What Mustang Should I Purchase?

GreyDiesel said:

So today, .



Also... I wanted to respond to comments about the grill. Five Oh Brian, you are onto something. I do really like the pony lights on the GT. Where do you order the pony grill? Has anyone heard of aftermarket pony package grills with projector lights? That might be cool, though I am sure, very expensive.

I just had one wicked awesome day today.

Click to expand...

Ford Mustang Grilles, Billet, Pony, Bullitt
Them grills ain't cheap.

I like your second pic

I like the second one too, but it is not HDR. High dynamic range would not look like that, no way, no how. It looks like some type of special filter in Photoshop to turn it into a work of art, not a photo.

Glad you're enjoying the Stang.
DarkFireGT and emay are two of our resident "HDR guys" here
I still have a trial version and it places its watermark in several places on the pics, but I enjoy tinkering every now and then with it
There is a sticky thread here in the Talk section for HDR

congrats on the purchase. she looks good.

I hate your gas mileage. I get a best of 18mpg on the highway and a best of 15.5mpg in the city. My worst mpg in the city as of yet was 12.2 heh

12 to 13 in the city is normal for me. I have tried everything and can't get more. On the road I have gotten as high as 26 MPG but normally it is between 21 and 22. I drive the speed limit, too. I just can't believe what some of these other Mustang owners are claiming.

mine is bone stock right now and the highway is about 23.5 doing 75-80mph

GreyDiesel said:

Click to expand...

I love that picture.

And I just laughed my pants-off about your MPG story. When you first said you were getting 35mpg, I was thinking to myself......that won't be for long.

stanmckinney said:

12 to 13 in the city is normal for me. I have tried everything and can't get more. On the road I have gotten as high as 26 MPG but normally it is between 21 and 22. I drive the speed limit, too. I just can't believe what some of these other Mustang owners are claiming.

Click to expand...

My car is suck in the 17-25 MPG zone no matter what. My best, 24.6 doing the posted speed limit for several hundred miles and worst was after doing 17 passes at the drag strip, it still worked out to be 17 (of course the just over hour long cruise on the highway there helps that I'm sure). You won't hear me complaining about the mileage as I'm very close to 350 HP at the crank, have 4.10s and auto!

I dont get believe the mpg, I've got a 6r and @ 70 on a flat interstate I get 33 but on a down hill run I can get 65 -70mpg according to the computer. If I knew I could get 35-40 I'd trade up.

GreyDiesel said:

I was able to push the MPG up to 26 with careful throttling and a lot of coasting.

Also... I wanted to respond to comments about the grill. Five Oh Brian, you are onto something. I do really like the pony lights on the GT. Where do you order the pony grill? Has anyone heard of aftermarket pony package grills with projector lights? That might be cool, though I am sure, very expensive.

Click to expand...

Car looks great - thanks for sharing pics! We live for pics and videos!

As for MPG, I'm currently getting 24 mpg at 60 mph on cruise control, and about 13 mpg in town playing around with the boost (16-17 in town if I drive nice). 24 mpg ain't too shabby considering I'm pushing 440 hp at the crank.

As for the Pony Grille, I did a straight across swap with a friend who has an '06 V6 Pony who wanted the GT Grille. We swapped grilles & fogs in his driveway very easily with just minor fabrication, and it was free for both of us.

kooldawg6 said:

My car is suck in the 17-25 MPG zone no matter what. My best, 24.6 doing the posted speed limit for several hundred miles and worst was after doing 17 passes at the drag strip, it still worked out to be 17 (of course the just over hour long cruise on the highway there helps that I'm sure). You won't hear me complaining about the mileage as I'm very close to 350 HP at the crank, have 4.10s and auto!

Click to expand...

Are you saying that 280rwhp on the auto is close to 350bhp? How much % loss do the mustangs really have? I haven't seen any definite numbers on it.

I also teach photography. HDR is high dynamic range, photos with lots of tones ranging from properly exposed highlights to properly exposed shadows.
Sorry, even though I like this image, it does not appear to me to be what I know and understand HDR to be. HDR should, in my opinion, just extend the tonal ranges in photos. By the way my background is in journalism and photojournalism, thus I favor and teach photo realism.
The following is a good definition I found of HDR. Notice the emphasis on producing realistic images.



HDR (High dynamic range photography) is simply photography that captures a very wide range of brightness levels. So you will have very bright areas, slightly less bright areas, bright areas,......, dark-ish areas, darker areas,....all the way to solid blacks.

Most cameras and films capture a relatively narrow dynamic range. This is because cameras measure a ''slice'' of the light that is coming in through the lens for a certain amount of time. This is why, if you shoot a sunrise, you will often find that the sun looks really bright and the land is just a black mass. This can be annoying if you want to capture a more realistic image.

The thing to remember is that the camera does not work like the eye.

The camera is essentially a ''brightness measurer'' and the eye is a ''contrast measurer''. Much of what the eye sees is actually memory. The eye scans rapidly across the visible plane and constructs a ''best fit'' picture of the scene, which will be nicely balanced out in terms of light and dark areas. Cameras just capture the range of brightness levels according to what you tell them.

Film (generally) has higher dynamic range than digital. This is why many pro wedding photographers still shoot film. You will hear them saying, ''I need the details in the whites''. They mean that they want to see the different levels of whiteness in the white dresses, flowers, etc.

Understanding HDR also helps you to understand why Photoshop tutorials teach you to use the 'S' curve. This is to try and mimic the response of film to varying brightness levels. At the brightest and darkest points the responsiveness of the film ''tapers off'' (the curve gets less steep) for the shadows and highlights. Digital gives a linear response for shadows, midtones and highlights. As digital cameras get better this will be less of a problem.

To create a high dynamic range image with digital, the best way is to shoot multiple frames of the same scene with exposure bracketing. This means you shoot a range of images, deliberately underexposing them in stops of 1/3 EV, i.e.

-2, -1 2/3, -1 1/3, -1, -2/3, -1/3,

then expose 'correctly'

+0

then overexpose

+1/3, +2/3, +1, + 1 1/3, + 1 2/3, +2

You then layer these images together in Photoshop and balance them out.

GreyDiesel said:

Also, wanted to respond to Stan. This is in fact HDR. I am using 3 dif exposures combined in photoshop and then tone mapped using the PhotoMatix plugin. PhotoMatix HDRs tend to push a lot more of the tones to the black than the other tone mapping filters I have seen. Though you can really make it look however you'd like if you put in the time playing with the settings.

and uh.. I suppose I should mention. I am a professional photographer. This is what I do to afford my Mustang Mods.

Click to expand...

Amen to side jobs! Are you full-time photographer or part time?

I do a great deal of engine tuning on the weekends to pay for my fun times.

PSYKOSTEVO said:

Are you saying that 280rwhp on the auto is close to 350bhp? How much % loss do the mustangs really have? I haven't seen any definite numbers on it.

Click to expand...

Usually manuals lose about 17% and automatics around 20%. Basing mine with the 280 RWHP from the 87 dyno tune, that added 20% would put me at 336. Guessing near 290 RWHP with the 93 tune plus the 20% loss would be 348 HP at the crank.

kooldawg6 said:

Usually manuals lose about 17% and automatics around 20%. Basing mine with the 280 RWHP from the 87 dyno tune, that added 20% would put me at 336. Guessing near 290 RWHP with the 93 tune plus the 20% loss would be 348 HP at the crank.

Click to expand...

I'll share something with you. When calculating powertrain loss, it is common for most people to quote the % loss, but then incorrectly calculate the inverse to find the crank amount. In order to turn a 20% loss back to 100% you would actually have to add 25% to get back there. 280rwhp at a 20% loss = 350bhp. You're original calculations are off, as are MOST people's.

If you hit 290rwhp at your 20% loss would be 362.5bhp. That of course is assuming that the 20% figure is correct, and I understand that they are just estimates because there is a multitude of factors, but a 20% sounds realistic.

Just didn't want you selling yourself short.

Since I make 298/325 to the wheels at a 17% loss I would have to multiply that by 20.5 to get back to crank. I would sit at 359/391 crank.