It's Official: 2011 Ford Mustang GT has 5.0-liter V8
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,217
From: Greenville, SC
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 329
From: Hemlock, Mich.
Looks like they must have tested them, I have found several pictures and some are taken with a Camaro right next to the Mustang. So my guess is we should have some numbers to look at.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 329
From: Hemlock, Mich.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 948
From: Stroudsburg, PA
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,463
From: SoCal
Looks like MM&FF tested the '11 GT at a airstrip in CA per Bob so I'll take a stab at the numbers we'll here on 3/29.
My guess.... 12.85 @ 110.5 mph in our less than ideal conditions.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 3,252
From: Knoxville, TN
Ok, looks like they will have some numbers. Given that it is on asphalt at an airstrip, I suspect ET will suffer due to lack of traction - perhaps I'll be wrong.
As for the dyno....that is indeed hard to believe. Very hard to believe. *If* that is representative of what a production 5.0 will do, and *if* that is SAE corrected.......wow. Game on would be an understatement.
But I'll believe it when real people have had real cars on real dynos and posted real numbers.
99SS....sounds reasonable. Traction limited - which (contrary to what many believe) can hurt both ET and MPH.
As for the dyno....that is indeed hard to believe. Very hard to believe. *If* that is representative of what a production 5.0 will do, and *if* that is SAE corrected.......wow. Game on would be an understatement.
But I'll believe it when real people have had real cars on real dynos and posted real numbers.
99SS....sounds reasonable. Traction limited - which (contrary to what many believe) can hurt both ET and MPH.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 329
From: Hemlock, Mich.
Ok, looks like they will have some numbers. Given that it is on asphalt at an airstrip, I suspect ET will suffer due to lack of traction - perhaps I'll be wrong.
As for the dyno....that is indeed hard to believe. Very hard to believe. *If* that is representative of what a production 5.0 will do, and *if* that is SAE corrected.......wow. Game on would be an understatement.
But I'll believe it when real people have had real cars on real dynos and posted real numbers.
99SS....sounds reasonable. Traction limited - which (contrary to what many believe) can hurt both ET and MPH.
As for the dyno....that is indeed hard to believe. Very hard to believe. *If* that is representative of what a production 5.0 will do, and *if* that is SAE corrected.......wow. Game on would be an understatement.
But I'll believe it when real people have had real cars on real dynos and posted real numbers.
99SS....sounds reasonable. Traction limited - which (contrary to what many believe) can hurt both ET and MPH.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,977
From: SeVa
That's 465 HP at the crank assuming a typical 15% drive-train loss. Holy cow. Looks like Ford under rated it a bit. 
395hp on the rollers, I bet its more like 430hp. Anyways, does anybody know which SAE testing process was used?
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
I know some people were saying that Ford low-balled the horsepower numbers but it's very hard to believe that the Mustang actually puts out almost as much rwhp as its claimed fwhp. Anyway, dyno numbers can be very misleading. I'd say it was game on from the outset, when Ford began leaking hp numbers. 
Anyway, dyno numbers can be very misleading. I'd say it was game on from the outset, when Ford began leaking hp numbers.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 3,252
From: Knoxville, TN
More info: http://blogs.insideline.com/straight...ang-gt-50.html
I'll stick by my opinion, but they did at least state that it was SAE and on a 248.
I'll stick by my opinion, but they did at least state that it was SAE and on a 248.