of car.

Well I have to say know it weighs 3600 lbs makes it a bit more disappointing from a raw acceleration standpoint. Getting onto the interstate, I short shifted into 2nd and stomped on it while in second at about 2000 rpms and honestly, I expecting my heart to start racing as that 400 hp did it's magic.

Now that you guys are posting 1/4 mile times, it's making more sense. There is a guy who ran 12.947@104.46 in a bone stock 09 WRX with the OEM high perf all seasons. I'm sure he was killing that transmission but it's pretty insane nonetheless. Get this, the driver was a couple years away from collecting social security no less .

_________________
2011/2012 Autox VP
2013/2014.5 President
2013 Top Gun

2015 Fit

22R-EC => 4G63 => D16Y7 + D16Y8 => EJ255 + K24Z2 => K20Z3 + K24Z2 => K24Z2 + M54 => L15B

All this WRX talk... you are forgetting one important thing...

Chicks dig Mustangs and the dudes that own them. Chicks who dig subarus only dig other chicks.

<ducks for cover>

_________________
2001 Honda S2000 - SOLD
2012 Boss 302
2003 BMW 330i

Don't equate a 4wd standing start from actual rolling acceleration. You are also use to a more boost enhanced peaky acceleration curve to a broad torque curve. Many times cars don't "feel" as fast, but in reality are quite a bit more. With many an OEM turbo car there is a slight delay as boost build and then it hits it full acceleration with a rush. A torquey V8 starts immediately and just builds. Since the human body can not sense speed, only a change of direction and acceleration the more abrupt change seems more noticeable, but not the actual greater acceleration.

If you look at the non 0-whatever speeds the Mustang is quite a bit faster than a WRX.

_________________
Marty Howard
2011 NASA SE Factory Five Challenge Champion
Track Events Logistics Coordinator - TZC/THSCC
2007 Factory Five Challenge Car.
http://www.mh-motorsports.com

Ummmm, you emphasized my point exactly. I didn't compare rolling to non rolling. Had I short shifted into 2nd and went WOT in the WRX, it would accelerate like a school bus. So to actually feel the low RPM torque of the Mustang, I did the short shift and went WOT. Again it didn't feel like 400 hp 'seems' like it would feel. No doubt it had torque almost instantly.

In fact the low end torque 'felt' similar to my brother in laws E36 M3 short shifting 1->2 and getting on the throttle (and that's rated at what, 250chp?).

A change in direction *is* acceleration even if the absolute value of the velocity is the same (ie lateral accel). But yes, I would agree that a turbo engine is going to have spectrums of higher peak acceleration and spectrums with less peak acceleration than a V8, but the V8 is likely to have a higher level of average acceleration across the rev range. Though looking at those 1/4 mile times, that may just barely be the truth .

_________________
2011/2012 Autox VP
2013/2014.5 President
2013 Top Gun

2015 Fit

22R-EC => 4G63 => D16Y7 + D16Y8 => EJ255 + K24Z2 => K20Z3 + K24Z2 => K24Z2 + M54 => L15B

bahzinga! FS vs DS streetfight!

As for me, the only chick I care about digging me, digs me not for my car.

_________________
Steve Carter
1972 Datsun 240Z-- resto pics at http://picasaweb.google.com/srcartermd
2007 GPW Honda S2000-- STR 86

But the M roadster and 240z sure can't hurt?

Mike, say that to Kevin and Liz.

_________________
2011/2012 Autox VP
2013/2014.5 President
2013 Top Gun

2015 Fit

22R-EC => 4G63 => D16Y7 + D16Y8 => EJ255 + K24Z2 => K20Z3 + K24Z2 => K24Z2 + M54 => L15B

Sure love these apples/oranges/pears/etc. comparisons.

I saw a couple of CRZ's today at Leith Honda. ZZZZZ.

_________________
Dick Rasmussen

FS 50 2018 Mustang GT

Interesting that Strano got the stock final drive ratio (3.31:1).

Dick, I bet a Ferrari 458 is faster than your Formula Ford ....(well so long as the 458's exhaust isn't on fire )......ok ok that's like an apples to persimmons comparison.

_________________
2011/2012 Autox VP
2013/2014.5 President
2013 Top Gun

2015 Fit

22R-EC => 4G63 => D16Y7 + D16Y8 => EJ255 + K24Z2 => K20Z3 + K24Z2 => K24Z2 + M54 => L15B

James you cant compare what "some guy did". You need to try to stick to a comparison of equal drivers. Some guys are getting low 12s with the stock 2011. I can also tell you that at one point I drove Les' old mustang and it barely felt faster than my 240sx. Although it was a good two seconds faster in the quarter.

Buttometers are horrible judges of speed. Especially since they allow the mind to make on the fly adjustments based on perception. Even the pro in that article thought that the BMW had a bigger lead on the mustang than it actually had.

_________________
In need of car.

In National Level autocrossing FS apparently needs a mid 60's second gear with the Hoosier A6 tires. 3:31 is the rear gear that does this with the current manual trans and the 5.0s rev limit.

Regarding Faster

In an autox, I doubt it!!!!

On a road race track I don't know.

On a drag race track . . . not the FF

On the street . . . obviously not a FF with about 1.5 inch ground clearance

_________________
Dick Rasmussen

FS 50 2018 Mustang GT

Ahhh, crap forgot about the 6 speed vs 5 speed good point.

I was just joking about the Ferrari .

Jason,

I agree, I only brought up the 12.9 WRX time to 'justify' my impressions. I honestly could care less about quarter mile times. As Marty brought up, in a rolling situation the Mustang should have felt like an absolute bat out of hell compared to the WRX....but it did not. However, you bring up the fact that butt dynos are frequently inaccurate.

Hey guys forget I said anything about the Mustang....I drove my car, the 370z and the Mustang yesterday so those are my only accurate points of comparison even if they are not apples to apples.

_________________
2011/2012 Autox VP
2013/2014.5 President
2013 Top Gun

2015 Fit

22R-EC => 4G63 => D16Y7 + D16Y8 => EJ255 + K24Z2 => K20Z3 + K24Z2 => K24Z2 + M54 => L15B

Wow, James....you sure know how to step in it! Who knew an innocent review of a test drive could froth up the forums like this! Even the Formula Ford crowd is miffed! (kidding...I suspect most are not truly livid over this discussion....)

I recently attended the BMW ///M Performance Driving School, and they had us driving the E90 M3, E60 M5 and E63 M6. All had "amazing" power and torque, but all felt very uninspired compared to my lower powered MRoadster simply because they were so. darn. heavy. And too quiet in the cabin. And had numb, dead steering. The 500hp M6 felt the same as the 440 hp M3 and my 315 hp roadster. It's all roughly the same weight/power, and I suspect the same is nearly true for the Mustang vs M3...Your (and mine, as well as everyone's) inaccurate, heavily biased butt dyno won't feel a difference because it just has a lot of mass to motivate despite the power rating of the engine. Ever get that torque feeling when taking off in a plane? Me neither--because despite a HUGE amount of thrust coming out of those turbines--it just has to move an equally massive airplane.

What went unmentioned is that a lot of the comparison shows how the M3 has gotten softer in its aging process--much Heavier, more NVH stuff, electronic nannies/gizmos etc. There is an increasing degree of disconnectedness the driver of a new M3 feels vs the old E30M3, and while some of that was hinted at, it didn't get the attention it should have. Who would've put the E30M3 against a Fox-body Mustang back in the day? No one. The fact that there has been a convergence is worthy of discussion in and of itself.

_________________
Steve Carter
1972 Datsun 240Z-- resto pics at http://picasaweb.google.com/srcartermd
2007 GPW Honda S2000-- STR 86

Not even irritated. Just having fun when I wish I was at the Solo Nationals.

_________________
Dick Rasmussen

FS 50 2018 Mustang GT