The 2011+ Mustang Thread

[ROD1]

I see they already giving up to $3000 rebates on them. Thats confidence lol.

[mrray13]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

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.

Originally Posted by syr74

Exactly. Dynoing a car in any gear steeper than a 1:1 ratio is typically going to worsen your results. That said, I also agree that there many of these dyno results have done little more than show how erratic such testing can be as there is no way in Hell that this car makes 465hp at the crank as one dyno poll suggests. The 435hp crank hp another source came up with is a good deal more believable if the car is indeed under-rated, but that number could be off as well.

BS. If I dyno in a lower gear, my numbers go way up, 8-10rwhp UP. Torque is increased down in lower gears, and that's what is measured. Then the computer does the math to figure the horsepower.

Seriously. If that wasn't the case, then why aren't all our cars a single speed 1:1 ratio from the get go? If the lower gears eat up so much power, why have them? Torque multiplication, that's why. And that's why lower gear horsepower numbers tend to be higher then the 1:1 ratio.

Originally Posted by Enator

"The six-speed automatic surprised and pleased as well. We had the opportunity to test one on a short drag strip alongside a Camaro SS also equipped with a six-speed automatic. With firm quick up-shifts we clicked off a 8.60 second 1/8 mile run in the 2011 Mustang GT with a top speed of 86.70 mph. Our fastest 1/8 mile run in the 2010 Camaro SS was a much slower 9.58 seconds at 80.14 mph. The Camaro by comparison felt sluggish and heavy with a sloppier shifting transmission."
http://www.themustangnews.com/conten...ustang-gt-5-0/

Really? MY v6 Camaro runs 9.0-9.1s in the 1/8th, it's an auto. I quit spinning and fix my timing, I'm knocking on that Mustang GTs door. I seriously doubt I can outrun an L99 by half a second, when I know for a fact the LS3 gets me by several tenths, and he was trapping 88mph+. So, where is it.....there it is...

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

EDIT: Actually, the new 5.0 has been SAE Certified.

I could have sworn they dyno the motors before they certify it. BTW, I really hope some higher ups in GM are looking outside their doors right now. Every mainstream magazine is just handing the crown over (as it should, considering the 2011 Mustang has really upped its overall value) to the Stang. However, I have confidence that this new, agressive GM is not going to lay down on this one.

[Enator]

http://blogs.popularhotrodding.com/6...-50/index.html

[shevyman]

FINALLY ford steps up to the plate with something worthy.

numbers are great. have to admit dynoyed higher numbers then any camaro that i know of from stock. well again mustangs have been out all year. camaro froze for awhile. and again this is 2011 mustang. took them how many years to get over 300hp with a V8? exactly my point. but hey props for ford. but still not a fan of the style.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by mrray13

BS. If I dyno in a lower gear, my numbers go way up, 8-10rwhp UP. Torque is increased down in lower gears, and that's what is measured. Then the computer does the math to figure the horsepower.

Seriously. If that wasn't the case, then why aren't all our cars a single speed 1:1 ratio from the get go? If the lower gears eat up so much power, why have them? Torque multiplication, that's why. And that's why lower gear horsepower numbers tend to be higher then the 1:1 ratio.






Really? MY v6 Camaro runs 9.0-9.1s in the 1/8th, it's an auto. I quit spinning and fix my timing, I'm knocking on that Mustang GTs door. I seriously doubt I can outrun an L99 by half a second, when I know for a fact the LS3 gets me by several tenths, and he was trapping 88mph+. So, where is it.....there it is...

Post your dyno sheets then, show me these lower gear run's that you've done.


dyno's DO NOT read tq and factor in HP. it's the opposite. Otherwise a car with better rear end gears would always dyno higher. and that is not the case. If you leave off the ignition source to read RPM, the dyno will still pick up what the HP is, it just can't calculate tq, and will print out an HP graph based on speed (MPH).

another example is if a car reads 300 rwtq on a 1:1 ratio, then if the dyno really did go off of rwtq, a gear ratio of 1.4:1 would read 420 rwtq. I don't see any dyno graphs being anywhere near that off. Do you? if so, please post.

4th gear or whatever 1:1 is is generally used because it has the least parasitic losses (higher rwhp) and it also gets the best reading.


EDITED to remove some harshness.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by shevyman

FINALLY ford steps up to the plate with something worthy.

numbers are great. have to admit dynoyed higher numbers then any camaro that i know of from stock. well again mustangs have been out all year. camaro froze for awhile. and again this is 2011 mustang. took them how many years to get over 300hp with a V8? exactly my point. but hey props for ford. but still not a fan of the style.

something worthy??
It takes beating the competitor to be "worthy?" so now that ford has beaten the competitor, does that now make the camaro "unworthy" by your standards?

ford had a 305 hp V8 in their mustang about 15 years ago, when did the camaro go over 300 from the factory?

[mrray13]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

something worthy??
It takes beating the competitor to be "worthy?" so now that ford has beaten the competitor, does that now make the camaro "unworthy" by your standards?

ford had a 305 hp V8 in their mustang about 15 years ago, when did the camaro go over 300 from the factory?

Not too mention the SVO, the Terminators and the GT500s. The Mustang has always been up to the challenge in one form or another. Maybe it required boost, but Ford always had the Mustang at, or near, the front.

Looks wise? Well, since that's subjective, lol....

[syr74]

Originally Posted by mrray13

BS. If I dyno in a lower gear, my numbers go way up, 8-10rwhp UP. Torque is increased down in lower gears, and that's what is measured. Then the computer does the math to figure the horsepower.

Seriously. If that wasn't the case, then why aren't all our cars a single speed 1:1 ratio from the get go? If the lower gears eat up so much power, why have them? Torque multiplication, that's why. And that's why lower gear horsepower numbers tend to be higher then the 1:1 ratio.

This is a common misconception, but it is still a misconception...I'll explain. All a dyno sees is how fast your tires are spinning the dyno roller and the information it gets from the spark-plug lead. In other words, it knows how fast the roller is spinning for a given rpm. When you dyno your car, in what gear is that dyno roller going to spin the fastest for a given rpm, fourth of fifth? Put more simply, in what gear is your car moving at the fastest speed for a given rpm? Typically that is fifth gear which, in most cars, is a 1:1 gear ratio. Since virtually no dynos are designed to account for gear multiplication they simply cannot take that variable into account if you try to dyno your car in a lower gear.

I have seen examples where a car has dynoed higher in fourth gear than in fifth, but typically something else was afoot when that happened (ie: something was wrong with the car or the dyno, fuel cutout causes a problem, etc.) or fifth gear was not a 1:1 ratio (or close to it) in that car.

[Enator]

2011 Ford Mustang GT Premium
0-30 1.6 sec
0-40 2.5
0-50 3.3
0-60 4.3
0-70 5.5
0-80 6.9
0-90 8.5
0-100 10.3
Passing, 45-65 mph 2.1
Quarter mile 12.8 sec @ 110.8 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph 105 ft
Lateral acceleration 0.94 g (avg)
MT figure eight 25.3 sec @ 0.75 g (avg)

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...t_numbers.html

2011 Ford Mustang V-6

0-30 1.9 sec
0-40 2.8
0-50 3.9
0-60 5.1
0-70 6.7
0-80 8.5
0-90 10.5
0-100 13.1
Passing, 45-65 mph 2.7
Quarter mile 13.7 sec @ 102.0 mph

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...t_numbers.html

[a_Username]

I kind of wish they would wait and hold off on the comparisons until GM decides to release information on the 2011 SS. This would be like comparing the 2010 SS to the 2009 GT... man that would have been an absolutely HORRIBLE blowout lol.

[duder4thgen]

Call me crazy but I think the redesigned Mustangs look great, much better than what they replaced. Looks are subjective in a ponycar war, last ditch argument.

I think Fords biggest success here is the v6, those are amazing times for a base model. I think the GT just matches the SS. Not having more than a tenth difference in a quarter mile I think there are too many variables to call either a winner.

Ford is suffering here from having a peaky motor. Sure it makes ~41x hp at peak, but its not doing nearly as good in the rest of the powerband or it wouldn't have only run a 12.9, it would have gone 12.6-12.7 like most were expecting.

I think its going to be interesting to see when they have a real road course comparison. I think on a smooth track the mustang would be able to out handle the SS just because of the weight issue, but I'd wonder if the SS having a much fatter powerband will help it keep up or even edge out the mustang.

All in all I'd drive the living crap outta both of em, and unless GM answers in the next model year or so I'm going to end up going with the one I can get a better deal on.

[mrray13]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

Post your dyno sheets then, show me these lower gear run's that you've done.


you don't know how most dyno's even work.

dyno's DO NOT read tq and factor in HP. it's the opposite. Otherwise a car with better rear end gears would always dyno higher. and that is not the case. If you leave off the ignition source to read RPM, the dyno will still pick up what the HP is, it just can't calculate tq, and will print out an HP graph based on speed (MPH).

another example is if a car reads 300 rwtq on a 1:1 ratio, then if the dyno really did go off of rwtq, a gear ratio of 1.4:1 would read 420 rwtq. I don't see any dyno graphs being anywhere near that off. Do you? if so, please post.

4th gear or whatever 1:1 is is generally used because it has the least parasitic losses (higher rwhp) and it also gets the best reading.

I'll get them scanned in...

but in third gear, my car dynos just over 276rwhp, in fourth, it's 269. Almost a 10hp gain, by shifting down. On a different dyno, it did 263rwhp in 3rd, 245rwhp in 4th, almost 20rwhp difference. Torque numbers were closer, at about 5lb-fts difference.

My understanding of the dyno is just the way I explained it. That even if the rpm reading is missed, the computer still can't truly measure horsepower, but rather does calculations based on drum speed and gives a horsepower reading. Maybe I'm wrong on how it works, but in my experience, I'm not wrong in the end result.

Of course, to go along with that, it's my understanding horsepower can't truly be measured. Torque can. Horsepower is a mathmatical number derived from torque. Gimme a few minutes, I'll go see if I'm wrong. Or you can post up something that says so, other then just you words.

[mjf6866]

i love seeing the modern muscle car wars in full swing!

its been said time and time again, but isnt it nice to have 3 musclecars to choose from again? there always will be the "showroom stock" wars that they can advertise, but so many people getting all worked up over a few tenths in 1/4mi times when any of them can be made faster than the other. all 3 have solid base powerplants to mod away so it just depending on what you can/want to spend to go faster than the next guy.

once the camaro went away in '02, with no offerings from Chrysler...never thought i would be able to take part in MCWII (muscle car wars 2). just be happy guys.