2011 Mustang GT 5.0

[Nethead]

From www.edmunds.com:

2011 Ford Mustang GT: Outlet Placement Win
By Mike Magrath | February 3, 2011

Sure, the giant cord to my V1 falls over some of the buttons in this shot, but if the Mustang were mine, I'd ditch the giant curley thing in favor of a shorty foot-long power cable.

With most cars, you've got to run this, or the flat cable, through, over and around everything to get it plugged in and out of the way, manual trans = more routing. ( For some cars flat cable up over the sun visor, down the molding on the A-pillar and then around the panel gap for the glove box is the most convenient, out of the way place.)

But not here. Someone at Ford was thinking ahead for dash (there's a sunken area on the dash for a little more clearance dead-center) mounted electronics. Thank ya, Ford.

In unrelated news: MAN is this car fast. It's pretty quick on paper, but on the road it feels light and fast and like a sports car, not a Pony Car.

Mike Magrath, Associate Editor, Inside Line.

[Nethead]

From www.edmunds.com:

2011 Ford Mustang GT: No Heated Seats...but it's OK
By Karl Brauer | February 2, 2011

I had a whole rant ready to go about our Long Term 2011 Ford Mustang GT not having heated seats for these "cold" Los Angeles mornings...but decided that probably isn't something I should complain about right now.

All U.S. residents located north and east of St. George, Utah...never mind.

Karl Brauer, Edmunds Editor at Large

[Nethead]

From www.edmunds.com:

2011 Ford Mustang: Non-Muscle-Car Guy Approved
By James Riswick | February 1, 2011

I actually got to drive the Mustang last night, and although I've begun calling it the Jokermobile, I must say that it's absolutely awesome.

Now, I'm not a muscle car guy by any means. I prioritize sharp handling over straight-line brute force. I like a nice interior over one featuring sheets of hard plastic nailed together. I don't find burnouts to be pornographic. Growing up in the 90s, the Mustangs, Camaros and Firebirds of the day had absolutely ZERO appeal. The ones of yore were (and are) but a mild curiosity.

And yet, I love our new Mustang.

It may look like a muscle car, it may go like a muscle car, but it also feels like a sports car that's great to drive in directions other than a straight line. The electric steering (shockingly) is very good; the shifter is one of the best I've ever used; the clutch is easy in traffic or when hauling ass; the body is controlled through corners and over most bumps. Unlike the Camaro and Challenger, it doesn't feel enormous when behind the wheel; unlike the Camaro, its wheel and shifter are shaped for a human being.

I also appreciate that its interior doesn't need to fall back on the tired excuse of "yeah, but it goes from zero to 60 in X.X seconds and therefore all other criticisms are irrelevant." (Yo, BlowCougs--now we're talkin' down to your level of comprehension! )  Oh, there are still a few cheap pieces here and there, but sitting in a Mustang no longer feels like you're being penalized.

Come to think of it, I loved our Challenger too, but for completely opposite dynamic reasons. It looked like a muscle car, it went like a muscle car, but it also felt like a grand American touring coupe that was spacious and comfortable enough to also serve as a daily driver or road trip companion. It too had a nice interior.

Since they're so different, it's hard to pick which I like better. I do know I'd be happy to own either one, but that still doesn't make me a muscle car guy.

James Riswick, Automotive Editor @ 2,660 miles

[Nethead]

From www.edmunds.com:

2011 Ford Mustang GT: Go...Bucks?
By Mike Magrath | January 31, 2011

(Man, that tach-sweep shot is hard.)

When you first hop into our Long Term 2011 Ford Mustang GT, there are a lot of cool details to take in. The rad metal-ball shifter is first and then, once you start 'er up, you notice the gauges. Now, they're nothing special -- the numbers are big and the needle is easy to read but small enough to be precise -- until someone goes and messes with the color adjustable gauges that come on the premium pack. Like someone here did who is a big fan of the Milwaukee Bucks and their green and purple color scheme.

Follow the jump for a video of the colors for both the gauge, trim ring and ambient lighting. (Note: my camera wasn't thrilled with these colors... they are truer to the color listed than they actually appear.)

Bonus information: The 2011 Ford Mustang GT500 can be programmed to do a red, white and blue color scheme with the speedo in red, center info in white and the tach in blue.

Mike Magrath, Associate Editor @ 2,637 miles

[Nethead]

Hey Nethead, don't hate on the Venture. My mom's may have rusted apart and the electronics may have failed well before the transmission and engine, but it still made it to 185k miles before they sold it for scrap.

That said, I have a friend whose mom bought a 1999 Sienna new. It still feels new with 200k on it to the point that we drove it from Pa. to Va. with no concerns whatsoever.

TeutDude:  The Sienna was a consideration when we bought our 2010 Flex last November.  It was edged out by the Odyssey because the WifeDude is all paranoid about Toyota quality issues of late.  The Odyssey and the Sienna are clearly the cream of the minivan crop, IMO, but we've come to grips with the fact that we really don't need that much carrying capacity except on rare occasions anymore (one of which was this past week-end, as a matter of fact--and we borrowed our former minivan from the DaughterDude and the SonInLawDude for a day of moving items for the SonDude).  

It is so vastly better to be in a Flex, loaded or not, than it is to be in a minivan, loaded or not.  We still have seating for seven as we had in all our minivans (the full-sized Dodge van we had prior to our first minivan had seating for only five), but without the embarrassment of being seen in a minivan by family, friends, acquaintances, or rank strangers!  

A fire hydrant outside a kennel gets more respect than a minivan...

[565]

http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2011/02/2011-ford-mustang-gt-50-stolen-from-general-motors.html#more

Hmm I never knew the Mustang 5.0 now uses a skip shift system stolen from GM.

I agree it's funny that the press never mentions it a single time, and as Edmunds tested previous Mustang GT's and never noticed it, I suspect the Ford press cars didn't have the feature  (makes you wonder how else Ford changed its press cars.)  Not there is anything wrong with skip shift, but I remmeber the diehard blue oval fanboys making a big fuss about the GM's having skip shift and how it wasn't real fuel economy.  Well looks like Ford's copying GM again.  I wonder what those Ford fanboys are saying now.

[GoCougs]

Well, in all fairness to Mustang fanboyists, in times prior (with 5sp M/T) skip-shift simply wasn't feasible.

But what are MFBists saying now? Probably nothing - they'd likely rather not be reminded that a 6sp M/T is almost 20 years late to Mustang GT party.

[MX793]

I've known about this for a while.  When the news broke that it would have skip-shift, most of the Mustang crowd were upset and hoping it would be as easy to bypass as the system that GM is using.

[565]

In other news.  It appears the Mustang's tranny is made in China.

http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forums/2011-mustang-talk/241494-transmission-made-china.html

[SVT666]

I don't like skip shift at all.  Every Mustang site I know of that has mentioned it complains about it too Cougs.  It isn't something we're happy about.

[SVT666]

In other news.  It appears the Mustang's tranny is made in China.

http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forums/2011-mustang-talk/241494-transmission-made-china.html

That sucks.  But it still comes with 5 year warranty and it is one of the slickest shifting transmissions on the market.

[Nethead]

http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2011/02/2011-ford-mustang-gt-50-stolen-from-general-motors.html#more

Hmm I never knew the Mustang 5.0 now uses a skip shift system stolen from GM.

I agree it's funny that the press never mentions it a single time, and as Edmunds tested previous Mustang GT's and never noticed it, I suspect the Ford press cars didn't have the feature  (makes you wonder how else Ford changed its press cars.)  Not there is anything wrong with skip shift, but I remmeber the diehard blue oval fanboys making a big fuss about the GM's having skip shift and how it wasn't real fuel economy.  Well looks like Ford's copying GM again.  I wonder what those Ford fanboys are saying now.

Skip-shift shit came on some Euro cars so long ago that I can't even narrow it down to which decade.  GM can't take the blame for inventing it, although they're as shameful as Ford for adding it.  

I've never read a Mustang automatic roadtest that missed mentioning the skip-shift "feature" as a suck-up to the EPA, and you know that the Nethead here has not missed many Mustang roadtests, eh?  No one likes it in Mustangs, but as I recall the roadtesters felt it worked better with the Mustang gear ratios than it does with the gear ratios in the GM cars equipped with it.  I can't recall much enthusiasm for it decades ago in the the cars from Yurp that came equipped with it either...

But arguing the merits of automatic tranmissions is as pointless as arguing whether Roseanne Barr has a cuter ass than the lady who plays the housekeeper in "Two and a Half Men".  Who really wastes their time on such contemplation?  

Other than 565 and BlowCougs, I mean

[SVT666]

Skip-shift shit came on some Euro cars so long ago that I can't even narrow it down to which decade.  GM can't take the blame for inventing it, although they're as shameful as Ford for adding it.  

I've never read a Mustang automatic roadtest that missed mentioning the skip-shift "feature" as a suck-up to the EPA, and you know that the Nethead here has not missed many Mustang roadtests, eh?  No one likes it in Mustangs, but as I recall the roadtesters felt it worked better with the Mustang gear ratios than it does with the gear ratios in the GM cars equipped with it.  I can't recall much enthusiasm for it decades ago in the the cars from Yurp that came equipped with it either...

But arguing the merits of automatic tranmissions is as pointless as arguing whether Roseanne Barr has a cuter ass than the lady who plays the housekeeper in "Two and a Half Men".  Who really wastes their time on such contemplation?  

Other than 565 and BlowCougs, I mean

Skip-shift is on the manual transmissions Nethead.

[Nethead]

Skip-shift is on the manual transmissions Nethead.

WHOA!  Shows how much time I spend contemplating skip-shift, huh?  The Yurp cars from decades ago were automatics--or were they?  Maybe they were manuals, too ...As I said, who spends time contemplating skip-shift?

[GoCougs]

Unbelievable.

[mzziaz]

We Europeans are a far too advanced civilization to equip our vehicles with such a stupid feature.

[GoCougs]

No. You Europeans are far too primitive for an average-cost 412 hp performance vehicle. "Free" health care, global warming legislation, 8+ weeks of vacation, nationalization of industry and natural resources, catastrophic levels of vehicle and fuel taxes, et al., = mean, miserable, effeminate econo boxes.

[Raza]

http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2011/02/2011-ford-mustang-gt-50-stolen-from-general-motors.html#more

Hmm I never knew the Mustang 5.0 now uses a skip shift system stolen from GM.

I agree it's funny that the press never mentions it a single time, and as Edmunds tested previous Mustang GT's and never noticed it, I suspect the Ford press cars didn't have the feature  (makes you wonder how else Ford changed its press cars.)  Not there is anything wrong with skip shift, but I remmeber the diehard blue oval fanboys making a big fuss about the GM's having skip shift and how it wasn't real fuel economy.  Well looks like Ford's copying GM again.  I wonder what those Ford fanboys are saying now.

I never understood the big deal about skip shift.  I've driven several GM manuals that had the feature, and never once ran into it.  Skip shift gets disabled at 2000RPM.  The only time I could see it being an issue is in snow. 

[CALL_911]

No. You Europeans are far too primitive for an average-cost 412 hp performance vehicle. "Free" health care, global warming legislation, 8+ weeks of vacation, nationalization of industry and natural resources, catastrophic levels of vehicle and fuel taxes, et al., = mean, miserable, effeminate econo boxes.

yeeeee

[mzziaz]

No. You Europeans are far too primitive for an average-cost 412 hp performance vehicle. "Free" health care, global warming legislation, 8+ weeks of vacation, nationalization of industry and natural resources, catastrophic levels of vehicle and fuel taxes, et al., = mean, miserable, effeminate econo boxes.

No need to be bitter, Cougs. I love you like a retarded little brother.

[Mustangfan2003]

I wouldn't mind an 8 week vacation atleast. 

[Nethead]

I wouldn't mind an 8 week vacation atleast. 

And a little Global Warming would be effin' appreciated, too!  Where's Al Gore when you really need him?

[GoCougs]

I wouldn't mind an 8 week vacation atleast. 

I imagine not many people would. However, the government that has the power to make such a thing a law has the power to make your gasoline $8/gallon, to tax engine displacement, and to tax you based on CO2 emissions. It's so so so sad, really.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

I never understood the big deal about skip shift.  I've driven several GM manuals that had the feature, and never once ran into it.  Skip shift gets disabled at 2000RPM.  The only time I could see it being an issue is in snow. 

I disabled it in my Z28 as soon as I brought it! It was annoying when it did activate so I purchased a "Skip-Shift" eliminator for RK Sports.

[Cobra93]

Here's some shit I put on my car. It doesn't do anything but I think it looks badass. When I bought it, I thought it did something but now I know it doesn't.






Here's a dyno chart I posted so that, later in this thread, another forum member could misread it and post a wildly inaccurate hypothesis that the power gain was consistent across the RPM range, meaning that the stock airbox couldn't have been a restriction. In truth, what the dyno chart shows is a 20 HP gain at 3000 RPM and a 40 HP gain at 6500 RPM. This would tend to support the idea that the CAI DID provide increased airflow. However, my automotive knowledge must pale in comparison to his. After all he's the guy that unleashed THIS gem: "If it was FWD architecture, the engine would be sideways..."   BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  


I bought this shit from a company called Steeda. They apparently produce a lot of "performance" parts that actually don't do anything. I don't know how they've stayed in business for years fooling the buying public but kudos to them. I now know better than to buy anything from them again thanks to the boundless wisdom of a fellow poster on this forum. I had foolishly believed that back to back dyno tests showing a performance gain, and markedly quicker quarter mile times were indicators of improved power. I now know that only an engine dyno can verify horsepower gains because chassis dynos are notoriously inaccurate. Interestingly, in all my years in the race engine business, I never saw back to back dyno pulls on an engine dyno produce the same numbers, but I must have been mistaken then too. So again I must thank GoCougs for setting me straight. He is a god. He knows all there is to know about performance cars (except how to buy and drive one of course). He can do anything. I mean ANYTHING automotive. What's that you say? Oh right, he can't do a brake job but other than that....



I will now leave this thread to devolve into the normal carspin pissing match lead by the following ignorant troll  
                                                                                                                                        v v v

[GoCougs]

Look nice but almost 40 hp (10%) from only a CAI? Sorry, I don't buy that at all.

[MX793]

Look nice but almost 40 hp (10%) from only a CAI? Sorry, I don't buy that at all.

He said CAI and tune (ECU reflash).

[GoCougs]

I see - well, I also don't buy tune + CAI = 40 hp/10% on a stock N/A motor...

Remember, these "tuner" shops all use ball-sucking chassis dynos.

[SVT666]

I buy it.  I've seen Camaros get big gains from intakes and tunes too.  Engine tuning is the biggest problem with modern day engines.  They're tuned for emissions more than anything, so when an after market tune gets installed where it's all about performance, you can see some big gains.  My own Focus saw a 7% increase in max power just from a tune and as much as 24 hp (15%) at certain points in the rev range.

[GoCougs]

I'm sure that the fact that hundreds of different owners have corroborated the results on hundreds of different dynos won't sway you, but maybe if you ever drove or even rode in a Camaro or Mustang, you'd believe it. 

No, it does not sway me; only facts sway me. First, there's relatively little that can be done to A/F mixture and timing curve before a stock N/A gas engine runs way off peak performance; and with modern controls once that happens all sorts of issues arise - from 02 errors to tripping knock sensors. Second, chassis dynos are only good for 5-10% accuracy. When dealing with such small % only a stand-alone engine dyno will do.

Now let's think about this philosophically rather than technically - How likely is it Ford left ~40 hp on the table owing to a crappy stock CAI design and "conservative" ECU tuning? Ford has an engine engineering team that is bigger than all tuners put together, and with that kind of brain power Ford isn't going to botch ~40 hp, and the lost efficiency that comes with that. It's just not going to happen.