2013 GT500 most powerful OEM v8 in the WORLD

[Norm reynolds]

yes charley that is the car that I am thinking of
hate to say this but I have NERVER liked fords
allways was in to GM and mopars in my day
every ford I had was not the greatest
always had way to many problems
with them and at my age I want something that works
with out any problems

[flyingn]

but the GT500 is still the hp KING Norm .. [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/smile.gif[/img] Like it or not. + its 100 lbs less the Camaro.. No contest. I was a GM guy all my life too..

[Sportyworty]

They are all good cars some just have brand preferences. In the past Ford, GM amd Mopar all had their issues from time to time. The American automobile has come a long way. I will take one of each please. I drive Ford and Cat gave me a Chev truck..good truck zero issues. The competition is good keeps these manufacturers on their toes for our business. Lets just all hope the government does not put an end to these seriously high HP cars or start to taxes the crap out of them to keep them out of the hands of many. They are a good value when you consider the cost to add HP in the 60's yet retain reliability

[carenthusiast]

I'm thinking of buying a 13 Mustang GT... it's no GT500 but I like the GT just fine. I was always a GM person for the most part though I like so many cars from various makers, but this would be my first Ford. I just think it has a timeless look currently and has plenty of hp for me on the street. I just worry about that gearbox.

[flyingn]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: carenthusiast</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm thinking of buying a 13 Mustang GT... it's no GT500 but I like the GT just fine. I was always a GM person for the most part though I like so many cars from various makers, but this would be my first Ford. I just think it has a timeless look currently and has plenty of hp for me on the street. I just worry about that gearbox. </div></div>

get the 6 speed automatic then. They are faster then the manual boxes anyway. I have a bud with an auto convertible 3.15 geared 5.0(the worst combo) and he got it to run 12.4 dead nuts stock and bolted on a blower and drag radials(otherwise 100% stock) and it ran 10.6 at Atco this weekend at the Ford vs. Buick race. Still gets 28 mpg on the highway. Amazing

[Norm reynolds]

Better be carefull A bone stock 5.0 and he put on a blower?????
The bottom end on the 5.0 WILL NOT take the stress and will let lose
At my buddys shop just the other day. Got in a mustang that some knucklehead hit a bone stock stang with a 5.0 with a 100 shot of nos and the crank just snaped right though the block
One thing is we can agree to disagree about the 5.0 fords
Never liked them never will

Also if you remember back in the 60s when the h/p war was on gm and Chrysler did NOT say what the Real h/p was on the cars back then There was a thing with the insurance companys whould not insure them or hit you in the pocket book
What I do not get is WHY is Ford jumping up and down with these numbers Insurance companys are not going to like this one
I would think they would be quite about it Oh well
Like I said we can agree to disagree

[flyingn]

Norm, you obviously know little about the 5.0. Its a VERY strong engine and can take 650 hp with stock internals. Easy. Its done all the time. Forged crank, good rods are in there.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Norm reynolds</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Better be carefull A bone stock 5.0 and he put on a blower?????
The bottom end on the 5.0 WILL NOT take the stress and will let lose
At my buddys shop just the other day. Got in a mustang that some knucklehead hit a bone stock stang with a 5.0 with a 100 shot of nos and the crank just snaped right though the block
One thing is we can agree to disagree about the 5.0 fords
Never liked them never will

Also if you remember back in the 60s when the h/p war was on gm and Chrysler did NOT say what the Real h/p was on the cars back then There was a thing with the insurance companys whould not insure them or hit you in the pocket book
What I do not get is WHY is Ford jumping up and down with these numbers Insurance companys are not going to like this one
I would think they would be quite about it Oh well
Like I said we can agree to disagree
</div></div>

[old5.0]

Geez, we get it. You don't like Fords. Point made, but you're not going to convince the rest of us. As for the car at your buddy's shop, someone who knows how to tune goes a long way. The stock rotating assemblies aren't the best thing ever, but a competent tuner can fix a lot of problems. There's a reason John Mihovitz at Accufab can hit a 13:1 compression modular with 50+ p.s.i. in a stock block and make it live (at close to 3,000 horsepower).

As for the power rating, what makes you think Ford <span style="font-style: italic">isn't</span> downrating these cars. They've been doing it for years. You don't really think those 87-93 5.0s only made 225 horse at the flywheel, do you? They <span style="font-style: italic">average</span> 200 RWHP, and I've seen a few freaks make close to the full 225 rating at the wheels. Same goes for Terminators, Shelbys, and the new 5.0s. A new Mustang GT is a 450 flywheel car all day, every day.

I'll also add that playing games with the power ratings in the 60s didn't fool anybody, and it won't this time, either. Good Lord, can't we just enjoy it while it does last, instead of wasting time complaining?

[Norm reynolds]

http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/g...ford_mustangs/

[old5.0]

Per the article you posted:
&quot;<span style="font-weight: bold">'11 5.0L Four-VALVE DOHC
Base power on the Mustang's new standard V8 is 412 hp and 390 lb-ft at the flywheel. So far Burcham is making 750 hp at the wheels at 8,000 rpm on a stock motor with no problems. Svinicki says the engines have been very durable so far. Others aren't so fortunate.</span>&quot;

Of course, they don't mention who the less fortunate may be. I stand by my earlier statement; a good tuner goes a long way. Burcham is one of the best, as evidenced by the fact that his '11 GT has been mid-9's on a 100% stock long block. If the car in your buddy's shop lost a motor with nothing but a hundred shot, somebody set it up wrong. Period.

Look, a lot of things have changed since the 60's, but some things haven't. One of the things that hasn't is that for every genuinely good tuner/driver, there's a legion ham-fisted, self proclaimed gurus who couldn't change a spark plug without screwing it up. Most performance cars, whether they were built in the 60's, 70's, 80's, or recently, have been owned during at least one point in their existence by someone long on cash and short on skill (or short on both). It's human nature, of course, to blame the machinery, not the operator. And so we end up with stories like &quot;Street Hemis are worthless, plug fouling pigs&quot; and &quot;(Old) 5.0 Mustangs only run 15s&quot;(my personal fave, always good for a laugh), or &quot;Pontiacs don't run, period.&quot; And about 3 dozen other myths that are just that, myths.

Is the rotating assembly in the 412 horse motor ideal? No. I'd love for the thing to come with a nice set of billet JEs swinging from a set of forged BME rods. Not economically feasible. But since, as pointed out above, Burcham's car is laying down 750 RWHP with those junk pistons, maybe they're not as junk as you think. For pete's sake, in 1970 Pro Stockers didn't make 750 at the <span style="font-style: italic">flywheel,</span> and I guarantee not one of those cars had a factory, mass-produced slug in them. Just how much power should these things handle, stone stock, before you consider them a success? Go ahead and list for me all the American cars built over the past 50 years that could lay down 750 to the tire, and run a 9 second quarter, with the untouched stock rotating assembly in them. It'll be a real short list.

Again, we all understand you don't like Fords. What I don't understand is why you insist on bludgeoning the rest of us over the head with it. Legitimate criticism is one thing. Complaining about the way Ford <span style="font-style: italic">rates horsepower,</span> while Chevy is building 638 horsepower Corvettes and 580 horsepower Camaros, just makes it seem like you have some sort of personal vendetta. If Fords get you this worked up, maybe it would be best to just avoid threads discussing them altogether.