if i was getting a V6, id get the optional gears.. get that motor into its powerband quickly, and kill some 4.6 3v's.

 

Seems like Ford has under-promised and over-delivered...

Not mentioning any names but some of us might be eating humble pie.

 

378 is certainly more reasonable than 395 RWHP. However, I will take issue with one thing they mentioned in the article...

What? This motor makes better low and midrange power than the 4.6 it is replacing, and with the 2010 in 4th gear, would have essentially the same overall gear ratio as the 2011 in 5th. What makes it "too tall" in this case? I call bologna. Perhaps they actually did make pulls in 5th, came up with an even higher number, and just decided against reporting it. Don't know.

That said, at least it is the same gear as the Edmunds test, and thus at least somewhat comparable (though two different dynos on two different days etc applies).

Also, I still don't like "xx%" conversions to the flywheel. At these power levels, 50-55 HP losses is what *I* believe one would likely see....though we really don't know what kind of power the MT82 eats up versus a Tremec (I've dyno'd T5s, T45s, and TKOs behind the same motor....a T5 showed 5 more RWHP than the T45, while the TKO showed 10 less than the T45. Same car, motor, mods, and dyno - though different days). Given that, and assuming this isn't a "ringer" press car (is it the same car? Edmunds looks like a different shade of blue).

Oh well. Another month or so and we should have our answers.

 

By too tall, maybe the roller was just too much for either car considering it typically measures higher horsepower numbers? If you look at the V6's pulls, it topped out at 5,x00 rpm in 4th yet was capable of 6,x00 rpm in 3rd.

Still inconclusive, whichever way you look at it but at least they promise scintillating on track performance from both cars... what teasers!

 

Agree. Especially with the drivetrain loss parts.

Were they hitting speed limiters in the higher gears?

 

I wouldn't think so.

What to make of these 'results'?

If they believed that 5th gear was too tall for either engine, then you'd think they were running short on revs?

 

I think they're full of crap. With 3.27s and 1:1 tranny gearing, nobody ever said that the "rollers were too much" or the "gearing was too tall" for a 320 HP N/A Cobra - which is far, far less powerful in EVERY part of the rpm range than the 2010 GT. And it was supposedly at K&N's facility....K&N no doubt dyno's a huge range of cars to test their products - from N/A 4 Cyls to big bad LS9 stuff. So I can't imagine there is anything "special" about that dyno.

I suspect they are hiding something.

 

Motor Trend:

2011 Mustang GT (with optional 3.73): 12.8 @ 110.8
2010 Camaro SS: 12.9 @ 110.7

So much for this Camaro killer

Looks like a dead heat to me. All this despite being several hundred pounds lighter and a bunch of BS near 400rwhp dyno numbers.

 

i believe the 412hp is SAE rated so the rwhp numbers might be off but i see crazy dyno numbers all the time with cars that dont seem to run what they should, especially on this site. im sure the k&n dyno was optimistic. anywas with 14 less horsepower at the crank and 240 less lbs of fat, the mustang should be at least a tenth quicker than the camaro and thats what they managed to do with it. so thumbs up to the mustang, its a beautiful looking classy car and doesnt look all chunky like the new camaros. I wish the camaros would have looked more sleek like the concept without all the added chunk.

 

Perhaps my thinking is off due to my age and experience.

I find much regarding the description of these dyno numbers and how they were captured as curiosity generating, thus perplexing.

The truth of the matter is that the 5.0 in the 2011 Mustang will produce what it will produce powerwise.

I can't, with any fact based confidence, postulate any definative answer regarding what the real deal is with the new 5.0.

Dynoing in a less than 1:1 transmission ratio is outside the mainstream methodology for chassis dyno testing. In my personal gut opinion, sub one to one trannie obtained dyno results should read as lower than the 'real" number one would see in comparison to a dyno result obtained at a one to one test.

My thinking might be in line with actual fact or maybe not.

A chassis dyno is a tuning device in my experience, not a benchmark obtainer. It's a tool and not a rule maker for me.

Bottom line for me is whether the sum of the parts delivers or doesn't.

Even more important for me is what a vehicle is capable of with my own *** in the seat, not someones else's.

What I do know is: once production is in full swing, the truth will be made apparent.

What is abundantly clear to me is that a buzz has been created. Fact based or not, it's a marketing plus. I don't know if it has been orchestrated or merely coincidence.

What I believe in my heart, which is opinion based, is that GM has no lack of talented motor design folks. I believe we can answer any challenge.

All will be easier to digest once cars "ship to commerce". In it's own way that is an example of the old addage "When the flag drops....the BS stops".

 

Amen.

 

Power under the curve strikes again!

 

Motor Trend also tested the V6 Mustang.

They went 13.7 @ 102

Pre 2011 Mustang GT owners better watch out!

 

Did they test the Camaro alongside the Mustang on the same day at the same time on the same track? If not, then I wouldn't put too much stock a single test of one compared to a single test of another in different circumstances.

To the best of my knowledge (and that's not very good at the moment), only one side-by-side has been done so far (1/8th mile).

Time and real cars in the hands of real owners will tell.

 

Most of the larger magazines tend to only report results that have been corrected for weather conditions, but it is impossible to directly simulate other track conditions (particularly how "sticky" the launchpad area is.) They also don't launch or power shift like you would. If they were to test on a prepped dragstrip using the same conditions that a good drag racer would use, then we know their ET results would definitely be lower.