Rumor about 2011 gt's - Mustang Evolution

Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 1979-2015 Mustang GT || Tech and Talk > 2011-2014 Mustang GT



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them here!
Old 11-19-2012, 06:56 AM   #1
Registered Member
Regular
 
Mustang Boi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Region: Michigan
Posts: 43
Rumor about 2011 gt's

Is it true that 2011 gt make more rear wheel horsepower stock, then what the manufacture says they make?
Mustang Boi is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-19-2012, 07:32 AM   #2
Road Trip!
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Region: Florida
Posts: 1,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustang Boi
Is it true that 2011 gt make more rear wheel horsepower stock, then what the manufacture says they make?
No.
Mikeyt03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 07:32 AM   #3
Registered Member
Regular
 
DWC_SmOziLLa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Lancaster
Region: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,791
It's not that they make more power than stock. It's that ford claims a number typically for insurance purposes. And everybody had their theories as to what percentage should be calculated for parasitic loss. Even doing the math on the conservative side, you'll come up with more flywheel horse power than the claimed 412-420hp that ford states for the 11-13's. Not much but a little more. Every car and every dyno is different. There are a lot of variables to consider. Most 5.0's dyno at anywhere from 365-390rwhp.
__________________
Best 1/4: 1.90 60ft. - 12.15 @ 119mph on Street Tires.
460.25rwhp & 408.28rwtq SAE on a Dynojet 224xLC
Tuned by Matt Lepkowski, owner and operator a Performance Evolution in Smyrna, DE.
DWC_SmOziLLa is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-19-2012, 07:46 AM   #4
Registered Member
Regular
 
gtstyles2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Lodi
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 1,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWC_SmOziLLa
It's not that they make more power than stock. It's that ford claims a number typically for insurance purposes. And everybody had their theories as to what percentage should be calculated for parasitic loss. Even doing the math on the conservative side, you'll come up with more flywheel horse power than the claimed 412-420hp that ford states for the 11-13's. Not much but a little more. Every car and every dyno is different. There are a lot of variables to consider. Most 5.0's dyno at anywhere from 365-390rwhp.
That's bone stock? I'm just wondering how realistic these numbers look... Only performance upgrade u have is Bama93 and Steeda CAI
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	image-301616624.png
Views:	246
Size:	498.8 KB
ID:	76677  
gtstyles2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 07:55 AM   #5
It's not me, it's you.
Regular
Supporter
 
primer2tone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Corpus Christi
Region: Texas
Posts: 6,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtstyles2

That's bone stock? I'm just wondering how realistic these numbers look... Only performance upgrade u have is Bama93 and Steeda CAI
In the past I've seen other '11's dyno with just a tune and make right around 400hp. I'd say that's about accurate. I don't know much about dyno's I'm just going by other sheets I've seen on here.
primer2tone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 08:32 AM   #6
Registered Member
Regular
 
DWC_SmOziLLa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Lancaster
Region: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtstyles2

That's bone stock? I'm just wondering how realistic these numbers look... Only performance upgrade u have is Bama93 and Steeda CAI
Yeah. Bone stock I put down 386rwhp. Your numbers seem to be right on the money for a canned tune. There's some more aggressive tunes out there that may yield another 5-15rwhp. Nothing beats getting your car tuned on the dyno though. With a good dyno tune and reputable tuner you could be in the 415-420rwhp range with just a intake. The most power comes from getting rid of the cats and of course the tune. Good luck Greg.
__________________
Best 1/4: 1.90 60ft. - 12.15 @ 119mph on Street Tires.
460.25rwhp & 408.28rwtq SAE on a Dynojet 224xLC
Tuned by Matt Lepkowski, owner and operator a Performance Evolution in Smyrna, DE.
DWC_SmOziLLa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 09:14 AM   #7
Registered Member
Regular
 
gtstyles2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Lodi
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 1,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWC_SmOziLLa

Yeah. Bone stock I put down 386rwhp. Your numbers seem to be right on the money for a canned tune. There's some more aggressive tunes out there that may yield another 5-15rwhp. Nothing beats getting your car tuned on the dyno though. With a good dyno tune and reputable tuner you could be in the 415-420rwhp range with just a intake. The most power comes from getting rid of the cats and of course the tune. Good luck Greg.
Thanks Dave, here's another crazy question... Would rear end gears have made a difference in the results??

---------- Post added at 08:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:11 AM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by primer2tone

In the past I've seen other '11's dyno with just a tune and make right around 400hp. I'd say that's about accurate. I don't know much about dyno's I'm just going by other sheets I've seen on here.
That's good to know, this is my 1st ever on a dyno... Plus I see others with way more mods and full exhausts that have lower numbers, which makes it confusing
gtstyles2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 10:08 AM   #8
Registered Member
Regular
 
Struego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Region: Illinois
Posts: 145
Click image for larger version

Name:	image-654128743.jpg
Views:	300
Size:	640.8 KB
ID:	76698

Four pulls on my 2011 gt mt. It was a hot summer day. Almost 100 degrees. I have a 4.10 gear, wms intake, and flow master hush power cat back. My tuner was at sct having repairs done to it, but now I reloaded the bama race tune and I'll post the results after I dyno with a tune. I have to say though, my 2011 gt felt very strong stock. Almost as if the factory underestimated the numbers.
Struego is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 10:11 AM   #9
Registered Member
Regular
 
DWC_SmOziLLa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Lancaster
Region: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtstyles2

Thanks Dave, here's another crazy question... Would rear end gears have made a difference in the results?
Absolutely. The shorter gear you run the lower the number. For example, a car that Dyno's at 400rwhp with 3.31 gears would probably lose 5rwhp per gear they step up to. Meaning that same car could show a loss of 10rwhp changing to 3.73s. The car doesn't lose power but with the increased or decreased tire speeds the dyno will show a different number. Same thing if you make a dyno run in a tranny gear that's not a 1:1 ratio. 5th for manual and 4th for autos. So who's to say what the best gear to dyno in is that will give you a true Rwhp number.
__________________
Best 1/4: 1.90 60ft. - 12.15 @ 119mph on Street Tires.
460.25rwhp & 408.28rwtq SAE on a Dynojet 224xLC
Tuned by Matt Lepkowski, owner and operator a Performance Evolution in Smyrna, DE.
DWC_SmOziLLa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 11:04 AM   #10
Registered Member
Regular
 
Compstall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Tacoma, WA
Region: Washington
Posts: 1,162
There's only a few I've seen that dyno in the range, considering driveline loss, of a "412"hp rating. I think Ford was sandbagging a bit on the numbers - which is on the side of caution because you KNOW we'd all be crying if they were off. 2001? I believe was the year there were problems with Mustangs not putting up numbers close to what was advertised and a TSB came out with an updated intake for the cars so yes they've been down that road and it wasn't pretty.
__________________
- Brent
'11 GT Kona Blue Brembo
"Measure with micrometers, mark with a scribe, chop with an axe"
"I'm not new to driving. I've been doing it for a couple of years now." - Aphex
Compstall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 11:54 AM   #11
Registered Member
Regular
 
tfalk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Compstall View Post
2001? I believe was the year there were problems with Mustangs not putting up numbers close to what was advertised and a TSB came out with an updated intake for the cars so yes they've been down that road and it wasn't pretty.
I'm pretty sure that was the 99 Cobra's....

My 2011 dyno'd at 355 RWHP but it was bouncing off the speed limiter. Combined with the 3:31 gears, it sounds a bit low not bad.
__________________
99-122 Bright Atlantic Blue S281 S/C Convertible
11-025 Grabber Blue S302 Convertible

Saleen - Power in the hands of a fool!
tfalk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 12:37 PM   #12
Registered Member
Regular
 
Compstall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Tacoma, WA
Region: Washington
Posts: 1,162
I believe you're right, it was '99
__________________
- Brent
'11 GT Kona Blue Brembo
"Measure with micrometers, mark with a scribe, chop with an axe"
"I'm not new to driving. I've been doing it for a couple of years now." - Aphex
Compstall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 02:06 PM   #13
Loc: Austin,TX
Regular
Supporter
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Austin
Region: Texas
Posts: 5,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Compstall View Post
I believe you're right, it was '99

It was 99. I had one with a recall done to it.
DDTCM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 03:33 PM   #14
Registered Member
Regular
 
bradtaylornator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Region: Oklahoma
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDTCM

It was 99. I had one with a recall done to it.
Didnt ford underestimate the 03 cobras? I remember something like they were rated at 390hp but were actually running closer to 420hp?
bradtaylornator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 04:51 PM   #15
Loc: Austin,TX
Regular
Supporter
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Austin
Region: Texas
Posts: 5,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradtaylornator View Post
Didnt ford underestimate the 03 cobras? I remember something like they were rated at 390hp but were actually running closer to 420hp?
Thats the word. I think they were trying to save face with all the disappointed 99 owners and the fact that there was no 2000 Cobra except for the "R".
DDTCM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 06:01 PM   #16
Registered Member
Regular
 
bradtaylornator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Region: Oklahoma
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDTCM

Thats the word. I think they were trying to save face with all the disappointed 99 owners and the fact that there was no 2000 Cobra except for the "R".
Or 02, but they did redeem themselves with the 03/04 termis... the termis are Still my favorite mustang
bradtaylornator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 09:56 AM   #17
Registered Member
Regular
 
claudermilk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Region: California
Posts: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Compstall View Post
I think Ford was sandbagging a bit on the numbers - which is on the side of caution because you KNOW we'd all be crying if they were off. 2001? I believe was the year there were problems with Mustangs not putting up numbers close to what was advertised and a TSB came out with an updated intake for the cars so yes they've been down that road and it wasn't pretty.
I agree. I recall reading that one manufacturer recently got hit with a class action lawsuit because their cars weren't coming up to the claimed power numbers. I cannot remember who it was. So better to underestimate a bit & have a lot of happy customers who are getting slightly better numbers than expected than the other option.
claudermilk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 02:19 PM   #18
The Blue Dragon
Regular
Supporter
 
GrabberBlue5.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Louisville
Region: Kentucky
Posts: 5,661
I know Kia had a class action because of their 8 or so cars that achieves 40 mpg according to EPA testing, a whopping 0 of those 8 actually achieves those mpg numbers
__________________
New quick exhaust video

AUGUST 2012 MOTM!!!!
GrabberBlue5.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 06:19 AM   #19
Registered Member
Regular
 
elnegro5.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Region: Delaware
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrabberBlue5.0
I know Kia had a class action because of their 8 or so cars that achieves 40 mpg according to EPA testing, a whopping 0 of those 8 actually achieves those mpg numbers
I read about that. It was Hyundai, well KIA is Hyundai. Like you said now none of there cars get over 40 mpg.
elnegro5.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 07:22 AM   #20
Registered Member
Regular
 
wheelman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Region: Connecticut
Posts: 1,187
Yeah, my wife just got a check for a class action suit for overestimated mpgs for her Kia Sorento.
wheelman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 07:50 AM   #21
Moderator Emeritus
Regular
 
deadsp0t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: MidWorld
Region: Other
Posts: 4,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradtaylornator
Didnt ford underestimate the 03 cobras? I remember something like they were rated at 390hp but were actually running closer to 420hp?
At the time people where reported to have dyno'd right of the show room @390 to the wheels with 03'-04's.. Pretty damned Impressive IMO
__________________
That's unimpressive
deadsp0t is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 1979-2015 Mustang GT || Tech and Talk > 2011-2014 Mustang GT

Tags
2011 gt

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


» Like Us On Facebook



12:48 AM


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0

MustangEvolution.com is in no way associated with or endorsed by Ford Motor Company.