Bronco Forum - Full Size Ford Bronco Forum banner

1 - 20 of 54 Posts

·
Satyr of the Midwest
Joined
·
17,736 Posts
Here's a .pdf of the 2011 Mustang GT specifications: http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2011_Mustang_GT_Specs.pdf

It's still lame how high in the rev range the torque peaks, but that should be expected with this bore and stroke. At least they tried to maintain some low-end with a high compression ratio and variable cam timing.

ENGINE V-8
Type 5.0L 4V Ti-VCT V-8
Manufacturing location Essex Engine, Windsor, Ontario
Configuration Aluminum block and heads
Intake manifold Composite shell-welded with runner pack
Exhaust manifold Stainless steel tubular headers
Redline 7,000 rpm
Valvetrain DOHC, 4 valves per cylinder, variable intake, variable camshaft timing
Valve diameter/lift (mm) Intake: 37/12; Exhaust: 31/11
Ti-VCT operating range 50 degrees for both intake and exhaust
Pistons Cast aluminum
Connecting rods Forged steel
Ignition High-energy coil-on-plug
Bore x stroke 3.63 in x 3.65 in/92.2 mm x 92.7 mm
Displacement 302 cu. in./4,951 cc
Compression ratio 11.0:1 (est.)
Engine control system PCM
Horsepower 412 @ 6,500 rpm (est.)
Horsepower per liter 82.4
Torque 390 lb.-ft. @ 4,250 rpm (est.)
Recommended fuel 91 octane (unleaded 87 octane minimum)
Fuel capacity 16 gallons
Fuel delivery Sequential mechanical returnless
Oil capacity 8 quarts with filter (10,000-mile service interval)
The pig weighs in at over 3600 pounds. :banghead
 

·
U jelly of my
Joined
·
3,204 Posts
I was at the track the first night they got the car. It ran a 13.4 i believe

Really? wow thats pretty bad, motortrend hit a 12.8

Here's a .pdf of the 2011 Mustang GT specifications: http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2011_Mustang_GT_Specs.pdf

It's still lame how high in the rev range the torque peaks, but that should be expected with this bore and stroke. At least they tried to maintain some low-end with a high compression ratio and variable cam timing.


The pig weighs in at over 3600 pounds. :banghead

Its a modular engine, modular engines dont know what "low end torrque" is....

My marauder doesnt start moving til 3000rpm


3600 isnt that heavy, why not see how much the camaro and challenger, which are both on sedan based platforms weigh?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,177 Posts
8 quart oil capacity? Damn.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,326 Posts
Friends 03 Cobra went [email protected] MPH BONE STOCK. (yes, friend can drive)

Mustangs are getting faster every year.

Heck my 07 GT auto ran high 13's bone stock !


Wish they would bring back a 5.0 Sport model weighing in at 3200 lbs...............
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
355 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Really? wow thats pretty bad, motortrend hit a 12.8




Its a modular engine, modular engines dont know what "low end torrque" is....

My marauder doesnt start moving til 3000rpm


3600 isnt that heavy, why not see how much the camaro and challenger, which are both on sedan based platforms weigh?
The article says their best time while the car was 100% bone stock was 12.88
 

·
Satyr of the Midwest
Joined
·
17,736 Posts
Its a modular engine, modular engines dont know what "low end torrque" is....

My marauder doesnt start moving til 3000rpm
I know, right? It's depressing as Hell driving a mod-motored vehicle, after I've been spoiled by gobs of low-end torque from 5.0L & 5.8L engines for two decades. Between my brother's 1992 Grand Marquis to my dad's 2000 F-250, I've stepped on the accelerator from a dead stop, then literally opened my mouth to say, "and....?" Embarrassing, Ford.

Why should my 17-year-old Bronco spank brand-new F-150 trucks? I mean, I've modified it and so forth, but it's still the original rotating assembly, transmission, and rear end; I'm a fairly talented tuner too, but that's still no reason a new vehicle shouldn't walk all over mine.


3600 isnt that heavy, why not see how much the camaro and challenger, which are both on sedan based platforms weigh?
They're ALL fat pigs. My 1987 Mustang weighs 3100 pounds, and most vehicles of that era weigh in at similar amounts. In nearly 20 years, almost all autos have gotten heavier and bigger, albeit uglier, as if in competition with American waistlines. It just strikes me as stupid that we don't have 2000-pound cars that get 50 miles per gallon, while still being reliable, affordable, built here in the 'states, and go 0-60 in less than five seconds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
That's really impressive. I bought my 04 GT new and with comparable bolt on's (minus the big and littles). I ran a best 1/4 of 13.60 at 101. That was with stock wheels but drag radials and about 1.80 60'. Mine puts down a whopping 250 rwhp (put down about 220 rwhp bone stock). Torque is in the 280's. :p
 

·
U jelly of my
Joined
·
3,204 Posts
Friends 03 Cobra went [email protected] MPH BONE STOCK. (yes, friend can drive)

Mustangs are getting faster every year.

Heck my 07 GT auto ran high 13's bone stock !
12.8 was the average magazine tested time for the 03/04 cobras, its not really a unheard of huge accomplishment.


The article says their best time while the car was 100% bone stock was 12.88
Thats more like it

I know, right? It's depressing as Hell driving a mod-motored vehicle, after I've been spoiled by gobs of low-end torque from 5.0L & 5.8L engines for two decades. Between my brother's 1992 Grand Marquis to my dad's 2000 F-250, I've stepped on the accelerator from a dead stop, then literally opened my mouth to say, "and....?" Embarrassing, Ford.

Why should my 17-year-old Bronco spank brand-new F-150 trucks? I mean, I've modified it and so forth, but it's still the original rotating assembly, transmission, and rear end; I'm a fairly talented tuner too, but that's still no reason a new vehicle shouldn't walk all over mine.
They are seriously detuned from the factory, i've heard a tune will really wake up most ford trucks.

They're ALL fat pigs. My 1987 Mustang weighs 3100 pounds, and most vehicles of that era weigh in at similar amounts. In nearly 20 years, almost all autos have gotten heavier and bigger, albeit uglier, as if in competition with American waistlines. It just strikes me as stupid that we don't have 2000-pound cars that get 50 miles per gallon, while still being reliable, affordable, built here in the 'states, and go 0-60 in less than five seconds.
2000lbs, keep in mind all the safety equipment that is standard on new cars... Now factor in all the creature comforts that people want like leather heated power seats, satnav and what not....

The only way you are going to get a 2000lbs car that gets 50mpg and can do 0-60 in 5 seconds in this day and age would be putting a gixxer or hayabusa engine into a smart car...

You think 3600 is alot, my marauder weighs 4200! :toothless

cast aluminum pistons?stainless headers?makes no sense to not put forged slugs in there......i would rather them cut costs on the exaust system, and not on the pistons
Why? the stock engine has already been proven to hold 500rwhp. While standard forged pistons would be nice, its not like everyone that buys the car will take advantage of that, and a stock one doesnt NEED forged pistons (like the 03/04 cobras and lightnings did)
 

·
Satyr of the Midwest
Joined
·
17,736 Posts
And isn't owned by the US and Canadian governments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,326 Posts
I have rod knockin LS2, chev motors are junk today.

Sure Ford Mods mak little HP, sure last a LONG time................
 

·
U jelly of my
Joined
·
3,204 Posts
No it's better. And over a liter less displacement
bing

And isn't owned by the US and Canadian governments.
bang

I have rod knockin LS2, chev motors are junk today.

Sure Ford Mods mak little HP, sure last a LONG time................
boom....

Plus, I wouldnt say that the new 3.5 v6 (ecoboost), 5.0, 6.2 and 6.7L diesel are down on power or torque in any way shape or form

In what way is it possibly better?

Its 1+L less, with variable cam timing to start off....
 

·
the Broheim
Joined
·
3,994 Posts
In what way is it possibly better?
Volumetric Efficiency, dont build it bigger build it smarter :thumbup

And if the aluminum pistons are anything like the previous gen. pistons with the high silicon forging they should be just fine and make for a lighter rotating assy. which will help you get to that high powerband quicker.

IMO ford mod motors have been great, minus the plastic water crossovers, spark plug probs. and non C.O.P. ignitions.

And 3600#'s arent bad considering a cop can catch you with a hundred less hp weighing in at over 4000lbs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,976 Posts
They're ALL fat pigs. My 1987 Mustang weighs 3100 pounds, and most vehicles of that era weigh in at similar amounts. In nearly 20 years, almost all autos have gotten heavier and bigger, albeit uglier, as if in competition with American waistlines. It just strikes me as stupid that we don't have 2000-pound cars that get 50 miles per gallon, while still being reliable, affordable, built here in the 'states, and go 0-60 in less than five seconds.
You're whining about a 500 lb difference? Boo****inghoo. Whats a 1987 F250 weigh compared to now? F150? And which ones are better built for today? Exactly so quit your damn crying. Show me a stock 1987 anything that weighs less and makes MORE power than today. Not to mention the 80's-93 Mustangs are hideous.
 
1 - 20 of 54 Posts
Top