The 2011+ Mustang Thread

[thebrander]

Originally Posted by Super83Z

I don't think you read this part:

Ha! You're right. Sorry, I don't mean to act like the people I despise, but I indeed cannot help myself. Time to shut up and go drive aggressively...

Cheers!

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by thebrander

... unless you're a roadracer like myself. The low-end torque is a great blessing to have so that you're not having to carry the RPM's through the turns. Roadracing is also the argument for staying NA. Heaksoak kills power halfway through your session.

(not that anyway here probably cares, just pointing out that I'm truly unbiased about how easy it is to FI the 5.0's and LS3's because I have absolutely no desire to do so)

Torque below 3k RPM's or so is completely irrelevant in road racing or any kind of racing for that matter. While it may be easier to stay in single gears and use the low-end torque to carry you out of apexes and not have to downshift entering turns, it is not the fastest way around a track. If you're doing any kind of serious road racing and say, "i'm not happy with my torque output under 3,500 rpm" people will laugh at you. The 5.0's torque output is very similar to the camaro's in the USABLE rpm range, if not higher. You don't race at 3,000 rpm. A linear torque curve or one that peaks near redline is always best for racing because you will produce more power that way. Look at the wrx STi for example. On the stock turbo, those things can peak at over 350ft lbs to all four wheels, but it's at <4k rpm's, so they don't make over 300awhp or so and won't break out of the mid 12's at best. If that 350 ft lbs was higher in the rpm range, those cars could be making 380+awhp and running mid 11's.

[truth411]

Heres my very honest opinon, Lots of stuff was already said in this thread. Basicaly when it comes down to it is.

If you disire Naturaly aspirated performance, then OHV>DOHC (OHV pwns DOHC mod for mod while being affordalbe.)

If you disire F.I. performace, then DOHC>OHV (assumimg you want to boost to the moon.)

JMVHO.

[thebrander]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

Torque below 3k RPM's or so is completely irrelevant in road racing or any kind of racing for that matter. While it may be easier to stay in single gears and use the low-end torque to carry you out of apexes and not have to downshift entering turns, it is not the fastest way around a track. If you're doing any kind of serious road racing and say, "i'm not happy with my torque output under 3,500 rpm" people will laugh at you. The 5.0's torque output is very similar to the camaro's in the USABLE rpm range, if not higher. You don't race at 3,000 rpm. A linear torque curve or one that peaks near redline is always best for racing because you will produce more power that way. Look at the wrx STi for example. On the stock turbo, those things can peak at over 350ft lbs to all four wheels, but it's at <4k rpm's, so they don't make over 300awhp or so and won't break out of the mid 12's at best. If that 350 ft lbs was higher in the rpm range, those cars could be making 380+awhp and running mid 11's.

As they should. No one said all you need is low end torque and a nonlinear dropoff at redline. Unless you are already a pro driver, low end torque is an advantage on a roadcourse. The less you have to shift a standard (non race) gearbox the better. However, even the pros benefit from low end torque. Checkout the torque profile on the corvette race cars. Monster torque, but lower redline than stock (talking about the C6R.GT in ALMS vs the stock ZR1 that it is based on).

There was a guy who won a time trial challenge at MSR last year in his Viper ACR and he stayed in 3rd almost the whole time! If that's your "baseline" for the track, and then you throw in the occasional downshift and upshift at a few key points, you will be pretty damn fast. I use the same strategy in my C6Z. I'll stay in one or two gears early on and many times I'm running people down with just that strategy. As the day goes on, I'll start shifting more, but it does not translate to a very large drop in lap time.

Not saying it's the absolute fastest way to drive. Just saying I've seen first hand that it's just easier to drive fast with high torque. I should also mention that I've tracked a Lotus Elise that has almost no torque and required a lot more skill to go fast.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by ViperTomcat

What I was saying is that a smaller displacement engine will need to spin up faster and to a higher RPM to produce power as fast if not faster than the 6.2. Compare the 4.0L V8 found in the BMW M3 vs the 6.2L V8 found in the Mercedes C63 AMG. The smaller motor spools up much faster than the 6.2 because it has to make up for a smaller displacement.

By their nature, a large displacement push-rod engine will run up slower than a DOHC, smaller engine, it also wont rev as high.

The 5.7L, 6.1L Hemi's, the L99 and LS3, etc..all considered "lazy". Powerful!..but not as fast to produce power as non pushrod V8's.

actually the engine making more tq will rev faster, given equal gearing. Smaller engines making the same hp as larger engines GENERALLY do it by revving higher (not faster). In order to compensate for less lower end tq and the (typically) higher revving capabilities, better gearing is necessary.

if DOHC's revved faster, that would mean they accelerate faster, which would then mean they are producing more power/tq.

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by thebrander

As they should. No one said all you need is low end torque and a nonlinear dropoff at redline. Unless you are already a pro driver, low end torque is an advantage on a roadcourse. The less you have to shift a standard (non race) gearbox the better. However, even the pros benefit from low end torque. Checkout the torque profile on the corvette race cars. Monster torque, but lower redline than stock (talking about the C6R.GT in ALMS vs the stock ZR1 that it is based on).

There was a guy who won a time trial challenge at MSR last year in his Viper ACR and he stayed in 3rd almost the whole time! If that's your "baseline" for the track, and then you throw in the occasional downshift and upshift at a few key points, you will be pretty damn fast. I use the same strategy in my C6Z. I'll stay in one or two gears early on and many times I'm running people down with just that strategy. As the day goes on, I'll start shifting more, but it does not translate to a very large drop in lap time.

Not saying it's the absolute fastest way to drive. Just saying I've seen first hand that it's just easier to drive fast with high torque. I should also mention that I've tracked a Lotus Elise that has almost no torque and required a lot more skill to go fast.

Oh, I completely agree it is easier with more torque, I was simply stating that it is not necessary and in the end, a higher revving high hp engine is usually the preferred.

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

actually the engine making more tq will rev faster, given equal gearing. Smaller engines making the same hp as larger engines GENERALLY do it by revving higher (not faster). In order to compensate for less lower end tq and the (typically) higher revving capabilities, better gearing is necessary.

if DOHC's revved faster, that would mean they accelerate faster, which would then mean they are producing more power/tq.

I somewhat agree, but keep in mind a longer stroke usually translates to more torque output. Higher revving engines more often use a short stroke while high torque output engines use longer strokes with smaller bores. How quickly an engine revs under load is more dependent on gearing and torque/weight, but a lower torque output engine will usually be paired with a much taller gear ratio.

I like the way this thread is going. A lot of good technical discussion and information sharing, which is nice and a rarity on car forums these days. Keep up the respectful discussions guys!

[Unfair]

Originally Posted by Super83Z

Funny I don't remember there being a class action lawsuit against Chevy for the L99, but I do remember the one that made Ford recall the 99 Cobra.



And no one has even run the 12.6 in a 2011 Mustang that everyone is quoting but I don't see you jumping all over that. The 12.6 for the Stang is fictional at this point. Who cares about averages? I want to know the potential of the car not the monkey behind the wheel.

I didn't say the 2011 Mustang ran 12.6 It hasn't happend.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by Dboy23

Nuff said.

I missed that video! I never would have seen it had you not pointed it out!

Whoah... that's enlightening... the premiere tuners for each brand submit their big guns for testing and the Camaro annihilates them both. LOL!

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

I missed that video! I never would have seen it had you not pointed it out!

Whoah... that's enlightening... the premiere tuners for each brand submit their big guns for testing and the Camaro annihilates them both. LOL!

Some retards driving those cars. Both the mustang and the camaro traps are too low and those ET's are a joke. 120/121 traps from a 630rwhp gt500 and a 615rwhp SS. Really? Sounds like both cars probably spun like crazy and didn't go WOT 'til 3rd gear LOL.

[Sax1031]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

I missed that video! I never would have seen it had you not pointed it out!

Whoah... that's enlightening... the premiere tuners for each brand submit their big guns for testing and the Camaro annihilates them both. LOL!

Running cars of that power against each other on anything other than a drag radial or slick is retarded.

I want to see them take them to the strip with some tires and run them.

I know Evan Smith went a 10.8 @ 134mph in a 2008 Super Snake with ET Streets.

The times on that video are no indication of what the cars can run.

[joelster]

I just read through this whole thread and none of you guys answered the Op's question as to why the Ford motor is more efficient, lol.

It has A LOT to do with 4-valves per cylinder for the Ford vs 2-valves per cylinder for the Chevy. In a round cylinder which all motors have, if you are running 2 valves (1 intake and 1 exhaust) and they aren't canted much you can only go to roughly 2.1" on the intake and 1.7" on the exhaust with a 4" bore. On the Ford design you can run 2- 1.5" intake valves and 2- 1.2" exhaust valves, with a 4" bore. The actual surface area of the Ford intake and exhaust valves is substantially higher vs the Chevy valves.

What does this mean?

In a nutshell, it means at any given valve lift, the Ford has the ability to pack more air and fuel into the cylinder if the cylinder were the same size as the Chevy. In this particular case Ford went with a smaller cylinder and smaller displacement (5.0), but it is actually cramming about the same amount of air/fuel into it as the Chevy (6.2)motor.

There are other factors at play here such as the intake manifold efficiency, the intake runner design which doesn't have to concern intself with pushrods getting in the way, and friction losses due to pushrods and rocker arms, but the big difference is the number of valves per cylinder.

[HIGHOCTANE]

Originally Posted by joelster

I just read through this whole thread and none of you guys answered the Op's question as to why the Ford motor is more efficient, lol.

It has A LOT to do with 4-valves per cylinder for the Ford vs 2-valves per cylinder for the Chevy. In a round cylinder which all motors have, if you are running 2 valves (1 intake and 1 exhaust) and they aren't canted much you can only go to roughly 2.1" on the intake and 1.7" on the exhaust with a 4" bore. On the Ford design you can run 2- 1.5" intake valves and 2- 1.2" exhaust valves, with a 4" bore. The actual surface area of the Ford intake and exhaust valves is substantially higher vs the Chevy valves.

What does this mean?

In a nutshell, it means at any given valve lift, the Ford has the ability to pack more air and fuel into the cylinder if the cylinder were the same size as the Chevy. In this particular case Ford went with a smaller cylinder and smaller displacement (5.0), but it is actually cramming about the same amount of air/fuel into it as the Chevy (6.2)motor.

There are other factors at play here such as the intake manifold efficiency, the intake runner design which doesn't have to concern intself with pushrods getting in the way, and friction losses due to pushrods and rocker arms, but the big difference is the number of valves per cylinder.

IMO the Chevy Engineers have worked hard to keep the push rod motors in the game...and have done an excellent job.
The 4V motors breathe very well...simple physics...they have an advantage....a 6.2 DOHC 4V engine designed by the GM engineers would be SICK...I reaslly hope they go this route with the Z....it doesn't need a blower or more displacement...4V DOHC JMO

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by Sax1031

Running cars of that power against each other on anything other than a drag radial or slick is retarded.

I want to see them take them to the strip with some tires and run them.

I know Evan Smith went a 10.8 @ 134mph in a 2008 Super Snake with ET Streets.

The times on that video are no indication of what the cars can run.

...And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.

By the way, wouldn't those drag radials mess up the skidpad/slalom/track tests? Seems like they were testing these as all-around performance cars, bit just straight line drag performers.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by joelster

I just read through this whole thread and none of you guys answered the Op's question as to why the Ford motor is more efficient, lol.

It has A LOT to do with 4-valves per cylinder for the Ford vs 2-valves per cylinder for the Chevy. In a round cylinder which all motors have, if you are running 2 valves (1 intake and 1 exhaust) and they aren't canted much you can only go to roughly 2.1" on the intake and 1.7" on the exhaust with a 4" bore. On the Ford design you can run 2- 1.5" intake valves and 2- 1.2" exhaust valves, with a 4" bore. The actual surface area of the Ford intake and exhaust valves is substantially higher vs the Chevy valves.

What does this mean?

In a nutshell, it means at any given valve lift, the Ford has the ability to pack more air and fuel into the cylinder if the cylinder were the same size as the Chevy. In this particular case Ford went with a smaller cylinder and smaller displacement (5.0), but it is actually cramming about the same amount of air/fuel into it as the Chevy (6.2)motor.

There are other factors at play here such as the intake manifold efficiency, the intake runner design which doesn't have to concern intself with pushrods getting in the way, and friction losses due to pushrods and rocker arms, but the big difference is the number of valves per cylinder.

Somehwere in this discussion is the often overlooked fact that these valves have stems which subtract from the overall area of the valve opening, but for some reason nobody ever mentions it. Perhaps because it narrows the gap?