To each his own and I respect the fact the we're all different and prefer different cars, but for me personally, even the current Mustang is a step above the Camaro SS, despite a substantial deficit in the horsepower dept. The Camaro is simply too heavy and, to me at least, offers a very poor driving experience, aside from the straight line power. The Mustang currently is just more of a driver's car and I expect the same from the 2011 model...with power to boot.
Edmunds puts the 2011 Mustang 5.0L on the dyno!
- Thread starter Ben99GT
- Start date
- Status
It's too bad that there was no scale that went high enough to measure the Mustang's incredible bulk [for a virtual 2 seater].
New Mustangs are totally cool, but HEAVY - and getting HEAVIER.
New Mustangs are totally cool, but HEAVY - and getting HEAVIER.
Let's face it, ALL of the current domestic muscle/pony cars are waaayyyy too heavy!!
Which is why if I bought one, I would spend most, if not all of my modding bucks on weight reduction (and definitely before any power adding mods).
Handling/braking mods would be either at the same time, or immediately after heft reduction.
Which is why if I bought one, I would spend most, if not all of my modding bucks on weight reduction (and definitely before any power adding mods).
Handling/braking mods would be either at the same time, or immediately after heft reduction.
Originally Posted By: Drew2000
Like take more tax-payer funded government corporate welfare?
Well, whether we are talking about performance or government (union)-caused buyouts are 2 different discussions.
Ford has supported a LOT of causes/special interest groups I despise in the past (and probably currently) but I don't readily bring that up in a performance-based discussion.
Like take more tax-payer funded government corporate welfare?
Well, whether we are talking about performance or government (union)-caused buyouts are 2 different discussions.
Ford has supported a LOT of causes/special interest groups I despise in the past (and probably currently) but I don't readily bring that up in a performance-based discussion.
I think the outside of the '11 GT (save the rear taillights which I am on the fence about) looks a lot better than it has in a long, long time, except for the generation right before the new(er) '05 body style. They had a few good looking models.
But the insides...I personally think have looked way too much like their truck interior. The dash is like a vertical wall and the styling is all similar. This new model isn't horrible, but I can't say I'd car to ride in that 1-2 hours each day to and from work.
But the insides...I personally think have looked way too much like their truck interior. The dash is like a vertical wall and the styling is all similar. This new model isn't horrible, but I can't say I'd car to ride in that 1-2 hours each day to and from work.
99-04 were the "New Edge" Mustangs. I drive a '00. It's a lot of people's opinions who have driven different models over the years (including mine), that the 05 models were a step backwards in some aspects over the New Edge's. Of course they were improved technology wise, but they made those 05+'s to the point where they were too refined, too quiet, and disconnected the driver too much from the road. Plus they just feel quite a bit heavier. I will take a moderately modified New Edge over any 05+ Mustang any day of the week. They had to add a "sound tube" (transferred engine bay sound to the cabin) to the 05 model because the dang thing was so quiet people forgot they were driving a muscle car. I don't want a muscle car to be comfortable. I want it to be loud and moderately unrefined.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Thunderfan
99-04 were the "New Edge" Mustangs. I drive a '00. It's a lot of people's opinions who have driven different models over the years (including mine), that the 05 models were a step backwards in some aspects over the New Edge's. Of course they were improved technology wise, but they made those 05+'s to the point where they were too refined, too quiet, and disconnected the driver too much from the road. Plus they just feel quite a bit heavier. I will take a moderately modified New Edge over any 05+ Mustang any day of the week. They had to add a "sound tube" (transferred engine bay sound to the cabin) to the 05 model because the dang thing was so quiet people forgot they were driving a muscle car. I don't want a muscle car to be comfortable. I want it to be loud and moderately unrefined.
I understand completely.
I really feel like some of the body styles, including those "New Edge" SVT's and such were super aggressive, in a good way.
While I do like the styling of this '11 model better than the '05-'10 models, in some respects I like the stance, etc., a lot, but in others I wish it were lighter...thinner...more of an actual "pony" car.
I agree that the muscle is often better when you can tell it is there in the driver's seat!
99-04 were the "New Edge" Mustangs. I drive a '00. It's a lot of people's opinions who have driven different models over the years (including mine), that the 05 models were a step backwards in some aspects over the New Edge's. Of course they were improved technology wise, but they made those 05+'s to the point where they were too refined, too quiet, and disconnected the driver too much from the road. Plus they just feel quite a bit heavier. I will take a moderately modified New Edge over any 05+ Mustang any day of the week. They had to add a "sound tube" (transferred engine bay sound to the cabin) to the 05 model because the dang thing was so quiet people forgot they were driving a muscle car. I don't want a muscle car to be comfortable. I want it to be loud and moderately unrefined.
I understand completely.
I really feel like some of the body styles, including those "New Edge" SVT's and such were super aggressive, in a good way.
While I do like the styling of this '11 model better than the '05-'10 models, in some respects I like the stance, etc., a lot, but in others I wish it were lighter...thinner...more of an actual "pony" car.
I agree that the muscle is often better when you can tell it is there in the driver's seat!
Originally Posted By: BeanCounter
Originally Posted By: Thunderfan
99-04 were the "New Edge" Mustangs. I drive a '00. It's a lot of people's opinions who have driven different models over the years (including mine), that the 05 models were a step backwards in some aspects over the New Edge's. Of course they were improved technology wise, but they made those 05+'s to the point where they were too refined, too quiet, and disconnected the driver too much from the road. Plus they just feel quite a bit heavier. I will take a moderately modified New Edge over any 05+ Mustang any day of the week. They had to add a "sound tube" (transferred engine bay sound to the cabin) to the 05 model because the dang thing was so quiet people forgot they were driving a muscle car. I don't want a muscle car to be comfortable. I want it to be loud and moderately unrefined.
I understand completely.
I really feel like some of the body styles, including those "New Edge" SVT's and such were super aggressive, in a good way.
While I do like the styling of this '11 model better than the '05-'10 models, in some respects I like the stance, etc., a lot, but in others I wish it were lighter...thinner...more of an actual "pony" car.
I agree that the muscle is often better when you can tell it is there in the driver's seat!
Even though I like the styling (and even more so the 'Coyote' engine
) of the '11, I agree with the above, especially in the case of the 03-04 'Termi' Cobras.
Those things look like a rabid, vicious bulldog, or pitbull about to tear your head off while just sitting still!
Originally Posted By: Thunderfan
99-04 were the "New Edge" Mustangs. I drive a '00. It's a lot of people's opinions who have driven different models over the years (including mine), that the 05 models were a step backwards in some aspects over the New Edge's. Of course they were improved technology wise, but they made those 05+'s to the point where they were too refined, too quiet, and disconnected the driver too much from the road. Plus they just feel quite a bit heavier. I will take a moderately modified New Edge over any 05+ Mustang any day of the week. They had to add a "sound tube" (transferred engine bay sound to the cabin) to the 05 model because the dang thing was so quiet people forgot they were driving a muscle car. I don't want a muscle car to be comfortable. I want it to be loud and moderately unrefined.
I understand completely.
I really feel like some of the body styles, including those "New Edge" SVT's and such were super aggressive, in a good way.
While I do like the styling of this '11 model better than the '05-'10 models, in some respects I like the stance, etc., a lot, but in others I wish it were lighter...thinner...more of an actual "pony" car.
I agree that the muscle is often better when you can tell it is there in the driver's seat!
Even though I like the styling (and even more so the 'Coyote' engine
Those things look like a rabid, vicious bulldog, or pitbull about to tear your head off while just sitting still!
Originally Posted By: Drew2000
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
It shares bore spacing, deck height, connecting rod length, main and rod journal diameters, production tooling, etc., etc. with the 4.6. It is what it is, a thoroughly revised/improved, bored and stroked 4.6 4V but it is anything but a new engine family.
And the problem with this is??? How about "next generation" or evolutionary, is that better? It's still a good engine development.
What problem? I personally love the fact that it is a Modular, as it finally gives a glimpse to the Modular detractors what Ford has been leaving on the table from the factory all of these years. I can't wait to watch these things put down ~450 rwhp without ever lifting a valve cover.
I see it as Modular v2.0.
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
It shares bore spacing, deck height, connecting rod length, main and rod journal diameters, production tooling, etc., etc. with the 4.6. It is what it is, a thoroughly revised/improved, bored and stroked 4.6 4V but it is anything but a new engine family.
And the problem with this is??? How about "next generation" or evolutionary, is that better? It's still a good engine development.
What problem? I personally love the fact that it is a Modular, as it finally gives a glimpse to the Modular detractors what Ford has been leaving on the table from the factory all of these years. I can't wait to watch these things put down ~450 rwhp without ever lifting a valve cover.
I see it as Modular v2.0.
Many cars are getting pretty heavy, but with the push for ever-greater collision and roll-over safety, steel is the most affordable way to go without ballooning the price beyond what folks are willing to pay for the car.
The '11 Mustang is starting to get fairly pricey, but still offers a great performance bang for the buck.
The '11 Mustang is starting to get fairly pricey, but still offers a great performance bang for the buck.
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: Drew2000
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
It shares bore spacing, deck height, connecting rod length, main and rod journal diameters, production tooling, etc., etc. with the 4.6. It is what it is, a thoroughly revised/improved, bored and stroked 4.6 4V but it is anything but a new engine family.
And the problem with this is??? How about "next generation" or evolutionary, is that better? It's still a good engine development.
What problem? I personally love the fact that it is a Modular, as it finally gives a glimpse to the Modular detractors what Ford has been leaving on the table from the factory all of these years. I can't wait to watch these things put down ~450 rwhp without ever lifting a valve cover.
I see it as Modular v2.0.
Didn't mean to come off cranky, but as a long-time Ford-guy it's nice to finally see some superior product come out over the last few years. (To make up for the Tempo/Topaz era, yeah, that was a tough time)
Originally Posted By: Drew2000
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
It shares bore spacing, deck height, connecting rod length, main and rod journal diameters, production tooling, etc., etc. with the 4.6. It is what it is, a thoroughly revised/improved, bored and stroked 4.6 4V but it is anything but a new engine family.
And the problem with this is??? How about "next generation" or evolutionary, is that better? It's still a good engine development.
What problem? I personally love the fact that it is a Modular, as it finally gives a glimpse to the Modular detractors what Ford has been leaving on the table from the factory all of these years. I can't wait to watch these things put down ~450 rwhp without ever lifting a valve cover.
I see it as Modular v2.0.
Didn't mean to come off cranky, but as a long-time Ford-guy it's nice to finally see some superior product come out over the last few years. (To make up for the Tempo/Topaz era, yeah, that was a tough time)
Patman
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
Sweet, but the bench racer in me remembers when i was at a dyno shop filming a friends 2004 mystichrome Cobra with a Kenne Bell pulling runs and the dyno operator altering the graph to look better.
On a DynoJet all you can do is adjust smoothing (to mask jagged lines usually caused by a poor tune, this usually lowers the peak number) and change correction factors. These are SAE corrected numbers, the most conservative correction factor.
One local tuner here in Toronto was scamming his customers by sticking a heater near the temperature sensor for the dyno, that way the software would think it was 120+ degrees and it would show the correction factor of the graph being much higher than the truth. A lot of my friends got scammed by this crook, in some cases they also had paid him big bucks for heads/cam packages to their cars and later found out that they got parts that were no better than the stock ones and actually made little to no extra power at all.
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
Sweet, but the bench racer in me remembers when i was at a dyno shop filming a friends 2004 mystichrome Cobra with a Kenne Bell pulling runs and the dyno operator altering the graph to look better.
On a DynoJet all you can do is adjust smoothing (to mask jagged lines usually caused by a poor tune, this usually lowers the peak number) and change correction factors. These are SAE corrected numbers, the most conservative correction factor.
One local tuner here in Toronto was scamming his customers by sticking a heater near the temperature sensor for the dyno, that way the software would think it was 120+ degrees and it would show the correction factor of the graph being much higher than the truth. A lot of my friends got scammed by this crook, in some cases they also had paid him big bucks for heads/cam packages to their cars and later found out that they got parts that were no better than the stock ones and actually made little to no extra power at all.
Originally Posted By: Patman
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
Sweet, but the bench racer in me remembers when i was at a dyno shop filming a friends 2004 mystichrome Cobra with a Kenne Bell pulling runs and the dyno operator altering the graph to look better.
On a DynoJet all you can do is adjust smoothing (to mask jagged lines usually caused by a poor tune, this usually lowers the peak number) and change correction factors. These are SAE corrected numbers, the most conservative correction factor.
One local tuner here in Toronto was scamming his customers by sticking a heater near the temperature sensor for the dyno, that way the software would think it was 120+ degrees and it would show the correction factor of the graph being much higher than the truth. A lot of my friends got scammed by this crook, in some cases they also had paid him big bucks for heads/cam packages to their cars and later found out that they got parts that were no better than the stock ones and actually made little to no extra power at all.
That is devious, I haven't known anyone to ever do anything like that.
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
Sweet, but the bench racer in me remembers when i was at a dyno shop filming a friends 2004 mystichrome Cobra with a Kenne Bell pulling runs and the dyno operator altering the graph to look better.
On a DynoJet all you can do is adjust smoothing (to mask jagged lines usually caused by a poor tune, this usually lowers the peak number) and change correction factors. These are SAE corrected numbers, the most conservative correction factor.
One local tuner here in Toronto was scamming his customers by sticking a heater near the temperature sensor for the dyno, that way the software would think it was 120+ degrees and it would show the correction factor of the graph being much higher than the truth. A lot of my friends got scammed by this crook, in some cases they also had paid him big bucks for heads/cam packages to their cars and later found out that they got parts that were no better than the stock ones and actually made little to no extra power at all.
That is devious, I haven't known anyone to ever do anything like that.
Even if the numbers are off a little, it's still a nice little Easter egg. And those of us who can afford one as a toy (I wouldn't want a 25 mpg highway car for a daily driver) just may get lucky with a rocket ship at an airplane price.
Dynojet's tend to give optimistic numbers. I don't believe the number's are accurate.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: mechtech2
It's too bad that there was no scale that went high enough to measure the Mustang's incredible bulk [for a virtual 2 seater].
New Mustangs are totally cool, but HEAVY - and getting HEAVIER.
It is 3,500lbs. I'm not sure how that got considered "heavy"..... Even the Fox bodies were over 3,000lbs unless it was a stripper no-options notch. My '87 GT was ~3,300lbs.
The 2010 GT was 400lbs LIGHTER than the Camaro, which tips the scales at ~3,900lbs.
The 2010 Challenger is 4,140lbs. The heaviest of the bunch.
So, the Mustang is a good 600+lbs lighter than the Challenger, and similar to its past weights. So I really don't understand why people seem to keep thinking it is getting heavier; it isn't.
It's too bad that there was no scale that went high enough to measure the Mustang's incredible bulk [for a virtual 2 seater].
New Mustangs are totally cool, but HEAVY - and getting HEAVIER.
It is 3,500lbs. I'm not sure how that got considered "heavy"..... Even the Fox bodies were over 3,000lbs unless it was a stripper no-options notch. My '87 GT was ~3,300lbs.
The 2010 GT was 400lbs LIGHTER than the Camaro, which tips the scales at ~3,900lbs.
The 2010 Challenger is 4,140lbs. The heaviest of the bunch.
So, the Mustang is a good 600+lbs lighter than the Challenger, and similar to its past weights. So I really don't understand why people seem to keep thinking it is getting heavier; it isn't.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Some past weights:
2003 Cobra: 3,665lbs
2003 Cobra 'vert: 3,780lbs
2000 Cobra R: 3,589lbs
2000 Mustang GT: 3,237lbs
2000 Mustang GT 'vert: 3,375lbs
1995 Mustang GT: 3,281lbs
1995 Mustang GT 'vert: 3,450lbs
1993 Mustang GT: 3,248lbs
And let's go WAY back:
1969 Mustang Mach 1: 3,571lbs
1965 Mustang GT: 3,275lbs
It appears to have remained in about the same weight range throughout its history.
2003 Cobra: 3,665lbs
2003 Cobra 'vert: 3,780lbs
2000 Cobra R: 3,589lbs
2000 Mustang GT: 3,237lbs
2000 Mustang GT 'vert: 3,375lbs
1995 Mustang GT: 3,281lbs
1995 Mustang GT 'vert: 3,450lbs
1993 Mustang GT: 3,248lbs
And let's go WAY back:
1969 Mustang Mach 1: 3,571lbs
1965 Mustang GT: 3,275lbs
It appears to have remained in about the same weight range throughout its history.
Originally Posted By: Scott_Tucker
Dynojet's tend to give optimistic numbers.
FWIW, DynoJet's optimistic numbers usually fall right in line manufacturer ratings given the appropriate drive-train loss. Mustang Dynos do not if the operator uses the correct vehicle weight.
Dynojet's tend to give optimistic numbers.
FWIW, DynoJet's optimistic numbers usually fall right in line manufacturer ratings given the appropriate drive-train loss. Mustang Dynos do not if the operator uses the correct vehicle weight.
Darn, can't get the video to work. Keeps saying an error occured
- Status
