This is an amazing Mustang. We are in a modern muscle car era right now. I can't wait to see what GM and Dodge come up with to try and out-do the 5.0. Wish I had that motor in my '07 GT!!!
It's a beautiful thing since I'm 65 now and still remember my buddy's Mach 1 and my '70 Chevelle. Etc. in the 70's. Even all these years later. Those gauges like the rest of the car are SO cool. OH and my cousins '65 Mustang, and Bullitt.
just bought one yesterday and I absolutely love it!!! I am so glad Ford went back to a true 5.0! its been rough to be a mustang fan the past few years. Its almost became as bad as being a Detroit lions fan the past ten years. and I do love the lions!!!
In my opinion, the 2011/2012 are the best Mustang GT years for power and looks overall. I didn't like the front end of the 2012/2014 and the new one has a really fat ass that bothers me, even though overall it's a great car.
I agree. I like the 11-12 looks the best. Even the 11-12 seems heavy to me at 3620. My 03 Mach 1 weighs 3420 and even that seems too heavy :) The modded SVO I used to have spoiled me on light weight Mustangs. It weighed 2990.
Anything 2015 and beyond, the looks suck big time. "Silly Putty Ponies", as I call them. '10-14 models are my favorite, and I have a Grabber Blue 2011 GT Premium. RESPECT that PONY!!!🐎🇺🇸👍
i test drove a 2010 camaro ss 6 spd and was very impressed with the power that the 6.2 had to offer, but now knowing the 2011 GT is even faster and has greater mpg i cant wait to get behind the wheel!
@JD06STi yes the dyno for this car would be 435 RWHP so technically it has more than that because your using hp to turn the drive train and to push air through the exhaust and to turn the wheels which lowers the hp.
I was so impressed with this car, I went out and bought one. I havent had a mustang since the 80s. This is definitely in a different league. The premium GT is only $34k, but it comes with leather, power driver seat, shaker 500, sync. My came with the 19 inch wheels & pwr pass seat & heated seat option. I got it for under $32k. All black car, then got limo tint. Its a sick car. I smoked my friend in his '10 Camaro SS.
@gda2323 - I'm sure the 435hp figure he gave was drive train adjusted. If you take your high figure of 372hp (you had a typo of 272) and adjust for 18% drive train loss your adjustment would be 439hp. However, 18% drive train loss would be high given the car is a standard and the 2011 Mustang GTs have an electric water pump resulting in less parasitic drag. If you use the average of 362hp and use a more realistic 15% drive train loss, you would come up with 416hp.
Yes i know their lying, no coyote mustang puts down over 400rwhp bone stock without a tune or anything, mine put down the most hp at my shop without a boss manifold, mine had 384hp with a jlt intake catback and bama tune. After the longtubes and offroad x it put down 422hp. The shop said those numbers are pretty high for a coyote and they dyno dozens per week
Well then their dyno is screwed up, let me tell you something, for over 50 years Ford has been very well known for understating power and torque figures, back to the late 60s Mustangs with the 7.0L that Ford said made 375 hp, it is pretty much known now that they made 400+. Ford, infact, nobody would ever overstate horsepower figures, most people, Dodge, Ford, and others, usually understate them for emissions and all that bull shit. Your lame ass local shop definitely would have a worse dyno than fucking K&N Air Filters would.
I mean its a dyno jet. Obviously a 7 litre motor would have over 400 hp, but man go take a look at all these other videos i think this is the only one with the numbers that high, look im not trashing ford or the mustang or anything im just saying from car meets, ppl i know, my car and just everyone coyotes dont have 435 hp stock especially for rear wheels. The normal range is 412-420 at the flywheel bone stock which is damn impressive, now with drivetrain loss which is 15% i believe. Multiply 420 times .85 and thats wat a stout coyote should average stock. Plus man k&n isnt wat they used to be ive seen ppl lose power with their intakes and gain with other brands, again could just be their car we will never know. All im doing is trying to correct information from the video i dont see why your insulting and attackin my shop
@EvilxMerlin The Mustang GT and 135i with my desired options cost $42K and $44K respectively. Power-to-weight ratios don't effect handling, just the straight-line performance. The lighter the car, the less rotational inertia it has. The 135i weighs 200 lbs less than the Mustang GT, which makes it inherently more nimble in the turns. The M3 has a limited slip diff, which allows the rear wheels to rotate at different angular velocities. It can corner harder than the Mustang w/ its live rear axel.
Question: Is it 435 horsepower at the rear wheels? Or, is it somehow calculated to 435 horsepower at the flywheel? If it's putting out 435 HP at the wheels it's got to be putting out around some 475 at the flywheel...no?
@gravityhammer25 oh, and about your zr1 statement, don't you think that the 41K boss 302's lap times are getting dangerously close to that of the 110K corvette zr1's Example: Laguna seca lap times - Boss 302 Laguna Seca - about 1:39:00 - Corvette zr1- about 1:35:00. Only a four second difference.
@Greendude33 roush doesn't use IRS, none of the well known tuners do. almost all of them use a 3 link rear setup, that are track tested. Ford's LRA setup is pretty impressive, and its also track tested. you have very little knowledge, of the car you are trying to argue about. theres currently only 2 companies offering IRS for the mustang, and they're setups are expensive, about 6k for just the parts.
@EvilxMerlin Then why are they dynoing it at the rear wheels? I dont see the engine out of the car on a dyno. are they just guessing it has 11% drivetrain loss?
@gda2323 Yes I've been having problems replying too. I wasn't being negative about your comment. I just mean that the 435hp figure they gave was not rwhp, although they did a dyno test. It had to have been powertrain adjusted. I just ordered complete off road exhaust, a tuner, and a cold air kit and I'm only expecting about 410-420 rwhp, so the 435 they got can't be rwhp.
So this is my question, is that 435 hp at the wheels or are they assuming drivetrain losses and estimating 435 hp at the crank? 435 at the wheels would be crazy.
@0NonZer0 the mustang is the ford sport car, same as the camaro/chevy and challeneger /dodge, but the super cars are Ford GT V10, Viper, and the Corvette.
Do mustangs last a long time? also what sort of gas mileage can you expect (probably pretty poor id imagine, although that's usually not a prime consideration in sports cars...)
@BaronRogoff1 I have talked to multiple 2011-2012 5.0 owners who have dynoed at 380rwhp and a little over that. Which is right around 435-440bhp. So no its not just specific vehicles, Ford under rated them. Probably for insurance costs.
@EvilxMerlin yea, multiply 1.11x390=432. if they are rated at 412 and have 11% loss then they should make 371rwhp average. 390 is alot more, it means ford is under rating the 5.0.
@BEBNC1 Either way, Ford managed to make a smaller capacity engine produce nearly the same amount of horsepower. The Corvette ZO6 costs significantly more than the Mustang GT, so I would expect a more advanced engine.
Ok, so of ALL the people on the planet, they chose THIS GUY to be the narrator of a video about one of the most bad ass cars on the market.... COME ON MAN
@philthyco oh your talking about the vid again? well just read the article and they say it only made 375rwhp on the dyno so they did simple math and got 435 crank hp as an est.
@AlumarsX They're also significantly more expensive. More investment, more tech and tuning. F1 cars can crank 1000 (as in one thousand) horsepower out of 3.0L V10's too. I also forgot to mention they cost millions of dollars to produce, build, and maintain.
@gravityhammer25 You can't be sure about anything, there's a lot of factors to consider, and that was just what I thought, I see you think differently. Now you should know that the 60's mustangs were production cars at one point as well, and it took some time after newer models came out for it to be a collector's vehicle, same may go for the 05-09 stangs, and you should also know that there was a pretty high demand for the mustang once the retro design came out, that can contribute as well.
and you know whats a real kicker. the evolution performance 5.0 made 405 horses and 375 lb/ft at the wheels. so with a tune it apparently gained only 10 lb,ft and 10 rwhp. oh but it gets better. some guy from livernois motorsports also had a 5.0 dynoed. but for whatever reason his came up 375 horses and around 350 lb.ft. as compared to the 395/365 a preproduction put down. the difference between the 2 is what you would expect between a tuned car and an untuned.
Im planning on getting the '11, maybe '12, Mustang for my next car, in manual of coarse. But i can decide if i should get the v6 or v8. I think i would get in way to much trouble with the V8. And I dont have alot of experienced with cars of this power. Not sure if the V8 would kick my ass.
@EvilxMerlin so they dyno it at the rear tires, and take that 11% ford claims and change the number they got to make it more impressive. why dont they just dyno it at the rear tires and tell what it dynoed. the dyno number is speculation until they pull it out and put it on an engine dyno.
GT has almost exactly the same stroke as SS. GT has almost exactly the same rod length as SS. At 6250RPM (SS redline), GT has almost exactly the same piston speed as SS. No additional wear at 6250. Also, GT has coated pistons which allow it to rev to 7000RPM reliably w/ little additional wear. There are now GTs w/ over 100K mi on them, no wear problems at all. An thousands of 4.6L w/ over 300Kmi, still running reliably.
@kdwildman - 410-420 HP only ? ...lol This forum is still giving me errors. I don't think, I'm over the 363 char limit. I'll make it short. Check out Steeda's "CAI and Tune" kit includes Steeda CAI and SCT's X3 tuner (custom tune for the Steeda CAI). I'm not a Steeda freak, but they do seem to have some great products. What CAI, Tune, and Exhaust did you select ? Goodluck and drop a line on your endevours if you have a minute.. Regards
@EvilxMerlin I realize that it is nearly twice as expensive, but the BMW M3's V8 produces the same amount of hp as the Mustang GT but is only a 4.0 liter. For the price of the Mustang, 5 liters is pretty impressive, especially when rivals from GM and Chrysler require 1.1-1.2 liters more engine (and all the extra weight from a larger engine). Unfortunately, I could buy a BMW 135i for the same price as a Mustang GT, and would likely trade extra speed for extra comfort.
@gravityhammer25 The scylone get's an average of 13.4 seconds at the 1/4 mile, that explains it all, your truck doesn't beat the mustang gt. The scylone gets a really good acceleration time because of the turbocharged engine, the 700R4 transmition, and AWD, allowing it to get pretty good 1/4 mile times, but it simply does not make the power and torque to go any faster. (not to mention, the added weight, and greater friction from the AWD will hinder it's speed later within a run)
@EvilxMerlin Power to weight relates to how quickly a car can accelerate. A more powerful car will "pull" harder when you mash the throttle. That said, it doesn't necessarily define 0-60 times. The heavier a car, the greater its inertia. As for the differential, the Mustang's rear tires both spin at the same rate. When cornering, the inside wheel wants to spin slower than the outside wheel. The live rear axel forces both wheels to rotate at the same speed, which makes the car prone to skidding.
@bigbadmenehune don't know what your talking about, i bought a premium 2010 grabber blue gt with a ton of options leather/sync/navigation/hoodscoop/sidescopes/20" shelby rims/rear decklid blackout/window louvers/sidescoopes/gt 500 rear valance/ it that had a msrp of 36 i talked them down to 26, they are already haveing a very difficult time selling them due to the 11s. i would have waited for the 11 but i already own a 600 hp 93 cobra so i didn't see the need for 2 race cars.
@hugoloves2spooge Sorry if you thought I was dissing the GT500. I really like the Shelby. I was just wondering why pay so much more when the new 5.0 is so close to it's performance.
the engine on the 2010-present Ford Mustang Engine 3.7 L Duratec V6 4.0 L Cologne V6 (2010 Only) 4.6 L Modular V8 (2010 Only) 5.4 L Modular supercharged V8 5.0 L Coyote V8
@americanman911 the main problem with the gt500 is that it has too much power and not enough tire so it blows the tires off while this gt is better balanced so get way better traction but as you can see the gt500 still gets a better 1/4 time bc of power
the reason for some inflated dyno numbers could be several different things. different dynos-- a dynojet shows inflated numbers where a mustang dyno does not. 2nd, edmunds screwed up when they dyno'd in 4th gear. you're supposed to dyno in the 1:1 gear which in the mustang is 5th. this also causes inflated numbers. the 5.0 isnt underrated. evolution performance numbers of 365 to the wheels is the proper number.
@gravityhammer25 I don't have the Mustang any more and I didn't count it because the engine and turbo were modified. But just so you feel better it was an SVO Mustang and I was hitting the ground with around 300 HP. It weighed 2990 LBS and all it took for us to beat a mostly stock Syclone was a set of sticky tires. And yes my Mustang did beat a Ferrari 328 that belonged to a friend of mine. Sorry no one was running a Porsche at the races I used to frequent.
@gravityhammer25 2012 zo6 isn't out yet, it's not even advertised on chevrolet's website, and yes, maybe zo6s have beaten ford gts on the track than 2011 zo6s or zr1s, but on the strip it's a quite different story, the point is an outdated 2006 ford gt, has the potential to beat a modern day corvette. And yes, I know roush and steeda aren't ford, I even explained that to you, but they make production mustangs of their own, by buying them from ford and tuning them with their parts.
@drc1981 Well put point, I agree but I have to argue the fact that the push rod designed V8 isn't limiting the (cornering) abilities to the vehicle in comparison to the antique solid axel rear end.
I think I would buy the v6 instead of the v8. Less power but it's probably a bit better on gas which is important to me.The rear wheel drive still bothers me during the snow. I don't know how it would handle.
Ok, I'm confused. (Sorry I'm only 14, but have an extreme passion for cars, especially Fords. Favorite car is the GT500 Super Snake,) but why did he say he tested it on the dyno in Riverside California if the plates say Michigan?
I call bullshit on the dyno numbers, everyone else is putting down 370-380 stock. it doesnt make sense that the car would make more to the rear wheels than its advertised at the crank, that would mean with 435hp it would have almost 500 at the crank.
@gravityhammer25 Finally, you're correct about the turbo lag fixes, but these are the engineering techniques I was talking about, BMW did eveything you explained in order to fix lag, and be more efficient, (ford did thier own fixes with the ecoboost engine). And yea turbos can be great, but the technology needed to fix those probems do cost something, and it increases the cost of the car. Not to mention, you need more than one supercharger (usually) to make the power of a supercharger.
@gravityhammer25 Now, the sn197 mustangs were desired vehicles (because they had a unique design that looked back to the 60's stangs) so this will account for it's history (such as why it was so great, what made it popular, how it influenced the modern day ones, ect.) so this will drive it's value up. Now the scylone was most likely discontinued due to lack of sales, so it was obviously not a desired vehicle, but some cars end up being worth a lot anyway, due to thier rarity, so I wouldn't know.
@331Grabber Not according to my personal experience, On my other truck do you consider 265,000 miles on an original transmission and engine reliable? I would consider that to be superb. A normal gasoline GM engine will last until the body pane's rust away. A diesel GM engine will last longer than a human lifespan. That is just with regular fluid changes.
@AdrianC12345 Now we're talking!! I'm going to go check out that article as soon as I can. Is it online? Otherwise I'm hoping it's still at Barne's & Noble or available at the local library.
God I'm so glad I waited for the 5.0 instead of getting the Camaro! I'm a Chevy guy myself but Ford finally did something to interest me in a long while! First the 7.3 now the 5.0! I'm picking up one of these bad boys with the California package!
@man36021 Twin turbo's fix lag.... anyway also the new BMW M5 places turbos between V of block... It has an advanced manifold system shorter exhaust tracks. Wider diameter to reduce pressure loss. it increases throttle response, reduces turbo lag and improves efficiency. Turbos can be GREAT All 500lb-ft of torque is available from 1500rpm to 5750rpm, red line at 7200. engineering Also look up the Mazdaspeed 6, those are engineered so the turbo spools instantly, provides low-mid end power.
@nismofury depends on the conditions...maybe there pavement provides better traction, maybe it was a very cool day or maybe they use a formula to calculate the best conditions possibly like car and driver..i know my 2011 gt is that fast.
@hawkeyfam3 It's really preference if you think about it. I would say get the V6 If you're going to be doing a lot of driving and traveling to work and such. If you're going to put your mustang away during rain/snow and only take it out on sunny days, I would say go with the V8.
@josecrosscountry and who says i was even talking about this video? there is another where it makes 43X horses at the rear wheels. cant remember if it was inside line, motortrend, or another major car reviewer.
@HighCardWins When they rate these cars, they're actually getting BHP, or horsepower at the engine, or at the crank. If the Coyote engine is good for 435 BHP, then the Mustang must be getting some 365-380 Rear wheel horsepower.
@BaronRogoff1 Yes the Boss is also under rated I believe... I've heard of crank numbers closer to 465-470. The GT500 is the only one I know of that makes close to what Ford rates it at.
@mustang6035 I guess what you're saying is that if you want to build the Mustang to be a legit corner vehicle, you have to re-invent the wheel? That the Mustang was built precisely for one thing and thats drag race and straight line capabilities? So anotherwords Mustang drivers don't care for the track... but rather just to drag race?
@EvilxMerlin ok, go to motertrends channel and look at the first drive for the new 2011 srt8 and you'll find that it's 0-60 time is 4.6 and it does the quarter mile under 13 seconds. im not trying to be negative but they are bot pretty evenly matched!
@gravityhammer25 So you have a modded truck, didn't give me that information. also, i'm an amature racer myself, I beat those firebirds when I raced for my first time, not sure how they can be bad drivers, when i'm not that great myself, especially since I started late. I only put light mods in my car, like a tune, exhaust, and an air intake, and the car exits those turns like a rocket, even with the stock suspension system. Also I dirve through rain too, and I have fun while doing it.
I'm definitely a Camaro guy but I have to say that I'm very happy to see Ford finally making a Mustang GT worthy of the name, they haven't done that in a while.
this one is the best out of the pony cars hands down not only it is faster than the other 2 it is better all around in reliability, handling, fuel economy etc. it came as a top 10 best car, recommended by consumer reports and just seeing how much Ford has improved in all there cars really says something..that's why im buying a Mustang GT no doubt
@gravityhammer25 Not all, but a few, I have a pretty good idea of what the next power source could be, but it's just my preferance, you should make your own instead of worrying about succuming to a world of electric cars. P.S. Roush figured out a way to use propane effectively by giving an f-150 a new fuel cell (a propane tank obviously), a new fuel system, and a few new sensors. A completely redesigned engine wasn't necessary.
I bought one of these (a 2011 5.0) two years ago, in Grabber Blue. What a car!!!
A little deceiving to show the car on a dyno then show flywheel horsepower estimates.
I'm a GM guy born and raised, but Ford has definitely been impressive as of late.
And nothing beats the sound of a Ford modular V8!!!
Wow.. hearing that 5.0L rev... that is music to my hears...
This is an amazing Mustang. We are in a modern muscle car era right now. I can't wait to see what GM and Dodge come up with to try and out-do the 5.0. Wish I had that motor in my '07 GT!!!
Sadly coming to an end in 2023…
@@SASUSERNAMEI feel old
It's a beautiful thing since I'm 65 now and still remember my buddy's Mach 1 and my '70 Chevelle. Etc. in the 70's. Even all these years later. Those gauges like the rest of the car are SO cool. OH and my cousins '65 Mustang, and Bullitt.
just bought one yesterday and I absolutely love it!!! I am so glad Ford went back to a true 5.0! its been rough to be a mustang fan the past few years. Its almost became as bad as being a Detroit lions fan the past ten years. and I do love the lions!!!
Ok
Is it still rough?? 😂😂
In my opinion, the 2011/2012 are the best Mustang GT years for power and looks overall. I didn't like the front end of the 2012/2014 and the new one has a really fat ass that bothers me, even though overall it's a great car.
I agree. I like the 11-12 looks the best. Even the 11-12 seems heavy to me at 3620. My 03 Mach 1 weighs 3420 and even that seems too heavy :)
The modded SVO I used to have spoiled me on light weight Mustangs. It weighed 2990.
Agreed, I like the front ends of the 11/12's. The rounded years after look bulbous.
Anything 2015 and beyond, the looks suck big time. "Silly Putty Ponies", as I call them. '10-14 models are my favorite, and I have a Grabber Blue 2011 GT Premium. RESPECT that PONY!!!🐎🇺🇸👍
This is the first time I've ever felt much hope for/excitement over a new Mustang. It looks like they did a pretty good job on this one.
i just got this car today. holy shit it has some power.
Got mine 2 months ago. First time I floored it I ended up in the ditch. Was not expecting that much power.
dam that sucks.
***** lmao
***** Really?
yup
the numbers it actually put down on the ground are insane!
Wow this car is fast even in 2018.
i test drove a 2010 camaro ss 6 spd and was very impressed with the power that the 6.2 had to offer, but now knowing the 2011 GT is even faster and has greater mpg i cant wait to get behind the wheel!
Now THAT is beauty mixed with muscle!
@JD06STi yes the dyno for this car would be 435 RWHP so technically it has more than that because your using hp to turn the drive train and to push air through the exhaust and to turn the wheels which lowers the hp.
how much at the wheels? 370?
I was so impressed with this car, I went out and bought one. I havent had a mustang since the 80s. This is definitely in a different league. The premium GT is only $34k, but it comes with leather, power driver seat, shaker 500, sync. My came with the 19 inch wheels & pwr pass seat & heated seat option. I got it for under $32k. All black car, then got limo tint. Its a sick car. I smoked my friend in his '10 Camaro SS.
that's crank hp not wheels
@gda2323 - I'm sure the 435hp figure he gave was drive train adjusted. If you take your high figure of 372hp (you had a typo of 272) and adjust for 18% drive train loss your adjustment would be 439hp. However, 18% drive train loss would be high given the car is a standard and the 2011 Mustang GTs have an electric water pump resulting in less parasitic drag. If you use the average of 362hp and use a more realistic 15% drive train loss, you would come up with 416hp.
That car does not have 435 hp stock maybe 360-370, i put down 422 with longtubes
phillip langley so you think their dyno is lying? Lol you're funny :3
Yes i know their lying, no coyote mustang puts down over 400rwhp bone stock without a tune or anything, mine put down the most hp at my shop without a boss manifold, mine had 384hp with a jlt intake catback and bama tune. After the longtubes and offroad x it put down 422hp. The shop said those numbers are pretty high for a coyote and they dyno dozens per week
Well then their dyno is screwed up, let me tell you something, for over 50 years Ford has been very well known for understating power and torque figures, back to the late 60s Mustangs with the 7.0L that Ford said made 375 hp, it is pretty much known now that they made 400+. Ford, infact, nobody would ever overstate horsepower figures, most people, Dodge, Ford, and others, usually understate them for emissions and all that bull shit. Your lame ass local shop definitely would have a worse dyno than fucking K&N Air Filters would.
I mean its a dyno jet. Obviously a 7 litre motor would have over 400 hp, but man go take a look at all these other videos i think this is the only one with the numbers that high, look im not trashing ford or the mustang or anything im just saying from car meets, ppl i know, my car and just everyone coyotes dont have 435 hp stock especially for rear wheels. The normal range is 412-420 at the flywheel bone stock which is damn impressive, now with drivetrain loss which is 15% i believe. Multiply 420 times .85 and thats wat a stout coyote should average stock. Plus man k&n isnt wat they used to be ive seen ppl lose power with their intakes and gain with other brands, again could just be their car we will never know. All im doing is trying to correct information from the video i dont see why your insulting and attackin my shop
Well then that makes sense, Ford probably states the crank horsepower and not rear wheel horsepower.
@marshknute actually the LS3 weighs about 30lbs less than fords new 5.0 and the zo6 LS7 only weighs about 10lbs more than the 5.0.
@EvilxMerlin The Mustang GT and 135i with my desired options cost $42K and $44K respectively. Power-to-weight ratios don't effect handling, just the straight-line performance. The lighter the car, the less rotational inertia it has. The 135i weighs 200 lbs less than the Mustang GT, which makes it inherently more nimble in the turns. The M3 has a limited slip diff, which allows the rear wheels to rotate at different angular velocities. It can corner harder than the Mustang w/ its live rear axel.
Does the fact that the engine is now an aluminum block take away from what you can produce from the engine tuning wise vs the older iron block???
Question: Is it 435 horsepower at the rear wheels? Or, is it somehow calculated to 435 horsepower at the flywheel? If it's putting out 435 HP at the wheels it's got to be putting out around some 475 at the flywheel...no?
@gravityhammer25 oh, and about your zr1 statement, don't you think that the 41K boss 302's lap times are getting dangerously close to that of the 110K corvette zr1's
Example: Laguna seca lap times - Boss 302 Laguna Seca - about 1:39:00
- Corvette zr1- about 1:35:00. Only a four second difference.
@EVERLIVERPOOL but the problem is boss is not aimed for srt 8, and the top speed of the srt 8 is faster than the boss
@Greendude33 roush doesn't use IRS, none of the well known tuners do. almost all of them use a 3 link rear setup, that are track tested. Ford's LRA setup is pretty impressive, and its also track tested. you have very little knowledge, of the car you are trying to argue about. theres currently only 2 companies offering IRS for the mustang, and they're setups are expensive, about 6k for just the parts.
@EvilxMerlin Then why are they dynoing it at the rear wheels? I dont see the engine out of the car on a dyno. are they just guessing it has 11% drivetrain loss?
Awesome! I have always loved Mustangs Looks great and it's so nice to finally see them with a worthy power plant :)
@gda2323 Yes I've been having problems replying too. I wasn't being negative about your comment. I just mean that the 435hp figure they gave was not rwhp, although they did a dyno test. It had to have been powertrain adjusted. I just ordered complete off road exhaust, a tuner, and a cold air kit and I'm only expecting about 410-420 rwhp, so the 435 they got can't be rwhp.
whenever i need to fall asleep, i just listen to this guy.
So this is my question, is that 435 hp at the wheels or are they assuming drivetrain losses and estimating 435 hp at the crank? 435 at the wheels would be crazy.
@0NonZer0 the mustang is the ford sport car, same as the camaro/chevy and challeneger /dodge, but the super cars are Ford GT V10, Viper, and the Corvette.
Do mustangs last a long time? also what sort of gas mileage can you expect (probably pretty poor id imagine, although that's usually not a prime consideration in sports cars...)
@BaronRogoff1 I have talked to multiple 2011-2012 5.0 owners who have dynoed at 380rwhp and a little over that. Which is right around 435-440bhp. So no its not just specific vehicles, Ford under rated them. Probably for insurance costs.
@EvilxMerlin yea, multiply 1.11x390=432.
if they are rated at 412 and have 11% loss then they should make 371rwhp average. 390 is alot more, it means ford is under rating the 5.0.
@jc9038 not to be mean but 302 is actually a 4.95L and a 305 is a real 5.0L just letting you know
@BEBNC1 Either way, Ford managed to make a smaller capacity engine produce nearly the same amount of horsepower. The Corvette ZO6 costs significantly more than the Mustang GT, so I would expect a more advanced engine.
in a top gear vid the old gt 500 was putting down 440hp to the ground so this is pretty good
@EvilxMerlin I know, I was talking about 2011 5.0 vs 2011 GT500, which still uses the older gt500 block and only some minor upgrades
Ok, so of ALL the people on the planet, they chose THIS GUY to be the narrator of a video about one of the most bad ass cars on the market.... COME ON MAN
@TheDubeo the 12.12 stock run with slicks is on youtube it's not me. . i went 12.87 bone stock, Jackson, SC "house of hook".
@philthyco oh your talking about the vid again? well just read the article and they say it only made 375rwhp on the dyno so they did simple math and got 435 crank hp as an est.
@AlumarsX They're also significantly more expensive. More investment, more tech and tuning. F1 cars can crank 1000 (as in one thousand) horsepower out of 3.0L V10's too. I also forgot to mention they cost millions of dollars to produce, build, and maintain.
@gravityhammer25 nope, ford had 33% but they sold some of it, and they now have 13.3% of it, we were both wrong, happy?
@gravityhammer25 You can't be sure about anything, there's a lot of factors to consider, and that was just what I thought, I see you think differently. Now you should know that the 60's mustangs were production cars at one point as well, and it took some time after newer models came out for it to be a collector's vehicle, same may go for the 05-09 stangs, and you should also know that there was a pretty high demand for the mustang once the retro design came out, that can contribute as well.
and you know whats a real kicker. the evolution performance 5.0 made 405 horses and 375 lb/ft at the wheels. so with a tune it apparently gained only 10 lb,ft and 10 rwhp. oh but it gets better. some guy from livernois motorsports also had a 5.0 dynoed. but for whatever reason his came up 375 horses and around 350 lb.ft. as compared to the 395/365 a preproduction put down. the difference between the 2 is what you would expect between a tuned car and an untuned.
Im planning on getting the '11, maybe '12, Mustang for my next car, in manual of coarse. But i can decide if i should get the v6 or v8. I think i would get in way to much trouble with the V8. And I dont have alot of experienced with cars of this power. Not sure if the V8 would kick my ass.
@EvilxMerlin so they dyno it at the rear tires, and take that 11% ford claims and change the number they got to make it more impressive. why dont they just dyno it at the rear tires and tell what it dynoed. the dyno number is speculation until they pull it out and put it on an engine dyno.
GT has almost exactly the same stroke as SS. GT has almost exactly the same rod length as SS. At 6250RPM (SS redline), GT has almost exactly the same piston speed as SS.
No additional wear at 6250.
Also, GT has coated pistons which allow it to rev to 7000RPM reliably w/ little additional wear.
There are now GTs w/ over 100K mi on them, no wear problems at all. An thousands of 4.6L w/ over 300Kmi, still running reliably.
@kdwildman - 410-420 HP only ? ...lol
This forum is still giving me errors. I don't think, I'm over the 363 char limit. I'll make it short.
Check out Steeda's "CAI and Tune" kit includes Steeda CAI and SCT's X3 tuner (custom tune for the Steeda CAI). I'm not a Steeda freak, but they do seem to have some great products.
What CAI, Tune, and Exhaust did you select ? Goodluck and drop a line on your endevours if you have a minute..
Regards
@EvilxMerlin I realize that it is nearly twice as expensive, but the BMW M3's V8 produces the same amount of hp as the Mustang GT but is only a 4.0 liter. For the price of the Mustang, 5 liters is pretty impressive, especially when rivals from GM and Chrysler require 1.1-1.2 liters more engine (and all the extra weight from a larger engine). Unfortunately, I could buy a BMW 135i for the same price as a Mustang GT, and would likely trade extra speed for extra comfort.
@gravityhammer25 The scylone get's an average of 13.4 seconds at the 1/4 mile, that explains it all, your truck doesn't beat the mustang gt. The scylone gets a really good acceleration time because of the turbocharged engine, the 700R4 transmition, and AWD, allowing it to get pretty good 1/4 mile times, but it simply does not make the power and torque to go any faster. (not to mention, the added weight, and greater friction from the AWD will hinder it's speed later within a run)
Just bought one three months ago and I'm in love.
@EvilxMerlin Power to weight relates to how quickly a car can accelerate. A more powerful car will "pull" harder when you mash the throttle. That said, it doesn't necessarily define 0-60 times. The heavier a car, the greater its inertia. As for the differential, the Mustang's rear tires both spin at the same rate. When cornering, the inside wheel wants to spin slower than the outside wheel. The live rear axel forces both wheels to rotate at the same speed, which makes the car prone to skidding.
Finally FORD figured out ditching the 5.0 was a bad idea. Thank god! Mustang is back!
@flkendall the camaro actually had a best run to 60 of 4.7 seconds, the '11 GT was 4 flat....thats absolutely amazing for the 5.0 haha
@bigbadmenehune don't know what your talking about, i bought a premium 2010 grabber blue gt with a ton of options leather/sync/navigation/hoodscoop/sidescopes/20" shelby rims/rear decklid blackout/window louvers/sidescoopes/gt 500 rear valance/ it that had a msrp of 36 i talked them down to 26, they are already haveing a very difficult time selling them due to the 11s. i would have waited for the 11 but i already own a 600 hp 93 cobra so i didn't see the need for 2 race cars.
@hugoloves2spooge Sorry if you thought I was dissing the GT500. I really like the Shelby. I was just wondering why pay so much more when the new 5.0 is so close to it's performance.
the engine on the 2010-present Ford Mustang
Engine
3.7 L Duratec V6
4.0 L Cologne V6 (2010 Only)
4.6 L Modular V8 (2010 Only)
5.4 L Modular supercharged V8
5.0 L Coyote V8
@americanman911 the main problem with the gt500 is that it has too much power and not enough tire so it blows the tires off while this gt is better balanced so get way better traction but as you can see the gt500 still gets a better 1/4 time bc of power
the reason for some inflated dyno numbers could be several different things. different dynos-- a dynojet shows inflated numbers where a mustang dyno does not. 2nd, edmunds screwed up when they dyno'd in 4th gear. you're supposed to dyno in the 1:1 gear which in the mustang is 5th. this also causes inflated numbers. the 5.0 isnt underrated. evolution performance numbers of 365 to the wheels is the proper number.
365 to the wheels is like 430 to the crank
@gravityhammer25 I don't have the Mustang any more and I didn't count it because the engine and turbo were modified. But just so you feel better it was an SVO Mustang and I was hitting the ground with around 300 HP. It weighed 2990 LBS and all it took for us to beat a mostly stock Syclone was a set of sticky tires. And yes my Mustang did beat a Ferrari 328 that belonged to a friend of mine. Sorry no one was running a Porsche at the races I used to frequent.
@scrubb21157 ok i ment cubic inches the 5.0 was 302 cubic inches and the 4.9 was 300 cubic inches the 5.0 was a v6 and the 4.9 was a inline 6
@gravityhammer25 2012 zo6 isn't out yet, it's not even advertised on chevrolet's website, and yes, maybe zo6s have beaten ford gts on the track than 2011 zo6s or zr1s, but on the strip it's a quite different story, the point is an outdated 2006 ford gt, has the potential to beat a modern day corvette. And yes, I know roush and steeda aren't ford, I even explained that to you, but they make production mustangs of their own, by buying them from ford and tuning them with their parts.
@drc1981 Well put point, I agree but I have to argue the fact that the push rod designed V8 isn't limiting the (cornering) abilities to the vehicle in comparison to the antique solid axel rear end.
I think I would buy the v6 instead of the v8. Less power but it's probably a bit better on gas which is important to me.The rear wheel drive still bothers me during the snow. I don't know how it would handle.
How can rear wheel hp be more than the rated engine hp on a stock engine unless the engine rating was greatly underrated?
Ok, I'm confused. (Sorry I'm only 14, but have an extreme passion for cars, especially Fords. Favorite car is the GT500 Super Snake,) but why did he say he tested it on the dyno in Riverside California if the plates say Michigan?
I call bullshit on the dyno numbers, everyone else is putting down 370-380 stock. it doesnt make sense that the car would make more to the rear wheels than its advertised at the crank, that would mean with 435hp it would have almost 500 at the crank.
@furkanovich
Yes....
IT will Blend.. the manual version has 6 different speeds of blending, including reverse..
@gravityhammer25 Finally, you're correct about the turbo lag fixes, but these are the engineering techniques I was talking about, BMW did eveything you explained in order to fix lag, and be more efficient, (ford did thier own fixes with the ecoboost engine). And yea turbos can be great, but the technology needed to fix those probems do cost something, and it increases the cost of the car. Not to mention, you need more than one supercharger (usually) to make the power of a supercharger.
@gravityhammer25 Now, the sn197 mustangs were desired vehicles (because they had a unique design that looked back to the 60's stangs) so this will account for it's history (such as why it was so great, what made it popular, how it influenced the modern day ones, ect.) so this will drive it's value up. Now the scylone was most likely discontinued due to lack of sales, so it was obviously not a desired vehicle, but some cars end up being worth a lot anyway, due to thier rarity, so I wouldn't know.
@331Grabber
Not according to my personal experience, On my other truck do you consider 265,000 miles on an original transmission and engine reliable? I would consider that to be superb. A normal gasoline GM engine will last until the body pane's rust away. A diesel GM engine will last longer than a human lifespan. That is just with regular fluid changes.
@AlumarsX At 1:42 he clearly said "horsepower" and not "rear wheel horsepower".
@AdrianC12345 Now we're talking!! I'm going to go check out that article as soon as I can. Is it online? Otherwise I'm hoping it's still at Barne's & Noble or available at the local library.
God I'm so glad I waited for the 5.0 instead of getting the Camaro! I'm a Chevy guy myself but Ford finally did something to interest me in a long while! First the 7.3 now the 5.0! I'm picking up one of these bad boys with the California package!
@philthyco just read the damn article they say its crank hp not rwhp
@man36021
Twin turbo's fix lag.... anyway also the new BMW M5 places turbos between V of block... It has an advanced manifold system shorter exhaust tracks. Wider diameter to reduce pressure loss. it increases throttle response, reduces turbo lag and improves efficiency. Turbos can be GREAT
All 500lb-ft of torque is available from 1500rpm to 5750rpm, red line at 7200. engineering
Also look up the Mazdaspeed 6, those are engineered so the turbo spools instantly, provides low-mid end power.
@nismofury depends on the conditions...maybe there pavement provides better traction, maybe it was a very cool day or maybe they use a formula to calculate the best conditions possibly like car and driver..i know my 2011 gt is that fast.
@hawkeyfam3 It's really preference if you think about it. I would say get the V6 If you're going to be doing a lot of driving and traveling to work and such. If you're going to put your mustang away during rain/snow and only take it out on sunny days, I would say go with the V8.
@josecrosscountry and who says i was even talking about this video? there is another where it makes 43X horses at the rear wheels. cant remember if it was inside line, motortrend, or another major car reviewer.
@HighCardWins When they rate these cars, they're actually getting BHP, or horsepower at the engine, or at the crank. If the Coyote engine is good for 435 BHP, then the Mustang must be getting some 365-380 Rear wheel horsepower.
@95GTstang the camaro is a bit faster than the new gt by like 2 mph on the quater mile i just read it in motor trend i think
@Venmus98 actually, 1 liter = 61 ci....therefore, 302/61 actually = 4.95 L
How does this dyno @ 435hp? 358hp is what all other dynos get.
@BaronRogoff1 Yes the Boss is also under rated I believe... I've heard of crank numbers closer to 465-470. The GT500 is the only one I know of that makes close to what Ford rates it at.
@EvilxMerlin its a different story at the nurburgring which is a much more diverse track than the grandam
@FordSVT1313 ? the cobra has been a dohc since 96!
@DucatiPaso750 That's at the fly wheel. I read it on their article.
@mustang6035 I guess what you're saying is that if you want to build the Mustang to be a legit corner vehicle, you have to re-invent the wheel? That the Mustang was built precisely for one thing and thats drag race and straight line capabilities? So anotherwords Mustang drivers don't care for the track... but rather just to drag race?
@EvilxMerlin ok, go to motertrends channel and look at the first drive for the new 2011 srt8 and you'll find that it's 0-60 time is 4.6 and it does the quarter mile under 13 seconds. im not trying to be negative but they are bot pretty evenly matched!
@gravityhammer25 So you have a modded truck, didn't give me that information. also, i'm an amature racer myself, I beat those firebirds when I raced for my first time, not sure how they can be bad drivers, when i'm not that great myself, especially since I started late. I only put light mods in my car, like a tune, exhaust, and an air intake, and the car exits those turns like a rocket, even with the stock suspension system. Also I dirve through rain too, and I have fun while doing it.
@EvilxMerlin for racing, sure but for what else? Do you need 400hp to accelerate onto an interstate? lol it just seems kind of overdone to me.
@backintack Cool deal. Remember to get the 3.73 gears! The Brembo brakes are good too.
it produces 435hp at the crank and 395 rwhp.....check out edmunds vid of the dyno test
@EvilxMerlin you mean 14" on the front and 11.8" on the rear.
I'm definitely a Camaro guy but I have to say that I'm very happy to see Ford finally making a Mustang GT worthy of the name, they haven't done that in a while.
@philthyco read the article never in that vid does it say rear wheel horse power
this one is the best out of the pony cars hands down not only it is faster than the other 2 it is better all around in reliability, handling, fuel economy etc. it came as a top 10 best car, recommended by consumer reports and just seeing how much Ford has improved in all there cars really says something..that's why im buying a Mustang GT no doubt
@gravityhammer25 Not all, but a few, I have a pretty good idea of what the next power source could be, but it's just my preferance, you should make your own instead of worrying about succuming to a world of electric cars. P.S. Roush figured out a way to use propane effectively by giving an f-150 a new fuel cell (a propane tank obviously), a new fuel system, and a few new sensors. A completely redesigned engine wasn't necessary.