5.0

Jamaica · 02-01-2012, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red__Zed

inorite? It made me almost want to build another drag car

honestly 815whp on a stock motor and upgraded converter and on a auto tranny...damn.

Pharmacist · 02-01-2012, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red__Zed

As promised:

5.0

This car was a real surprise to me, and it doesn't really surprise me that most people still don't accept it for what it is. Check out the Motortrend videos where they stack it up against an M3 for a pretty good idea of what the car is about...then take one for a spin to get a REAL idea of the beast this car is.

The power is the first thing most people talk about on the car, and rightfully so. Over 400 hp and nearly 400 ft/lb of torque is nothing to sneeze at, and the car is a power monster. We are talking no-problem power-on oversteer on demand, "go" power that is only traction-limited, etc...but it is really not the major story with the car, at least in my opinion....

Why?

The handling prowess of the new 5.0 is absolutely, disgustingly amazing. The car bites in sharp, corners flat, and exits with as much power as you could hope for. Balance is incredibly neutral, meaning you are using all four tires at the limit (side note: this neutral handling is awesome for actual track use, generating great feel and response, but costs on skidpad grip, since it is (misleadingly) done in a throttle-on state)

Even relative to my Z with the best alignment I could find for it (no front toe, 3* camber in the front, 2.5* in the rear), the Mustang holds its own. Against a stock alignment Z, the Mustang bites in far harder and seems much more eager to dig into a turn, belying its obesity.

The 6 speed trans is very impressive. The 5 speeds available in previous 'stangs got the job done, but never impressed me much. The trans in my 5.0 is a slick unit with fantastic feel.

Of course, as with any car, it is not all peaches and cream. The most obvious complaints with the mustang are the looks (subjective), interior(subjective), and the rear suspension.

I've got no problem with the first two. I don't mind either, and they are lower on my priority list anyways-- I'm driving the car, not looking at it. Other people who have different priorities may feel differently, and since they are subjective anyway, no sense giving you my opinion. Take a look at one and judge for yourself.

Now onto talking about suspension, where I bring up the issues created by the solid rear...wait....

The car catches a lot of flak for the SRA, but in my 6k or so miles, I've found it to be a non-issue, not having upset it once on the street. In contrast, the 07 mustang that I test drove a while back was a legitimately scary experience that resulted in me swearing off the S197 for a while. In my opinion (and corroborated by several other drivers), the mustang SRA is more stable than the bump-steer-prone 370z multi-link for street use, which means you won't run into any problems.

The real "issue" with the rear is a pair of floaty dampers that get flighty when cornering over 90mph. Swapping them out for Koni Yellow's seems to address that, although I am still on stock suspension and have no issues driving quite spiritedly (on the street). For high speed track use, swap them.

The Mustang also feels "big." I actually hated it the first time I drove it. The car is huge, and it is a completely different feel from the Z. I can say you do get used to it (and this is coming from a guy who wondered if he would ever get used to the ridiculous size of the 370z). Do I wish the car was smaller/lighter? Sure, but it notably outhandles a variety of lighter cars, so I am pretty happy with it.

Steering feel is pretty bland as well. Not impressed with it, but at the same time not tremendously bothered by it.

The brembo package is a must. In addition to the great looking wheels/brakes, the car stops faster than sport package Z, rocks some excellent Pzeros all around, and includes some slightly revised spring rates, traction control tuning, etc. It's freaking great.

Overall,* I freaking love this car, and it kind of annoys me that it was introduced without a lot of separation from the previous gen mustang-- it catches a lot of flak from ignorant people who don't understand the revisions that have been made....on the other hand, the community is full of enthusiasts (similar to the way the 370z community used to be), which is always a great perk with a car. Barring anything catastrophic, I see myself actually keeping this car for quite a while--which will be quite a change for me. Who knows how that will actually turn out though....

Cliff notes:
Neutral handling is sweet
tons of power
steering is bland
rear dampers are floaty

test drove one a few days ago and agree with most of what you say. but i do have a few observations:

- the mustang may "feel" faster at turn in, and may very well be more neutral than a Z or even an M3, both of which are designed with a slight bit of understeer from the factory. but you also have to remember that part of it is due to the very unusual square set up of the tires with the brembo package (mostly due to the skinny rear wheels on the mustang). almost all performance RWD cars come from the factory with staggered set up with the rear wheels being wider. pretty sure you can eliminate the understeer on the Z, or the M3, or any other RWD car, with a simple wheel/tire swap to a square set up. Anyway, a mustang may "feel" like a better handler than a Z, but objectively, numbers don't lie and I don't recall a single time when a mustang objectively bettered a 370z in terms of cornering g's or lateral grip, either on a skidpad, slalom, or road course.

- the big size thing I find really unacceptable. why they had to make it so darn huge compared to the previous generation mustang, i have no clue. but to be honest, if i were to get a car that big, i might as well go all the way and get a 4 dr sedan for the added practicality. small and impractical i can understand. big and practical i can understand. big and relatively impractical is just illogical.

- the numb steering is probably in part due to the electric power steering. no idea why ford would do that. bmw actually removes electric power steering from the M version of its cars and replaced them with hydraulic systems for better steering feel

-what do you mean by bump steer prone Z? I never had any bump steer on my Z. In fact the rear end was very planted and had lots of grip. maybe you drive on roads full of bumps and enormous potholes. but if that's the case, you dont need a sports car, but a 4X4 jeep. eitherway, any bump steer problems you had on the z are probably due to the stiffer springs and dampers relative to the mustang, not because of the multilink suspension.

- do you have the actual numbers about stopping distance of a mustang being shorter than a 370z? i was quite unimpressed by the look of the brembo brakes. the front rotors are about the same as the z (i believe both are 14 inch) as for the rear brakes, they for some reason remain sliding calipers, not sure if they're any bigger than the non brembo mustang brakes. for a car that big with brakes that small, i can't see how it can outbrake a 370z. could be pad material, but then again, a z's brake pads aren't really all that bad (as long as you don't overheat them with repeated braking)

My conclusion: A 370z is still the proper sports car. The mustang is a very good handling muscle car (undergoing a slow transformation to a sports car).

Alchemy · 02-01-2012, 11:41 PM

This will turn to carnage soon enough.

IBTRL (In Before The Re-Lock)

XwChriswX · 02-01-2012, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pharmacist

test drove one a few days ago and agree with most of what you say. but i do have a few observations:

- the mustang may "feel" faster at turn in, and may very well be more neutral than a Z or even an M3, both of which are designed with a slight bit of understeer from the factory. but you also have to remember that part of it is due to the very unusual square set up of the tires with the brembo package (mostly due to the skinny rear wheels on the mustang). almost all performance RWD cars come from the factory with staggered set up with the rear wheels being wider. pretty sure you can eliminate the understeer on the Z, or the M3, or any other RWD car, with a simple wheel/tire swap to a square set up. Anyway, a mustang may "feel" like a better handler than a Z, but objectively, numbers don't lie and I don't recall a single time when a mustang objectively bettered a 370z in terms of cornering g's or lateral grip, either on a skidpad, slalom, or road course.

- the big size thing I find really unacceptable. why they had to make it so darn huge compared to the previous generation mustang, i have no clue. but to be honest, if i were to get a car that big, i might as well go all the way and get a 4 dr sedan for the added practicality. small and impractical i can understand. big and practical i can understand. big and relatively impractical is just illogical.

- the numb steering is probably in part due to the electric power steering. no idea why ford would do that. bmw actually removes electric power steering from the M version of its cars and replaced them with hydraulic systems for better steering feel

-what do you mean by bump steer prone Z? I never had any bump steer on my Z. In fact the rear end was very planted and had lots of grip. maybe you drive on roads full of bumps and enormous potholes. but if that's the case, you dont need a sports car, but a 4X4 jeep. eitherway, any bump steer problems you had on the z are probably due to the stiffer springs and dampers relative to the mustang, not because of the multilink suspension.

- do you have the actual numbers about stopping distance of a mustang being shorter than a 370z? i was quite unimpressed by the look of the brembo brakes. the front rotors are about the same as the z (i believe both are 14 inch) as for the rear brakes, they for some reason remain sliding calipers, not sure if they're any bigger than the non brembo mustang brakes. for a car that big with brakes that small, i can't see how it can outbrake a 370z. could be pad material, but then again, a z's brake pads aren't really all that bad (as long as you don't overheat them with repeated braking)

My conclusion: A 370z is still the proper sports car. The mustang is a very good handling muscle car (undergoing a slow transformation to a sports car).

b1adesofcha0s · 02-02-2012, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alchemy

This will turn to carnage soon enough.

IBTRL (In Before The Re-Lock)

Pretty much

Red__Zed · 02-02-2012, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pharmacist

test drove one a few days ago and agree with most of what you say. but i do have a few observations:

- the mustang may "feel" faster at turn in, and may very well be more neutral than a Z or even an M3, both of which are designed with a slight bit of understeer from the factory. but you also have to remember that part of it is due to the very unusual square set up of the tires with the brembo package (mostly due to the skinny rear wheels on the mustang). almost all performance RWD cars come from the factory with staggered set up with the rear wheels being wider. pretty sure you can eliminate the understeer on the Z, or the M3, or any other RWD car, with a simple wheel/tire swap to a square set up. Anyway, a mustang may "feel" like a better handler than a Z, but objectively, numbers don't lie and I don't recall a single time when a mustang objectively bettered a 370z in terms of cornering g's or lateral grip, either on a skidpad, slalom, or road course.

Not sure if serious. Lap times>skid pad numbers. Read my post again if you aren't sure why. I also don't think you understand what turn in is.

Quote:

- the big size thing I find really unacceptable. why they had to make it so darn huge compared to the previous generation mustang, i have no clue. but to be honest, if i were to get a car that big, i might as well go all the way and get a 4 dr sedan for the added practicality. small and impractical i can understand. big and practical i can understand. big and relatively impractical is just illogical.

fair

Quote:

- the numb steering is probably in part due to the electric power steering. no idea why ford would do that. bmw actually removes electric power steering from the M version of its cars and replaced them with hydraulic systems for better steering feel

Steering is always weird. Two years after a car has the worst steering feel around, it has the best. Cars keep getting worse. Just gotta deal.

Quote:

-what do you mean by bump steer prone Z? I never had any bump steer on my Z. In fact the rear end was very planted and had lots of grip. maybe you drive on roads full of bumps and enormous potholes. but if that's the case, you dont need a sports car, but a 4X4 jeep. eitherway, any bump steer problems you had on the z are probably due to the stiffer springs and dampers relative to the mustang, not because of the multilink suspension.

Hook a z up to bump steer gauge, jack the tire, and watch the toe. You've proven time and time again you willfully ignore proof, so observe it for yourself.

Quote:

- do you have the actual numbers about stopping distance of a mustang being shorter than a 370z? i was quite unimpressed by the look of the brembo brakes. the front rotors are about the same as the z (i believe both are 14 inch) as for the rear brakes, they for some reason remain sliding calipers, not sure if they're any bigger than the non brembo mustang brakes. for a car that big with brakes that small, i can't see how it can outbrake a 370z. could be pad material, but then again, a z's brake pads aren't really all that bad (as long as you don't overheat them with repeated braking)

Sure. Any head to head test shows the mustang winning. Perhaps you might choose c&d's "best handling car under $40k," showing the mustang doing 70-0 in 154' vs the z's 158.

Quote:

My conclusion: A 370z is still the proper sports car. The mustang is a very good handling muscle car (undergoing a slow transformation to a sports car).

I will never understand this forum's fixation on defending the z as a "sports car."

If that's what matters to you, keep it.

Pharmacist · 02-02-2012, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red__Zed

Not sure if serious. Lap times>skid pad numbers. Read my post again if you aren't sure why. I also don't think you understand what turn in is.

laptimes are also dependent on power and straight line acceleration too. show me ONE test when a mustang outhandled a z. car and driver (i think) tested best handling cars, and they found out after eliminating the straight sections from lap times that the mustang and z were pretty much even.

Quote:

Hook a z up to bump steer gauge, jack the tire, and watch the toe. You've proven time and time again you willfully ignore proof, so observe it for yourself.

Not sure what your point is. I never felt the car unstable either in a straight line or a turn. I care more about what I feel as a driver than what some gauge on a lift in a garage says. I'd say that gauge is probably even less relevant to car handling than a skidpad is.

Quote:

Sure. Any head to head test shows the mustang winning. Perhaps you might choose c&d's "best handling car under $40k," showing the mustang doing 70-0 in 154' vs the z's 158.

will check it when i go home. i think i have that magazine.

Quote:

I will never understand this forum's fixation on defending the z as a "sports car."

You don't get what makes a "sports car" the way it is?

m4a1mustang · 02-02-2012, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pharmacist

Not sure what your point is. I never felt the car unstable either in a straight line or a turn. I care more about what I feel as a driver than what some gauge on a lift in a garage says. I'd say that gauge is probably even less relevant to car handling than a skidpad is.

I guess that's why race teams spend more time on the skid pad than they do trying to understand dynamic toe. /sarcasm.

Red__Zed · 02-02-2012, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pharmacist

laptimes are also dependent on power and straight line acceleration too. show me ONE test when a mustang outhandled a z. car and driver (i think) tested best handling cars, and they found out after eliminating the straight sections from lap times that the mustang and z were pretty much even.

Dead even without straights. Tells you exactly what I said.

Quote:

Not sure what your point is. I never felt the car unstable either in a straight line or a turn. I care more about what I feel as a driver than what some gauge on a lift in a garage says. I'd say that gauge is probably even less relevant to car handling than a skidpad is.

Other people notice it. Your experience in a whopping 1 rwd car in your life means I don't put much stake in your ability to feel subtleties like that.

Quote:

will check it when i go home. i think i have that magazine.
You don't get what makes a "sports car" the way it is?

No, I do. It is just very subjective, and largely irrelevant to the discussion.

red6spd · 02-02-2012, 08:27 AM

Uh ohhhhh. Disagreement!!!!!!!! Lol. I don't think Dan is a good judge of the Z since he seems to have had such a bad experience with it then I think anyone else on the forum.

ihatepotholes · 02-02-2012, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red__Zed

As promised:

5.0

The handling prowess of the new 5.0 is absolutely, disgustingly amazing. The car bites in sharp, corners flat, and exits with as much power as you could hope for. Balance is incredibly neutral, meaning you are using all four tires at the limit (side note: this neutral handling is awesome for actual track use, generating great feel and response, but costs on skidpad grip, since it is (misleadingly) done in a throttle-on state)

Even relative to my Z with the best alignment I could find for it (no front toe, 3* camber in the front, 2.5* in the rear), the Mustang holds its own. Against a stock alignment Z, the Mustang bites in far harder and seems much more eager to dig into a turn, belying its obesity.

i don't know what you drove, but my Boss 302's handling is far from absolutely, disgustingly amazing even with adj dampers on the hardest setting. my Z handled better than my boss, not only it did not have the brake dive it had far less body roll. Z's steering is just on another level compared to the Boss; far more direct, precise and sensitive.

yes, Z has slight bump steer. however, mustang has far worse than bump steer to deal with. have you ever hit a bump while corning in your mustang? let me tell you it is not a good feeling, regardless what ford did to hide the SRA's characteristic it is still there, and you'll know that when you get on a bumpy road.

unless you think 5.0 GT out handles the Boss 302 i find that review slightly biased.

m4a1mustang · 02-02-2012, 10:19 AM

The 5.0 actually has less body roll than the Z when measured. It's the added mass and faster roll rate that make it seem like it has more.

Red__Zed · 02-02-2012, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ihatepotholes

i don't know what you drove, but my Boss 302's handling is far from absolutely, disgustingly amazing even with adj dampers on the hardest setting. my Z handled better than my boss, not only it did not have the brake dive it had far less body roll. Z's steering is just on another level compared to the Boss; far more directly, precise and sensitive.

unless you think 5.0 GT out handles the Boss 302 i find that review slightly biased.

Running the hardest setting on the dampers anywhere in nj is your problem.

Body roll is less, see any objective numbers. It might feel different due to the higher roll rate, but objectively it corners as flat.

Brake dive is worse, not part of handling.

Steering was covered, if you read the post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by red6spd

Uh ohhhhh. Disagreement!!!!!!!! Lol. I don't think Dan is a good judge of the Z since he seems to have had such a bad experience with it then I think anyone else on the forum.

Right. Instead, let's listen to the guy who is on his first rwd car, never taken a rwd car to a track or autox, and doesn't understand VD. you are welcome to disagree, but you've been warned before not to come cause trouble here.

m4a1mustang · 02-02-2012, 10:33 AM

I was thinking a little bit earlier about how "handling" is truly subjective. Regardless of numbers or track results how a car "handles" is entirely up to the person driving.

A good example would be the difference in setups between NASCAR cars. If you examine the setups from Jimmie Johnson and Jeff Gordon (same team) you'll find that the setups are completely different. Jimmie Johnson prefers a car that rotates freely to the point where you're turning the car with the right rear wheel. On the other hand Jeff Gordon likes a more neutral car with maybe a hint of understeer. He prefers to steer the car with the front wheels rather than the back wheels.

The interesting part is that even though both setups are almost opposite of one another, they both run similar lap times. They are accomplishing the same result by a different approach. Jeff Gordon might not think Jimmie Johnson's car handles nearly as well as his, even though they're equally as quick.

You could say that perhaps Johnson would prefer driving the 5.0 and Gordon would prefer driving the Z. Whether a car handles well or not is completely up to the driver. Does it do what you want and feel like you want it to feel? If yes, then it handles well. If not, then it doesn't.

In the end it's just a difficult thing to argue because different drivers prefer different feelings. But certainly it's very hard to argue lap times. If a car is fast it's fast... there's no denying that!

ihatepotholes · 02-02-2012, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red__Zed

Running the hardest setting on the dampers anywhere in nj is your problem.

Body roll is less, see any objective numbers. It might feel different due to the higher roll rate, but objectively it corners as flat.

Brake dive is worse, not part of handling.

Steering was covered, if you read the post.

what's that suppose to mean? roads are as flat as it gets by where i live. brake dive is not part of handling?

more body roll "feel" gives drivers less confident, it is a negative no matter how you spin it. i don't care what the number says, significant seat time in both cars tell me Z handles better.

02-01-2012, 11:41 PM	#2523 (permalink)
Alchemy A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Jersey Age: 44 Posts: 4,855 Drives: to acquire tickets Rep Power: 3524	This will turn to carnage soon enough. IBTRL (In Before The Re-Lock) __________________ Ryan 314WHP \| 260LB-FT \| STILLEN \| KONI \| SWIFT \| STOPTECH \| Z1 \| PROJECT MU \| CNT \| UPREV \| FORGESTAR \| BRIDGESTONE \| PWJDM \| ENEOS \| MOTUL

02-02-2012, 08:27 AM	#2530 (permalink)
red6spd A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Long Island NY Posts: 3,277 Drives: 2010 Z Coupe M6 SPT Rep Power: 21	Uh ohhhhh. Disagreement!!!!!!!! Lol. I don't think Dan is a good judge of the Z since he seems to have had such a bad experience with it then I think anyone else on the forum. __________________ 2010 Base+Sport 6spd: Stillen G3, FI Non-Resonated CBE, FI Non-Resonated Test Pipes, UpRev Tuned, Custom 24R Oil Cooler, JDM Rear Fog-OEM Harness. ???Whp ???WTQ (Will find out come spring time)

02-02-2012, 10:19 AM	#2532 (permalink)
m4a1mustang A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Northern VA Posts: 55,385 Drives: on two wheels Rep Power: 6962	The 5.0 actually has less body roll than the Z when measured. It's the added mass and faster roll rate that make it seem like it has more. __________________ - Steve Zs & Coffee - Saturdays at 10AM in Fairfax, VA and Columbia, MD (Click the banner!) LIKE us on Facebook!

02-02-2012, 10:33 AM	#2534 (permalink)
m4a1mustang A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Northern VA Posts: 55,385 Drives: on two wheels Rep Power: 6962	I was thinking a little bit earlier about how "handling" is truly subjective. Regardless of numbers or track results how a car "handles" is entirely up to the person driving. A good example would be the difference in setups between NASCAR cars. If you examine the setups from Jimmie Johnson and Jeff Gordon (same team) you'll find that the setups are completely different. Jimmie Johnson prefers a car that rotates freely to the point where you're turning the car with the right rear wheel. On the other hand Jeff Gordon likes a more neutral car with maybe a hint of understeer. He prefers to steer the car with the front wheels rather than the back wheels. The interesting part is that even though both setups are almost opposite of one another, they both run similar lap times. They are accomplishing the same result by a different approach. Jeff Gordon might not think Jimmie Johnson's car handles nearly as well as his, even though they're equally as quick. You could say that perhaps Johnson would prefer driving the 5.0 and Gordon would prefer driving the Z. Whether a car handles well or not is completely up to the driver. Does it do what you want and feel like you want it to feel? If yes, then it handles well. If not, then it doesn't. In the end it's just a difficult thing to argue because different drivers prefer different feelings. But certainly it's very hard to argue lap times. If a car is fast it's fast... there's no denying that! __________________ - Steve Zs & Coffee - Saturdays at 10AM in Fairfax, VA and Columbia, MD (Click the banner!) LIKE us on Facebook!