2011 Mustang GT 5.0

[hotrodalex]

I'm just speaking in broad terms here, but manufacturers very rarely go all-out with performance. There are always improvements to be made, whether they are just too costly to be included in the stock car, they aren't as reliable, worse NVH, or whatever other reason. Just like my dad's Camaro is pretty powerful (over 400 hp), yet could easily be upgraded to get more power. But he won't do that, as those upgrades sacrifice reliability and every day drivability. (it's not driven every day, but it's nice to know it could be if needed)

[SVT666]

It's the stuff of the Intertubes.

But seriously, I'm correct here. There's no way an automaker is killing a bunch of hp and MPG because of a botched air filter system.

I've never seen any viable technical explanation whatsoever, and actually see a lot of incredibly wrong things said.

Increasing the horsepower lowers the fuel economy. More power needs more fuel. 

[sportyaccordy]

Increasing the horsepower lowers the fuel economy. More power needs more fuel.  

Not necessarily. Yea at full load it will consume proportionately more fuel. But a freer flowing induction system = more efficient combustion = better gas mileage under part load. Like I said in the other thread, the real benefit of the intakes isn't their max flow being increased, it's the fact that at a given flow the pressure drop across the intake is lowered, meaning less energy is lost in pulling the air from outside. That's gonna lead to better gas mileage for sure.

It's the stuff of the Intertubes.

But seriously, I'm correct here. There's no way an automaker is killing a bunch of hp and MPG because of a botched air filter system.

I've never seen any viable technical explanation whatsoever, and actually see a lot of incredibly wrong things said.

As was said a thousand times, Ford had to make concessions in power for cost, emissions, and noise. The design wasn't "botched", it was designed to meet many regulatory considerations that all might not have ended up in maximum power. Aftermarket intakes are designed with a priority of power & flow over noise and cost. Not a difficult concept for literally everyone else here but you to grasp.

[GoCougs]

As was said a thousand times, Ford had to make concessions in power for cost, emissions, and noise. The design wasn't "botched", it was designed to meet many regulatory considerations that all might not have ended up in maximum power. Aftermarket intakes are designed with a priority of power & flow over noise and cost. Not a difficult concept for literally everyone else here but you to grasp.

Wow do you ever have a big task of specifically explaining the cost, emissions and noise advantage vs. the loss of 40 hp and a bit of MPG.

[sportyaccordy]

Wow do you ever have a big task of specifically explaining the cost, emissions and noise advantage vs. the loss of 40 hp and a bit of MPG.

Believe what you want Cougs. Apparently hard evidence & simple logic aren't good enough.

[GoCougs]

Believe what you want Cougs. Apparently hard evidence & simple logic aren't good enough.

Like I've said, the onus is on the persona making the claim (that would be you). Most of this discussion has been falsehood and myth.

No one has provided a scintilla of "hard evidence" or "simple logic" of how the stock Mustang air box's alleged 40 hp loss gives any material gain in cost, emissions or noise.

[sportyaccordy]

Like I've said, the onus is on the persona making the claim (that would be you).

Wrong, as usual.

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

Most of this discussion has been falsehood and myth.

From your end.

No one has provided a scintilla of "hard evidence" or "simple logic" of how the stock Mustang air box's alleged 40 hp loss gives any material gain in cost, emissions or noise.

Cobra presented a chassis dyno graph. You have used butt dynos to prove your points, so chassis dynos are also legit evidence.

You made a claim, never validated it, and have been wrong in nearly everything you've said since.

[GoCougs]

Like I said sporty, at the end of the day, you and no one else can validate the assertion the cost, emissions and noise advantage is traded for the loss of 40 hp and a bit of MPG. The more you dance around being called to task the more you validate my truthiness.

[sportyaccordy]

OK

[hotrodalex]

 

[GoCougs]

At most I can give 1-2 hp, at which point it's neither measurable nor a detriment to performance or MPG.

[the Teuton]

The Boss 302 might be a better car than the GT500.

[GoCougs]

I don't like the looks of the Boss 302 at all. Looks like a cheap aftermarket hack job. The GT500 looks far better I think.

The original Boss cars didn't look any more snazzy than the then-GT equivalent (Mach 1 probably).

[the Teuton]

I think you can get the graphics removed as a factory delete option. I don't like the stickers, either.

[sportyaccordy]

Yea the Boss def looks cheap. I don't get the Mustang's goofy sticker packages, it's 2011.

Sounds like an excellent car though. Curious to see what it does (if they can get one) for LL2011(12?)

[SVT666]

Yeah, not crazy about the graphics either.  Apparently it's faster around Ford's proving grounds than the GT500.

[Mustangfan2003]

Someone page Wimmer because the Mustang is a Consumer Reports top pick

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/28/autos/consumer_reports_ford_mustang/

[the Teuton]

Also, according to Autoblog, some of the exhaust tubes on the Boss are restricted because of noise, etc.

Opening it up would make it hella louder and possibly give it some more power (think Laguna Seca model). That was simply done to make sure it's noise compliant everywhere.

[SVT666]

LMAO!!!

[r0tor]

I can't really take sides on this....

- I would proudly unveil the bs flag for a CAI like the one posted making an additional 40hp.  There are always small gains to be made from a better flowing intake as the factory setup makes compromises for sound.  Now I'm not saying the graphs were falsified, but rather i'd venture to guess the air/fuel ratio was altered from the setup and the engine ran a bit leaner and thus produce a nice power bump.  However, fuel trims will build from the ecu seeing an error in expected afr and the extra power bump will be gone after a few drive cycles.  Aftermarket intake on RX8s were notorious for this.  Swap intake and you make a load of power.  Check back a week later and its almost all gone.

I'm especially skeptical of the charts because its almost a constant gain throughout the rev range.  A decrease in intake restriction will be proportional to flow - so little to no gains down low and most gains higher in the rev range.  Resonance tuning can also Target a specific rev range for added benefit.

For the record, that is a hideous setup for a maf based car unless it has a nice bell mouth hiding under the filter. You need a nice long section of pipe before the maf sensor to get a decent flow number through it.

- CAI generally do zilch for real world fuel economy.  Real world fuel economy is the result of mostly part throttle operation - which means the throttle itself is restricting airflow continuously to control the amount of airflow needed.

-  In most cases exhaust backpressure is not a myth.  In most cases there is overlap between when the intake and exhaust valves open/close which can be tuned over a specific rpm band to improve exhaust scavenging.  Think of the length of exhaust headers as a string on a guitar - it can be tuned to a specific length so it resonates with a certain frequency.  In a header, the length can be varied so the exhaust pulses resonant in a way that it helps draw the exhaust gases out of the cylinder.  Long and more restrictive headers have lower resonance frequencies so they produce better low end power.  Shorter or less restrictive headers will increase power higher in the rev range.  Combine this tuning with specific amounts of valve overlap and you can further enhance the efficiency of filling the cylinder with air on the intake stroke.

Interestingly the RX8 is a complete exception to the rule as there is no port overlap between the intake and exhaust - so power only increases as you remove exhaust parts.

[GoCougs]

February 2011 sales figures:

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

Camaro convertible officially released today.

[GoCougs]

EXACTLY. I've ALWAYS bleated on about the shens of the dyno chassis speed/torque curve showing a consistent scalar quantity of torque increase independent of RPM based upon restriction-decreasing mods. Really, gaining ~30-35 lb-ft throughout the entire curve? Sorry, not happening.

Google the myriad engine dyno test of headers or w/e, and one will plainly see that anything "restricted" related usually only affects the upper end of the RPM range, and then only a fairly narrow RPM range (at least for headers).

[MrH]

Nice concise, but thorough explanations r0tor.  But most of this board doesn't understand that, or have any desire to learn anyways.  It's pointless to even argue.

[FoMoJo]

Yea the Boss def looks cheap. I don't get the Mustang's goofy sticker packages, it's 2011.

Sounds like an excellent car though. Curious to see what it does (if they can get one) for LL2011(12?)

I've always liked the graphics on the 1970 Boss...


better than the 1969.


They seem to have gone with the '69 graphics for the 2012...


Maybe they'll have the '70 style graphics next year.  Anyways, I don't see that it 'looks cheap' for what it is.

[FoMoJo]

-  In most cases exhaust backpressure is not a myth.  In most cases there is overlap between when the intake and exhaust valves open/close which can be tuned over a specific rpm band to improve exhaust scavenging.  Think of the length of exhaust headers as a string on a guitar - it can be tuned to a specific length so it resonates with a certain frequency.  In a header, the length can be varied so the exhaust pulses resonant in a way that it helps draw the exhaust gases out of the cylinder.  Long and more restrictive headers have lower resonance frequencies so they produce better low end power.  Shorter or less restrictive headers will increase power higher in the rev range.  Combine this tuning with specific amounts of valve overlap and you can further enhance the efficiency of filling the cylinder with air on the intake stroke.

Just to clarify - for my better understanding - are you saying that backpressure is not a myth in the sense that it can aid (low end) torque or, backpressure is not a myth in that it does exist - in stock or badly designed manifolds - and inhibits proper scavenging?

[Nethead]

This is the CNN article linked by Mustangfan2003, displayed here so it won't be lost when CNN archives it (as many websites do, and often charge for printing articles from their no-longer-accessible-online archives):

Ford Mustang wins in Consumer Reports Top Picks

The Ford Mustang, including both V6 and V8-powered versions, was Consumer Reports' "Top Pick" in the Sporty Car catergory, only the second American car ever to earn that title.
By Peter Valdes-Dapena, senior writer
February 28, 2011: 2:39 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Consumer Reports annual list of Top Picks for new cars has one particularly surprising winner (no it isn't ) , the Ford Mustang.

Not that the Mustang isn't a good car -- it's been a hit with car critics -- it's just not the type of car normally associated with the not-for-profit consumer advice magazine, famous for its focus on no-nonsense practicality

This is only the second time an American Car has won in the Sporty car category. The last time was when the Ford Focus SVT won in 2004. The magazine has been rating cars since the 1950s but has only been compiling "Top Picks" lists since 1997.

"Ford has really developed the Mustang into a good well-rounded sports car now," said Rik Paul, Consumer Reports' autos editor.

In the past, the Mustang has been famous for its straight-line acceleration, which is still strong, but now it also handles well in the curves and can stop quickly and surely.

With back seats and decent trunk space, it's also a pretty practical choice, said Paul, calling the Mustang "a reasonable daily driver."

The Mustang is offered with a choice of two new engines for the 2011 model year, a 412-horsepower 5.0-liter V8 or a 305 horsepower 3.7-liter V6. Ford also changed both the manual and automatic transmissions for 2011 and made some changes to improve the car's steering and suspension.

Fuel economy -- again, not an American traditional muscle car strong point -- was also a factor in the scoring, said Paul

The Mustang's V6 engine gets 24 miles per gallon in overall driving in Consumer Reports testing when paired with a six-speed manual transmission and it still offers exciting performance, according to the magazine. (The EPA rates the V6 Mustang at 23 mpg overall, and 31 mpg on the highway.)

The V8-equipped Mustang GT gets points for its snarling exhaust sound as well as its "scorching acceleration ," the magazine said.

The magazine did criticize the Mustang for its hard-to-get-into back seats and the trunk's small opening.

American cars have generally had a tough time breaking into the top ranks with Consumer Reports car testers.

This year, the Mustang was one of only two American models to top any of of the Consumer Reports' 10 categories. The other winner was a pick-up truck. American automakers face relatively little foreign competition in that category.

Other categories included "Small car," won by the Hyundai Elantra, "Family Sedan," where the Nissan Altima was the winner, and "Green Car," won by the Toyota Prius.

Last year, the Sporty car segment was won by the Volkswagen GTI, a performance version of the Volkswagen Golf.

Even though most "Top Picks" weren't American cars, Paul suggested shoppers should look at the overall Consumer Reports' rankings because overall American cars rank well.

[omicron]

I've always liked the graphics on the 1970 Boss...


better than the 1969.


They seem to have gone with the '69 graphics for the 2012...


Maybe they'll have the '70 style graphics next year.  Anyways, I don't see that it 'looks cheap' for what it is.

Oh! That would explain where FPV's new stickers came from:

[SVT666]

2013 Shelby GT500 to get 620 HP???
by Drew Johnson

The Shelby GT500 already boasts an impressive 550 horsepower, but Ford isn?t interested in just matching the ZL1?s output. As a result, a new engine is said to be on tap for 2013, generating in excess of 600 horsepower.

According to Car and Driver, Ford will increase the size of the GT500?s motor from 5.4L to 5.8L for the 2013 model year. That displacement increase will also be accompanied by a supercharger swap ? with Ford ditching the current Eaton unit for the same TVS unit found under the hood of the ZL1 ? resulting in a horsepower rating as high as 620.

Given that added power, the GT500?s 0-60 run could dip into the 3 second range, with a 12 second flat ? mile sprint. Flat out the GT500 should be traveling in excess of 190mph.

A few body tweaks are also expected for 2013, but Ford still has plenty of time to work out those design changes. The revised Shelby GT500 is expected to hit the market until late 2013.

[Cookie Monster]

A production Mustang with over 600 hp and a sub 4 0-60 and a 190+ mph top speed is mind blowing.

[SVT666]

A production Mustang with over 600 hp and a sub 4 0-60 and a 190+ mph top speed is mind blowing.

Motor Trend ran the Boss 302 to 60 mph in 3.97 seconds.  That's mostly down to the R compound tires though.  It would never achieve that on the same tires the GT comes with.