1. Home
  2. Ford Mustang Forum
  3. New/2011 5.0 Mustang Details

New/2011 5.0 Mustang Details

This one is going to be special, folks! Read on.

Mustang's 400 horses make one powerful pony Mustang's 5-liter V-8 vrooms into next decade with good gas mileage Scott Burgess / The Detroit News

It sounds better than it looks, and the 2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0 looks great.

Ford Motor Co. was to officially announce today the return of the 5- liter V-8, and the public will get its first look at the muscle car in January at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit.

The legendary engine has lived in the Mustang on and off for nearly 30 years but never with as much ferocious power or outstanding gas mileage. The new GT will be able to get up to 25 miles per gallon while cranking out more than 400 horses.

Advertisement

The current GT, powered by Ford's bullet proof 4.6-liter V-8, produces

315 horsepower and averages 23 mpg on the highway.

By the numbers the new naturally aspirated engine will deliver 412 horsepower, 390 pound-feet torque and a rumbling growl that can make the hair on the back of your neck stand up.

"I've been waiting 48 years for this," Jim Farley, Ford's vice president of marketing and a longtime Mustang enthusiast, said during a media preview of the Mustang GT. Farley drives a Grabber Blue Mustang GT. "When I joined Ford, as soon as I heard about this engine, I knew we had something special," he said.

The hallowed engine block -- a 5-liter engine has almost the same displacement as 302 cubic inches or a Boss 302 -- has a long Mustang history. When the 1983 Mustang GT 5.0 High Output arrived, it cranked out a then-thunderous 157 horsepower. A four-barrel carburetor on the

1986 GT wowed consumers with its 210 horsepower. The last GT to use the 5-liter V-8 was the 1995 Mustang.

Ford could use the new engine in other vehicles, such as the F-150 pickup, to provide more power than the current 4.6-liter V-8, though executives would not comment on that possibility.

Engineers and designers said they were challenged to top 400 horsepower on a 5-liter displacement engine. Additionally, they were given only a few years to create it, losing 12 months of development time.

"It's faster than we've ever done it," said Mike Harrison, V-8 engine programs manager, of the work his 10-person team did.

Engineers opened up the intake and created new headers for a "better breathing engine," Harrison said. They also gave the V-8 twin independent variable valve camshaft timing to enhance its performance.

Ford will showcase the new GT with the black and red 5.0 badge at the auto show in Detroit. But this car adds more than just power.

Ford will add a new six-speed automatic or manual transmission to the GT, replacing the five-speed gear box on the current model. With the improved gear ratios and with lots of low-end torque, drivers no longer will have to downshift to third to find power at 70 mph. (The new speedometer goes up to 160 mph, up from 140 mph.)

It will feature electric power-assisted steering, known as EPAS. This fuel-saving technology operates without a traditional steering pump, and Ford has worked to dial in a solid steering feel, engineers said.

There also were changes to the car's suspension and tuning. Ford promises a much quieter ride in the 2011 Mustang GT due to additional sound-deadening materials. Engineers added support to make the body 12 percent more rigid to improve its handling. The Mustang GT will keep its solid rear axle, perhaps the one sharply criticized attribute, but one many enthusiasts have come to embrace.

A special Bermbo brake package also will be available on the new GT with 14-inch disc brakes (taken from the GT 500), 19-inch wheels and summer performance tires.

Ford said it also will add features such as integrated blind spot mirrors, illuminated visors, and a universal garage door opener on the

2011 Mustang GT.

The 5.0 V-8 engine upgrade follows the introduction of a new powertrain to the 2011 Mustang V-6, which comes with a 3.7-liter engine that provides more than 300 horsepower and still allows the car to hit 30 mpg.

"This car is beautiful," Aaron Bragman, an automotive analyst at IHS Global Insight, said of the new 5.0. "Mustang enthusiasts will love it."

Then he looked at a black Mustang GT in front of him: "I'll take that one."

Patrick

Reply to
NoOp
Loading thread data ...

Wrong-O.

25 mpg while @ 60 horses

please correct your misleading statement;

"The new GT will be able to get up to 25 miles per gallon OR cranke out more than 400 horses."

@ 400 horses your at about 5 MPG

When going 50 MPH.

BS, the tank weighs over 4,500 pounds, it is BIGGUS PIGGUS

Take some f**king WEIGHT OFF IT, DA.

Big and Heavy and sluggish was so 60's with the sleads, 450 engine.

push rods.....

How many short cuts did ya'll take ??

Just put a f*king BLOWER ON IT, D.A.!!

EXCEPT TORQUE IS F**KING LIMITED BY COMPUTER SO GREAT AUNT MOGGIE CAN DRIVE IT.

BUT IT IS SPEED LIMITED TO 110 MPH BY STARVING FUEL !!

IT WILL NEVER DO 120.

Reply to
jonnie

I beg to differ. Obviously we won't know until someone tries it, but my Mustang and my truck get better mileage at 60 than at 50.

Until Spurchips, bullydog etc. start shipping their custom programmers. I thought I mentioned that....

I beg to differ again, see above.

Reply to
WindsorFo

Mine don't get better at 60 than at 50, but they both (2008 convertible automatic and 2009 GT manual-shifter) average more than 23 mpg at 75 mph, on long stretches. Both are averaging more than 20 mpg in a total of more than 10,000 miles of real-world pleasure driving, including multiple autocrosses and drag-racing events.

Not that MPG is the important criterion for choosing a Mustang.

I guess they each weigh 3500 pounds or so. I can't see where jonnie's

4500 came from.

I do see a problem with saying "the 5.0 is back"; it can't be back if it is all new, new, new. I'll bet it differs from the 5.0 that could be "back" by a cc or two, at least, in addtion to the number of valve and method of actuation, for example.

Freaking hypists do give me agruras.

Reply to
Frank ess

My '07 GT man. is getting 25 mpg on the cruise at 65 mph. Wife is avg. 22 mpg on commuting 25 miles per day. Pretty good IMO with the 3.73 rear IMO. 5.0 should be just as good as it only another .4 liters. That is as long as your prudent with the right pedal........

Reply to
Repairman

Interesting discussion, if only because it's alien to my way of thinking.

I suppose that my mileage would be better doing 75mph in 5th gear than 75 in

4th, but fuel economy has never been a guiding principle in my auto buying history (or, apparently, my auto driving history). The anticipated mpg of the 2011 Mustang is irrelevant to me; it's the other numbers that I find so appealing.

I'm sorry, but I just don't care whether the new GT gets 25mpg, 22mpg, or a more-real-world 17mpg. For those who do care, I will point out that the new V6 model looks to be fantastic and may qualify as a best buy.

What shocks me in all of this is that Ford dropped the information about

2011 now. Reading about both 2011 models, who in their right mind would go out today to buy a 2010? Doesn't this just automatically put sales in the toilet for the remainder of this model year?

dwight

Reply to
dwight

na...... In third link chkout "MPG with Fixed" These curves should be published for each car, MPG vs Speed and be put on the internet.

formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
hey, you could be right --- last link above has a lot of bumps, probably the gear in automatic Each gear has a most effecient speed for gas milage, .

Chips can take out some, but not all, from what I have heard, and the warrenty is gone. throttle lag, too bad.

Anybody do this with a chip, and get all the torque back at start?

93 5.0 8# I can burn tires in first three gears. Can a 2009 do that?

I dont think you can extend the map on up to 160 MPH. How many cars do you know of naturally asperated that can do 160 ? I know a 89 5.0 ex cop car can do 130 mph, non-blown

Reply to
jonnie

is all new, new, new. I'll bet it differs from the 5.0 that could be "back"= by a cc or two, at least, in addtion to the number of valve and method of = actuation, for example.

Frank ess,

Would you say then that the Challenger isn't back? And the Camaro isn't back?

Can't we just call it the new 5.0? Or the new, improved 5.0? ;-)

Patrick

Patrick

Reply to
NoOp

formatting link

formatting link

formatting link

You have "heard" wrong. Also, I said programmer, not chip. That's how it's most efficiently done on OBD2. I have first hand experience with this, a Superchips Cortex programmer and a 2005 Nissan Titan. And this is not just torque, power and/or speed limits removed or changed. It is shift points, changes to anti-slip and anti-lock points and all manner of driveability changes. And they would have to prove that you or a program did something to negate the warranty.

I wouldn't know, I've never tried. Talk about negating a warranty, you think they will overlook an 8Lb blower??? Not only that, if you are "burning tires" you are only wasting money and losing traction and the race at hand while possibly impressing any teens that happen to be watching. Not really impressive in my book

Ok, you're playing Calvin ball. I thought we were talking about a

2011 model Mustang and a speed that could not be attained due to a limit. Actually after thinking about it, I don't think I want to go 160 MPH in a Mustang with a stock suspension and stock tires.
Reply to
WindsorFo

truth in advertizing;

call it the Heavy 5.0, over 800 pounds of WEIGHT

call it the Torque Limited 5.0

Over weight and limited torque, the New 5.0 sluggishly waddles into the show room.

Reply to
jonnie

What kind of a car do you drive Jonnie?

Reply to
dickr2

On Dec 29, 3:59=A0pm, "jonnie"

Truth: The new 5.0 is lighter than the old 5.0 motor. By 40 lbs.

Truth: 390 foot pounds, with a flat torque curve, smokes the old 5.0's

300.

"Waddles" =3D easy 12 second time slips. Wish my old 5.0 Mustang would waddle that damn fast.

Patrick

Reply to
NoOp

5.0 93 8# KB LX, tuned, an ex-cop car drive around town, and very fast lousy paint, lots of squeaks
Reply to
jonnie

my 93 weighs 2750, the weight gain is in the body.

no bog ?? when you stop at stop sign and you floor it => WOT, it dosent bog? no Electronic throttle lag? That time delay is in the chip, I have heard some can be programmed (chip) out, but not all Last one I drove had a huge bog, 2007, I would end up leaning forward (expecting to be pushed back in seat by acceleration like in the 93) , hardly any spinout on tires. On my LX, I can smoke tires all through first, second and part of third if I want too (hard tires then). Cant do that with electronic throttle.

In another sense, the 93 will waddle if low tire pressure in back tires and you floor it, more torque to the passenger rear at first, then shifts to the driver side rear, so the back end shifts back and forth a little as you gain speed.

Guess I need to test drive a 2010, see if it is a real muscle car, or still a consumer car - safe for grandma. If it is real, time to sell the 93.

I don't know how much torque the 93 has but the HP is 340, and the Keene Bell puts out about 9. I could put on a smaller pulley and put the boost up at 12 easily, already have 30# injectors, and get it tuned for fuel, have a 240 in the tank. Might be more fun than selling it. It has a rebuilt motor, about 5k miles ago and the SC was overhauled 1k miles ago, so the car is going to be around for a while. could get it painted.

Reply to
jonnie

My two S197s, one auto and one five-speed can't really "smoke" through third - just a meaty chirp - but will do instant response and first and second smokes on decent fat street tires. Not all as a result of a "tune"; they are both pretty quick to answer in stock condition. They are heavy, but amazingly nimble, considering. I still haven't reset the GPS "Max Speed" from the 143.3 the convertible made a while back. Stable and comfortable on Z-rated tires, and had to back off when I caught the car ahead.

MPG and those /still/ aren't all the important things in a car selection. One of the cars I like best of the thirty-five or so I've owned was a 1960 Morris Minor 1000 Traveller. 988 cc Sprite-like motor, long gearshift wand, high center of gravity ... But it was a treat to drive, got more thumbs-ups in a car-culture-bored community, than just about any other. A little lowering, a Judson supercharger, spar varnish on the wood, it was a delight to be in and to see.

I'm trying to remember what it was this thread was going to prove. Oh well, it's just a Usenet group; couldn't have been very important.

One of the tragedies of life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a brutal gang of facts.

- La Rochefoucauld

Reply to
Frank ess

I really wouldn't want some aftermarket programming with all sorts of changes I don't know about. It sounds like it's just asking for problems. A tool where I could specifically change what I wanted to change, that I would be interested in.

Reply to
Brent

I think I know the car for you:

formatting link
Here's a 351 example on video:
formatting link

Reply to
Brent

And you did that how? I mean I personally prefer having carpet, a stereo and some extra seats for the occasional passenger....

ROFL!! It's called traction control, it's supposed to do that and only does it when a lack of traction is detedcted. I thought I'd already made the point that spinning of tires is considered counter productive and can be dangerous.

Reply to
WindsorFo

Those are available too, but personally I prefer the programs that have been tried and tested by the manufacturer of the programmer rather than tweaking in the dark and severely screwing up something on my own. As long as I use their programs they guarantee nothing will be damaged and they update the programs and I update the programmer through the internet. My particular situation has 4 or 5 different programs for different levels of performance, octane, towing or fuel saver.

Reply to
WindsorFo

EPA's mileage testing measures were revised recently and are much more accurate. So I doubt the 25 highway figure will be off, unless of course you're putting then stirrups to it.

That's a given. If you're using all 400 ponies, those ponies all need to be fed.

If you're worried about MPG, you shouldn't be buying a performance car.

The GT weighs about 3,500 and change. Certainly not a lightweight, but respectable when compared to it's market -- 370Z, Camaro, Challenger, etc.

I'd also like to see it closer to 3,000, but you have to give Ford credit. The 2011 GT is the best GT Mustang ever. Period.

Help me here. What?

157 to 225. Pathetic numbers now days.

From what I've read the motor was pretty much done, shelved for a while, then finished up. Ford's on their game under Mulally, it'll be right.

I'd rather have it n/a.

The blower version, a turbo specially, will be reserved for the Shelby.

We shall see. But I'm unconcerned, the hotrodders will fix any inadequacies.

The current one isn't. It'll run about 150, so the 2011 should use the new 160 MPG speedo.

You're misinformed.

Patrick

Reply to
NoOp

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.