2011 GT lays down......

[Shame302]

I'm not bashing it. I'm saying the GM powerplant is still better.

What is it you drive?

 

[Paul]

I have a Mustang toy and a Honda daily driver. My next car will likely be something like a Porsche Cayman, BMW M3, Audi S5, or similar.

Paul.

 

[OnyxCobra]

Paul you have good taste in cars. Something about the new S5 gets me pretty excited, i think it's how it looks with the LED running lights. The other cars are so sweet too though.

 

[1996mustangGT]

I want a e46 M3 so badly i can taste it

 

[Venom351R]

no doubt the new 5.0 has a lot more nut then the previous 5.0 but Im with paul on this one. There is no doubt those are corrected numbers IMO which are as fake as anything. Its like alt correction for the drag strip, bunch of :bs:

Plus there is no direct shot of the dyno screen. Why run a car on the dyno then post the graph separately. All ligit dyno runs that Ive seen video of show the camera going over to the dyno screen after the run to show the numbers. Only thing that video proved was that it was a mustang being run on a dyno

 

[justinschmidt1]

I have a Mustang toy and a Honda daily driver. My next car will likely be something like a Porsche Cayman, BMW M3, Audi S5, or similar.

Paul.

S5's are sex, I love them.

 

[Venom351R]

This is why I want a new 1, now this new 5.0 is out are cars are a joke, we spend all this money on strokers, h/c/i bolt ons built n/a cars or blower on stock motors and guys are only making 200-350-400rwhp in are cars, and this new 5.0 stock will be making the same or more hp bone stock lol

I dont see it that way. I see it as it took factory power over 20 years to catch up with what the aftermarket can do. While the new stock 5.0 will lay an ass kicking down on the standard H/C/I 5.0 it also comes down to the fact that the payment and insurance on the new 5.0 will also be a lot more then a 87-95 5.0

 

[tooslow]

i think people are putting too much emphasis on hp numbers and not looking at the picture as a whole. Even if the engine is maxed from the factory, the engine is the LAST place people who buy this car should look to to modify. Just look at what built N/A 4.6l 3v and 4v cars achieve with similar power. mid to low 11's with good tires and suspension.

If set up right, i think these cars can go well into the 11's with bone stock engines. drag radials, maybe slicks, some gear, a little suspension if need be and get rid of a couple lbs.

who cares that it can't go mod for mod with an LS3 engine. it doesn't need too. if set up correctly.

 

[hottwheels04]

It's official the new 2011 gt is a 12 sec n/a factory gt now :headbang:

even motor trend ran
GT=0-60 4.3 sec 1/4 miles 12.8@110 with the gt
AND
V6= 0-60 5.1 sec 1/4 mile 13.7@102 for the v6

links:


http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_1003_2011_ford_mustang_gt_premium_test/index.html


http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_1003_2011_ford_mustang_v_6_test/index.html


to all the haters like I said all along, they even said the base v6 ran right with the dodge challenger RT thats 376hp 5.7 liter v8 vs a 3.7 liter base model 305hp v6 mustang HAHAHAH

with evan smith driving thats deff a mid to low 12 sec n/a stock car or deff with just tire and the v6 is deff a mid 13 sec factory base model now :headbang:



Link to my thread:


http://sn95forums.com/index.php/topic,49455.msg827606.html#msg827606

 

[tooslow]

I'm discussing the new 5.0l with some chevy guys on a local board. they think the 5.0l won't get much faster than stock and the SS has it covered when the modding starts.

here was my reply regarding that.

reading on some sites, it apears a lot of people think the 5.0l is maxed out in stock form. it may or may not be. no one knows yet. but everyone ford and chevy alike are concerned about "mod vs mod" and how much HP the 5.0l will make compared to the LS3. Many ford people will even disagree with my thoughts on this, but here they are.

i think when it comes to modifying, of course the LS3 will win the HP war mod for mod and $ for $. But i don't think the GT will have to make 480rwhp with cams and bolt-ons to compete with an SS that does.

They are 2 different engines with different ways of getting the job done. The 5.0's will be the most cost effective when modifying if the owners concentrate on suspension, gearing and tires. Bolt-ons should be a "last effort" for power. not the starting point like it is with LS engines as these 5.0's come from the factory basically as full bolt-on anyways.

From what i've learned about the early N/A 4v modulars making hp shouldn't be the main priority. extending the usable RPM and raising the torque curve as high as possible should be. You wont gain much HP, if any at all, but shifting the RPM limit from the stock 6600rpm peak 6800rpm red line to about 7200-7500 will be key.

Depending on what the intake manifold is like, the way to doing this without cams would be porting the intake manifold and hopefully chopping down the runner length some to get the engine to be able to make its power higher in RPM.

Will this increase HP? by very little. It will lower torque some in the midrange shifting the powerband north.

Why do this if it will barely effect HP and make a loss in torque? Usable RPM range is more valuable in engines as this 5.0l than low end torque IF, this is the important part, IF the car has the gearing to take advantage of the extra RPM.

Chopping down the intake is common practice on early 4v's and has proven to be very effective. getting 330-340rwhp N/A 4.6l 4v's deep into the 11's with 4.30 gears and sticky tires with stock heads and cams.

I think those stepping up into the GT from SN95 Cobra's and Mach 1's will be most effective at getting the GT's to run faster than stock. As they are used to bolt-ons doing nothing, and the cars needing gear, RPM, suspension, and tires to move.

Its going to take a completely different mindset to modify these cars. Keeping up with modified LS3 cars will be hard but i think it can be done.

Am i completely off basis here? or no?

 

[TxCobrA98]

im just going to say that shifting a stock valvetrain 4v modular at 7500 is about the dumbest idea ever. just me talking. and i have a fully built 4v, stock valvetrain.

also, i dont think a 4v cobra (non 03cobra) can go 11's with just tires and 4.30's. i also dont see where you are getting 340hp from a 4v modular with a shortened intake. i have full exhaust, long tubes, IMRC deletes, forged internals, mildly ported heads, billit flywheel, aluminum DS, cold air, tune, basically everything besides a shortened intake and i am making right at 300hp.

anyone, feel free to correct me but i built my motor with my two hands (im by far not a pro at it) but i just dont see this 340hp claim. throw a set of cams in there and you have a different story.

this is regarding the "early 4v modulars" that you are talking about.

 

[tooslow]

stock valvetrain can't handle it. realized i didn't edit out all the info i wanted to before posting. i originally typed out that getting it to 7200-7500rpm with cams and alvetrain but deleted the cams/valvetrain part. didn't delete enough and now i look the fool. long post are hard to get right. lol.

Mach 1's routinely make 330-340hp full bolt-on and a short runner. unless i'm wrong on that?

the 11's comment was assuming the comment about suspension, a short runner, gears, and tires still applied. there are some strong running mach 1 cars with stock heads and cams.

 

[tooslow]

]
this is regarding the "early 4v modulars" that you are talking about.

another doh! before the 5.0l early meant sn95 B heads. now that "newer" 4v's are out i was talking basicaly 4.6l 4v's.

 

[Steven]

Nice numbers, but I'd rather keep my old crickity mustang

 

[Venom351R]

http://www.dragtimes.com/Ford-Mustang-Timeslip-20597.html


http://www.dragtimes.com/Ford-Mustang-Timeslip-20659.html

 

[sneaky98gt]

For those saying that the Mustang numbers are "bs" or whatever, track times don't lie. Motortrend tested the Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger head to head, and the Mustang SMOKED both the Maro and the Challenger. Mustang went 12.7 vs the Maro's 13.1. Handling isn't even comparable, and the Mustang wins in braking and fuel mileage. In the end, in 2011, the Mustang is the winner, hands down, in every category, end of discussion. Congratulations Ford and Mustang. Now stop arguing about it.

Modability? Who cares? With a little money, you could do whatever you wanted to to any of the cars. I mean, you'd have to forge the motor anyway if you are going to make a whole lot more power. Just put lower compression pistons in, and boost here we come. Not that big of a deal. And honestly, you don't "need" a whole lot more power than what the 2011 Mustang makes anyway. I mean, that car with slicks, gears and a driver will go LOW 12s, maybe even crack an 11. Do you really need much more out of a street driven car? If you do, then just buy an 03-04 Cobra, put a KB on it, and roll. This car isn't meant as a "drag car". It's meant to be driven every day, all the while kicking ass and taking names. Keep in mind that it is still pony car, not a sports car.

Oh, and the comment about corrected dyno numbers. I've never seen un-corrected dyno numbers. They are always corrected in some way or fashion on account of heat, humidity, and elevation. I mean, there has to be some standard or comparing dyno numbers wouldn't be fair. Would it be fair if the Mustang was tested in Kansas several thousand feet above sea level with high humidity and 90 degree heat, while the Camaro was tested in Maine at sea level at 40 degrees and low humidity? I didn't think so. There has to be a standard for comparison. I even know a guy that had his numbers corrected down because the conditions were so good that he dynoed in. So stop the bs about corrected numbers.

Bottom line: the 2011 Mustang is a knockout car performance wise, and anyone who disagrees isn't looking at it very objectively. Ford has really hit the nail on the head on this car, and I applaud them for it.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_1006_2011_mustang_gt_2010_camaro_ss_2010_challenger_srt8_comparison/test_numbers.html

 

[Paul]

For those saying that the Mustang numbers are "bs" or whatever, track times don't lie. Mustang went 12.7

You're right, track times don't lie. MPH is a great indicator of horsepower.

My '94 GT went 12.88 @ 111 mph on street tires, very similar to the new mustang. It made 347 rwhp. That's a lot less than that "dyno sheet" is claiming.

Paul.

 

[hottwheels04]

For those saying that the Mustang numbers are "bs" or whatever, track times don't lie. Mustang went 12.7

You're right, track times don't lie. MPH is a great indicator of horsepower.

My '94 GT went 12.88 @ 111 mph on street tires, very similar to the new mustang. It made 347 rwhp. That's a lot less than that "dyno sheet" is claiming.

Paul.

dont forget they have got a a 12.7@111 as fastest time so far, and with no doubt soon guys will prob be getting 12.3-12.6 out of @ 110-113, and dont forget they weigh 3,500-3,650 lbs, our sn95's only weigh 3,050-3,400lbs so with that being said your Lighter car with 347rwhp ran same time, so I would say they make 340-390rwhp stock if a car thats 3,500-3,600lbs ran 12.7@111 which is 200-500+lbs heavier then your 347rwhp sn95 car,so i would say it would need a good 10-40more rwhp to run same time as your sn95 did

 

[Rice_slayer]

My brother's bone stock 2008 GT/CS was trapping 99 and 100mph all day, So the new do have some more power lol.

 

[Paul]

dont forget they have got a a 12.7@111 as fastest time so far, and with no doubt soon guys will prob be getting 12.3-12.6 out of @ 110-113, and dont forget they weigh 3,500-3,650 lbs, our sn95's only weigh 3,050-3,400lbs so with that being said your Lighter car with 347rwhp ran same time,

ET isn't nearly as much of an hp indicator as trap speed is. That's why 900 hp Supras run 12s at 150 mph.

My windsor-swapped, full accessory, saleen clone convertible was 3680 pounds - so there goes your theory.

so I would say they make 340-390rwhp stock

Wow, so now a bunch of bone-stock, mass-produced identical cars have make somewhere between 340 and 390 rwhp eh? Wow, that's quite a spread. I sure hope I wouldn't be one of the unlucky ones that got one of those crappy 340 rwhp ones.

Paul.