New/2011 5.0 Mustang Details

"WindsorFox<[SS]>" > wrote in message
...
> jonnie wrote:
>> "NoOp" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> On Dec 29, 3:59 pm, "jonnie"
>>
>>>> I do see a problem with saying "the 5.0 is back"; it can't be back if
>>>> it
>>>> is all new, new, new. I'll bet it differs from the 5.0 that could be
>>>> "back" by a cc or two, at least, in addtion to the number of valve and
>>>>> method of actuation, for example.
>>>>> Frank ess,
>>
>>>>> Would you say then that the Challenger isn't back? And the Camaro
>>>>> isn't back?
>>>>> Can't we just call it the new 5.0? Or the new, improved 5.0? ;-)
>>
>>>> truth in advertizing;
>>
>>>> call it the Heavy 5.0, over 800 pounds of WEIGHT
>>
>>> Truth: The new 5.0 is lighter than the old 5.0 motor. By 40 lbs.
>>
>> my 93 weighs 2750, the weight gain is in the body.
>>
>
> And you did that how? I mean I personally prefer having carpet, a
> stereo and some extra seats for the occasional passenger....

it is an LX old cop car w interceptor package. You are stuck on GT weight.

>
>>
>>
>>>> call it the Torque Limited 5.0
>>
>>> Truth: 390 foot pounds, with a flat torque curve, smokes the old 5.0's
>>> 300.
>>
>> no bog ?? when you stop at stop sign and you floor it => WOT, it dosent
>> bog?
>> no Electronic throttle lag?
>> That time delay is in the chip, I have heard some can be programmed
>> (chip) out, but not all
>> Last one I drove had a huge bog, 2007, I would end up leaning forward
>> (expecting to be pushed back in seat by acceleration like in the 93) ,
>> hardly any spinout on tires.
>> On my LX, I can smoke tires all through first, second and part of third
>> if I want too (hard tires then).
>> Cant do that with electronic throttle.
>>
>
> ROFL!! It's called traction control, it's supposed to do that and only
> does it when a lack of traction is detedcted. I thought I'd already made
> the point that spinning of tires is considered counter productive and can
> be dangerous.
>
>>
>>
>>>> Over weight and limited torque, the New 5.0 sluggishly waddles into the
>>>> show
>>>> room.
>>
>>> "Waddles" = easy 12 second time slips. Wish my old 5.0 Mustang would
>>> waddle that damn fast.
>>
>>> Patrick
>>
>> In another sense, the 93 will waddle if low tire pressure in back tires
>> and you floor it, more torque to the passenger rear at first, then shifts
>> to the driver side rear, so the back end shifts back and forth a little
>> as you gain speed.
>>
>> Guess I need to test drive a 2010, see if it is a real muscle car, or
>> still a consumer car - safe for grandma.
>> If it is real, time to sell the 93.
>>
>> I don't know how much torque the 93 has but the HP is 340,
>> and the Keene Bell puts out about 9.
>> I could put on a smaller pulley and put the boost up at 12 easily,
>> already have 30# injectors, and get it tuned for fuel, have a 240 in the
>> tank.
>> Might be more fun than selling it.
>> It has a rebuilt motor, about 5k miles ago and the SC was overhauled 1k
>> miles ago, so the car is going to be around for a while.
>> could get it painted.
>>

"NoOp" > wrote in message
...
On Dec 29, 10:16 pm, "jonnie" > wrote:

> >> call it the Heavy 5.0, over 800 pounds of WEIGHT
> >Truth: The new 5.0 is lighter than the old 5.0 motor. By 40 lbs.

> my 93 weighs 2750, the weight gain is in the body.

Not when it was stock it didn't. I ordered my '87 stripped and it
weighed just under 3,000.

Note: I was talking old 5.0 engine weight to new 5.0 engine weight.

> >> call it the Torque Limited 5.0
> >Truth: 390 foot pounds, with a flat torque curve, smokes the old 5.0's
> >300.

> no bog ?? when you stop at stop sign and you floor it => WOT, it dosent
> bog?
> no Electronic throttle lag?
> That time delay is in the chip, I have heard some can be programmed (chip)
> out, but not all
> Last one I drove had a huge bog, 2007, I would end up leaning forward
> (expecting to be pushed back in seat by acceleration like in the 93) ,
> hardly any spinout on tires.
> On my LX, I can smoke tires all through first, second and part of third if
> I
> want too (hard tires then).
> Cant do that with electronic throttle.

If the new GT boogies to a 12 second time slip, I won't be
complaining.

> >> Over weight and limited torque, the New 5.0 sluggishly waddles into the
> >> show
> >> room.
> >"Waddles" = easy 12 second time slips. Wish my old 5.0 Mustang would
> >waddle that damn fast.
> >Patrick

> In another sense, the 93 will waddle if low tire pressure in back tires
> and
> you floor it, more torque to the passenger rear at first, then shifts to
> the
> driver side rear, so the back end shifts back and forth a little as you
> gain
> speed.

> Guess I need to test drive a 2010, see if it is a real muscle car, or
> still
> a consumer car - safe for grandma.
> If it is real, time to sell the 93.

I see a new GT in my future.

> I don't know how much torque the 93 has but the HP is 340,
> and the Keene Bell puts out about 9.
> I could put on a smaller pulley and put the boost up at 12 easily, already
> have 30# injectors, and get it tuned for fuel, have a 240 in the tank.
> Might be more fun than selling it.
> It has a rebuilt motor, about 5k miles ago and the SC was overhauled 1k
> miles ago, so the car is going to be around for a while.
> could get it painted.

It's fun to tinker, but when the new stuff performs so damn good you
have to say at some point screw this and go visit your local [Ford]
dealer.

Patrick

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
agreed

Had the supercharger overhauled, reinstalled it. and for the next month
there where some bad sounds from the engine, the smog pump was going out.

Don't know if it would be ford, unless it has the instant acceleration at
start, (no BOG).

"WindsorFox<[SS]>" > wrote in message
...
> NoOp wrote:
>> On Dec 30, 1:01 am, Brent > wrote:
>>> On 2009-12-30, jonnie > wrote:
>>>
>>>> my 93 weighs 2750, the weight gain is in the body.
>>> I think I know the car for you:
>>>
>>> http://www.ford-v8-focus.com/http://.../svtfocus.html
>>>
>>> Here's a 351 example on video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yzpc_Km41PE
>>
>> That's some crazy ****!
>>
>> Patrick
>
>
> Can you imagine that pulling up beside you at a light and looking
> around trying to figure out where the big block is....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nCJdf510fk

Jay Leno had a gremlin at one time, huge engine in it

"WindsorFox<[SS]>" > wrote in message
...
> NoOp wrote:
>> On Dec 30, 1:01 am, Brent > wrote:
>>> On 2009-12-30, jonnie > wrote:
>>>
>>>> my 93 weighs 2750, the weight gain is in the body.
>>> I think I know the car for you:
>>>
>>> http://www.ford-v8-focus.com/http://.../svtfocus.html
>>>
>>> Here's a 351 example on video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yzpc_Km41PE
>>
>> That's some crazy ****!
>>
>> Patrick
>
>
> Can you imagine that pulling up beside you at a light and looking
> around trying to figure out where the big block is....

Utube again; funny
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRtymuRMZiE

"NoOp" > wrote in message
...
On Dec 29, 9:43 am, "jonnie" > wrote:

> 93 5.0 8# I can burn tires in first three gears. Can a 2009 do that?

Here's a more relevant question. Did your '93 run 12s @ anywhere near
110 mph when it rolled off the showroom floor? Because that the sort
of numbers the new GT will be putting up.

Patrick

>>>>>>>>>

nope, if the 2010 drove great, (need to test drive it) I would probably get
one, if I had the change. But I hate to see them add so much weight on.

I'd like the corvette, a big engine with lots of volume, but hate the
shrink wrap fit of the passengers. I like the 4 seaters.

I had a 89 ex cop car that was tuned by the copshop, it could do 130
(nothing around here to drive on faster than that) But the compression check
showed two cylinders with high compression (carbon) so I sold that bought
the 93 at another auction and added the Keene bell on (it was second hand,
bought it via Autotrader, came off a race car near houston)

but the 93 is here, now, cheap, and very fast, and I do get tired of
tinkering with it, but all the common stuff that fails has been replaced, so
it is young at heart. Manual Transmission is original, and Gears.

"jonnie" > wrote in message
...
>
> "NoOp" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Dec 29, 9:43 am, "jonnie" > wrote:
>
>> 93 5.0 8# I can burn tires in first three gears. Can a 2009 do that?
>
> Here's a more relevant question. Did your '93 run 12s @ anywhere near
> 110 mph when it rolled off the showroom floor? Because that the sort
> of numbers the new GT will be putting up.
>
> Patrick
>
>>>>>>>>>>
>
> nope, if the 2010 drove great, (need to test drive it) I would probably
> get one, if I had the change. But I hate to see them add so much weight
> on.
>
> I'd like the corvette, a big engine with lots of volume, but hate the
> shrink wrap fit of the passengers. I like the 4 seaters.
>
> I had a 89 ex cop car that was tuned by the copshop, it could do 130
> (nothing around here to drive on faster than that) But the compression
> check showed two cylinders with high compression (carbon) so I sold that
> bought the 93 at another auction and added the Keene bell on (it was
> second hand, bought it via Autotrader, came off a race car near houston)
>
> but the 93 is here, now, cheap, and very fast, and I do get tired of
> tinkering with it, but all the common stuff that fails has been replaced,
> so it is young at heart. Manual Transmission is original, and Gears.
>
>

good writeup in WSJ today on the mustang 2010, must be good.

On Dec 31 2009, 3:00*pm, "jonnie" > wrote:
> "WindsorFox<[SS]>" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > jonnie wrote:
> >> "NoOp" > wrote in message
> ....
> >> On Dec 29, 3:59 pm, "jonnie"
>
> >>>> I do see a problem with saying "the 5.0 is back"; it can't be back if
> >>>> it
> >>>> is all new, new, new. I'll bet it differs from the 5.0 that could be
> >>>> "back" by a cc or two, at least, in addtion to the number of valve and
> >>>>> method of actuation, for example.
> >>>>> Frank ess,
>
> >>>>> Would you say then that the Challenger isn't back? And the Camaro
> >>>>> isn't back?
> >>>>> Can't we just call it the new 5.0? Or the new, improved 5.0? ;-)
>
> >>>> truth in advertizing;
>
> >>>> call it the Heavy 5.0, over 800 pounds of WEIGHT
>
> >>> Truth: The new 5.0 is lighter than the old 5.0 motor. *By 40 lbs.
>
> >> my 93 weighs 2750, the weight gain is in the body.
>
> > * *And you did that how? I mean I personally prefer having carpet, a
> > stereo and some extra seats for the occasional passenger....
>
> it is an LX *old cop car w interceptor package. *You are stuck on GT weight.

No, I'm not. GTs generally weighed about 3,200-3,300. V8 LXs about
3,100. Stripped V8 LXs, like the one I special ordered from the
factory back in '87, was a little under 3,000. The Police package
didn't offer any weight reduction.

Patrick

NoOp wrote:
> On Dec 31 2009, 3:00 pm, "jonnie" > wrote:
>> "WindsorFox<[SS]>" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>> jonnie wrote:
>>>> "NoOp" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> On Dec 29, 3:59 pm, "jonnie"
>>>>>> I do see a problem with saying "the 5.0 is back"; it can't be back if
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> is all new, new, new. I'll bet it differs from the 5.0 that could be
>>>>>> "back" by a cc or two, at least, in addtion to the number of valve and
>>>>>>> method of actuation, for example.
>>>>>>> Frank ess,
>>>>>>> Would you say then that the Challenger isn't back? And the Camaro
>>>>>>> isn't back?
>>>>>>> Can't we just call it the new 5.0? Or the new, improved 5.0? ;-)
>>>>>> truth in advertizing;
>>>>>> call it the Heavy 5.0, over 800 pounds of WEIGHT
>>>>> Truth: The new 5.0 is lighter than the old 5.0 motor. By 40 lbs.
>>>> my 93 weighs 2750, the weight gain is in the body.
>>> And you did that how? I mean I personally prefer having carpet, a
>>> stereo and some extra seats for the occasional passenger....
>> it is an LX old cop car w interceptor package. You are stuck on GT weight.
>
> No, I'm not. GTs generally weighed about 3,200-3,300. V8 LXs about
> 3,100. Stripped V8 LXs, like the one I special ordered from the
> factory back in '87, was a little under 3,000. The Police package
> didn't offer any weight reduction.
>
> Patrick

Yep, mines an LX hatch, but it was a dealer's "25 years" for 89 and
it was loaded with all the extras that the GTs had except for the ground
effects package. It was 3327 when I weighed it with out me but with a
full fuel tank assorted daily crap inside.

--
..



"A smorgasbord of tomfoolery" - L0afy