1
2
gearheadotaku said:The '10 looks good from the front and sides, but the back is a disaster. Camaro SS still has more power (422 vs.412) and the pushrod valve trian will be easier to service. Now its a fair fight though. The V-6 car has some good upgrades too.
yes, but the Mustang is still lighter than the Camaro. If I had to guess, the Mustangs Power to Weight will be better.
dyintorace wrote:ignorant wrote:engine cool..
car m3h.
I just don't like the new looks. I liked the 2005 better.
Couldn't agree more. The new body (2010 model?) is a huge step backwards. The previous car looked great.
Agreed. The body style leaves a lot to be desired. Screwing up the tailights was strike one. I guess if you have a good thing going and you have designers on the payroll you have no choice but to let them mess something up otherwise what would they work on?
I really like the styling of the new Camaro. It's not totally retro; I don't agree when people say that. I think they did what they should do with a car that has such a long history. Incorporate the most iconic styling elements from its past generations, but give it a modern, unique twist. Make a clear distinction between all generations, but be able to recognize it as one generation flows to the next.
The last Mustang was a more straight-up retro design, but I liked it. The new one looks pretty good, except from the back. As for weight, that's the most disappointing thing about the new Camaro. It's knocking on two tons! IRS, yeah, that's a great upgrade, but 3850 lbs??
Some points...
This new "5.0" is 4952cc, 3cc bigger than the 302 "5.0", and yes it was engineered that way. It has absolutely NOTHING in common with the turds that were the "Mod motors" (you know, like the one I drive everyday). Bore spacing and deck height are the same in order to use the same production line but not a single part interchanges, it's a clean-sheet design.
Also the new "5.0" is lighter than the 4.6 and is within 30-40Lbs of a dressed aluminum LSx. It is slightly lighter than an N/A iron block LSx. 412HP/7000RPM redline/390FtLbs is damn good from 302 cubic inches!! The GM LS2 made 400/400 from 364 (which is still one of my favorite engines ever).
Also the "Cammer 5.0" FRPP engine is a Mod Motor POS (sleeved block for racing) that is overpriced and underpowered.
The new Mustank is ugly as all get out, but that engine is gorgeous. I hope they get cheap second hand in a few years... Food for thought, the current 300HP Mustang goes 13.4's in the 1/4, add 112HP/100TQ with no weight penalty stone stock and see what happens... The 05-06 GTO was 400/400 @3650ish Lbs and did 13.0's with worse gears and IRS. The 'Stang is lighter, SRA, and geared better (especially with Track Pack). I expect 12.8's minimum...
Drove an 07 Mustang V8 and really didn't like it, but that had nothing to do with power. I wonder if the 5.0 will do away with the ponderous feeling.
Totally new engine eh? Hmm. Wonder what a crate will cost from Ford
ignorant wrote:engine cool..
car m3h.
I just don't like the new looks. I liked the 2005 better.
+1
Do you guys think a rear duck tail spoiler helps reduce the new Badunkadunk look of the new 2010 rear end?
The_Jed wrote:Bore?...Stroke?...Rod length?...Cam lift and duration?...Compression ratio?...
I need internal dimensions!!!
Very nice, even with the lack of specs in the press release me likey too!
You can get a lot of the engine and car specs here:
http://media.ford.com/press_kits.cfm?presskit_id=2095
Bore x Stroke: 3.63 x 3.65"
Compression Ratio: 11.0:1
Valve Diameter x lift: Intake: 37mm x 11mm, Exhaust: 31mm x 11mm
Bob
Rza wrote:Why wait? The 5.0 "Cammer" has been out for a couples years now I think. The price tag seems excessive; so the one that comes in the mustang probably wont have all the goodies.
I just want to reiterate that the cammer 5.0 pictured above is NOT the same 5.0 that's being used in the '11 Mustang GT. The Cammer is a bored (and maybe stroked) 4.6L mod motor, the new 5.0 is a new design.
In reply to ReverendDexter: Thats cool. I didnt know if those engines were the same or not, but to help my point, you could still install that in a mustang that had a 4.6 and slap the 5.0 badge on the side...
GlennS wrote:Do you guys think a rear duck tail spoiler helps reduce the new Badunkadunk look of the new 2010 rear end?
ahh no. hell no.
Maybe Saleen or some other company will come out with a new rear end, like they did with the last gen? I hope.
pinchvalve wrote:5.0 on the Fender of a Mustang GT just feels right.
Haha I agree with that 100%!
I just walked around two different '10 mustangs in a dealership last night. The picture above makes the back end look really big, but in person I thought the whole car looks good. Of course one of the cars was a Shelby with the supercharger. They also had a Transit Connect van and when I was leaving I noticed a Raptor.
Does that mean people will start making 5.slow jokes again? :)
And +1 on liking the 2005 looks better. The 2010 may be a better car, but the 2005 "rebirth" was the perfect mixture of new and classic styling, inside and out. On a few autocross runs I've taken in one I felt like Steve McQueen. 
7000RPM 
This number. I like this number very much.
That means it will do one thing the old 5.0 would NEVER do.
A re flash might get you 4-500 more RPM (if the designers left any) so....
Ford V8 + 7500RPM + open exhaust + 6 speed = aural sex.
GlennS wrote:Do you guys think a rear duck tail spoiler helps reduce the new Badunkadunk look of the new 2010 rear end?
Ewwww. That's 'orrible. And that's from someone who really likes the 2005 model.
Next just free that motor from the 1000# of fat on a mustang.
oldtin wrote:Next just free that motor from the 1000# of fat on a mustang.
they really aren't that heavy, a 1988 GT was about 3300lbs, and LX right at 3000.
The new one is reportedly 3400lbs - 3600lbs depending on options. It's gained a whole 300lbs and nearly DOUBLED the HP since the 80's stangs.
In reply to nocones:
It is still too heavy. 
1965 mustang = 2650#
2010 mustang = 3600#
1965 corvette = 3135#
2010 corvette = 3180#
Lots of cars are getting bloated - people are getting bigger plus demanding more stuff (and want better efficiency). The people who want lighter, less stuff are definitely in the minority. If 412 hp is good in 3600# it would rock in 2600.
oldtin wrote:1965 mustang = 2650#
2010 mustang = 3600#1965 corvette = 3135#
2010 corvette = 3180#
So what you are saying is we need to start putting 2010 Corvette ZR1 engines and suspensions in 1965 Mustangs? Where do I sign up?!?
We need ZR1 engines in Elises
Oh wait, back on topic 412hp in a stang is good. Bonus points for beng able to call it a 5 oh.
Since this thread has already been revived, I don't feel too bad adding more to it.
I'm really interested to see how much is actually left on the table with the new 5.0. All the engines I know of that get better hp/L are doing so with variable valve lift, and this only has variable cam timing.
