2011 Mustang GT 5.0

[hotrodalex]

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.

Maybe they left room for quick improvement in case Chevy bumped up the Camaro's numbers. Just like they came out with a new ECU flash for the SuperDuty after Chevy came out with better numbers.

[SVT666]

Yes Cougs, they would.  Intake design is compromised for noise and sound requirements and ECU programming is compromised due to fuel economy and emissions requirements and the fact that after the tune, all you can put in it is Premium fuel.  Stock tunes suck.

[GoCougs]

Maybe they left room for quick improvement in case Chevy bumped up the Camaro's numbers. Just like they came out with a new ECU flash for the SuperDuty after Chevy came out with better numbers.

F/I motor is an entirely different animal as you have direct control over volumetric efficiency (by way of boost). N/A motors have no such mechanism to muck with that can greatly affect power.

[GoCougs]

Yes Cougs, they would.  Intake design is compromised for noise and sound requirements and ECU programming is compromised due to fuel economy and emissions requirements and the fact that after the tune, all you can put in it is Premium fuel.  Stock tunes suck.

Lost power = lost efficiency, and no way is Ford leaving 40 hp and some mpg on the table for "noise" or "sound" requirements or the catch-22 of decreasing efficiency to increase mpg.

Most any ECU today is already self adjusting to fuel octane, and as a result many automakers rate HP based on fuel grade, just as does Ford for the Mustang GT (402 hp on regular, 412 hp on premium).

Sorry, IMO you're buying snake oil.

[SVT666]

So engines coming from the factory are not able to be improved on?  And engines from the factory are maximized for power?  You are so full of shit, I can't tell which end is your ass.

[sportyaccordy]

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.

It will if Ford wants to sell Ford Performance Parts

But Cougs knows better than real life, I guess

[GoCougs]

 Are those last two posts serious posts???

[SVT666]

 Are those last two posts serious posts???

Yes.  Are yours?  You obviously don't know shit and you prove it every time you type something on this subject.  You live in a fantasy world.

[sportyaccordy]

 Are those last two posts serious posts???

Only slightly less serious than your allegations which run counter to reality

Seriously every piece of reasoning you have presented has been rebutted, and in classic Cougs form your rebuttal is more vagueness and indignation

Lol

Yes, Ford left a bit on the table power wise for a myriad of real world reasons- noise constraints, emissions restraints, and in some small part to leave room for the booming aftermarket that has made the Rustang the success it is today

The idea that every modern engine is tuned to absolute max power from the factory is absolute comedy, but not surprising coming from the first anti auto enthusiast I've ever come across on a message board.

Yes, you're wrong

[Mustangfan2003]

Well everyone knows that the Camaro is gods gift to the auto world. 

[GoCougs]

Ford hamstrings the 5.0L to give its minuscule aftermarket business a chance? Ford is worried about noise on the Mustang? You gotta be kidding me.

Plus, an emissions-killing affecting tune would throw ECU errors like crazy and cause the car to not pass emissions. Also remember emission are a sliding scale; it's not a go/no go (haven't you seen the EPA scale on new car stickers). The '11 Mustang GT shows 5 on a scale from 0-10 (i.e., plenty of room).

Ha, ha! No offense but you two turkeys don't stand a chance but I'm just nice enough to (re)educate you all the same, even in light of the immaturity. No worries, we'll get you two tuned up (like that pun?) in no time. LOL.

[GoCougs]

As to the beginnings of the (re)education for you two, enter the 2008 Bullitt. To go from 300 hp to 315 hp, Ford did the following - custom CAI, new exhaust including crossover pipe and lower restriction mufflers, and new-for-2008 what Ford called "adaptive spark" capability which adjusts timing curve based on fuel grade (to get 315 hp one had to use premium).

[SVT666]

Ford hamstrings the 5.0L to give its minuscule aftermarket business a chance? Ford is worried about noise on the Mustang? You gotta be kidding me.

It's not miniscule.  

Plus, an emissions-killing affecting tune would throw ECU errors like crazy and cause the car to not pass emissions. Also remember emission are a sliding scale; it's not a go/no go (haven't you seen the EPA scale on new car stickers). The '11 Mustang GT shows 5 on a scale from 0-10 (i.e., plenty of room).

If you knew anything at all, you would know that ECU errors would not be going crazy.  I have the most aggressive after market tune you can get for my car and I have had one error pop up in 3 years.  I plugged in my tuner and cleared the code.  Never happened again.

Ha, ha! No offense but you two turkeys don't stand a chance but I'm just nice enough to (re)educate you all the same, even in light of the immaturity. No worries, we'll get you two tuned up (like that pun?) in no time. LOL.

Your arrogance is your downfall.

[GoCougs]

Continue to call me names and attack me all you want. I secretly know you're actually learning something.

[SVT666]

As to the beginnings of the (re)education for you two, enter the 2008 Bullitt. To go from 300 hp to 315 hp, Ford did the following - custom CAI, new exhaust including crossover pipe and lower restriction mufflers, and new-for-2008 what Ford called "adaptive spark" capability which adjusts timing curve based on fuel grade (to get 315 hp one had to use premium).

Let me educate you then:

A Bullitt put on a dyno back to back with a GT will show a greater power advantage than 15 horses too.  Ford initially pegged power at 325, but knocked it back to 315 right before it was released.  It couldn't be seen to have the exact same horsepower rating as the Shelby GT that cost several grand more even though the modifications were identical.  

Ford still has to worry about emissions and noise levels.  An after market CAI is quite loud compared to a stock CAI...even the Bullitt's CAI.  Without a nice loud exhaust system, a totally uncorked intake can have an undesirable sound.  I should know.  The stock air box on my Mustang had a snorkel that fed into the fender.  The snorkel was less than 2" in diameter.  The CAI I installed was 4" diameter all the way to a 6" cone filter that resided in the fender.  Just in case you didn't know a 4" pipe carries a shit load more air than a 2" pipe.  I hated the sound mine made in my Mustang until I swapped out my exhaust system with Magnapacks, high flow cats, and long tube headers.  After that I could barely hear it anymore.

After market tunes are still more aggressive than what Ford did because the after market doesn't give a shit about emissions if you don't live where they are enforced.  An X-pipe does nothing to increase power over an H-pipe.  It just changes the sound from a deeper baritone sound to a higher pitched metallic sound.  Stock exhaust systems are so good these days that a new cat-back will only net you 5-7 horsepower.  The real gains are made in the cats.  If you replace the stock cats with high-flow cats, you will see much bigger gains.

[SVT666]

Continue to call me names and attack me all you want. I secretly know you're actually learning something.

Your arrogance is your downfall.

[Mustangfan2003]

Hey Cougs

[GoCougs]

Sigh - chassis dyno equivalency fail.

The assertion that a CAI adds power to a stock motor is insanity.

X-pipe = straighter flow and probably less overall pipe (I recommend drawing it out).

The Shelby/Bullitt power pump came from the slightly more aggressive timing map owing to premium gas usage over the stock 4.6 GT (something the 5.0 GT already has).

[sportyaccordy]

As to the beginnings of the (re)education for you two, enter the 2008 Bullitt. To go from 300 hp to 315 hp, Ford did the following - custom CAI, new exhaust including crossover pipe and lower restriction mufflers, and new-for-2008 what Ford called "adaptive spark" capability which adjusts timing curve based on fuel grade (to get 315 hp one had to use premium).

I thought CAIs didn't add power to stock motors?

Sigh - chassis dyno equivalency fail.

How is a chassis dyno any less valid than an engine dyno? They use exactly the same technology, and all the parts between the engine and the rollers don't turn up friction to cancel out all gains. Plus 99% of the time when bolt on gains are tested they're tested on the same dyno, same day, same car etc....

Fact is, very few to no manufacturers tune their cars to 100% of their potential power, even just from the tune (as evidenced by gains from tunes on various 100HP/L+ Honda engines), and given the Mustang's HP/L, Ford's own performance parts program and the Mustang's long standing relationship with various bolt on parts makers it's safe to say the Coyote did not leave the factory with a tune that could not yield some more power.

Honest question- why do you even care? You don't even like fun to drive cars. I bet it's been at least a decade since you drove or owned a stickshift car, let alone did any performance mods to one. You're way out of your element.

[SVT666]

Sigh - chassis dyno equivalency fail.

Same dyno, same day.  Whether the readout is 100% accurate or not, the readings will be out by the same amount on both cars.  That's why they always do a minimum of 3 pulls to ensure as accurate a reading as possible.

The assertion that a CAI adds power to a stock motor is insanity.

No.  Insanity is believing that engines are tuned to max capabilities from the factory.  A 4" pipe carries 4 times more air than a 2" pipe.  More air = more power.  A CAI combined with a tune nets large gains....that is a fact.

X-pipe = straighter flow and probably less overall pipe (I recommend drawing it out).

Wrong.  So wrong you have no idea how wrong.  Massive fail Cougs. 

The Shelby/Bullitt power pump came from the slightly more aggressive timing map owing to premium gas usage over the stock 4.6 GT (something the 5.0 GT already has).

Huh.  I thought you stated an aftermarket tune wouldn't net any appreciable gains?  Just so you know, the Shelby GT is rated at 325 hp and the Bullitt is rated at 315 hp despite being identical.  The Shelby GT costs more, so Ford couldn't have the Bullitt with the same rating. 

Your internetry needs some work you arrogant fool.

[GoCougs]

Ha, ha! This is almost as good as torque "vs." horsepower!

[sportyaccordy]

Well I guess we can all end this discussion as we're all in agreement that Cougs doesn't know what he's talking about, but is adamant about getting the "last word". The floor is yours Cougs.

Anyways apparently people are taking these things into the low 10s w/slicks and bolt ones. LOW 10S.

[SVT666]

Ha, ha! This is almost as good as torque "vs." horsepower!

Yeah.  Your arguments are totally ridiculous.

[GoCougs]

  C'mon there Cobra93, I thought you were much more knowledgeable than this. That engine, as described there and elsewhere, I had installed the Edelbrock Performer power package (AFB carb, intake, cam) and modern 360 FI heads. The stock air cleaner system designed for the original ~130 hp 318 ain't going to support the CFM needed for 250+ hp. (Meaning, all those are bolt-on parts, some of which have little effect - or no effect - by themselves (CAI); = not all bolt-on parts are created equal.)

[GoCougs]

Here's the Dodge Demon I owned. Note the stock air cleaner assembly. D'oh - stock engine!

[sportyaccordy]

~130 hp 318

O yea, there is nothing that can be done short of re-engineering the entire engine to get anything more than the incredibly aggressive tune Mopar sent that 318 out with.............

Everything in the induction and exhaust system was optimal, as were the cam profile & compression....

130HP out of 318 cubic inches... it's a miracle these things lasted any appreciable distance w/o needing a laboratory rebuild.....

[SVT666]

There is no way MOPAR engineers would have let that engine leave the factory without squeezing every possible horsepower out of it first.  Modifying it was such a waste of money.  Poor Cougs.  He learned the hard way.

[GoCougs]

You do realize that the CAI flows considerably more than the stock airbox, right? And that the tune is required to add the extra fuel needed, right? Extra fuel & air = more horsepower. It worked then. It works now.

Sure it less restrictive but that is wasted capacity if the engine isn't flowing more air . Engine air flow is a function of displacement, RPM and volumetric efficiency of the engine. Also, for further research, do some Googling on air restricter plates used in racing, and what it truly takes to restrict an engine.

Step back and listen to yourself. Honestly, truthfully, candidly, listen to yourself. Do you honestly believe Ford (now) or Mopar (then) left all this horsepower (and by definition lower MPG) on the table simply because they botched an air filter design, or because they were concerned with noise or some such?

[GoCougs]

D'oh! Room for improvement. You're really not this stupid are you?

On the entire engine? Sure. It was entirely stock. But by adding only an open-element air filter? LOL.

And weren't you the one a while back that insisted a lighter drive shaft resulted in more rear-wheel HP simply because the chassis dyno tells you so?

[Cobra93]

On the entire engine? Sure. It was entirely stock. But by adding only an open-element air filter? LOL.

Try to grasp the concept that the CAI is allowing more CFM through the engine. The stock airbox and inlet tube is a restriction. Had you simply upgraded your Dodge truck from a 2 barrel and stock intake to a 4 barrel and the Performer intake, you would realize a noticeable gain. Not as much as with the cam included but a gain nonetheless. In my case, the throttle body is not the restriction.

And weren't you the one a while back that insisted a lighter drive shaft resulted in more rear-wheel HP simply because the chassis dyno tells you so?

Nope, that wasn't me.