The 2011+ Mustang Thread

[Huggerorange73]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

more proof??

I'll collect more evidence for you on the 11th.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

Just to keep the facts straight - the two mustangs in question didn't have a 20rwhp difference at peak hp, they had a 15rwhp difference at peak, only 4rwhp more than what you say the difference between your car and the average ls3 does on that dyno. Not exactly mind blowing.

I'd be interested to see if dyno calibration was exactly the same. Most importantly, correction factor, smoothing, and weather conditions. Either way, 15rwhp at peak is far from unheard of when it comes to variations between stock cars. This is why dyno racing is stupid.

it looks like a double standard against the mustang for no real reason.

[Allentown]

Originally Posted by Black5thgen

Impossible, haven't you learned in the mustang universe that the lower HP and slower cars are the exception and not the norm. There are no problems with the test fleet cars, it's the thousands of productions cars that are "off" at time of testing.

Oh come on, you have been here since 2007. Dont act like the Camaro guys did not have the exact SAME "tunnel vision" back in 2010 when the camaro was new and the mustangs were running the 4.6. I know for a fact, they DID.

Karma?

Having said that, i am not sure what is wrong with 380rwhp. That would still be well over 425-430 at the crank. Its only rated for 412... If it was 412 at the crank it would be around 363 at the wheels. 380rwhp puts it right at 425-430 at the crank.

The camaro is RATED for 426hp and puts down about what? 370rwhp? Assuming a greater drive train loss due to the IRS it seems the Camaro is ALSO around 430hp at the crank.

Ok so...what was your criticism of the 5.0s "poor production number?"
To be honest they havent gotten a low reading until you see one below 362rwhp. (assuming 12% drive train loss).


Edit. Huggerorange 73: That 391rwhp you got is very good indeed. Thats more inline with what i would EXPECT to see from a car rated at 426hp. Are we saying that is more the EXCEPTION? Because i would hope that would be more the rule for the SS.

Lets assume for a second that All SSs dyno at 391, that means they are under-rated by about 23hp. (fair enough). Although i dont think all SSs DO dyno at 391? Thats a high reading?

Lets assume that the 395rwhp was a fluke for the 5.0 and they all dyno at 380rwhp. (fair enough). That means its underrated by about 18hp. (but the 380 is abnormally low for the 5.0?)

So using an abnormally high SS and an abnormally low 5.0. The SS would be underrated by 23hp and the 5.0 by 18hp.

Fair enough?

Edit II: I was guessing a 15% drive train loss for the SS and a 12% drive train loss for the 5.0

[THE EVIL TW1N]

well, on a positive note at the very least i hope this helps put to rest the whole "the reviewers are conspiring against Camaros" theories

[Black5thgen]

Originally Posted by Allentown

Oh come on, you have been here since 2007. Dont act like the Camaro guys did not have the exact SAME "tunnel vision" back in 2010 when the camaro was new and the mustangs were running the 4.6. I know for a fact, they DID.

Karma?

Actually no, they didn't. When the 5th gen came out it ran slow and produced low dyno numbers. It took a while before people even got an SS to run a 12 bone stock. Finally people started to reach the full potential of the car after about 6-8 months. You see we had to deal with mustang fans that argued the 4.6 was just as fast as an LS3 SS before the new 5.0 humping crowd came over and really opened the BS hose.

[Milk 1027]

Originally Posted by Black5thgen

Actually no, they didn't. When the 5th gen came out it ran slow and produced low dyno numbers. It took a while before people even got an SS to run a 12 bone stock. Finally people started to reach the full potential of the car after about 6-8 months. You see we had to deal with mustang fans that argued the 4.6 was just as fast as an LS3 SS before the new 5.0 humping crowd came over and really opened the BS hose.

It took a while to get into the 12's stock.

[ffrcobra_65]

[QUOTE=ffrcobra_65;3052918]I am not trying to incite anything and what I am about to ask is purely an open-minded question for an open-minded answer.

If driver X drives a '11 GT five times then turns around and drives a Camaro SS five times to get the top 3 best times for each car. Remember, same driver, this eliminates the "driver's race" argument. Now it is just stock GT vs stock SS. Do you think the result will favor the GT ot SS?[/QUOTE]

ok, even clearer manual vs manual.

I guess no one wants to answer the question despite all the strong arguments from both sides

[Milk 1027]

btw
That's just the "official" list. No red lights, non DA corrected. There's others in the non official list.

NO	Member	Engine	Date	60'	1/8 ET @ MPH	1/4 ET @ MPH	Details
1	nhra stocker	LS3	3/7/10	1.972	8.195 @ 88.58 MPH	12.58 @ 110.30 MPH	263
2	2quick	LS3	1/10/10	1.955	8.204 @ 88.05 MPH	12.615 @ 111.60 MPH	188
3	blufin	LS3	1/12/10	1.932	8.165 @ 86.52 MPH	12.618 @ 110.75 MPH	780
4	02Pewtersix	LS3	10/30/10	2.03	8.317 @ 88.34 MPH	12.71 @ 111.80 MPH	672
5	Monte	LS3	4/24/10	2.012	8.329 @ 87.11 MPH	12.77 @ 110.98 MPH	410
6	b20	LS3	11/15/09	1.936	8.326 @ 85.02 MPH	12.811 @ 108.73MPH	3
7	376Camaro	LS3	7/3/10	2.163	8.438 @ 87.69 MPH	12.83 @ 113.27 MPH	502
8	Toyaholic	LS3	4/13/11	2.017	8.392 @ 86.35 MPH	12.864 @ 110.91 MPH	821
9	8secpumpgasdad	L99	3/8/10	1.9059	8.321 @ 85.54 MPH	12.868 @ 108.7 MPH	270
10	speedy6963	LS3	7/17/09	2.046	8.409 @ 86.59 MPH	12.874 @ 109.08 MPH	10
11	jrrod6410	LS3	12/19/09	2.023	8.399 @ 86.96 MPH	12.903 @ 109.85 MPH	790
12	8ty8 ls1	L99	10/20/09	1.923	8.385 @ 83.54 MPH	12.971 @ 107.61 MPH	99
13	1stGM	L99	11/29/09	1.935	8.399 @ 85.09 MPH	12.985 @ 107.34 MPH	159

[Huggerorange73]

That an a tune and a set of slicks turns it into a mid 11 second monster.

[Milk 1027]

Oh what is that?
3 completely stock L99's in the 12's?
I thought only the Manual SS was fast.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by Black5thgen

Actually no, they didn't. When the 5th gen came out it ran slow and produced low dyno numbers. It took a while before people even got an SS to run a 12 bone stock. Finally people started to reach the full potential of the car after about 6-8 months. You see we had to deal with mustang fans that argued the 4.6 was just as fast as an LS3 SS before the new 5.0 humping crowd came over and really opened the BS hose.

anyone who argued that the 3valve was just as fast in the 1/4 as an LS3 is an idiot. i think im gonna do a search. was it on this board?

L99 vs 3valve is a decent race though.

[Allentown]

Originally Posted by Black5thgen

Actually no, they didn't. When the 5th gen came out it ran slow and produced low dyno numbers. It took a while before people even got an SS to run a 12 bone stock. Finally people started to reach the full potential of the car after about 6-8 months. You see we had to deal with mustang fans that argued the 4.6 was just as fast as an LS3 SS before the new 5.0 humping crowd came over and really opened the BS hose.

Not by me, i never said it was faster, just that it was a better overall car.

I mean no disrespect when i say i have no concern about the LS99s what so ever. I could keep up with those with my puny 10GT. (and yes if you look hard enough you can find 10GTs in the 12s also). Just because something exsists, doesnt mean its prevalant right?

The LS3 vs 5.0 though....its more even a race than MOST mustang guys would admit.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Allentown

Not by me, i never said it was faster, just that it was a better overall car.

I mean no disrespect when i say i have no concern about the LS99s what so ever. I could keep up with those with my puny 10GT. (and yes if you look hard enough you can find 10GTs in the 12s also). Just because something exsists, doesnt mean its prevalant right?

The LS3 vs 5.0 though....its more even a race than MOST mustang guys would admit.

For real, where is this ridiculous nonsense about the L99 being slow coming from? IIRC, and I by far usually do, there was never a '10 GT to even break 12s.

[Bad70supreme]

The avg. driver will not know how to run 1.6 60fts, not that the car cant do it. Thats the prob with the SS, I think bone stock on DRs could put an SS m6 In the mid 12.40-30s... but the launch is very tricky with a heavy car.