2011 gt chassis dyno

CatmanJJ said:

By about 2013-14 I could def see myself in one of these.

Click to expand...

No doubt, cause I sure cant afford a new one right now!

Seeing those numbers makes me just want to give up on modifying my car

Very impressive. This car puts down more hp then the 03-04 cobras make at the crank and the 5.0 is N/A. With a 93 oct tune, exhaust and CAI this 5.0 GT will probably put down 430rwhp. Put a blower on and say hello to over 500rwhp. This car will also weigh less then the 03-04 cobras. The cobras curb weight is 3665 lbs for the coupe. The 2011 GT should be in the 3500-3600lb range. I will buy one of these new 5.0s around 2014. I wonder what the 2011 V6 will put down.

40oz said:

Insurance companies don't care what the engine output is, they care how much it costs to repair and how much medical bills are when you wreck. That's why rare and exotic cars cost more to insure, and why safer cars are cheaper to insure than other cars that cost the same and are just as common.

Under-rating motors is nothing new. Nobody important cares if the stated numbers are lower than the actual numbers. It's entirely possible the InsideLine numbers are not typical. It's also entirely possible they will be typical. Time will tell.

Click to expand...

Umm wrong...

Of course the more expensive a vehicle is the more it is to insure, but of course the more power it makes the more it is to insure. Its all about the ability to go faster than your average car.

04DarkShadowGT said:

Umm wrong...

Of course the more expensive a vehicle is the more it is to insure, but of course the more power it makes the more it is to insure. Its all about the ability to go faster than your average car.

Click to expand...

It hasn't been that way for at least 30 years.

It has nothing to do with how fast a car can go. It has to do with how much you are likely to cost your insurance company. Therefore, a safer car is cheaper to insure because they won't be paying out for your death, and they'll be paying less for medical than they would if you drove a less safe car.

Case in point - I had a 98 Honda Civic coupe. Traded that POS for a 99 Mustang GT in 2002. My insurance premiums went down. The reason was the Mustang was a far safer car to be inside during a wreck.

In my case, nothing had changed but the safety of the car. The Mustang actually cost more, but the net effect of the increased safety lowered my rates. The Mustang could go far faster than the Civic, so believe what you want. And after owning both, the Mustang was far safer at any speed than the Civic.

Insurance companies use statistical data - not some half-assed conjecture based on stereotypes - to calculate premiums.

To a large extent, you are correct... but their 'safety' factor includes a lot more than just the crash test ratings. Otherwise, an 03 cobra would cost the same to insure as a v6 mustang, because they are the same frame and would have the same crash test ratings. Wrapped into the safety factor would be the power to weight ratio of the car, and the accident instance for drivers of said car.

My insurance company called it different classes, and the class is a combination of items, such as safety of the vehicle, history of insuring those vehicles, power, ect. There were something like 30 or more classes, and the difference between the buick ls which my wife got and the buick gs with a supercharger was only one class... and less than 5$ per month. Same car, same transmission, same everything except about a 60hp gain from the supercharger. So yes, they do care about power too. Insurance companies consider a huge number of factors when deciding premiums and class of vehicle.

Anyway, the dyno test is pretty amazing. I have no doubt ford has some tricks up their sleeves to increase the power of the new 5.0 already and will be happy to sell them to the new GT owners for a pretty penny. I bet this engine was equipted with just those parts.

40oz said:

It hasn't been that way for at least 30 years.

It has nothing to do with how fast a car can go. It has to do with how much you are likely to cost your insurance company. Therefore, a safer car is cheaper to insure because they won't be paying out for your death, and they'll be paying less for medical than they would if you drove a less safe car.

Case in point - I had a 98 Honda Civic coupe. Traded that POS for a 99 Mustang GT in 2002. My insurance premiums went down. The reason was the Mustang was a far safer car to be inside during a wreck.

In my case, nothing had changed but the safety of the car. The Mustang actually cost more, but the net effect of the increased safety lowered my rates. The Mustang could go far faster than the Civic, so believe what you want. And after owning both, the Mustang was far safer at any speed than the Civic.

Insurance companies use statistical data - not some half-assed conjecture based on stereotypes - to calculate premiums.

Click to expand...

My Z06 is cheaper to insure than an 03-04GT, or was when I bought it.

4th is 1.32:1 on this car, it's like dynoing any other Mustang in 3rd gear. 5th is 1:1.

Winters98GT said:

My Z06 is cheaper to insure than an 03-04GT, or was when I bought it.

Click to expand...

You beat me to it. I was about to say that a Corvette is cheaper for me to insure than my car to insure, and that's with me, a 19 year old, driving. As Brian said, it depends on a lot of factors. I know that one of the biggest ones is previous incident rates. Which car is more likely to have a young, inexperienced, potentially reckless person driving it? A Vette, or a Mustang GT? The Mustang, because it is more affordable and because lots of young people drive them. Hence the reason they are more expensive to insure.

On topic, that car is insane. I'm so glad that Ford has gotten the one-up on the other muscle cars. Time will tell for sure, but it currently seems Ford has hit the nail on the head with the 2011 GT.