2011 Mustang GT 5.0 liter

[Dottore]

Well I took one of these for a test drive today, and have to say I was impressed.

The new engine is sensational, and the manual gearbox very nice and snickety. And it actually corners very nicely. But best of all is the grunt and the engine noise. I thought I was 18 years old again—driving my old Hemi Satellite with my girlfriends head in my lap.

Of course it's a crude bit of kit at the end of the day, but for someone looking for a fun weekend car for not a whole lot of money—this is a brilliant alternative. It's easily as much fun as a P-car—although I'm not entirely sure the infatuation would last quite as long with the Mustang.

I'd definitely encourage anyone with prejudices against American iron to take one for a test drive. It will make you a little more tolerant.

[pwd72s]

Hate to say this, but even with my low horsepower Bullitt...I keep hoping to come across an early 911 or a 944 when driving one of our mountain passes... Hoping to play a little.

Seriously, don't knock Ford too much these days. Once I decided to pass on the old 911S to Evren, I had a nice surprise when I took a Mustang for a test drive..Even the 2011 V-6 has 305 horses while delivering 31 mph hwy.

[oldschoollear]

Originally Posted by Dottore

Of course it's a crude bit of kit at the end of the day,9.

Could you elaborate. How big is the back seat?

[pwd72s]

Originally Posted by oldschoollear

Could you elaborate. How big is the back seat?

Bigger than the 911's...rear comfort depends on how far back the driver and passenger seats are placed. I'm 6' 3", drive with the seat nearly all the way back...a double leg amputee would be comfortable sitting behind me...

[oldschoollear]

[QUOTE=pwd72s;5417645]Bigger than the 911's...rear comfort depends on how far back the driver and passenger seats are placed. I'm 6' 3", drive with the seat nearly all the way back...a double leg amputee would be comfortable sitting behind me...[/QU


I actually just drove one, pretty impressive. Looked like a car seat could fit back there, i'm 5'9''.



Please explain the difference between 3.55 and 3.73 gear ratios

[Steve Viegas]

3.73 will make you quicker, but not as fast. If I am not mistaken, the tires will turn 3.73 times vs. 3.55 times for each rotation of the drive shaft.

[oldschoollear]

Originally Posted by Steve Viegas

3.73 will make you quicker, but not as fast. If I am not mistaken, the tires will turn 3.73 times vs. 3.55 times for each rotation of the drive shaft.

So quicker off the line, top end suffers.

[Steve Viegas]

That is how I understand it. Now that I think of the math, my driveshaft to tire rotation cannot be correct, but I am pretty sure about the gearing vs. quickness vs. top end.

Not liking my answer, I went to Randy's Ring and Pinion, a well respected rear end specialist. Here is what they say...

"Differential Gear Ratio determines the number of times the drive shaft (or pinion) will rotate for each turn of the wheels (or ring gear). So if you have a 3.73:1 gear ratio the drive shaft turns 3.73 times for every turn of the wheel.

Gear ratio is calculated by dividing the number of teeth on the ring gear by the number of teeth on the pinion gear. The higher the number, the lower the ratio: a 5.29 gear has a lower ratio than a 4.10 gear. With a lower gear ratio the drive shaft (and thus the engine) turns more for each revolution of the wheel, delivering more power and torque to the wheel for any given speed. Lower ratios are generally desirable when going off-road. Higher ratios are better for freeway driving since they run at lower RPM’s and offer better fuel economy. "

[Jim Bremner]

3.73 Is what the car will urn in 4th gear. Is the car a 5spd or a 6spd?

If the final over drive is .68 you times the 3.73 x .68 giving you a final drive of 2.5364


My '67 had a 4.11 rear gear a .68 overdrive. at 5200 rpm it was driving the car
at 152 mph with 245/50/16 tires

add larger tires and it would give greater top end and smaller tires would steal the top end

at 6,400 rpm when the engine would make peak hp the car would have a theoretical speed of 187mph with 4:11 rear gears!

[dd74]

The new Mustang is a 6-speed. And yes, I certainly would buy one.

[Dottore]

It's a six speed. And they give you a choice of 4 (I think) final drive ratios when you order one.

I didn't sit in the rear seat—but I think it is only good for children.

Very impressive car though—particularly given the price.

My only gripes were aesthetic. I think the car looks bloated somehow. The way a 996 looks bloated. And I hate the rear view. And the interior...well it just ain't a Porsche in that regard.

But the dynamic impressions are all good. I can't think of where you would find more bang for the buck.

[pwd72s]

The rear seat works well for adults...IF front seat occupants are willing to give up leg room. A 5'9" friend has no problem in the back seat sitting behind Cindy with her passenger seat up a bit.

The '11 six speed is a dream, fifth is 1:1 and sixth is an overdrive 0.65:1.

Definitely go with the 3:73 with limited slip rear end. That's the set-up in my Bullitt, and it doesn't limit top speed since top speed is electronically limited (in my Bullitt) to 151 anyway.

Standard rear end is 3:31, optional rear ends are 3:55 and 3:73

Also stongly suggest ordering the optional Brembo Brakes package.

I'd suggest "california special" trim...that leaves the 5.0 emblems off the fenders.
I prefer sleepers.

What'll she do in the quarter? Box stock, with the 3:73, plan on mid to high 12's...105 or so trap speed. Fear no stock Camaro....

Skid pad? .95 G...the 305 horse V-6 pulls more with the optional better suspension package. Less weight up front...so the V-6 probably the better choice for cone chasers.

I prefer the '09 body style...but the Mustang boards are already buzzing over what it takes to transplant the 5.0 and 6 speed into the S197 ('05-09) models.

I'm personally in "wait & see" mode...about mods. Aesthetics, I prefer my '09 Bullit...hands down. It's sad that the rear view of the '11 is so unattractive, because a lot of drivers will be looking at it.

[PorschePilot]

I have a 2003 Mustang Mach 1 as a daily driver and it has a lot of bang for the buck. My engine is at 320 HP and the 2011 is at 412 HP. So I see an upgrade in my future. Fun daily driver and I don't worry about it in the parking lot. It is the complete opposite of my 911.

[VaSteve]

I saw the '10 models at a demonstration in a parking lot at the fall Richmond NASCAR race. 2 weeks later I went to test drive. What a nice car. The back seat is a flimsy POS...a slice of padded cardboard. They had an '09 Cal Special in the showroom and it was the same deal.

The view from inside is like a tank. Very dark and you seem to sit way low (I was coming from the Targa). I think the '10 models improve upon the 05-09 models eleventy million. I wish I had some money.

[dd74]

I wouldn't modify the engine - I mean 400+ horsepower isn't strong enough?

I'd tweak the suspension and rip out the useless rear seats; that is if they're useless to whomever owns an '11 Mustang.

[Jim Bremner]

Originally Posted by dd74

I wouldn't modify the engine - I mean 400+ horsepower isn't strong enough? trust me it's NOT

I'd tweak the suspension and rip out the useless rear seats; that is if they're useless to whomever owns an '11 Mustang.

make it work!

[dd74]

Originally Posted by Jim Bremner

make it work!

Okay, well for me it's enough. I'd like more finesse out of the underpinnings than brawn from the motor.

But hey, there are Larry Csonka guys, and there are Walter Payton guys...

[Jim Bremner]

400 hp in a 2,000 pound car is scary

400 hp in a 3,000 pound car is a fun car

400 hp in a 3,800 pound mustang is quick, but far from brewtal

[dd74]

Jim -- btw: pm'd you a question.

[ZOO]

Make mine Grabber Blue, black wheels, no rear spoiler, no 5.0 badges . . .