It's Official: 2011 Ford Mustang GT has 5.0-liter V8
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,217
From: Greenville, SC
I should have figured they had some control arms on there. Sadly, that appears to be almost a requirement for good launches with the Mustang. Atleast its a simple bolt-on.
Interestingly enough, I have always assumed from day one that a Camaro could run similar times with similar mods (namely rear gears). I think some have done so.
It's quite impressive what these two cars can do with bolt-on's. Perhaps I will look at a GT Vert for my next car instead of a GT500 Vert depending on what prices do.
Interestingly enough, I have always assumed from day one that a Camaro could run similar times with similar mods (namely rear gears). I think some have done so.
It's quite impressive what these two cars can do with bolt-on's. Perhaps I will look at a GT Vert for my next car instead of a GT500 Vert depending on what prices do.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
the powertrain engineer who designed the engine said longtubes are worth only 15hp over the shorties.
there is a lack of understanding conderning the design of the factory "headers". they are not a tri-y design, they are not an equal length shorty, they ARE simply anti reversion headers, and low restriction tubular. exhaust pulses are not merged for low pressure waves, but instead designed to avoid losses from port reversion. they are better than log headers, and marginally better than 05-10 mustang gt pulse tuned cast iron headers.
properly designed long tubes will not have huge gains. but 15 hp is not zero. 12rwhp(15 crank), added to other mods will make their mark on performance.
there is a lack of understanding conderning the design of the factory "headers". they are not a tri-y design, they are not an equal length shorty, they ARE simply anti reversion headers, and low restriction tubular. exhaust pulses are not merged for low pressure waves, but instead designed to avoid losses from port reversion. they are better than log headers, and marginally better than 05-10 mustang gt pulse tuned cast iron headers.
properly designed long tubes will not have huge gains. but 15 hp is not zero. 12rwhp(15 crank), added to other mods will make their mark on performance.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,650
From: Indianapolis, IN
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 44
cat light off is the reason. long tubes transfer heat in the cool gasses by nature. they use heat energy for extraction. the engineers went as far as possible with emission limitations.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,881
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Yes but it's hardly something I have control over otherwise it would be sitting in my garage, right now. Mustang is good for what it is... but it's no Camaro! 
And no, I'm not in the same group. I'm actually quite a big fan of the 5G unlike the other group. I see no reason why I should feel quite bad for being a fan of 5G Camaro. And I certainly don't feel the need to post hysterical crap on a forum about a particular car if it doesn't suit my needs.
Just because I like Camaro, that doesn't mean I want Mustang to fail. I like all fun and exciting cars... Mini, GTR, BMW, Porsche... because I am an enthusiast. But first and foremost, I'm attached to GM cars because the cars suit my values, needs and price limitations. Probably the main reason why I continue to post on this forum... which also happens to be a tolerant forum with a GM focus.
And no, I'm not in the same group. I'm actually quite a big fan of the 5G unlike the other group. I see no reason why I should feel quite bad for being a fan of 5G Camaro. And I certainly don't feel the need to post hysterical crap on a forum about a particular car if it doesn't suit my needs.
Just because I like Camaro, that doesn't mean I want Mustang to fail. I like all fun and exciting cars... Mini, GTR, BMW, Porsche... because I am an enthusiast. But first and foremost, I'm attached to GM cars because the cars suit my values, needs and price limitations. Probably the main reason why I continue to post on this forum... which also happens to be a tolerant forum with a GM focus.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
With respect, are you an insider and speaking truths of fact, or are you speculating based on readings/conversations?
Thanks!
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 604
From: Elgin,SC
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
I wonder what kind of power gains will be possible for those of us who live in states with emission inspections, short of nitrous or forced induction?
Not that 412 isn't plenty for me -- more of an academic question....
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,977
From: SeVa
Can't say for Assassinator, but that info was related in the 5.0 Mustang article on the engine. They moved the cat as far back as possible in order to get a decent header and still get the cats to light off in an acceptable amount of time.
In an odd twist of fate, I see the Camaro has 4 cats now and the Mustang only 2.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,217
From: Greenville, SC
This makes perfect sense from the dyno graphs we have seen and depending on the safe limit of the valvetrain, a few hundred rpm bump should be included in the off-the-shelf 93 octane tunes we are sure to see. Atleast that's my opinion.
I'm curious why Ford would not have given the car a higher rev limiter with the horsepower curves we have seen??? Were they just leaving room on the table for a future bump or is something in the valvetrain not up to their testing standards??? That is always the key question.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,977
From: SeVa
I would hazard a guess that they might be leaving a bit on the table or a very generous safety factor, the valvetrain in the Coyote has been lightened compared to the older MOD 4v stuff (even though it employ's a follower finger) and its my understanding that the rev limit on the older engines was pretty conservative.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 44
Can't say for Assassinator, but that info was related in the 5.0 Mustang article on the engine. They moved the cat as far back as possible in order to get a decent header and still get the cats to light off in an acceptable amount of time.
In an odd twist of fate, I see the Camaro has 4 cats now and the Mustang only 2.
In an odd twist of fate, I see the Camaro has 4 cats now and the Mustang only 2.
exactly
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
My thoughts exactly, my next question was going to be what tire size because 117mph is really high if they are crossing the traps in 4th gear. You are probably right that they used a taller tire and bumped the rev limiter.
This makes perfect sense from the dyno graphs we have seen and depending on the safe limit of the valvetrain, a few hundred rpm bump should be included in the off-the-shelf 93 octane tunes we are sure to see. Atleast that's my opinion.
This makes perfect sense from the dyno graphs we have seen and depending on the safe limit of the valvetrain, a few hundred rpm bump should be included in the off-the-shelf 93 octane tunes we are sure to see. Atleast that's my opinion.