Ford Mustang Thread: 2011 General Talk

  • Thread starter Thread starter YSSMAN
  • 1,163 comments
  • 81,285 views
R1600Turbo
I don't care how unreliable rotary's are. They're still the ****.
Click to expand...

I'm with you 👍

I just thought the comment Rotary Junkie had to share was rather funny, considering he's an obvious rotary enthusiast (a motor notorious for unreliability).

Fair game.
 
Rotary Junkie
By dead by 5000rpm I meant that a stock 5.0 basically falls on its face there. Not that they die there.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the misunderstanding. You're right as far as the stock pushrod 5.0 falling flat on its face over 5000rpm. In the case of the new 32V 5.0, I'm sure it will be a much different animal though.
 
*cough*whoneedsrpmwhen youhaveforcedinduction*cough*. Hmm, what?
 
I seriously doubt this new engine will run out of steam at high rpm like the old 5.0 of the '80's.

Whats the big deal with high rpm anyway? Personally I'd take 400hp@5,000rpm over 200hp@10,000rpm any day of the week.
 
Adamgp
I seriously doubt this new engine will run out of steam at high rpm like the old 5.0 of the '80's.

Whats the big deal with high rpm anyway? Personally I'd take 400hp@5,000rpm over 200hp@10,000rpm any day of the week.
Click to expand...

I'd take 400hp @ 6,000rpm over 400hp @ 9,000rpm too, more torque and tougher sound.:sly: (For V8s anyway).
 
The amount of torque is more dependent on the displacement and headflow of the engine. A Honda K20, for example, makes more torque than most of its contemporaries.

What changes, though, when you move the powerband around like that, is how early the torque comes in.

While having the power and torque peaks low down is good for tractability, an engine that makes the same numbers, but 3000 rpm higher, will have better performance at speed because it can wring more acceleration out of every gear. (given that vehicle weights and gearing are identical).
 
But most cars seem to have their shift points in roughly the same area. It seems that a lot of cars have a 2-3 change around 60 somewhere and then a 3-4 somewhere soon after 70.
 
niky
The amount of torque is more dependent on the displacement and headflow of the engine. A Honda K20, for example, makes more torque than most of its contemporaries.

What changes, though, when you move the powerband around like that, is how early the torque comes in.

While having the power and torque peaks low down is good for tractability, an engine that makes the same numbers, but 3000 rpm higher, will have better performance at speed because it can wring more acceleration out of every gear. (given that vehicle weights and gearing are identical).
Click to expand...

Yeah, but typically/generally speaking, if it makes the same power with less rpm in all likelihood it has more torque to achieve those power levels with less rpm. Then cars with less torque generally need shorter gears to compensate and stay in the power band, so it sort of evens out, but not much beats the punch of a muscular V8 from low down.:sly:
 
niky
The amount of torque is more dependent on the displacement and headflow of the engine. A Honda K20, for example, makes more torque than most of its contemporaries.
Click to expand...

Well really, torque depends more on compression ratio and displacement than head flow.

Where that torque happens is more dependent on intake/exhaust tuning and head flow.

Personally, I'll take 400 ft-lbs at 9000rpm over 800 ft-lbs at 4500rpm but 400hp vs 400hp give me the low-revving motor any day. :p
 
Rotary Junkie
Well really, torque depends more on compression ratio and displacement than head flow.

Where that torque happens is more dependent on intake/exhaust tuning and head flow.

Personally, I'll take 400 ft-lbs at 9000rpm over 800 ft-lbs at 4500rpm but 400hp vs 400hp give me the low-revving motor any day. :p
Click to expand...

Said the rotary fan.:lol::p
 
That's because of advertising. Giving a car a 2-3 shift at about 96-100 km/h (60-62 mph) means that the advertised 0-60 mph times can be lower. But a car with more revs will do more revs in-gear, putting you closer to the sweet spot when you upshift.

Rotary Junkie
Well really, torque depends more on compression ratio and displacement than head flow.

Where that torque happens is more dependent on intake/exhaust tuning and head flow.

Personally, I'll take 400 ft-lbs at 9000rpm over 800 ft-lbs at 4500rpm but 400hp vs 400hp give me the low-revving motor any day. :p
Click to expand...

Well, 400 versus 800... they're both 685 hp, so you're talking about the same difference... oh... I see what you did there... :squint: :lol:

-

Power is power... but if we're talking naturally aspirated mills, a revver over a torquer, any time... one that matches output to commitment.
 
Omnis
I don't like that 5.0 emblem on the side of the car though.
Click to expand...

It looks kinda funky on the side, but its a throwback to the old Fox Body cars. Which makes me wonder... Does the GT emblem go on the back now?
 
Brand New 5.0 Official Unveil

Well there's all your details. But there's one thing I am confused about, this new 5.0L GT weighs 10lbs more than the 4.6 Mustang GTs?:odd: I'm guessing that extra weight has to be in the gearbox (since it has extra cogs), and surely the weight distribution will now be better. They say the engine weight is 430lbs, can anyone please find what the engine weights of the 4.6L and the Falcon's Boss 5.4L is? I've had a search and turned up nothing.:dunce:
 
That thing looks awful in red.

I am also probably the only one who thinks the 5.0 badge looks cool on the car. A bit old school but still pretty cool.
 
Paulie
Brand New 5.0 Official Unveil

Well there's all your details. But there's one thing I am confused about, this new 5.0L GT weighs 10lbs more than the 4.6 Mustang GTs?:odd: I'm guessing that extra weight has to be in the gearbox (since it has extra cogs), and surely the weight distribution will now be better. They say the engine weight is 430lbs, can anyone please find what the engine weights of the 4.6L and the Falcon's Boss 5.4L is? I've had a search and turned up nothing.:dunce:
Click to expand...

Probably around 480-500 pounds like most other V8s.
 
Omnis
Probably around 480-500 pounds like most other V8s.
Click to expand...

An LS3 is 415lbs. So this could be a shaving of 25kg at least for the Falcon still, nice to know.
 
I personally feel the 5.0 is in the wrong typeface - the blockier '80s-'90s badge could've been recycled here, and look much better.

and only 10 lbs heavier? damn, I could save that and more by changing the front seats.
 
Paulie
Brand New 5.0 Official Unveil

Well there's all your details. But there's one thing I am confused about, this new 5.0L GT weighs 10lbs more than the 4.6 Mustang GTs?:odd: I'm guessing that extra weight has to be in the gearbox (since it has extra cogs), and surely the weight distribution will now be better. They say the engine weight is 430lbs, can anyone please find what the engine weights of the 4.6L and the Falcon's Boss 5.4L is? I've had a search and turned up nothing.:dunce:
Click to expand...

There's also the fact that this new engine is DOHC. All the extra valve train components will add some weight as well. 10lbs really is not all that much.
 
Awesome news! The pic of the new fender badge on the car is obvious photoshop. It'll look much better on person. While I would have preferred the old 5.0 badge, the new one ain't bad. There's a member at The Mustang Sorce forums by the name of Clino. He made a 5.0 badge from the same font as the current GT emblem, and it's absolutely PERFECT. I would link the picture over here, but I'm on my ipod... For anyone that looks, his avatar is a picture of the badge
 
Paulie
They say the engine weight is 430lbs, can anyone please find what the engine weights of the 4.6L and the Falcon's Boss 5.4L is? I've had a search and turned up nothing.:dunce:
Click to expand...
The aluminum DOHC 4-valve that was used in the old Mustang SVT Cobra was around 475 pounds dressed. The aluminum SOHC 3-valve currently used in the Mustang GT is around 435 pounds, so assuming Ford isn't being sly and weighing the engine without the flywheel and transmission harness, the new 5.0 is actually a bit lighter than the outgoing engine (which means that the extra cog in the transmission is the likely culprit of the 10 more pounds).

As for the 5.4 DOHC 4-valve, I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure that the weight for it is something absurd like 700 pounds. In addition to being physically huge.
 
Last edited:
R1600Turbo
Video anyone?



Edit: video also confirms that the track pack Mustang still has the shock tower brace.
Click to expand...


Holy intake Batman! Listen to that intake! I'm in love, this makes all the right noises and looks EPIC in black. I'm sold. Shove it Camaro.
 
Toronado
The aluminum DOHC 4-valve that was used in the old Mustang SVT Cobra was around 475 pounds dressed. The aluminum SOHC 3-valve currently used in the Mustang GT is around 435 pounds, so assuming Ford isn't being sly and weighing the engine without the flywheel and transmission harness, the new 5.0 is actually a bit lighter than the outgoing engine (which means that the extra cog in the transmission is the likely culprit of the 10 more pounds).

As for the 5.4 DOHC 4-valve, I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure that the weight for it is something absurd like 700 pounds. In addition to being physically huge.
Click to expand...

700lbs?!:eek: Surely not!:scared: Isn't the 4.6 SOHC an iron block though? That's why I was expecting a drastic weight drop, iron block to alloy.

JCE
Shove it Camaro.
Click to expand...

:( Hey, the Camaro is still a good car, just won't be as sporty as this.:(

:lol:

R1600Turbo
Video anyone?



Edit: video also confirms that the track pack Mustang still has the shock tower brace.
Click to expand...


Yes, the strut tower brace remains, good show.:) Here's engine dyno footage for you all.:)
 

Latest Posts

Back