|
kimbo305 posted:Does the harness include a 2011 ECU? The 3v engine assembly did, so I would imagine it will since it's rather integral to making the combo run.
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
Wanderer89 posted:Verch101, guy with the '49 Ford F-1 project, has one... and it has completely changed my perception of Mustangs. If you have any questions about 'em I'll have him look on here. I absolutely love his car, but it doesn't stop five-oh envy for the 2011's from either of us, as quite a few bits and pieces from the Bullitt made it onto the 2010 I think (obviously not the motor). That's a Sweet ride! Bullitt or not I really like how clean the new Mustangs look when you don't have a bunch of plastic appearance crap bolted on. I'm not a fan of the GT fog lights specifically. I wish ford would go back to offering stripper mustangs with V8's like the LX's they used to sell when the fox-bodies were around. But I guess there's not any money in that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 06:30
|
|
|
Adjusted for inflation, the 2011 Mustang V6 costs about $500 more than did the 2001 Ford Focus SVT. I find that rather amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 07:23
|
|
|
Faceless Clock posted:Adjusted for inflation, the 2011 Mustang V6 costs about $500 more than did the 2001 Ford Focus SVT. I find that rather amazing. Adujusted for inflation, a 2011 mustang V6 costs about the same as a hi-po 289 1965 mustang optioned up to match the 2011s standard features. It also has 35 more horsepower, a 1" shorter wheelbase, and is 400lbs heavier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 07:58
|
|
|
Powershift posted:It also ... 400lbs heavier.  What would it take to remove 400 pounds from a Mustang, creature comforts be damned? Which brings up another thing: rear seat deletes. The back seat in my current 2003 Mustang has only carried passengers once, carpooling to school for a semester (which I only did because I had the hots for one of the two girls I car pooled with). And once my best friend's wife rode in the back. That's it. However, it has carried all of my worldly possessions at least a dozen times. That includes two 4-foot tall tower speakers, 2 20" CRT monitors, a guitar, amp, and all my clothes. And a mid-sized desktop tower.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 08:32
|
|
|
Tons of them. Too bad it isn't a factory option though. As many Mustangs as I've had, I can count on one hand how many times the back seats had ever seen passengers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 08:40
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:
I would assume most weight is down to this factor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF6JUB7bCEk airbags are heavy, structure is heavy. if you look at comparable cars: nissan 370z: 3232lbs(nissan website) v6 mustang: 3464 lbs(motor trend) v6 altima coupe: 3294 lbs(nissan website) V6 accord coupe: 3401 lbs(honda website) v6 genesis coupe: 3389 lbs(hyundai website) 3476 lbs(motor trend) v6 camaro: 3741 lbs(chevrolet website) 3794lbs(motor trend) v6 challenger: 3819 lbs(dodge website) 3834lbs(motor trend) BMW 335i: 3560 lbs(bmw website) audi A5 3.2: 3737 lbs(audi website) infinti G37: 3627 lbs(infiniti website) It's not like all these companies conspired together and said "let's make our cars heavier than old ones!" it's just the cost of doing business these days.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 09:16
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:Which brings up another thing: rear seat deletes. Steve Shrader makes the best one on the market.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 15:27
|
|
|
I've actually found myself thinking that one of the advantages to the V6 Mustang is that it is relatively light. That's just weird, but its true. Most cars of this size are between 3400-3800 pounds. Despite what people say, they're probably just going to get heavier, because IIRC there are new rollover and side impact tests being commonly used (the one that slams a car into a pole sideways).
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 16:25
|
|
|
Faceless Clock posted:I've actually found myself thinking that one of the advantages to the V6 Mustang is that it is relatively light. That's just weird, but its true. Most cars of this size are between 3400-3800 pounds. The v6 weighs like 40lbs less than the v8. You're not saving much weight there and it's solely in the engine as the rest of the car is the exact same.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 16:29
|
|
|
Does anyone here have a glass roof and can you take a picture of it to show me? Is it removable like a T-Top and does it fit in the trunk?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 17:02
|
|
|
johnny sack posted:Does anyone here have a glass roof and can you take a picture of it to show me? Is it removable like a T-Top and does it fit in the trunk? It is not removable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 17:20
|
|
|
Can anyone recognize this rear-end? Came off a '67 Mustang my uncle is building. Click here for the full 1024x768 image.  Click here for the full 1024x768 image.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 17:50
|
|
|
Having a glass roof is probably the worst thing ever. I have one on my scion tc and it makes the car unbearably hot on daytime drives. The scion even has little shades to block out some of the heat but I'm convinced they do nearly nothing. Honestly, I can't imagine why anyone would want a glass roof in a car, it doesn't feel like a convertible it just feels hot. Rant over, I skipped this option on the Mustang I ordered. I think it's a terrible option.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 17:52
|
|
|
Devyl posted:Can anyone recognize this rear-end? Came off a '67 Mustang my uncle is building. Can't tell you anything about it without the axle tag other than it is a 9" made in 1967.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 18:15
|
|
|
Devyl posted:Can anyone recognize this rear-end? Came off a '67 Mustang my uncle is building. It's NOT NOT NOT a 9", it's an 8", the little brother of the 9". You can tell, even without a tag, because you can see the lower third-member bolts when viewed straight-on. On a 9", the pinion "hangs over" the lower bolts because of it's larger size and you need an open-end wrench to remove two of them. The one pictured has the later multi-rib case, which is a big improvement over the '64-65 single-rib case. 8"'s are underrated, they use the same axles and spider gears as non-HD 9"'s, but they're a lot lighter and create less parasitic drag. The only drawback is fewer aftermarket parts are available, but the commonly-used stuff is no problem to find.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 18:26
|
|
|
JnnyThndrs posted:It's NOT NOT NOT a 9", it's an 8", the little brother of the 9". You can tell, even without a tag, because you can see the lower third-member bolts when viewed straight-on. On a 9", the pinion "hangs over" the lower bolts because of it's larger size and you need an open-end wrench to remove two of them. I could have swore that I saw those lower bolts covered. Woops! At any rate, C7 indicates 1967, so it is probably the original rear end. I'd imagine the car was a 6 cylinder.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 18:29
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Adujusted for inflation, a 2011 mustang V6 costs about the same as a hi-po 289 1965 mustang optioned up to match the 2011s standard features. Is that measured SAE net or gross though, that would be like a 40 or 50HP difference on top of the 35.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 20:59
|
|
|
Huggable Bear King posted:I'm not a fan of the GT fog lights specifically. It wasn't an option on Saturday, when I placed my order for a race-red convertible. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 00:14
|
|
|
Just picked up my Mustang from the dealer today. I have to say, I am really impressed with what this thing can do. The Microsoft Sync is actually a lot cooler than I thought it would be. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 02:30
|
|
|
frozenphil posted:The package will be available soon, probably this fall. It comes with the complete engine assembly with all the front end accessories as well as the engine harness. Should run around $8k if the previous offerings are any indication. Does anyone know the weight difference between the Coyote and the 4.6 3v? Still aluminum block? EDIT: I so want this car but I have a feeling the '14.5 car may have a true sportsroof and hips. My '07 is almost the same car anyway. They're not gonna jerk me around every 3.5-4 years. Thelonious Drunk fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Jul 27, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 04:23
|
|
|
Powershift posted:I would assume most weight is down to this factor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF6JUB7bCEk That video deserves its own thread. Really shows were much of the engineering $ goes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 04:34
|
|
|
Oxytocin posted:Does anyone know the weight difference between the Coyote and the 4.6 3v? Still aluminum block? The Coyote weighs 10lbs more at 430lbs. It is still an aluminum block.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 04:44
|
|
|
Whipple is almost done with their 2011 GT supercharger. Rumors are 550hp with 6psi. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 01:31
|
|
|
So what are the weaknesses of coyote? Also, in your estimation, does it seem like Ford tweaked as much as possible out of the design, or will we see a lot higher numbers than we've seen out the 03-04 terminators. In other words, do you see it benefitting as greatly through aftermarket as we've seen in the past?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 02:27
|
|
|
Oxytocin posted:So what are the weaknesses of coyote? Also, in your estimation, does it seem like Ford tweaked as much as possible out of the design, or will we see a lot higher numbers than we've seen out the 03-04 terminators. In other words, do you see it benefitting as greatly through aftermarket as we've seen in the past? Haven't you seen what basic bolt-ons and a tune will do? There's great NA results already, so the general aftermarket's viability can't be in question. As for whether someone has made a daily driveable 1000hp kit, I'm sure there's a shop shooting for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 02:31
|
|
|
I'm hoping that the rumored 2012 Boss comes true. I would like a modified Coyote delivering loads of power but without the extra supercharger weight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 02:44
|
|
|
Oxytocin posted:So what are the weaknesses of coyote? Also, in your estimation, does it seem like Ford tweaked as much as possible out of the design, or will we see a lot higher numbers than we've seen out the 03-04 terminators. In other words, do you see it benefitting as greatly through aftermarket as we've seen in the past? 1)The pistons and rods are going to be the main weakness. I don't see them living behind 500hp for long if there's even a hint of detonation. 2)We've already seen aftermarket gains of nearly 75rwhp with a full exhaust system, CAI, and a tune. I'd say that bolt-ons are still very much viable. The 2011 GT, in naturally aspirated form, makes more power than the Terminators did stock, so I'm not sure what you're asking. If you're asking about modified engines then yeah, the Coyote should make more power than the Terminators because it has more displacement and better flowing heads. 3)It's a whole lot easier to make more power when the engine already has forged internals and a supercharger on it from the factory, but the Coyote seems to be doing rather well with simple bolt-ons. Killbot posted:I'm hoping that the rumored 2012 Boss comes true. I would like a modified Coyote delivering loads of power but without the extra supercharger weight. If they make it and don't bring the original colors over as options I will be very upset. Basically, make this terrible photoshop a reality, Ford!  Click here for the full 800x530 image.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 02:55
|
|
|
I guess I was asking in terms of potential. I was under impression the terminators were massively underrated with lots of untapped power on reserve, especially factoring forged internals. But this is coming from someone who never owned one skewed with beer goggles typing on his phone at the moment. I think I'm looking for reasons to dimiss this generation and uncovering little.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 03:27
|
|
|
Oxytocin posted:I guess I was asking in terms of potential. The '03/'04 Cobras were underrated as they generally made their rated power at the wheels instead of at the flywheel. There's always going to be more left in a factory supercharged engine than there is in a naturally aspirated one. There really is no reason to dismiss the 2011 Mustang. At least '03/'04 Cobra owners finally realize this as you can now find decent low mileage examples for under $20k.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 03:33
|
|
|
Killbot posted:I'm hoping that the rumored 2012 Boss comes true. I would like a modified Coyote delivering loads of power but without the extra supercharger weight. Honest question, at what point do new Mustangs get to be un-streetable? I thought 400 horsepower was pretty near the max of what I'm personally comfortable with as a sorta daily driver but Ford's gonna have to push more horsepower out of this motor every model year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 16:00
|
|
|
kronix posted:Honest question, at what point do new Mustangs get to be un-streetable? I thought 400 horsepower was pretty near the max of what I'm personally comfortable with as a sorta daily driver but Ford's gonna have to push more horsepower out of this motor every model year. Never, really. With TCS and modern engine management you can make it so you have to REALLY try to kill yourself with 650hp. For example, when using launch control in the ZR1 the car samples wheel speed sensors and within 10ms of detecting wheel slip or an increase in the vehicle yaw rate, it will retard the fueling/timing or lightly apply the brake to keep the car arrow straight. Teach someone how to bang the gears and you can have someone whose never driven a stick before running in the 11 second range consistently all day. Cars have already surpassed the "How much do we really need?" in terms of horsepower for the past two decades, but they've made the power so manageable it's more about the nut behind the wheel. Muffinpox fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Jul 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 16:14
|
|
|
I understand that TCS and all the electronic goodies help but it seems to me at some point we're hitting the actual limit of what tires can put down. What good is 600 horsepower when the ECU is constantly detecting wheel spin and dialing back power all the way into 3rd gear? It seems to me that at some point we're going to be hitting a maximum where added horsepower nets very little benefit unless cars get significantly heavier or tires get a lot stickier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 20:36
|
|
|
kronix posted:I understand that TCS and all the electronic goodies help but it seems to me at some point we're hitting the actual limit of what tires can put down. We've got a ways to go.  
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 21:50
|
|
|
I'm hearing reports of the 2005-2009 GT ABS module throwing a fault and locking up all the wheels. This happens to people with race tires and huge brakes who thrash their cars on the track. It's recommended that, if your GT sees heavy track duty, you get the FR500 ABS module and the other GT500 parts to make it compatible. I guess I should invest in one soon since with the cancellation of the Mustang Challenge this module will probably be hard to come by.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 00:46
|
|
|
kronix posted:I understand that TCS and all the electronic goodies help but it seems to me at some point we're hitting the actual limit of what tires can put down. What good is 600 horsepower when the ECU is constantly detecting wheel spin and dialing back power all the way into 3rd gear? Sure, it reaches a point where you can't exactly nail it in second gear and keep it smoke-free, but that's not the point. The point is that you should be able to cruise around in 6th gear and just hammer down and smoke the tires at 130 mph. THEN you may need to consider reaching a theoretical limit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 02:24
|
|
|
You know how much more a windshield costs with the Mustang logo compared to without? According to the people who are going to replace mine tomorrow, around $280 more. I like the Mustang logo (which is indeed very well hidden on the windshield to begin with, all things considered), but it sure as hell isn't worth that much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 05:47
|
|
|
I've made a terrible mistake. A local dealership is offering the 2010 GT (no owners, new) for 10 grand off at 25k. It's a fully loaded model, and has essentially every feature I could want, to include manual transmission. I took it for a test drive, and all was well and good. Then I made the mistake. I test drove the 2011 5.0. Goddamnit, it was in every way a better drive than the 2010, and the 2010 wasn't bad at all. This mistake is probably going to cost me ten thousand dollars 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 23:34
|
|
|
A.o.D. posted:I've made a terrible mistake. A local dealership is offering the 2010 GT (no owners, new) for 10 grand off at 25k. It's a fully loaded model, and has essentially every feature I could want, to include manual transmission. I took it for a test drive, and all was well and good. What about the 2011 V6? Should be close in price to the '10, and might drive like the 5.0.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
kimbo305 posted:What about the 2011 V6? Should be close in price to the '10, and might drive like the 5.0. That's an option, but no one has a manual v6 with the performance package for me to take for a spin. The 6-banger would definitely be cheaper to own in the long term, what with reduced fuel and insurance costs, and would drive nearly identically to a 5.0. It's just that no one has that particular configuration on the lot. Plus there's the possibility that I'd always be wondering "what if" should I choose the v6 over the 5.0.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 23:39
|
|