This has come up alot in this fourum and I have to agree, the automatic transmission is designed to be smooth on the street, and not over rev the engine. The shift points (stock) are WAYYYY to conservative and the only way to achieve a full utilization of the un-modded power band effectivly is to manualy shift the auto. With a tune however, these shift points can be adjusted considerably and that does effect 0-60 times. I still feel that I can beat the tune by manualy shifting though. The computer has no idea what the seat of my pants is feeling, and I shift when I feel the power JUST begin to diminish (usualy very close to the redline) It hits harder when it shifts this way, and the accelaration feels better. Could just be placebo effect, but I would swear by it. If the guy that made this vid gave me his car, I garentee I could shave half to a full second off of his 0-60 time with driving alone. Plus when you start in drive, the car is in a tall gear when at rest and the trans has to downshift to get into first gear. When you manually put it in first, it stays there just waiting for you to nail it and the dead stop responce is noticably better.
Has anyone said this way was bad for the car at all? I have heard mixed opinions but not very many. still waiting for anyone to answer my 3.73 gear 0-60 question... Anyone notice a big difference in 0-60 time after the gear install?
__________________
Performance: C&L CAI with Xcal 3 Tuner. 93 Race tune by Bamachips. GT sway Bars. 8.8 Rear axle with 4.10 gears. Dual Magnaflow Exhaust.
Not performance... 7 inch In dash Pioneer DVD/touch screen deck, Shaker 500 system, Chrome taillight trim. Sequential taillights. Window tint, Viper alarm with remote start. Cobra radar detector with GPS. Black 18" bullitt wheels with Sumitomo High Performance HTR Z II Tires.
Has anyone said this way was bad for the car at all? I have heard mixed opinions but not very many. still waiting for anyone to answer my 3.73 gear 0-60 question... Anyone notice a big difference in 0-60 time after the gear install?
Yes, 3.73's will give you better 0-60 times, better 60 foot times and better quarter mile times. All better. Don't know by exactly how much, but all around, they will make it easier for the engine to deliver. And Yes, shifting that way IS bad for your car, but then again, so is racing, braking really hard, and all around enjoying anything other than looking at your car. Shifting that way every day to commute, will blow up your trans in a hurry. Doing it once in a blue race moon, will not be a huge deal. My motor will explode before my tranny likely will. (P.S. I did a swap in a 1979 Fox mustang from 2.73's to 3.73's and it was like getting kicked in the arse by a horse when I hit the gas. That 5.0 ltr motor was likely less powerful than my little 6 now) my 0-60 was just about all I had because I was running a c-4 tranny with 1:1 final drive. Was around 4,000 rpm at 70mph. Wont be that way with this trans though because of the overdrive.
i got 6.2 whith just a cai ( no tune ) aand a muffler
this is what u do
take off tcs
overdrive off
and put in 1st the shift 2nd to 3rd, that way thers is no delay
Quote:
Originally Posted by billthecougnut
This has come up alot in this fourum and I have to agree, the automatic transmission is designed to be smooth on the street, and not over rev the engine. The shift points (stock) are WAYYYY to conservative and the only way to achieve a full utilization of the un-modded power band effectivly is to manualy shift the auto. With a tune however, these shift points can be adjusted considerably and that does effect 0-60 times. I still feel that I can beat the tune by manualy shifting though. The computer has no idea what the seat of my pants is feeling, and I shift when I feel the power JUST begin to diminish (usualy very close to the redline) It hits harder when it shifts this way, and the accelaration feels better. Could just be placebo effect, but I would swear by it. If the guy that made this vid gave me his car, I garentee I could shave half to a full second off of his 0-60 time with driving alone. Plus when you start in drive, the car is in a tall gear when at rest and the trans has to downshift to get into first gear. When you manually put it in first, it stays there just waiting for you to nail it and the dead stop responce is noticably better.
That is my video up there, I'm considering making another video this weekend using your suggestions, then we'll know for sure, but other than going downhill or speeding up the video in Windows Movie Maker (like everyone does on youtube) I'm still seriously skeptical about improving my time.
It makes sense to have the gear in first before stopping, because it is usually in 4th or 5th, and so has to downshift. It's also possible that Ford utilized this method in order to extract the best advertised 0-60 time. The question is, is that what members who're claiming 6.9 seconds or better are doing?
There's also the method of stepping on the brake and reving the engine as much as you can without moving, then releasing the brake and flooring it. I was tinkering with that method a while ago and it didn't seem to make much of a difference, other than possibly screwing up the clutch.
I took my v6 to the track last fall. It was bone stock except for the Bamachips 91 race tune and at the 330ft mark it got 68.29 mph in 6.887 seconds (just dug out the timeslip to get the numbers). This was at 5000ft altitude. I'm sure down there in California where's the air's a lot thicker it would do considerably better.
BullMeister, are you manually shifting the auto like some others here claim needs to be done?
Good to know. Now I know I'm not alone. I can see no feasible way to do the 6.9 secs that Consumer Guide Auto claims without modding it.
Well, at least it's still faster than my old Honda which was more like 0-60 in over 11 seconds.
I believe the advertised 6.9 sec 0-60 time is done with a manual. I believe a manual can do it in that time frame, but it would be much more difficult for the auto.
OH; I almost forgot...the only way i was able to increase my 0-60 time in my v6 auto was to spin a little bit off the line. Almost like a powerbreak. Do not release the break until your tires begin to spin, and it will hurl you ahead quicker then just bogging. I believe you can make the advertised 0-60mph time with this strategy.
I believe the advertised 6.9 sec 0-60 time is done with a manual. I believe a manual can do it in that time frame, but it would be much more difficult for the auto.
Consumer Guide Auto claims they got that time with an automatic transmission.
OH; I almost forgot...the only way i was able to increase my 0-60 time in my v6 auto was to spin a little bit off the line. Almost like a powerbreak. Do not release the break until your tires begin to spin, and it will hurl you ahead quicker then just bogging. I believe you can make the advertised 0-60mph time with this strategy.
BullMeister, are you manually shifting the auto like some others here claim needs to be done?
No, I let the car do it for me. The tune I use is so fast, trying to manually shift it would just slow me down (my arm doesn't move as fast as the computer with the race tune can shift it for me).
I also did not power brake for this. I started from idle. I wanted to see how it would do just as if I were sitting and idling at a red light. I left the overdrive on also just like you would do during normal driving.
So, bottom line for everyone throwing out numbers:
1. It's a '05 auto tranny.
2. Vehicle was bone stock except for the 91 octane race tune (Did NOT have CAI or muffler yet).
3. Started from idle (did NOT powerbrake).
4. Left overdrive engaged (not NOT turn overdrive off)
5. Altitude was 5000 ft. (thinner air and loss of power at this altitude. Would be better at lower altitudes).
6. Got 68.29mph in 6.887 seconds (that's over 8 mph better than the claimed 0-60 in 6.9 sec.).
That being said, everyone that's saying that it has to be a manual, manually shifted on the auto, or powerbraked to get these numbers has never actually been to the track and tried it. But...just like my earlier post, this one will probably be ignored also by those that just want to argue about what they haven't actually tried themselves.
Hope this straightens out the misinformation being thrown at you Markovich.
__________________
2005 V6Mustang coupe. Automatic. Black with Charcoal Interior
Mods: JLT CAI, Bamachips 91 race tune, single Mustang V8 muffler, Mustang V8 swaybars
Looks: smoke front turn signals, sequential taillights, 14" shorty antenna, MRT rear window louvers and a little chrome for the interior 2000 C5 Corvette convertible, Torch Red with Black Interior. Full of options, Corsa exhaust 1990 Ford Bronco 351ci engine- it runs.
No, I let the car do it for me. The tune I use is so fast, trying to manually shift it would just slow me down (my arm doesn't move as fast as the computer with the race tune can shift it for me).
I also did not power brake for this. I started from idle. I wanted to see how it would do just as if I were sitting and idling at a red light. I left the overdrive on also just like you would do during normal driving.
So, bottom line for everyone throwing out numbers:
1. It's a '05 auto tranny.
2. Vehicle was bone stock except for the 91 octane race tune (Did NOT have CAI or muffler yet).
3. Started from idle (did NOT powerbrake).
4. Left overdrive engaged (not NOT turn overdrive off)
5. Altitude was 5000 ft. (thinner air and loss of power at this altitude. Would be better at lower altitudes).
6. Got 68.29mph in 6.887 seconds (that's over 8 mph better than the claimed 0-60 in 6.9 sec.).
That being said, everyone that's saying that it has to be a manual, manually shifted on the auto, or powerbraked to get these numbers has never actually been to the track and tried it. But...just like my earlier post, this one will probably be ignored also by those that just want to argue about what they haven't actually tried themselves.
Hope this straightens out the misinformation being thrown at you Markovich.
Bullmeister: Dont be bitter buddy, nobody is telling this guy it can't be done, or the car isn't capable, we are just trying to give him driving tips to make it easier. Power braking is not absolutely nessisary, but it does help for a quicker launch. Manualy shifting isn't nessisary, but imo, it can achieve a quicker time. We all have opinions, but I never said that anything YOU typed was a missinformation, so try not to discredit thing others are saying, it isn't nice, and mommy says play nice.
yes but does anyone have ANY info on 3.73 gears improving 0-60 times?????
__________________
Performance: C&L CAI with Xcal 3 Tuner. 93 Race tune by Bamachips. GT sway Bars. 8.8 Rear axle with 4.10 gears. Dual Magnaflow Exhaust.
Not performance... 7 inch In dash Pioneer DVD/touch screen deck, Shaker 500 system, Chrome taillight trim. Sequential taillights. Window tint, Viper alarm with remote start. Cobra radar detector with GPS. Black 18" bullitt wheels with Sumitomo High Performance HTR Z II Tires.
Bullmeister: Dont be bitter buddy, nobody is telling this guy it can't be done, or the car isn't capable, we are just trying to give him driving tips to make it easier. Power braking is not absolutely nessisary, but it does help for a quicker launch. Manualy shifting isn't nessisary, but imo, it can achieve a quicker time. We all have opinions, but I never said that anything YOU typed was a missinformation, so try not to discredit thing others are saying, it isn't nice, and mommy says play nice.
I haven't been through my third pot of coffee yet today. I don't mellow and get nice until that third pot is circulating through me.
What's irritating is post after post saying that you can't meet or exceed 6.9 seconds unless you have a manual, powerbrake, etc. when if folks would actually read the whole thread, they could see that clear back at the beginning is a post showing that it's possible without even trying.
YES, a stock V6 auto will do better than 6.9 in 0-60. I don't have my father's timeslips, but his didn't even have a tune that same night (completely stock) and he was only 3.5mph less than me at the 1/4 mile so I would guess that he was probably doing around 66-67mph in 6.9 sec.
There! glad I got that out of my system...Now where's my 64oz coffee mug?
__________________
2005 V6Mustang coupe. Automatic. Black with Charcoal Interior
Mods: JLT CAI, Bamachips 91 race tune, single Mustang V8 muffler, Mustang V8 swaybars
Looks: smoke front turn signals, sequential taillights, 14" shorty antenna, MRT rear window louvers and a little chrome for the interior 2000 C5 Corvette convertible, Torch Red with Black Interior. Full of options, Corsa exhaust 1990 Ford Bronco 351ci engine- it runs.
No, I let the car do it for me. The tune I use is so fast, trying to manually shift it would just slow me down (my arm doesn't move as fast as the computer with the race tune can shift it for me).
I also did not power brake for this. I started from idle. I wanted to see how it would do just as if I were sitting and idling at a red light. I left the overdrive on also just like you would do during normal driving.
So, bottom line for everyone throwing out numbers:
1. It's a '05 auto tranny.
2. Vehicle was bone stock except for the 91 octane race tune (Did NOT have CAI or muffler yet).
3. Started from idle (did NOT powerbrake).
4. Left overdrive engaged (not NOT turn overdrive off)
5. Altitude was 5000 ft. (thinner air and loss of power at this altitude. Would be better at lower altitudes).
6. Got 68.29mph in 6.887 seconds (that's over 8 mph better than the claimed 0-60 in 6.9 sec.).
That being said, everyone that's saying that it has to be a manual, manually shifted on the auto, or powerbraked to get these numbers has never actually been to the track and tried it. But...just like my earlier post, this one will probably be ignored also by those that just want to argue about what they haven't actually tried themselves.
Hope this straightens out the misinformation being thrown at you Markovich.
Thanks for clearing that up. I wonder though, I've heard that not all engines are created equally, is it possible that there are variations in HP (and maybe other things) coming off the assembly line, and Ford was just having a bad day when they made my car?
Also, what tune do you have and where do I get it?
Manuanl shift would be a waste of time if u have a tuner cause u can set the car to shift where u want!
Quote:
Originally Posted by billthecougnut
bullmeister: Dont be bitter buddy, nobody is telling this guy it can't be done, or the car isn't capable, we are just trying to give him driving tips to make it easier. Power braking is not absolutely nessisary, but it does help for a quicker launch. Manualy shifting isn't nessisary, but imo, it can achieve a quicker time. We all have opinions, but i never said that anything you typed was a missinformation, so try not to discredit thing others are saying, it isn't nice, and mommy says play nice.
Thanks for clearing that up. I wonder though, I've heard that not all engines are created equally, is it possible that there are variations in HP (and maybe other things) coming off the assembly line, and Ford was just having a bad day when they made my car?
Also, what tune do you have and where do I get it?
I've seen dyno variations of as much as 10-15hp between V6 Mustangs (not sure how much of it is real and how much is because of different brands of dynos) but if Lakewood is at a low elevation that should more than make up for it if your's is at the low end. V6's at sea level act like Gt's up here. There's enough air at sea level that when I visit in California I only have to breathe once every couple of minutes.
I have the bamachips.com 91 octane race tune in mine. Tried all the other tunes made by bamachips and this is my favorite.
__________________
2005 V6Mustang coupe. Automatic. Black with Charcoal Interior
Mods: JLT CAI, Bamachips 91 race tune, single Mustang V8 muffler, Mustang V8 swaybars
Looks: smoke front turn signals, sequential taillights, 14" shorty antenna, MRT rear window louvers and a little chrome for the interior 2000 C5 Corvette convertible, Torch Red with Black Interior. Full of options, Corsa exhaust 1990 Ford Bronco 351ci engine- it runs.
Manuanl shift would be a waste of time if u have a tuner cause u can set the car to shift where u want!
OK, lets clarify some things... The question/s at hand are how to make a better 0-60 time in a TOTALY stock 4.0 mustang, without mods. Now, if you read my posts, you will find that I said exactly what you just did, I do understand that reading an entire post is sometimes bothersome, but if you had, you would have read that a stock setup has concervative shift points, and manualy shifting it will better utilize the power band, but with a tune, you can set those peramiters. I do have a tune, 93 octane/firm shift from diablosport, and I no longer manualy shift BUT.. when it was stock, it shifted like my 85 year old grandma, and I quickly had to override that with my own choices of shift points, and my 0-60 was dramaticly improved (verified via seatpants dyno) as a result.
