It's Official: 2011 Ford Mustang GT has 5.0-liter V8
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,977
From: SeVa
Not that it would have made a whole helluva difference (maybe 30-40hp), but Ford had some mighty nice heads on the Exploder in GT40 and GT40p form.
1992 to 1998 was not an especially good time to be a Mustang fan.
Last edited by bossco; Mar 26, 2010 at 03:04 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 3,252
From: Knoxville, TN
Back in "the day", there were plenty of examples of stock, 1998 LS1 M6 Camaros and Firebirds/TAs making 285-295 SAE RWHP on dynojets. Some made a bit more, a few made a bit less. I saw several with my own beady little eyes. In fact, there was a portable dyno at Gathering II in Atlanta back in 1998. Most stock M6 LS1 cars were in that range. I put my own car on the same dyno, and was within 5 RWHP of what it had dyno'd on two other machines.
285-295 RWHP is way, way above a 305 HP rating from the factory. The original LS1 in the Camaro/Firebird was very underrated.
285-295 RWHP is way, way above a 305 HP rating from the factory. The original LS1 in the Camaro/Firebird was very underrated.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,881
Not to nitpick but motortrend and others have got a 13.5 sec 1/4 mile and 104 mph out of a trackpak 2010 GT:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...est/index.html
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...est/index.html
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
All correct. They also changed the cam in 2001, to the "truck cam" which is slightly less aggressive than the '97-2000 cam. In addition to a couple more horsepower, it also improved very low RPM drivability. A 2001-2002 M6 car will loaf along in 6th at 800 rpm (~40mph) with no problem, and even accelerate away from there (slowly) without lugging; a '97-2000 car won't do it so smoothly.
LS6 also got a different cam to go with the better heads, and some of the valve gear is nicer (sodium-filled valves, for example).
The 345hp rating given in the Corvette in 1997 was pretty accurate, as was the 350hp given when they added the aforementioned intake manifold and changed the cam in 2001.
Camaro (and Trans Am) had the exact same engine, with a slightly more restrictive intake and exhaust. Despite ratings that varied from 305-325 over the years) in reality it was never more than 10hp behind the Corvette of the same year, and dyno results back that up.
LS6 also got a different cam to go with the better heads, and some of the valve gear is nicer (sodium-filled valves, for example).
The 345hp rating given in the Corvette in 1997 was pretty accurate, as was the 350hp given when they added the aforementioned intake manifold and changed the cam in 2001.
Camaro (and Trans Am) had the exact same engine, with a slightly more restrictive intake and exhaust. Despite ratings that varied from 305-325 over the years) in reality it was never more than 10hp behind the Corvette of the same year, and dyno results back that up.
Different wheel/tire combos on chassis dynos give different results, even on the same car. The fact that a Mustang produced 5rwhp less than the Camaro at the time does not imply similar engine outputs. The track MPH numbers would be more meaningful.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,463
From: SoCal
I had 286 rwhp / 311 rwtq from my '02 A4 Z with about 1500 miles on the clock on a Mustang Dyno.
I think we can all agree the LS1 was one of the most underrated cars but GM's reasons seemed to be more from a lack of care, tongue in cheek HP ratings for the lame duck F-body. We were just lucky that GM had spent what they did on the LS1/LS6 for the Corvette and wanted to share costs with the step child F-body. Or that there wasn't a lower cost performance V8 they could have literally dropped on the F cars because by 2001-02 I think they would have rather done that.
I think we can all agree the LS1 was one of the most underrated cars but GM's reasons seemed to be more from a lack of care, tongue in cheek HP ratings for the lame duck F-body. We were just lucky that GM had spent what they did on the LS1/LS6 for the Corvette and wanted to share costs with the step child F-body. Or that there wasn't a lower cost performance V8 they could have literally dropped on the F cars because by 2001-02 I think they would have rather done that.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 163
From: Tulsa,OK
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,000
From: TX Med Ctr
The LS6 block is not any stronger than the LS1 block. The only difference is the addition of some windows for "improved bay-to-bay breathing" (and, of course, a change in casting number 
).
Given that information, I would suggest that if there is any difference in strength between the two blocks, it is negligible, and it is the LS1 block that is stronger.
).Given that information, I would suggest that if there is any difference in strength between the two blocks, it is negligible, and it is the LS1 block that is stronger.
I think the various changes through the years for the LS1 have been rehashed pretty well already in this thread. But just to repeat, in 2000 you got tubular manifolds which were a slight improvement, then 01 and 02 got the "LS6" intake manifold and the truck cam.
At any rate the reason LS6's have more HP than LS1's are mostly due to the 243 heads, but the cam is such that it keeps making power a lot higher in the rev range without sacrificing anything in the low end or idle quality. The PCV and the revised block don't really do anything significant from a power production standpoint, but do add longevity for repeated higher rpm operation.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,881
Look around you will see it. The track package was based on the bullit. Some mags posted low 13's for the bullit even though it is only 15hp more then the same year gt. Just a tune and cold air induction. I have an 08 GT. I am pretty informed on the mustang. I also have a 2011 GT on order. Sterling grey premium with the brembo package and 3.77's.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,977
From: SeVa
The T/P components are actually GT500 bits and pieces combined with track pack specific items. The Bullitt got its own tuning along with the introduction of the adaptive engine control which allowed the engine to take advantage of higher octane fuel if it was used. The Bullitt did get the GT500 rear axle assembly though along with 3.73 gears.
Nice, please post a review after you've had some seat time in it. I'm particularly interested in how the rear suspension performs with the added power. I had a devil of a time with the GT500 and axle hop this winter (doesn't help that the GY F1's crap out below 40 deg F). It was bad enough that I swapped lower control arms and added some LCA relocators, both of which aided the car greatly but did increase NVH.
Awhile back one of the suspension guys for the '11 GT was talking about a revision to the springs in the rear suspension to help give the car a better feel (less floaty - okay that might not be a word, but thats the general idea).
Awhile back one of the suspension guys for the '11 GT was talking about a revision to the springs in the rear suspension to help give the car a better feel (less floaty - okay that might not be a word, but thats the general idea).
Last edited by bossco; Mar 26, 2010 at 09:01 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 329
From: Hemlock, Mich.
http://wot.motortrend.com/6659607/au...v-6/index.html
Here is another dyno. Both the 6 and 8 in the GT seem to be very strong. No question in my mind which car will be faster in 2011.
Here is another dyno. Both the 6 and 8 in the GT seem to be very strong. No question in my mind which car will be faster in 2011.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 163
From: Tulsa,OK
http://wot.motortrend.com/6659607/au...v-6/index.html
Here is another dyno. Both the 6 and 8 in the GT seem to be very strong. No question in my mind which car will be faster in 2011.
Here is another dyno. Both the 6 and 8 in the GT seem to be very strong. No question in my mind which car will be faster in 2011.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,463
From: SoCal
http://wot.motortrend.com/6659607/au...v-6/index.html
Here is another dyno. Both the 6 and 8 in the GT seem to be very strong. No question in my mind which car will be faster in 2011.
Here is another dyno. Both the 6 and 8 in the GT seem to be very strong. No question in my mind which car will be faster in 2011.
The V6 is impressive as well. 268 rwhp is big power from 3.7L. Could we have the first legit 13 sec base model V6 Pony Car??
