2011 Mustang GT power leaked

[fpv_gtho]

Confirmed: 2011 Ford Mustang GT to offer 412-horsepower 5.0-liter V8 — Autoblog (http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/17/2011-ford-mustang-gt-to-offer-412-horsepower-5-0l-v8/)

Perhaps intentionally or just coincidently, its the same specific power as the V6

[Wouter Melissen]

That's very nice. I really liked the 2010 spec Mustang we had at Monterey except for the blatant lack of power.

[coolieman1220]

more teens with too much power!

[culver]

I'm not a teen but I would like a 2011 V8 Mustang. I like the yet again updated styling. The V8 powertrain in the Mustang is seriously nice. Based on Hp numbers I can see how many people weren't that impressed. However, the engine is so smooth and well behaved. The manual shifts nicely. Overall it is easy to fall in love with it even though on paper the old ~300hp motor wasn't that great.

[RacingManiac]

more teens with too much power!

Thats the V6 model's problem....305bhp for the V6 is a lot for a car for teenage cheerleader....

[Ferrer]

It's also quite a lot lighter than its rivals.

I'd be interested if we could somehow buy it.

[LeonOfTheDead]

It's also quite a lot lighter than its rivals.

I'd be interested if we could somehow buy it.

You know you can, somehow.
That said, the gf's neighbor with the pre-update GT isn't aging well. The paint is getting opaque, espeecially the red stripe (main color is silver), and he bought a specific car cover to protect the body. The black plastic parts are also a bit whitish. Will get a look at the interior too.
He recently bought some sort of Caterham too (not exactly the right period of the year...).

[culver]

I wonder if his paint was OEM. Ford in general have been holding up well this decade. I haven't heard about any particular issues with the Mustang. Of course the Mustang would be a very hard sell in Europe. Here we might forgive a bit of the crudeness because it's a nice V8 for $25-30k (well more if you load it up and pay sticker). In Europe, by the time you pay to import it and pay the taxes on the 4.6L V8 you are likely in BMW 335 money. The value part of the equation that makes the car popular over hear is gone.

[Ferrer]

You know you can, somehow.
That said, the gf's neighbor with the pre-update GT isn't aging well. The paint is getting opaque, espeecially the red stripe (main color is silver), and he bought a specific car cover to protect the body. The black plastic parts are also a bit whitish. Will get a look at the interior too.
He recently bought some sort of Caterham too (not exactly the right period of the year...).
I'm not that interested.

I wonder if his paint was OEM. Ford in general have been holding up well this decade. I haven't heard about any particular issues with the Mustang. Of course the Mustang would be a very hard sell in Europe. Here we might forgive a bit of the crudeness because it's a nice V8 for $25-30k (well more if you load it up and pay sticker). In Europe, by the time you pay to import it and pay the taxes on the 4.6L V8 you are likely in BMW 335 money. The value part of the equation that makes the car popular over hear is gone.
Of course I'd consider if it occupied the same market as it does in the US. Not as an alternative to a 300bhp BMW.

[LeonOfTheDead]

I wonder if his paint was OEM. Ford in general have been holding up well this decade. I haven't heard about any particular issues with the Mustang. Of course the Mustang would be a very hard sell in Europe. Here we might forgive a bit of the crudeness because it's a nice V8 for $25-30k (well more if you load it up and pay sticker). In Europe, by the time you pay to import it and pay the taxes on the 4.6L V8 you are likely in BMW 335 money. The value part of the equation that makes the car popular over hear is gone.

I think it is an OEM paint, he also ordered a second set of wheels and those are OEM as well. Not sure on the supercharger he should have installed last year. I'm not even sure he has one, but the sound tells me a different story.

[Kitdy]

Not as an alternative to a 300bhp BMW.

High pressure fuel pump failures.

[Ferrer]

High pressure fuel pump failures.
Not as an alternative to a 320bhp Datsun.

[culver]

I think it is an OEM paint, he also ordered a second set of wheels and those are OEM as well. Not sure on the supercharger he should have installed last year. I'm not even sure he has one, but the sound tells me a different story.

I don't think there was a factory supercharger in '05. I think '06 was the first year for the factory Roots blower. That was part of the 500GT Cobra. Otherwise the car would have a factory NA motor. I ask about the paint because it wouldn't be at all uncommon for a middle man/dealer/importer to add the stripes to the car. In the US many cars from many brands get stuck with aftermarket, dealer added parts. One of the first parts to go out on my old Corolla was the cruise control. Since the cruise was dealer added, vs Toyota added I can't blame Toyota for the failure short of blaming them for allowing a dealer to install a crappy aftermarket unit on a new car.

[LeonOfTheDead]

I don't think there was a factory supercharger in '05. I think '06 was the first year for the factory Roots blower. That was part of the 500GT Cobra. Otherwise the car would have a factory NA motor. I ask about the paint because it wouldn't be at all uncommon for a middle man/dealer/importer to add the stripes to the car. In the US many cars from many brands get stuck with aftermarket, dealer added parts. One of the first parts to go out on my old Corolla was the cruise control. Since the cruise was dealer added, vs Toyota added I can't blame Toyota for the failure short of blaming them for allowing a dealer to install a crappy aftermarket unit on a new car.

He would have added the supercharger in 2008, if there is a supercharger in first place.
The stripes could really have been added by the dealer/importer/himself given we get limited choice on imported cars, so a personalization touch would be expected. The black plastic rear view mirrors are surely OEM though, but it may even be because of a treatment he gave them.
I remember my father once bought a cleaning product which actually made a mess of the plastic parts, but we managed to remove it.

[Kitdy]

Not as an alternative to a 320bhp Datsun.

Well played. I was just screwing with you though.

[fpv_gtho]

Apparently it'll have 390 lb/ft torque Update: 2011 Ford Mustang GT features 412 hp/390 lb-ft 5.0 V8 (http://www.leftlanenews.com/leaked-2011-ford-mustang-gt-features-412-horsepower-5-0-v8.html)

[Rasmus]

You know you can, somehow.
That said, the gf's neighbor with the pre-update GT isn't aging well. The paint is getting opaque, espeecially the red stripe (main color is silver), and he bought a specific car cover to protect the body. The black plastic parts are also a bit whitish. Will get a look at the interior too.
He recently bought some sort of Caterham too (not exactly the right period of the year...).

It really depends on the owner, but that applies to any car. Example: The gf's 06 GT has over 60k miles on it, has always been parked outside in the sun, yet have no faded plastic bits. I can honestly say I haven't seen any S197 with major signs of UV damage to either paint nor plastic. The previous model years are somewhat bad at it though.

Ford factory stripes are vinyl, and they're rubbish. Most GT500 owners opt to have them removed and painted on instead. The vinyl has a tendency to crack.

The 2011 will have the same block as the 2005 and up, but the heads are all new -- as mentioned they are 4v. Also, the new crank is forged. I have a feeling it's because the went with more stroke instead of bigger bore. Hopefully they will have done something with the rods, which so far have been a major weak point for most enthusiasts.

[fpv_gtho]

Its not a carryover block. The bore spacing i think is the same, but both the 4.6L and 5L are essentially square bore/stroke.

[Kitdy]

Merry Christmas everyone, happy leaking!

It sure looks nice. I don't really see how Ford can screw this up. The GT is gonna make the Camaro and Challenger look completely pointless.

EDIT: Second photo added.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Am I the only one thinking the V6 looks better?

[Ferrer]

Don't they look about the same except for some badges?

[G35COUPE]

I have a friend who drags his 2009 GT every weekend during racing season, and i am impressed at how almost bullet proof the GT has become--very reliable. The Mustang GT is a great car. if i had the money, i would get one. You can't go wrong with the GT. Lets wait and see how the V-6 would hold up.

FORD's bold moves these days, is impressing the heck out of me.

[culver]

Am I the only one thinking the V6 looks better?

If you mean the sedan I could see it. If you mean motor... nope can't see that.

[Niko_Fx]

Gotta wait and see what they will sell for, right now some dealers are trying to sell 2010 GTs fully loaded for $40k which is a total joke...

A monster without a doubt though, I should go back and search for posts in UCP where people comment about the horsepower wars being over... sorry guys, not in here, not in Europe, not in Japan..

[fpv_gtho]

Deep Dive: Ford's all-new 5.0 V8 — Autoblog (http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/28/deep-dive-fords-all-new-5-0-v8/)

Heaps of other sites are reporting more in-depth on the engine now as well.

[john14]

Wouter makes a good point in relation to the 2010 spec Mustang lacking power but the new Mustang's output of 412 hp/390 lb-ft from a 5.0 V8 sounds exciting.

[LeonOfTheDead]

If you mean the sedan I could see it. If you mean motor... nope can't see that.

I mean only the look. I prefer the V6's single headlights.

[G35COUPE]

I read a bit about the new engine and I have my little concerns here.

The article says, "As any good athlete will tell you, the key to performance is respiration – get the air in and the exhaust out. When it comes to airflow, the best approach is a straight shot. Anytime the flow has to change direction it slows down. Ideally you also want the largest possible orifice to deliver air with minimal restriction."

My concern with this article is that the best approach to airflow isn't necessarily a straightshot. This is a useless comment. What about the temperature and humditiy of the air flowing into the combustion chambers? Are the writers of that article blind to that? How has FORD addressed the air charge temperatures relative to the new single barrel throttle body? Overly hot air will equally reduce the power produced by this engine, in the same way a restricted intake can.

And by the way, the largest possible orifice is not necessarily the best type of orifice. What good is a large air orifice if the engine block is unable to efficiently consume all that air efficiently???????????? In fact, i suspect this straightshot approach is why this car produces all its torque at a meager 4,000 rpm.

And then the article suggests that anytime air changes direction, then it potentially slows down. I disagree with them here. The Infiniti G37 with a 3.7 litre engine actually uses air that swirls (constantly changing direction) violently, to make 330 horsepower. This sort of air is called a vortex. A good cool and consistent vortex, even with a small orifice, can be as effective as a large orifice designed to be a straight shot.

The article also states, "On the new 5.0, the alternator has been moved down to the side of the block leaving the valley completely unencumbered for a large 80mm single-barrel throttle body."

My beleif here is that in attempts to make more power, the alternator has now been moved to a position where it may potentially accumulate more heat and thus reduced reliability. I think the dual barrel throttle barrel should have been left alone with the alternator, and reworked with other ingenuities to create a faster moving air using the same size throttle body bore.

The article also suggests, "Even without using direct injection, Ford was still able to achieve an impressive 11:1 compression ratio while allowing the engine to still run on regular gas. According to Harrison, a lot of effort was expended on the engine management system. The adaptive spark control system keeps the engine running right on the knock sensor all the time, continuously adjusting the spark advance to avoid detonation regardless of the fuel used. The control system has a high bandwidth air-fuel control algorithm to make sure that it's both responsive and efficient. The 5.0 has also benefited from work done on the Fusion Hybrid by incorporating aggressive deceleration fuel shut-off. Whenever the throttle is released, fuel flow is shut off completely to improve efficiency."

There are many cars out there without direct injection that produce at least 10.3 to 11.0 to 1 compression ratios. However, most of them use premium gas to run. With the adaptive spark system they are using, I am fearful that when such a system fails, it may not be apparent to a driver flogging their car on regular gas and thus, a possible engine knock as a result of the high compression ratios. Even if a sensor is measuring this adaptive knock system for potential failures, will the owner of the vehicle even consider or think of using premium gas as a way to forestall potential failure, assuming they know nothing about cars????????????

I won't even consider putting regular gas into this car, even if FORD said so, given its very high compression ratios.

The article also says, "While torque peaks at 4,000 rpm, it's well above 300 pound-feet throughout most of the rpm range. The redline of the 5.0 has also been moved up an extra 500 rpm compared to the prior 4.6-liter to a full 7,000 rpm, and judging by the curves we were shown, it will probably be worth using all of them."

For daily driving, the torque distribution maybe okay. For spirited and race related driving, most of that torque should go to the top end at about 5,000 rpm or more. This means, at some point, after market air intakes will help to shift the torque curve to higher rpm ranges.

I also get the feeling the gearing of this car maybe taller gears from 1-3 and shorter ones from 4 - 6. I maybe wrong.

As far as i am concerned, the 4.6 litre engine has proved itself to be reliable. At least i know someone who flogs that engine in severe ways on a drag strip and it holds up pretty well. Lets wait and see how this new engine holds up. I actually thought FORD would use the same engine design of the 4.6 litre engine on this new design. For this, I shall adopt a wait and see and approach.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Yes, air slows down when facing any sort of change in direction, it's fluid dynamics and you can't argue about it. What vortex is about is mixing air and fuel, not about speed. With more speed, more air enters the cylinder, and with more air you can use more fuel, if looking for more performance, or less, if you're looking on a better mileage.
Given the low viscosity of gasoline, the mixture of air and fuel is ensured even just during the compression process unlike in a diesel engine where a much higher pressure is required. A good vortex surely helps, but it's a different aspect, and it's something you get mainly with the direction you give to the air when entering into the cylinder or in the last part of the intake.
Related to this, a large orifice is always a good thing, as air is "free" and the more it enters into the cylinder, the more fuel you're allowed to use, if you want. A high air speed and a good vortes will help you use that air, but even if you don't use it, no harm done.

Regarding air humidity and temperature changes, that has nothing to do with what it was wrote in the article, as they would affect even a twisted intake. More specifically, a variation in humidity will affect a twisted intake to a larger effect, as it would slow down the air even more. Temperature would have a similar effect, just smaller.
Once again, fluid dynamics.

Regarding the possibility of knocking, that would be the case also in any other engine, if the system monitoring it fails, and even if it doesn't, there are sensors just to check of knocking is taking place or not, regardless of everything else. as a safe check.

Last but not least, I can't see how having a good percentage of the peak torque distributed on the whole revs range can hurt during spirited driving or even racing.
As far as I can see having say 250 pound-feet during the whole time is better than just having even 350 during only a 1.000 revs range and 200 or less for the rest of the time, as it would be very easy to get the revs wrong and slow down excessively. You'd need to use the gearbox much more often, and slow down even more.
On the other hand, given the engine will generate the same amount of power, having more torque at higher revs and less at lower revs would mean having a more nervous engine, which even if it sounds racing it doesn't mean it will be any faster or better performing.
The V8 use by Corvette in GT racing has a nice and flat torque curve, the V8 of the Saleen is even better from this point of view, and when the otherwise more powerful screamer V12 from the Maserati was running on air restrictors to generate the same power (sort of), the two American cars had a clear advantage thanks to having more torque at lower revs.

Eventually, ask Rasmus about the reliability of the GT engine when raced.

[G35COUPE]

My good friend, a vortex is air flowing under turbulent conditions which means the air is deliberately being fooled to change directions on its path, and thus gain tremendous acceleration at its outer layers, while its inner core remains relatively slow, as it finds its way into combustion chamber. Think about Tornados--thats how they work. By direction, if you mean the twists in the air intake baffles and piping, then i agree with you. But if you mean, twisting the air itself, then i disagree with you. So, there are two types of directional changes both of us may be implying here.

Secondly, the heat transfer and thermodynamic properties of air going into the combustion chamber is as important as the fluid dynamic characteristics of the air itself. The article focuses on the fluid dynamics of the air charge and neglects the heat transfer and thermodynamic properties of that air charge. Most of all, whether you agree or not, the temperature of an air charge has a significant effect on the amount of power a performance car produces, whether NA or turboed/supercharged, especially after a few moments of hard driving. Ever heard of ethanol/water injection or ever heard of intercoolers in turbos/superchargers? Why do you think they are sometimes used---to cool the air charge?

I have also found that the larger the orifice, does not imply the better useage of the air charge. In fact, in a thermodynamically poor design, the larger the air charge, the larger the amount of hot air one maybe introducing into the engine, which may end up knocking that engine. So, the idea of larger orificies, is a very relative concept.

In my opinion, finding ways to cool the air charge rather than making the intake and throttle body larger, would have been just as effective with this new engine.


Rasmus's car is turboed, IIRC. So, I can't speak for the reliability of a turboed GT engine. My coments are geared towards an NA GT engine which i see all the time.

[Ferrer]

For daily driving, the torque distribution maybe okay. For spirited and race related driving, most of that torque should go to the top end at about 5,000 rpm or more. This means, at some point, after market air intakes will help to shift the torque curve to higher rpm ranges.
To echo Damiano's post.

My old car had peak torque at 4,000rpm and it redlined at 6,750rpm. And the engine was still lovable and the car a riot to drive.

[LeonOfTheDead]

My good friend, a vortex is air flowing under turbulent conditions which means the air is deliberately being fooled to change directions on its path, and thus gain tremendous acceleration at its outer layers, while its inner core remains relatively slow, as it finds its way into combustion chamber. Think about Tornados--thats how they work. By direction, if you mean the twists in the air intake baffles and piping, then i agree with you. But if you mean, twisting the air itself, then i disagree with you. So, there are two types of directional changes both of us may be implying here.

Turbulence implies the air changing direction in an "uncontrolled" way, generally, even if there are designed turbulences used to fulfill many aspects of an engine, as with what's happens in each cylinder. The variations in direction helps the fuel and the air to mix together. In order to change direction, everything, air included, must be subject to an acceleration, but it isn't linear.
When running a circle at constant speed, you're subject to an acceleration towards the center of the circle, but your speed isn't changing.
Having a vortex of almost any sort of turbulence in the intake is just pointless as, in order to get the energy to change the direction of the air, you have to diminish the linear speed of the air on its main path.
You have a given energy available, and every variation will reduce it. I can't see the point of having a turbulence in the intake, what you may want is to adjust the air direction when approaching the cylinder, or to face a certain section, bent or obstacle with a certain angle, but that's not turbulence, and will surely diminish the speed of the air nonetheless (hopefully providing a benefit rather than if facing the part of the intake without modifying the air's direction).
It may be helpful to have a controlled turbulence in a indirect injection engine after fuel is injected in the intake, but once again, as gasoline has a low viscosity, it isn't required, and it's better to have instead an higher speed of the air entering the cylinder, so to have more air available for the next cycle.
Once the air is in the cylinder, given it has a lot of kinetic energy which isn't required anymore, the idea is to convert it to generate mainly three different turbulent flows, so to mix air and fuel and even more importantly to generate the desired disposition of the mixture related to the spark.

Just like in a tornado, the air is going extremely fast, but on a circular path, which isn't helpful in an intake manifold. You'd prefer the air to stay as linear, in direction, as possible, instead of converting a part of its air to generate a turbulence which isn't required in first place.
Once in the cylinder, it's relatively the other way round.

That said, adding whatever sort of obstacle, being a reduction in cross section or a bent in the intake, always reduce the speed of the fluid. Air, in this case. So having the straightest air intake is really helpful.



Secondly, the heat transfer and thermodynamic properties of air going into the combustion chamber is as important as the fluid dynamic characteristics of the air itself. The article focuses on the fluid dynamics of the air charge and neglects the heat transfer and thermodynamic properties of that air charge. Most of all, whther you agree or not, the temperature of an air charge has a significant effect on the amount of power a performance car produces, whether NA or turboed/supercharged, especially after a few moments of hard driving. Ever heard of ethanol/water injection or ever heard of intercoolers in turbos/superchargers?????? Why do you think they are sometimes used---for fun or to cool the air charge??????????????

Just because they stress how important the design of the intake was during the project it doesn't mean they don't know the basic laws of thermodynamics. As I suggested, having a straight and fast path for the air in the intake helps diminishing some aspects of having a too hot or humid air. The, even if they both concur to the final performance, having cool air or humid air isn't something related to the design of the intake. Having a twisted intake wouldn't help in a very humid climate, as I suggested before it would actually be first.
This has actually nothing to do with the combustion, as we are talking about the intake, right now the engine could even not exist, and the intake would still be a good one, even without the combustion. Of course having cool and dry air is a good thing, and of course adopting some measures to keep the temperature and the humidity low if possible is a good idea too, but it doesn't mean having a straight intake is a bad thing, at all.

It actually sounds like you're nitpicking only to praise once again the Infiniti G, as if it was the best car ever. Not saying it isn't good, but it makes me wonder if you actually know something about other cars too.


Rasmus's car is turboed, IIRC. So, I can't speak for the reliability of a turboed GT engine. My coments are geared towards an NA GT engine which i see all the time.

Given you often call into the discussion after market parts, that goes to show you the GT engine didn't like them much, even when done properly by someone who knows what he is doing, mostly. It doesn't imply it isn't a reliable engine, but I'd definitely expect something more from a 4.6 engine pulling "just" 300 bhp when stock and installed on a car which is almost "designed" to be tuned, as it seems a lot of customers and enthusiast do and which should something the OEM designers should take into calculation in order to avoid a bad reputation, even when it isn't entirely their fault.
Surely drag racing isn't a healthy activity though.

[G35COUPE]

The FORD 4.6 litre V-8 NA, is a tried and true engine. If I were FORD, i would have stuck with the most of the 4.6 litre engine design while expanding the engine to 5.0 litres. I am a FORD GT fan because i have seen it perform flawlessly. And as for Infiniti or Nissan, their VQ engine is tried and true. All they did was increase its volume with each passing year until they could not increase it any further. So, i am not biased about other cars. I just have things i look for when i see other cars. And when they are missing, i tend to point them out.

As for the intake system and how they collect and behave with air in them, I will go no further in belaboring the earlier points I have made, which i stand on.

[ThisBlood147]

Am I the only one thinking the V6 looks better?

No, it's just that the bright red looks horrible on this car. Yet Ford keeps using it to advertise the damn thing. This generation of Mustang looks so much better in darker colors.

EDIT: And for the record my supercharged 05 GT makes 160 hp over stock without any aftermarket internal engine modifications. I've beaten the crap out of this car both at the track and on the street....and it has yet to yield a single failure. If you're going to install a forced induction setup on ANY car without doing your homework, you can't be surprised when it proves short-lived.

I can't speak for how well the 2011 GT will hold up to FI modifications, but it sounds like it's going to be a very nicely balanced car in stockish form.

[f6fhellcat13]

The FORD 4.6 litre V-8 NA, is a tried and true engine. If I were FORD, i would have stuck with the most of the 4.6 litre engine design while expanding the engine to 5.0 litres. I am a FORD GT fan because i have seen it perform flawlessly. And as for Infiniti or Nissan, their VQ engine is tried and true. All they did was increase its volume with each passing year until they could not increase it any further. So, i am not biased about other cars. I just have things i look for when i see other cars. And when they are missing, i tend to point them out.
The 4.6 makes relatively low specific power and is also somewhat outdated. So starting off with an all new aluminum block DOHC and all other manner of newfangled technology lets them create a much more competent engine. You cannot just use the same engine forever nor is the new 5.0 somehow wrong, no matter how verbose you get.

Also "Ford" is a name, not an acronym.

[Kitdy]

The 4.6 makes relatively low specific power and is also somewhat outdated. So starting off with an all new aluminum block DOHC and all other manner of newfangled technology lets them create a much more competent engine. You cannot just use the same engine forever nor is the new 5.0 somehow wrong, no matter how verbose you get.

Also "Ford" is a name, not an acronym.

The fancier words you use, the better your argument. I'm in Liberal Arts, so I know how it works.

I was also wondering about FORD - maybe Found on Road Dead? Who knows.

G35, did you ever go to school for any kind of engineering or anything?

What is your profession?

[whiteballz]

Fix Or Repair Daily, Found on Rubbish Dump.. ad infinium.

G35 is a road racer. The last of his kind, striking out against the man.

[fpv_gtho]

The 5L and 4.6L share deck height and bore spacing. It apparently allows alot of carryover tooling in the production process, and also shortens development time significantly.

[G35COUPE]

fix or repair daily, found on rubbish dump.. Ad infinium.

G35 is a road racer. The last of his kind, striking out against the man.

lol! :d

[G35COUPE]

The fancier words you use, the better your argument. I'm in Liberal Arts, so I know how it works.

I was also wondering about FORD - maybe Found on Road Dead? Who knows.

G35, did you ever go to school for any kind of engineering or anything?

What is your profession?

Nope, i have not gone to school for engineering. After upgrading my two cars very carefully and helping a friend upgrade their own cars, and doing some research, and after working at some point in time at a parts store where i see different parts and engine designs daily, somethings just jump out at you. GM to me, is the worst culprit of stupid and incongrous designs. Of course, with lousy car owner's, an already bad car, becomes worse---I have seen many people using normal radiator fluid (green type) in GM cars/trucks when they should be using the orange Dexcool radiator fluid. I found that most Ford cars are far more reliable than their SUVs and trucks. Beleive me, GM cars cannot touch Ford cars in terms of reliability---why older Chevy Malibu engine constantly has head gasket and cooling problems before it reaches 100,000 miles, is still a mystery to me---many Chevy Malibu engines have quit--pay attention to your temperature guage if you have a Chevy Malibu.

How Ford got its bad name, is still a surprise to me. I suspect one or two years of badly produced cars caused them their reputation. I beleive Toyota now has the same problem as well. Honda is the only Japanese company that I know which uses the thinnest fluids in their engine and transmissions---these days they use 5W-20 in their engines and 5W-30 in their manual transmissions. For this, Honda is the only Japanese car i see all the time with lots of oil leaks around their valve cover gaskets, pcv valves, and all over their engine etc. But they run very well, anyways. Never use a 10W-40 in any Honda engine--it may work for a while but that car won't run right at some point---at most, stick with or upgrade to a 5w-30. As for VW cars, cooling problem issues is the one thing I have seen consistently that plagues their cars.

If you use a Ford truck/car stick with Motorcraft spark plugs. If you use GM car/truck, stick with AC Delco spark plugs. If you use Nissan or Toyota and Honda, stick with NGK spark plugs. This is partuclarly so for Nissans which may give you a headache if you use or swithc to any other brand. If your car calls for copper electrodes, stick with them. If your car calls for platinum electrodes, stick with them. If your car calls for Iridium electrodes, stick with them. Iridium spark plugs are the most expensive (between $6 - $8 a piece) ---don't skimp on them or else, you will see the result of your cheap ways when you go and fail your annual emissions tests. If you pass emissions test with the wrong spark plugs, then you are lucky.

Seafoam, the fuel treatment cleaner, is the best thing you can pour into your gas tank, twice a year. The car literally comes alive---more power while the car wants to always be on the go.


You may not beleive this, my 1.6 litre B13 with a small air intake, is by far more efficient in using intake air than a G-35 does. Surprisingly, i also found that engine redline, is not just a function of engine reliability as much as it is a function of how the engine will efficiently use the air going into the combustion chamber throughout the rpm range. You can make a car rev past the redline easily without doing damage to it, only if you can make the car use the air efficiently. I also found that anything, both fancy or practical, that obstructs the free flow of air in front of the car's radiator, is a slow engine and parts killer. Most of what the manufacturers set in most production cars are based on normal useage--many of it can be changed if care is taken in doing so. Even the ECU can be fooled to think that the car is passing emissions when in fact it is not--there are ways to do this. I have learnt so many more about cars and their quirks. Most of all, I have learnt that it is the small stuff in cars that kills the big stuff. In addition, while you drive, pay attention to every signal or output the car is giving out beyond what the ECU is saying---it can help save your engine.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Fix Or Repair Daily, Found on Rubbish Dump.. ad infinium.

G35 is a road racer. The last of his kind, striking out against the man.

wasn't that Mad Max?!

[ThisBlood147]

The new pony at gallop:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlR8hbpkHkw

[Badsight]

the more a member here posts , the less it seems he knows

prehaps he has a mechanic as a neighbor , or ex-mechanic as a workmate . would explain his simple minded annecdotes that are part baloney when talking performance

[G35COUPE]

i agree. the haters of the world are numerous and plentiful. :)

[Equinox]

Thanks for posting the video. Whats up with the side view mirrors, and the little notch in the upper corner?

[ThisBlood147]

Thanks for posting the video. Whats up with the side view mirrors, and the little notch in the upper corner?

Looks like they added some small wide angle mirrors to the corners.

[ThisBlood147]

Pricing for the 2011 Mustang gets leaked/released:

http://www.muscularmustangs.com/2010/news0305_2011_mustang_prices.php

And on the tuner side of things, Shelby has gone ahead and built a new suit to wear the GT350 badge:

2011 Ford Shelby GT350 - First Look, Photos and Video - Motor Trend (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_1003_2011_ford_shelby_gt350/index.html)

[wwgkd]

Pricing for the 2011 Mustang gets leaked/released:

2011 Ford Mustang GT and V6 Pricing Released (http://www.muscularmustangs.com/2010/news0305_2011_mustang_prices.php)

And on the tuner side of things, Shelby has gone ahead and built a new suit to wear the GT350 badge:

2011 Ford Shelby GT350 - First Look, Photos and Video - Motor Trend (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_1003_2011_ford_shelby_gt350/index.html)

They couldn't make the GT $495 cheaper to claim it's under $30,000?

The GT350 looks pretty sweet. I definitely like it better that the GT500.

[ThisBlood147]

They couldn't make the GT $495 cheaper to claim it's under $30,000?

The GT350 looks pretty sweet. I definitely like it better that the GT500.

It's actually just under 29K. But most sites quote MSRP with the $850 destination fee included.......which pushes the price up over 30K. Really, that's not bad considering that the 315 hp 4.6 GT went for 28K. So for 2K more........you get almost 100 more horsies and a much more impressive drivetrain (5.0 DOHC V8 and 6 speed gearbox). :D

[roosterjuicer]

It's also quite a lot lighter than its rivals.
.

thats the scary part for the camaro lovers in the room. we've been able to make up for the weight by having over 100 more horsepower than the mustang...what are we gonna do? (lord knows GM wont make the camaro any lighter)

the camaro ss also starts in the low 30's I think.

ls7 equipped z28 model perhaps???

[ThisBlood147]

ls7 equipped z28 model perhaps???
Supposed to be an LSA equipped Z28......if they actually give it the green light. It'll likely have power and pricing right on par with the current GT500.

[Kitdy]

thats the scary part for the camaro lovers in the room. we've been able to make up for the weight by having over 100 more horsepower than the mustang...what are we gonna do? (lord knows GM wont make the camaro any lighter)

the camaro ss also starts in the low 30's I think.

ls7 equipped z28 model perhaps???

It still wouldn't be as good/fun to drive as the new 5L I'd wager.

Stick with your 4th gen.

[wwgkd]

It still wouldn't be as good/fun to drive as the new 5L I'd wager.

Stick with your 4th gen.

I was pretty impressed with what the '10 GT with the track pack did during Car and Driver's "Lightning Lap" test at VIR. Out ran the GT500 through the corners, just didn't have the power to compete on the straights. Also beat the Genesis coupe by several seconds, but in it's defense the coupe was an auto. And managed not to crash into the guard rail at high speed, so it has an edge over the Nismo 370Z there.

I've alsways been interested in a GT with the 5.0 "Cammer" crate engine that Ford racing's been selling since it would keep the better weight distribution of the GT while getting a considerable bump in power. This new Coyote engine seems to be putting out fairly identical numbers, so maybe Ford just decided to build my idea.

[ThisBlood147]

Interesting....

Mustang Power! We Dyno the 2011 Ford Mustang 5.0 V-8 and 3.7 V-6 - Wide Open Throttle - Motor Trend Magazine (http://wot.motortrend.com/6659607/auto-news/mustang-power-we-dyno-the-2011-ford-mustang-50-v-8-and-37-v-6/page4.html#comments)

[Ferrer]

Also,

Unofficial drag test puts 2011 Mustang GT ahead of Camaro SS in eighth-mile showdown — Autoblog (http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/28/unofficial-drag-test-puts-2011-mustang-gt-ahead-of-camaro-ss-in/)

[ThisBlood147]

Also,

Unofficial drag test puts 2011 Mustang GT ahead of Camaro SS in eighth-mile showdown — Autoblog (http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/28/unofficial-drag-test-puts-2011-mustang-gt-ahead-of-camaro-ss-in/)

About what I'm expecting as far as acceleration numbers go (Mustang being a few tenths faster than the Camaro). I'm just curious as to whether the new GT will maintain the litheness that the 2010 model had. If it does it will have the offer the best all around package of the 3 pony rides on the market.

[Kitdy]

The Mustang's only problem - and this is more for those that want to take it to the circuit instead of the track - is that it's a live axle. This may well be changed on the next model however.

[ThisBlood147]

The Mustang's only problem - and this is more for those that want to take it to the circuit instead of the track - is that it's a live axle. This may well be changed on the next model however.

It doesn't make as big a difference on this car as you'd think. The only tradeoff with this new Mustang is ride comfort. It doesn't hinder cornering performance in the least. I've had my 05 on some pretty rough twisties in my area, and she swings and bobs like a champ.

[Kitdy]

Well, I would figure there is some disadvantage to having a live axle or other sports cars would use it, so I say it does probably does hinder performance.

Not to devalue your contribution, but I have to take an assessment of any car's performance by the car's owner with a grain of salt due to bias.

[ThisBlood147]

Well, I would figure there is some disadvantage to having a live axle or other sports cars would use it, so I say it does probably does hinder performance.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm saying that it wouldn't perform better if it had IRS. I'm simply stating that having the live axle isn't as big a liability as one would think. If I can have my GT with IRS at the same price and without a substantial weight increase then I'm all for it.


Not to devalue your contribution, but I have to take an assessment of any car's performance by the car's owner with a grain of salt due to bias.

Well I'm not one to over-inflate my car's capabilities......I'm well aware of its limits. I know it's no Lotus Exige. I've been behind the wheel of smaller, more maneuverable cars, and I don't feel that my GT is so far behind as to say it is a stone aged horse buggy. If it couldn't zip around the twisties without giving me heart failure then I wouldn't be touting its handling capabilities. My only point is that this live axle Mustang is just as capable (if not moreso) than either of its two segment V8 competitors. There has been many a comparo between the three cars that backs up this GT owner's claims.

[Kitdy]

But the Mustang has a new competitor with with an optional IRS - the Genesis Coupe.

The Coupe however doesn't have the cool factor that the Mustang does, and it's a Hyundai so even though it's a great car it may be harder for it to gain acceptance in the market.

[Ferrer]

It is selling quite well though, isn't it?

[culver]

The proof is in the pudding. In this case the pudding is reported to be pretty darn good.

For the most part the LRA in the Mustang is a handicap. I can't really think of any way save for cost and high power drag launches in which it is better than a decent IRS. With the IRS you can run some rear caster and toe. You also cut down the unsprung weight. Heck, you even gain some interior space.

Now the question is what would the Mustang be like had Ford gone IRS? How much extra would it cost the customer? How much extra would it cost Ford? I suspect the LRA cost savings was somewhat split with the customer. If Ford had to increase the cost what would it do to Mustang sales numbers? I'm certain the Mustang would handle better with IRS, the question is how much better? Would it be worth it?

Hard to say. Still, with the Mustang Ford has shown that the check boxes on a list of "correct technology" only goes so far. What often maters more is the details. Ford seems to have sweated those details quite nicely.

I also noticed the $30k price. Does anyone know what kind of increase this would be over the current V8 car? It seems to me, perhaps do to the newest round of CAFE stupidity, that Ford want's to get some of the people who might have skipped the 200hp V6 in favor of the old V8 to saddle up to a new V6. Given how fast even the V6 Mustang would be, for the first time I would actually consider a Mustang that didn't have a V8 (the 1980s Turbo Mustangs being an exception).

[Kitdy]

How much extra would it cost Ford?

98 dollars per car apparently (http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/22/report-s197-ford-mustang-could-have-had-independent-rear-suspen/).

[pimento]

According to that article it cost Ford $98 per car to retain the live axle.. If only there was a Ford product somewhere in the world that's built on a RWD platform that has IRS that they could have leveraged... Hmm (http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/3722/Ford-FG-Falcon-FPV-GT.html).

[ThisBlood147]

To this day I have a hard time believing that Ford is actually spending more money to keep what is generally a cheaper alternative to IRS. There may have been costs associated with the last minute change to the SRA on the pre-build 05's back in 04......but I can't see them charging more for older tech even today. I'm sure those change over costs have long since dissipated, otherwise I see no reason why they wouldn't have changed over to IRS by now. The stigma has always been that keeping the SRA until the 2014 redesign was a matter of keeping costs and weight down on the current model.

Guess I could be wrong though.

[fpv_gtho]

The SRA was to get a lower rear floor, so that it could remain a 4 seater car. Ford US and Ford AUS were working on a common IRS to be used between Mustang, Falcon and Territory, but parts of the geometry needed to be higher for Territory and lower for Mustang to keep the necessary rear room. The program ran out of time and one of the senior bosses got fed up with it all.

[Ferrer]

I don't think the LRA detracts from the Mustang. Would it be better with IRS? Probably, but then again the point of the Mustang is to offer a bit of fun, bang for buck and this sort of thing. And I think it does it quite well right now, especially with the new engines.

[ThisBlood147]

First Drive: 2011 Ford Mustang GT changes the game — Autoblog (http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/29/2011-ford-mustang-gt-first-drive/#continued)
Sounds pretty good to me. I may have found something that I'd actually be willing to part with my hotrodded 05 for.:cool:

[wwgkd]

I don't think the LRA detracts from the Mustang. Would it be better with IRS? Probably, but then again the point of the Mustang is to offer a bit of fun, bang for buck and this sort of thing. And I think it does it quite well right now, especially with the new engines.

This. I don't believe Ford would be selling the LRA for more than IRS.

Also, to everyone who says that the mustang can't handle because of the LRA, check recent SCCA results, and I think you'll find the mustang doing quite well. For a comparison of the Genisis coupe and Mustang same day, same track totally stock check the recent lightning lap times from car and driver where the 315hp Mustang was almost 5 seconds a lap faster. Sure, it would probably be better with the IRS, but it's not like it's trying to run on one leg without.

[culver]

To this day I have a hard time believing that Ford is actually spending more money to keep what is generally a cheaper alternative to IRS. There may have been costs associated with the last minute change to the SRA on the pre-build 05's back in 04......but I can't see them charging more for older tech even today. I'm sure those change over costs have long since dissipated, otherwise I see no reason why they wouldn't have changed over to IRS by now. The stigma has always been that keeping the SRA until the 2014 redesign was a matter of keeping costs and weight down on the current model.

Guess I could be wrong though.

I would tend to agree with this.

A few more points:
-We don't really know what the facts were when Ford made this choice. In retrospect someone can say, "hey, the real cost would have been X". However, what did the company know at the time. It's possible the real cost wasn't really possible to know at the time. If the cost was based on a set of assumptions whose probability of coming true was low or unknown then perhaps it was more for the sake of project cost safety rather than cost alone that lead to the use of the solid axle.

-We don't know what issues were involved with using an IRS. My assumptions about IRS having more interior space do presume some level of "good fit" between the IRS used at the car. If you look at the Fox body Mustangs with IRS you can see a system that didn't live up to the full promise of IRS due to the compromise of having to bolt onto the existing chassis. It is possible that the compromises needed to use the Falcon IRS were rather large thus Ford would have ended up with a so-so IRS vs the, forgive the term, very good live axle on the current car.

-Let's assume the $100 number is correct. So what does this number really mean? First, let's assume that this would buy a suspension that is in fact superior to the live axle. It would seem based on the Mustang vs Dodge comparison (not truly apples to apples) that the live axle of the Mustang is better than the IRS of the Dodge. So ignoring that, what cost whom $100. If this is $100 onto the sticker price of the car well that's would be worth it IMHO. But if this is $100 extra in part costs only then the customer price might be much higher. I figure the manufacturing price estimate would make for a worst case. In this case we still have to pay the extra R&D costs of the IRS system (probably not that much more than the IRS). We have to assume that the Mustang IRS ends up not being able to piggy back on the Falcon's system (it often happens when what was supposed to be common turns bespoke). We then need to ask how does $100 parts affect the price of the car. Well does the IRS cost more to assemble? If so that adds to the price (perhaps that was included). What's the multiplier between added manufacturing cost vs added MSRP. In some cases it's 10:1. Let's just assume it's 5:1 which is likely quite realistic. So now we added $500 to the price of the car. This isn't $500 worth of high margin paint protection, this is $500 of real total costs that can't really be trimmed. So now what does an added $500 in transaction price do to sales volume? Does the benefit of an IRS offset the loss in sales due to the higher price?

-Is that number even right? In general the auto press is probably better informed than most. However, I specifically argued with a MT tech editor who didn't understand how the Corvette leaf spring worked. His description of the system was flat wrong and claimed that lifting the left side would force the right side down and this act in a fashion that was opposite the way it really works. So here is someone who is supposed to understand these things getting it flat wrong. My point? Do we know if the $100 number is creditable?

-It is possible that Ford screwed up and they really could have delivered for little cost in the long run. It appears that when Europe was moved to the Mk2 Focus Ford didn't save money by keeping the North American market on the Mk1 chassis. The cost of redesigning the Mk1 was high enough that it didn't save money over using the presumably nicer Mk2. Of course this could also be untrue.

Basically in the end it's hard to say if the choice was right or wrong. At least when comparing to the Camaro and Challanger the choice seems to be right as the Mustang is reported to be the best handling car of the bunch. However, does the Mustang out handle the 370Z and Hyundai coupe? I don't know. All three are priced in the same market and I'm sure Ford wouldn't complain if the Mustang grabbed sales from both.

[Ferrer]

I'd tend to think that when evaluating a live axle over an IRS setup lap times or racing success are a moot point. As I understand, and I'm no engineer, live rear axle suffer the most in bumpy road and when the surface isn't perfect, which isn't the case in race track. So possible a very well developed live rear axle, like the Mustang apparently has, could (almost) be a match for an IRS in terms of outright performance.

Then there's the point of the car's market. Is it supposed to be a nimble sportscar? No. Is it supposed to be a dragstrip slayer? Yes. Does handling matter there? Not much. So in that case the IRS matters even less. Furthermore, despite car magazines going to great lenghts to find twisty moutain roads, are those common in North America? I can't say for sure, but I'd say that no.

So in the end this car could end with an amount of overengineering that it wouldn't put to good use, even if it could be a better car.

[culver]

Well the Pony cars were never supposed to be bad handling cars. They were always supposed to be good handling cars that could be both fun in a line and fun for a weekend drive in the hills.

Also, I've certainly seen a few race tracks were the surface wasn't exactly smooth. Also, with a rigid axle you are pretty much stuck with 0 toe and 0 camber (not as big a deal since the axle stays square to the road as the body leans).

[clutch-monkey]

-Let's assume the $100 number is correct.
i do doubt this.
ford has gone live rear axle for two reasons imo;
A) it's cheaper
B) it's what the customers want.

they've simply tried to make it as good as they can to please everyone, and have done a pretty good job.
besides.. Roush offers IRS right?

[ThisBlood147]

No, Roush reworks most of the factory suspension, but the live axle remains. As far as I know, there aren't any aftermarket tuner companies that provide a current Mustang build with a custom IRS. In the past there have been aftermarket IRS units available for the platform........but they were so ridiculously pricey that almost no one was willing to drop the coin on them.

Regardless of the reasons for Ford staying SRA, I think we can expect the 2014/15 redesign to finally usher in the age of the proper multi-linked rear suspended Mustang. It's the only thing holding the Mustang back in the court of public opinion (despite the fact that it hasn't hampered the car's performance or sales very much).