The 2011+ Mustang Thread

[HIGHOCTANE]

Originally Posted by SonnyakaPig

That's insane. I know this is kind of off subject, but when I think of 826 rwhp, I wonder how safe it is to drive on city streets. What happens if you quickly try to pass another car and there is kind of good amount of traffic. Wouldn't you just roast your tires and turn sideways with even half throttle?

Deadly in the wrong hands...my 2003 TT Cobra made 89x RWHP at 21psi on a Mustang Dyno...I've been driving modded high power cars for years...but honestly that is just too much power for the street..in 3rd gear it would violently light up 315 Hoosier drag radials at over 80 MPH when the boost came on..
Nice thing about turbos and electronic boost controllers...you can set the boost where you want it at the touch of a button..anything over about 680-700 RWHP is a waste on the street IMO so I ran about 11-15psi (~600-700 RWHP) most of the time on the street...890 was fun for the occasional scaring the crap out of someone but 600-700 was actually more fun to drive.

Oh and running 11.9s and faster on street tires is no small feat and power is only one part of the equation...

As for Kenne Bell and 1000 HP...I haven't looked at the site in a while..but usually those numbers they put up are based on how much power the blower can support based on how much air it can flow...Mustang or Camaro if you want that kind of power reliably it is going to take alot more than just strapping on a blower and turning up the boost...alot more.
I've owned Kenn Belles and Whipples..in the past the main deciding factor between one or the other(as long as the size was the same) was really which look you preferred.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by wbt

LS3 yes and streetability is just fine. Nothing radical. Texas Speed has done this along with several other vendors on this site. Daily drivers.

Intake is good for 15WHP
Exhaust is good for 35WHP
Cam is good for 80WHP
Porting is good for 25WHP

This is all with a tune. Pretty easy to get 500WHP with those mods. Picking the correct combination is critical.

all that adds up to big money......stock intake manifold? stock valvesprings? stock throttle body? stock MAF? stock fuel pump? stock fuel injectors? stock gears? stock timing chain? stock rockers? stock pushrods? stock valves? when its all said and done, 500rwhp is not just a few boltons away. Shoot, the stuff you just listed already puts it at close to $4000 i believe and then plus all the stuff you forgot to put? not to mention that 500whp is probably without catalyctic converters and youll never pass smog with a lopy idle (and polluting more). You might just be better off buying a supercharger kit!

[jordan 572]

now i know the new mustang is suppose to be faster than the ss but i read a post where the new gt is suppose to do 0-60 in 4.3 i find that hard to believe. i seen and article where the 2010 gt 500 was suppose to do a 0-60 in 4.3 seconds but they only got it to do it in 4.7. so how is the 415 hp gt suppose to be as fast as the 530hp [or whatever they have in the gt 500] gt 500 when the gt 500? i think the 0-60 should be very close to the ss since the straight axle doesnt get great traction. like the guy that said he drove the gt 500 of his friends at work and he said it pulled hard in 3rd gear because it finally got traction. I do believe the new gt will be faster in the 1/4 by a tiny bit. boo

[ViperTomcat]

Originally Posted by jordan 572

now i know the new mustang is suppose to be faster than the ss but i read a post where the new gt is suppose to do 0-60 in 4.3 i find that hard to believe. i seen and article where the 2010 gt 500 was suppose to do a 0-60 in 4.3 seconds but they only got it to do it in 4.7. so how is the 415 hp gt suppose to be as fast as the 530hp [or whatever they have in the gt 500] gt 500 when the gt 500? i think the 0-60 should be very close to the ss since the straight axle doesnt get great traction. like the guy that said he drove the gt 500 of his friends at work and he said it pulled hard in 3rd gear because it finally got traction. I do believe the new gt will be faster in the 1/4 by a tiny bit. boo

The GT's 4.3 run was confirmed by Motor Trend. As was the 12.8 second 1/4 mile run.

The difference between the 412 HP GT and the 540 (2010) GT500 is traction. The GT was able to grip much better and thus got a better time. The GT500 was unable to grip and thus ran slower. When the GT500 is given a pair of stickier tires..it leaves stuff in the dust, including SS Camaro's and GT Mustangs.

The simple fact is..stock for stock, the 2011 GT is faster both in a 0-60 run and 1/4 mile run than the 2010/11 SS. Once you start adding mods all bets are off. Dont try to discount the test, just start working on your own car because you have a 250 pound weight hole to work yourself out of.

[meanmike]

Originally Posted by ViperTomcat

The GT's 4.3 run was confirmed by Motor Trend. As was the 12.8 second 1/4 mile run.

The difference between the 412 HP GT and the 540 (2010) GT500 is traction. The GT was able to grip much better and thus got a better time. The GT500 was unable to grip and thus ran slower. When the GT500 is given a pair of stickier tires..it leaves stuff in the dust, including SS Camaro's and GT Mustangs.

The simple fact is..stock for stock, the 2011 GT is faster both in a 0-60 run and 1/4 mile run than the 2010/11 SS. Once you start adding mods all bets are off. Dont try to discount the test, just start working on your own car because you have a 250 pound weight hole to work yourself out of.

Actually it did the 1/4 mile in 12.7

[Sax1031]

The GT500 has a very hard time getting traction.

Put a tire on the GT and a tire on the GT500 and the race won't be close.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by Sax1031

I saw that after I made the post you quoted crazy shit. And apparently the 2 valve, I think I read and remember they are 2 valve heads, flow some crazy numbers.

hmmm....it would be cool if the next GT500 would come with the 6.2 Supercharged and have a non-supercharged 450+hp N/A 6.2 and call it a Mach 1.

or maybe have a supercharged 5.0 and call that the Mach 1 and let the GT500 keep the 5.4.....

[HIGHOCTANE]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

all that adds up to big money......stock intake manifold? stock valvesprings? stock throttle body? stock MAF? stock fuel pump? stock fuel injectors? stock gears? stock timing chain? stock rockers? stock pushrods? stock valves? when its all said and done, 500rwhp is not just a few boltons away. Shoot, the stuff you just listed already puts it at close to $4000 i believe and then plus all the stuff you forgot to put? not to mention that 500whp is probably without catalyctic converters and youll never pass smog with a lopy idle (and polluting more). You might just be better off buying a supercharger kit!

I've done it both ways....and FI in the end is easily the best bang for the buck IMO...staying N/A and making power comparable to FI power is VERY VERY expensive and actually less reliable and less streetable....SC or turbo FTW...
It all can get expensive,but for moderate power increases FI all the way. My Camaro will have a blower on it before it even has headers lol. Keep your foot out of it and it might as well be stock....put your foot into it an hold the hell on...can't say that about a radical N/A set up...

[jordan 572]

i dont see how 300 pounds makes a .3 second difference

[|BLACKSS|]

it does......100lbs = 1 tenth of a second (rule of thumb)

[|BLACKSS|]

That is why i ordered a 1 SS with no options. I wanted the lightest camaro i could get. Im guessing after my muffler and resonator delete i should be around 3750-3800 lbs. How heavy is the new 2011 GT

[ViperTomcat]

Originally Posted by |BLACKSS|

That is why i ordered a 1 SS with no options. I wanted the lightest camaro i could get. Im guessing after my muffler and resonator delete i should be around 3750-3800 lbs. How heavy is the new 2011 GT

With the manual it is 3650ish..and with the automatic it is just about 3700.

Assume that the Mustang will also replace its exhaust or mod it and such..so you're looking at a 150 pound difference still in weight reduction.

My suggestion would be to add power, not try to shave weight. Headers, cat back and an intake and you'll be back on par with a stock 2011 GT. If he does the same (Long tubes in his case), full cat back and a better intake..then you'll be behind again.

[SGOS252382]

I just got my new Car and Driver and I was really suprised when I saw the 1/4 mile times.

Camaro SS - 13.0 @ 111 mph
Mustang GT - 13.2 @ 109 mph.

"got all that metal moving past 60mph, it was a little quicker than the Ford."

Car and Driver did pick the Mustang GT over the Camaro SS (199 vs 193) in the Final Overall Results (not suprising).

But by the way everyone was talking about the new Mustang GT, I was quite suprised by the results.

[Sax1031]

Originally Posted by SGOS252382

I just got my new Car and Driver and I was really suprised when I saw the 1/4 mile times.

Camaro SS - 13.0 @ 111 mph
Mustang GT - 13.2 @ 109 mph.

"got all that metal moving past 60mph, it was a little quicker than the Ford."

Car and Driver did pick the Mustang GT over the Camaro SS (199 vs 193) in the Final Overall Results (not suprising).

But by the way everyone was talking about how the new Mustang GT would easily be faster than the Camaro SS, I was quite suprised by the results.

If I remember correctly that was the non performance package or gear optioned GT. Plain jane de optioned GT.