ssabripo
Well-Known Member
http://blogs.insideline.com/straigh...g-gt-50-production-example-less-powerful.html
2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0: Production Example Less Powerful
By Jason Kavanagh | April 4, 2011
Update: Dyno video added after the jump.
Last year, we dyno-tested a 2011 Ford Mustang GT powered by the company's hotly-anticipated 5.0-liter V8. That car was fresh from Ford's media introduction. It was strong. On the dyno and at the test track, it shone, and we were surprised by said strength.
We included some foreshadowing in that test: "Clearly, the 395 rwhp figure we measured is of particular interest since it implies one of two things -- either Ford is being conservative with its 412-hp flywheel rating, or the preproduction example we tested is unusually healthy. We're leaning toward the former, but we won't know for sure until we test a production 2011 Mustang."
Now, here, today, is our longterm 2011 Ford Mustang GT, the production one we purchased from a dealer just like everyone else. As promised, we busted out the dyno straps at MD Automotive in Westminster, CA, and got busy
Let's jump right to the meaty bit. Here's what our longterm car did when strapped to the rollers of the Dynojet 248 chassis dyno:
Here's an overlay of those same results and those of the car from last year's media intro:
What the what? The car from Ford's media fleet is clearly stronger, generating some 12 lb-ft higher torque and 15 more horsepower at their respective peaks. At a given rpm, the maximum differences observed are even greater -- 23 lb-ft and 25 horsepower. These are not insignificant differences.
The acceleration of the two cars mirrored the dyno results, too. Our black longtermer clicked off a quarter mile trap speed of 109.5 mph, fully 1.1 mph slower than the blue car from the media intro. More recently we tested a third 2011 Mustang GT 5.0 from Ford's media fleet which trapped 109.3 mph.
We checked with Ford officials on the dyno results we observed, and they didn't come up with any smoking guns. That leaves plain ol' engine-to-engine variation, octane-sensitivity -- perhaps the car from the media intro still had Midwest premium in the tank (unlikely, according to Ford) -- or everyone's favorite conspiracy that the media intro cars were hotted up!
Same dyno, same operator, same equipment, same procedure. Weather conditions were very similar too, resulting in minimal weather correction in both cases. Green engine? At the time of testing, the car from the media intro had 1,750 miles on the clock to our 1,451.
In light of what you see here, which side of the fence are you on? Ford's a bunch of lyin' bastidges! or Easy now, there's perfectly reasonable technical explanation!
cliffs: ford lied, BLoG died
2001 cobra comes to mind lol
