2011 Mustang GT 5.0

[Mustangfan2003]

I figure they would do something with the GT500 with the Boss around now. 

[Xer0]

This seems pretty pointless.  The GT500 already can't get its 540hp to the ground, imagine the mess an extra 80-100 hp would cause.

[FoMoJo]

If they want to keep using the Shelby name, it's about time to turn it into a real supercar.

[SVT666]

This seems pretty pointless.  The GT500 already can't get its 540hp to the ground, imagine the mess an extra 80-100 hp would cause.

Ford is going to have to get their heads out of their asses and put some 315s on the back of the GT500.  They always stick too narrow of a tire on the Mustang.  Even the GT needs a 275.

[GoCougs]

This seems pretty pointless.  The GT500 already can't get its 540hp to the ground, imagine the mess an extra 80-100 hp would cause.

True, the S197 chassis has issues handling 550 hp. 2013 however will be an all-new Mustang (or is supposed to be) with presumably the ability to handle the extra power.

[SVT32V]

February 2011 sales figures:

Camaro: 6,245
Mustang: 3,697
Challenger: 3,227

Camaro convertible officially released today.

March 2011 Sales
Mustang: 8,557
Camaro: 8,964
Challenger:3,989

Intersting trends, the Mopar seems fairly constant.

[565]

http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2011/04/2011-ford-mustang-gt-50-production-example-less-powerful.html

Apparently production Mustangs aren't as powerful or as fast as the original magazine test cars, a difference of up to 25hp in certain parts of the curve.  Which explains why the first tests with the Mustang GT showed alot of 110+ traps while later tests had slower traps (slower than the Chevy Camaro despite better power to weight ratio).

[MX793]

I kind of wonder if the early media car wasn't a pre-pro running a slightly different tune in the ECU.  It's possible that Ford retuned the ECU for emissions (or some other reason) at the last minute between the pre-pro cars and the production cars.  Or they intentionally ran a hotter tune in their initial press car (though I'd expect the second press fleet car to have similar tuning, and it apparently didn't based on the tested performance).  Wouldn't be the first time a company offered a ringer.

[GoCougs]

I offer my commentary, which mostly splits on the issue. I really don't know what to think:

1.) Chassis dynos suck absolute balls. On a 412 hp SAE net motor w/MT expect at best a 12% loss and 3% accuracy for a range of 351 rwhp to 373 rwhp. Thus both test numbers (395, 380) are bogus. I should SO be their technical editor.

2.) I think it widely known that something was fishy on the first round of tests. Some tests had the GT breaking into the 12s but many tests had the GT at 13.0 - 13.2 sec in the 1/4 mile just as Edmunds has confirmed here with known production examples. Virtually ALL tests had the Camaro SS at 12.9 - 13.1 sec.

3.) Not much can be done to eek out power out of modern a N/A motor with a tune - certainly not taking a car from 13.2 to a 12.8 in the 1/4 mile, and Ford already has adaptive ECU tuning (402 hp on regular, 412 hp on premium).

4.) To give mags materially faster cars Ford would have to give them a materially modified cars; Ford is/was undoubtedly on the run with the sales success of the Camaro but I doubt they'd be so desperate to actually give non-production cars out for tests.

5.) No mention in any GT test I've ever read said anything about lack of traction or problems hooking up, which nullifies to some extent driver-to-driver and test track variation.

[SVT666]

I offer my commentary, which mostly splits on the issue. I really don't know what to think:

1.) Chassis dynos suck absolute balls. On a 412 hp SAE net motor w/MT expect at best a 12% loss and 3% accuracy for a range of 351 rwhp to 373 rwhp. Thus both test numbers (395, 380) are bogus. I should SO be their technical editor.

Absolutely right...well, except for the last part.

2.) I think it widely known that something was fishy on the first round of tests. Some tests had the GT breaking into the 12s but many tests had the GT at 13.0 - 13.2 sec in the 1/4 mile just as Edmunds has confirmed here with known production examples. Virtually ALL tests had the Camaro SS at 12.9 - 13.1 sec.

Again, you are so full of shit.  There is exactly two tests that showed the Mustang slower than 12.9, while the vast majority listed 12.7 - 12.8.  Troll.

3.) Not much can be done to eek out power out of modern a N/A motor with a tune - certainly not taking a car from 13.2 to a 12.8 in the 1/4 mile, and Ford already has adaptive ECU tuning (402 hp on regular, 412 hp on premium).

You could probably get a 10th, but nothing more.

4.) To give mags materially faster cars Ford would have to give them a materially modified cars; Ford is/was undoubtedly on the run with the sales success of the Camaro but I doubt they'd be so desperate to actually give non-production cars out for tests.

I agree...though I do find it funny that the SS has gotten quicker than it was when it was first released.  I remember the mags all getting 4.7 - 4.8 to 60 mph and 13.1 - 13.2 in the 1/4 mile, while the SS that the mags tested when the 5.0L Mustang was released starting hitting 4.6 to 60 mph and 12.9 in the 1/4 mile.  Seems fishy too.......

5.) No mention in any GT test I've ever read said anything about lack of traction or problems hooking up, which nullifies to some extent driver-to-driver and test track variation.

Not entirely.  Getting the perfect launch is not easy and hitting the shifts just right are key.  That's why guys who take their cars to the drags on a Friday night are generally at least half a second slower than magazine tests.  They don't really do anything wrong, but they certainly don't do it right.

[the Teuton]

I want to point something out: When the Camaro vastly outperformed the Mustang, the Mustang outside the Camaro. When the Mustang now vastly outperforms the Camaro, the Camaro outsells it.

The F body has always had shitty sight lines and whatnot. It's always been more about style than anything else.

I think what this all comes down to is people who want a pony car largely buy on style over substance, even though the Camaro ain't a pushover.

That's one thing that makes me laugh about this thread: You guys speak about these cars like they're underperforming pieces of rubbish. None of them -- including the Challenger and Genesis -- are what I'd call slouches.

[GoCougs]

Teuts:

As shown in a number of tests since the Mustang GT was release for production it's only an equivalent performer to the SS; in Edmunds' test of multiple GTs, the two virtually tying on C&D's lightening lap, and the V6 Camaro slightly outperformed the Mustang V6 in a recent M/T et al.

Some may feel comfort in implicitly blaming a live rear axle and/or tires for inconsistent launching but I don't think that is fair or logical. As it stands logic says Ford doled out ringers for testing early on but I'm having a tough time imagining Ford would be so so desperate.

[SVT666]

Teuts:

As shown in a number of tests since the Mustang GT was release for production it's only an equivalent performer to the SS; in Edmunds' test of multiple GTs, the two virtually tying on C&D's lightening lap, and the V6 Camaro slightly outperformed the Mustang V6 in a recent M/T et al.

No, the Mustang quite easily outperforms the Camaro.  The V6 Mustang in that M/T comparo you mentioned was outfitted with the tallest gears available and absolutely none of the performance options available, which is why that Mustang was a full second slower to 60mph than any other 2011 V6 Mustang tested.

Some may feel comfort in implicitly blaming a live rear axle and/or tires for inconsistent launching but I don't think that is fair or logical.

You're the only one that ever mentions the live axle, but Ford does have a tendency to undertire thee Mustang which makes launching it somewhat difficult.  Not so much for the GT, but moreso on the GT500.

As it stands logic says Ford doled out ringers for testing early on but I'm having a tough time imagining Ford would be so so desperate.

I love how you imply Ford gave the media ringers and then say, "but I don't believe it".  You could be a politician.





[/quote]

[FoMoJo]

3.) Not much can be done to eek out power out of modern a N/A motor with a tune - certainly not taking a car from 13.2 to a 12.8 in the 1/4 mile, and Ford already has adaptive ECU tuning (402 hp on regular, 412 hp on premium).

You could probably get a 10th, but nothing more.

Just a comment on this in regards to cam phasing.  With the flexibility available in the ability to individually control the phasing on each of the 4 cams and given that the factory tuning would be less likely to be set to full race mode, I would guess that, with a bit more agressive tuning, it may be possible to eke out a bit more power than we might expect.  Just a guess .

[GoCougs]

There's pretty much nothing a tune can do to affect phasing. Typically such phasing systems are mecho-hydraulic, so no amount of tuning will have an affect. Also, phasing helps but cams can only be phased so much before it actually hurts performance

[MX793]

There's pretty much nothing a tune can do to affect phasing. Typically such phasing systems are mecho-hydraulic, so no amount of tuning will have an affect. Also, phasing helps but cams can only be phased so much before it actually hurts performance

Ford's system uses electronically controlled solenoid valves to meter the oil flow into the phasing mechanism (and I suspect these days, many other manufacturers' systems are similar), meaning that the ECU can and does control the phasing of the cams.  It doesn't strictly rely on the oil pressure of the motor (which rises and falls with RPM) to alter the phasing like early cam phasing systems.

[GoCougs]

Sure, my point was cam phasing is a function of RPM and to a lesser extent engine load. There is no way to "tune" this relationship. Only by adjusting cam lift and/or duration can anything be done with the cams to increase performance.

[FoMoJo]

Ford's system uses electronically controlled solenoid valves to meter the oil flow into the phasing mechanism (and I suspect these days, many other manufacturers' systems are similar), meaning that the ECU can and does control the phasing of the cams.  It doesn't strictly rely on the oil pressure of the motor (which rises and falls with RPM) to alter the phasing like early cam phasing systems.

Regarding the Mustang, that version is used on the V6 whereas, on the V8, it uses what it calls 'camshaft torque energy actuation' assisted by pressurized oil rather than solenoids.  It's supposed to provide for more precise timing of camshaft events.

[Nethead]

Gentlemen, pardon my absence recently, currently, and likely in the future.  The Nethead here has been on a performance enhancing buildup of his own--on the Nethead here hisself.

I've been a regular at a school of medicine fitness center for going on three years, 3-5 evenings/week unless I ain't in lovely Beaver County.  I've upped the level of tune, having added a personal trainer (at company expense for the first twelve weeks, no less!)--she's as tough as she is hot and she is mucho hot.  Thank God I had already been hitting the iron for 2.5 years before this opportunity fell into my lap via a company lottery for three dozen employees out of the hundreds seeking the chance to get serious physical training on the company expense account. 

To meet the requirements of the program, extensive off-the-job work-outs are mandatory--gym privileges are part of the package but the WifeDude and I already have all that in our home equipment and at the school of medicine fitness center (however, the gym privileges have added an Olympics-sized swimming pool).

I needed to add some work-outs to be on top of this--I led our team to victory in Team Challenge 1, but I ain't sittin' on my laurels!  Just fifty feet or so outside our operations center here is a 134-step 5-story stairwell--well-lit, with windows, potted plants, and prints of paintings in frames (and the stairs themselves are all vinyl-coated for traction, of all damned things!).  The Nethead here ain't known as Luke Stairwalker for nothin', as I had been doin' an eleven-story stairwell three times in thirteen minutes taking two steps at a stride on all three circuits for over two years.  Now, I do the 134-step stairwell for my entire sixty-minute lunchtime--and can complete 24 times up and 24 times down in under 58 minutes.  Currently, it takes me sixty minutes and eight seconds to complete 25 full circuits, but I'm improving weekly.  24 full circuits is 3,216 steps up and 3,216 steps down, and 25 full circuits adds another 134 up and another 134 down.

Fitness done well takes time, and it has impacted my CarSPIN participation dramatically.  I am not dead--I just smell that way.  I'll check by as time permits, but time ain't permittin' very much.  I expect that to continue, so carry on!  Roger Wilco, Over and Out...

[thewizard16]

Some of you have probably already seen this today, but it seemed this was the appropriate thread for it:
http://jalopnik.com/#!5792482/faulty-chinese+built-transmissions-plague-new-ford-mustang

Apparently there are concerns and potentially serious problems with the manual transmissions.

The forum jalopnik mentions has some pretty detailed posts regarding what the owners are experiencing, and involvement from Ford Customer Service as well. Ford seems to be trying to address this, but the widespread nature of the low gear issues and apparently some going so far as locking up or having certain gears completely fail to engage implies they may have a component/supplier problem.

[MX793]

Some of you have probably already seen this today, but it seemed this was the appropriate thread for it:
http://jalopnik.com/#!5792482/faulty-chinese+built-transmissions-plague-new-ford-mustang

Apparently there are concerns and potentially serious problems with the manual transmissions.

The forum jalopnik mentions has some pretty detailed posts regarding what the owners are experiencing, and involvement from Ford Customer Service as well. Ford seems to be trying to address this, but the widespread nature of the low gear issues and apparently some going so far as locking up or having certain gears completely fail to engage implies they may have a component/supplier problem.

Interestingly, I was just looking into this issue earlier today as I've noticed mine is prone to high effort and grinding when going from 1st to 2nd, particularly when temperatures are cold.  I noticed it a little bit last year, but chalked it up to my just not being all that familiar with the car yet because it was fairly intermittent and then I put the car away for the season in the late fall before temperatures really got cold.  I brought it out again the first weekend of spring and we've had some wintery cold mornings where it has been consistently difficult to shift from 1st to 2nd (although shifting from 3rd to 2nd has never been a problem) and I'll even experience a bit of notchiness/grinding upshifting into 3rd every once in a while.  It was particularly bad this morning, although it wasn't the coldest morning I've driven the car in, which prompted me to do some internet digging to see if others were having an issue.  Turns out they are.

Ford issued a TSB the middle of last month that calls for a change in transmission fluid to whatever they are using in their DSG gearboxes.  Some people claim this completely resolved the issue, but I have to wonder if it will simply act as a bandaid that will only temporarily solve the problem.  I'll be calling my dealer either tomorrow or early next week to see if I can get this addressed, or at the very least have the problem/complaint on record.

[SVT666]

Reason #1 for not buying the first model year of a new transmission or engine.

[GoCougs]

I had the exact same issue when the idiots at the locate lube shop put in 80W-90 rather than the factory-specified 75W-90. Change to the correct fluid completely fixed the issue. But using fluid as band aid? Probably not a good long term solution.

FWIW, the gearbox is co-designed by Getrag and a Chinese manufacturer; the latter of which also makes it. Ford sure must have been mega desperate to save a few $$$ to not use the tried-n-true Tremec 6-sp. WOW I would not be happy.

[Mustangfan2003]

If I was buying a new one I guess I'd be buying a late 2011 model or a 2012. 

[MX793]

Reason #1 for not buying the first model year of a new transmission or engine.

The MT82 actually isn't new.  I believe it was first used in the Ford Transit van back in '04 and Land Rover started using it in '07 for the Defender.  And while the Coyote motor is new, the Cyclone is a few years old with the 3.5L having been around since '07 and the 3.7 since '08.

[Mustangfan2003]

I've read where some dealers changed the fluid and it fixed the problem.  So could it be something that simple?

[MX793]

I've read where some dealers changed the fluid and it fixed the problem.  So could it be something that simple?

According to the TSB, the rough/difficult shifting is due to the trans fluid viscosity being too high for colder temps (<45F).  They recommend changing to a thinner fluid which is also used in Ford's DSG gearboxes.  However, it seems a number of owners who live in warm climates are experiencing grinding and rough shifting issues even when it's 80 degrees out, so I'm a little suspicious that there might be more to this than just the fluid viscosity.

What I'm reading in the thread at allfordmustangs.com has me seriously spooked.  At the moment, the symptoms are just a little irritating and nowhere near as bad as what some others are reporting, but I fear things may get worse with time and I too will be unable to engage certain gears at all.  I had planned on keeping this car for a long time and was looking forward to autocrossing it this season.  Looking like AutoX will be out of the question as I don't want to risk damaging a potentially weak tranny now that I've got symptoms.  I'll be contacting my dealership and following this issue closely.  Unless I'm satisfied that Ford has come up with a solid, permanent solution to this, and I don't know if a fluid change is really going to cut it, I'll likely be getting rid of this car before the warranty is up.

[Mustangfan2003]

They should've just kept using the Tremec transmissions like they've kept using for years.  I believe the GT500 transmission is built by Tremec still. 

[SVT32V]

The getrag unit is at least 25-30 lbs lighter than the tremec.

The mexican made t-56 and 6060 tremecs also are known to have problems especially the camaro' unit.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/07/13/breaking-early-camaro-ss-manual-transmission-failures-reported/

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125127

Seems nobody can make a good manual transmission anymore.

[GoCougs]

Plenty of companies make a great M/T - including Tremec - it's a pretty easy thing to get right.