The 2011+ Mustang Thread

[Super83Z]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

There have probably been more complaints of underpowered L99's than there were 99 Cobra's.

The 99 Cobra was the only car they delivered that did not meet the advertised specs. Since then, nearly ALL v8 mustangs have been underrated, some more than others.

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.

Originally Posted by Unfair

From what I have seen on the site list 1 person has run 12.5 and 1 person has run 12.6

That is definitely not the average run if it was more than one person would be running those times...

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.

[tony1]

Why does the 5.0 make so much hp? they max'ed it out stock already.. to the OP.. Why do 2.0 4cyl's with Turbos or Nitros make 400hp??? let's not get silly here... Mustang needed to get into the game ... Engineers can sit down with any Engine and come up with ways to get some serious numbers ..

[Baldilocks01SS]

The 5.0 also shows greater HP and TQ output on the dyno than does the 6.2 in the Camaro. That AND the much lower weight of the Mustang will give them bragging rights for a while.

[Super83Z]

Originally Posted by ViperTomcat

But the 6.2 is 1200cc's larger than the Mustangs engine. It produces more power down low but also consumes more fuel overall, especially down low.

In terms of fuel consumption, they're going to be about the same. Depending on how fast the 5.0 spins up it could actually produce usable power faster than a big, lazy 6.2.

Now thats just wrong a guy driving a Challenger R/T calling the LS3 lazy.

[dmiller66]

These numbers mean nothing. The most important thing here is impressing the ladies. They don't care about numbers, they only like what looks nice. The ladies like the Camaro. The end.

[Dboy23]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

honestly i dont really see the the LS3 gettin any better numbers than the 5.4 DOHC when supercharged. Call it black magic or OverHeadCams but the current Ford engines are making excellent power with the superchargers even against larger engines with superchargers. Even the big dollar ZR1 engine with a supercharger upgrade in the Hennesey camaro and hennessey ZR1 makes 700hp at the crank. The GT500 engine with a kenne bell upgrade makes that much too, BUT AT THE WHEELS!

Nuff said.

[Napper]

whatever! damn no one is gonna stay stock. So it does not matter.

In fact i saw an all Black Challenger RT yesterday.....looked cool, completely forgot about its slightly slower times.

The Camaro and the LS series of motors is a good match. i do get people all the time asking me about it. It ain't no Mustang! that you see on every block.

mind you while my SS is being repaired they put me in a v6 Stang convertable.
No one says jack to me. although not an apples to apples comparison, i see stangs all over. and it looks good....but it looks the same. 2011 will look the same.

i'll put my maggie SS up against any modified GT...and i know i'll win 75% of the time.
big motor s/c vs the five -oh cammer

My GTO looks better, but i had to make some adjustments....it looks stock, but its not. (no clown, or overdoing it)..

One other thing...you think the police will give a stang a tickect over a camaro?
Stangs are unfortunately associated with reckless youth trying to show off.

when i had a Stang, i got so many tickects. My GTO 4 years and not one. ( with 450 rwhp on a cool day.)

The Camaro is well recieved, and everyone knows as GM goes so too does the country.. Chevy is apple pie!! The Mustang GT is good ! so what

its like 2 bodybuilders..they both look good are both strong , but one is a little better.
doesn't take away from thhe other guy. Just like the challenger Rt i spoke of....looked good in all black..with no clownlike exterior mods.

When i see these new GT's run into the mid 11's( which they will) obviosly no warranty, and a cammer is far more expensive to replace.lol

remeber this also with an auto tuned and maggied i turn consitant acceleration.
a manual GT only has to mess up a fraction and its over. I Love the auto, next mod a 2800 stall..and then i'm done. ifconsistant uper 11's isn't fast enough for any street car. then buy and build a dedicated racer.

I remain loyal, while giving props to the oem comparison...like anyone planning on challenging a maro is gonna be stock.

[thebrander]

Originally Posted by Sax1031

HP = torque over time.

I use to be like that. I loved when I had my 90 5.0. It made low end torque but not power up high. Then I bought a liter bike. Basically a low/no torque motor that made power high up the rpm, and geared like crazy. For a pure performance setup it is hard to beat a high hp/high revving/geared vehicle.

For day to day, stop and go traffic, the low end torque is very nice.

HP = torque x rpm precisely speaking (but I don't think you were trying to be precise, sorry I'm an engineer)

[Super83Z]

Originally Posted by thebrander

HP = torque x rpm precisely speaking (but I don't think you were trying to be precise, sorry I'm an engineer)

Here are the exact equations, the one you posted is missing a step:

T = HP * 5252 / RPM
HP = T * RPM / 5252
RPM = HP * 5252 / T


To put it simply:

Torque is the actual power an engine makes, Horsepower is how quickly that power can be applied. Both numbers are ALWAYS the same number at 5252 RPM.

[thebrander]

Originally Posted by Super83Z

Here are the exact equations, the one you posted is missing a step:

T = HP * 5252 / RPM
HP = T * RPM / 5252
RPM = HP * 5252 / T


To put it simply:

Torque is the actual power an engine makes, Horsepower is how quickly that power can be applied. Both numbers are ALWAYS the same number at 5252 RPM.

Yes, there is always a unit conversion constant. (e.g. torque might be in Newton meters and power in Watts and the "5252" becomes a different number)

[thebrander]

... and torque is not power. Torque is "force times lever arm" so you can think of it as translating to a "push force" on the car. Power is the ability to "push" the car at a speed (once again, it is power = constant x force (or torque) x speed).

A truck with high torque has a lot of push, but if it's low power it can't push at a very high speed. A Ferrari has relatively low torque, but high power meaning it still has the relatively low torque at a very high speed (where the truck cannot produce that torque).

Calculus: Energy = Force x distance, Power = time derivative of Energy = Force x velocity (assuming dF/dt = 0 - constant force)

[ViperTomcat]

Originally Posted by Super83Z

Now thats just wrong a guy driving a Challenger R/T calling the LS3 lazy.

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.

[Super83Z]

Originally Posted by thebrander

... and torque is not power. Torque is "force times lever arm" so you can think of it as translating to a "push force" on the car. Power is the ability to "push" the car at a speed (once again, it is power = constant x force (or torque) x speed).

A truck with high torque has a lot of push, but if it's low power it can't push at a very high speed. A Ferrari has relatively low torque, but high power meaning it still has the relatively low torque at a very high speed (where the truck cannot produce that torque).

Calculus: Energy = Force x distance, Power = time derivative of Energy = Force x velocity (assuming dF/dt = 0 - constant force)

I don't think you read this part:

To put it simply

[CLEAN]

He's an engineer, he can't help himself