New/2011 5.0 Mustang Details

On Dec 28, 9:20*pm, "jonnie" > wrote:

> > The legendary engine has lived in the Mustang on and off for nearly 30
> > years but never with as much ferocious power or outstanding gas
> > mileage. The new GT will be able to get up to 25 miles per gallon
> > while cranking out more than 400 horses.

> Wrong-O.

> 25 mpg while @ *60 horses

EPA's mileage testing measures were revised recently and are much more
accurate. So I doubt the 25 highway figure will be off, unless of
course you're putting then stirrups to it.

> please correct your misleading statement;

> "The new GT will be able to get up to 25 miles per gallon
> *OR cranke out more than 400 horses."

> @ 400 horses your at about 5 MPG

That's a given. If you're using all 400 ponies, those ponies all need
to be fed.

> > Advertisement

> > The current GT, powered by Ford's bullet proof 4.6-liter V-8, produces
> > 315 horsepower and averages 23 mpg on the highway.

> When going 50 MPH.

If you're worried about MPG, you shouldn't be buying a performance
car.

> > By the numbers the new naturally aspirated engine will deliver 412
> > horsepower, 390 pound-feet torque and a rumbling growl that can make
> > the hair on the back of your neck stand up.

> BS, the tank weighs over 4,500 pounds, it is BIGGUS PIGGUS

The GT weighs about 3,500 and change. Certainly not a lightweight,
but respectable when compared to it's market -- 370Z, Camaro,
Challenger, etc.

> > "I've been waiting 48 years for this," Jim Farley, Ford's vice
> > president of marketing and a longtime Mustang enthusiast, said during
> > a media preview of the Mustang GT. Farley drives a Grabber Blue
> > Mustang GT. "When I joined Ford, as soon as I heard about this engine,
> > I knew we had something special," he said.

> Take some f**king WEIGHT OFF IT, DA.

I'd also like to see it closer to 3,000, but you have to give Ford
credit. The 2011 GT is the best GT Mustang ever. Period.

> Big and Heavy and sluggish was so 60's with the sleads, 450 engine.

Help me here. What?

> > The hallowed engine block -- a 5-liter engine has almost the same
> > displacement as 302 cubic inches or a Boss 302 -- has a long Mustang
> > history. When the 1983 Mustang GT 5.0 High Output arrived, it cranked
> > out a then-thunderous 157 horsepower. A four-barrel carburetor on the
> > 1986 GT wowed consumers with its 210 horsepower. The last GT to use
> > the 5-liter V-8 was the 1995 Mustang.

> push rods.....

157 to 225. Pathetic numbers now days.

> > Ford could use the new engine in other vehicles, such as the F-150
> > pickup, to provide more power than the current 4.6-liter V-8, though
> > executives would not comment on that possibility.

> > Engineers and designers said they were challenged to top 400
> > horsepower on a 5-liter displacement engine. Additionally, they were
> > given only a few years to create it, losing 12 months of development
> > time.

> How many short cuts did ya'll take ??

From what I've read the motor was pretty much done, shelved for a
while, then finished up. Ford's on their game under Mulally, it'll be
right.

> > "It's faster than we've ever done it," said Mike Harrison, V-8 engine
> > programs manager, of the work his 10-person team did.

> > Engineers opened up the intake and created new headers for a "better
> > breathing engine," Harrison said. They also gave the V-8 twin
> > independent variable valve camshaft timing to enhance its performance.

> Just put a f*king BLOWER ON IT, D.A.!!

I'd rather have it n/a.

The blower version, a turbo specially, will be reserved for the
Shelby.

> > Ford will showcase the new GT with the black and red 5.0 badge at the
> > auto show in Detroit. But this car adds more than just power.

> > Ford will add a new six-speed automatic or manual transmission to the
> > GT, replacing the five-speed gear box on the current model. With the
> > improved gear ratios and with lots of low-end torque,

> EXCEPT TORQUE IS *F**KING *LIMITED BY COMPUTER SO GREAT AUNT MOGGIE CAN
> DRIVE IT.

We shall see. But I'm unconcerned, the hotrodders will fix any
inadequacies.

> >drivers no
> > longer will have to downshift to third to find power at 70 mph. (The
> > new speedometer goes up to 160 mph, up from 140 mph.)

> BUT IT IS SPEED LIMITED TO 110 MPH BY STARVING FUEL !!

The current one isn't. It'll run about 150, so the 2011 should use
the new 160 MPG speedo.

> IT WILL NEVER DO 120.

You're misinformed.

Patrick

On Dec 29, 8:06*am, "dwight" > wrote:
>
> Interesting discussion, if only because it's alien to my way of thinking.

> I suppose that my mileage would be better doing 75mph in 5th gear than 75 in
> 4th, but fuel economy has never been a guiding principle in my auto buying
> history (or, apparently, my auto driving history). The anticipated mpg of
> the 2011 Mustang is irrelevant to me; it's the other numbers that I find so
> appealing.

You got that right!

> I'm sorry, but I just don't care whether the new GT gets 25mpg, 22mpg, or a
> more-real-world 17mpg.

Exactly.

For those who do care, I will point out that the new
> V6 model looks to be fantastic and may qualify as a best buy.

I think the rumble of 412 is going to drown out the common sense of
getting 305. :-)

> What shocks me in all of this is that Ford dropped the information about
> 2011 now. Reading about both 2011 models, who in their right mind would go
> out today to buy a 2010? Doesn't this just automatically put sales in the
> toilet for the remainder of this model year?

That's the first thing I thought too. Though for those who just want
a V8 Mustang, Fall time I'm sure will bring some sweet prices on
leftover 2010 GTs.

I thought I might shoot up your way early this next year, but the
plans got shelved. But maybe later... my son is planning on living in
the Northeast for a while, so I might make a road trip up that way at
some point.

Patrick

On Dec 29, 9:43*am, "jonnie" > wrote:

> 93 5.0 8# *I can burn tires in first three gears. *Can a 2009 do that?

Here's a more relevant question. Did your '93 run 12s @ anywhere near
110 mph when it rolled off the showroom floor? Because that the sort
of numbers the new GT will be putting up.

Patrick

On Dec 29, 10:16*pm, "jonnie" > wrote:

> >> call it the Heavy 5.0, over 800 pounds of WEIGHT
> >Truth: The new 5.0 is lighter than the old 5.0 motor. *By 40 lbs.

> my 93 weighs 2750, the weight gain is in the body.

Not when it was stock it didn't. I ordered my '87 stripped and it
weighed just under 3,000.

Note: I was talking old 5.0 engine weight to new 5.0 engine weight.

> >> call it the Torque Limited 5.0
> >Truth: 390 foot pounds, with a flat torque curve, smokes the old 5.0's
> >300.

> no bog ?? when you stop at stop sign and you floor it => WOT, it dosent bog?
> no Electronic throttle lag?
> That time delay is in the chip, I have heard some can be programmed (chip)
> out, but not all
> Last one I drove had a huge bog, 2007, *I would end up leaning forward
> (expecting to be pushed back in seat by acceleration like in the 93) ,
> hardly any spinout on tires.
> On my LX, I can smoke tires all through first, second and part of third if I
> want too (hard tires then).
> Cant do that with electronic throttle.

If the new GT boogies to a 12 second time slip, I won't be
complaining.

> >> Over weight and limited torque, the New 5.0 sluggishly waddles into the
> >> show
> >> room.
> >"Waddles" = easy 12 second time slips. *Wish my old 5.0 Mustang would
> >waddle that damn fast.
> >Patrick

> In another sense, the 93 will waddle if low tire pressure in back tires and
> you floor it, more torque to the passenger rear at first, then shifts to the
> driver side rear, so the back end shifts back and forth a little as you gain
> speed.

> Guess I need to test drive a 2010, see if it is a real muscle car, or still
> a consumer car - safe for grandma.
> If it is real, time to sell the 93.

I see a new GT in my future.

> I don't know how much torque the 93 has but the HP is 340,
> and the Keene Bell puts out about 9.
> I could put on a smaller pulley and put the boost up at 12 easily, already
> have 30# injectors, and get it tuned for fuel, have a 240 in the tank.
> Might be more fun than selling it.
> It has a rebuilt motor, about 5k miles ago and the SC was overhauled 1k
> miles ago, so the car is going to be around for a while.
> could get it painted.

It's fun to tinker, but when the new stuff performs so damn good you
have to say at some point screw this and go visit your local [Ford]
dealer.

Patrick

On Dec 30, 1:01*am, Brent > wrote:
> On 2009-12-30, jonnie > wrote:
>
> > my 93 weighs 2750, the weight gain is in the body.
>
> I think I know the car for you:
>
> http://www.ford-v8-focus.com/http://.../svtfocus.html
>
> Here's a 351 example on video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yzpc_Km41PE

That's some crazy ****!

Patrick

NoOp wrote:
> On Dec 30, 1:01 am, Brent > wrote:
>> On 2009-12-30, jonnie > wrote:
>>
>>> my 93 weighs 2750, the weight gain is in the body.
>> I think I know the car for you:
>>
>> http://www.ford-v8-focus.com/http://.../svtfocus.html
>>
>> Here's a 351 example on video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yzpc_Km41PE
>
> That's some crazy ****!
>
> Patrick


Can you imagine that pulling up beside you at a light and looking
around trying to figure out where the big block is....

>>
> no bog ?? when you stop at stop sign and you floor it => WOT, it dosent
> bog?
> no Electronic throttle lag?
> That time delay is in the chip, I have heard some can be programmed (chip)
> out, but not all
> Last one I drove had a huge bog, 2007, I would end up leaning forward
> (expecting to be pushed back in seat by acceleration like in the 93) ,
> hardly any spinout on tires.
> On my LX, I can smoke tires all through first, second and part of third if
> I want too (hard tires then).
> Cant do that with electronic throttle.

Fly by wire does have some delay, which I don't like. The cure isn't worth
the money IMO. Better than turbo lag though.
Motor doesn't wake up until it's over 4k, it's only a little 4.6 .
Push the TCS button to off my '07 will bang the limiter spinning the tires
in 1st, 2nd no problem.
With the TCS on I'll hole shot that '93 anyday, all day. Stomping on kids
with the "magic" 5.0 is great entertainment for us old guys who trained on
4-5 hundred ft. lb. torque cars back in the day. Wish we had traction
control on the street back then.

Kids.........

"NoOp" > wrote in message
...
> On Dec 29, 8:06 am, "dwight" > wrote:
>>
>
> I thought I might shoot up your way early this next year, but the
> plans got shelved. But maybe later... my son is planning on living in
> the Northeast for a while, so I might make a road trip up that way at
> some point.
>
> Patrick
>

"Northeast" takes in a wealth of options. Personally, I wouldn't live within
50 miles of New York City proper, but the rest of the Northeast runs the
gamut from big hills (we call them "mountains") to sprawling farm country to
a million little towns and villages to endless malls to cultivated suburbs.
With its four definite seasons, I think this area is one of the best in the
country to live in. I love the Philadelphia tristate region, as it has a
slower pace than New York, is not overwhelming and stress-filled, and
(because it's smack-dab between NY and Washington) often is ignored. But
Arkansas is only about an hour's drive away, once you head west from the
I-95 corridor, the New Jersey beaches are 90 minutes to the east, and the
playground of the Poconos is 90 minutes to the north. And, if you're so
inclined, either NY or Washington is a day trip away.

Now, New England... that's a different story altogether.

dwight

"Frank ess" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> jonnie wrote:
>> "NoOp" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> On Dec 29, 3:59 pm, "jonnie"
>>
>>>> I do see a problem with saying "the 5.0 is back"; it can't be
>>>> back if it is all new, new, new. I'll bet it differs from the 5.0
>>>> that could be "back" by a cc or two, at least, in addtion to the
>>>> number of valve and
>>>>> method of actuation, for example.
>>>>> Frank ess,
>>
>>>>> Would you say then that the Challenger isn't back? And the Camaro
>>>>> isn't back?
>>>>> Can't we just call it the new 5.0? Or the new, improved 5.0? ;-)
>>
>>>> truth in advertizing;
>>
>>>> call it the Heavy 5.0, over 800 pounds of WEIGHT
>>
>>> Truth: The new 5.0 is lighter than the old 5.0 motor. By 40 lbs.
>>
>> my 93 weighs 2750, the weight gain is in the body.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> call it the Torque Limited 5.0
>>
>>> Truth: 390 foot pounds, with a flat torque curve, smokes the old
>>> 5.0's 300.
>>
>> no bog ?? when you stop at stop sign and you floor it => WOT, it
>> dosent bog? no Electronic throttle lag?
>> That time delay is in the chip, I have heard some can be programmed
>> (chip) out, but not all
>> Last one I drove had a huge bog, 2007, I would end up leaning
>> forward (expecting to be pushed back in seat by acceleration like
>> in the 93) , hardly any spinout on tires.
>> On my LX, I can smoke tires all through first, second and part of
>> third if I want too (hard tires then).
>> Cant do that with electronic throttle.
>>
>
> My two S197s, one auto and one five-speed can't really "smoke" through
> third - just a meaty chirp - but will do instant response and first and
> second smokes on decent fat street tires. Not all as a result of a "tune";
> they are both pretty quick to answer in stock condition. They are heavy,
> but amazingly nimble, considering. I still haven't reset the GPS "Max
> Speed" from the 143.3 the convertible made a while back. Stable and
> comfortable on Z-rated tires, and had to back off when I caught the car
> ahead.
>
> MPG and those /still/ aren't all the important things in a car selection.
> One of the cars I like best of the thirty-five or so I've owned was a 1960
> Morris Minor 1000 Traveller. 988 cc Sprite-like motor, long gearshift
> wand, high center of gravity ... But it was a treat to drive, got more
> thumbs-ups in a car-culture-bored community, than just about any other. A
> little lowering, a Judson supercharger, spar varnish on the wood, it was a
> delight to be in and to see.
>
> I'm trying to remember what it was this thread was going to prove. Oh
> well, it's just a Usenet group; couldn't have been very important.
>

I was looking at the Morris Minors, seem cool with the mods

"dwight" > wrote in message
...
>
> "jonnie" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> In another sense, the 93 will waddle if low tire pressure in back tires
>> and you floor it, more torque to the passenger rear at first, then shifts
>> to the driver side rear, so the back end shifts back and forth a little
>> as you gain speed.
>>
>> Guess I need to test drive a 2010, see if it is a real muscle car, or
>> still a consumer car - safe for grandma.
>> If it is real, time to sell the 93.
>>
>> I don't know how much torque the 93 has but the HP is 340,
>> and the Keene Bell puts out about 9.
>> I could put on a smaller pulley and put the boost up at 12 easily,
>> already have 30# injectors, and get it tuned for fuel, have a 240 in the
>> tank.
>> Might be more fun than selling it.
>> It has a rebuilt motor, about 5k miles ago and the SC was overhauled 1k
>> miles ago, so the car is going to be around for a while.
>> could get it painted.
>
> Wait...
>
> Your piece of crap '93 came from the factory with 205 hp. Over the ensuing
> 16 (17 now?) years, the Mustang has become an almost completely different
> animal. No longer is it the cheapest assortment of cobbled-together parts
> that Ford could produce, it is now a comparatively serious performance
> automobile, intended to compete with more upscale badges. (Unlike the '93,
> whose main competition was an even cheaper Chevy nameplate.)
>
> I think it's amusing that you tool around in your faded, squeaking 1993,
> while slamming a generally acknowledged beautiful and competent new model.
> You'll have to excuse the poor schmucks like me, who drive around our
> faded, squeaking 1993 Mustangs while DROOLING over the thought of a 2011
> in our driveways. I'll take all that extra weight, the extra horses, the
> refinement, the structural makeover, the improved and upgraded components,
> and all of the other advances over the past 17 years!
>
> dwight
> twin '93 faded and squeaking slugs

........well, because it is much faster, more Gs, and accelerates more than
the new stangs, AND is low cost,
HP is 340 on 2750# car, AND it has more interior room.

If I want a good looking car, I'll get it painted every 2 years for $199.95

upgraded components ?? what about the new "filler caps"