Evolution performance 2011 mustang

**Packy** · 05-04-2010, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by Z28Thunder

I will agree 12.04 is nice number. Get it in the 11's then I might start looking.

Wait until the aftermarket get their hands on them and they will be in the 11's with more time. 12.04 @117 is damn respectable in my book!

**Z28Thunder** · 05-04-2010, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by Packy

Wait until the aftermarket get their hands on them and they will be in the 11's with more time. 12.04 @117 is damn respectable in my book!

Cool bring the 2011 out!!!! I will be glad to race them!!

**Transamws6** · 05-04-2010, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by Packy

Wait until the aftermarket get their hands on them and they will be in the 11's with more time. 12.04 @117 is damn respectable in my book!

Yes. I can't believe this car is making the power that it does N/A, absolutley incredible, when is the last time GT's made 400+rwhp from just bolt on's??

These LSX guys have a bit of a problem on their hands for sure.....

**cammed goat** · 05-04-2010, 05:59 PM

Well, for a stock LS1...maybe a problem. A stock LS2 puts out 333 rwhp. Which isn't much of a loss.

**Z28Thunder** · 05-04-2010, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by cammed goat

Well, for a stock LS1...maybe a problem. A stock LS2 puts out 333 rwhp. Which isn't much of a loss.

They have to be talking stock...

**Packy** · 05-04-2010, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by Transamws6

Yes. I can't believe this car is making the power that it does N/A, absolutley incredible, when is the last time GT's made 400+rwhp from just bolt on's??

These LSX guys have a bit of a problem on their hands for sure.....

Not a problem but some will have to mod a bit more to stay in game. 36x rwhp is respectable for stock.

**SHines-IT** · 05-04-2010, 06:08 PM

I am worried...

**Transamws6** · 05-04-2010, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by cammed goat

Well, for a stock LS1...maybe a problem. A stock LS2 puts out 333 rwhp. Which isn't much of a loss.

Ok, Maybe I'm missing something here. Let me break this down into how i see it. And I read a while back in an article in a GM High Tech magazine where they dyno'ed a stock LS2 vette, and the LS2 that put down around 350.8rwhp stock. But whatever, I'll go with 333 like you said.

But anyways, it says in the article, the new 5.0 mustang makes 368rwhp, stock, and it makes over 400rwhp with bolt on's, which was clearly also shown in the article. I mean, you wouldn't consider that a problem? It puts down more rwhp stock than an LS2, then it responds just as good, if not better to the little bolt on's than an LS2 would? I don't know about you, but I think the LSX guys have some stiff competition on their hands.

**SHines-IT** · 05-04-2010, 06:20 PM

I am pretty sure the Vette puts the power down better then the Mustang... Not only a much better balanced car.

**Transamws6** · 05-04-2010, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by SHines-IT

I am pretty sure the Vette puts the power down better then the Mustang... Not only a much better balanced car.

I know this. I'm just talking in terms of plain power output right now though, nothing else.

**big hammer** · 05-04-2010, 06:39 PM

when they ran the car stock it pulled a 13.2 @ 110 mph. nothing crazy.

**big hammer** · 05-04-2010, 06:40 PM

it also dyno'd 365 rwhp and 352 rwtq stock. again, nothing crazy.

**wheeliE-maxx** · 05-04-2010, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by Transamws6

Yes. I can't believe this car is making the power that it does N/A, absolutley incredible, when is the last time GT's made 400+rwhp from just bolt on's??
These LSX guys have a bit of a problem on their hands for sure.....

never

**big hammer** · 05-04-2010, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by Transamws6

Ok, Maybe I'm missing something here. Let me break this down into how i see it. And I read a while back in an article in a GM High Tech magazine where they dyno'ed a stock LS2 vette, and the LS2 that put down around 350.8rwhp stock. But whatever, I'll go with 333 like you said.

But anyways, it says in the article, the new 5.0 mustang makes 368rwhp, stock, and it makes over 400rwhp with bolt on's, which was clearly also shown in the article. I mean, you wouldn't consider that a problem? It puts down more rwhp stock than an LS2, then it responds just as good, if not better to the little bolt on's than an LS2 would? I don't know about you, but I think the LSX guys have some stiff competition on their hands.

they are having trouble accurately dynoing the new mustang. to get an accurate number, one should use the 1:1 gear. which is 5th in the mustang. however since they hit the speed limiter in 5th on the dyno they can't reach full rpm. so they're dynoing in 4th which is an under drive gear. this causes inflated dyno numbers.

**Transamws6** · 05-04-2010, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by big hammer

when they ran the car stock it pulled a 13.2 @ 110 mph. nothing crazy.

Those are stock numbers, and they are pretty crazy for a GT, and look at how much the times dropped with just bolt on's and a tune, read the thread the OP posted.

Originally Posted by big hammer

they are having trouble accurately dynoing the new mustang. to get an accurate number, one should use the 1:1 gear. which is 5th in the mustang. however since they hit the speed limiter in 5th on the dyno they can't reach full rpm. so they're dynoing in 4th which is an under drive gear. this causes inflated dyno numbers.

How do you know this? Got a link?

**big hammer** · 05-04-2010, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by Transamws6

Those are stock numbers, and they are pretty crazy for a GT, and look at how much the times dropped with just bolt on's and a tune, read the thread the OP posted.

How do you know this? Got a link?

while 13.2 @ 110 is definately fast for a gt, it's nothing ground breaking. but again for an n\a 5.0 ford that trap speed is damn good, and definately a 12 sec car in the right hands.

i'll look for the link about the dyno stuff.

**flash** · 05-04-2010, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by big hammer

when they ran the car stock it pulled a 13.2 @ 110 mph. nothing crazy.

Heres the first part of that sentence.........It also has only 70 miles on the car.

After picking up the car, they drove it 70 miles straight to the drag strip, and made some heat-soaked passes resulting in a best run of 13.2 at 110 mph. That was on the stock tires with a 2.10 60-foot.

And it was dynoed in 5th......on a mustang dyno.

Before doing so, however, Fred Cook, Nelson Whitlock, and the boys strapped the GT down to the company's in-house Mustang Dynamometer. This is a six-speed car with the optional 3.73s, and the test was run in fifth-gear, which is 1:1. The result was 368.60 horsepower and 352.48 lb-ft of torque at the rear wheels.

**big hammer** · 05-04-2010, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by flash

Heres the first part of that sentence.........It also has only 70 miles on the car.

And it was dynoed in 5th......on a mustang dyno.

no need to become all faggy.

yeah i did a little searching and it was edmunds that dyno'd in 4th. that's when they got the inflated 390 rwhp stock on a dynojet.

**flash** · 05-04-2010, 07:52 PM

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pi...d=262882950647

Al la Evolution's Facebook page:

First Pass - 12.88@111mph with a 2.06 60ft with stock 19" Tires.

[email protected] 1.80 60ft on 5" Bogart Racing Wheels with M/T ET Street DOT Tires.

**flash** · 05-04-2010, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by big hammer

no need to become all faggy.

yeah i did a little searching and it was edmunds that dyno'd in 4th. that's when they got the inflated 390 rwhp stock on a dynojet.

Dyno in 4th or 5th the difference is minimal.Difference between mustang dyno and dynojet can be alot different.So like anything else a dyno is only good for a baseline.