First 5.0L V8 Mustang mag test.

[Ghia351]

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_1003_2011_ford_mustang_gt_premium_test/index.html


TEST DATA
Acceleration to mph
0-30 1.6 sec
0-40 2.5
0-50 3.3
0-60 4.3
0-70 5.5
0-80 6.9
0-90 8.5
0-100 10.3
Passing, 45-65 mph 2.1
Quarter mile 12.8 sec @ 110.8 mph

[185iboy]

"Equipped with the available 3.73 rear axle ($395), our 5.0 needed just 4.3 seconds to hit 60 and only 12.8 at 110.8 mph to knockout the quarter mile. To answer the million-dollar question: Yes, it's quicker than both the 426-horsepower Chevy Camaro SS (4.5, 12.9 at 110.7) and the 425-horse Dodge Challenger SRT-8 (4.6, 13.1 at 108.4). It's also not that far behind the 540-horse supercharged 2010 Shelby GT500, which requires 4.1 and 12.4 at 116.0. In the league of naturally aspirated muscle cars, the new Mustang GT is in a league of its own."

Don't care for Mustangs but I hope Ford package this well in the GT. Sick of seeing all these E HSV's around :jester:

[Deco28]

So the Camaro SS does 0-100 in 4.5 seconds and the GTS has been clocked at 5.1

So the GT with wider rubber, bit less weight should be looking at 4.9's-5's.

Cool Cool.

EDIT: Except they're planning on S/C it to? So even less o.0!

[Spoolin]

Now that'd spice things up:bawl:

[mmciau]

And what does all this dribbling prove????

Do it anywhere near a public thoroughfare and the Cops will "hoon" you, impound the car and make your life an absolute misery!!!!!


All this bull about 0-60, 400 metrers, etc is now a sheer waste of time and energy.

Just get used to turning the key, watch the 3 red lights go out and then go for a drive!!

And screw Fords!!:spew::spew::spew:

Mike

[macca_779]

And that sir is why you drive an omega. You obviously don't care for any performance what so ever

[cashie]

They are some good numbers, I will be surprised if FPV can get the GT/GTP doing the same times... I assume the Falcon is heavier??

Engines almost a square bore and stroke... 307 kW (412 HP) and 528 Nm (390 ft lb), don't sound like huge numbers but it seems it can shift the mustang...

http://image.motortrend.com/f/27360740+w750/2011-ford-mustang-GT-engine-1.jpg

[mmciau]

And that sir is why you drive an omega. You obviously don't care for any performance what so ever

Fair comment.

All I need in my stage of life is a capacity to turn the key and watch the 3 red lights go out, select drive and let's go!!

Bear in mind, I was playing with 1000 BHP/ton in the 1960s with Elfins, speedway midgets and sprintcars.

Been there, done that and I'm still alive to talk about it!!!!

But what we old farts could get away with in that era, you blokes can't!!

Mike

[Swordie]

Great looking car. I'd take one.

[Spoolin]

LOL...dual fuel slush box Omega...There is plenty of fun to be had...there is a time and a place for everything but, I guess you've conceeded defeat just what the authorities want :rofl:

[mmciau]

LOL...dual fuel slush box Omega...There is plenty of fun to be had...there is a time and a place for everything but, I guess you've conceeded defeat just what the authorities want :rofl:

Spoolin - you are so observant!!

Haven't had a speeding ticket for 45 years after I got done for speeding 3 times by the cops in 3 weeks. On my third conviction, I was suspended for the 'duration of the court' - beat that!!

So I have been a real parasite on society - I have not contributed to the coffers of the SA Government for 45 years for my motoring.

So yes, I drive a dual fuel Omega - very impressive car - Red lights go out when I start it - it goes to 0-50 in the metro, 0-60 on the arterials and cruises at 110 km/hr on the open road (where permitted). Ghetto blaster is quite good too. I got 4,400 km out of a tank of petrol

Mike

[Road Warrior]

And screw Fords!!



These ones will be screwed, yes.

[mustanger]

They are some good numbers, I will be surprised if FPV can get the GT/GTP doing the same times... I assume the Falcon is heavier??

Engines almost a square bore and stroke... 307 kW (412 HP) and 528 Nm (390 ft lb), don't sound like huge numbers but it seems it can shift the mustang...


I think some of those numbers just dont add up.

They had that particular Mustang on a private dyno and it showed to be making a lot more than was quoted . (:lol: may be a one off tuned version for the journos :hide:)

[QIKMIK]

Read the spec sheet....live axle rear!

Mick

[chevypower]

Read the spec sheet....live axle rear!

Mick

Well apparently the handling is much better than the Camaro. Which is more important in a sports car. Ride comfort is supposed to be close to the Camaro, so I would probably put my money on the reliable Ford live rear axle.

[Gee]

As an unashamed lover of Mustangs and basically any other car with that something special regardless of whether its a Holden or a Ford or whatever else this is exciting news.

Cant wait to see more information on this engine as it is used in different cars :goodjob:

[Ellistwo]

Well apparently the handling is much better than the Camaro. Which is more important in a sports car. Ride comfort is supposed to be close to the Camaro, so I would probably put my money on the reliable Ford live rear axle.

Dunno about that, but one man's likes are another's dislikes. To me the Mustang looks less able, but probably good fun:


YouTube- First Ride: 2011 Ford Mustang V-6

[Carby]

Well apparently the handling is much better than the Camaro. Which is more important in a sports car. Ride comfort is supposed to be close to the Camaro, so I would probably put my money on the reliable Ford live rear axle.


You 're dreaming Chevy power if you think the Leaf springs are comparable than the Camaro's for ride comfort.

MOTOR magazine has tested the E2 GTS, a Camaro, Mustang and Falcon GT in their latest addition. The Mustang scored most poorly due to it's abominable ride over any irregular roads. The E2 was an amazing 3.5 seconds a lap quicker than the Falcon GT around the race track, the Camaro from memory was only a few tenths away. For the record they rated the cars E2, Camaro, GT and Mustang last with a paltry 6 from 10!

[Pickles]

I've always said that 300KW seems a lot for a N/A 5L engine, & I believe those quoted acceleration figures are "optimistic". Can't see an FPV Falcon GT with that engine, getting anywhere near those times.
Cheers, Pickles.

[SHANESVZSS]

they could even get a low 13 from a 5.4 with 315 , the weight of the falcon is its down fall , so to the E series but they seem to carry it better imo

[Pickles]

they could even get a low 13 from a 5.4 with 315 , the weight of the falcon is its down fall , so to the E series but they seem to carry it better imo
That's right, but don't forget the E Series has got 6.2L, (as against this new engine's 5L) and that the LS3 has excellent low down torque.
Cheers, Pickles.

[chevypower]

You 're dreaming Chevy power if you think the Leaf springs are comparable than the Camaro's for ride comfort.

MOTOR magazine has tested the E2 GTS, a Camaro, Mustang and Falcon GT in their latest addition. The Mustang scored most poorly due to it's abominable ride over any irregular roads. The E2 was an amazing 3.5 seconds a lap quicker than the Falcon GT around the race track, the Camaro from memory was only a few tenths away. For the record they rated the cars E2, Camaro, GT and Mustang last with a paltry 6 from 10!

Firstly I'm not dreaming, I will get to drive both these cars. But that's what has been said by journalists here.
2nd the mustang doesn't have leaf springs
3rd, what I said is fact, I couldn't give a rats ass what Motor magazine says. I don't think they have driven the 2011 Stang with the 5.0. So whatever they said about an older model is irrelevant.
Finally, I'm impartial to either brand, so I couldn't care less. But the stang outhandles the Camaro.

[Carby]

Firstly I'm not dreaming, I will get to drive both these cars. But that's what has been said by journalists here.
2nd the mustang doesn't have leaf springs
3rd, what I said is fact, I couldn't give a rats ass what Motor magazine says. I don't think they have driven the 2011 Stang with the 5.0. So whatever they said about an older model is irrelevant.
Finally, I'm impartial to either brand, so I couldn't care less. But the stang outhandles the Camaro.


It is actually the GT500 - obviously not the latest one. You are correct, It is best to drive both cars and form your own opinion as always - per the report that fuelled this thread I thought I'd just add what a local mag thought of the vehicles.

One thing is for certain, both the Stang and the Camaro kill both of the locals as far as looks are concerned - they have done a brilliant job reviving the "old school" looks in a modern platform - shame they are not made in Factory RHD........:bawl:

[chevypower]

It is actually the GT500 - obviously not the latest one. You are correct, It is best to drive both cars and form your own opinion as always - per the report that fuelled this thread I thought I'd just add what a local mag thought of the vehicles.

One thing is for certain, both the Stang and the Camaro kill both of the locals as far as looks are concerned - they have done a brilliant job reviving the "old school" looks in a modern platform - shame they are not made in Factory RHD........:bawl:

Yeah I am glad they have put some passion back in to the styling on both of them. If someone handed me the keys to either of them I would be thrilled. I like both, not really a fan of the Challenger though. The interior is very boring, just like the Charger. I agree on the export potential of these things. I hate how they make a different set of vehicles for different countries.

[Ghia351]

I've always said that 300KW seems a lot for a N/A 5L engine, & I believe those quoted acceleration figures are "optimistic". Can't see an FPV Falcon GT with that engine, getting anywhere near those times.
Cheers, Pickles.Isn't the FPV GT getting a supercharged version of Coyote (as per a forum member here) with wider rear wheels, so it should actually out perform the n/a 5.0L Mustang even with a higher kerb weight of the Falcon.

[Carby]

Yeah I am glad they have put some passion back in to the styling on both of them. If someone handed me the keys to either of them I would be thrilled. I like both, not really a fan of the Challenger though. The interior is very boring, just like the Charger. I agree on the export potential of these things. I hate how they make a different set of vehicles for different countries.


Like the Challenger - (though I haven't seen the inside of one!) don't like the Charger, but I'd take a Corvette over them all!

[FireArc]

Isn't the FPV GT getting a supercharged version of Coyote (as per a forum member here) with wider rear wheels, so it should actually out perform the n/a 5.0L Mustang even with a higher kerb weight of the Falcon.

The GT/XR8 may also shed some weight due to going from an Iron block to an Alloy block...?

[FireArc]

2011 Mustang 5.0L vs Camaro 6.2L Drag Races

YouTube- 2011 Mustang 5.0L vs Camaro 6.2L Drag Races

Interesting...

[Swordie]

I wish GM, Ford and Chrysler sold factory RHDs of their pony cars in Australia. There all great looking shapes.

[macca_779]

Impressive to see the mustang bolt away from the camaro so easily. Will be very interesting to see how this engine goes in a falcon.

[macca_779]

Not bad at all.

YouTube- First Test: 2011 Ford Mustang GT

[Jarhead]

Take my hat off to the them. Great looking car too.

If these numbers are anything like the what the Aussie models will have it makes for a very interesting year for Ford performance cars.

[Ghia351]

If they build a G8E I'm trading in the G6ET.

Just thinking out aloud, would I be right in saying that weight difference would be the major factor in the better launch of the Mustang.
Edit: I haven't seen the two torque graphs side by side however I would have assumed the Camaro produces more and at lower revs.

[Ellistwo]

Should go like stink.

[Kuzman89]

2011 Mustang 5.0L vs Camaro 6.2L Drag Races

Interesting...

Total fail from the guy in the camaro. What a shit take off.

[HazzaHSV]

Yeah so when did 0.1 seconds over 1/4 mile and 0.1mph equate to 10 car lenths :rofl:

[Uwish]

Total fail from the guy in the camaro. What a shit take off.

What in both runs?
12.8 stock. Not too bad for a pony!:goodjob:

[rodp]

Take my hat off to the them. Great looking car too.

If these numbers are anything like the what the Aussie models will have it makes for a very interesting year for Ford performance cars.

There's credible rumors they're strapping a supercharger to it - I'd suggest the numbers for the Aussie Fords will be even more impressive.

[Jarhead]

There's credible rumors they're strapping a supercharger to it - I'd suggest the numbers for the Aussie Fords will be even more impressive.

If that's the case then that will be a big leap in performance. In fact if the S/C version isn't half a second quicker than the N/A V8 then it won't be worth making. If they can make an Aussie ford sedan that goes 0-100km/h in under 4sec and low to mid 12sec 400m then we will have a shift in the force.

I for one am hoping the numbers do add up which will force Holden to up the ante. Overall the real winner is us the consumer.

Does anyone know when we will have the first Coyote powered falcon?

[macca_779]

If that's the case then that will be a big leap in performance. In fact if the S/C version isn't half a second quicker than the N/A V8 then it won't be worth making. If they can make an Aussie ford sedan that goes 0-100km/h in under 4sec and low to mid 12sec 400m then we will have a shift in the force.

I for one am hoping the numbers do add up which will force Holden to up the ante. Overall the real winner is us the consumer.

Does anyone know when we will have the first Coyote powered falcon?

If Ford can make this new car quick then HSV must get the LS9 (or LSA) to compete. Currently it is the only engine I would think that is capable.

[nthnbeachesguy]

I actually hope the new Ford smacks the Holden and HSV badly for a couple of reasons. It's going to take a while for Holden to formulate the next step to compete and come out with their response by which time my current car will be due or past due for update. If Holden's response isn't up to scratch I can happily trade to a completely different type of car eg: Subaru as I can't see myself buying a ford and I don't want to own a Holden that can't hold a candle to ford in the performace stakes.

[bouka]

The times mentioned are 0 to 60mph and 0 to 100klm is actually 62mph so they are lower than expected.

FPV Supercharged Coyote is due around July and will be a brilliant thing but don't expect these sorts of numbers (at least don't expect better) imho. The weight difference and 0 to 100 instead of 0 to 60mph will mean they will be same or higher.

I would expect 4.8ish 0 to 100klmh.

Interesting times ahead and the Stang did very well against the camaro.

[macca_779]

The times mentioned are 0 to 60mph and 0 to 100klm is actually 62mph so they are lower than expected.

FPV Supercharged Coyote is due around July and will be a brilliant thing but don't expect these sorts of numbers (at least don't expect better) imho. The weight difference and 0 to 100 instead of 0 to 60mph will mean they will be same or higher.

I would expect 4.8ish 0 to 100klmh.

Interesting times ahead and the Stang did very well against the camaro.

Me thinks you are seriously considering getting one hey George. Pending if they perform as well as the speculation of course.

[bouka]

Me thinks you are seriously considering getting one hey George. Pending if they perform as well as the speculation of course.

:hide:

Who me? What you talkin about willis!

[Benton]

So imagine the FPV HO version. I also hear the next F6 version will be 330KW.

[rodp]

So imagine the FPV HO version. I also hear the next F6 version will be 330KW.

Might be the badge they stick on the bum but the performance seems to easily exceed it.

[steves87]

The times mentioned are 0 to 60mph and 0 to 100klm is actually 62mph so they are lower than expected.

FPV Supercharged Coyote is due around July and will be a brilliant thing but don't expect these sorts of numbers (at least don't expect better) imho. The weight difference and 0 to 100 instead of 0 to 60mph will mean they will be same or higher.

I would expect 4.8ish 0 to 100klmh.

Interesting times ahead and the Stang did very well against the camaro.

Totally agree there :goodjob:

[Benton]

Might be the badge they stick on the bum but the performance seems to easily exceed it.

Not wrong their - I have seen on the Ford forums guys quoting up to 280 RWKS from their totally stock F6 310's.

[Spoolin]

Not wrong their - I have seen on the Ford forums guys quoting up to 280 RWKS from their totally stock F6 310's.

Yes you're right and my FG XR6T with a K&N and V8 lower intake only made 238rwkw and few hours later on the same dyno a mates VE SSV without rear cans could only manage 214rwkw. So 330kw will be ballistic.

[Ghia351]

YouTube- 2011 Mustang GT on Mountain Roads
I need to record that sound on an ipod and play it back in the G6ET, lol.

[macca_779]

Yes you're right and my FG XR6T with a K&N and V8 lower intake only made 238rwkw and few hours later on the same dyno a mates VE SSV without rear cans could only manage 214rwkw. So 330kw will be ballistic.

Yet not to long ago Ford were the ones accused with advertising optimistic power levels.. Remember the whole SAE/DIN debacle. O how things change.

[payaya]

they could even get a low 13 from a 5.4 with 315 , the weight of the falcon is its down fall , so to the E series but they seem to carry it better imo

Um the F6 does low 13's. The 5.4L V8 Ford are using now is shit. It may produce 315kw or whatever but the power curve is shit.

This 5.0L seems to be a lot better.

[Road Warrior]

Um the F6 does low 13's. The 5.4L V8 Ford are using now is shit. It may produce 315kw or whatever but the power curve is shit.

This 5.0L seems to be a lot better.

The biggest deal about this new Five Oh will (IMO) be the weight reduction going from that stupid iron block Boss to an all alloy V8.

[payaya]

The biggest deal about this new Five Oh will (IMO) be the weight reduction going from that stupid iron block Boss to an all alloy V8.

Balance yes but I believe the way the 5.0 produces power (guess more similar to the I6 Turbo) is a bigger deal. Who knows it looks like the 5.0 could make the Falcon quicker than the I6 Turbo, which is a very big deal.

[YMK]

If they build a G8E I'm trading in the G6ET.

Just thinking out aloud, would I be right in saying that weight difference would be the major factor in the better launch of the Mustang.
Edit: I haven't seen the two torque graphs side by side however I would have assumed the Camaro produces more and at lower revs.These two cars were auto. Meaning camaro has the L99 (400hp) not the LS3 (426hp) plus it's heavier than the mustang.





There's credible rumors they're strapping a supercharger to it - I'd suggest the numbers for the Aussie Fords will be even more impressive.These tests are conducted differently to how they're done by aussie magazines in that they're done with a rollout. And as bouka mentioned, they're accelerating to different speed ie 60 instead of 62mph.
What I'm saying is don't expect a sub 4.5 sec 0-100kmh time for the blown falcon.

[Spoolin]

Um the F6 does low 13's. The 5.4L V8 Ford are using now is shit. It may produce 315kw or whatever but the power curve is shit.

This 5.0L seems to be a lot better.

No, you have that incorrect. The F6 will run a mid 12 second 1/4 mile and the XR6T/G6ET will run a low 13 out of the box. Once again mate in his G6ET running consistant 13.2 at Calder Park and same mate with VE SSV struggling to run 14.4 at Heafgoat, I'll conceed that he does have a liquid vapour setup on the VE but the weight penalty certainly wouldn't net him 1.2 seconds over a 1/4 mile.

By the way, you may find the power delivery shit, how much time have you spent behind the wheel of one? I personally find the power delivery as boring as bat shite and unchallenging.

[Party Pete]

Having listened to the Mustang video it sounds pretty awesome. I have to say if Ford finds a way to get you sitting lower and fixes the traction problems the F6 turbo I drove had (bigger rear tyres perhaps) then I could be very interested in the new GT.

[Kuzman89]

Yeah so when did 0.1 seconds over 1/4 mile and 0.1mph equate to 10 car lenths :rofl:

exactly, I'm surprised the 5.0l doesn't thump the 6.2l, considering it's a new engine with 'sophisticated technologies' and all the hysteria that came with it, 0.1 sec is laughable.

[Party Pete]

Two different approaches to the same problem. Both work about the same. But the supercharger on the planned GT should make things a little different. I know that GM also makes a supercharged V8, but they aren't offering that, yet. Maybe Ford Australia's aggressive push with the new GT will stir HSV into action with their cars.

[Spoolin]

So... 6lt V8 = 260KW, 5lt V8 =? but .1 second quicker, BMW 4lt V8 = 313kw ... So who is the laughing stock here :goodjob:

[payaya]

exactly, I'm surprised the 5.0l doesn't thump the 6.2l, considering it's a new engine with 'sophisticated technologies' and all the hysteria that came with it, 0.1 sec is laughable.

So with 25% less cubes but is quicker means nothing to you??

[calais-346]

So... 6lt V8 = 260KW, 5lt V8 =? but .1 second quicker, BMW 4lt V8 = 313kw ... So who is the laughing stock here :goodjob:

Um, you are:rofl:

If your going to compare something, make sure its apples with apples, for example, how many $$$ per unit do you think the BMW engine cost from paper to production compared to old pushrod GM series engines or anything that ford make.

Anyone can make a comparison look favourable by using the same logic you have

[Kuzman89]

So with 25% less cubes but is quicker means nothing to you??

Not really, considering the Ls engines are cheaper to make, cheaper to mod, massive aftermarket already made.

After all the hype the best it gets is 0.1 seconds quicker?

In the real world you wouldn't even see that difference lol, it's laughable. GM doesn't have to do much to beat it.

[Spoolin]

Calais, need you be reminded that GM, Ford are both global companies with just as much resources :goodjob:

[Party Pete]

Anyone can make comparisons which don't count. How about the new Ferrari 458 with 425 kw and 540nm of torque from only 4.5l. A brilliant engine but very expensive. It isn't a case of whether GM or Ford could or couldn't make a competitive engine, but they choose to target a much higher volume, lower price market than this. If they can produce 300kw+ engines at prices the masses can afford who is to complain.

[Spoolin]

Is it a case of they can but choose not to or is it a case of they can't so don't have choice not to...
The single fact that does remain and can not be disputed is, an increase in cubic capacity is not needed to net power gains unless that is you so choose to use old technology and I'm talking straight out of the box not modded not drag nothing but OEM.

[FireArc]

exactly, I'm surprised the 5.0l doesn't thump the 6.2l, considering it's a new engine with 'sophisticated technologies' and all the hysteria that came with it, 0.1 sec is laughable.

I do believe you may have missed the point of what HazzaHSV was trying to say.

You were trying to defend the performance of the Camaro by stating that the Camaro driver was to blame.

HazzaHSV was then responding to your statement by pointing out that even if the Camaro driver got a poor take-off (potentially losing 0.1 tenths), the Mustang still finished '10 car lengths' ahead. Therefore 'if' the Camaro driver stuffed up (twice??) then the point being made by HazzaHSV is that it wouldn't have translated to THAT big of a loss...so there must be more at play here. the video doesn't quote numbers so he was using 0.1 tenths as a 'figure of speech'.

At least thats how i interpreted it but HazzaHSV can clarify...

It's been my experience (based on the 'average performance car') that a car length at the finish line of the 1/4 mile roughly translates to 0.1 seconds lead. This looked to be much more than 1 car length...

Still, i wouldn't say no to having either in my drive way :D :D

[Kuzman89]

I think -you- might have missed the point.

I said 'exactly', which is me agreeing with him. Then went onto my own little tangent.

The 0.1 second difference is what was stated earlier in the thread. From a proper comparo.

Which is laughable considering the hype of the 5l.

[FireArc]

"Proper" because it was more favourable to the camaro? In that drag, you have two cars side by side, same bit of road, same temperature (hence conditions) and a few runs just to make sure it isn't a fluke.

In the second run, the camaro appeared to have gotten the jump but was reeled in within metres and then trounced by several car lengths. By an engine that has 1.2L less capacity; you must have massive blinkers on to not appreciate what it takes to achieve that kind of result with vastly less displacement!

Now bring on the supercharged FPV's and watch the margin grow...

How do you know the LSX engines are cheaper to mod when the Coyote block has only just been brought out? Do you have access to that kind of data or a magic crystal ball lying around somewhere? In respects to a supercharged FPV, do you not see the potential for cheap easy mods? Look at the i6T; $4-5000 will get you an 11 second car. The same principles can be applied for a forced induction V8.

This might surprise you though; not everyone buys a car for modification purposes! A very small margin of vehicles are bought for their aftermarket potential. So here, we have a fair comparison between two natural competitors and as far as potential buyers are concerned (thats right, the average Joe who buys and reads these silly comparisons), the coyote won out, with a smaller more advanced V8, thats more economical (yes, even V8 buyers are now demanding V8's be cheaper to run without the loss of power and reliability).

I think the hype is all in your head at this point in time. This is about respect for the engineering of a new era of American Muscle Cars. But thats ok...you just keep adding litres and litres until you have a 12 litre V8...the very same thinking that left GM and Chrysler out in the cold, bankrupt and with nowhere to go due to lack of forward thinking and forward planning.

The arrogance and ignorance around here is stifling sometimes.

[calais-346]

"Proper" because it was more favourable to the camaro? In that drag, you have two cars side by side, same bit of road, same temperature (hence conditions) and a few runs just to make sure it isn't a fluke.

In the second run, the camaro appeared to have gotten the jump but was reeled in within metres and then trounced by several car lengths. By an engine that has 1.2L less capacity; you must have massive blinkers on to not appreciate what it takes to achieve that kind of result with vastly less displacement!

Now bring on the supercharged FPV's and watch the margin grow...

How do you know the LSX engines are cheaper to mod when the Coyote block has only just been brought out? Do you have access to that kind of data or a magic crystal ball lying around somewhere? In respects to a supercharged FPV, do you not see the potential for cheap easy mods? Look at the i6T; $4-5000 will get you an 11 second car. The same principles can be applied for a forced induction V8.

This might surprise you though; not everyone buys a car for modification purposes! A very small margin of vehicles are bought for their aftermarket potential. So here, we have a fair comparison between two natural competitors and as far as potential buyers are concerned (thats right, the average Joe who buys and reads these silly comparisons), the coyote won out, with a smaller more advanced V8, thats more economical (yes, even V8 buyers are now demanding V8's be cheaper to run without the loss of power and reliability).

I think the hype is all in your head at this point in time. This is about respect for the engineering of a new era of American Muscle Cars. But thats ok...you just keep adding litres and litres until you have a 12 litre V8...the very same thinking that left GM and Chrysler out in the cold, bankrupt and with nowhere to go due to lack of forward thinking and forward planning.

The arrogance and ignorance around here is stifling sometimes.

Do you realise there are alot of benefits to pushrods engines compared to multivalve multicam engines? Less weight smaller packaging less complex valvetrain less rpm to reach peak torque.... I think some people need to broaden their horizons.

GM made a multivalve V8 20 years ago http://myzr1.com/images/lt5engine_bg.jpg
http://www.corvetteactioncenter.com/specs/c4/zr1/lt5specs.html
So i think they would be more than capable of doing this if it was of benefit to them.

All i'm saying is dont underestimate proven technology just because its old

[Ellistwo]

Isn't it amusing that a generation ago an engine wasn't worth it's salt unless is had more cubes. The Ford guys would hang off this with the 351 V 350. Now because Ford decide to bring out a 5.0 with comparble power to it's 5.8, GM is getting stick while Ford's hero engine for the last decade is conveniently forgotten. How about asking why it's taken so long for Ford to bring Euro/Jap technology to market?

Fleeting as it may be, I guess the Fordhards deserve some good news after decades of being in the wilderness.

[Irish]

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/29/2011-ford-mustang-gt-first-drive/



Also improved for 2011 is the GT's handling. 2010 was something of a breakout year for the Mustang, as Ford finally committed itself to building a Mustang that goes left and right as well as it goes straight. Not only is the 2011 Mustang GT happy to turn into a corner, once you're flirting around with the apex you won't find yourself making loads of corrections. Put another way, the suspension is able to handle whatever you throw at it, and the steering feel is good enough that you only have to measure and cut once. As far as the never ending live rear end vs. independent suspension argument goes, we're saying the following: The 2011 Ford Mustang GT sports the very best solid rear axle in the world. We'd rather have the best solid axle than a mediocre multi-point rear. Hint, hint, Chevy. 'Nuff said.

[Irish]

Do you realise there are alot of benefits to pushrods engines compared to multivalve multicam engines? Less weight smaller packaging less complex valvetrain less rpm to reach peak torque.... I think some people need to broaden their horizons.

GM made a multivalve V8 20 years ago http://myzr1.com/images/lt5engine_bg.jpg
http://www.corvetteactioncenter.com/specs/c4/zr1/lt5specs.html
So i think they would be more than capable of doing this if it was of benefit to them.

All i'm saying is dont underestimate proven technology just because its old

So it's ok to say live axle is useless because it is old, but more complex engine configurations are out on here? Don't worry I love pushrods too, only 1 camshaft to change.

[calais-346]

So it's ok to say live axle is useless because it is old, but more complex engine configurations are out on here? Don't worry I love pushrods too, only 1 camshaft to change.

Where in any of my posts have i rubished live axles? I have nothing bad to say about the mustang at all, just narrow minded people.

Corvettes still use leaf style springs in the rear, so, like i was saying....

[Irish]

Where in any of my posts have i rubished live axles? I have nothing bad to say about the mustang at all, just narrow minded people.

Corvettes still use leaf style springs in the rear, so, like i was saying....

Wasn't directed specifically at you. More so the people who always bash old tech something and then favour old tech something else. To me the simpler it is the less that can go wrong.

[Ellistwo]

exactly, I'm surprised the 5.0l doesn't thump the 6.2l, considering it's a new engine with 'sophisticated technologies' and all the hysteria that came with it, 0.1 sec is laughable.

If you belong to Ford's Social Media Marketing network it's serious. It might surprise you to know that motor forums are being bombarded by "impartial" forum members who were recruited to spread the word. You gotta feel sorry for the Ford faithful being softened up for the Falcon demise by their own comrades;).

[Pickles]

Well, it certainly looks like the Coyote engine is pretty good......for a 5L.
But I don't think HSV's got anything to worry about.....IMHO the 6.2L LS3 will still have "too much" for it.
Now if FPV have to strap on a supercharger to get the upper hand, so be it, in which case HSV could simply do the same....and we all know what sorts of results are available there. But I don't think a supercharged engine would form part of FPV's "mainstream" engine line up.....simply because I believe it would be too expensive.
And, there's no way any 5L Falcon is going to get the jump on a 6.2L HSV as shown in the Mustang/Camaro clip....it simply ain't gonna happen.
Cheers, Pickles.

[Party Pete]

Is it a case of they can but choose not to or is it a case of they can't so don't have choice not to...
The single fact that does remain and can not be disputed is, an increase in cubic capacity is not needed to net power gains unless that is you so choose to use old technology and I'm talking straight out of the box not modded not drag nothing but OEM.

I love how people get so excited about power per litre. It's great for those who get all excited about stats but here are some facts that people should remember. The Camaro is considerably heavier than the Mustang, partly due to the backward chassis in the Mustang. If you haven't driven one then I would try this before you argue otherwise. Second, the Camaro gets similar performance and economy despite the weight penalty, so the extra capacity isn't costing them in any way other than allowing people to make pointless comparisons.

[KPWISHN]

This motor might be good and all but throw it in a big heavy Falcon and it's gunna fail hard compared to what Holden's got on offer. :box: :fishing: :p

Hopefully they are a good thing cause atm the ford boys only have boosted sixes that come remotely close to late model Holdens. I want more Holden Vs Ford, V8 vs V8. It's just how things are meant to be.

[Pickles]

This motor might be good and all but throw it in a big heavy Falcon and it's gunna fail hard compared to what Holden's got on offer. :box: :fishing: :p

Hopefully they are a good thing cause atm the ford boys only have boosted sixes that come remotely close to late model Holdens. I want more Holden Vs Ford, V8 vs V8. It's just how things are meant to be.

Spot On!
Cheers, Pickles.

[Spoolin]

Hopefully they are a good thing cause atm the ford boys only have boosted sixes that come remotely close to late model Holdens.
Yes you're right and dollar for dollar out of the factory the T6 will leave any Holden V8 in it's wake, so it's no great loss not havign a decent V8, some of us aren't that narrow minded:)


Do you realise there are alot of benefits to pushrods engines compared to multivalve multicam engines? Less weight smaller packaging less complex valvetrain less rpm to reach peak torque.... I think some people need to broaden their horizons.
All i'm saying is dont underestimate proven technology just because its old

Why live in the past? Do you still drive a carby and points car or play with your Commodore 64? Doubt it!

[KPWISHN]

My daily is actually a turbo 6. I have been quite dissappointed with the pace of the thing to be honest. My VE wagon with just a tune and an intake absolutley hoses it. :)

[payaya]

Do you realise there are alot of benefits to pushrods engines compared to multivalve multicam engines? Less weight smaller packaging less complex valvetrain less rpm to reach peak torque.... I think some people need to broaden their horizons.

GM made a multivalve V8 20 years ago http://myzr1.com/images/lt5engine_bg.jpg
http://www.corvetteactioncenter.com/specs/c4/zr1/lt5specs.html
So i think they would be more than capable of doing this if it was of benefit to them.

All i'm saying is dont underestimate proven technology just because its old

Why does a push rod motor require less rpm to reach peak torque?

[Ellistwo]

.....

Why live in the past? Do you still drive a carby and points car or play with your Commodore 64? Doubt it!

I like the past for certain things, even DOHC, direct injection, cam phasing, spark management... oh that's right we are talking Ford present and future aren't we, not their recent past.

We have yet to see just how the Ecoboost will deliver reliability in the real world. It's when owners start getting $2000 bills to replace coked CHRAs and scored thrust plates that will tell the tale of displacement over compressor. Having a Mazda pedigree is a good start though.

[Spoolin]

Seriously Ellistwo, what would you know first hand about the alleged coaked chra's and scored thrusts? You better show your expertise to the Germans, according to you they are heading in the wrong direction with small displacement motors and turbochargers :jerk: When was the last time you had a turbo re-built?

Kpwish, must be shagged or is a truck :rofl:

[Ellistwo]

Mate I've been mucking around with turbo engines since Moses had his bar mitzvah.

No you are saying I'm saying they are heading in the wrong direction. I actually rebuild and modify turbo engines, I like turbo engines, but..... when they go wrong they really go wrong.

Thrust plates, pistons, seals, they are all prone to damage. All it takes is an O2 sensor to play up and things like EGT start spoiling the party. Gradual deterioration of the diffuser plate interface, overheated tips, etc are all contributors.

You want to question my credentials that's fine, but useless. You want to know how to size majors, minors, A/Rs, trim, back rakes, etc, I'm quite happy to coach you, but you are going to have to take a leap away from blind loyalty and start admiring engineering for what it is, not brand myopia.

[Party Pete]

[QUOTE=Spoolin;1705281]Yes you're right and dollar for dollar out of the factory the T6 will leave any Holden V8 in it's wake, so it's no great loss not havign a decent V8, some of us aren't that narrow minded:)


Snort. This is someone who spends his whole time on a Holden V8 forum telling people that a old cast iron engine which dates back to the 50's is the way to the future because they managed to graft a DOCH head and bloody big turbo to it. Narrow minded is looking down your nose at other ways of doing things because of some preconceived notion that it is old fashioned.

[Spoolin]

Have I ever said any any of my posts that the current 6 is the way of the future...no I haven't but, if you wish to think so good for you. BTW the turbo is FAR from big, it's only considered a mid framed turbo.

May I remind you I had the choice of a SS or XR8 and still went the T6 for it's outright performance, reasonable economy and comfort oh...and I've had 4 Commodores in a row...So I'd say I'm a little more accepting of different marques.

[Ellistwo]

Maybe so, but the 4.0 with the boost it's running is expected, not extraordinary. Party Pete is correct in a way, the I6T is a cobbled together solution to a problem the LS engines created.

[Party Pete]

The reality is that in most posts you write you bag the LS motors for having pushrods and push your view of the world that turbo engines with overhead cams are the best. That's fine if that is what you want, but your constant bagging of the GM motor based purely on the pushrod design is being narrow minded. That may not be a the basis for a wet dream for a tech head and Ferrari is not about to steal the design, but the LS engines are very effective.

[Spoolin]

Ellistwo, it doesn't run rediculous boost at all, it peaks for a brief period at 10psi. 10psi into a motor which is designed for NA application is loads but not in this situation. It may be cobbled together but, does it work?

Pete, your perception is your reality. Why can't I express my view that OHC and turbos are to my liking, is this any different to you expressing you views? I think the LSx series does provide good bang for buck in a modified situation and in such a low tech and dated package.

I fail to unerstand why there are so many haters of technology, these can be exhibited right here, people who praise the LSx motor. But it baffles me when it does use tacked on modern tech to make it what it is and it replaces modern advancement with cubic inches.

I have no grievances with LSx motors, more so those who sing and praise it without giving other marques credit.

BTW, I come here because all the Ford forums are boring as bat shite, full of one eyed wankers (mainly T6 owners) and I like to challenge you lot:rofl:

[Party Pete]

Mate, it isn't a question of you expressing your views that you like OHC and turbos, it is your constant knocking of the LS motors for not having these features that marks you out as being narrow minded. That is, your love for your choice of car has made you unprepared to consider there are other ways that the same end can be achieved. And just because I might currently drive an LS1 doesn't mean I'm anti technology at all, it means only that the package was right at the time. Most importantly, I get sick of the argument that the LS1 package with big displacement but a relatively simple valvetrain is somehow invalid as an option. If they suffered shocking economy or poor performance then you would have an argument, but they don't. As a concept they work. You might note that I have already expressed my interest in the new Coyote engine so I am hardly locked into pushrods and the fact that I have recently looked at the F6 would indicate that I am not anti turbos either. It is just that nothing I have driven yet puts the package together well enough.

On the topic of boost levels. Remember that a 4l turbo engine running 10psi of boost is basically forcing in approx 6.8 litres of air per revolution rather than the 4 litres nominal capacity. So, suddenly the power figures don't look that special either. People seem to forget that there is nothing magic about turbo engines, they simply increase their capacity by boosting the intake pressure rather than using bigger cylinders. It isn't rocket science and has been around almost since the beginning of the internal combustion engine.

[KPWISHN]

Kpwish, must be shagged or is a truck :rofl:

:lol: It's a Landcruiser.

[Ellistwo]

Ellistwo, it doesn't run rediculous boost at all, it peaks for a brief period at 10psi. 10psi into a motor which is designed for NA application is loads but not in this situation. It may be cobbled together but, does it work?

.........:

I don't think I suggested it did. The turbo will mask inherent VE inefficiencies in the motor and just about any motor will respond to getting a gutful of air and fuel.

My criticism is the need to contrive rules, then proceed to knock anyone that doesn't conform to the rules they didn't agree to in the first place. Ford themselves are guilty of this with the emphasis they placed on "first 300hp engine to get 30mpg" campaign... who pulled that one out and dusted it off? I can probably lay claim to being the first person to walk in my shoes, which gives me the same level of excitement the Ecoboost engines do.

So what if the LS is a pushrodasaurus, you lift the bonnet and all you see is a turtleback. Likewise you will lift the Ford bonnet and see a similar sized shell. How both work is veteran vintage technology:- a set of cranking pistons respond to combustion pressures. Using 19th century technology each are designed to operate over a certain range reliably. One caters to a large aftermarket DIY category, the other is higher strung and will be limited to how much modification can be carried out economically. One doesn't necessarily exclude the other.

[Jarhead]

I don't think I suggested it did. The turbo will mask inherent VE inefficiencies in the motor and just about any motor will respond to getting a gutful of air and fuel.

My criticism is the need to contrive rules, then proceed to knock anyone that doesn't conform to the rules they didn't agree to in the first place. Ford themselves are guilty of this with the emphasis they placed on "first 300hp engine to get 30mpg" campaign... who pulled that one out and dusted it off? I can probably lay claim to being the first person to walk in my shoes, which gives me the same level of excitement the Ecoboost engines do.

So what if the LS is a pushrodasaurus, you lift the bonnet and all you see is a turtleback. Likewise you will lift the Ford bonnet and see a similar sized shell. How both work is veteran vintage technology:- a set of cranking pistons respond to combustion pressures. Using 19th century technology each are designed to operate over a certain range reliably. One caters to a large aftermarket DIY category, the other is higher strung and will be limited to how much modification can be carried out economically. One doesn't necessarily exclude the other.


Well said mate!

Reading this thread is like having Jehovah Witnesses trying to convince me about their religion.

Don't get me wrong - I'm really happy Ford has a new motor on offer that might elevate the aussie v8 falc to the same level as Holden/HSV. Enough with the chest beating. Lets wait to see how it sits inside the FG falcon.

[Irish]

The turbo will mask inherent VE inefficiencies in the motor and just about any motor will respond to getting a gutful of air and fuel.

.

All motors work on the same priciple of pumping air in, compressing the air, then pumping it out. So any motor will respond to a turbo.

[Spoolin]

All motors work on the same priciple of pumping air in, compressing the air, then pumping it out. So any motor will respond to a turbo.

Undeniably true, but how many will hang together is another question. For an OEM to build a turbo motor, it's isn't a case of whack one on and hope for the best.

Hypotheticly speaking, if GM turned around tomorrow and said the LSx motor doesn't comply for xyz reason and they'll be shifting to a multi cam and valve arrangement, how many of the knockers will jump on board?...we all know deep down GM will follow suit eventually. Is it more of a case that the opposition or the hated other Aussie manufacturer has it first so it couldn't possibly be liked because all you see is red.

[cashie]

Undeniably true, but how many will hang together is another question. For an OEM to build a turbo motor, it's isn't a case of whack one on and hope for the best.

Hypotheticly speaking, if GM turned around tomorrow and said the LSx motor doesn't comply for xyz reason and they'll be shifting to a multi cam and valve arrangement, how many of the knockers will jump on board?...we all know deep down GM will follow suit eventually. Is it more of a case that the opposition or the hated other Aussie manufacturer has it first so it couldn't possibly be liked because all you see is red.

The great thing is though, that GM proved to the knockers that an "old technology" push rod twin valved engine, CAN be made to, and DOES comply and meet all standards..
I have always been all for technology and twin cam, quad valve OHV engines... until my first LS based engine I would never have expected that a pushrod donk could be this good (maybe I listen too much to media hype).

[Martin_D]

Mate I've been mucking around with turbo engines since Moses had his bar mitzvah. Thrust plates, pistons, seals, they are all prone to damage.....I'm quite happy to coach you

Heres a free coaching tip Garrett ball bearing CHRA as used on the Falcon Turbo engine does not have a thrust bearing as such nor does any other family ball bearing turbocharger for that matter :)

Carry on :bow:

[Ellistwo]

True that. They are also practically unserviceable except for seal changes.

[Martin_D]

Put a new CHRA in every 300,000km at $1200 or so.......whats the big deal?
They are that good they dont need constant servicing :)

[calais-346]

Undeniably true, but how many will hang together is another question. For an OEM to build a turbo motor, it's isn't a case of whack one on and hope for the best.

Hypotheticly speaking, if GM turned around tomorrow and said the LSx motor doesn't comply for xyz reason and they'll be shifting to a multi cam and valve arrangement, how many of the knockers will jump on board?...we all know deep down GM will follow suit eventually. Is it more of a case that the opposition or the hated other Aussie manufacturer has it first so it couldn't possibly be liked because all you see is red.

I don't think you understand...GM have been manufacturing multivalve multicam V8's for at least 20 years, the pushrod gen 3's and gen 4's aren't just made cos they can't be arsed catching up with modern tech.... They are light and compact make good torque at low rpm, need limited maintenence, a relativley effecient and cheap to manufacture.
Perfect for a passenger car.

And as the aftermarket has found out they can handle huge power in stock form

Here are some links to help inform yourself with
http://www.gm.com/experience/technology/gmpowertrain/engines/northstar/northstar_engine.jsp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northstar_engine_series

http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/0505_hrdp_2006_cadillac_supercharged_northstar_v8/index.html

[Pickles]

I don't think you understand...GM have been manufacturing multivalve multicam V8's for at least 20 years, the pushrod gen 3's and gen 4's aren't just made cos they can't be arsed catching up with modern tech.... They are light and compact make good torque at low rpm, need limited maintenence, a relativley effecient and cheap to manufacture.
Perfect for a passenger car.

And as the aftermarket has found out they can handle huge power in stock form

Here are some links to help inform yourself with
http://www.gm.com/experience/technology/gmpowertrain/engines/northstar/northstar_engine.jsp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northstar_engine_series

http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/0505_hrdp_2006_cadillac_supercharged_northstar_v8/index.html
You are undeniably correct.
The truth of your statement will be revealed when the "wonder motor" Coyote is installed within an FG FPV Falcon.
When the "pedal hits the metal", my money will be on the LS3.
Cheers, Pickles.

[bouka]

You are undeniably correct.
The truth of your statement will be revealed when the "wonder motor" Coyote is installed within an FG FPV Falcon.
When the "pedal hits the metal", my money will be on the LS3.
Cheers, Pickles.

Hope you are not a big gambler!

[Ellistwo]

Put a new CHRA in every 300,000km at $1200 or so.......whats the big deal?
They are that good they dont need constant servicing :)

What is the going rate for say a GT35/40 housing swap?

[Spoolin]

What is the going rate for say a GT35/40 housing swap?

When you say housing swap are you talking the CHRA, if so you're looking around the 1k mark but, a brand spanking new off the shelf GT35r will only set you back around $1,600.
Is there any point to your question?

[Ellistwo]

Well yeah. I threw a red herring, Street Tuna picked it up, now I want to know how much it costs to replace a turbo on an I6T, labour included. If they last 300k, then the answer is hypothetical, but you know and I know that isn't the case. It's not rocket science to draw out the truth.

[Resetar]

All this said a production vehical with a GM LS Motor in it may soon be the fastest Production car in the world yes a pushrod engine
http://www.caradvice.com.au/62935/2011-hennessey-venom-gt-official-specifications/

[Spoolin]

Well yeah. I threw a red herring, Street Tuna picked it up, now I want to know how much it costs to replace a turbo on an I6T, labour included. If they last 300k, then the answer is hypothetical, but you know and I know that isn't the case. It's not rocket science to draw out the truth.

Well are you talking under warranty, cos I know I'd rather have it let go under warranty if it's going to do it. If it's out of warranty, just about any rev head worth their salt would do a change over turbo in a day with basic tools. Garrett make turbos for many manufacturers around the globe and their BB/CHRA's are tested to 10,000 hot shut downs, which is where damage can occur. BTW, 3 out of the four cars in my garage which we own use GT35r's:flipoff:
Why are you interested in 'drawing out the truth'? Just get to the point you have already concluded in your mind:weirdo:

Resetar, according to many critics here turbo chargers are cheating...Oh it's hardly notable considering they've jambed a stonking v8 into a Lotus Exige...I'll reserve judgement until official production.

[SINISTER R8]

All this said a production vehical with a GM LS Motor in it may soon be the fastest Production car in the world yes a pushrod engine
http://www.caradvice.com.au/62935/2011-hennessey-venom-gt-official-specifications/

thats one crazy looking car. would love to see it hit the track.

also love the paint work on it, makes me want to repaint my car.

[SINISTER R8]

Resetar, according to many critics here turbo chargers are cheating...Oh it's hardly notable considering they've jambed a stonking v8 into a Lotus Exige...I'll reserve judgement until official production.

i dont know about turbo's being cheating. from what i have seen on here, there seems to be many owners throwing a turbo or 2 or even a blower on their cars to say that that statement is untrue.

also, i think what really matters is that they decided to put in an LS motor into the Lotus instead of your much loved 'new technology' engines or any other motor in the world, which i am sure they could have gotten anyone they wanted.

[ExAreSix]

Well yeah. I threw a red herring, Street Tuna picked it up, now I want to know how much it costs to replace a turbo on an I6T, labour included. If they last 300k, then the answer is hypothetical, but you know and I know that isn't the case. It's not rocket science to draw out the truth.

LOL. Red Herring. Good save. Everyone will fall for that one. :rofl:
If you knew half of what you think you know, you'd be a genius. But you don't, so you aren't.



As for the Coyote, it's a cracker. Can't wait to see it in a Falcon. Should shake the local market up somewhat. Exciting times ahead for all enthusiasts.

[Martin_D]

Well yeah. I threw a red herring, Street Tuna picked it up, now I want to know how much it costs to replace a turbo on an I6T, labour included. If they last 300k, then the answer is hypothetical, but you know and I know that isn't the case. It's not rocket science to draw out the truth.

Ok you got me, turbochargers are evil :(
Its a big cartel thing that the most reliable engines in the world that run the transport industry are turbocharged diesels. If they would only join the forums they would realise they were wasting their money and should revert to OHV V8 atmo engines. Its the same with fuel injection, its the devils own work :1peek:

These are the arguments mates of mine used back in the day when their 'VK Brocky loogalike' or some similar relic got hosed by kids in Cordias and Exas. True :lol:

[Carby]

These are the arguments mates of mine used back in the day when their 'VK Brocky loogalike' or some similar relic got hosed by kids in Cordias and Exas. True :lol:


Oh woopey do - two of the most lamentable turbo's made - the Nissan Exa ET turbo was a deaf trap (first corner would confirm that) (brother in law had one) and the Cordia was used by the NSW police and guess what - torque steer and turbo failures ensured a short tenure.

I reckon a VK Brocky would be conservatively worth 10 times any EXA or Cordia now.........not one of your better comparo's!

[FireArc]

Getting back on topic... :D

Here are the latest head-to-head shoot-out results for the 2011 Mustang from MotorTrend but now throwing the SRT8 into the mix:

O-400m
2011 Mustang GT - 12.7sec
2010 Camaro SS - 13.1sec
2010 Challenger SRT8 - 13.3sec

Linky for the video etc: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_1006_2011_mustang_gt_2010_camaro_ss_2010_chall enger_srt8_comparison/index.html

[FireArc]

Do you realise there are alot of benefits to pushrods engines compared to multivalve multicam engines?

Yes, i do, and i have complete respect for these engines. The results that they have achieved in the pushrods is irrefutable.

I was frustrated at the apparent dismissal of the Coyote engine, not for the badge that it sits behind, but because a lot of effort and innovation has gone into it. As a car enthusiast, i feel this engine deserves respect and credit as opposed to blindly badge bashing (BBB - new acronym :D...looks awfully like 888...conspiracy theory??).

If you (or anyone) can be bothered reading all of it, here is 15 pages which no doubt barely covers the true effort and ability required in designing this new engine.

http://www.mustang50magazine.com/techarticles/m5lp_1003_2011_ford_mustang_gt_50_coyote_engine/index.html

[Martin_D]

Oh woopey do - two of the most lamentable turbo's made - the Nissan Exa ET turbo was a deaf trap

A death trap even :lol:
It would have looked like Dumbo with bigger ears :rofl:

[Carby]

A death trap even :lol:
It would have looked like Dumbo with bigger ears :rofl:


Got me! :goodjob: Your description however would actually improve the looks of the Exa though!

[Martin_D]

Got me! :goodjob:

Well you referred to the Exa as a........


the Nissan Exa ET turbo was a deaf trap

Implying it must have some kind of hearing or ears :eek:

You are right though, EXAs are similarly as dissapointing as Cordias, and VKs. All muck from the mid 80s. Thank god Holden cracked out the VT platform and made a decent car for the next generation :cool:

[rodp]

Yes, i do, and i have complete respect for these engines. The results that they have achieved in the pushrods is irrefutable.

I was frustrated at the apparent dismissal of the Coyote engine, not for the badge that it sits behind, but because a lot of effort and innovation has gone into it. As a car enthusiast, i feel this engine deserves respect and credit as opposed to blindly badge bashing (BBB - new acronym :D...looks awfully like 888...conspiracy theory??)

I'd want to see it in more than magazine and internet review sites before I gave it any respect. I may well own one as my next car but I sure wasn't going to be the first one.

Let's see how it fares 6 months after release and what it can do in the Falcon.

[Pickles]

Yes, i do, and i have complete respect for these engines. The results that they have achieved in the pushrods is irrefutable.

I was frustrated at the apparent dismissal of the Coyote engine, not for the badge that it sits behind, but because a lot of effort and innovation has gone into it. As a car enthusiast, i feel this engine deserves respect and credit as opposed to blindly badge bashing (BBB - new acronym :D...looks awfully like 888...conspiracy theory??).

If you (or anyone) can be bothered reading all of it, here is 15 pages which no doubt barely covers the true effort and ability required in designing this new engine.

http://www.mustang50magazine.com/techarticles/m5lp_1003_2011_ford_mustang_gt_50_coyote_engine/index.html

Had a look at that article....VERY INFORMATIVE.....so, thank you. looks like a very impressive bit of gear...can't wait to see it in an FPV!
However, I'm of the "old school".....there's no substitute for cubic inches....so I'm yet to be convinced that the old "agricultural" pushrod 6.2L LS3 will be "outgunned".
Cheers, Pickles.

[throttlehappy]

should be a belter

[Party Pete]

Especially with a supercharger on it. That should quickly make up for its capacity deficit over the LS3 and weight disadvantage over the Mustang. HSV might have to sharpen up it's engine line up to compete, which can only be good for car enthusiasts. It will drive the wowsers made though.

[GHZ28]

Just back from the US today and had a Camaro SS rental from Avis for the past 4 days. Nice car, horrible vision, especially out the back etc etc.

And it is equipped with a 3.46 diff as standard......notice they did not compare the Mustang with a Camaro with 3.73 gears....and it is within a tenth or two, and we all know how much difference that 5% change in gearing makes, so guess that means with "available" 3.73 the Camaro would shit all over the Mustang.....but that would detract from the fantasy of the Mustang being quicker than the Camaro

gh


"Equipped with the available 3.73 rear axle ($395), our 5.0 needed just 4.3 seconds to hit 60 and only 12.8 at 110.8 mph to knockout the quarter mile. To answer the million-dollar question: Yes, it's quicker than both the 426-horsepower Chevy Camaro SS (4.5, 12.9 at 110.7) and the 425-horse Dodge Challenger SRT-8 (4.6, 13.1 at 108.4). It's also not that far behind the 540-horse supercharged 2010 Shelby GT500, which requires 4.1 and 12.4 at 116.0. In the league of naturally aspirated muscle cars, the new Mustang GT is in a league of its own."
:jester:

[tanka5.7]

Especially with a supercharger on it. That should quickly make up for its capacity deficit over the LS3 and weight disadvantage over the Mustang. HSV might have to sharpen up it's engine line up to compete, which can only be good for car enthusiasts. It will drive the wowsers made though.

a blower isnt a magical answer, have a look at top gear testing maloo's and the n/a one was quicker than the blown one round their track.

[macca_779]

a blower isnt a magical answer, have a look at top gear testing maloo's and the n/a one was quicker than the blown one round their track.

Ahh that had a bit more to do with the larger wheels and tyres than the extra HP.

[Party Pete]

Exactly. The difference in speed was down to fitting 22 inch rims with very low profile rubber which reduced grip. They fitted the standard GTS 20 inch rims and tyres and the supercharged car was clearly faster. Besides, Ford won't be adding huge boost, but enough to give the car some serious boot.

[Pickles]

Especially with a supercharger on it. That should quickly make up for its capacity deficit over the LS3 and weight disadvantage over the Mustang. HSV might have to sharpen up it's engine line up to compete, which can only be good for car enthusiasts. It will drive the wowsers made though.

Aaahhhhh Yes, A supercharger!!..........well that's not comparing "apples with apples" is it? That will add another dimension, & if that happens, well as I've said....the LS3, as we all know, from factory & aftermarket examples, performs quite well in that regard.
Cheers, Pickles.

[Party Pete]

As I understand it the fitment of a supercharger is pretty much accepted fact now. Certainly Ford is doing nothing to quash the rumours which have now appeared in both car magazines. Will HSV respond is the question. Now doubt the engine responds well to it.

[macca_779]

As a Tuner

The 2011 Mustang also features a new digital mass air meter and universal exhaust gas oxygen sensors, which report a numerical air/fuel ratio-to something like the fourth decimal point-to the EEC. Previous systems weren't much more than rich/lean indicators.

Me likey.. Me likey a lot.

[macca_779]

For those that don't know much about engines this probably wont mean much.. For those that do.

Few highlights that stood out for me

Over 400HP on our 91RON fuel
Its got Wideband o2 sensors stock
Its under square and still operates fine at 7000rpm
Its got 530Nm of torque.. ITS ONLY A 5L.
5w/20 oil. She aint going to be a slapper
11:1 Static Comp and the fact that it runs fine on shit fuel with that.
It weighs in pretty light at 195kg


5.0 Tech Specs
5.0 4V TiVCT V-8

First Model Year 2011
Engine Family Modular
Code Name Coyote
Displacement 4957cc (302 ci)
Bore x Stroke 92.2 x 92.8mm (3.263 x 3.647 inch)
Horsepower

* 412 hp @ 6,500 rpm, 91 octane
* 402 hp @ 6,500 rpm, 87 octane

Torque

* 390 lb-ft @ 4,250 rpm, 91 octane
* 377 lb-ft @ 4,250 rpm, 87 octane

Shipping Weight 430 pounds, includes water pump
Block Low-pressure cast 319 aluminum, pressed-in thin-wall iron liners
Bore Spacing 100mm (3.937-inch)
Deck Height 227mm (8.937-inch)
Deck Thickness 13mm (0.510-inch)
Cylinder Head Retention 12mm bolts, 4 per cylinder, 10 bolts total per bank

Oil 5W/20 weight, mineral
Oil Pan Stamped steel, 8 quarts
Windage Tray Integral w/oil pan gasket
Oil Pump Gerotor
Pistons Hypereutectic, short-skirt, flat-top w/four equal valve reliefs; moly friction-reducing coating; oil-jet cooled
Piston weight 500 grams
Piston Pin Full-floating, 22mm diameter
Piston Pin Retention Wire lock
Piston Rings 1.2 x 1.2 x 2.5 mm, moly top ring
Connecting Rod Powered metal forging, I-beam, no balance pad
Connecting Rod Length 150.7mm (5.933-inch)
Rod/Stroke Ratio 1.62
Crankshaft Forged steel, fully counterweighted, induction hardened
Main Journal 67.5mm (2.652-inch) diameter
Rod Journal 53.0mm (2.082-inch) diameter

Flywheel Retention Eight-bolt
Cylinder Heads Aluminum, four-valve per cylinder
Head Bolts 12mm, four per cylinder
Valve Covers Composite
Compression ratio 11.0:1
Valves 37 x 31mm (1.454 x 1.218-inch), four per cylinder
Camshafts DOHC, four camshafts, independently adjustable timing
Camshaft Timing Twin independent variable
Duration 260 degrees intake, 263 degrees exhaust
Lift 12mm (0.472-inch) intake, 11mm (0.432-inch) exhaust
Lift Limit 13mm (0.510-inch) physical limit in head
Valve Followers Roller-finger follower
Lash Adjusters Hydraulic
Coolant Organic (red)

Exhaust Manifold Short-tube, S44100 stainless-steel Tri-Y tubular headers; 10mm mounting studs w/prevailing torque nuts
Intake Manifold Constant cross section, long-runner single-plane (single-scroll); molded composite w/upper section colored; front throttle body mount
Throttle Body Single-blade, 80mm, e-throttle
Engine Management Software Copperhead
Mass Air Meter 86mm, digital
Oxygen Sensors Universal Exhaust Gas
Knock Sensors Two, in block valley
Ignition Timing Crank trigger, rear of crankshaft
Ignition Coil-on plug
Spark Plug NGK Iridium
Firing Order 1 5 4 8 6 3 7 2
Cylinder Numbering

* Right bank: 1, 2, 3, 4
* Left bank: 5, 6, 7, 8

Fuel System Port fuel injection, returnless
Fuel Injectors 32.8-lb/hr
Fuel Pressure 55 psi
Fuel Requirement 87 octane minimum, 91 octane best/rated power

[Ghia351]

From GoAuto:
http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf/story2/6ED6E486C312E64DCA2576FD00140C27


FORD’S first blown XR8 will mark the 50th anniversary of Australia’s Falcon in 2010, according to official Australian Design Rule documents.

Federal vehicle certification information obtained by GoAuto reveals Ford Australia has received formal homologation approval for an XR8 Falcon ute powered by a supercharged 5.0-litre petrol V8 that delivers 315kW at 6500rpm.


Our sources also indicate the GT version of FPV’s blown Coyote V8 will produce peak power output of 335kW and up to 600Nm of torque, eclipsing the performance of HSV’s Corvette-sourced 6.2-litre V8, which offers 317kW/550Nm – or an Australian benchmark-setting 325kW in the flagship GTS.


Expect the all-alloy Coyote V8 to contribute to a total weight saving of about 55kg, with the 2010 XR8 Ute’s tare mass listed at 1785kg – down from 1840kg for the current XR8 Ute.

[calais-346]

Can't wait to see it on the road, it can only be a good thing for all of us v8 lovers, at that power to weight raio it should be good for a 12 easy

[Spoolin]

Pickles, why isn't it apples to apples? If they compare both manufacturers cream of the crop performance sedans, it's comparing like for like...no if's no but's about it.
One will use cubic capacity to deliver it's performance whilst the other goes small capacity with some forced induction. This would be no different to comparing an AMG63 to M3, both high end euro super saloons but deliver their amazing amounts of power in vastly different formats.

Your arguement is a huge FAIL:goodjob:

[Martin_D]

For those that don't know much about engines this probably wont mean much.. For those that do. Few highlights that stood out for me Over 400HP on our 91RON fuel

Thats not RON rating Macca. The US uses R+M/2 as their octane rating system. Their 87 octane is effectively our 91 octane. The US 91 octane is around 96 octane Aussie. Just a heads up :)

[Pickles]

Pickles, why isn't it apples to apples? If they compare both manufacturers cream of the crop performance sedans, it's comparing like for like...no if's no but's about it.
One will use cubic capacity to deliver it's performance whilst the other goes small capacity with some forced induction. This would be no different to comparing an AMG63 to M3, both high end euro super saloons but deliver their amazing amounts of power in vastly different formats.

Your arguement is a huge FAIL:goodjob:

No need to get personal mate.....I'm not having an "argument" with anyone..I'm simply stating my opinion, so, in that regard, the only one whose having a "huge fail" is you.
If you read my previous post, I've already stated that the Coyote looks to be a good bit of gear.....and I'm also saying that I can't wait to see it in an FPV. Hopefully, it will generate some much needed competition for HSV, who've always had the better V8.
If Ford go small capacity supercharged.....well that's fine....but as I've already said, HSV with their larger capacity "old school" pushrod engine, will also have the option of a supercharger, if they feel the need, and IMHO of course, a supercharged 6.3L LS3 would be more than a match for a supercharged 5L Coyote.
Like I said, there's no "argument" here, and to be perfectly honest, if the Coyote does manage to "toss" the LS3, well HSV will certainly "respond", which can only be good for all of us!
Cheers, Pickles.

[Deco28]

If it costs Walkinshaw so much to implement a supercharger and cover it under warranty, how can Ford do it without bumping prices up at least $15,000.

I realise they will have a much more production, but that $15,000 extra is still half of what Walkinshaw charges, maybe a third.

Plus add to that the costs of modifying the platform, how could they possibly keep it cheap?

[mmciau]

No need to get personal mate.....I'm not having an "argument" with anyone..I'm simply stating my opinion, so, in that regard, the only one whose having a "huge fail" is you.
If you read my previous post, I've already stated that the Coyote looks to be a good bit of gear.....and I'm also saying that I can't wait to see it in an FPV. Hopefully, it will generate some much needed competition for HSV, who've always had the better V8.
If Ford go small capacity supercharged.....well that's fine....but as I've already said, HSV with their larger capacity "old school" pushrod engine, will also have the option of a supercharger, if they feel the need, and IMHO of course, a supercharged 6.3L LS3 would be more than a match for a supercharged 5L Coyote.
Like I said, there's no "argument" here, and to be perfectly honest, if the Coyote does manage to "toss" the LS3, well HSV will certainly "respond", which can only be good for all of us!
Cheers, Pickles.

Or HSV could turbo-charge the engine as a further option. Plenty of Australian expertise in turbo-charging the LS series


Mike

[Deco28]

Or HSV could turbo-charge the engine as a further option. Plenty of Australian expertise in turbo-charging the LS series


Mike

Factory LS3TT.

HEAVEN.

2 small twin-scroll turbos :D, offerring enough boost for 700NM and 350KW to start with while maintaining current fuel economy!

Would only cost as much as a W427 xD.

[SINISTER R8]

i would think that if Ford did throw a blower on the engine, HSV would respond, but they would most likely just advertise the fact that Walkinshaw Performance exist and you can easily get a then FPV smashing car for a few thousand dollars more. or they could just bring WP more into the HSV workshop.

its hard to speculate as this is all in magazines and the like, will just have to wait and see what both makes do in the years to come.

[HazzaHSV]

I am actually excited and optimistic about this. It is far overdue for Ford fans to have a decent V8, and Holden/HSV have not really had to counter with any menace in this space for some time. I will be watching.

[Pickles]

Deco 28 & Hazza HSV-----Good points, I agree with both of you.
Cheers, Pickles.

[The-V8-Power]

Is it true that this engine is giving Ford/FPV some trouble in the driveline department? I'm ready to be proven wrong, just something I read and heard off a few people.

Although, it will be interesting to see how it goes with the Falcon. Hopefully it gives the LS engine some competition and with plans to make the XR8 315kw, some interesting times lay ahead.

[macca_779]

Thats not RON rating Macca. The US uses R+M/2 as their octane rating system. Their 87 octane is effectively our 91 octane. The US 91 octane is around 96 octane Aussie. Just a heads up :)

I thought I made that pretty clear when I said OUR 91 RON Martin. Read my post again

[Martin_D]

To be picky that would be - most likely - Cali gas they have calibrated on which is all mainly E10 and pretty decent :)
Which is why the difference is so small between the two different octane fuels. There is no way in the world it will make 300kw here on Aussie junk 91 octane without direct injection etc. at 11:1 comp. I wait to be proven wrong on this one though :cool:
Anything higher than 91 E10 R+M/2 is hard to find in some parts of Cali (which is why Ford have used it at the top end of their power spectrum), but its good enough that Nissan allow local customers to run the GTR on it, along with plenty of other manufacturers

[Spoolin]

I'm a little confused with some of the statements Go Auto released today;

Federal vehicle certifi cation information
obtained by GoAuto reveals Ford Australia
has received formal homologation approval
for an XR8 Falcon ute powered by a
supercharged 5.0-litre petrol V8 that delivers
315kW at 6500rpm

the further on in the article they wrote this;

As GoAuto has reported, Ford’s
performance partner FPV is understood to
be developing what could be the world’s
fi rst supercharged application of the Coyote
V8,


The there is this statement and I ask why bother for 8kw?

The standard 32-valve 5.0-litre Coyote
V8 in the Mustang GT delivers 307kW and
529Nm –

But a blown 315kW Australian-made
version – which could deliver about 550Nm
by employing the same Walkinshaw
Performance supercharger kit that is
available for Holden’s V8

But I like the sound of this!

Potentially, next year’s born-again GTHO
– which is expected to emerge as part of
Ford’s FG Series II range – could deliver
up to 400kW, meaning its torque peak may
be limited only by the ZF auto’s maximum
rating of 650Nm.

[Party Pete]

The Walkinshaw supercharger option is not comparable because it doesn't come with that all important compliance plate. If HSV start fitting them from factory then they would have something to compare.

The pricing is an interesting point but you have to presume that Ford knows what it costs them to build the car. The supercharger costs but then Ford cobbles together the current engines in Australia after importing all the parts so it can't be that cheap for them either. The fact that Ford believes they can do this at a competitive price to the SS and HSV options may say more about the GM pricing policy than anything else.

[Party Pete]

What Martin is saying is that the Australia version will not achieve the same power and torque figures on our fuel as the US ones on their fuel. It looks like Ford is simply going for the jugular and using a supercharger across the range and varying boost from model to model. Given that the XR8 is the volume model, maybe the economies of scale make it worthwhile to go with superchargers across the range.

[Martin_D]

The 'about to hit the stands' Wheels has a comprehensive report of whats in and whats not. Thats all I can say for now :bow:

[macca_779]

To be picky that would be - most likely - Cali gas they have calibrated on which is all mainly E10 and pretty decent :)
Which is why the difference is so small between the two different octane fuels. There is no way in the world it will make 300kw here on Aussie junk 91 octane without direct injection etc. at 11:1 comp. I wait to be proven wrong on this one though :cool:
Anything higher than 91 E10 R+M/2 is hard to find in some parts of Cali (which is why Ford have used it at the top end of their power spectrum), but its good enough that Nissan allow local customers to run the GTR on it, along with plenty of other manufacturers

In that large article posted it goes into how the engine can run on low octane fuel. One of the aspects is the efficiency of the cooling and lubrication system. As you well know if you can keep the piston cooler this will help reduce the onset of pre ignition. The engine features under piston spray nozzels to cool the bottom of the piston. Plus they have introduced some techniques into the head design that apparently help too. Then there is ability to run a tight LSA up top via the Independent VCT which would lower the dynamic compression also helping its cause.

[Martin_D]

It remains to be seen how effective this really is, Ford really missed the boat by overlooking direct injection. As a detonation preventative its much more effective than VCT (which in my experience of tuning - other than avoiding its limits - doesnt tend to do much for fuel octane requirement softening)

If Ford can make a normally aspirated version of that 5 litre turn 250rwkw on a Mainline (the best part of 300kw crank) through a manual on 91 Aussie gas, then they really have achieved something special. We may never know the answer to this one though the way Ford Aus have it scheduled :cool:

They need a Coyote powered Cortina in the lineup sans nasty blower :)

[Party Pete]

It is interesting that Ford hasn't gone down the direct injection path, especially given the apparent parallel development early on with the Jaguar 5l V8, which does have direct injection. I suspect that they are leaving themselves room to add it later, with the accompanying media fanfare of course.

[clubbie]

Well I hope Ford spend a little more money on the seat to pedals to steering wheel to replicate something like the VT all the way through to VE driving position rather than the taxi setup they have ATM then chuck in the new motor and I might be back to a Ford.

Real funny part is none of the imported Fords feel like you are sitting on top of the car yet Ford DNA tells me I am wrong (not).

Until they fix the driving position so it is enjoyable they will continue to struggle in my eyes even if it has a nuclear reactor under the bonnet.

Biased - hardly. I have owned 6 Fords and only 2 Holdens and yes I still own a BOS BA XT II on gas (that I rarely drive).

Clubbie

[Party Pete]

I have to agree on that, it was the worst thing about the F6E I test drove. Mind you, the GTS and Senator also sit you too high, not a problem with the clubsport so obviously it is to do with the under seat motors. If you look at the Euro cars they let you get the seats much lower.

[macca_779]

If you guys read the article you would know its been prepared for DI and EcoBoost (DI and Turbo Charging). DI adds cost. And to be realistic it was designed for a Mustang which is hardly a premium model car so extra cost is an important consideration to a car maker.

No doubt it will get it eventually but since the engine surpassed its design torque requirement which is where DI really helps I can understand why they didn't bother for now.

As far as making peak high rpm power goes the difference between DI and PFI starts to narrow. Hell its already got more power and the same peak torque as an L98 but arrived at 150rpm sooner. That's pretty bloody impressive considering it also sacrifices 1L in capacity.

What will be most interesting to see is how much is left on the table as far as the mapping goes. Hopefully its detuned to the shitz.. But I'm not all that confident on that aspect.

[throttlehappy]

arnt most engines around the 70% mark performance wise from the factory
maybe the the coyote is higher...

should be interesting

[macca_779]

arnt most engines around the 70% mark performance wise from the factory
maybe the the coyote is higher...

should be interesting

Yep but not this thing. It APPARANTLY eclipses 100% VE due to the exhaust design (the heads flowing in excess of 300cfm helps to on a small 5L). Yeah I'm sceptical on the VE. But hey bloody good job if it has.

"I have to hurry up and apply for a patent on these, 'cause no one else builds them this way," Adam confessed. "Our peak Vol-F (thats VE people), which is at peak torque, is 110 [percent]. It depends on the dyno cell, right, but we've hit as high as 110, 108, so it's pretty impressive. And at peak power we're pretty close to 100.

[NODDY347]

[QUOTE=Spoolin;1707091]


The there is this statement and I ask why bother for 8kw?

The standard 32-valve 5.0-litre Coyote
V8 in the Mustang GT delivers 307kW and
529Nm –

But a blown 315kW Australian-made
version – which could deliver about 550Nm
by employing the same Walkinshaw
Performance supercharger kit that is
available for Holden’s V8

I think much like the current f6 the badge they stick on the side of the car will not come close to the real power/torque numbers.

[Spoolin]

Yes this 'badging' fiasco dates back to the early seventies.
Love it or hate it, it will be a win win situation for both camps.

[clubbie]

Yes this 'badging' fiasco dates back to the early seventies.
Love it or hate it, it will be a win win situation for both camps.

Aint that the truth. GTHO with 280hp:rofl::rofl::rofl:good joke that one.

Year or so ago we had an F6 with 270fwkw reading close to 250rwkw. Very efficient driveline hey (not).

Yep competition is good.

[Kuzman89]

Just back from the US today and had a Camaro SS rental from Avis for the past 4 days. Nice car, horrible vision, especially out the back etc etc.

And it is equipped with a 3.46 diff as standard......notice they did not compare the Mustang with a Camaro with 3.73 gears....and it is within a tenth or two, and we all know how much difference that 5% change in gearing makes, so guess that means with "available" 3.73 the Camaro would shit all over the Mustang.....but that would detract from the fantasy of the Mustang being quicker than the Camaro

gh

Don't let unfair diffs get in the way of a good argument!! lol
$300 for a better diff is piss all. It's not like the $2000 ZF upgrade on the fords.

[Pickles]

Yep but not this thing. It APPARANTLY eclipses 100% VE due to the exhaust design (the heads flowing in excess of 300cfm helps to on a small 5L). Yeah I'm sceptical on the VE. But hey bloody good job if it has.

"I have to hurry up and apply for a patent on these, 'cause no one else builds them this way," Adam confessed. "Our peak Vol-F (thats VE people), which is at peak torque, is 110 [percent]. It depends on the dyno cell, right, but we've hit as high as 110, 108, so it's pretty impressive. And at peak power we're pretty close to 100.

At the moment, it's all numbers & supposition.
As I've said, I'm sceptical on 300KW N/A from this engine.
But one thing's for sure though, Ford/FPV surely need a good V8 for their "dyed in the wool" enthusiasts, & also, in this Country anyway,....to take it to HSV.
Cheers, pickles.

[macca_779]

At the moment, it's all numbers & supposition.
As I've said, I'm sceptical on 300KW N/A from this engine.
But one thing's for sure though, Ford/FPV surely need a good V8 for their "dyed in the wool" enthusiasts, & also, in this Country anyway,....to take it to HSV.
Cheers, pickles.

Sceptical.. Do you honestly think FPV would debut a brand new engine with less power than the old one?

[theblueweapon]

Looks like a great engine and I will like to see it released here to stir things up a little. Just a little sceptical on the reliability of a 5L making 300KW compared to a 6L making the same power. Surely, if Ford goes down the supercharger path, wouldn’t Holden/HSV just start optioning cars with the already available LS9?

[rodp]

At the moment, it's all numbers & supposition.
As I've said, I'm sceptical on 300KW N/A from this engine.
But one thing's for sure though, Ford/FPV surely need a good V8 for their "dyed in the wool" enthusiasts, & also, in this Country anyway,....to take it to HSV.
Cheers, pickles.

How can you be sceptical about it when there's many videos in the hands of independant journalists that have confirmed as much as well as several on a dyno...?

[snappy]

Looks like a great engine and I will like to see it released here to stir things up a little. Just a little sceptical on the reliability of a 5L making 300KW compared to a 6L making the same power. Surely, if Ford goes down the supercharger path, wouldn’t Holden/HSV just start optioning cars with the already available LS9?

If it was that easy im sure they would but the reality is a new motor would have to go through vigrious testing it would need a stronger driveline , stroger chassis well stronger everything , crash testing and more. Thats the reality its not a case of slap that motor in as a option , What say hsv sell 5 thousand cars a year at best 1500 tick the ls9 option how much do you reckon that option would cost when there probly millions if not hundreds of millions spent on research and devolopment .
It would probly be cheaper to import a corvette.

[clubbie]

Sceptical.. Do you honestly think FPV would debut a brand new engine with less power than the old one?

Why not.

Advantages are less weight, better fuel efficiency and higher rpm and broader power spread.

Ford/FPV won't play the power game if they don't need to (yet).

[Pickles]

300KW N/A from 5L....yep, I'm sceptical....and yep, happy to be proven wrong....wouldn't be the first time!
The other thing that has been mentioned is cost, particularly for the "expected" supercharged version. It'll be interesting to see how that pans out.
Cheers, Pickles.

[Deco28]

It has 4 valves versus 2 which means it can get more air in there to produce more power.

I'm not scepticalat all about this engine making 307Kw.

If BMW's 5l V10 can make 370kw, I'm sure a V8 could make 307kw.

[Party Pete]

If there is a NA version of the engine sold here at all, I am guessing it will be in the XR8 only and won't come out with 300kw. I would expect it to have a little more power than the SS but with room for them to upgrade periodically to give people a reason to upgrade. Similarly, you would expect the GS to have a little more than the 317kw that HSV serves up and the GT a little more again to justify the extra $20,000. In fact, I'm guessing that marketing rather than engineering will dictate the power outputs of all the new Ford V8s.

[Maccas]

hey boys think of BMW's 4.0lt V8 thats in the M3 it produces 308kw so a 5.0lt should do this without any stress!

[Carby]

hey boys think of BMW's 4.0lt V8 thats in the M3 it produces 308kw so a 5.0lt should do this without any stress!


The even older E39 M5 made 294KW from it's 5.00 litre motor and that was well over ten years ago!

A modern generation 5.00 litre should do 300kw in a doddle.

[nang3]

^^^ exactly !!! no point criticising this motor without actually driving one FFS !!! just cause its in a Ford badged car doesnt mean 300kw from an n/a 5L is impossible...

im sure if it was a camaro with said motor all the one eyed dipshits would be singing its praises!

[The_Senator]

Both sides are guilty of the 'one eyed' approach..

Frankly, nothing improves the breed like competition.. Ford have put the hard yards in - and now are set to reap the rewards..

I'll test drive one, that is for sure. Always nice to know what is on the other side of the fence..

If they (Ford / FPV Aus.) do go with a S/C version, I would say that HSV would have the LSA in the wings waiting to go.. I can't see the VERY EXPENSIVE lS9 being dropped in.

How long before the Government steps in to limit the power outputs - al la the 70's when the power war was on... ??

[nang3]

in this nanny state bullshit country we live in im surprised the govt didnt step in a few models back !!

[73.RSR]

My guess is there won't be an N/A 5.0 option, they will all be supercharged in different states of tune/boost.

The extra 8kw's of power from the supercharger may look small but it will have a wide torque ban making big numbers from down low.

Can't wait to find out!

:goodjob:

[SINISTER R8]

Both sides are guilty of the 'one eyed' approach..

Frankly, nothing improves the breed like competition.. Ford have put the hard yards in - and now are set to reap the rewards..

I'll test drive one, that is for sure. Always nice to know what is on the other side of the fence..

If they (Ford / FPV Aus.) do go with a S/C version, I would say that HSV would have the LSA in the wings waiting to go.. I can't see the VERY EXPENSIVE lS9 being dropped in.

How long before the Government steps in to limit the power outputs - al la the 70's when the power war was on... ??

completely agree, HSV will have something ready and waiting to get back to the top before or just after Ford releases the new engine.

if the government does restrict power, then all that will happen is the same that happened in Japan. do you think those cars were really restricted to 207kw (i think it was)? there was a reason why that their government got rid of that stupid rule, the car manufactures only advertised the power output at 207kw.

[Party Pete]

To be honest I am not sure that HSV will bother to compete at this time. Not until they see a drop in sales in favour of the new Fords and HSV has a big sales lead at the moment.

[theblueweapon]

in this nanny state bullshit country we live in im surprised the govt didnt step in a few models back !!

Just like the old days with the 160mph musclecars of the 70's.

[Irish]

in this nanny state bullshit country we live in im surprised the govt didnt step in a few models back !!

The difference now is you can buy 400kw+ euro trash so if you ban holdens and fords with power you have to make it uniform. Therefore it won't happen.

[YMK]

Looks like a great engine and I will like to see it released here to stir things up a little. Just a little sceptical on the reliability of a 5L making 300KW compared to a 6L making the same power. Surely, if Ford goes down the supercharger path, wouldn’t Holden/HSV just start optioning cars with the already available LS9?


http://www.mustang50magazine.com/techarticles/m5lp_1003_2011_ford_mustang_gt_50_coyote_engine/key_challenges_engine.html



Besides meeting the performance goals the Coyote had to pass all of Ford's standard durability tests. These dyno sessions are incredibly brutal, always far exceeding what any rational customer would do to his engine, and occasionally surpassing what is physically possible in a car.

We observed some of this internal combustion water-boarding, and for anyone with a foot-pound of mechanical sympathy it isn't pretty. Engines run fatigue cycles equivalent to 62 Daytona 500 races. Others replicate customer drive cycles for 1,000 running hours to include 1,000 cold starts, plus hitting its peak torque and power for sustained periods. That test alone runs 100 hours a week for two and a half months.

The Coyote mounts its crank trigger between the crankshaft and flywheel because the rear of the crank is less distorted by torsional stresses than the front. The greatly increased accuracy is needed to meet increasingly tighter on-board diagnostic requirements-misfires are now measured at all engine speeds and loads. Also, the crank trigger slings a lot of oil at 7,000 rpm, so it's best to get it out of the front cover anyway. All Coyote cranks use an eight-bolt flywheel attachment.
We witnessed another torture session where the engine was run at WOT for several minutes, the headers glowing just a hint of red, then the engine shut off and after several seconds of sitting, -20 degree ice water was forced through the cooling system. Frost formed on the test rig as the engine was about frozen to death, then the ice water stopped, the engine started and after a handful of seconds idling was taken back to max rpm, max load for another heat cycle up to 225 degrees. Each complete cycle takes about 10 minutes, and the engine must survive days of these non-stop thermal shocks.

Most incredibly, "It can't be on its last legs at the end of the test," says Mike. "It can't be that it hasn't seized yet, we need to see crosshatching on the cylinders, no full-face ring wear, leak down needs to be below, oh, eight percent; it has to be very, very functional and could go do it again, quite frankly."

Be assured, this is one team, and engine, that has gone the extra mile to produce a no-excuses Mustang V-8.

[Ellistwo]

^^^ exactly !!! no point criticising this motor without actually driving one FFS !!! just cause its in a Ford badged car doesnt mean 300kw from an n/a 5L is impossible...

There is a point; it's to maintain the bloody mindedness that fanatics thrive on, especially armchair mechanics who crave popularity on discussion boards. The balancing argument is that you can't go around around singing praises on a motor (sic) "without actually driving one FFS !!!", but I'm sure the pro Ford boards are doing just that and I suspect you have primal urge to do so too.


im sure if it was a camaro with said motor all the one eyed dipshits would be singing its praises!

That's a fairly safe bet, but not necessarily applicable to the average LS owner. Logic suggests this will be a cracker of an engine, but as soon as comparisons are made with GMs offerings, there is sure to be a few backs arching up.

You have to consider that the Falcon line has been a let down for Ford tragics; it's hasn't sold well, it's not the most handsome puppy in the litter and it hasn't achieved what the delusionary FF and AFF oracles insisted was going to be the case, that's why they are in constant damage control with distractive crystal balling yarns. It's got to the point where the grapevine is hurting Ford's reputation here and cynicism is taking over.

[YMK]

i think it's been proven you're the only armchair mechanic going around.






Ok you got me, turbochargers are evil :(
Its a big cartel thing that the most reliable engines in the world that run the transport industry are turbocharged diesels. If they would only join the forums they would realise they were wasting their money and should revert to OHV V8 atmo engines. Its the same with fuel injection, its the devils own work :1peek:

These are the arguments mates of mine used back in the day when their 'VK Brocky loogalike' or some similar relic got hosed by kids in Cordias and Exas. True :lol:

:lmao:

[Ellistwo]

My guess is you are one of those trolls that feel it's your duty to flog the benefits of all things Ford? What Holden car do you own again? Let me take a wild guess and suggest you are one of those oracles I was referring too. LOL.

Me an armchair eh? I don't think so. You are soooo wrong on that one, :goodjob:

[YMK]

My guess is you are one of those trolls that feel it's your duty to flog the benefits of all things Ford? What Holden car do you own again? Let me take a wild guess and suggest you are one of those oracles I was referring too. LOL.

Me an armchair eh? I don't think so. You are soooo wrong on that one, :goodjob:Pot kettle black.

[Martin_D]

Another fantastic example of this forums spiral into the black hole of intelligence. Six or seven years back this would have been and remained a reasonable and informative discussion :teach:

[nang3]

haha come on Tuna, i think it actually held on to being a civil a bit more than threads in the past.. like the "How to make a cubsport as good as a typhoon" thread and numerous others .. maybe we need vecommo back for entertainment, i loved posting in threads he was involved in haha

[Ellistwo]

haha come on Tuna, i think it actually held on to being a civil a bit more than threads in the past.. like the "How to make a cubsport as good as a typhoon" thread and numerous others .. maybe we need vecommo back for entertainment, i loved posting in threads he was involved in haha

You are doing well. I'm only messing with you. I liked vecommo too, I don't get on here all that often, what happened to him?

My apologies Tuna, but it's hard not to bait true Holden haters like the quintessential teflon man and our very own Ford Social Media hack, YMK.

[Red CV8 R]

Hopefully this hasnt been posted elsewhere on here:. Camaro SS vs Mustang GT 5.0 vs Challenger SRT8


DMktli1m0og

[73.RSR]

Well it does have the greatest modification you get = weight reduction.

Rip a bit of weight out and you instantly improve acceleration, handling and braking!

From Inside Line: Mustang GT should have a weight-to-power ratio of 8.7 pounds per hp. The Camaro is right around 9.0 pounds per hp and the flabby Challenger R/T is 10.7 pounds per hp.

[HazzaHSV]

Hopefully this hasnt been posted elsewhere on here:. Camaro SS vs Mustang GT 5.0 vs Challenger SRT8
NIce video review. I would expect the 2011 Mustang to win, given its brand new generation engine, and a couple of years newer design and tuning tech. But did anyone else notice the crappy bogged down start for the Camaro in the 0-100 and 1/4 mile test? Is this due to the taller diff gears compared to the Mustang or just crappy launching?

[SINISTER R8]

NIce video review. I would expect the 2011 Mustang to win, given its brand new generation engine, and a couple of years newer design and tuning tech. But did anyone else notice the crappy bogged down start for the Camaro in the 0-100 and 1/4 mile test? Is this due to the taller diff gears compared to the Mustang or just crappy launching?

yeah i saw that, maybe thats why the mustang got the quickest time from them, it had the best start with no wheel spin. but putting the camero in 3rd just cos it makes you feel small??? thats a bit shit if you ask me.

[Spoolin]

So I guess pulling more than 5mph over a 1/4 mile means nothing these days :goodjob:

[vr5speedv6]

So I guess pulling more than 5mph over a 1/4 mile means nothing these days :goodjob:

I think you'll find it's .5mph:rofl:

Describing the mustang, with its live rear axle leaf spring rear end, as having a sweet chassis pretty much sums up the quality of this comparo:rofl:

[Spoolin]

From slowest to fastest...

Yes, looking at your ride, you'd be an expert in inferior rear ends:rofl:

[vr5speedv6]

From slowest to fastest...


Maybe next time make it clearer what you're comparing then, I assumed since we're on an ls1 forum it'd be the camaro:confused: Plus the post just prior to yours was comparing the times of the camaro and mustang....


Yes, looking at your ride, you'd be an expert in inferior rear ends:rofl

You referring to my username or my current ride? Both have coil springs and IRS, something the mustang could really do with:rofl:

[Party Pete]

I am sure Ford in the US has a new rear end for the Mustang in the wings. Give them another 20 years or so!:)

[ExAreSix]

Why bother? It has better traction off the line, and turns better than it's IRS counterparts.

I LOL'd

[Spoolin]

You referring to my username or my current ride? Both have coil springs and IRS, something the mustang could really do with:rofl:

Current ride...how is the tyre chewing going, or the constant alignment problems or the extremely soft rear end...hardly a sophisticated IRS arrangement:rofl:
Pretty much the same issues I had in my first car...1969 Datto 1600.

[vr5speedv6]

Current ride...how is the tyre chewing going, or the constant alignment problems or the extremely soft rear end...hardly a sophisticated IRS arrangement:rofl:
Pretty much the same issues I had in my first car...1969 Datto 1600.


No tyre chewing ( VZ rear end), no alignment issues and heaps of traction so obviously even an early generation IRS is better than live axle:goodjob:

[YMK]

Why bother? It has better traction off the line, and turns better than it's IRS counterparts.

I LOL'd
very true.


"We'd rather have the best solid axle than a mediocre multi-point rear. Hint, hint, Chevy. 'Nuff said." (http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/29/2011-ford-mustang-gt-first-drive/)

I do think that comment is a bit harsh on Chev though , it wasnt them who design that irs.

[chevypower]

No tyre chewing ( VZ rear end), no alignment issues and heaps of traction so obviously even an early generation IRS is better than live axle:goodjob:
I would rather a live rear end than a pre VE Commodore IRS. The IRS debate is like the DOHC vs pushrod debate. It is stupid and meaningless. You can have good and bad on both. I would put my money on the 2011 Mustang for gokart like handling. I am fan of the new Camaro, but saying it's better because it has IRS is like saying the Mustang is better because it has DOHC. IRS is for ride comfort only, and that's not why you buy a sports car. Also you can't beat the strength of a Ford rear axle, I don't think the most die hard Chevy fan could even attempt to argue that one.
Motortrend: "The Mustang has the best chassis."
http://www.mustangblog.com/blog/1044129_motor-trend-comparo-2011-mustang-gt-vs-camaro-ss-vs-challenger-srt8

[Party Pete]

Well unlike most the experts here I have driven the 2009 Mustang and the 2007 Mustang and I can say now without any hesitation that it was like stepping back at least 10 years in handling over the VT - VX IRS set up. It isn't just that a live axle hops and skips on bumps, it is simply that the roll centres are mis-matched and consequently the whole car feels massively unbalanced. Ford tried to counteract this with massive understeer, meaning that I rated it as having less raw traction than the Territory. Certainly the Territory was much superior in terms of balance and feel.

Live axles are fantastic for those who love to kid themselves that they have massive power because of the wheelspin, but if you like to have the back of the car feel like it belongs with the front, it is still completely inferior to the semi-trailing arm set up on the pre- VE Commodores. You might do well to remember that most Euro brands dumped live axles in the 60's, most for similar semi-trailing arm set ups that the Commodore used to run. So, yes the Commodore set up was out of date, but still at least a decade more up to date than the current Mustang rear end.

[KRUEGER]

From slowest to fastest...

Yes, looking at your ride, you'd be an expert in inferior rear ends:rofl:

Sure beats driving around in a tarted up taxi in my book.

[chevypower]

You might do well to remember that most Euro brands dumped live axles in the 60's.

They also dropped pushrods. So the LS engines are outdated I guess.

[HazzaHSV]

So I guess pulling more than 5mph over a 1/4 mile means nothing these days :goodjob:
Yeah the SRT8 is a real heavy weight so the 5mph it loses to the others is understandable. Its interesting that the Mustang and Corvette were within .5mph but the ET is so far apart. The crappy start could probably account for .5mph and a couple of tenths. Probably the first review of them where the vette went 4.5 and 11.9@110.7 (and stang 4.3 and 11.8@110.8) is more like it with good starts for both, and given the Mustang was using the optional shorter diff gears, its looks like its going to be pretty much line ball.

[vr5speedv6]

Well unlike most the experts here I have driven the 2009 Mustang and the 2007 Mustang and I can say now without any hesitation that it was like stepping back at least 10 years in handling over the VT - VX IRS set up. It isn't just that a live axle hops and skips on bumps, it is simply that the roll centres are mis-matched and consequently the whole car feels massively unbalanced. Ford tried to counteract this with massive understeer, meaning that I rated it as having less raw traction than the Territory. Certainly the Territory was much superior in terms of balance and feel.

Live axles are fantastic for those who love to kid themselves that they have massive power because of the wheelspin, but if you like to have the back of the car feel like it belongs with the front, it is still completely inferior to the semi-trailing arm set up on the pre- VE Commodores. You might do well to remember that most Euro brands dumped live axles in the 60's, most for similar semi-trailing arm set ups that the Commodore used to run. So, yes the Commodore set up was out of date, but still at least a decade more up to date than the current Mustang rear end.

Nice post!! I think it's also pretty obvious whats got the superior rear end when despite similar power levels and the camaro weighing around 150kg more, acceleration times are very similar.
Or that could just be the better engine:rofl:

[chevypower]

Nice post!! I think it's also pretty obvious whats got the superior rear end when despite similar power levels and the camaro weighing around 150kg more, acceleration times are very similar.
Or that could just be the better engine:rofl:
Oh dear, and 1.2L bigger to move a whopping 150kg a little bit slower. Interesting that not one magazine has said the Camaro is superior. The whole thing is irrelevant on this forum though. Neither car is available in Australia, so it's all just spec sheets, photos and theories.

[vr5speedv6]

Oh dear, and 1.2L bigger to move a whopping 150kg a little bit slower. Interesting that not one magazine has said the Camaro is superior. The whole thing is irrelevant on this forum though. Neither car is available in Australia, so it's all just spec sheets, photos and theories.

So you're thinking better engine then? I know I'd take a motor with an extra 1.2Litres and more power and torque, especially if it made no real difference to economy!

[Party Pete]

They also dropped pushrods. So the LS engines are outdated I guess.

The day I drive a car with a live rear set up that matches an IRS set up everywhere I will take back my words. However, the Mustang certainly isn't that car. As has been pointed out in this post more than once, the Camaro is heavier but nearly matches the the straight line performance and economy of the Mustang so the engine isn't letting down the side, pushrods or not, it is the weight. And to head off the argument, I know the test rated the Mustang as handling better but frankly this is the only test I have ever seen that has praised the Mustang's handling and it certainly doesn't match my experience in the things.

[Vulture]

IRS is for ride comfort only, and that's not why you buy a sports car.

Not sure I agree with that. IRS is for keeping the tyres in contact with the road as much as possible. This improves ride comfort but also handling and power-down unless the road surface is dead smooth. And given a choice between two sports cars of equal ability, I know I would chose the one with the better ride quality anyway.

[chevypower]

\ to head off the argument, I know the test rated the Mustang as handling better but frankly this is the only test I have ever seen that has praised the Mustang's handling and it certainly doesn't match my experience in the things.

Well it's like me saying the VE is crap because I thought my VT handled like crap. The 2011 Mustang has been improved also.
Here's another one.
"Although the rear end remains a live axle, the body isn’t tossed off course by pitching pavement or camber changes. In matchups with the independently sprung Camaro, we’ve come away lauding Ford’s decision to stick with the live axle. The company has made it work, and if it saves weight and the customer money, so much the better."
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/10q1/2011_ford_mustang_gt_5.0-short_take_road_test

[Party Pete]

Hardly a comparison. The VE is a completely new architecture with nothing in common with the previous Commodores. The "new" Mustang is simply an update with a new engine and some reworking of the springs, dampers etc. My experience of this chassis in the previous versions is that of a crude, rubbery ill balanced car. The problems were more than just suspension, the whole chassis felt torsionally loose and pretty ordinary. I for one would be stunned if they have managed to change this with tuning alone.

As for the live axle not being pitched off line by pitching pavement. Snort! That goes against the laws of physics!

[chevypower]

As I said, Ford makes the toughest axles, and they are even tougher when they are solid. So nothing to laugh at really. Buy what you like (even if you can't) ride quality, handling, fuel economy, durability. It's all irrelevant. Unless you are actually planning on buying one.

[Ellistwo]

Well it's like me saying the VE is crap because I thought my VT handled like crap. The 2011 Mustang has been improved also.


But that is the basis for all fanboys. The Ford guys base their disdain of Holden on some old model, they purchase a new Falcon after driving, say, an EB, etc.

The Mustang is a cultural icon in the US and what better car to rally around when the economy has gone to muck, but the old faithful pony car. Of course we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the Mustang was conceived “as cheaply and simply as possible.” to appeal to the under 30 yearolds, thus the Falcon underpinnings. Odd that an all american car is named after a plane with name given it by the British RAF.

[Carby]

Odd that an all american car is named after a plane with name given it by the British RAF.

But the Mustang is an American name given to their wild horses just like the Brumby is to Oz.

Lets bring this discussion into perspective:

No matter how improved the live rear end is, it is still an inferior design to IRS. Even modern hard edged 4WD's are going away from the OX cart suspension system. Being of simpler design is an advantage but it is not BETTER.

Just to appease CHEVYPOWER yes the OHV Chevy V8's are inferior to most modern V8's no question on that, just look at similar sized offerings from Mercedes with their OHC designs and they achieve way more power using less fuel and polluting less. Ford's Coyote will be another example. The OHV V8design has served GM well but the time must surely be close when a more modern design hits the street. There is a stigma associated with OHV designs much like there is for Drum brakes Vs Disc brakes, GM needs to get into the 21st century.

[Party Pete]

Maybe Ford solid axles are tougher than anything else but the new Coyotte engine is hardly taxing the limits of IRS. Ford has a live axle on this car for no other reason than there was a last minute forced design change and very basic live axle set up on the car was cobbled together quickly towards the end of development. It has nothing to do with some belief within Ford that it was a preferred design and will doubtless be replaced with an independent set up when they do the new Mustang chassis in a few years.

[FOON]

Isn't the current Corvette still running leaf spring suspension at both ends of the car?

[Party Pete]

In short, no. It does however run a single transverse leaf spring on the rear. Don't mistake that for a live axle with leaf spring ala carts and the just discontinued Falcon wagon. It is a proper IRS set up which uses a leaf spring instead of the more common coil springs.

[Ellistwo]

But the Mustang is an American name given to their wild horses just like the Brumby is to Oz.

.


This is true, but the car wasn't named after a horse, but tribute the plane. It was one of the Ford boffins who didn't like the idea of having a plane part as the emblem so deferred to a horsey motif. Would have been interesting if the poms hadn't changed the name to Mustang, otherwise the emblem might have been a red indian.

I'm probably wrong, but I think the Mustang Raja predates a horse in the US. For all we know the horse could have been named by some adventurer who compared it favourably with the Tibetan pony from Mustang. Google ain't always correct when it comes to history..., but the again it might just be Texmex word afterall.

[chevypower]

Just to appease CHEVYPOWER yes the OHV Chevy V8's are inferior to most modern V8's no question on that

You missed my point, I don't have anything against the Chevy V8. I have always liked them. I'm just likening the live axle vs independent to the DOHC vs pushrod debate.
I'm sure the Camaro has the smoother ride. But from what I have read so far. Basing 2011 models, Camaro only has a slight advantage there. We can sit here and argue till the cows come home, but that's what the magazines are saying. Want a cushy cruiser? Buy a Camaro. Want a big gokart? Buy a Mustang. Both cars have their place.

It just seems like some people would only be hearing "The Mustang is crap in every way, because it's a Ford and has a solid rear axle, and the Chevy is the best." Sorry, but that is just so narrow minded.

[vr5speedv6]

You missed my point, I don't have anything against the Chevy V8. I have always liked them. I'm just likening the live axle vs independent to the DOHC vs pushrod debate.
I'm sure the Camaro has the smoother ride. But from what I have read so far. Basing 2011 models, Camaro only has a slight advantage there. We can sit here and argue till the cows come home, but that's what the magazines are saying. Want a cushy cruiser? Buy a Camaro. Want a big gokart? Buy a Mustang. Both cars have their place.

It just seems like some people would only be hearing "The Mustang is crap in every way, because it's a Ford and has a solid rear axle, and the Chevy is the best." Sorry, but that is just so narrow minded.

Here's what Wheels (Nov '06) had to say about the Mustang:

"It combines the razor sharp turn-in of a new mazda mx5 with the rear-axle control of an EA falcon, and is disconcerting to drive hard, if perversely fun at the same time because of the challenge it presents.
The steering offers zero feel, though, the poorly controlled rear-end dances and twitches over patchy surfaces, requiring jabs of opposite lock to counter the the bump steer. No suprises, too, that its axle tramps fiercely when gassed up over less-than-glassy hotmix."

On the Monaro:

"The Monaro provides a largely happy medium between body control and roll stiffness, with more than enough rear-driven grunt to help dial out its inherent mild understeer. It really is very good given the ageing platform - its adjustable dynamics allowing it to squat nicely on its loaded rear tyre and offer progressive, beautifully controllable oversteer."

[Ellistwo]

If you knew how many motor magazine articles come about and the true credentials of the face behind the piece you would be less inclined to believe any independence in thought. That is not to say there is bias, just that news feeds from interested parties are much easier to insert than actually getting off the seat and doing some real journalism.

Unfortunately I have been noticing a US journo acquantance of mine jumping on the anti Toyota bandwagon, while extolling the Mustang..why..because the Mustang is home grown and americans can't function without icons, idols, and rituals especially when things are tough. Has my friend driven the Mustang....nooooo.

[ExAreSix]

I didn't realize they tested the MY11 Mustang back in '06! That's sensational.

You cannot be serious? Do you really think everyone on here is as hollow headed as yourself? What the does that article from '06 have to do with the MY11 Mustang?

SFA

You're clutching at straws mate. And those straws are a figment of your imagination.


Here's what Wheels (Nov '06) had to say about the Mustang:

"It combines the razor sharp turn-in of a new mazda mx5 with the rear-axle control of an EA falcon, and is disconcerting to drive hard, if perversely fun at the same time because of the challenge it presents.
The steering offers zero feel, though, the poorly controlled rear-end dances and twitches over patchy surfaces, requiring jabs of opposite lock to counter the the bump steer. No suprises, too, that its axle tramps fiercely when gassed up over less-than-glassy hotmix."

On the Monaro:

"The Monaro provides a largely happy medium between body control and roll stiffness, with more than enough rear-driven grunt to help dial out its inherent mild understeer. It really is very good given the ageing platform - its adjustable dynamics allowing it to squat nicely on its loaded rear tyre and offer progressive, beautifully controllable oversteer."

[steves87]

In short, no. It does however run a single transverse leaf spring on the rear. Don't mistake that for a live axle with leaf spring ala carts and the just discontinued Falcon wagon. It is a proper IRS set up which uses a leaf spring instead of the more common coil springs.

:goodjob:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvette_leaf_spring

[vr5speedv6]

I didn't realize they tested the MY11 Mustang back in '06! That's sensational.

You cannot be serious? Do you really think everyone on here is as hollow headed as yourself? What the does that article from '06 have to do with the MY11 Mustang?

SFA

You're clutching at straws mate. And those straws are a figment of your imagination.


Of course it's relevent as it's the same chassis and same rear end, hence why I've quoted only on handling not performance.

Actually I think they were being a little kind, I would've likened it to an EA falcon wagon since its got the leaf springs:rofl:

I take it then that you'd be perfectly happy if ford used a re-jigged leaf sprung falcon wagon platform to replace the FG ?

[vr5speedv6]

If you knew how many motor magazine articles come about and the true credentials of the face behind the piece you would be less inclined to believe any independence in thought. That is not to say there is bias, just that news feeds from interested parties are much easier to insert than actually getting off the seat and doing some real journalism.

Unfortunately I have been noticing a US journo acquantance of mine jumping on the anti Toyota bandwagon, while extolling the Mustang..why..because the Mustang is home grown and americans can't function without icons, idols, and rituals especially when things are tough. Has my friend driven the Mustang....nooooo.


Having felt the shortcomings myself of live rear axle handling, I find the transcripts I've posted to be much more believable than the "sweet chassis" BS I heard in that motor trend test.

So I agree the Mustang is getting an extremely biased thumbs up in the states. Whether it's patrionism or something more sinister, we may never know:)

[chevypower]

Here's what Wheels (Nov '06) had to say about the Mustang:

But we're not talking about the 2006 Mustang. The 2009 F-150 rides a lot smoother than my 2005. It still has leaf springs and solid rear axle, yet it has a MUCH smoother ride. I know where you are coming from, but you are prejudging a car without driving it. I personally don't care unless I was looking at buying, but I just hate reading narrow-minded comments. I would drive both cars, and buy that one that puts a bigger smile on my face. Not the one I thought my grandma was going to be more comfortable in. Having said that, I wouldn't rule out the Camaro, i think it's a great car. I'm not in the market for either, so you don't have to convince me.

[Party Pete]

Unfortunately for Ford, the comparison is still relevant because as has been said, the "new" Mustang is still essentially the same as the 2006 model. Yes, you can tweak things here and there to improve things and I am sure they have, but my feeling from actually driving them is that the chassis lacks rigidity and the rear axle is not well matched in geometry to the front suspension. Hence, it is very unlikely that the revisions will have fixed the fundamental design issues with the unchanged chassis. The description from Wheels is actually pretty similar to my own observations. And as I suggested yesterday, the basic laws of physics are very much against a live axle being able to handle bumps without affecting grip.

[ExAreSix]

Of course it's relevent as it's the same chassis and same rear end, hence why I've quoted only on handling not performance.

Actually I think they were being a little kind, I would've likened it to an EA falcon wagon since its got the leaf springs:rofl:

I take it then that you'd be perfectly happy if ford used a re-jigged leaf sprung falcon wagon platform to replace the FG ?

It's not relevant at all. It has been so far treaked it's nothing like the '06.

And no, I wouldn't be happy if FordAus went back to a leaf sprung rear. You've missed the point of my post.
You're saying it's crap because the '06 was crap. You can't even compare the two.
And who's driven the MY11, you or Motortrend? Your comments have no substance and add absolutely nothing to the debate.

At the end off the day, the Mustang pulls more Gs, and turns in better than it's counterparts. Put it down to weight, rather than a better suspension setup. But the fact remains, the suspension setup it DOES have, even if it is inferior, still allows it to outdo it's competitors.
GM/Dodge fanboys should be thankful the Mustang still uses a solid rear end. If it went IRS, it'd do even better, and embarrass it's competitors further.

[Spoolin]

Oh dear...doesn't a thread turn to crap quickly when narrow, single minded people refuse to accept electronic data that proves their own theories wrong.
Just like the Coyote debate, this thread means zilch as none of us have experienced either the motor or the Mustang as it will be on 2011.
VR5sp..go drive an 06 VE, (which I had for 18mths), then go drive an 08 VE (which I had for 6 mths) and go try a 2010 VE and report back the differences.

[Party Pete]

Ah, the good old G measure of handling. An American obsession with finding a measure for everything but as has been noted many a time outside of the US, G's and handling rarely go together. More importantly, often knowing that magazines test for a steady state constant radius circle means that you can prepare your suspension to do well in this but often at the expense of handling in other conditions. Anyway, you are right that none of us here have driven the 2011 Mustang, but comparisons to older models are completely relevant in this case in the same way as inherent weaknesses in the chassis set up on VT - VZ could be improved but never eliminated. I might add in the same way that Ford never got the watts link set up on the Falcon from XE to AU to work well. It's called polishing a turd, that's why manufacturers regularly bring out all new models.

Now, to change topic to something much more relevant to us here in a Australia, will the new engine cause Ford to rethink the install of the V8 in the G6E and the Territory? It would appear that these engines have a lot to offer for a refined performance version and I expect won't use much more fuel than the 6's.

[rodp]

Of course it's relevent as it's the same chassis and same rear end, hence why I've quoted only on handling not performance.

So, despite the differences of opinion of the handling that's been reported on the '06 vs '11, there's been no development whatsoever on handling?

[Party Pete]

Read my post above. Of course they have developed it but it will not be and can not be chalk and cheese. That will come with the next model where they change the fundamentals of the chassis not details.

[clubbie]

Why does everyone assume that every newer car HAS to be better in the handling department?

Soemone bought up the difference between 06 08 and 10 MY models for Holden. Well I can tell you first hand that a 06 WM Caprice handles and rides a shit load better than a 09 WM Caprice which seems to float and roll badly enough to make rear passengers sick. Yes I drive one (09) regularly and my dad (06) owns the other.

Continue with your pointless arguments on the Mustang that no one has driven locally. Having driven several american cars the yanks prefer ride to handling. All euro cars have US suspension settings (soft). So do the Japanese cars. We do not have any comparable vehicles suspension wise to compare to any US cars let alone the Mustang. Covered over 2k miles about 7 months ago in socal and 90% of that is on multilane highways. That is what handling is about in the states.

When these cars hit Australia we call them bucket o sh!t, not because they are, but the way they are setup. A Mustang on Tiens/Koni/Pedders/whatever would handle miles better for aussies but would be unacceptable to most US drivers.

As for live axle vs IRS just remember IRS adds weight (100kg to a Ford AU..lol) and cost. Sometimes it's nice to get the rear out and have to correct it. That is called DRIVING. But the rest of the time it is a pain in the ar$e on anything other smooth roads.

My opinions only.

[Martin_D]

All euro cars have US suspension settings (soft). So do the Japanese cars. We do not have any comparable vehicles

You should actually stop there, as that is the stupid comment from someone that has driven or owned nothing other than cheap rubbish (via your sig etc.).
That should contribute to the Mustang test how? :eek:

[clubbie]

You should actually stop there, as that is the stupid comment from someone that has driven or owned nothing other than cheap rubbish (via your sig etc.).
That should contribute to the Mustang test how? :eek:

I don't recall posting what I have driven in my sig but I bow to your ESP if you know what cars I have driven:rofl:

BTW I love my cheap ass piece of sh!t cars. I know they are not up to a Hyundai standard but if you have something with similar performance for the size/price I am all ears and would love you to prove me wrong.

Good point replace all with some (mainstream). Get a cheap a$$ Camry or Accord rental car in LA, then drive the same car here and tell me they have the same damper/spring setup as here. Until then?:)

As for my point on the Stang, what do you compare it to that still has a live axle? Nothing. So most of this discussion is superfluous, chest beating by one eyed Holden and Ford fans.

[Ellistwo]

So, despite the differences of opinion of the handling that's been reported on the '06 vs '11, there's been no development whatsoever on handling?

Of course there has, but the Mustang is apparently still inferior to the Camaro when not travelling in a straight line. How that translates to real world driving for the majority of would be owners is probably of little consequence. I would suggest neither the Comaro nor the Nustang would ever be put through a series of drag races and performance twisties by their drivers, so sales will come down to perception, looks, patriotism and good old fashioned hype.

[NODDY347]

Here's some more numbers on the new Falcstang engine, there is a mention that there could be a delay in release. Possibly driveline issues. Not sure why they are keeping the GT-P with the other models available.

•Ford Falcon XR8
◦5.0-litre Supercharged V8 (Coyote)
◦315kW @ 6500rpm
•Ford Falcon GT/GT-E/GT-P
◦5.0-litre Supercharged V8 (Coyote)
◦330kW @ 6600rpm
•Ford Falcon GT-H
◦5.0-litre Supercharged V8 (Coyote)
◦351kW @ 6850rpm

http://www.pavle.com.au/193/fpv-supercharged-plans-delayed/

[FireArc]

So I agree the Mustang is getting an extremely biased thumbs up in the states. Whether it's patrionism or something more sinister, we may never know:)

Isnt the Challenger and Camaro an American vehicle?

[FireArc]

Right...stuff the IRS/DOHC crap.

Lets get onto the more important stuff...BURNING RUBBER:




Forget acceleration. What truly matters is the evidence you leave behind. Those two black stripes across gray asphalt: the chevrons of glory, the gooey rubber scars of greatness. In the eternal battle among Camaro, Challenger and Mustang, what really matters is how long a burnout each will pull.

This wasn't a contest of advanced technique, but a battle waged with high school rules. No brakes, no throttle modulation and no soapy substances on the tires. Just a size 11 Nike cross-trainer planted on the accelerator until the engine nearly seizes, a clutch dump and a death grip on the steering wheel. The winner is the car that lays down the longest pavement lick.

This is primal motorsport: the sort of stuff you do hours after getting your license and finding a stretch of open road. By the time you're 16 and a half, you've likely blown it out of your system. Unless, that is, you're the sort of person who reads Inside Line, which means it likely remains a lifelong obsession.

"Technique?!" exclaimed Senior Road Editor Josh Jacquot. "I didn't use no stinkin' technique. I just revved them, dropped the clutch and didn't lift. Let me use the brakes and I could have had all of them running the length of the strip in a gray cloud of tire smoke."

For this seminal competition, each car — Inside Line's long-term 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T, Inside Line's long-term 2010 Chevy Camaro SS and a brand-new 2011 Ford Mustang GT swiped from Ford's Los Angeles press fleet — was allowed three runs with Jacquot piloting. A piece of tape with the car's name printed on it with a Sharpie was laid down along the Auto Club Speedway drag strip's centerline where the tire marks started and another piece of tape went down where the marks faded away. Determining where each of the marks ended was left to the subjective evaluation of this writer.

Each stripe was measured along the track centerline using a tape measure. All the measurements were then recorded on the back of the receipt from the previous night's dinner at BJ's sports bar in Oxnard, California. There were no style points awarded and the curvature of any burnout was disregarded. And if we bring the receipt with us back to BJ's next time, we get free mozzarella sticks.

At some point the "science" of this experiment was thrown aside in favor of the giddy giggles to be had from such indulgent nonsense. Yeah, this is immature and pointless, but it's a joyous and rocking immaturity and there aren't many other pointless things that are so emotionally satisfying.

Those were the rules. Now here's the rundown.

3rd Place: 2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0
First Run: 72 feet, 5.5 inches
Second Run: 71 feet, 2.5 inches
Third Run: 69 feet

With the smallest-displacement engine in this test, the new 2011 Mustang GT lacks the bottom-end grunt that's necessary for ultimate rubber-burning artistry.

Though the Mustang GT's new engine is rated at 412 horsepower and 390 pound-feet of torque, those peaks arrive rather late in the power band. The 412 ponies require a screaming 6,500 rpm, while the torque isn't available until 4,250 rpm. This particular Mustang, a California Special Edition, wore 19-inch wheels inside 245/45R19 all-season Pirelli P Zero Neros and was packing an optional 3.73 rear axle ratio.

Make no mistake here: The new 5.0-liter V8 is a wonderful piece of engineering and likely the sweetest-driving V8 Ford has ever installed in a regular passenger car. But when it comes to infantile burnouts, it's weak sauce.

2nd Place: 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T
First Run: 101 feet, 2 inches
Second Run: 109 feet, 10.5 inches
Third Run: 99 feet, 4 inches

There were high hopes for the Challenger R/T going into this brutish competition. After all, not only does it wear skinny-ish 235/55R18 all-season Michelins that really deserve to go up in smoke, it's also powered by a Hemi.

Alas, however, the RT's 5.7-liter Hemi is modest in its output. Power maxes out at just 372 ponies while torque production is at 400 lb-ft. However, that horsepower number occurs at a relatively humble 5,200 rpm, even though the torque peak is up at 4,400 rpm.

Those peak numbers don't necessarily reflect the Hemi's low-end grunt accurately. Those numbers also don't necessarily reflect an ability to fricassee a set of all-season Michelins either.

With the help of those little, very hard tires and its deep 3.73 rear axle ratio, the Challenger laid down the longest 1st-gear stripe. It wasn't quite gutty enough to continue smoking in 2nd gear, but the Hemi pulled long enough for the oversize Challenger to go a blazing 109 feet, 10.5 inches without shifting. That has to count as some sort of conditional victory.

At least conditionally speaking.

1st Place: 2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS
First Run: 183 feet, 3 inches
Second Run: 210 feet, 1.5 inches
Third Run: 186 feet, 8 inches

When it comes to adolescent automotive behavior, the King, High Priest and Minister of Annihilation remains the mighty Camaro SS. All hail the Master of Mischief! The Sultan of Smoke! The Ruler of Rubber! The Baron of Burnouts!

In a contest where vehicle mass doesn't matter, suspension suppleness is irrelevant, cornering isn't even considered and the brakes are just along for the ride, it's no surprise the most powerful machine won. But what was shocking is how thoroughly the Camaro dominated the other two entrants. This wasn't even close, and the reason is simple.

Despite wearing the largest and stickiest tires of the three muscle cars (20-inch Pirelli P Zeros), the Camaro SS was the only car that continued to flambé its baloneys after the shift into 2nd gear. The Camaro SS's 6.2-liter LS3 V8 rates out at 426 hp and a thick 420 lb-ft of torque. Yeah that horsepower figure is up at 5,900 rpm and the torque number is stuck at 4,600 rpm, but the LS3 produces big twist from just off idle up to the moment the rev limiter screams "Uncle!" If your goal is the assassination of tires, the LS3 is your bestest buddy ever.

Controversy arises here (if you actually care) by the fact that the shift from 1st to 2nd gears in the Camaro SS produces a gap in the tire stripe about 8 feet, 4 inches long. But while the 1st-gear portion of the longest run ran 46 feet, 9 inches, in 2nd gear it ran a full 155 feet. That's about 45 feet longer than the Challenger's best run — in 1st.

Why does the Camaro run out so quickly in 1st? Simply because it's spinning the rear tires so hard that forward progress is impeded. The car is slowing down so much that the driver needs to shift into 2nd to keep it going.

And that's why the Camaro SS, though it may trail the others in other ways, dominates in this particular way.

So if you're still a sophomore in high school, the Camaro SS is the greatest single car ever built.

Awesome.

Source: http://www.insideline.com/features/...llenger-rt.html

[Irish]

Right...stuff the IRS/DOHC crap.

Lets get onto the more important stuff...BURNING RUBBER:



Awesome.

Source: http://www.insideline.com/features/...llenger-rt.html

Yawn! Where is the test now for fastest power window down?

[Spoolin]

Although an ansolute waste of time I have now doubt it would have been hell fun!
But I read into it as the Muzzie hooking up quite well and it's been proven on top gear the lack of traction on large diameter tyres such as what is used by the Camaro.

[FireArc]

Is it just me or does the Challenger sound the best of the bunch?? It has an amazing growl to it.

[Draco]

I'm loving the relatively light weight of the Stang vs the other pony cars out there. Ford hit a home run with this one, hopefully this will drive all three cars to new heights.

[FireArc]

As enthusiasts, we are often more interested in an engines/cars aftermarket potential. Evolution Performance have taken and tuned a Mustang with the Coyote in it. Some interesting results so far.

Best time to date with the mods below: "12.04 @ 117mph - (1.70 60ft), with DOT street legal tires"



Our 2011 Mustang GT 5.0L 4V (5.0 Mustang and Super Fords Magazine Project Car) made 405 RWHP and 375 RWTQ with the addition of an Off-Road X-Pipe, Catback Exhaust System, K&N Drop In Filter, and a Custom Tune! That's a gain of 36 RWHP and 23 RWTQ! That's not bad but we're still working on some other changes in the tune to gain more horsepower and torque. We should have that worked out by the end of the week.... New Dyno Videos will be posted shortly!

YouTube- Evolution Performance - 2011 Mustang GT 5.0L 4V Stock Dyno Video!


Stock baseline dyno run:
http://image.mustang50magazine.com/f/33233202+w750+st0/m5lp_100429_04+2011_ford_mustang_test_and_tune+dyn o%20chart.jpg

Run after the tune/mods:
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-sjc1/hs338.snc3/29488_10150172368440648_262882950647_12361851_4140 407_n.jpg



Source: http://www.mustang50magazine.com/techarticles/m5lp_100429_2011_ford_mustang_gt_test_and_tune/index.html

Or, their progress is on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Evolution-Performance-Inc/262882950647

The modding has begun!

[payaya]

Isnt 368.60 HP stock at the wheels even too high compared to its factory specs???

[Ellistwo]

Any pre and post mpg figures?

[SchrgdVSV6]

Or, their progress is on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Evolution-Performance-Inc/262882950647

The modding has begun!
Just checked it...

(With no further mods, just another attempt)
11.98 @ 117MPH with a 1.67 60ft
11.85 @ 117MPH with a 1.64 60ft
11.82 @ 118MPH with a 1.63 60ft

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-sjc1/hs653.snc3/32279_10150174551140648_262882950647_12412943_4526 386_n.jpg
:bow:

[ls1 VN]

Boy what a long read....Just what is it that you FORD boys are on an LS forum for? To heckle? or maybe it's the need to converse with a higher intellect!

HSV, FPV, Fords supposed S/C Coyote @ 351kw or there abouts...small cube, small power.

Ebbett cars an HSV dealer here in Hamilton NZ produce a S/C VE Walkinshaw...@ 480kw....Big cube, big power. :rofl: