The 2011+ Mustang Thread

[Stew]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

With todays production tolerances we are going to see 30+ hp differences between motors? I sure hope ford can do better than that. For your sake.

Enjoy it stew. I know its been since 1992 that a ford fan could brag about a GT. Im happy for you. The little pony can finally hold its own

Woot, I've called a dodge fanboy here and now I am being called a Ford fanboy (basically) SWEET! As I said I doubt it is correct, as I also said, dyno results don't mean jack, it's what happens when the cars hit the track Oh I am still trying to make the choice between the Camaro and the Mustang, so don't call me in the Ford camp (or any camp) yet LOL.

[rayhawk]

Originally Posted by ViperTomcat

Well, we dont have solid numbers, but we can make guesstimates based on known players.

The L99 SS has a curb weight of just over 3900 lbs, puts 320-330 HP to the wheels and has a average 0-60 run of just under 5 seconds and an average 1/4 mile run of 13 flat.

The 2011 GT has a curb weight of around 3600 lb, but we'll say 3650 with options. Estimates put the RWHP at around 350 with an automatic transmission.

Figure the new GT will run from 0-60 in 4.4-4.5 seconds and run the 1/4 in 12.7-12.9 bone stock.

So the new GT has 12 more hp than an L99 but is going to put 20-30 more to the ground?

[0-60n4.6]

yeah the Auto GT will put down more power than the A6 SS the gm cars seem to have alot of HP lost through the drivetrain much more so than the Mustang....ive always wondered why

[81z28355]

Originally Posted by 0-60n4.6

yeah the Auto GT will put down more power than the A6 SS the gm cars seem to have alot of HP lost through the drivetrain much more so than the Mustang....ive always wondered why

Does the IRS suck up some power?

As far as what car will be faster good rule is 100lbs of weight removed gives .1 in the 1/4 mile. So I would say with the same driver and great traction for both cars the Mustang should pull on a L99 car by about .3 seconds.

The other rule of thumb is for every 10hp you pick up .1, so I would say the LS3 will be about .2 behind the Mustang.

But who cares, who here is going to keep their Mustang or Camaro stock?

My rule is, he who has more money goes faster.

[Super83Z]

Originally Posted by sik68

As has already been indicated by a couple people in this thread, dynoing a car in a lower (ie a "shorter" gear) does not make a Dynojet read higher. In the same way that "shortening" your differential ratio will not show a positive effect on a dyno, neither will your transmission ratio.

Your just flat out wrong, no ifs, ands or buts about it. I suggest you just make a call to a local dyno shop in the area and ask them what happens to power numbers when a car is not dynoed in a 1:1 ratio.

Originally Posted by 0-60n4.6

yeah the Auto GT will put down more power than the A6 SS the gm cars seem to have alot of HP lost through the drivetrain much more so than the Mustang....ive always wondered why

Three letters for you: AOD

[fazm]

Originally Posted by Super83Z

Your just flat out wrong, no ifs, ands or buts about it. I suggest you just make a call to a local dyno shop in the area and ask them what happens to power numbers when a car is not dynoed in a 1:1 ratio.



Three letters for you: AOD

what bout AOD

ill quote from another forum

This is what Kevin Lockliear at Dynojet had to say:

"Typically, you will see the highest numbers in the 1:1 or closest to 1:1 ratio gear. This is because no additional power is being exhausted to accelerate the inertia of the drivetrain. In 2nd gear, let’s say, because the gearing allows the car to accelerate more quickly, more HP will be used to accelerate the inertia of the drivetrain than in 1:1. See my graph below. This example was a 1996 Pontiac Trans Am WS6, all gear run. Ignore the small shift spikes at the beginning of each gear as that’s an inertia spike (where letting the clutch out abruptly against an engine with higher RPM than matching the next gear at that speed causes a brief quick acceleration of the drums).



As you can see, the HP was the highest in the 1:1 gear, and lower in other gears. From what I have experienced, the further you get from 1:1, the lower the power getting to the wheels and drum surface will be, as more is used to accelerate the inertia of the drivetrain, overcome frictional losses in meshing gears, side loading bearings, etc."

[snakekiller]

heres the real numbers by Motor-Trend2011
Mustang 5.0
3rd gear (1.69:1)
Horsepower: 365.26 hp @ 6600 rpm
Torque: 335.27 lb ft @ 4500 rpm

4th gear (1.32:1)
Horsepower: 377.99 hp @ 6500 rpm
Torque: 351.44 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm

2011 Mustang V-6
3rd gear (1.67:1)
Horsepower: 268.06 hp @ 6700 rpm
Torque: 249.95 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm

4th gear (1.24:1)
Horsepower: 267.11 hp @ 5800 rpm
Torque: 259.90 lb-ft @ 4100 rpm

2011 Mustang 5.0 (4th gear pull, 15% powertrain loss)
Claimed horsepower: 412 hp @ 6500 rpm
Claimed torque: 390 lb-ft @ 4250 rpm
Actual horsepower: 435 hp 6500 rpm
Actual torque: 404 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm

2011 Mustang V-6 (3rd gear pull, 15% powertrain loss)
Claimed horsepower: 305 hp @ 6500 rpm
Claimed torque: 280 lb-ft @ 4250 rpm
Actual horsepower: 308 hp @ 6700 rpm
Actual torque: 287 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm
2011 Mustang 5.0 (4th gear pull, 15% powertrain loss)
Claimed horsepower: 412 hp @ 6500 rpm
Claimed torque: 390 lb-ft @ 4250 rpm
Actual horsepower: 435 hp 6500 rpm
Actual torque: 404 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm

2011 Mustang V-6 (3rd gear pull, 15% powertrain loss)
Claimed horsepower: 305 hp @ 6500 rpm
Claimed torque: 280 lb-ft @ 4250 rpm
Actual horsepower: 308 hp @ 6700 rpm
Actual torque: 287 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm

Read more: http://wot.motortrend.com/6659607/auto-news/mustang-power-we-dyno-the-2011-ford-mustang-50-v-8-and-37-v-6/index.html#ixzz0jLAYSK3f

[snakekiller]

377.99 hp @ 6500 rpm
351.44 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm @ the rear wheels
very respectable numbers
i think its time for me to upgrade my 68 Firebird's power, that 350 is getting rusty.

[fazm]

377s pretty damn solid, and def more believable

[DeathChill]

Will wait for real world numbers before making any judgements. I am sure they'll likely be in line with Ford's numbers; I can't imagine now would be a time to underrate based on competition and the fact that SAE information is showing 412, unless Ford has made improvements since then. Regardless, it's exciting!

[2K05GT]

Here are the SAE Numbers

Based on what data I have been able to gather these are the output figures of the 5.0 during the J1349 certification test.

91 RON (87 AKI)- 406/381
98 RON (93 AKI)- 416/394

You are allowed a +/- 1% deviation so Ford chose to rate the engine at:

87 AKI (R+M/2) 402/377
91 AKI (R+M/2) 412/390

Im still somewhat baffled by the use of 98 RON during the Premium Fuel Test.

While I was intially leaning toward the engine being underated I know believe that othe than the small amount noted above its simply a "happy" dyno.

My vote is for 366 rwhp average on a dynojet.

Originally Posted by 0-60n4.6

every mustang ive ever seen on the dyno including mine was done in 4th just like every camaro ive seen on the dyno was done in 5th...the new 5.0 will put down around 360 on the avg the vid was just on the high end

Manual (MT82) 6 Speed
--1----2----3----4----5----6
3.66 2.43 1.69 1.32 1.00 0.65

Automatic (6R80) 6 Speed
--1----2----3----4----5----6
4.17 2.34 1.52 1.14 0.86 0.69

This car in the Dyno is clearly a Manual (Sound) and should have been pulled in 5th gear 1 to 1 by doing it in 4th the numbers would read higher.

An Auto would be pulled in 4th to get close to the actual numbers.

[derklug]

Can't say for certain, but the lower number could come from the Legal Department. Nobody sues for false advertising if your numbers are higher. I would argue that line over a beer.

[DeathChill]

Motortrend article says the track numbers come on Monday? Exciting!

[fazm]

monday 12:01, not sure which timezone though