Vid of 2011 Mustang GT 5.0 running 11.82 1/4 mile

[compos mentis]

5Qc4Xb7G1ck

Evolution Performance, Inc. (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Evolution-Performance-Inc/262882950647) 2011 Mustang GT 5.0L 4V (5.0 Mustang and Super Fords Magazine Project Car) made 405 RWHP and 375 RWTQ with the addition of an Off-Road X-Pipe, Catback Exhaust System, K&N Drop In Filter, and a Custom Tune.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Evolut...c/262882950647 (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Evolution-Performance-Inc/262882950647)
(http://www.facebook.com/pages/Evolution-Performance-Inc/262882950647)

[cobraguy65]

Swweeeet!

[madmax]

Some DRs and that thing'll be a beast.

[compos mentis]

I'm looking forward to see how much more power tuners can find in the TI-VCT setup.




https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2010/05/2011_mustang_gt_engine-1.jpg

[madmax]

It will also be interesting to see how the GTs compare to the GT500s.

[Yoda4561]

Some DRs and that thing'll be a beast.

There were two sets of runs in the video, first run was with stock tires, the other 2 or 3 were with Micky Thompson ET street dot drag tires. It's a mid 12 car on 19 inch factory rubber, and when they slapped the ET streets on (along with some lightweight drag racing front wheels) they were getting high 11's to low 12 quarter mile times.

[buickfunnycar.com]

The block has been beefed up for the addition of boost as well as plumbed for direct injection to be added when needed...lots more potential built-in there.:enguard:

[compos mentis]

The block has been beefed up for the addition of boost as well as plumbed for direct injection to be added when needed...lots more potential built-in there.:enguard:

Yes, that is cool how its designed to be boost friendly and accept an upgrades to DI.

I find it interesting Ford went to the expense of producing a new aluminum 5.4 block for the GT500.
Maybe it still saved them money over getting the 5.0 fitted for the GT500.

[datsbad]

funny, Ford 2011 to get 400 rwhp and LS1's have been doing it for years....Fords way behind in my opinion.

[LSx_88_Ciera]

funny, Ford 2011 to get 400 rwhp and LS1's have been doing it for years....Fords way behind in my opinion.

I am GM through and through but you have to give them some props for getting that out of a 5.0 when you compare HP per liter it has more output than a LS3 or LS7.
5.0/412HP 82.4HP/L
6.2/430HP 69.3HP/L
7.0/505HP 72.1HP/L
I am fine with the power GM is making but they need to send some of the vehicles to Jenny Craig cause they are way overweight.

[BuddyP]

I am GM through and through but you have to give them some props for getting that out of a 5.0 when you compare HP per liter it has more output than a LS3 or LS7.
5.0/412HP 82.4HP/L
6.2/430HP 69.3HP/L
7.0/505HP 72.1HP/L
I am fine with the power GM is making but they need to send some of the vehicles to Jenny Craig cause they are way overweight.
but you are comparing a 4 valve per cylinder motor to a couple of old 2 valve pushrod motors. Apples to Oranges. GM's 3.6 puts out 84.4hp/L (yes Fords V6 is a bit smaller at 3.5 but you get my point).

[JohnUlaszek]

Love that Ford is back in the game. Hate the Fisher Price engine cover and how much space they need for a 5.0. I bet GM kills it a on HP per cubic inch of space claim.

Much better without the cover.

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2010/05/gt160-1.jpg

[LSx_88_Ciera]

but you are comparing a 4 valve per cylinder motor to a couple of old 2 valve pushrod motors. Apples to Oranges. GM's 3.6 puts out 84.4hp/L (yes Fords V6 is a bit smaller at 3.5 but you get my point).

Yes I get your point but apples to oranges, they are both food and fill my belly equally.
I don't pay attention to 2v vs 4v cause it is a non factor much of the time, it is all about air flow whether it comes from 2v or 4v. 4v primarily helps at lower valve lift where shrouding is more of an issue, which is one of the primary benefits of a 4v head is, each have their pros and cons. The most powerful IC engines on the planet are 2V push rod motors (top fuel).

[BuddyP]

Yes I get your point but apples to oranges, they are both food and fill my belly equally.
I don't pay attention to 2v vs 4v cause it is a non factor much of the time, it is all about air flow whether it comes from 2v or 4v. 4v primarily helps at lower valve lift where shrouding is more of an issue, which is one of the primary benefits of a 4v head is, each have their pros and cons. The most powerful IC engines on the planet are 2V push rod motors (top fuel).
Not much of a factor unless you compare hp per liter!

Yup, the more air you can shove in the better. A motor is just a air pump. Might as well throw the supercharged 443hp caddy 4.4 or the LS9 in the bunch. Just don't compare it to the outdated northstar 4.6 (Doh!)

[cheapthrillz]

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2010/05/droolforsale-1.jpg

DOH!!!!

[406 Q-ship]

What is awesome is that Ford has upped the game. Looks like this Ford engine might have the potentual of the LS series compared to the old mod engine. The S197 is an great Mustang that deserved more power and has finally received it.

This is from a guy who bleeds Chevy orange......and Buick red sometimes.

[compos mentis]

What is awesome is that Ford has upped the game. Looks like this Ford engine might have the potentual of the LS series compared to the old mod engine. The S197 is an great Mustang that deserved more power and has finally received it.

This is from a guy who bleeds Chevy orange......and Buick red sometimes.

Well said.

[dadto2jays]

Back in 1991 I had a mustang GT 5.0 It went 11.50 @ 126 and I spent easily 15k to get there it is unbelievable how far technology has come. I may have to look into one of these.

[79-TA]

Back in 1991 I had a mustang GT 5.0 It went 11.50 @ 126 and I spent easily 15k to get there it is unbelievable how far technology has come. I may have to look into one of these.

With regards to the olds Windsor 5.0's, people are doing some pretty crazy stuff now with the cheap Ebay turbo kits. I'm quite tempted.

Anyway, the new 5.0 is a great car as is the new V6 'stang . . . which I can't wait to join the rental fleets . . .
Gh4HE9bNHK4



It's just unfortunate that the 5th gen Camaro is so overweight. I swear, those things were built at 11/10's scale.

[surlyjoe]

Man, I thought I had time warped to an import site with that hp/liter talk.

Anyhow cool motor should be good for the ford guys. Maybe help motivate chev to up the ante too.

[79-TA]

^ While I'm sure it puts some pressure on Chevy, the GM "high feature V8" was put on hold a while ago due to their financial troubles.

[fordsbyjay]

funny, Ford 2011 to get 400 rwhp and LS1's have been doing it for years....Fords way behind in my opinion.

That's a funny one. Ford has been making the GT500 since what, 2006? With 500 hspr and slowly increasing almost every year. Chev didn't even make a Camaro then so who is behind?

[GrabberGT]

Love that Ford is back in the game. Hate the Fisher Price engine cover and how much space they need for a 5.0. I bet GM kills it a on HP per cubic inch of space claim.



This is the camparison I am most interested in. The Chevey guys can pack more HP into a smaller compartment than Ford. These MOD motors just dont fit into our older cars without significant modifications. An LS motor is roughly the size of a 351W while the DOHC fords are comparable to what... well they're just huge and top heavy.

[silver69camaro]

Man, I thought I had time warped to an import site with that hp/liter talk.



No kidding. What's the big deal with that anyway.

I don't think the 5.0 will be quite as popular as the LS due to physical size...the motor is pretty damn big with the multi-valve stuff. Combine that with the narrow track widths of early Fords, it'll be more difficult for the hot-rod crowd, especially with the cost. That's the beauty of an LS: small, cheap, powerful.

Edit: What Chris said. Oops.

[compos mentis]

No big deal swapping that fat 5.0 dohc into an old Ford.

Just find a shop with a Chevy guy as the fabricator.

Gotta think they'd love to slice a classic Ford up to make room....lol.

[trapin]

I've never really understood the Ford Modular OHC engines from a "packaging" standpoint. We are always fighting like mad dog hell with downward vision criteria. If Powertrain ever proposed an engine like that for the next Corvette, Design Center would have a heart attack.

That's great power that the new 2011 Mustang GT is gonna get, ....with a nod to the good folks at GM for making it happen. (wink, wink)

From a hot rodders perspective I wouldn't want one. LSX engines are much easier and cheaper to modify and you can get so much power out of them. On the Ford engine you have to bolt on a $5000 Supercharger just to get 100 horse.

[barraza]

It's just unfortunate that the 5th gen Camaro is so overweight. I swear, those things were built at 11/10's scale.

June Car and Driver has the test between the Camaro and the new 5.0 Mustang. In the quarter mile, the Camaro is .2 quicker, and 2 mph faster. Despite all the talk about how heavy the Camaro is, it is only 280 lbs more than the mustang. So the Mustang is a bit of a porker itself. It's the equivalent of having a large friend riding in the back seat all the time.

They are both too heavy.

[buickfunnycar.com]

lol at all the Ford haters here...

[compos mentis]

IMO it will be interesting to see if lightweight cars like the Camaro with a 1LE package and a Ford Mustang Cobra R are offered again.

[406 Q-ship]

IMO it will be interesting to see if lightweight cars like the Camaro with a 1LE package and a Ford Mustang Cobra R are offered again.

Sign me up for a lighter weight Camaro......oh and lose those Bling porky 20's off the SS. Ford needs to make an 18" wheel fit the Brembos along with putting brembos on the rear axle.

[1970 TT Rustang]

funny, Ford 2011 to get 400 rwhp and LS1's have been doing it for years....Fords way behind in my opinion.:bsjerk: :lol:

Its also funny that gm hasnt figured out how to build a light weight pony car that handles well. :idea:

[trapin]

:bsjerk: :lol:

Its also funny that gm hasnt figured out how to build a light weight pony car that handles well. :idea:

Huh?? Where'd you hear that?

And I wouldn't necessarily call the Mustang "lightweight"....it has a love for butter fat and bacon just like the Camaro and Challanger do. And the last time I checked the Camaro SS handles beautifully; both from what I've read and from personal experience.

I'm not hatin' on the Mustang, to me it's the prettiest of all 3 cars (and that's coming from a GM guy).

[silver69camaro]

June Car and Driver has the test between the Camaro and the new 5.0 Mustang. In the quarter mile, the Camaro is .2 quicker, and 2 mph faster. Despite all the talk about how heavy the Camaro is, it is only 280 lbs more than the mustang. So the Mustang is a bit of a porker itself. It's the equivalent of having a large friend riding in the back seat all the time.

They are both too heavy.

Didn't the Mustang handle significantly better? IMO, 280lbs is alot of weight...every try to lighten a street car by that much?

[Joey_H]

I don't think the Ford engineers that designed the new 5.0 motor were concerned about backwards compatibility in older cars. I tell all the Camaro-loving Mustang haters I run across the same thing, if it wasn't for the Mustang the Camaro never would have happened. :woot:

[79-TA]

June Car and Driver has the test between the Camaro and the new 5.0 Mustang. In the quarter mile, the Camaro is .2 quicker, and 2 mph faster. Despite all the talk about how heavy the Camaro is, it is only 280 lbs more than the mustang. So the Mustang is a bit of a porker itself. It's the equivalent of having a large friend riding in the back seat all the time.

They are both too heavy.


It's funny that you mention Car and Driver because not only did the Mustang beat the Camaro in the most recent comparison, but Car and Driver gave the win to the 4.6 litre Mustang over the 5th gen Camaro as well.

This is how a lot of races are going to go down:
JTL9psDWKjU

Anyway, in a straight line, the Camaro makes up for its weight with its ability to make more power down low. 1.2 litres more displacement will do that. There have also been comparison tests where the Mustang won the straight line competition (Motor Trend, Inside Line, etc.) However, I have yet to see any comparison that gives the ginormous 5th gen the nod in the handling department. Sure, it's a nice chassis, but it's too fat. And 280 pounds is a big deal. 3860/3580=1.078~1.1 I'll stick with my 11/10's theory.

[jfoster]

funny, Ford 2011 to get 400 rwhp and LS1's have been doing it for years....Fords way behind in my opinion.

Yes, they've been doing it for years - with a lot more CIs.

Looks like the new 5.0 is under rated as well. Probably closer to 430, which puts it on par with the LS3s 6.2l 430hp.

I love technology and I'm very impressed by this new motor. Cant wait for someone to wreck one so that I can buy the engine :)

[79-TA]

^And new LS1 4th gens were hardly cheap back in the day with prices then that resemble new Mustang prices today (despite inflation.)

[rideorange812]

I own both a chevrolet and ford but I have to say bring a 2011 camaro to race a 2011 mustang 5.0 is like taking a 1965 r model to race a z28. good luck with that.

[cheapthrillz]

I love technology and I'm very impressed by this new motor. Cant wait for someone to wreck one so that I can buy the engine :)

Agreed!

I've got plenty of room for one....

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2009/08/DSCF0530-1.jpg

[79PonchoUK]

I am GM through and through but you have to give them some props for getting that out of a 5.0 when you compare HP per liter it has more output than a LS3 or LS7.
5.0/412HP 82.4HP/L
6.2/430HP 69.3HP/L
7.0/505HP 72.1HP/L
I am fine with the power GM is making but they need to send some of the vehicles to Jenny Craig cause they are way overweight.

Unless you're tuning an existing engine, bhp/litre is the most insignificant statistic there is in the auto world. It's nothing.

bhp/kg of engine is what matters, and packaging size to a lesser extent.

Also, remember that bhp/litre relies on PEAK bhp. It's a useless value used by the japanese car enthusiasts to try and justify having economy cars. :lol:

There are a lot of 2.0 turbo engines that produce 500bhp circling UK tracks. Sounds like a much better option to power your track car than a 400bhp LS2?... though, that 500bhp has lag, is very peaky and weighs more when you include the turbo, intercooler, pipework and other supporting parts. The bhp/litre says it stomps on the LS. The clueless believe it.


IMO, the LS is excellent because it's so 'old fashioned'. The OHV makes it a tiny engine with big displacement and big power. It's light...lighter than its German V8 counterparts. Lighter than a 2.6 skyline engine, lighter than some 2.0 engines if you include the extras to give it that power.
When people describe the LS engine as archaic, it's primarily because it hasn't got more bits on it. You've got to question the logic though, it's lighter, cheaper, smaller and more powerful than most of its rivals. Does that not mean it's actually cutting edge? We had DOHC in the 40s...about the same time OHV became popular.....

It can't be cutting edge though, it's 6.0? It doesn't matter that the fuel consumption is better than a 2.0 car of the same PEAK bhp. Just because we used to associate engine size directly with fuel consumption it's obsolete. Stupid really.




I've ranted enough....but i'll leave with this. McLaren recently issued a press release stating that their MP4-12 has the highest bhp/co2 value of any production car. :lol:

Work out how desperate that statement really is.