The 2011+ Mustang Thread

[DangerZL1]

What about Ford underestimating the true hp of the 5.0?

"One pair of journalists—rather than go on the “approved” press tour, snuck a 6-speed manual 5-liter off to the Dynojet chassis dyno, where it made 395 hp to the rear wheels (as well as 365 lb-ft of torque). Even with a meager 15 percent drivetrain loss, that number equates to nearly 465 hp at the flywheel."

[Rtoups]

Can't wait to see how Chevy responds with the next V6.

[klatterblast]

yea watch out uglys coming

[Enator]

Originally Posted by DangerouSS

What about Ford underestimating the true hp of the 5.0?

"One pair of journalists—rather than go on the “approved” press tour, snuck a 6-speed manual 5-liter off to the Dynojet chassis dyno, where it made 395 hp to the rear wheels (as well as 365 lb-ft of torque). Even with a meager 15 percent drivetrain loss, that number equates to nearly 465 hp at the flywheel."

[talwell]

Originally Posted by DangerouSS

What about Ford underestimating the true hp of the 5.0?

"One pair of journalists—rather than go on the “approved” press tour, snuck a 6-speed manual 5-liter off to the Dynojet chassis dyno, where it made 395 hp to the rear wheels (as well as 365 lb-ft of torque). Even with a meager 15 percent drivetrain loss, that number equates to nearly 465 hp at the flywheel."

Hmm....reminds me GM back in the "true" muscle car days. The 1969 ZL1 Camaro was rated at 430hp - that has been proven to be so far under-estimated as dynos have proven anywhere from 550-625hp on that car.

[nhra stocker]

Originally Posted by DangerouSS

What about Ford underestimating the true hp of the 5.0?

"One pair of journalists—rather than go on the “approved” press tour, snuck a 6-speed manual 5-liter off to the Dynojet chassis dyno, where it made 395 hp to the rear wheels (as well as 365 lb-ft of torque). Even with a meager 15 percent drivetrain loss, that number equates to nearly 465 hp at the flywheel."

I heard the Dyno pulls werent done in the right gear ??? They are supose to pulled in a gear thats 1:1 ratio for better accuracy on H.P. If there is any truth to that i dont know. However if thats the case it explains the high numbers.

[Jekyll-N-Hyde]

not to be a jerk but why is this in a L99/LS3 performance section ?

There is a section for all other makes

[Heliwrench]

These threads are going to continue popping up for months.... I'm surprised the fanboys haven't attacked yet. I figured I'd wake up to hundreds of them!

[greenrail]

Hmmmm, somehow, this all seems a lot like what the manufacturers did "back in the day."

Can you spell "ringer?"

Not saying they did or didn't, but just perhaps?

[Mr Twisty]

I hope for the Mustang guys sake these weren't massaged media cars..... The dyno numbers sure are high compared to published numbers.

[BaylorCamaro]

Originally Posted by MisterCamaro69

I hope for the Mustang guys sake these weren't massaged media cars..... The dyno numbers sure are high compared to published numbers.

[Thrillz]

13.7 in the quarter mile LMAO . Do you really need the V8 for daily driving.I had the 4th generation V6 camaro it sucked bad but not these new v6 motors coming out. Im an old school muscle car fan but i love these new generation V6's. U can actually afford to daily run these cool looking cars all the time. My last muscle car was a 6.6L a pig on gas and it was slower . Ford has raised the bar imo I can't wait to see what GM does. Im betting a supercharged or turbo charged V6. Love it

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by Skyman 08

Unless the tests were done at the same time in the same place with the same drivers it is hard to compare the test results of the Camaro and Mustang even in the same magazine. Until we get a head to head test done together it will be hard to really compare the two.. On paper the Mustang should have the advantage, and probalbly will.. so before passing judgement lets all take a and wait...

+1

that also goes with comparing ANY 1/4 times from even regular joes. you cant compare times/traps ever, you can only compare with everything else at the track on that day. no two tracks do the same track prep or have the same weather or have the same elevation or have the same timing equipment, etc...

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by nhra stocker

I heard the Dyno pulls werent done in the right gear ??? They are supose to pulled in a gear thats 1:1 ratio for better accuracy on H.P. If there is any truth to that i dont know. However if thats the case it explains the high numbers.

actually, when you dyno in the wrong (lower) gear, the numbers tend to be LOWER.

the better explanation is that dyno's are about as (un)reliable as track numbers when it comes to comparing. They are fun to look at, but don't have much meaning in the real world.