2018 GT A10 Power Band

[bluebeastsrt]

That 0-60 nonsense isn't real world. You only get that 3.9 seconds by winding the motor up. That isn't the point, the point was you didn't need to wind up the motor beyond 4000 rpms to get torquey acceleration in a 392. Everyone knows a Mustang is weak down low in the rpms, except for a select few die hard Mustang fans that can't accept facts.

I had a 2015 Challenger SRT A8. My 2018 GT A10 didn't feel nearly as powerful driving around town. It's the nature of these engines, one makes gobs of torque down low while tapering off in hp up top, while the other makes little torque down low but makes tons of power up top.

Let's not pretend the Mustang doesn't have this lack of torque down low.

Naturally, I'm making much more power now with my bolts and E85. But it still needs to wind past 4k to get that "in your face" feeling, even on E85.

Feelings are what your describing. Facts are 4.2 zero to sixty for the Dodge. 3.9 for the Ford. Facts are the mustang weighs about 600 pounds less to a dodge. Fact is the Ford has enough torque for its weight. To out accelerate the dodge. I can't feel the difference between horse power and torque like your currently claiming. I can only feel acceleration. And the ford does that better. Period! Facts are posted numbers. And just to be clear. This 10 percent analogy is stupid. I want to out run a dodge. Im not pushing the peddle down to 10% and holding it there.

Sponsored

 

[FruityJudy]

First world problems are rough.......

 

[Sammy123]

Feelings are what your describing. Facts are 4.2 zero to sixty for the Dodge. 3.9 for the Ford. Facts are the mustang weighs about 600 pounds less to a dodge. Fact is the Ford has enough torque for its weight. To out accelerate the dodge. I can't feel the difference between horse power and torque like your currently claiming. I can only feel acceleration. And the ford does that better. Period! Facts are posted numbers. And just to be clear. This 10 percent analogy is stupid. I want to out run a dodge. Im not pushing the peddle down to 10% and holding it there.

A 392 makes more torque than a GT and at an earlier RPM. That's a fact. Enough to overcome its heavier weight. It's the nature of a low revving OHV engine that redlines at 6000 rpms. Ford's DOHC makes less peak torque and that peak torque comes on after 4000 rpms, that's also a fact. Anyone who's driven both knows where the powerband is for each car, I don't know why you're pretending to be something it isn't. To get that 3.9 seconds you need to wind that motor up way past 4000 rpms. It takes less effort to get to 60mph under regular driving conditions with a 392, because it has gobs of torque down low where you don't need to press the throttle to something like 80%, whereas YOU do with a GT.

There's enough posts on this forum about the lack of torque in the lower rpm's to indicate this isn't something I'm just suddenly making up, this is a common complaint about the 5.0 for how many years now? We all know it makes power up top because it's a high revving engine. But please, don't make yourself look foolish by stating it drives in the lower rpm's as if it has more torque than a 392. It clearly doesn't.

 

[Sammy123]

The only way to really settle this isn't on a forum. Let's set up a Ford vs. Mopar track day.

Well I had plenty of those in weekend street races, just wasn't with a 392, and wasn't really fair. I had a Charger Hellcat making about 900whp. Can we talk about street racing here? lol

 

[Ed M]

It takes less effort to get to 60mph under regular driving conditions with a 392, because it has gobs of torque down low where you don't need to press the throttle to something like 80%, whereas YOU do with a GT.

Watch out, blue. He’s challenging you to a part-throttle race!

 

[RoyalCrimsonGT]

When my 18 was stock I would’ve agreed with the GT’s somewhat lacking low end torque but after getting e-tuned I don’t even know what that means. I have issues keeping the tires from spinning at 1/8 throttle in 1st gear, on sport or track mode. I don’t even use drag mode anymore on the streets in fear of my rear end losing it on 2-3 and even 3-4 shifts are horrifying even with nannies on

I guess what I’m trying to say for those who need more tq is go get e tuned

Oh and I’ve roll raced srt-8 challengers, camaros and vettes and that fat tq doesn’t do anything with the a10 always in its power band in any gear lol

 

[Jmtoast]

Watch out, blue. He’s challenging you to a part-throttle race!

Lol.. 10% limit

 

[Jmtoast]

Well I had plenty of those in weekend street races, just wasn't with a 392, and wasn't really fair. I had a Charger Hellcat making about 900whp. Can we talk about street racing here? lol

1. I think you picked the wrong car. 2. You mopar guys are strange bunch. In a thread exulting the mustang power and speed you break out with “yeah but at 10% throttle My mopar wrecked it and don’t act like it isn’t true!!” You have to expect to get shit for that. It’s funny.

 

[Qcman17]

The tuner I had decided that knock sensors were an optional feature. I would have kept it otherwise.

I got the 10 speed GT about hearing how quick they are and easy to mod into the 10's N/A. Which I'm pretty much there now. Car is very quick after 4000 rpms, talking pinned to your seat fast (trap speed prior to the ported tb/manifold was 124 full weight, might be 125 or 126 now).

Below 4000 rpms though leaves a bit to be desired. Even with the mods I have. That's all I'm saying, and there's no denying that. Don't know why some have to get their panties in a bunch and pretend the S550 doesn't have this lack of torque down low, that's just pure denial.

No panties in an uproar here. It was a legit question. It seemed odd to get rid of a pulley-ed hellcat for a Mustang GT was all I was saying. It also seemed obvious that would be a big downgrade in performance to me. I agree the GT is light feeling on torque down low & I miss that some from the Camaro but I know from my own comparisons that this car is a good bit faster. That is obvious to me too.

I also found with the stump puller motors that they feel fast with a little bit of throttle but don't get that much faster feeling when more is applied as much as the GT does when I stay in the throttle. But I agree the GT wants to be above 4k to really come into its own.

I think the different Drive Modes help with this too. The car feels pretty lazy assed in Drive only.

 

[Sammy123]

1. I think you picked the wrong car. 2. You mopar guys are strange bunch. In a thread exulting the mustang power and speed you break out with “yeah but at 10% throttle My mopar wrecked it and don’t act like it isn’t true!!” You have to expect to get shit for that. It’s funny.

I think ya'll are being a bit coy with that 10% remark. Doesn't matter what it's at, 10-20-30-40-50% or whatever, stock for stock a 392 is going to feel more torquey because it does in fact have more torque despite its weight. Nobody said a 392 is going to win WOT to WOT, because it won't. But there's enough posts here where you're satisified with the overall power, but wish there was more power down low for everyday driving. Nobody here goes WOT from stoplight to stoplight. Raise your hand if you do.

As far as E,it does help but it needs to be a straight E tune not flex.

 

[Sammy123]

No panties in an uproar here. It was a legit question. It seemed odd to get rid of a pulley-ed hellcat for a Mustang GT was all I was saying. It also seemed obvious that would be a big downgrade in performance to me. I agree the GT is light feeling on torque down low & I miss that some from the Camaro but I know from my own comparisons that this car is a good bit faster. That is obvious to me too.

I also found with the stump puller motors that they feel fast with a little bit of throttle but don't get that much faster feeling when more is applied as much as the GT does when I stay in the throttle. But I agree the GT wants to be above 4k to really come into its own.

I think the different Drive Modes help with this too. The car feels pretty lazy assed in Drive only.

I posted the story behind that in the other forum, the same one where you posted your new car buy. First page explains everything.

You are right though, motors like the 392 likes to bring all the power early and fast but don't have much more to offer beyond that. The GT I noticed isn't weak by any means, it just doesn't have the power below 4k rpms to really separate itself. Once it goes over 4k rpms though, especially on a straight E tune, oh boy lol.

 

[Qcman17]

I posted the story behind that in the other forum, the same one where you posted your new car buy. First page explains everything.

You are right though, motors like the 392 likes to bring all the power early and fast but don't have much more to offer beyond that. The GT I noticed isn't weak by any means, it just doesn't have the power below 4k rpms to really separate itself. Once it goes over 4k rpms though, especially on a straight E tune, oh boy lol.

Oh geez i didnt realize that was you til now. Yes i remember the story on the hell kitty now.... doh!

 

[bluebeastsrt]

A 392 makes more torque than a GT and at an earlier RPM. That's a fact. Enough to overcome its heavier weight. It's the nature of a low revving OHV engine that redlines at 6000 rpms. Ford's DOHC makes less peak torque and that peak torque comes on after 4000 rpms, that's also a fact. Anyone who's driven both knows where the powerband is for each car, I don't know why you're pretending to be something it isn't. To get that 3.9 seconds you need to wind that motor up way past 4000 rpms. It takes less effort to get to 60mph under regular driving conditions with a 392, because it has gobs of torque down low where you don't need to press the throttle to something like 80%, whereas YOU do with a GT.

There's enough posts on this forum about the lack of torque in the lower rpm's to indicate this isn't something I'm just suddenly making up, this is a common complaint about the 5.0 for how many years now? We all know it makes power up top because it's a high revving engine. But please, don't make yourself look foolish by stating it drives in the lower rpm's as if it has more torque than a 392. It clearly doesn't.

I give up. That 3.9 0-60 in the mustang. Is achieved with the same throttle position that dodge uses to achieve the 4.2. Wide open! Dont mention foolish. The numbers dont lie. The Mustang has a better hp/tq to weight rato. Than the dodge has. Or it would not be faster. The mustang is faster 0-60. Its faster in the 1/4 mile. All this torque you think your feeling. Isnt moving the vehicle faster. I don't deal in what people complain about on the forums. I deal in science. When you can back up your arguement. With anything other than. Well people say. We'll talk again. But back your arguement up with science. Not well the people say. Or my but dyno tell me arguements. Wow cares what a performance car does at 10% throttle position? Answer nobody. The only think people care about is raw performance data. Brag to a mustang owner. About how great. Your charger is from 40mph to 60mph at 40% throttle after he kicks your ass in a race. So in closing. Mass times energy (horsepower/torque) equals acceleration. Its physics. Not opinion.

 

[Sammy123]

I give up. That 3.9 0-60 in the mustang. Is achieved with the same throttle position that dodge uses to achieve the 4.2. Wide open! Dont mention foolish. The numbers dont lie. The Mustang has a better hp/tq to weight rato. Than the dodge has. Or it would not be faster. The mustang is faster 0-60. Its faster in the 1/4 mile. All this torque you think your feeling. Isnt moving the vehicle faster. I don't deal in what people complain about on the forums. I deal in science. When you can back up your arguement. With anything other than. Well people say. We'll talk again. But back your arguement up with science. Not well the people say. Or my but dyno tell says arguements. How cares what a performance car does at 10% throttle position? Answer nobody. The only think people care about is raw performance data. Brag to a mustang owner. About how great. Your charger is from 40mph to 60mph at 40% throttle after he kicks your ass in a race.

You deal in science? How about the torque curve that shows a 392 hitting its peak torque curve almost right off the get go while a Mustang's torque slowly builds its own hitting a peak of only 420 at 4100rpms? To anyone that "deals with science", that's clearly self explanatory. No one is talking about building peak power at WOT, you seem to be arguing with yourself there. And yes, you are making yourself look foolish by hiding the fact these S550 motors make their power with higher RPMs and NOT known for their torque down low. Quite a few people admitted to this already in this very thread (some reluctantly because you know, Mustangs rule lol), so you can continue to sweep it under the rug if you wish.

You keep bringing up the 3.9 second time but that is largely due to the A10. With the 6 speed it's 4.3 seconds 0-60, compared to 4.2 seconds 0-60 on the 6 speed manual 392. Both are slow compared to their auto counterparts, yet this is a direct mechanical comparison. Unlike the Mustang that needs to wind up to 7000rpms, that 392 is gonna deliver its power better due its lesser 6000 rpms redline as it makes quite a bit more hp/torque at the low end and mid range.

 

[Sammy123]

Oh geez i didnt realize that was you til now. Yes i remember the story on the hell kitty now.... doh!

LOL yeah. I'm impartial to all cars. Next car might be an RS3 or the new M5, going back to high end. Mustang is fun for what it is and easy to mod, but eventually I'm going to need a 4 door again.

Sponsored