Is Ford lacking on performance?

[zero_chance]

Orange fury. It just looks so good in sun light! The PO of my '92 did the T5 swap for me!

Nice choice. Yeah my 95 was by far the most modified car of mine. Bought it when I graduated high school from one of my teachers. She did nothing other than the required maintenance so it was stock right down to the silencer on the air intake. I started with a complete exhaust from the headers back, BBK headers and off road H, MAC cat back. Then it was going from 2.73 gears to 3.73s then I did an entire black interior conversion. After that I pulled the motor and had it machined, put all forged intervals in it with H beam rods, GT40 heads and lower intake, Kenne Bell blowzilla/flowzilla at 14 pounds, Lightning injectors and MAF, all new engine sensors, emissions components and front end accessories. All tuned by me with binary editor and a Quarter Horse chip. Probably a lot more I’m missing. Sold it when we decided to move from MA to AZ, but the wife and I agreed if I bought a house with a pool I could get a new Mustang. She must have thought I was joking because I was out here first by myself for a month and when she flew in... new car.

Sponsored

 

[zero_chance]

I tend to stay on the milder side of color choices, just realized every car I’ve ever owned has either been black or white until this one. Grey.....

 

[2018OFPP1?2]

Nice choice. Yeah my 95 was by far the most modified car of mine. Bought it when I graduated high school from one of my teachers. She did nothing other than the required maintenance so it was stock right down to the silencer on the air intake. I started with a complete exhaust from the headers back, BBK headers and off road H, MAC cat back. Then it was going from 2.73 gears to 3.73s then I did an entire black interior conversion. After that I pulled the motor and had it machined, put all forged intervals in it with H beam rods, GT40 heads and lower intake, Kenne Bell blowzilla/flowzilla at 14 pounds, Lightning injectors and MAF, all new engine sensors, emissions components and front end accessories. All tuned by me with binary editor and a Quarter Horse chip. Probably a lot more I’m missing. Sold it when we decided to move from MA to AZ, but the wife and I agreed if I bought a house with a pool I could get a new Mustang. She must have thought I was joking because I was out here first by myself for a month and when she flew in... new car.

Man that must have been a tough sell, but bet that 17 GTPP took some of the sting out!

 

[Norm Peterson]

If you look at engine specific output, you'll see the Camaro has 80hp/80lb-ft per liter, versus the Mustang's 92hp/84lb-ft.

Might want to re-check your Camaro math. 455 ÷ 6.2 = 73 and change for either torque or HP (which puts the Mustang's 5.0 in an even better light).

Torque is mainly a function of displacement, but acceleration also involves gearing and engine rpm capability.


Norm

 

[Norm Peterson]

Or, you could just buy PP2 for yourself and leave PP1 for the people it's meant for, the people who want a little bit of extra performance without severely sacrificing ride quality, tire maintenance, and driveability.

Yup. That's today's easy answer and I do hope that this better-late-than-never effort works. It's got some catching up to do, and I hope they're as committed to doing just that as the visible differences over the PP1 suggest.

Keep in mind, the 6th gen 1LE was only out for 1.5 years before Ford shot back with the PP2. It's not like they were just sitting there with their thumbs up their asses for 10 years as you make it seem

The 2018 PP1 was still over a full second off the 5th gen 1LE's lap time. I know, different days, etc., but the 2018 PP1 only barely beat the 2015 PP's time (0.4 second, basically running in place, not exactly unexpected).



Norm

 

[2018OFPP1?2]

Whoops! I forgot the Camaro lt1 was 6.2 liters now. That means the specific output is only 73hp/73lb-ft per liter. What a boat anchor!

All things being equal, the equivalent sized coyote would make 570hp/520lb-ft!

Might want to re-check your Camaro math. 455 ÷ 6.2 = 73 and change for either torque or HP (which puts the Mustang's 5.0 in an even better light).

Torque is mainly a function of displacement, but acceleration also involves gearing and engine rpm capability.


Norm

Sorry, didn't edit the original post, but I did restate it after being reminded that the Camaro is now 6.2 liters. I forgot they had to bump it up from the 5.7 to stay competitive.

But thanks for checking my math

 

[DarthMalice]

Yeah..I am still irritated performance pack was not available on 2016 automatic like in Europe. I would have skipped recaro and had square wheel setup.

 

[jake_zx2]

the 2018 PP1 only barely beat the 2015 PP's time (0.4 second, basically running in place, not exactly unexpected).

Also different days, and I'd wager that the 2018 was at the disadvantage as far as track conditions go. To have more horsepower, better gearing, magride, MUCH better tires, and improved aero, yet only run .4 seconds faster displays a HUGE discrepancy in track conditions. Hell, on that exact track, the Camaro ZL1 was over 1.5 seconds slower when put head to head with the GT350R than it was in a previous test. I highly doubt the PP1 is "Running in place", the track discrepancies just make it seem that way

 

[martinjlm]

In regard to the original post, what I don't understand is why the Mustangs torque is so poor when compared to the Camaros. Even with FI and/or mod's the torque figures are well behind that of the Camaro.

Displacement.

If you look at engine specific output, you'll see the Camaro has 80hp/80lb-ft per liter, versus the Mustang's 92hp/84lb-ft.

Now which engine do you think is down on horsepower and torque?

Typically, if a DOHC engine and an OHV (both NA) have the same displacement, the DOHC will have higher peak hp, the OHV will have better low end torque. The DOHC will breathe better at high speeds / high rpm.

Keep in mind that displacement is measuring the holes, not the metal. For the same displacement, DOHC engines tend to be larger and heavier than OHV (4 cams instead of one, cam carriers, chains, etc).

Even though the Camaro’s 6.2L has larger displacement (bigger piston holes) the Mustang Coyote 5.0 actually has a bigger physical footprint and I believe is actually heavier than a 6.2L. There’s a reason a Small Block is called a Small Block.

Two different design approaches to two very good engines. Camaro 6.2L makes huge low end torque. Mustang 5.0L breathes better at high rpm.

 

[jake_zx2]

Even though the Camaro’s 6.2L has larger displacement (bigger piston holes) the Mustang Coyote 5.0 actually has a bigger physical footprint and I believe is actually heavier than a 6.2L. There’s a reason a Small Block is called a Small Block.

IIRC, the coyote is about 10 lbs lighter than the LT1. Maybe not the 3rd gen coyote, but the previous ones.

However, I agree with everything you said. I hate the whole "more displacement" argument because it is easily countered with "more cams". They're moth excellent engines, just different approaches to the same solution.

If you really want to measure engine superiority, I personally feel that Volumetric Efficiency is the most accurate way to do so

 

[2018OFPP1?2]

Typically, if a DOHC engine and an OHV (both NA) have the same displacement, the DOHC will have higher peak hp, the OHV will have better low end torque. The DOHC will breathe better at high speeds / high rpm.

Keep in mind that displacement is measuring the holes, not the metal. For the same displacement, DOHC engines tend to be larger and heavier than OHV (4 cams instead of one, cam carriers, chains, etc).

Even though the Camaro’s 6.2L has larger displacement (bigger piston holes) the Mustang Coyote 5.0 actually has a bigger physical footprint and I believe is actually heavier than a 6.2L. There’s a reason a Small Block is called a Small Block.

Two different design approaches to two very good engines. Camaro 6.2L makes huge low end torque. Mustang 5.0L breathes better at high rpm.

Is this the kind of education they need on the Camaro6 forum? Over here we know how displacement is measured, thanks.

The coyote is wider than the lt, but not heavier. Also, considering the displacement, I don't think 455lb-ft is huge. The 5.2 voodoo manages almost as much with nearly a liter less displacement. At a higher rpm, yes, but still pretty remarkable for it's displacement.

BTW, you forgot the part about Chevy switching to dohc engines here in the next few years.

 

[martinjlm]

BTW, you forgot the part about Chevy ADDING ANOTHER dohc engine here in the next few years.

Fixed it for ya

 

[martinjlm]

Haven't they all been V6's and inline 4's?
From what I remember Northstar V8's had many many problems. Since you're a GM retiree you'll probably tell me I'm wrong.

The previous poster said “switching to DOHC”. It’s not a “switch” it’s an “add” and it is not the only DOHC in the GM engine portfolio. A “switch” would imply that the Small Block is going away. It should also be noted that the DOHC in question is a 4.2TT that has been defined as Cadillac only.

 

[Norm Peterson]

The coyote is wider than the lt, but not heavier. Also, considering the displacement, I don't think 455lb-ft is huge. The 5.2 voodoo manages almost as much with nearly a liter less displacement. At a higher rpm, yes, but still pretty remarkable for it's displacement.

The original iron-block modular motors of the SN95/New Edge days certainly were heavier, but fortunately for all, we've been past that since the advent of the S197. I doubt the weight difference these days is very much at all.

The Coyote and Voodoo wouldn't be as wide or as tall if they'd been oversquare designs (bore bigger than stroke) rather than square. NVH characteristics of the flatplane crank Voodoo would most likely been a little easier to deal with.


Norm

 

[jake_zx2]

[MENTION=33751]martinjlm[/MENTION] Just out of curiousity, do you have a non-disclosure agreement with GM regarding the inside information you may know about future products? How long is something like that in effect for?

Sponsored