whysoserious

Perhaps what we're all trying to say is that the 5.0s tq curve is "good" for a N/A high reving motor, while perhaps not necessarily being flat as we would think of a blown engine.

rhumb

Looks pretty flat to me for a NA motor putting out as much power as it does and I attribute a significant part of that broadness TO the VCT. Of course, as mentioned, it ain't billiards table flat like a modern turbo or some lightly tuned monster motor, but for a 412hp/390lb ft 5.0, that's an impressively broad power spread.

I am a big fan of VCT systems, having one in my E46 M3 which gives that little 3.2 liter mill an impressive 262 ft lbs (which would be 409 lb ft scaled up to 5 liters) over a surprisingly broad range too. Oh that, and 333hp with a nice spread too. VVT benefits clearly show up on the 5.0 too, to good effect. This things putting out about as much torque as a 5.7 Hemi and a lot more overall power, all of which will result in a lot more torque where it really counts, the rear wheels.

Sometimes people complain about 4V motors as being either "peaky" or weak down low. I actually think a lot of that is more perceptual than actual in that what would be healthy low-end power curves for a similar 2 or 3V motor get overshadowed by much higher peak numbers. It isn't necessarily that they are so weak down low as they are so strong up high. I guarantee you, a 2V, non-VVT 5 liter making 412hp /390 torque would have a far peakier powerband than the Coyote.

Sure, you could get a "flatter" power band by, say, tuning it down to a specific output of the 3V 4.6, but that would be accomplished primarily be lopping off the power from the top more than simply spreading it around. Yeah, the curve would be "flatter," but a lot lower with a lot less area under the curve. I'd gladly take the Coyote's power band instead. And besides, with the smoothness and eagerness with which it does rev, not to mention a voice that would win American Idol, spinning her up is a huge plus to savor, not some penance to bear.

Boomer

? the new GT?
Uh GT is faster.

You're quoting an Evan Smith Mach1 run VS a Car and Driver GT run.

3Mach1

Yeah, the new GT will be quite a bit quicker. There were a couple of factory freaks that got in the high 12's stock if I remember correctly but they were the exception and not the rule. The machs have help up pretty well though over time. Mine still puts a silly smile on my face everytime I crawl in it. I would almost kill for one of these new GT's. These newer cars are just better all the way around compared to the old sn95 platform. Heck, I am tempted to go for a V6 for a daily driver. I never ever thought I would say that.

tbi0904

Man, that's a red herring argument and you know it.

3Mach1

I am not thinking it a red herring as much as you. EVan Smith gets times outs of cars that the average guy cant. I think its legit. When he gets his hands on a 11 GT I bet he will do much better than the rags. The 11 GT will smoke a Mach 1 and it should.

I sitll like my Mach 1 and just dearly love driving it but I would kill somebody for a new 5 liter GT. These suckers will be hot. Hell, the cyclone 6 is as hot as a three dollar bill. I am very very impressed with Ford and I was one that *****ed forever about the lack of power. Boy, how times change. Good job Ford. I love you.

mustangfan123

Wrong dyno graph, here's the right one

tbi0904

Yeah, I know. I was making the same point as well. Can't compare an Evan Smith time to a Car and Driver time. I'm waiting to see what times real car enthusiasts get with this car (and the GT500) this spring and summer.

BavarianStang

Is the Dyno tourque curve from insideline.com correct?
Does the engine produces less the 150 lb-ft @1500rpm??? According to C&D the 4,6l of the 1996 Mustang generates 250 ib-ft @1500rpm!?
(https://themustangsource.com/showthread.php?t=481077)

Acceleration times from C&D are slower than these from MT.
MT's test car was equipped with a 3,73:1 rear axle. Does anybody know which rear axle is installed in the car C&D tested?
Is it equipped with the Brembo Brake package - nothing mentioned in the test?

In general performance of the new Stang is impressive - it's quicker than a Dodge Viper ($54,000 ) tested from C&D in March 1992.
But with gasoline 1,40 € per liter here in Germany (hefty 7,14$ per gallon!!), 15mpg is "impressive" as well

1trickpony

These times are ridiculuously slow and even the trap speed was low. Even on a bad track your trap speed won't move around that much. Two theories, Car and Driver sucks or they posted low numbers for a reason. I don't think Car and Driver was invited to the media event and this is pay back. Ford is very tight with Motortrend right now and Car and Driver feels snubbed.

Slims00ls1z28

Precicely why we call them auto "rags".

While I wouldn't go as far as the rag calling it gloriously flat in a general term, as stated already for a high reving small displacement N/A V8 it's pretty decent. Compared to a Ferrari V8 or a dyno queen supra it's hella flat.

UnrealFord

HaHaHa. Ya, I knew it,, LOL

Skotty

So...since this thread has been revived...what's with the two different dyno graphs? Where did that second one come from? Did someone just make that up or what?