The 2011+ Mustang Thread - Page 118 - Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums

fazm · 03-24-2010, 09:05 PM

the only thing i can see that might be off is if they dyno'ed it in 4th instead of 5th

Inferno2SS · 03-24-2010, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2010 SSRS

where is the dyno sheet.

I want to see it too, every other video I have seen from edmunds on the Mustang has been slanted.

Black5thgen · 03-24-2010, 09:38 PM

Lol, another mustang owner posting propaganda.

*Mr. Wyndham* · 03-24-2010, 09:38 PM

Is that thing SAE certified? If it is....something's WAY off...

if not...heh. Cool. Ford underrated their engine -- but since the rating still falls short of its competitors...something still seems off.

fazm · 03-24-2010, 10:09 PM

should be sae certified, thought all engines had to be.

fazm · 03-24-2010, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2010 SSRS

where is the dyno sheet.

oh and it appears they did dyno it in 4th, not sure which way that throws results.

bpmurr · 03-24-2010, 10:16 PM

I dyno used on this test is a Dynojet 248. Maybe someone can give us insight on how this dyno compares to other brands and models. I know Mustang Dynos (the brand not Mustangs on a dyno) usually produce the lowest numbers.

BackinBlackSS/RS · 03-24-2010, 10:21 PM

You guys are dreaming if you think the 2011 Mustangs are gonna dyno that much. Not gonna happen.

bpmurr · 03-24-2010, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BackinBlackSS/RS

You guys are dreaming if you think the 2011 Mustangs are gonna dyno that much. Not gonna happen.

I don't trust them without more details. Edmunds got 511RWHP on a stock 2010 GT500. I haven't seen one yet dyno that high on a Dynojet or Mustang Dyno without mods.

THE EVIL TW1N · 03-24-2010, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bpmurr

I don't trust them without more details. Edmunds got 511RWHP on a stock 2010 GT500. I haven't seen one yet dyno that high on a Dynojet or Mustang Dyno without mods.

+1

Judging by how off they were on that GT500, proportionately, the new 5.0 will probably make only ~370 rwhp.

THE EVIL TW1N · 03-24-2010, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fazm

should be sae certified, thought all engines had to be.

no engine HAS to be SAE Certified. it is up to the manufacturers. Dodge doesn't certify the 6.1 Hemi's just as ford didn't certify the 3v 4.6's.

I do think Ford is going to certify the 5.0, im just not sure they have yet.

DeathChill · 03-24-2010, 11:35 PM

I miss the times where Ninjak and crew would show up and say how we'll all see and that we're wrong. :(

a_Username · 03-24-2010, 11:41 PM

I'm not buying it. That would mean they underrated it by over 40+hp.

mrray13 · 03-24-2010, 11:44 PM

That dyno chart shows less then a 5% loss through the driveline for horsepower, assuming the Mustang is 412 at the crank. If it's 419, then that's just over 5% loss, I honestly can't remember what the damn thing is supposed to be at the crank, lol.

At 393 ft-lb at the crank, that 365 is a 7% loss.

In short, something isn't right. I can see these cars at ~350rwhp and ~335 ft-lb of torque at the ground, given an approximate 15% loss in drivetrain, for the manual cars. 395/365? Someone is smoking crack, lol. Is that AirR....errr, ummm, I'll shut up now.

View Poll Results: .
Camaro	0	0%
Mustang	0	0%
Voters: 0. You may not vote on this poll

03-24-2010, 09:38 PM	#1642
Mr. Wyndham I used to be Dragoneye... Drives: 2018 ZL1 1LE Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Buffalo, NY Posts: 31,873 View My Garage	Is that thing SAE certified? If it is....something's WAY off... if not...heh. Cool. Ford underrated their engine -- but since the rating still falls short of its competitors...something still seems off. __________________ *"Keep the faith."* - Fbodfather

03-24-2010, 10:16 PM	#1645
bpmurr The Enemy ;) Drives: 2017 Shelby GT350 Join Date: May 2009 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 489	I dyno used on this test is a Dynojet 248. Maybe someone can give us insight on how this dyno compares to other brands and models. I know Mustang Dynos (the brand not Mustangs on a dyno) usually produce the lowest numbers. __________________ 2017 Shelby GT350 Former Stangs: 2016 Shelby GT350 2015 GT PP 2014 GT500 SVTPP/Track Pack 2013 Boss 302 2011 GT500 SVTPP 2010 GT500 2005 GT

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Camaro VS Mustang Mega Thread	Beau Tie	Chevy Camaro vs...	3644	03-09-2012 08:45 PM
Gran Turismo 5... No Camaro?	5thGenOwner	5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions	111	12-06-2011 11:06 AM
Official 2011 Mustang GT info released	nester7929	General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion	81	12-28-2009 04:13 PM

03-24-2010, 09:05 PM	#1639
fazm Drives: ex-500hp v6 mustang Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: arizona Posts: 605	the only thing i can see that might be off is if they dyno'ed it in 4th instead of 5th

03-24-2010, 09:38 PM	#1641
Black5thgen Account Suspended Drives: 2007 C6 Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: chicago Posts: 2,251 View My Garage	Lol, another mustang owner posting propaganda.

03-24-2010, 10:09 PM	#1643
fazm Drives: ex-500hp v6 mustang Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: arizona Posts: 605	should be sae certified, thought all engines had to be.

03-24-2010, 10:21 PM	#1646
BackinBlackSS/RS Go Blue!!!!! Drives: 2012 Cruze LT Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Indiana Posts: 23,290	You guys are dreaming if you think the 2011 Mustangs are gonna dyno that much. Not gonna happen.

03-24-2010, 11:35 PM	#1650
DeathChill Drives: 2010 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 2.0T Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Mission, BC Posts: 862	I miss the times where Ninjak and crew would show up and say how we'll all see and that we're wrong. :(

03-24-2010, 11:41 PM	#1651
a_Username Drives: 2010 2SS Camaro Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Murfreesboro, TN Posts: 3,890 View My Garage	I'm not buying it. That would mean they underrated it by over 40+hp.

03-24-2010, 11:44 PM	#1652
mrray13 Drives: 2010 1LT RS Rally Yellow Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: southern Illinois Posts: 2,973	That dyno chart shows less then a 5% loss through the driveline for horsepower, assuming the Mustang is 412 at the crank. If it's 419, then that's just over 5% loss, I honestly can't remember what the damn thing is supposed to be at the crank, lol. At 393 ft-lb at the crank, that 365 is a 7% loss. In short, something isn't right. I can see these cars at ~350rwhp and ~335 ft-lb of torque at the ground, given an approximate 15% loss in drivetrain, for the manual cars. 395/365? Someone is smoking crack, lol. Is that AirR....errr, ummm, I'll shut up now.