Mustang Thread- 5.0 Coyote Edition

They're good.

They're shit.

>>17767918
Besides the styling of front and rear am I losing much by going with a 2011-2012?

There's a 2012 on craigslist for $15,800 with 58k miles on it. Super clean and bone stock except for a catback. Thinking pretty heavy on it

File: IMG_20170824_113955_01.jpg (721KB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

721KB, 2592x1944px

They are solid and can handle a lot of abuse (it can easily rev passed 8k and be fine while the stock limiter is ~7k) . It is basically a pickup truck engine block with sports car parts. People on the forums are actually starting to put F150 intake manifolds on them for higher torque and wider area under the curve sacrificing of course the top end (it's $60 for that IM compared to the GT350 IM at $800). Some motherfuckers are also putting on F150 IMs then adding comp cams for beastly NA curves but I haven't seen any dyno charts yet

I have one, it's good. I redline once a week

>>17767937
Get it. Get it now.

I had one op, it was super fun but a little shitty to work on. Not really any worse than a 4.6 mustang though.
I had a 2011 with the 6 speed. I put exhaust, cai, longtubes, and a 100 shot on it. I ran a best of 11.9@124. Should of been low 11s or maybe high 10s but I couldnt launch it or itd just spin cause I was on regular summer tires.

The nice thing is you can tell it was made to be somewhat moddable, spaces are tight but made to be able to get to. Their suspension works great out of the box. The trans and rear will be durable enough for most people. Motor is pretty bullet proof up to 600-800whp. At 600+whp you should replace the oil pump gears with billet ones.

Car was a lot of fun but I wanted to build a more specific road course car and didn't want a loan on my "toy" anymore so I sold it and got a C4 vette for 4k that I've been setting up for road course & autocross.

>>17767937

Those years had synchro issues, so watch for that.
I had a '12 and ended up lemoning because of it.

Camaro is better on paper but they are less practical with their shit visibility and little trunk opening. The Mustang engine is more revvy and still has lots of potential.

File: 00I0I_8vvwlGbKmix_1200x900.jpg (148KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1200x900px

They're pretty great cars from what I've seen. Few friends have them or had them. Two were N/A, one is now a procharger setup. Another one just finished a twin turbo setup.
They respond great to mods and are fun to drive and daily drive. They're pretty practical cars that run great for all their weight/options/etc.

I was looking at C6's but now am probably picking up pic related Saturday because its priced equivalently and has a bit more durability in the driveline vs the C6s I was looking at.

Like above anon mentioned their major fault is their oil pump gears which are known to bind up when making lots of power and revving high. For a N/A or mild FI build though it should be fine.

I hope to pick mine up Saturday, will be my first nearly new car 2014 with 4k miles.

It attracts me to have something like it after owning a lot of 80s-90s-early 2000s imports & muscle cars and half my battles always being spent just bullet proofing multiple weak factory points or dealing with corroded/rusted parts.

I like 5.0s cause they made the 3v cars about worthless and while they definitely arent great for NA power they arent terrible either and the main thing is theyre super reliable cars.

I got my 06 GT in 2014 for $5500 with 131k on it. There's like a tax now on new edges cause of people building them with LSes and shit and the s197s are selling cheaper then nice new edges even now in places.

I'm at 170k now (i drive a lot for work) with no issues just maintenance. Just an all 06 GT that I didn't go into any debt for and still feels like a new car. CAI/Exhaust/Tune and 12.9@105mph in the 1/4 plent quick for a dd.

Dont get me wrong id love a coyote car but when the 3v can be had for 10k+ less for a car IM just going to put a ton of miles on every year i cant justify the 5.0

how are the new eco boosts?
Dealer has a really nice one here that ive been considering

>>17768215
They are good for what it is. I know fanboys will hate on it, but they are pretty quick and easy to modify

Why does this one have a strut tower brace:
>>17767953
But these don't:
>>17767912
>>17768009

>>17768511
Performance Pack addition I think. Might also be the FRPP track pack

>>17768511
It's because I have the performance pack (it's a 2015)

>>17768511
>>17768541
>>17768715
The one I'm looking at >>17768009 does have the performance pack. However if it came with it maybe it would of been removed for clearance for the supercharger?
Not familiar enough with them yet.

>>17767932
Th>>17767937
Independent rear suspension is better. 2015s have it. For a daily driver its not like its a deal breaker. The 2011-14's arnt trucks, you will be happy with it, but the independent is better if you can afford it.

2015 is also stiffer, a touch more refined and a next step up crash standard wise.

>>17768723
I only know 6 gens and it depends on the SC, for example a Procharger will clear the strut tower brace but a Roush will not

>>17767953
Your not redlining enough. Let me borrow your car and I can help you recline at least 3 more.>>17767996

The mustang has a useable back seat of you vave kids or ladies or men 5"11 and under. Its not perfect, but useable. The Camero has no back seat unless its kids up to maybe 4" something.

Good news is, no fat chix

>>17768215
>>17768215
A stage 1 eccoboost on 93 octane will satisfy 99% of drivers on 100% of roads. A stock on 93 will satisfy 90%. A stage 2 with stock exhsust is great. More top end power and over rev. I don't like the sound of loud exhaust on 4 banger.

Previous v8 owners just won't get it and miss the v8 sound. A stage 2 ecco is just as fast as a 5.0 with similar tires at normie stoplight street speeds.

The 5.0 will walk it with a better driver or at faster highway 60mph type racing.

Ecco feels more fun handling wise on tight stuff because of no joke lighter front end.

>>17768378
They are fun at a $10,000 discount used. You can get nice ones for under 20k. GTs still hovering around 30 in similar condition and equipment.

Someone buy mine
https://springfieldil.craigslist.org/cto/d/ford-mustang-gt/6264728972.html

>>17768799
>buying a pigfat mustang for handling
>not getting the V8 because "the lighter front end"

if you want a 4 cyl mustang you should neck yourself

>>17768765
>remove important bracing
>Roush

>>17768009
is dat ruby red. my fave color of 5.0's. when i bought my grabber blue I really wanted a ruby red but couldnt find any for sale privately. only found one at a dealer but i didnt wanna pay dealer price

>>17768861
>important bracing

>laughinggirls.jpg

>>17768848
Didn't say I wanted one. Just said they are a good car.

Xoxoxxxo bro

File: 00N0N_ftQY9X72D0F_1200x900.jpg (206KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1200x900px

>>17768930
Yeah it was definitely one of the more attractive things to me about the car even besides the blower/low miles.

Probably first one I've seen, there are a bunch around here and I've never seen one in person. Really prefer the color over all the blue/black/green/white ones I see everywhere.

>>17767912
My neighbor has a 2003 mustang gt with a 4.6. He powershifts all the time, hammers it and burns out of the driveway before it's even to operating temperature. He also drag races it every weekend on Friday and Saturday all night with a 150 shot of nitrous. Drives it there and back, and launches it off of 9.5 inch slicks. Has traded it off twice before, and now has it back with 175k miles (he got it new). It has never had engine trouble and nothing has every been removed from the engine or replaced except camshafts.
The 5.0 is almost identical to a 4.6 from an engineering standpoint so you can probably expect the same.