C&D finally posted something:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take_road_test

 

thanks for the post

stupid c&d didnt post anything worth reading though lol

 

Sheesh, those guys sure are sloooooowwww...

 

After reading several reviews the diversity of opinions strikes me. One magazine says the transmission is heaven-sent, another describes it as notchy. C&D says the shift lever is too short, another review says it should be shorter. One magazine says the steering is too light, one says it's great. One says the V6 sounds great, one says it's ho-hum (sounds too V6-like), one says it's buzzy above 5000 rpm. The one thing though, that everybody agrees on is that the Coyote is one fabulous engine. Whether it's the power delivery, it's willingness to rev, or it's sound, everyone loves this new V8. And it seems that everyone agrees that Ford has massaged the suspension into the best handling SRA car ever.

 

Come on....



That isn't flat at all.

 

Has anyone noticed this leaky gas cap problem. Is this a known problem on the 2010's

 

Mine doesn't. It works perfect.

 

Haven't heard much about the issue. Its probably user error

 

One thing that does happen is the writing is all eaten away by the fumes.

 

I would say it's a relative thing. For a DOHC 5.0L with a 7,000rpm redline that is as flat and broad as Kansas, relatively speaking. Of course, it will never compare to low revving big blocks or blown mills like the one in the GT500 or even the Ecoboost 3.5L where you really do get torque curves that most closely resemble a ruler when demonstrated on paper.

 

For a normally aspirated motor that is a very flat torque curve.

 

No, it isn't. It's average. Here's a stock 3v, put some smoothing on it and it's flatter:



The 5.0 has a very peaky torque curve because of the VCT strategy.

 

You can find hundreds of dyno sheets with flat torque curves. I still say that the sheet for the 5.0 has a very flat torque curve pulling over 250 foot pounds across the curve with a 365 peak is plenty flat.

 

hmm they managed a 13.2...it seems as MT always gets better times than C&D.

 

its easy to be flat when ur a 4.6 v8 putting out less than 300rwtq lol

 

Flat is a feeling.

 

I agree, to an extent. It's as flat as one would expect from a high-revving, naturally-aspirated, small-displacement V8. In the end, though, I'm thoroughly impressed with the Mustang's new powerplants.

 

Hm...what constitutes a "small-displacement" V8? I tend to think the dividing line between small and large would be small <= 4.5, large >= 5.0, with 4.5 - 5.0 being a gray area. Interesting to think about. I'm sure others would put the line elsewhere.

 

What V8's are you comparing to? There are very few V8's that are under 4.5.. I can personally only think of the E92 M3's 4.0, but I'm sure there are a handful. I would call that low displacement.

There are whole lot of > 5.0 engines. That gives me reason to say 5.0 might be small or mid displacement. I would call the 5.7, 6.1/6.2 hemi's as high displacement. I would call the 5.7/6.0/6.2/7.0/etc LS engines as high displacement.

THe 5.0? It would be in the grey area at best.. I guess to use your scale, my grey area would be closer to 5.0-5.7.

 

Seems its as fast as a STOCK 2004 Mach1, They ran 13.1

http://www.musclemustangfastfords.com/vi...index.html