Road and Track tested the 400HP 2010 Mustang and got a 13.4 quarter mile... (link)

Discussion in '2010 - 2014 Specific Tech' started by fox1x, Feb 20, 2009.


  1. fox1x

    fox1x New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    164
    Showcase:
    4
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Northwest Ohio
    Road & Track Magazine - FRPP Ford Mustang (4/2009)

    The car has the 3.73's and whipple charger. Yet Road and track only managed to get a 13.4 at 108... WTF.. Even Smith drove a '06 300 HP Stang with 3.55's to a 13.3 at 106. I know they are not the best magazine drivers; but with these numbers it makes the car look bad.
     
    #1
  2. fox1x

    fox1x New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    164
    Showcase:
    4
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Northwest Ohio
    I just can't understand how with 400 ponies and 3.73's these guys can only manage a 13.4...
     
    #2
  3. Mike97gt

    Mike97gt it doe snot Mod Dude Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 1999
    Messages:
    12,473
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    79
    Location:
    the people's republic of massachusetts
    many times they run with traction control on, no powershifting and even if the traction control is off they launch from idle..

    Evan smith on the other hand is a beast.. I called BS on him on the camaroz28.com forums back before he worked for magizines back in 1998 or so for running a 13.0 in a stock 1998 cobra. I got a VHS tape sent to my house of him doing it and them showing the motor was stock..

    That guy can DRIVE
     
    #3
  4. Five Oh Brian

    Five Oh Brian New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    400 flywheel hp and assuming 3,600 lbs at the track (car + driver) should be good for a 111 mph trap speed in the 1/4 mile, which in turn, should be mid 12's with a set of sticky tires (i.e. drag radials). However, the article did mention that traction was difficult with the traction control off and the car has the FRPP Handling Pack, so weight transfer would really suck at the dragstrip and complicate launching that much more. Oh, and add in a subpar journalist behind the wheel from R&T and you've got your explanation of why they could only run 13.4 @ 108.
     
    #4
  5. parrish5o

    parrish5o New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Dirty South
    Still hard to believe with that much horsepower they couldn't turn a better time. Beautiful car though, I can't wait for them to hit the lots.
     
    #5
  6. CatmanJJ

    CatmanJJ Captain Tangnet

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Messages:
    4,570
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Maryland
    Ahhhh haaaaa, C&D sucks.
     
    #6
  7. 03Stangr

    03Stangr New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    131
    Showcase:
    2
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Howdy, I looked at the rating which is 400BHP which we all know is what they're getting at the flywheel. What it's not saying is how much of that power is getting to the rear wheels. That's the problem in my opinion. We all know the ways to get more power to the rear wheels. Even my Stangs stock automatic didn't get the power to the rear wheels until I put a PI performance 2800 stall torque converter in it. I tuned it afterwards and increased the torque modulaton, shift firnness and rpm shift points. You wouldn't believe the difference in how it feels and sounds shifting ! Barked the tires going into second - at full throttle of course.

    I chose the torque converter I did because of the quality that went into it. It wasn't the cheapest. They don't use the stock cover, they make their own billet covers, new stator etc...and a good warranty.

    I know the car that they tested used a manual, did it have the optional sport mode w/traction control. That would make a difference if they were using it. My tuner lets me turn off the traction control, rev and speed limiter.

    It all comes down to the setup. There's just too many possible reasons why this car didn't get a better time. I'd say someone needs to look at the thing and make sure it has what it needs to get more power to the rear wheels. Does it have the stock clutch, pressure plate etc..The driver needs to be able to pwr shift since it's a manual. I'm assuming he did his part so you can eliminate that part of the equation.
    My .02 worth
     
    #7
  8. fox1x

    fox1x New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    164
    Showcase:
    4
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Northwest Ohio
    I'm just saying that the car not only has 400HP, it has the track package; which includes 3.73's. These drivers aren't the best; however, I think that number is off. My '07 GT with 3.31's and a five speed ran that. Their trap speed wasn't even that good. I wish they would put the 60 foot times in there.
     
    #8
  9. 03Stangr

    03Stangr New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    131
    Showcase:
    2
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here's some examples using the math giving the weight and 1/4 mile times = HP at wheels & Flywheel. This will give us an idea of whats going on with the setup and/or the driver. Things we don't know; reaction time, driver experience, specific setup, parts used and RWHP that they were able to acheive. You can have a ton of HP sitting at the flywheel but if you don't get it to the wheels your upgrades are practically useless. Plus you need a driver that knows how to bang them gears of course. That's why some teams at the track are using automatics/torque converter setups and trans brakes. It helps eliminate driver error. You tune the tranny's valve body duties for specific rpm shifts, shift firmness etc.. the driver just has to punch it and away the car goes - Assuming the track can hold the HP that is.

    example 1: Horsepower Results - 1/4 Mile Method
    Your mustang weighs about 3500 pounds and can complete a 1/4 mile in about 13.4 seconds. That means that you've got about 287.50 HP at the wheels, and about 373.75 HP at the flywheel.

    example 2: Your mustang weighs about 3600 pounds and can complete a 1/4 mile in about 13.4 seconds. That means that you've got about 295.72 HP at the wheels, and about 384.43 HP at the flywheel.

    Example 3: Your mustang weighs about 3700 pounds and can complete a 1/4 mile in about 13.4 seconds. That means that you've got about 303.93 HP at the wheels, and about 395.11 HP at the flywheel.

    Example 4: Your mustang weighs about 3800 pounds and can complete a 1/4 mile in about 13.4 seconds. That means that you've got about 312.15 HP at the wheels, and about 405.79 HP at the flywheel.

    Example 5 : same weight but I put in a better time of 13.2. Check out the results in this Scenario. If they didn't have the right drag tires on it, not enough traction off the line or didn't shift fast enough they may have lost 2 seconds or more easily. Ahhh, yikes !

    Your mustang weighs about 3600 pounds and can complete a 1/4 mile in about 13.2 seconds. That means that you've got about 309.36 HP at the wheels, and about 402.17 HP at the flywheel.

    So it's hard to say what the setup was exactly, but you'd sure hope that if they want accurate results for the public to see, they'd have the right tires/traction, the right setup to get as much HP to the wheels and a driver that knew what they were doing with a manual transmission. The bottom line - I think we all agree that they should have had a better time. I would have, if it were my project. that I knew thousands of people were going to be looking at.
     
    #9
  10. bfrede1

    bfrede1 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2001
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA
    I haven't posted in years and have been out of the loop. The R&T article says the whipple is pushing 5 psi. How many more psi can the stock motor hold? Is it still the standard 8-10 or is it possible to re-pulley the blower. My stock Charger R/T just ain't getting the blood flowing and I want to get back in a stang.
     
    #10
  11. scupking

    scupking Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,198
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Enfield, CT
    It should run much better times then that. The 010 GT with 3.73 gears that motor trend just tested ran 13.5 and 0-60 in 4.9 seconds. This car with 400hp should be in the high 12s.
     
    #11
  12. Five Oh Brian

    Five Oh Brian New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    ET is very indicative of traction and/or driver skill.

    MPH is very indicative of power being made.

    Motor Trend ran the '10 GT through the traps at 104 mph with 315hp. R&T ran the supercharged 400hp '10 GT through the traps at 108 mph, so it was putting down more power to trap 4 mph higher than a stock GT. It still should have run closer to 110-111 mph, IMO, based on the weight & power listed.
     
    #12
  13. 03Stangr

    03Stangr New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    131
    Showcase:
    2
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    edited
     
    #13

Share This Page