Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion Automotive news and discussion about upcoming vehicles

It's Official: 2011 Ford Mustang GT has 5.0-liter V8

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old May 1, 2010 | 11:38 AM
  #856  
falchulk's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,881
Originally Posted by Bob Cosby
Not impressed by what they've done. Too rushed, and they haven't taken any time to learn to drive the car before tearing into it. It's gotten them a lot of attention though, and they are a business....
Exactly what I meant. The proper way to do it is to run the crap out of it stock to get a true picture of its capabilities. The suspension changes should have been done after the car was broken in if you ask me. There is no real clear baseline for their tests. Who knows if their parts are really making the diffrence?

They also stated that as is the car is way more capable but they are taking it easy for a magazine article. I would not be suprised of the stock run was a little "easy" as well to make the the stock vs Evo parts more dramatic.
Old May 1, 2010 | 11:40 AM
  #857  
falchulk's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,881
Originally Posted by super83Z
Torque boxes are where the lower control arm mounts to the frame correct? How the hell is Ford still have issues with them after all this time?
Question is why was there no mention of this in any reviews? Only comes from a company selling parts to fix wheel hop issues at this point.......
Old May 1, 2010 | 11:43 AM
  #858  
Sax1031's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 604
From: Elgin,SC
Originally Posted by falchulk
Exactly what I meant. The proper way to do it is to run the crap out of it stock to get a true picture of its capabilities. The suspension changes should have been done after the car was broken in if you ask me. There is no real clear baseline for their tests. Who knows if their parts are really making the diffrence?

They also stated that as is the car is way more capable but they are taking it easy for a magazine article. I would not be suprised of the stock run was a little "easy" as well to make the the stock vs Evo parts more dramatic.
I agree with you.
Old May 1, 2010 | 11:47 AM
  #859  
Bob Cosby's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 3,252
From: Knoxville, TN
There's no reason to "take it easy" for a magazine article. What performance magazine doesn't want to be able to report the absolute BEST times it can achieve? Certainly not 5.0 Mustang & Super Ford - which is where the info will be published.

As for the dramatics....whole nuther story there.
Old May 1, 2010 | 11:53 AM
  #860  
falchulk's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,881
Originally Posted by Bob Cosby
There's no reason to "take it easy" for a magazine article. What performance magazine doesn't want to be able to report the absolute BEST times it can achieve? Certainly not 5.0 Mustang & Super Ford - which is where the info will be published.

As for the dramatics....whole nuther story there.
Thats what he said:

http://forums.themustangsource.com/s...482618&page=16

Evolution Performance: "If we just went all out, the car would be a lot faster, and I mean a lot faster but when your're doing on going tests for a Magazine you have to go at a certain pace!

There are a lot of things that need to be figured out on this car and I'm not talking about the Chassis setup, that's the easy part and I will leave it at that..... for now...!
"

I dont get it either......
Old May 1, 2010 | 11:53 AM
  #861  
Sax1031's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 604
From: Elgin,SC
Originally Posted by Bob Cosby
There's no reason to "take it easy" for a magazine article. What performance magazine doesn't want to be able to report the absolute BEST times it can achieve? Certainly not 5.0 Mustang & Super Ford - which is where the info will be published.

As for the dramatics....whole nuther story there.
To be fair to Evolution Performance though when they said they were taking it easy for the Magazine I think they meant with the pacing of modding the car.

I think they were saying they would already be modding the hell out of the car but the pacing is a little slower so they can test the mods more on a one at a time basis.
Old May 1, 2010 | 11:57 AM
  #862  
falchulk's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,881
Originally Posted by Sax1031
To be fair to Evolution Performance though when they said they were taking it easy for the Magazine I think they meant with the pacing of modding the car.

I think they were saying they would already be modding the hell out of the car but the pacing is a little slower so they can test the mods more on a one at a time basis.
Maybe that is. It just did not make sense in the context of his response to another poster.
Old May 1, 2010 | 01:13 PM
  #863  
Sax1031's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 604
From: Elgin,SC
Ok now they are saying they are changing the exhaust and tuning the car.

Our 2011 Mustang GT 5.0L 4V (5.0 Mustang and Super Fords Magazine Project Car) is getting strapped to the dyno as we speak..... How much power will it gain from the Off-Road X-Pipe, Catback Exhaust and a few minor tweaks to the Tune? Anyone that guesses the closest on the Rear Wheel Horsepower will receive a Free Evol...
Old May 1, 2010 | 01:48 PM
  #864  
bossco's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,977
From: SeVa
Originally Posted by super83Z
Torque boxes are where the lower control arm mounts to the frame correct? How the hell is Ford still have issues with them after all this time?
They shouldn't, in over 5 years, I've never seen this crop up. Control arms should do the job nicely. I've just got control arms and relocators and I dont have any problems, this is with 300 more pounds on the nose and 120 more ft/lbs.

The only F'd up feature to the rear suspension (soft bushings aside) is where the upper control arm mounts to the body, its like a 16mm hole with a 14mm bolt (some something like that).

Sounds to me like some advertising dollars at work.

Edit: There has been a reinforced UCA mounting plate for some time, but IMO lke the torque box braces "added insurance" rather than solving a real problem.

Last edited by bossco; May 1, 2010 at 01:55 PM.
Old May 1, 2010 | 04:05 PM
  #865  
super83Z's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,214
From: City of Champions, MA, USA
Ah ok they are trying to sell parts. That makes sense, I hadn't heard about torque boxes in the new cars being an issue.
Old May 3, 2010 | 12:56 PM
  #866  
Sax1031's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 604
From: Elgin,SC
405rwhp/375rwtq after catback exhaust, offroad x-pipe, k&n drop in filter, and tune.
Old May 3, 2010 | 04:07 PM
  #867  
teal98's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
Originally Posted by Sax1031
405rwhp/375rwtq after catback exhaust, offroad x-pipe, k&n drop in filter, and tune.
How much difference does the offroad pipe make?
Old May 3, 2010 | 05:24 PM
  #868  
Bob Cosby's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 3,252
From: Knoxville, TN
You know...there were those on the internet that said the 5.0 was going to be pretty much maxed out from the factory. While one test of one setup does NOT make for a solid conclusion one way or the other, it sure seems that perhaps it isn't quite so maxed out as some thought....errr....wished it would be.



Note that power is STILL CLIMBING at this end of this particular run. Set the rev limiter to 7500, pull the gears hard, and things are going to get interesting.

Need more data and many more examples to make firm conclusions, but very intruiging...
Old May 3, 2010 | 06:53 PM
  #869  
HAZ-Matt's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,000
From: TX Med Ctr
What mods did they have for that dyno?

Agree with the rev limiter statement... the power is pretty much peaking right where they shut it down.
Old May 3, 2010 | 07:07 PM
  #870  
teal98's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
Originally Posted by Bob Cosby
You know...there were those on the internet that said the 5.0 was going to be pretty much maxed out from the factory. While one test of one setup does NOT make for a solid conclusion one way or the other, it sure seems that perhaps it isn't quite so maxed out as some thought....errr....wished it would be.
It has an off-road pipe. What were the tuning changes, and are they CARB legal? Will they affect durability?

If you don't worry about those two, I'm sure there's a lot more power to be had.

What's with the "thought....errr....wished"? I really haven't seen posts on this thread wishing that the Mustang falls on its face. It just looked like Ford did a lot of work in the factory that the aftermarket usually does. I consider that a good thing, BTW. Why not add headers at the factory?



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:27 PM.