Wow... Its getting harder and harder for us pushrod guys to keep up.
That settles it... I have to go Windsor.
That settles it... I have to go Windsor.
s197xpert said:The 2011 5.0 has what is called adaptive knock sensors (originally introduced on the s197 bullit), these basically poke around and add ignition timing when applicable, this means it can easily run on 87 or 93 octane and perform to its best potential on either, and yes there would be a power loss when using 87 octane fuel, in fact Ford rated power is on 91, but also claims a 12hp loss if using 87. I have found no claims using ethanol based fuel, but I am sure it may be a few more than that of 91o.
The consumer world needs to realize that a chassis dyno is only a tool and not the holy grail, there is no exact math to "calculate" drive train loss, all the above math is "fuzzy" to say the least. As a dyno owner and operator I can say that the info above is impressive and that the new 5.0 should perform very well, and I believe that Ford has left little on the table for aftermarket to improve on engine airflow (a.k.a. HP). This thing may be pretty rung out as it sits on the lot.
Mustangs are Cheap. I surely wouldn't disagree with that, but they are packed with value. I have been modding these cars for quite a long time as well as pawwing over many other domestic and import vehicles and can honestly say that they are not as "cheap" as the once were.
The fit and finish is great, the quality of materials chosen to manufacturer the components is even better. Anyone with a comment like that surely hasn't set foot in one, nor have they made an intelligent ASSumption.
Ford Mustang owners are loyal follows, most are perfectly happy with a live axle and very few have desire IRS.....................
For a fast track program of only 2 years, the new engine is amazing, and Ford as a company is really starting to shine.
Everyone needs to think less of themselves and a little more to the market that a particular car appeals to, any car as a whole is COMPROMISE (price, comfort, performance, durability)
Can someone who is a dyno operator please explain how a dynojet works if you are not using a gear that is 1:1?
Quote:
"Peak numbers are 365 lb-ft of torque at 4,350 rpm and 395 hp at 6,600 rpm. All of these at-the-wheels figures were obtained in 4th gear on a Dynojet 248 chassis dyno and include a 3% SAE weather correction factor."
From the Ford Spec sheet.
1st 3.66
2nd 2.43
3rd 1.69
4th 1.32
5th 1.00
6th 0.65
http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2011_Mustang_GT_Specs.pdf
I've heard talk of an Eaton type SC that should be on shelves as folks start taking delivery.
I mean... even 5 psi, you figure to be around a 150 HP increase (give or take). Now we're into "Holy Crap" territory.
thats an excellent point. wonder if they realized this
And to answer your question, the HP reading would be higher because the transmission is multiplying the numbers
Jason Kavanagh said:The Dynojet itself doesn't care what gear the car's in. Remember, there's a final drive gear reduction after the transmission, which further alters the wheelspeed - engine speed relationship beyond what the transmission does, so there's nothing magical about 1:1.
In fact, dynoing in a gear that's 1:1 usually results in a hair less (yes, less) driveline loss as its a more (the most) efficient ratio in the gearbox. That's why a lot of dyno operators like the 1:1 ratio. Plus, when using an inertia dyno like a Dynojet, higher gear ratios have a lower rate of acceleration, so less power is soaked up in accelerating the rotating masses, which further props the numbers up.
Higher gears do tend to result in higher tire losses since the wheelspeed is higher... at this point all you're doing is trading off one loss mechanism for another. Generally, though, what I've seen come out in the wash is that on an inertia dyno, higher gears will result in higher numbers than lower gears.
Furthermore, higher gears also load the engine for a longer duration, requiring more cooldown, plus put more heat stress on driven tires. As the dyno operator, I don't like either of those things.
Whats even MORE impressive:
"It took several pulls on the dyno to achieve a stabilized result. Each run eked out more power as the ECU probed the limits of the 91-octane fuel. The Mustang finally produced stable and repeatable numbers upon the 7th dyno pull."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?