Edmunds - Ford Juiced Mustang GT 5.0 Press/Review Car?
#21
TECH Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Levittown PA
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Where's the correlation? Is there a group of owners complaining that their cars are underperforming as sold? Is the current model underrated?
I don't see any connection here. I remember a few magazines running slower in the '99 than they had been expecting, then owners saying the same thing. Ford then recalled the cars for free fixes to bring them around to the expectations. I see no such example occurring here. If anything, most seem exuberant over their new 5L.
I don't see any connection here. I remember a few magazines running slower in the '99 than they had been expecting, then owners saying the same thing. Ford then recalled the cars for free fixes to bring them around to the expectations. I see no such example occurring here. If anything, most seem exuberant over their new 5L.
It has been going on for a long time some over rate some under rate.
I am guessing Edmunds wanted to see if they sent a ringer.
Like I said in post #6 I don't think they did. The 5.0 is a stout car thats why I went to look at them the other day.
Now F-OFF
#22
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Edmunds was pissed? Why would they care? If you meant Ford is pissed... I'm still asking why? They've apparently welcomed GM back by producing a completely better line of Mustangs. How's that hitting below the belt? Maybe you happen to believe that 1st car was actually a ringer that Ford tuned for better results. Looking at the best ET's of the Mustang GT, it's looking like Ford could've picked a better tune, if they tuned it. Haven't we heard a stock GT has run 12.3's already? I don't think the test car did or would do that. Too many others have already posted numbers at least as good as their tester, on the track, regardless what the dyno showed. Dyno's are for testing anyway, not so much racing.
#23
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
My point to you was also clear. There's positively NO correlation between the 99 Cobra and this new Mustang regarding performance, be it better or worse. If you really think there is one, vs your "I hate Fords" opinion, share it.
It has been going on for a long time some over rate some under rate.
![Rolleyes](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/rolleyes.gif)
I am guessing Edmunds wanted to see if they sent a ringer.
Like I said in post #6 I don't think they did.
Like I said in post #6 I don't think they did.
The 5.0 is a stout car thats why I went to look at them the other day.
Now F-OFF
PS Post 6 isn't yours, post 7 is. Again, pay attention.
#24
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (96)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Turnin' Wrenches Infractions: 005
Posts: 24,241
Likes: 0
Received 81 Likes
on
72 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Ford tuned this press car is the bottom line. Not full tuned but tweaked it just a tad. No big deal. They are fighting for a share of the market, you need tactics, and strategy. It's in the spirit of competition thats why I don't have a problem with it. Camaro sales are dominating, Ford releases their baby, the new engine, **** yeah they want it to impress the pants off the people writing the article. Ford has the better performing car here gentlemen and they want everyone to know it. That being said, I still would take the slower Camaro.....or my faster 4th gen
![Nod](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_nod.gif)
#26
TECH Resident
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eau Claire-ish, WI
Posts: 853
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
One on 91 vs one on 93, both cars were driven differently, and a lot of other things the article doesn't talk about could easily add up to the 4% difference(like someone else posted, different oil/gears/temps/days/etc). 15hp would be overlooked on a 150hp car with 1500+ miles on it, not sure why they are making a fuss about it on a 400+hp car. I doubt any production car is going to hold much better than a 4% tolerance on horsepower; I have never seen a car that every one dyno'd made the exact same horsepower, so why should it be expected?