09 Challenger vs 09 Mustang (Hmm)
05-03-2008, 02:56 PM
#21
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location:
Posts: 4,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 09 Challenger vs 09 Mustang (Hmm)
ORIGINAL: 1971Chall
RLSH700,
1. I would disagree on the GT-500 vs the SRT-8, having a supercharged '03 Cobra myself and participating in dyno testing of the GT-500 in one of the clubs I am in. I would agree up to 60mph it will be somewhat close but the supercharged car will walk away from it after that. Trap speeds have shown that on average, the GT-500 is 4 - 5 mph faster compared to what is published for an SRT-8. ET is a function of traction and launch so the faster car may not be the winner if it can't or doesn't use it's power advantage in the launch. The truly stock GT-500's I have seen usually put out 420 -430hp at the tires. SRT's have shown approx 380hp at the tires. Figure in a 200lb weight disadvantage along with lower output and I just don't see an SRT-8 beating a GT-500 if there is no driver error. When my '03 was stock it put down 367hp and 365lbs of torque to the tires. I ran it one time at the track in pure stock form and it ran a 13.5@110mph with a 2.20 60ft. Wheel hop and traction problems were an issue for me that night. My car weighs in at 3660lbs on a certified scale. My 2003 would have been a good race for an SRT-8 stock for stock assuming I did a little better getting it off the line. Not waving the Mustang flag just stating what I have done and seen that I know are facts. The only wild card here is the SRT-8's have not been out in the real world(yours and mine) to see what it will do. Books are not the end all by any reason. The rev limiter on the Mustang is all that's keeping it from going faster. I have personally had my Cobra up to 160mph at the top of 5th gear with 6th still to go. I had the speed limiter turned off when it was tuned. Again not knocking the Challenger's potential; it's just not a real all out comparison if one is electronically stopped artificially.
2. Completely agree with you here.
3. Agree here also.
4. I agree with the rest of what you have stated. Your description of the new Mustang interior space is actually pretty accurate. That is how I see it. It's not uncomfortable but does give you a feeling of everything being closer to you. Again, working over at Mopar Performance, trust me the new 5.7 will not be a disappointment. I am confident it will outperform a GT Mustang. Not tremendously but it should have the edge. I think the R/T will end up being the best bargain overall of the Challenger lineup. Not downing the SRT-8 as it will still be the big dog for sure but after seeing what we did with our 5.7 Magnum wagon and bolt on's the 5.7 can easily make up the 50hp difference in a hurry. For the price difference between the 2 this is what's swaying me. Regardless let's get 'em while we can because with CAFE's new insanity on the horizon this will be 1974 all over again in a couple of years. WELCOME TO THE SITE ALSO HUNTMAN USA!
RLSH700,
1. I would disagree on the GT-500 vs the SRT-8, having a supercharged '03 Cobra myself and participating in dyno testing of the GT-500 in one of the clubs I am in. I would agree up to 60mph it will be somewhat close but the supercharged car will walk away from it after that. Trap speeds have shown that on average, the GT-500 is 4 - 5 mph faster compared to what is published for an SRT-8. ET is a function of traction and launch so the faster car may not be the winner if it can't or doesn't use it's power advantage in the launch. The truly stock GT-500's I have seen usually put out 420 -430hp at the tires. SRT's have shown approx 380hp at the tires. Figure in a 200lb weight disadvantage along with lower output and I just don't see an SRT-8 beating a GT-500 if there is no driver error. When my '03 was stock it put down 367hp and 365lbs of torque to the tires. I ran it one time at the track in pure stock form and it ran a 13.5@110mph with a 2.20 60ft. Wheel hop and traction problems were an issue for me that night. My car weighs in at 3660lbs on a certified scale. My 2003 would have been a good race for an SRT-8 stock for stock assuming I did a little better getting it off the line. Not waving the Mustang flag just stating what I have done and seen that I know are facts. The only wild card here is the SRT-8's have not been out in the real world(yours and mine) to see what it will do. Books are not the end all by any reason. The rev limiter on the Mustang is all that's keeping it from going faster. I have personally had my Cobra up to 160mph at the top of 5th gear with 6th still to go. I had the speed limiter turned off when it was tuned. Again not knocking the Challenger's potential; it's just not a real all out comparison if one is electronically stopped artificially.
2. Completely agree with you here.
3. Agree here also.
4. I agree with the rest of what you have stated. Your description of the new Mustang interior space is actually pretty accurate. That is how I see it. It's not uncomfortable but does give you a feeling of everything being closer to you. Again, working over at Mopar Performance, trust me the new 5.7 will not be a disappointment. I am confident it will outperform a GT Mustang. Not tremendously but it should have the edge. I think the R/T will end up being the best bargain overall of the Challenger lineup. Not downing the SRT-8 as it will still be the big dog for sure but after seeing what we did with our 5.7 Magnum wagon and bolt on's the 5.7 can easily make up the 50hp difference in a hurry. For the price difference between the 2 this is what's swaying me. Regardless let's get 'em while we can because with CAFE's new insanity on the horizon this will be 1974 all over again in a couple of years. WELCOME TO THE SITE ALSO HUNTMAN USA!
__________________
"To Debate and Moderate" since 2006
College Graduate:
B.S. in Marketing
A.A. in nothing
The first 426 Dual Quad member.
The first to 2000 posts
"To Debate and Moderate" since 2006
College Graduate:
B.S. in Marketing
A.A. in nothing
The first 426 Dual Quad member.
The first to 2000 posts
05-03-2008, 10:47 PM
#22
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 09 Challenger vs 09 Mustang (Hmm)
RLSH700,
Thanks for the response, you always give me a couple of good things to think about. It will be interesting when the Challenger finally gets it's manual trans. My thought is it will pick up a 1 -2 mph in trap speed over the automatic. The Challenger's 5 spd automatic does have a very steep first gear(3.58) so as far as launch goes I don't think that will hinder it very much. The parasitic loss from the converter and front pump is the real difference between the stick and auto. In the short run(to 60mph) there will be little difference. After that if the driver can shift good the manual should show an edge. I am totally confident the fuel economy will exceed the number we are being given as long as you drive it for economy. Jeremiah, my father has a 2005 Town and Country with the 3.8 and he is getting quite a bit better than what you are experiencing. The mpg meter in the dash is showing 22mpg combined right at the moment. I know on a trip we had last year he was following me back from a car show and got 28mpg(straight highway). I had my '71 Challenger and with the 3.55 gears I kept it at 60mph so that is where he was also. To put this in perspective I just checked out a new Caravan with 3.8. You know what's on the sticker? 16/23 city/highway. This is with the new ratings. That's simply not accurate as my dad has essentially the same thing and I just mentioned what he gets. The new Mustang GT I just bought shows 15/23(ironically the same as the Challenger 5.7 stick) and I will bet my paycheck it's getting a lot better than that on the highway for sure and a little bit better in the city. I haven't taken mpg with it yet but will soon. The new HEMI has a lot going for it. The higher compression and variable cam timing is very efficient at cruise speeds. I wish I had the car right now to test but eventually. My thoughts are 25mpg is not out of the question especially at 60 - 65mph. It's just hard to drive that speed in most urban areas but can be done if you have the patience. RLSH700 makes a couple of good points about the terrain you are driving on. I would have to suspect there are some other factors influencing your results.
Thanks for the response, you always give me a couple of good things to think about. It will be interesting when the Challenger finally gets it's manual trans. My thought is it will pick up a 1 -2 mph in trap speed over the automatic. The Challenger's 5 spd automatic does have a very steep first gear(3.58) so as far as launch goes I don't think that will hinder it very much. The parasitic loss from the converter and front pump is the real difference between the stick and auto. In the short run(to 60mph) there will be little difference. After that if the driver can shift good the manual should show an edge. I am totally confident the fuel economy will exceed the number we are being given as long as you drive it for economy. Jeremiah, my father has a 2005 Town and Country with the 3.8 and he is getting quite a bit better than what you are experiencing. The mpg meter in the dash is showing 22mpg combined right at the moment. I know on a trip we had last year he was following me back from a car show and got 28mpg(straight highway). I had my '71 Challenger and with the 3.55 gears I kept it at 60mph so that is where he was also. To put this in perspective I just checked out a new Caravan with 3.8. You know what's on the sticker? 16/23 city/highway. This is with the new ratings. That's simply not accurate as my dad has essentially the same thing and I just mentioned what he gets. The new Mustang GT I just bought shows 15/23(ironically the same as the Challenger 5.7 stick) and I will bet my paycheck it's getting a lot better than that on the highway for sure and a little bit better in the city. I haven't taken mpg with it yet but will soon. The new HEMI has a lot going for it. The higher compression and variable cam timing is very efficient at cruise speeds. I wish I had the car right now to test but eventually. My thoughts are 25mpg is not out of the question especially at 60 - 65mph. It's just hard to drive that speed in most urban areas but can be done if you have the patience. RLSH700 makes a couple of good points about the terrain you are driving on. I would have to suspect there are some other factors influencing your results.
05-04-2008, 11:51 AM
#23
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 09 Challenger vs 09 Mustang (Hmm)
Jeremiah 29:11, it is more difficult from my experience to get the advertised mileage on trucks, SUVs, and minivans. I'm able to do way better than the 24 mpg (26 mpg according to the old and more accurate EPA ratings) that is given to my 11 year old Intrepid. I've been able to get in the low to mid 30s on roads that were mildly hilly. Do you have a lot of hills in where you drive?
Of course, I am sometimes heavy on the pedal especially on the entrance ramps.
__________________
For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
05-05-2008, 06:09 AM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New Milford, Ct.
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 09 Challenger vs 09 Mustang (Hmm)
Thank you for the welcome. I hope in the very near future I can relate real world experience with my Challenger (really hate having to use the 'Stang to get some street excitement). Anyhoo, I can say that I did have about two cars on the Daytona from the line till about the first block, second block we were door to door and third block he was about three cars ahead. This was a long street through cornfields, not residential area so messing around with high speed (speed limit is 60 on this road) isnt much of an issue if things go wrong (except to the drivers of course). I know its silly but now and then flashbacks to younger days preclude good judgement. I can say though, when I pulled off the gas pedal the needle was passing 80 and that little V8 in the 'Stang was pulling hard. I doubt I could have caught the Daytona at all but if we ran a light to light or two lights it would have been a good run. From what I saw, the Dodge was a bit heavy on leaving the light but once the hemi came on line with rpm's he closed in a hurry. The "Stang is quick off the line but has no real low end pulling power to stay in it. That little V8 winds up quick but has no real guts to it at all. Dont get me worng, and I know I will hear from other owners, it is quick and in a quarter run it holds its own to a point but sheer horsepower and torque will beat the snot out of it.
05-06-2008, 05:59 PM
#25
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location:
Posts: 4,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 09 Challenger vs 09 Mustang (Hmm)
ORIGINAL: 1971Chall
RLSH700,
Thanks for the response, you always give me a couple of good things to think about. It will be interesting when the Challenger finally gets it's manual trans. My thought is it will pick up a 1 -2 mph in trap speed over the automatic. The Challenger's 5 spd automatic does have a very steep first gear(3.58) so as far as launch goes I don't think that will hinder it very much. The parasitic loss from the converter and front pump is the real difference between the stick and auto. In the short run(to 60mph) there will be little difference. After that if the driver can shift good the manual should show an edge. I am totally confident the fuel economy will exceed the number we are being given as long as you drive it for economy. Jeremiah, my father has a 2005 Town and Country with the 3.8 and he is getting quite a bit better than what you are experiencing. The mpg meter in the dash is showing 22mpg combined right at the moment. I know on a trip we had last year he was following me back from a car show and got 28mpg(straight highway). I had my '71 Challenger and with the 3.55 gears I kept it at 60mph so that is where he was also. To put this in perspective I just checked out a new Caravan with 3.8. You know what's on the sticker? 16/23 city/highway. This is with the new ratings. That's simply not accurate as my dad has essentially the same thing and I just mentioned what he gets. The new Mustang GT I just bought shows 15/23(ironically the same as the Challenger 5.7 stick) and I will bet my paycheck it's getting a lot better than that on the highway for sure and a little bit better in the city. I haven't taken mpg with it yet but will soon. The new HEMI has a lot going for it. The higher compression and variable cam timing is very efficient at cruise speeds. I wish I had the car right now to test but eventually. My thoughts are 25mpg is not out of the question especially at 60 - 65mph. It's just hard to drive that speed in most urban areas but can be done if you have the patience. RLSH700 makes a couple of good points about the terrain you are driving on. I would have to suspect there are some other factors influencing your results.
RLSH700,
Thanks for the response, you always give me a couple of good things to think about. It will be interesting when the Challenger finally gets it's manual trans. My thought is it will pick up a 1 -2 mph in trap speed over the automatic. The Challenger's 5 spd automatic does have a very steep first gear(3.58) so as far as launch goes I don't think that will hinder it very much. The parasitic loss from the converter and front pump is the real difference between the stick and auto. In the short run(to 60mph) there will be little difference. After that if the driver can shift good the manual should show an edge. I am totally confident the fuel economy will exceed the number we are being given as long as you drive it for economy. Jeremiah, my father has a 2005 Town and Country with the 3.8 and he is getting quite a bit better than what you are experiencing. The mpg meter in the dash is showing 22mpg combined right at the moment. I know on a trip we had last year he was following me back from a car show and got 28mpg(straight highway). I had my '71 Challenger and with the 3.55 gears I kept it at 60mph so that is where he was also. To put this in perspective I just checked out a new Caravan with 3.8. You know what's on the sticker? 16/23 city/highway. This is with the new ratings. That's simply not accurate as my dad has essentially the same thing and I just mentioned what he gets. The new Mustang GT I just bought shows 15/23(ironically the same as the Challenger 5.7 stick) and I will bet my paycheck it's getting a lot better than that on the highway for sure and a little bit better in the city. I haven't taken mpg with it yet but will soon. The new HEMI has a lot going for it. The higher compression and variable cam timing is very efficient at cruise speeds. I wish I had the car right now to test but eventually. My thoughts are 25mpg is not out of the question especially at 60 - 65mph. It's just hard to drive that speed in most urban areas but can be done if you have the patience. RLSH700 makes a couple of good points about the terrain you are driving on. I would have to suspect there are some other factors influencing your results.
I'm estimating that the fuel economy will be something like 20-21 on the highway for the SRT-8 with the manual under the new ratings since the displacement increased, the compression ratio is slightly lower, no VCT, and the gearing is shorter than the R/Ts. Many times a car's potential fuel economy depends the most on the way the driver drives it over many other factors as well as how they deal with factor
__________________
"To Debate and Moderate" since 2006
College Graduate:
B.S. in Marketing
A.A. in nothing
The first 426 Dual Quad member.
The first to 2000 posts
"To Debate and Moderate" since 2006
College Graduate:
B.S. in Marketing
A.A. in nothing
The first 426 Dual Quad member.
The first to 2000 posts
05-07-2008, 05:25 AM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New Milford, Ct.
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 09 Challenger vs 09 Mustang (Hmm)
RLSH700, yes the 4.6 in the Ford is a very high reving little motor. The 300 hp/320 lb/ft of torque claim I think it spot on, however the one issue with it is that with the auto it is a bit tough to grab the road on hard acceleration. In my opinion if it had the 5 speed stick (Tremec 3650) it would do better on take off. The 15.2 lbs. per hp gives it a fairly good take off and if you are able to get good traction with it then it is off like a bullet. I have tried to talk the wife into some suspension mods, a clean air kit etc. to improive its 4.6 0-60 time but she wants it just like it is. When I saw the Daytona in Motor Trend stating that it had 340 hp/390 ft/lb of torque I felt that although the 'Stang was lower in hp and torque that the power to weight ratio was going to be better as the Daytona outweighs the 'Stang by around 600 pounds and while the Hemi has more power the RPM band take a bit longer to get to in comparison as the 4.6 with its 24 valves lets it breath easier. But, as I said earlier, it all came down to sheer horsepower. The "Stang can get going in a hurry and wind up quick but it definately lags in the higher end power bands where the Dodge motors have always excelled.
05-08-2008, 09:25 AM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 09 Challenger vs 09 Mustang (Hmm)
It's actually 11.6, not 15.2...
SPECIFICATIONS
2005 Ford Mustang GT
Base Price $ 25,705
Price As Tested $ 27,630
Engine Type aluminum alloy single overhead cam
24-valve V8
Engine Size 4.6 liters / 281 cu. in.
Horsepower 300 @ 5750 rpm
Torque (lb-ft) 320 @ 4500 rpm
Transmission 5-speed manual
Wheelbase / Length 107.1 in. / 188.0 in.
Curb Weight 3483 lbs.
Pounds Per Horsepower 11.6
Fuel Capacity 16.0 gal.
Fuel Requirement 87 octane unleaded regular gasoline
Tires P235/55 ZR17 Pirelli P-Zero Nero
Brakes, front/rear twin-piston calipers, vented disc /
single-piston calipers, vented disc
antilock standard
Suspension, front/rear independent MacPherson strut /
solid axle with coil springs,
3-link location and Panhard rod
Drivetrain front engine, rear-wheel drive
PERFORMANCE
EPA Fuel Economy - miles per gallon
city / highway / observed 17 / 25 / 16
0 to 60 mph 5.2 sec
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...22/138160.html
SPECIFICATIONS
2005 Ford Mustang GT
Base Price $ 25,705
Price As Tested $ 27,630
Engine Type aluminum alloy single overhead cam
24-valve V8
Engine Size 4.6 liters / 281 cu. in.
Horsepower 300 @ 5750 rpm
Torque (lb-ft) 320 @ 4500 rpm
Transmission 5-speed manual
Wheelbase / Length 107.1 in. / 188.0 in.
Curb Weight 3483 lbs.
Pounds Per Horsepower 11.6
Fuel Capacity 16.0 gal.
Fuel Requirement 87 octane unleaded regular gasoline
Tires P235/55 ZR17 Pirelli P-Zero Nero
Brakes, front/rear twin-piston calipers, vented disc /
single-piston calipers, vented disc
antilock standard
Suspension, front/rear independent MacPherson strut /
solid axle with coil springs,
3-link location and Panhard rod
Drivetrain front engine, rear-wheel drive
PERFORMANCE
EPA Fuel Economy - miles per gallon
city / highway / observed 17 / 25 / 16
0 to 60 mph 5.2 sec
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...22/138160.html
ORIGINAL: brucer41
RLSH700, yes the 4.6 in the Ford is a very high reving little motor. The 300 hp/320 lb/ft of torque claim I think it spot on, however the one issue with it is that with the auto it is a bit tough to grab the road on hard acceleration. In my opinion if it had the 5 speed stick (Tremec 3650) it would do better on take off. The 15.2 lbs. per hp gives it a fairly good take off and if you are able to get good traction with it then it is off like a bullet. I have tried to talk the wife into some suspension mods, a clean air kit etc. to improive its 4.6 0-60 time but she wants it just like it is. When I saw the Daytona in Motor Trend stating that it had 340 hp/390 ft/lb of torque I felt that although the 'Stang was lower in hp and torque that the power to weight ratio was going to be better as the Daytona outweighs the 'Stang by around 600 pounds and while the Hemi has more power the RPM band take a bit longer to get to in comparison as the 4.6 with its 24 valves lets it breath easier. But, as I said earlier, it all came down to sheer horsepower. The "Stang can get going in a hurry and wind up quick but it definately lags in the higher end power bands where the Dodge motors have always excelled.
RLSH700, yes the 4.6 in the Ford is a very high reving little motor. The 300 hp/320 lb/ft of torque claim I think it spot on, however the one issue with it is that with the auto it is a bit tough to grab the road on hard acceleration. In my opinion if it had the 5 speed stick (Tremec 3650) it would do better on take off. The 15.2 lbs. per hp gives it a fairly good take off and if you are able to get good traction with it then it is off like a bullet. I have tried to talk the wife into some suspension mods, a clean air kit etc. to improive its 4.6 0-60 time but she wants it just like it is. When I saw the Daytona in Motor Trend stating that it had 340 hp/390 ft/lb of torque I felt that although the 'Stang was lower in hp and torque that the power to weight ratio was going to be better as the Daytona outweighs the 'Stang by around 600 pounds and while the Hemi has more power the RPM band take a bit longer to get to in comparison as the 4.6 with its 24 valves lets it breath easier. But, as I said earlier, it all came down to sheer horsepower. The "Stang can get going in a hurry and wind up quick but it definately lags in the higher end power bands where the Dodge motors have always excelled.
05-08-2008, 11:23 AM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New Milford, Ct.
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 09 Challenger vs 09 Mustang (Hmm)
And you would be absolutely correct...if it was an 05. I have an 06:
BASE CURB WEIGHT (POUNDS)
Manual transmission 3,488
Automatic transmission 3,525
Weight distribution (f/r) 54/46
Power-to-weight ratio 15.2 lbs. per hp
Manual transmission 11.63
Automatic transmission 11.75
http://www.moddedmustangs.com/2006-f...and-specs.html
BASE CURB WEIGHT (POUNDS)
Manual transmission 3,488
Automatic transmission 3,525
Weight distribution (f/r) 54/46
Power-to-weight ratio 15.2 lbs. per hp
Manual transmission 11.63
Automatic transmission 11.75
http://www.moddedmustangs.com/2006-f...and-specs.html
05-08-2008, 08:38 PM
#29
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 09 Challenger vs 09 Mustang (Hmm)
ORIGINAL: brucer41
RLSH700, yes the 4.6 in the Ford is a very high reving little motor. The 300 hp/320 lb/ft of torque claim I think it spot on, however the one issue with it is that with the auto it is a bit tough to grab the road on hard acceleration. In my opinion if it had the 5 speed stick (Tremec 3650) it would do better on take off. The 15.2 lbs. per hp gives it a fairly good take off and if you are able to get good traction with it then it is off like a bullet. I have tried to talk the wife into some suspension mods, a clean air kit etc. to improive its 4.6 0-60 time but she wants it just like it is. When I saw the Daytona in Motor Trend stating that it had 340 hp/390 ft/lb of torque I felt that although the 'Stang was lower in hp and torque that the power to weight ratio was going to be better as the Daytona outweighs the 'Stang by around 600 pounds and while the Hemi has more power the RPM band take a bit longer to get to in comparison as the 4.6 with its 24 valves lets it breath easier. But, as I said earlier, it all came down to sheer horsepower. The "Stang can get going in a hurry and wind up quick but it definately lags in the higher end power bands where the Dodge motors have always excelled.
RLSH700, yes the 4.6 in the Ford is a very high reving little motor. The 300 hp/320 lb/ft of torque claim I think it spot on, however the one issue with it is that with the auto it is a bit tough to grab the road on hard acceleration. In my opinion if it had the 5 speed stick (Tremec 3650) it would do better on take off. The 15.2 lbs. per hp gives it a fairly good take off and if you are able to get good traction with it then it is off like a bullet. I have tried to talk the wife into some suspension mods, a clean air kit etc. to improive its 4.6 0-60 time but she wants it just like it is. When I saw the Daytona in Motor Trend stating that it had 340 hp/390 ft/lb of torque I felt that although the 'Stang was lower in hp and torque that the power to weight ratio was going to be better as the Daytona outweighs the 'Stang by around 600 pounds and while the Hemi has more power the RPM band take a bit longer to get to in comparison as the 4.6 with its 24 valves lets it breath easier. But, as I said earlier, it all came down to sheer horsepower. The "Stang can get going in a hurry and wind up quick but it definately lags in the higher end power bands where the Dodge motors have always excelled.
05-09-2008, 08:51 AM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 09 Challenger vs 09 Mustang (Hmm)
Interesting...I never realized there was any weight difference since all 2005 - Present Mustang GTs are basically onsidered carryovers. I still don't understand where they are getting 15.2 lbs per HP. Am I missing something here?
ORIGINAL: brucer41
And you would be absolutely correct...if it was an 05. I have an 06:
BASE CURB WEIGHT (POUNDS)
Manual transmission 3,488
Automatic transmission 3,525
Weight distribution (f/r) 54/46
Power-to-weight ratio 15.2 lbs. per hp
Manual transmission 11.63
Automatic transmission 11.75
http://www.moddedmustangs.com/2006-f...and-specs.html
And you would be absolutely correct...if it was an 05. I have an 06:
BASE CURB WEIGHT (POUNDS)
Manual transmission 3,488
Automatic transmission 3,525
Weight distribution (f/r) 54/46
Power-to-weight ratio 15.2 lbs. per hp
Manual transmission 11.63
Automatic transmission 11.75
http://www.moddedmustangs.com/2006-f...and-specs.html