Job 2 Change to 2011 Mustang GT?
#1
Bullitt Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: August 28, 2006
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Job 2 Change to 2011 Mustang GT?
"If you're in the market for a 5.0, try to get one of the Job 1 cars. After 6 months they're supposed to switch to cast iron exhaust manifolds as a part of cost savings."
Can anyone substantiate or refute this?
These are almost a work or art..........
Can anyone substantiate or refute this?
These are almost a work or art..........
Once the fuel is burned, it's just as important to get the exhaust gases out of the engine as it is to get air in. With this in mind, the 5.0 has tubular stainless steel exhaust headers. The design of the headers features two secondary tubes that flow into two primary tubes, which then flow into a common collector. The tube lengths are tuned to ensure that there are no exhaust pulses pushing gases back into adjacent cylinders. Engineer Adam Christian developed the headers using a CFD program, but when the design was sent out to a local prototype shop for fabrication, the parts performed poorly on the dyno. After seeing the results, Christian requisitioned some tubing, took it home and fabricated a set of headers using his own tools. These performed perfectly on the engine and were used to correlate the model. The production units are being supplied to Ford by Benteler Automotive.
Last edited by GT_350; 5/10/10 at 07:10 PM.
#2
My brother is in Ford management and informed me these "cost savings" are also rumored to cost the new production 5.0's about 6 hp..........
...
....
....
....
...
#6
I think the Job 1 headers are kind of neat - unique looking !!
#10
The Tri-Y design the stock 5.0 headers use is good for a street car. You're right. They offer good mid and upper RPM power without sacrificing low RPM power. 4 into 1 headers would be better.
#12
Legacy TMS Member
After all the time spent extolling the virtues of the header set-up, I think this seems a bit unlikely, given that costs for this arrangement was factored into the engineering and production equation (at least according to what was shared in the 5.0 magazine article).
Last edited by Tony Alonso; 5/10/10 at 07:36 PM.
#13
Really? So they are going to pay to have molds made for cast manifolds when they already have someone making thousands of the current manifold most likely at a better cost then the cast ones would be? I highly doubt that. Move this to the rumor section please...
JJ
JJ
#15
Bullitt Member
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ITS TIME TO
Now I have to get mine sooner than I wanted to, and will need to find the money for it.
I guess that I don't need to eat for a month or two...
Now I have to get mine sooner than I wanted to, and will need to find the money for it.
I guess that I don't need to eat for a month or two...
#16
Post *****
Join Date: December 14, 2007
Location: State of Jefferson Mountains USA
Posts: 20,005
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
After all the time spent extolling the virtues of the header set-up, I think this seems a bit unlikely, given that costs for this arrangement was factored into the engineering and production equation (at least according to what was shared in the 5.0 magazine article).
Right. They covered performance and even how they countered warpage at the head.
Could that have been why some were held? Exhaust leaks or weld cracks?
#18
It's hilarious how ridiculous this board has become.... The fact that some of you believed my above statement if only for a second is soo pathetic...
Stop with all this BS, when are these forums going to become a source for REAL information once again.
#19
Bullitt Member
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mods, please delete this abomination...
#20
V6 Member
Join Date: April 9, 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
really....this is what this forum has turned into! thanks dude