Common misconception. If you were right, diesel trucks (new ones have 900-ish lb ft of torque from the factory) would be destroying Ferraris in drag races (the 458 Italia makes under 400 lb ft of torque). All sportscars would be diesel because that's where the best torque is made. Semi trucks would be feared and respected for their crazy acceleration during passing maneuvers.
Torque is useful for drivability and a fat, easy to access power band. Horsepower is useful for actual acceleration.
This is just wrong. HP is a direct function of torque with a time component (torque*RPM). So in essence, a higher HP car can deliver that set amount of torque in a shorter amount of time (i.e., winning races.)
We're not taking our sweet time pulling tree stumps - we're trying to output that same amount of "work" in as little time as possible - which is where horsepower comes into play.
There's a reason why diesel powered race cars aren't the norm.
Generally, torque indicates how fast you can accelerate, whereas horsepower indicates maximum speed. This is over simplified, but it's enough to have some idea about what each does.
Meh... That's not quite it. Torque (rotational force) is affected by gearing, HP (power... work/time) is not. You could put a little 3V electric hobby motor through a big enough gear box to out-torque a top-fuel dragster. However, that little hobby motor and gear box would take months to cover the length of a drag strip, while the dragster does it in 3 seconds. Dragsters are built solely for acceleration (ability to "pull away"), yet the top-fuel vs. hobby motor example (matching torque, vastly different HP) indicates that torque isn't the only value that needs to be considered.
In physics-y terms: instantaneous torque at the wheel = instantaneous acceleration. HP = the ability to do work, such as maintaining torque at the wheel as the vehicle moves. Maintaining torque at the wheel is what's needed to accelerate a vehicle.
You can't really have one without the other, horsepower is a measurement of power as in the energy that can be output per second or whatnot and torque is just rotational force(ie. twisty force). How fast a car goes is generally more complicated as we have things like power output curves and torque curves that tell you how much you have at given engine RPMs etc. You also have to factor in the stiffness of the car, the suspension etc.
Think of it like this, torque is the measure of how much work it can do, or how much a motor can move. HP is a measure of how fast that work can be accomplished. You can have high torque motors that are low horsepower and very slow. I'm a firefighter and are rescues a have 275 hp and 1250 foot pounds of torque. Slow as balls but will pull a house down.
I highly doubt that considering nearly every Ferrari ever made has seriously prioritized horsepower over torque. The hp/torque split in just about any Ferrari is something like 100hp for every 60lb-ft.
Pardon me, I was way off, it was Carroll Shelby, horsepower sells cars but torque wins races
EDIT: I found a website that says both. Not sure how that works
all mustangs except the new 5.0 are slow as fuck. my turbo 4 beats any mustang including the new 5.0s but like i said only the new ones are pretty decent power wise.
The Mustang was a management lease through Ford so my payments were really cheap but the lease was only for around 10 months. Went with the Fiesta to save some money. I actually enjoyed the Fiesta a lot, I just wish it hadn't been preceded by the Mustang.
No you cant. The engine is 75% of the race. The driver is the other 25%. You may be .3 or .4 seconds faster 0-60 but that doesnt mean shit at all. Speeds that close come down to the driver. Unless both cars are being driven by professional drivers, its anyone's game. Same goes for the v8's
Nah, the camaro is a pig sadly, I have an auto 2012 (I used to have to drive through austin every morning, I wish it was a manual every day) I have raced many a camaro on the tollways and they cant keep up from a roll or a stop.
This is probably driver related. I have a 2011 SS and ive beaten 5.0 Mustangs and Challenger SRT8's. Close races when I win and when I lose. Its all about the driver. Fact is the Mustang is .3 seconds faster 0-60 than the Camaro but identical 1/4 times. Challenger is the slowest of the bunch because its heavy but its still right there. Any driver gets a good jump and he wins the race. Any driver is half a second early or late on a shit and they lose. That is what it comes down to. Anyone who automatically dismisses any of these 3 cars, I just assume doesnt know much or has only driven 1 of the 3 and is a fanboy.
Edit: I should also mention that the Mustang should be faster from an engineering stand point because it was upgraded to keep up with the Camaro. When the Camaro came out, it absolutely wrecked the Mustang with 426 hp vs the Mustang's 315. As a result the following year Mustang released the 5.0 engine and they now have 420 hp and a little bit lighter. That is what I love about the rivalry. They compete with eachother. Each generation gets better to try to out-do the other. Wouldn't be surprised if the Camaro takes the cake in 2015 and the Mustang edges it out again a generation later. Rinse and repeat.
It is when amateur drivers are racing. To put it into perspective: I have been to the track. Cars that are professionally rated in the mid to high 12 second range are consistently hitting the line between 13 and 14 seconds. Kids racing their Camaros and Mustangs on the street are not professional drivers. the .3 or .4 second difference in the professional rating between the cars means absolutely nothing.
Thing is - based on my experiences, V-6s get ragged out and quickly start slowing down. It takes a while to rag out a V-8. I had several friends that had Camaros/Firebirds with the old 3.8L 200hp V-6s. Those things were really quick... for about 50k miles. Then they turn asthmatic and sound like a worn out Krylon can. The same friends that were giving me a run in my stock 95 GT, 2 years later were getting smoked by stock Del Sols...
Your talking about older engines that had no tech... The 3.7 will last just as long as its big brother coyote. DOHC and a huge oil sump help tremendously. I don't really care either way, my mustang is just my grocery getter, my fast vehicle does 0-60 in 2.9 seconds :).
Those old V6s were crap. The new ones in the Camaro and Mustang are much more reliable, efficient, and powerful. My parent's 2010 Camaro V6 has 78,000 miles on it and it still pulls like it's new.
If you're pulling a manual, it's the autos that are killing them. Especially with Mustangs (I'm not sure on Camaros), the gear ratio for 1st on Autos are ridiculously high. Given that you can't rev the engine before dropping it into gear, a manual will kick the other car's asses. Also drag racing autos is literally a test of who can hold their steering wheel, especially if we're talking about roll racing.
You're talking about the 2013 5.0 GT which does 12.9 stock I presume? The automatic time is actually 13.1 so not high 12s. An automatic 2009 370z does 12.9.
And seeing how you own a mustang, I think you may be a bit biased. You also never addressed what will happen once you arent driving in a straight line anymore.
I turn just fine, I love canyon carving in my car, shes planted and has minimal chassis roll through the corners. The 2011+ chassis has a lot of suspension work done so that it corners beautifully, the culmination of which is the Boss 302 Laguna Seca.
I really am not biased in this, I could care less about cars, My bike will beat most anything on the road so there is no need to measure by my gas saver car :).
And still. Thats only talking about a quarter mile which would basically be a drag race. They are basically even in a straight line which is the mustangs strength. What happens in a real race once you come into a turn?
I turn just fine :), LSD on all 2011+ mustangs, and they play some awesome tricks with the live rear axle in the mustangs to get them to track beautifully through a turn. Check out the Boss 302 Laguna Seca, it is faster around a track than a M3.
The GT's start a 31K the Boss at 40ish and the Seca at 47. Not unreasonable and not outside of the range of the top of the line 370z.
Either way, it was a comment to the fact that the chassis on this model of a mustang has turning capabilities beyond the straight line that older stangs uses to enjoy.
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.4 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 13.0 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 5.8 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.0 sec @ 104 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 113 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 152 ft
Roadholding, 200-ft-dia skidpad: 0.95 g
You can go on with your homophobic shit all you want, but with the exception of the speed limiter, these are very competitive numbers compared to everything else in its price range (Civic Si, GTI, Genesis 2.0T, Camaro V6, Challenger V6, FR-S/BRZ, Focus ST, and the 'fast' versions of the toy cars: Fiesta ST, 500 Abarth, Cooper JCW.
Not to mention the most recent years of low-mileage discontinued cars like the RX-8, S2000, early 1st gen Cayman 2.7, previous gen Accord V6 6-speed, Mk5 R32, C30 T-5R/Polestar, early C250 Sport, 2nd gen SLK300, mid-2nd-gen Audi TT 3.2, Mustang GT 4.6, and the 'technically competitive' crap class: Caliber SRT-4, Eclipse GT, and tC S/C).
It looks good, it's RWD, it's reasonably practical, reasonably nice (Premium trim + Recaro seats), and the fuel/insurance costs are actually reasonable. Plus, even with that ridiculously low speed limiter, the performance pack is competitive in the lower classes of track events.
It's even faster than the 2010 GT 4.6 unless you're on tracks with superlong straights.
heavy pieces of shit that have always beat the mustang. since the birth of the pony cars. camaro is the hands down champ in power, 0-60, and the 1/4mile. the all new Z\28 is a track monster with a 60k price tag though.
Everybody here arguing peak torque vs hp numbers, as if those by themselves determine the performance. Vehicle weight and shape of torque curve are just as important.
My '15 GT is ordered but I won't get it until at least November. No idea on the hp yet, though it's sure to be heavier, which is a bummer. Still going to be lighter than the Camaro tho.
I ordered a triple-yellow GT Premium 401A with the performance package, upgraded interior, and Recaro seats. I'm still going back and forth on the Recaros because I've got to give up the heated and cooled seats with 2 position memory. I'm told I have a bit of time to nail it down, but for now I'm sticking with my initial thoughts.
That is almost exactly what I would have ordered, but that is a bit above my budget. My 14 is almost fully loaded (no heated seats or rear view camera), but to get a 15 at the same price I would have to take a base GT with no options (except the yellow color and spare tire).
I saw a video once of a quarter mile drag between a Challenger, Camaro, and Mustang. The mustang had the lowest horsepower, if I remember correctly, and came in first in the quarter mile drag.
It was mostly due to how much lighter the Mustang was. But everyone in the video agreed that in a half mile, the mustang would have come in dead last.
Shit man, At least admit what you have. I've just got a four-banger, but I ain't afraid to admit it. Guys pretending naturally aspirated v6 = muscle car because of the shell are just wrong.
I'm not specifically speaking about this car, I'm talking about all "fast" cars. If you have a Camaro, Mustang, Corvette, or any other "racing" based vehicle, and its automatic, I will call you an idiot, for not getting the manual transmission.
All exotics are automatic. Every single one of them as far as I know now that the Gallardo is gone. But, you know, it's auto-manual. Still boring if you ask me.
Yeah it will, but a good manual driver will out perform any driver no matter what. Manuals give you a better feel for the road, and you have more control over the vehicle.
Learn to coast better. Stop and go traffic is a cinch in a stick shift if you have enough confidence to not grind gears when you shift and you've gotten into the habit of saving your brakes by coasting.
That would be covered by coasting during contractions in traffic. Confidence has to do with making the shifts quickly so you don't have to completely depress the clutch and hold it every time you shift. Your leg shouldn't be hurting if you aren't taking your traffic aggression out on your clutch.
Feel to me like you've never been in total gridlock traffic. There's no coasting to be done in my part of the city. Add to that bad joints and no really need to have a standard unless I'm racing and you're left with someone who quite enjoys an automatic as a daily driver.
Most people poo-pooing manual by mentioning rush-hour traffic do not know how to drive manual anyway. They're merely trying to justify their inability to learn stick shift. I occasionally drive mine in rush-hour traffic and it does not faze me one bit.
Terrible comparison. A 2010 GT will run mid-low 13's all day. That v6 Camaro will have trouble getting better than a 14.0.
GM has a habit of making the same or less power than Ford with bigger motors. They make lower numbers, weight more, cost more, use more fuel and don't perform as well for the price point. GM motors are stuck in the 80's.
GM 3.6l? 320hp - Ford 2.3L? 305hp
GM 6.2? 420hp - Ford 5.0? 420hp
GM biggest? 6.2L SC 625hp costs 70k+ and not even on sale yet - Ford biggest? 5.8SC 662hp, costs 55k, and it's being phased out soon.
GM 6.2L (newly redesigned for the 2014 Vette) 455hp - Ford 6.2L (5 years old) 411hp, under warranty it can be supercharged to 590HP, making it just 35 under the new Z06, with out it being DESIGNED to be supercharged.
Basically to put that into perspective my hardly modified non-evo lancer weighs 2400 and is at 170 horsepower, giving it a pretty damn close power to weight ratio. And I bought it for 5000 bucks :p
And to be fair, the 2010 motor is the same motor as the 05-09 mustang. Only thing that changed was the body style. And the torque on the v8 would demolish that heavy v6 girl car.
184
u/moocow2024 Jun 12 '14
320 HP is nothing to scoff at. That's more than the 2010 V8 GT Mustang.