2011 GT lays down......

[hottwheels04]

To people bs'ing about aftermarket who cares? its a mustang gt making more rwhp then the 03-04 cobras made with a supercharger stock, and it saves you money you can now make stock more rwhp then older gt's made with full built h/c/i full bolt ons motors made with $ into them.

If they really do make 395rwhp stock , just imagine, you can still put in a better aftermarket intake for another 2-15rwhp, a better set of longtube headers for 3-10rwhp more , and x pipe with no cats or hi flow 2 cats, and aftermarket axle back for another 10-20rwhp,and a tune, and you have a 400-430rwhp bolt on n/a mustan gt, not much to complain about if you dont gain alot from bolt ons its already 400+hp stock, hell a full bolt on cam or heads cam ls1 with 5.7 liters makes 350-450rwhp, a stock new 6.0 liter vette /camaro and 6.1 hemi only makes 400-430 crank hp stock, and the block is 6 bolt main forged rods, only thing it needs is piston swap and if you plan on a blower and its an animal if you dont care about a warranty,slap on a set of cams and ported heads and its a 500rwhp n/a gt, not any other mustang can say that, except for built 1's with aftermarket engines or with a power adder and that crank and block can handle 800-1200hp,just a piston change away from a n/a terminator

 

[wytstang]

Peak numbers are 365 lb-ft of torque at 4,350 rpm and 395 hp at 6,600 rpm. All of these at-the-wheels figures were obtained in 4th gear on a Dynojet 248 chassis dyno and include a 3% SAE weather correction factor.

6 speed gear ratios
1st 3.66
2nd 2.43
3rd 1.69
4th 1.32
5th 1.00
6th 0.65
Final drive 3.31:1
Problem highlighted in red and solution in green (guys over on corral spotted this). It would slightly lower the numbers but these motors are making more then advertised.

 

[got5.0]

its bad because these cars are gonna be a pain to work on and cost a lot! Remember? the mustang was supposed to be a bear bones car that was fun to drive, made decent power, and rode like crap. But, the average guy could buy them, now you have to be a millionaire to get a mustang.

 

[Venom351R]

yeah the a "affordability" aspect of the Mustang has gotten away from ford over the years.

 

[got5.0]

and that is what the mustang was based on. I havn't liked any mustang since the 03/04 cobra.

 

[Shame302]

from a modification standpoint: yes. as cheap as mustang owners are its something to complain about,not to mention aftermarket component manufactures. my biggest complaint is still all the bs that will go into tuning and modding, you think obd2 is a pain to mess with? that`ll be nothin compared to messing with the bs that comes on this new one. and finally it drives up the price. your crazy if you think its the same price to put stainless headers on a car vs cast iron manifolds etc etc.

I totally disagree. The car comes with optimized headers...I think that's sweet. F the aftermarket. I'm sure LTs will be available. Who wants to spend hundreds of dollars on headers. As far as tuning? Well, tuners will have these things down in no time, just like every other time "platforms" change. Non issue. Further more, think about what you could potentially do with the computer controlled, variable cam timing, particularly with boosted applications. You can actually "program your whole run in from launch all the way to the top end. IMHO, this thing is going to be amazing. Let the next 3 years do the talking.

 

[BruhBrahBrad]

I agree with ^^^

 

[1996mustangGT]

I see your point with the tuning Shame, and that would be pretty nifty.

 

[hottwheels04]

its bad because these cars are gonna be a pain to work on and cost a lot! Remember? the mustang was supposed to be a bear bones car that was fun to drive, made decent power, and rode like crap. But, the average guy could buy them, now you have to be a millionaire to get a mustang.

its 2010 every car is a ripoff today nothing we can do about that,since 1996+ mod motor its been alot to mod, so now it comes with factory power no need to have to spend alot on mods unless you really want to and want a 500hp n/a street killa lol, but if you ask me a 400+hp car that starts off @ $29,000 is pretty cheap,if it really does make 395rwhp the mustang gt will be the cheapest and 1st 400+hp factory entry v8 car and cheapest esp this is a mustang gt were talking about go back years ago this power was only found in $50-$100k+ cars, and now only in 40-60k cobras and corvettes etc. and the v6 starts off @ only $22k for 305hp entry level.

Think about it 2000 cobra r was 385hp and people had to pay $50-$60k for that, 2003-2004 cobra was 390hp and was $34,500, all the 5.7 liter 6.0 liter vettes were $48-$60k with 400hp, now you can get a base v8 gt mustang starting off @$29k with 400+hp...thats pretty good if you ask me. :headbang:

 

[Venom351R]

Think about it 2000 cobra r was 385hp and people had to pay $50-$60k for that, 2003-2004 cobra was 390hp and was $34,500, all the 5.7 liter 6.0 liter vettes were $48-$60k with 400hp, now you can get a base v8 gt mustang starting off @$29k with 400+hp...thats pretty good if you ask me. :headbang:

You cant compare the 2000R and 03/04 Cobra's to the new Mustang. Those both were limited production and came with build numbers. They were not the run of the mill mass produced Mustang. Especially the 00R

 

[hottwheels04]

Think about it 2000 cobra r was 385hp and people had to pay $50-$60k for that, 2003-2004 cobra was 390hp and was $34,500, all the 5.7 liter 6.0 liter vettes were $48-$60k with 400hp, now you can get a base v8 gt mustang starting off @$29k with 400+hp...thats pretty good if you ask me. :headbang:

You cant compare the 2000R and 03/04 Cobra's to the new Mustang. Those both were limited production and came with build numbers. They were not the run of the mill mass produced Mustang. Especially the 00R

Umm yes I do That's my point do you not get that? in 2000 a $50k cobra r "LIMTED PRODUCTION CAR" COST YOU $50-$60K,You can now get a run of the mill base gt v8 with more hp in a regular gt and price is only $29-$35k and it makes more power now in a gt then in 2003-2004 cobra had with a "SUPERCHARGER" top of the line "COBRA" that cost 1-5k more they were about $34,500,technology changes! its a hell of a deal,and i bet alot of pissed off mustang owners, just like when the 2003-2004 cobra came out I heard a rumor of letters and pissed off 2000 cobra r owners had to pay $50k+ for limited cobra r with 385hp when in 2003 you could get a $34k 390hp reg cobra right after, like now the 2011 v6 will make same hp as a 2003-2004 mach1 made. times change its a good time why complain about? alot of these boo hoooers are same people prob bitched why cant a gt make good power n/a? ford finally does it and with only 5.0 liters some people are just never happy. its a gt not a cobra god and its $29k+ cant ask for much .

 

[1996mustangGT]

^ some good points. Im not going to lie, if i could afford it I would buy one.

 

[JDwhite98gt]

^ If you sold your bike, your two cars and added in all that money you're using to do that 5.4 swap.....you would of had a hell of a downpayment.

 

[tooslow]

Peak numbers are 365 lb-ft of torque at 4,350 rpm and 395 hp at 6,600 rpm. All of these at-the-wheels figures were obtained in 4th gear on a Dynojet 248 chassis dyno and include a 3% SAE weather correction factor.

6 speed gear ratios
1st 3.66
2nd 2.43
3rd 1.69
4th 1.32
5th 1.00
6th 0.65
Final drive 3.31:1
Problem highlighted in red and solution in green (guys over on corral spotted this). It would slightly lower the numbers but these motors are making more then advertised.

s

Peak numbers are 365 lb-ft of torque at 4,350 rpm and 395 hp at 6,600 rpm. All of these at-the-wheels figures were obtained in 4th gear on a Dynojet 248 chassis dyno and include a 3% SAE weather correction factor.

6 speed gear ratios
1st 3.66
2nd 2.43
3rd 1.69
4th 1.32
5th 1.00
6th 0.65
Final drive 3.31:1
Problem highlighted in red and solution in green (guys over on corral spotted this). It would slightly lower the numbers but these motors are making more then advertised.

actually, the opposite is true. dyno's read the highest in a 1:1 gear. so if done in 5th this car would have made MORE rwhp.

 

[tooslow]

i want one of these 5.0's can't afford it though.

I'd much rather have a ~400rwhp stock mustang with NO bolt-on aftermarket, than a 300hp stock mustang that takes heads, cams, and full exhaust just to get 20-30rwhp LESS then the stock 5.0l. If you are to supercharge any stang and want big power, the engine has to be rebuilt anyways so regardless the starting point its gunna need a rebuild. much rather buy forged rods and pistons, then that + heads/cams/exhaust. ect. and have a loud ill idling gas hog of an engine.

 

[hottwheels04]

i want one of these 5.0's can't afford it though.

I'd much rather have a ~400rwhp stock mustang with NO bolt-on aftermarket, than a 300hp stock mustang that takes heads, cams, and full exhaust just to get 20-30rwhp LESS then the stock 5.0l. If you are to supercharge any stang and want big power, the engine has to be rebuilt anyways so regardless the starting point its gunna need a rebuild. much rather buy forged rods and pistons, then that + heads/cams/exhaust. ect. and have a loud ill idling gas hog of an engine.

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

 

[OnyxCobra]

Do dynos really read the highest in 1:1 gear? That doesn't seem to make sense to me but I don't really know how it works.

 

[justinschmidt1]

Do dynos really read the highest in 1:1 gear? That doesn't seem to make sense to me but I don't really know how it works.

Yea, they should.

I dont think its too big of a differance though

 

[Shame302]

No, 5th or 6th would probably "make" more power. 1/1 is just common on the dyno. At that point the drivetrain front to rear should all be spinning at the same rpm save for the diff. This takes out as much gear/torque multiblication as possible. It also gives more stable readings and a broad enough "window" to tune in. At least that's how i understand it.

 

[Paul]

Couple of things:
1. I don't see a screenshot of the dyno graph anywhere. Who posts a dyno video without showing the readout on the screen?
2. The pull should have been made in 5th.
3. "Corrected" numbers can lick my nuts.

Paul.