What was the real HP on the 2011 5.0?
What was the real HP on the 2011 5.0?
The Motor came rated at 412..
They were being conservative and also cautious because FORD overstated an earlier HP number with a Shelby model that came back to haunt them.
Don't remember the details of that but do remember it was a PR snafu they were cautious to not repeat and thus "under" reported the first year of the 5.0 at 412.
Seems to be no other good reason a manufacturer would use 412... Round it up or down..
Any thoughts on this?
They were being conservative and also cautious because FORD overstated an earlier HP number with a Shelby model that came back to haunt them.
Don't remember the details of that but do remember it was a PR snafu they were cautious to not repeat and thus "under" reported the first year of the 5.0 at 412.
Seems to be no other good reason a manufacturer would use 412... Round it up or down..
Any thoughts on this?
from a MT article back in 2010...
"A run on the dyno at K&N Air Filters in Riverside, CA, suggests actual output to be around 435 horsepower and 404 pound-feet"
"A run on the dyno at K&N Air Filters in Riverside, CA, suggests actual output to be around 435 horsepower and 404 pound-feet"
Last edited by luzstang; Nov 13, 2013 at 01:34 PM.
When you consider the drivetrain loss (est. 15%) and that most stock 5.0's seem to put down approx. 370-380 RWHP then 435-440 FWHP sounds accurate.
We won't know for sure until someone actually puts a stock engine on an engine dyno.
We won't know for sure until someone actually puts a stock engine on an engine dyno.
The Motor came rated at 412..
They were being conservative and also cautious because FORD overstated an earlier HP number with a Shelby model that came back to haunt them.
Don't remember the details of that but do remember it was a PR snafu they were cautious to not repeat and thus "under" reported the first year of the 5.0 at 412.
Seems to be no other good reason a manufacturer would use 412... Round it up or down..
Any thoughts on this?
They were being conservative and also cautious because FORD overstated an earlier HP number with a Shelby model that came back to haunt them.
Don't remember the details of that but do remember it was a PR snafu they were cautious to not repeat and thus "under" reported the first year of the 5.0 at 412.
Seems to be no other good reason a manufacturer would use 412... Round it up or down..
Any thoughts on this?
That was it, thanks for bringing it to remembrance. Cobra not a Shelby. Didn't Ford bring vehicles back in and mod them to meet the number claimed? I could look it up but I think that happened.
The bottom line on the 412 number is it's low and an odd sounding number to publish.. When people ask a number on my car I say 420/400.
The bottom line on the 412 number is it's low and an odd sounding number to publish.. When people ask a number on my car I say 420/400.
It's widely believed that the Mustang version of the 5.0 is about 430-435 crank-hp and it has been there since day one, with the 2011's and on.
Yes, under-rated like the 03-04 Cobras, although not as much.
As far as the 412 number being a strange number, that can simply be a random number Ford choose to make the public believe that they've gotten all they could out of that engine.
Chevy does it with the manual-trans Camaro at 426 hp, the Lumina's optional V8 had 303hp and many other engines have and had odd ratings like that ...
Yes, under-rated like the 03-04 Cobras, although not as much.
As far as the 412 number being a strange number, that can simply be a random number Ford choose to make the public believe that they've gotten all they could out of that engine.
Chevy does it with the manual-trans Camaro at 426 hp, the Lumina's optional V8 had 303hp and many other engines have and had odd ratings like that ...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
AdPock
General Mustang Chat
7
Oct 16, 2015 02:58 PM




