12.12 stock on video

[GeorgeInNePa]

Well lol I'm not going to link to the forum and cause some inter-forum shit storm. The mods may not look favorably upon that. They usually don't.

I don't necessarily disbelieve - just saying some people are doubting the numbers that a 3600' car w/412 @ the crank trapping that number. And they are saying those numbers are out of the realm of mathematical reality. Most of these cars trap around what, 110-112 stock typically?

The whole "factory freak" thing is debatable. I've had people on this forum before tell me that's BS and they are all nearly identical.

My G8 ran 113.5mph with a race weight over 4000lbs and maybe 425 at the crank.

Those guys don't know what they are talking about.

 

[wile2k]

I'd be the guy that RipTide is talking about, just on a local forum, unless you are from our area, you probably aren't on that forum.

For the record, I'm far from a hater, actually strongly considering a new 5.0 for my next car. I am, however, a realist, and when people start quoting 114 or 115mph bone stock 5.0's I start looking for reasons why it ran 114 or 115.

In a given range of aerodynamics (common performance cars) the power that it takes a car to make a certain MPH in the 1/4 is pretty well modeled. So with Aero out of the equation, we are left with HP and Weight. For a 2011 5.0 with a race weight of 3700lb (probably optimistic), it would take around 425 WHEEL horsepower to give a corrected 113.5mph (rough DA last night at that track -40 feet). It is either that or for a 370 wheel horsepower car (is that about right for the new 5.0?) the car would have to weigh around 3250 race weight (doubt it). Of course there is wiggle room, but I wouldn't think 3-5mph worth of it.

So which is it? Is the car making more HP than Ford claims? Does it weigh less than Ford claims? Other possibilities would be an optimistic track (are there a lot of fast times coming from that track, I've seen some tracks that are downhill or not a full 1320' or what not), one hell of a tailwind (weather reports don't show that) or my guess, a factory freak.

It wouldn't be the first time that an exceptionally strong car has rolled off the assembly line, every enthusiast group has one or two that perform head and shoulders above the rest. Since a lot of other sources are getting 110ish mph corrected traps, then I'm going to believe that this car is not the norm and the owner is the proud owner of a factory freak (and hats off, I hope that I get so lucky).

Anyway, just wanted to clear the air, not hating on the OP at all and especially not on the new 5.0. If people start regularly reporting 114-115mph traps then that just makes me want one all the more. However, if this is one of the very few to trap that stock then I'm not going to jump on a bandwagon believing that it is the norm for the new 5.0, which is good for me that I'm not disillusioned when I get mine (that and we commonly race at 6000+' DA, so I'll have to be happy with low 100s while stock, lol).

 

[Riptide]

I totally agree about the factory freak issue. Even though I've had people tell me otherwise. The fact is even brenspeed told me they've had stock 4.6 3v cars dyno at 240whp. Others come in there and are pushing 260 easily. SAE corrected. My own car is a turd on the dyno although it would be pretty cheap of me to blame my crap ETs on that. It is what it is.

 

[D98GT]

The 412 at flywheel is heavily underrated unless the transmission is highly efficient on the dyno. My stock dyno numbers show that.

 

[GeorgeInNePa]

If the track isn't a full 1320', the MPH would be less not more.

 

[wbt]

Great times!

Was that the track in Temple?

 

[11GrabberGT]

Were those 28" slicks? Im sure that is helping the mph cause mine is running 111mph to 112mph bone stock hitting the limiter before the traps...Either way nice times I believe its possible for sure

 

[uniquestang]

I'd be the guy that RipTide is talking about, just on a local forum, unless you are from our area, you probably aren't on that forum.

For the record, I'm far from a hater, actually strongly considering a new 5.0 for my next car. I am, however, a realist, and when people start quoting 114 or 115mph bone stock 5.0's I start looking for reasons why it ran 114 or 115.

In a given range of aerodynamics (common performance cars) the power that it takes a car to make a certain MPH in the 1/4 is pretty well modeled. So with Aero out of the equation, we are left with HP and Weight. For a 2011 5.0 with a race weight of 3700lb (probably optimistic), it would take around 425 WHEEL horsepower to give a corrected 113.5mph (rough DA last night at that track -40 feet). It is either that or for a 370 wheel horsepower car (is that about right for the new 5.0?) the car would have to weigh around 3250 race weight (doubt it). Of course there is wiggle room, but I wouldn't think 3-5mph worth of it.

So which is it? Is the car making more HP than Ford claims? Does it weigh less than Ford claims? Other possibilities would be an optimistic track (are there a lot of fast times coming from that track, I've seen some tracks that are downhill or not a full 1320' or what not), one hell of a tailwind (weather reports don't show that) or my guess, a factory freak.

It wouldn't be the first time that an exceptionally strong car has rolled off the assembly line, every enthusiast group has one or two that perform head and shoulders above the rest. Since a lot of other sources are getting 110ish mph corrected traps, then I'm going to believe that this car is not the norm and the owner is the proud owner of a factory freak (and hats off, I hope that I get so lucky).

Anyway, just wanted to clear the air, not hating on the OP at all and especially not on the new 5.0. If people start regularly reporting 114-115mph traps then that just makes me want one all the more. However, if this is one of the very few to trap that stock then I'm not going to jump on a bandwagon believing that it is the norm for the new 5.0, which is good for me that I'm not disillusioned when I get mine (that and we commonly race at 6000+' DA, so I'll have to be happy with low 100s while stock, lol).

that track normally does NOT have great times normally. shit my car last time i was there only hit 11.78 @ 122.4 but that was on a totally different day (time of year, prep, etc.)

Great times!

Was that the track in Temple?

yep it was at the one in Temple/Academy

 

[Wnt2gofst]

Great times!

Was that the track in Temple?

Yes it was at temple

 

[Wnt2gofst]

It was on 26 tall tires. which would make my gears seem more then 3.73s if i am correct. And track normally does suck. I was shifting into 5th right before the end

Were those 28" slicks? Im sure that is helping the mph cause mine is running 111mph to 112mph bone stock hitting the limiter before the traps...Either way nice times I believe its possible for sure

 

[wile2k]

The 412 at flywheel is heavily underrated unless the transmission is highly efficient on the dyno. My stock dyno numbers show that.

The thing with dynos, as I'm sure you are aware, they all read a bit different. We might have to wait until there are quite a few to take a cross section from. For instance, we have a local dyno that I'd bet dollars to donuts would read in the 330 range on a new 5.0, some are heart-breakers and some are love-makers. Great tuning aids though.

I agree though, I think the new 5.0 is probably underrated to the tune of 15-20ish HP (again judging from the traps people are getting). The OP's car though might be making some 30ish HP even over that, so perhaps 45-50 more than Ford rated to account for the extra MPH.

Wonder what the drivetrain loss is into the manual? I've been guessing 12% which would be pretty darn efficient.

 

[wile2k]

If the track isn't a full 1320', the MPH would be less not more.

Good point...

And again, grats to the OP, bad ass any which way. Love what we are seeing out of the new muscle car wars .

 

[Wnt2gofst]

Wile2k

Thanks. I know it hard to believe if you watch video we was excited also. We was shocked. I swear my car only has 1228 miles on it and it's faster then when I bought it with 2.1 miles on it.

 

[kyoshosp2]

26" tall damn that's like 4:30s in that thing.. Nice run either way

 

[uniquestang]

i thought you said you had lowering springs and sway bar relocation brackets also done?

 

[stang910]

My car trapped 113 bone stock. His times and MPH are very believeable. My car is fully loaded and was optioned out to 40k so my car isn't the lightest out there.

 

[Wnt2gofst]

I do have it lowered. And yes sway bar relocation kit. If u going to count those as pedormance mods be my guest.

My car has none the bells and whistles. Only options I got was 3.73s and 6spd manual.

 

[Noclutch]

Believing what happened requires some to have the first person experience and reject the facts provided.
LOL, good runs and to stop defending ends it with you standing on the evidence and them with their doubts which they have in abundance.

You have it in your favor.

Someone needed to be the better and acceptance is hard for the guy who finished second.

You guys got some strong cars and this battle will continue as you push them and yourselves to do better.

Good luck and have fun.

 

[Germeezy3]

I do have it lowered. And yes sway bar relocation kit. If u going to count those as pedormance mods be my guest.

My car has none the bells and whistles. Only options I got was 3.73s and 6spd manual.

You were powershifting I assume?

 

[uniquestang]

I do have it lowered. And yes sway bar relocation kit. If u going to count those as pedormance mods be my guest.

My car has none the bells and whistles. Only options I got was 3.73s and 6spd manual.

lol makes no difference to me. im just putting it out for the haters so i can more to read and laugh about. but to some having the springs changed out is a performance mod because it can and will affect your 60' times and therefore affect your ET. sway bar relocation, yeah not really going to affect anything. to have a video and timeslip is awesome. i wish i could keep track of my stuff better. i love your new car and cant wait to see what you do with it in the future.