The 2011+ Mustang Thread

[wbt]

Originally Posted by Huggerorange73

Love where this thread is headed!

Gotta pass the time until we get the results.

[VADER SS L99]

Originally Posted by wbt

I have found that what fixes the Mustang rear is adding the filler between the tail lights and the optional pedestal spoiler. Changes the entire look.

That does help but the lines look Japanese to me and the plastic rear valance is even worse to me. I know you are buying a GT and good luck to you but this is just my opinion that is also shared by many Ford die hard fans. The new Saleen rear looks really good though. I think Saleen fixed it and its how it should have looked in the first place.

[2SSARMY]

Originally Posted by assasinator

1. using 87 octane and reporting dyno number vs. a LS3 with premium is bad.
2. buying a mustang just for running it on a dyno is a waste of money.
3. buying a mustang, making an invalid test , reporting it, and being a biased shop means you will sell nothing to any mustang gt owner.

al least shops like livernois do their best work for every make and model. unbiased.

They're going to re-dyno it with premium and repost it.

[Huggerorange73]

Originally Posted by 2SSARMY

They're going to re-dyno it with premium and repost it.

Yeah,

[wbt]

Originally Posted by VADER SS L99

That does help but the lines look Japanese to me and the plastic rear valance is even worse to me. I know you are buying a GT and good luck to you but this is just my opinion that is also shared by many Ford die hard fans. The new Saleen rear looks really good though. I think Saleen fixed it and its how it should have looked in the first place.

No doubt that Ford left a lot to be desired on the rear. The different spoiler and filler help for me.

I personally feel the GT500 rear looks "right" however. The major difference over the standard GT is the spoiler. Again, all subjective.

[jbak]

A long time ago I was test-driving a new Celica. It's 0-60 spec was 9 sec. Decently quick for early 80s. So I mentioned that to my wife. The salesman said "Oh it'll do it in half that !". I was speechless. How DO they be so clueless sometimes ?

[Impact]

I honestly like the rear end of the new Mustang. I love the front end of my V6 Camaro but I've never been fond of the rear end so it's all preference.

[KungFuHamster]

Originally Posted by VADER SS L99

The rear end shot picture says it all. Even the Mustang engineers admit the rear end of a Mustang is something that was a bad idea. The rear of the Mustang was 1 of the main reasons why I chose my Camaro over the new Mustang. The rear of that car is fugly IMO. I like Mustangs almost as much as I like Camaros but I think they really messed up on that one.

agreed

[Impact]

Where are you finding that the designers of the new Mustang admit the rear end was a bad idea?

[assasinator]

Originally Posted by EnvyTerra

How about we save the arguing for after the results gentlemen? lol

you know so one side can have some excuse about the other and what they did wrong on the dyno or any other random equation that would have come out different etc...

the truth is if the mustang dyno's higher we will say something to make it invalid, and if the camaro dyno's higher (stays the same) mustang guys will have an excuse to make it invalid.
hopfully there are people here who accept results and don't go nuts on either side.

the power level of the mustang is fine. some dyno 355. most 365, and the rest 375. it was the shops bias that made me ask questions. its ok for them to be biased. its their right. but dont expect to get into performance mustangs if they are. they could have run it 87 octane and simply not told anyone. i dont know what the shop's intentions are.
see it from my perspective.


i own Bill's Ford performance. i build fast fords and cater to mustang guys. i buy an SS, test it, tune it, and the numbers and perfomance are off. and you guys know they are off. how many of you are going to buy ANYTHING i try to sell you for your SS? thats the point.



that car could not make a single hp over the first dyno, and its still good for a 412hp rated car.


as a business i cant pick sides. i give the best i have for every customer. and customers feel guaranteed i will do that. then they buy from me.

SLP was a chevy oriented company till the camaro went bye bye. they added ford parts to their repertoir. everyone knows they only have the highest quality and performance. i would feel confident. i may even buy and slp exhaust when they are available.

[Huggerorange73]

Originally Posted by assasinator

the power level of the mustang is fine. some dyno 355. most 365, and the rest 375. it was the shops bias that made me ask questions. its ok for them to be biased. its their right. but dont expect to get into performance mustangs if they are. they could have run it 87 octane and simply not told anyone. i dont know what the shop's intentions are.
see it from my perspective.

Had this happen your rant/comments/perspective would have made much more sense.

IPS sells parts for a diverse line of cars, not just the SS....they came out and presented all the facts and hid nothing.

They'll make the 93 octane pass, and it is what it is. Chances are it'll equal or best the SS numbers.

My SS laid down 390/368 bone stock on a Mustang dyno...but I'm sure you know as well as I do, all dynos read different and are excellent tuning tools and when a car is baselined, can provide excellent proof of gains.

Personally, I put more into track results than dyno queens.

[IPS Brandon]

Originally Posted by assasinator

1. using 87 octane and reporting dyno number vs. a LS3 with premium is bad.
2. buying a mustang just for running it on a dyno is a waste of money.
3. buying a mustang, making an invalid test , reporting it, and being a biased shop means you will sell nothing to any mustang gt owner.

al least shops like livernois do their best work for every make and model. unbiased.

Ok this is going to be rude but you are absolutely off base.

The DEALER put 87 in it, a full tank we just ran that out and will dyno compare again this afternoon so please relax. We by no means are trying to make a unbiased report, just having fun and we are curious to see all the gains as we progress with the car.

Also why would we invest in a mustang to make us look better in the GM world... We are in fact going to use our specific talents and skills to create the best products and services we can with this chassis and engine(2011 GT), just as we have proven to do with the GM market.

Regards

[IPSjeff]

Originally Posted by assasinator

1. using 87 octane and reporting dyno number vs. a LS3 with premium is bad.
2. buying a mustang just for running it on a dyno is a waste of money.
3. buying a mustang, making an invalid test , reporting it, and being a biased shop means you will sell nothing to any mustang gt owner.

al least shops like livernois do their best work for every make and model. unbiased.

Well this is really not going to make you happy then (As I am sure we tried to intentionally run it poorly) but here are the results from last night:

Kilkare was stupid busy last night so 2 passes were not enough to not screw one of them up All we learned from going to the track is that the car gets too good of gas mileage lol. We still had a 1/2 tank of 87 when we got there so we just ran it like that.

13.75 @ 106
14.0 @ 106

The traction control wasn't completely off the first pass so it bogged like crazy and the 2nd pass he missed 3rd. Driven well I can see low 13s but unless it picks up a good bit of power with 93 octane another 6mph is a little ways off.

We put 1/2 tank of 93-octane in today (I got it down to only 10 miles left on the tank of 87 so it's pretty pure) so dyno #s and with any luck more track times yet to come today
Jeff

[Viral]

Originally Posted by assasinator

1. using 87 octane and reporting dyno number vs. a LS3 with premium is bad.
2. buying a mustang just for running it on a dyno is a waste of money.
3. buying a mustang, making an invalid test , reporting it, and being a biased shop means you will sell nothing to any mustang gt owner.

al least shops like livernois do their best work for every make and model. unbiased.

I'll add to what others have said also. They have been up front with everyone on this. They didn't hide the fact that it came with 87 octane and that it wasn't a pure apple to apples comparison. That said, there are SO many threads here that mention testing a car and go weeks and weeks before you see any dyno results or are hard numbers. They keep promising "soon, very soon." but rarely deliver on every step.

I personally think it's refreshing to see a company being so forthright with their info and giving us a step by step update with each and every change. How many dyno pulls do we have to compare the differences that 87 vs 93 octane makes on the same car? I think that's valuable and rare information that we are lucky to get because of IPS's "biased" testing.

As long as a tuner is honest about the details, I will ALWAYS choose to have more information rather than less. They are going to get around to the true apples to apples comparison with high test fuel when the car is ready, but until then, I want to say THANK YOU IPS for giving us all this information that everyone here wants and rarely gets!