Differences in 11-12 and 13+ 5.0s

[Dominic Toretto]

I have tried searching and can't seem to again find the actual differences in those motors. I searched before through google and found some link (can't confirm if it was Ford or not) that stated that there were some serious changes which allowed the update in power. Anyone have that info or a good link here?

-Alex

[KungFuHamster]

I have tried searching and can't seem to again find the actual differences in those motors. I searched before through google and found some link (can't confirm if it was Ford or not) that stated that there were some serious changes which allowed the update in power. Anyone have that info or a good link here?

-Alex
The 11-12's have a different head bolt, the 11-12s have piston oil squirters, the 13+'s do not...their pistons have a coating on them. the front engine cover is different on the newer motors as well. thats all i can think of off the top of my head.

[Grandpa]

There is no difference in power. The only difference is no oil squirters in the 13+.

[DirtyD]

A slightly revised tune on the 2013 gave them a smoother low end TQ curve, and also they "gained" 8 crank HP, but no one is sure where that was accomplished at (squirters or tune revision)

[Kaane]

There is no difference in power. The only difference is no oil squirters in the 13+.

From what I have heard, the squirters are still there. Some engine builders say only change is different head bolts.

[Grandpa]

A slightly revised tune on the 2013 gave them a smoother low end TQ curve, and also they "gained" 8 crank HP, but no one is sure where that was accomplished at (squirters or tune revision)

LOL, the slight bump in power was due to the loss of windage and not a tune revision.

The 13+'s do also have the smaller head bolts which doesn't really effect power. There have been a few reports here and there about a head lifting under big boost applications but those are few and far between.

[03MachMe]

the 13s are faster!

[DirtyD]

LOL, the slight bump in power was due to the loss of windage and not a tune revision.

The 13+'s do also have the smaller head bolts which doesn't really effect power. There have been a few reports here and there about a head lifting under big boost applications but those are few and far between.

Hey, that is the information that was discussed when the 13s came out and were starting to be analyzed. I never saw anything else to to combat that theory. I'm just posting what I've heard. It is has been shown the TQ curve is smoother through the low RPMs though. It would make sense that a slight decrease in rotational weight would let the motor produce more work over the same time.

[Grandpa]

I'm just posting what I've heard.

:Angry:

[03MachMe]

:Angry:

because your posting on the extensive number of motor builds you have done one 11-12s and 13s????

[DirtyD]

:Angry:

Okay, so if I said "I have read that it is supposedly...", would that have gone over better with you. :nutkick:

[Grandpa]

because your posting on the extensive number of motor builds you have done one 11-12s and 13s????

You're missing my point.

[Grandpa]

Okay, so if I said "I have read that it is supposedly...", would that have gone over better with you. :nutkick:

Ha..nice.

[Dominic Toretto]

I figured I would read around for crate engines. Wouldn't the engines have a different part number if something was changed? From the fordracingparts.com website part M-6007-M50 looks to be what comes stock in the cars. However when you go to this page http://www.fordracingparts.com/crateengine/Main.asp#mod, it says the horsepower rating is 412 but when you click on the link it says the horsepower is 420. Weird.

My original thought when I saw the hp difference was either an intake or exhaust change. It seems like that would be the case since there are no different part numbers for the 412hp and 420hp motors. Thoughts?

-Alex

[46Tbird]

There are different part numbers for '11-12 and '13-14 service replacement engines from Ford.

In Sept of 2012, my '12 GT needed an engine replacement at 23700 miles. The engine they put in it is a '13 service replacement (BR3Z6006J) and required a slightly revised wiring harness and they reflashed the PCM.

Picked up about 2mph in both the eighth and quarter...

[Oxford14Stang]

All I know is that the 13-14' were rated at 420hp the 11-12' were rated at 412. Only thing I can think of is ask around see who dynoed their 11-12s stock and what were their #s and stock dyno #s from the 13-14s ... in theory the 13-14s should put down more power.

[downtime!]

Dang, I thought this was going to be about the '11-'12's looking like Mustangs and the '13-'14's like Chargers. My bad.

[JKrieg]

I blew my engine at 11k cyl 8 failure due to bad injector. I got a new 13 short block only 2k on the rebuild but to be honest power is the same. The coyotes are all under rated and thats confirmed by dynos of all years. Lets not have a dick meazuring contest we're all about 5.0

[re-rx7]

I blew my engine at 11k cyl 8 failure due to bad injector. I got a new 13 short block only 2k on the rebuild but to be honest power is the same. The coyotes are all under rated and thats confirmed by dynos of all years. Lets not have a dick meazuring contest we're all about 5.0
Shit at 11k? That blows.

[JKrieg]

Yea two rear end gear sets replaced and on my third tranny re build. Late 12 build. It sucks but she runs hard for me and I bang gears. Took an I/T/E Gen5 Camaro by 3 lengths to 140 with my brother onboard.

[Zeek]

Yea two rear end gear sets replaced and on my third tranny re build. Late 12 build. It sucks but she runs hard for me and I bang gears. Took an I/T/E Gen5 Camaro by 3 lengths to 140 with my brother onboard.

140 is fast bro!

[JKrieg]

Just a quick pull empty stretch of highway no ricer swerving

[Toby]

The '13 cars did not have piston squirters, tune slightly revised, pistons are coated, head bolts are different, front clips rear taillights and interior is different, most '13 I have seen manual make around 390 rwhp 11-12 make 370-380. Handful of differences but essentially the same car

[JKrieg]

Yes, but being someone who's ran both blocks I can say they are the same butt dyno wise and they dyno the same. Dyno Jet, Mustang, SAE and no matter the fact think about it like this... If their was a revised tune dont you think their would be a Tsb reflash? Ive seen 13s eat 12s/11s and vise versus . I think the up-rating on the Hp#s was a compensation on Ford's under rating the car to begin with.

[fordplay]

I heard it was a government conspiracy where the government forced ford to underrate the horsepower numbers to help boost camaro sales while the government owned a large steak in GM... no I'm joking, but its as good a guess as anyone... p.s. my 2011 smokes 13 all the time, from digs or rolls so 8 extra horses be dammed..

[46Tbird]

The '13 cars did not have piston squirters, tune slightly revised, pistons are coated, head bolts are different, front clips rear taillights and interior is different, most '13 I have seen manual make around 390 rwhp 11-12 make 370-380. Handful of differences but essentially the same car

My '12 M6 3.73 made 390/371 on your dyno with it's OEM engine and heavy cast 20" wheels. I haven't put it on the rollers with the new engine, but 2mph should be significant.

I much prefer the styling of the '11-12 front end and the black rockers (the painted ones make these cars look bloated) but otherwise I prefer the '13-14 cars. They're all good platforms for inexpensive fun.

PS - If I was going to buy a used 5.0, I would personally avoid a '11-12 car just because of my own experience and the fact I haven't seen a '13-14 engine let go. I'm sure it's happened but I'm not aware of it.

[re-rx7]

I much prefer the styling of the '11-12 front end and the black rockers (the painted ones make these cars look bloated).

I agree.

[Toby]

Mod for mod they are identical, but stock for stock my experience the '13 make around 390 ish rwhp m6 car and the '11-12 make 380 ish. There are a few "freak" '11-12 out there but majority of them are in the 380 range. Remember also that the early '12 had the "'11" engines and late model '12 had the "'13" engines with the revised head bolts missing oil squirters and updated programming. Hell we had an '11 come in that made 405 bone stock m6 car and we have seen m6 cars make a low as 360... The '13 are real consistent 385-390 bone stock..

[Toby]

Oh I agree, the front end of the '13 are not appealing nor are the rear taillights of the '13. I would like to get a '13 with the digital display setup but convert the front and rear to '11-12 styling.

[03MachMe]

Oh I agree, the front end of the '13 are not appealing nor are the rear taillights of the '13. I would like to get a '13 with the digital display setup but convert the front and rear to '11-12 styling.

you have to be the only person that prefers the 11-12 tails to the 13-14s. The tails are the only thing that kept me from pulling the trigger on one earlier. I think the stock tail lights on the 11-12 is aweful. the 13-14s look like pure sex.

[Toby]

you have to be the only person that prefers the 11-12 tails to the 13-14s. The tails are the only thing that kept me from pulling the trigger on one earlier. I think the stock tail lights on the 11-12 is aweful. the 13-14s look like pure sex.

haha i can deal with the front end, that is easy to make look decent, but the taillights are fugly imo... by far the worst design I could imagine haha but I cant say much as i do not own one and probably never will...

[Kosovobandit]

I would have to agree that the 11-12's look way better. Not painting the rockers, the 11-12 hood looks way better (nobody can convince me the heat extractor hood on the gt does alot of good), the shelby wanna be front bumper. At least the 11-12 has an identity of its own amd doesnt try and steal the shelby identity.

[Toby]

the '13 hood does help to an extent, but i would take a cowl hood any day and have much better looks and function when setup properly!

[BLK2012GT]

Dang, I thought this was going to be about the '11-'12's looking like Mustangs and the '13-'14's like Chargers. My bad.

LOL now you said that I can see the similarities.

[fordplay]

I'd love the 13 taillights on my 11. The hood on the 13 is cool' I mean look the camaro followed the design cue and gave the camaro a landing strip heat extractor. I'm torn on the painted rocker panels , I like them but fear in 3 years the paint wold be rock chipped bare

[kn7671]

I'm torn on the painted rocker panels , I like them but fear in 3 years the paint wold be rock chipped bare

I was thinking about the painted rocker panels (assuming you meant side skirts), and I believe that pretty much every iteration of the Mustang "GT" that's been produced with side skirts, (1987-1993 FOX, 1994-2004 SN95, and 2005-2009, then 2013-2014 S197's) has been painted.

This probably makes the 2010-2012 Mustang GT the oddball for painted side skirts. So in this regard, you would only have to look at the other 89% of Mustang GT's from 1987 and up to know just how well the paint holds up.

[Dominic Toretto]

you have to be the only person that prefers the 11-12 tails to the 13-14s. The tails are the only thing that kept me from pulling the trigger on one earlier. I think the stock tail lights on the 11-12 is aweful. the 13-14s look like pure sex.

He's not the only one. I too feel that the lights look better on the 11-12 cars. Not that the 13+s have bad lights, I just don't like that huge black strip across the back.

Thanks for the responses everyone, I was mainly concerned with the engine differences. They are all great cars, everyone enjoy yours :)

-Alex

[Midnight11]

ill pull a Jeff lol :D ive had both so i can compare. 13s>11-12

everyone does saleen grill and boss front so they really dont have an "identity" and the lights are way better, who wouldnt want factory hids and led fogs?

my 11
http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj70/nlorenzo08/IMG_0818.jpg (http://s269.photobucket.com/user/nlorenzo08/media/IMG_0818.jpg.html)

13
http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj70/nlorenzo08/IMG_6573_zps51ad565e.jpg (http://s269.photobucket.com/user/nlorenzo08/media/IMG_6573_zps51ad565e.jpg.html)

[BLK2012GT]

Your car looks the same foo. Besides the catfish mouth and the tail lights. But yes I do like the '13 tail lights more.

[BLK2012GT]

I guess Dodge and Ford got together and said hey let's copy each other on the front fascia. Lmao

http://i1292.photobucket.com/albums/b576/blk2012gt/null_zpsb1f686d9.png

http://i1292.photobucket.com/albums/b576/blk2012gt/null_zps178306bb.png

[Midnight11]

yea it looks nothing like that...

[BLK2012GT]

If you dont paint the front bumper on the mustang and leave it black it will identical to the charger.

[Kosovobandit]

I guess Dodge and Ford got together and said hey let's copy each other on the front fascia. Lmao

http://i1292.photobucket.com/albums/b576/blk2012gt/null_zpsb1f686d9.png

http://i1292.photobucket.com/albums/b576/blk2012gt/null_zps178306bb.png

there is a lot of truth to this and the GT/CS is the best looking 13-14 GT. It would be the only one i would purchase.

[fordplay]

Yeah.. I meant side skirts, the bandit 2 posts above mine wrote rockers, and it was early morning and oh well.. and yeah I don't think the paint holds up well on a daily driver... as for the charger a mustang... I see what you are saying how they appear similar in the front end.. but not enough for me, I'd never compare them in real life

[Grandpa]

ill pull a Jeff lol :D ive had both so i can compare. 13s>11-12

everyone does saleen grill and boss front so they really dont have an "identity" and the lights are way better, who wouldnt want factory hids and led fogs?



Not everyone does the Saleen/boss mods. I purposely haven't done those because they are so popular and because I like the throwback to 68-70 fastback look.

As for the lights, I don't think they belong on a muscle car. That's just a difference between our generations is all. I think the HIDS/LEDS belong on Hondas/Euro cars and don't look right on a muscle car. To me, it makes as much sense as putting Yenko stripes on a Civic.

I also think the 13+ front ends make the Mustang look even bigger than it already is then people add these ridiculously big front end splitters that are completely nonfunctional to make the car look even bigger. It's just more fluff to appeal to the new generation is all that is all about "more". Muscle cars aren't about fluff, they are about performance.

[BLK2012GT]

Not everyone does the Saleen/boss mods. I purposely haven't done those because they are so popular and because I like the throwback to 68-70 fastback look.

As for the lights, I don't think they belong on a muscle car. That's just a difference between our generations is all. I think the HIDS/LEDS belong on Hondas/Euro cars and don't look right on a muscle car. To me, it makes as much sense as putting Yenko stripes on a Civic.

I agree

[Dominic Toretto]

As for the lights, I don't think they belong on a muscle car. That's just a difference between our generations is all. I think the HIDS/LEDS belong on Hondas/Euro cars and don't look right on a muscle car. To me, it makes as much sense as putting Yenko stripes on a Civic.

I agree and disagree. I don't think there is anything wrong with HID on the cars but to me, the design of them just looks like "trying too hard." At least on the Mustang. On the Camaro and Challenger they look well done and "natural" on the car. A different design may make me like them more on the Mustangs.

-Alex

[Grandpa]

I agree and disagree. I don't think there is anything wrong with HID on the cars but to me, the design of them just looks like "trying too hard." At least on the Mustang. On the Camaro and Challenger they look well done and "natural" on the car. A different design may make me like them more on the Mustangs.

-Alex

I can agree with that. I realize that everything evolves in time and styles change. I'm not so old that I'm stuck in my ways, but some things like super bright LED's on a muscle car just don't fit. The HIDS that actually fit/blend with the car I could wrap my head around but the strips look silly like they are trying too hard to be an Audi. It's a muscle car, not a Honda or a BMW/Audi.

[Dominic Toretto]

but the strips look silly like they are trying too hard to be an Audi. It's a muscle car, not a Honda or a BMW/Audi.

Agreed.

-Alex

[kn7671]

Not everyone does the Saleen/boss mods. I purposely haven't done those because they are so popular and because I like the throwback to 68-70 fastback look.

As for the lights, I don't think they belong on a muscle car. That's just a difference between our generations is all. I think the HIDS/LEDS belong on Hondas/Euro cars and don't look right on a muscle car. To me, it makes as much sense as putting Yenko stripes on a Civic.

I also think the 13+ front ends make the Mustang look even bigger than it already is then people add these ridiculously big front end splitters that are completely nonfunctional to make the car look even bigger. It's just more fluff to appeal to the new generation is all that is all about "more". Muscle cars aren't about fluff, they are about performance.

Well in this regard, most of the wheels and tires we install are fluff as well, since 18's and 19's will generally out handle 20's. The fluff continues with the lowering springs, since you really only need better dampers for the street driving. It's continues more with axle back exhaust kits, all for noise, not power, or the GT500 spoilers, no spoilers, cowl hoods, Boss grilles, bar style grilles, tinted lights, quarter window louvers, etc...

What I'm trying to point out is that each piece has a unique meaning to each person, whether questionably functional or purely to be aesthetically pleasing, there is no clear way to define what should or should not belong.

If we truly only cared about muscle, we would have all adopted the basic Ford Fairmont body years ago and tossed in more powerful motors, full exhaust, and gears for an all in the name of... Whatever you call it...

[46Tbird]

If American Muscle ever releases a '13-14 style tail light for the '10-12 cars, I'll be on them like a duck on a june bug. That is really the only place the earlier cars are lacking compared to the later ones. I think AM had plans to make them, but Ford may have made them stop for copyright infringement. At least that's what I read through the lines. And I'm not putting a bunch of silly window tint, or vinyl, or 'nightshades' spray paint all over my tail lights. I don't hate them that much!

The REAL problem with the rear of these cars is the gigantic dinner-plate sized 'faux gas cap' they tacked to the back of each and every one of them, and they scaled-up the tail lights to match. Bleh.

[46Tbird]

If we truly only cared about muscle, we would have all adopted the basic Ford Fairmont body years ago and tossed in more powerful motors, full exhaust, and gears for an all in the name of... Whatever you call it...

Some of us DO do that. :headbang:

I pulled up at a light next to a Ruby Red '14 GT last week. It was STUNNING. I was trying to give the guy a thumbs-up but he was either in his own world or ignoring me, lol.

[Midnight11]

But you put vinyl tint on your lights Steve? Lol

[Grandpa]

But you put vinyl tint on your lights Steve? Lol

It's coming off as soon as I get the chance to do it.

[Grandpa]

Well in this regard, most of the wheels and tires we install are fluff as well, since 18's and 19's will generally out handle 20's. The fluff continues with the lowering springs, since you really only need better dampers for the street driving. It's continues more with axle back exhaust kits, all for noise, not power, or the GT500 spoilers, no spoilers, cowl hoods, Boss grilles, bar style grilles, tinted lights, quarter window louvers, etc...

What I'm trying to point out is that each piece has a unique meaning to each person, whether questionably functional or purely to be aesthetically pleasing, there is no clear way to define what should or should not belong.

If we truly only cared about muscle, we would have all adopted the basic Ford Fairmont body years ago and tossed in more powerful motors, full exhaust, and gears for an all in the name of... Whatever you call it...

As far as wheels go, I'll put up my 20's against anyone's 18/19 inch wheels on this board in regards to performance.

I don't considering lowering springs fluff at all. Yes, it's visually appealing, but lowering a car's center of gravity greatly improves handling. Our Mustangs handle like a boat at stock height.

Again, I disagree with your exhaust comment. Aftermarket exhaust greatly improves airflow and reduces back pressure therfor releasing more power. The added bonus is the muscle car tone can be modified to be more pleasing to the ear to sound like a muscle car, rather than quiet as a Camry in stock form.

I do agree with your statement in regards to visual mods though. All of that stuff is subjective to individual tastes.

Form follows function.

[Midnight11]

Rivets ftw!

[Grandpa]

Rivets ftw!

Damn sheetmetal wheels!!

[re-rx7]

As far as wheels go, I'll put up my 20's against anyone's 18/19 inch wheels on this board in regards to performance.

I don't considering lowering springs fluff at all. Yes, it's visually appealing, but lowering a car's center of gravity greatly improves handling. Our Mustangs handle like a boat at stock height.

Again, I disagree with your exhaust comment. Aftermarket exhaust greatly improves airflow and reduces back pressure therfor releasing more power. The added bonus is the muscle car tone can be modified to be more pleasing to the ear to sound like a muscle car, rather than quiet as a Camry in stock form.

I do agree with your statement in regards to visual mods though. All of that stuff is subjective to individual tastes.

Form follows function.

Agrre with suspension. Lot of brake dive in these cars. Disagree with wheels comment. Stock to stock your big ass wheels vs my stock 18's will make a difference.

[Grandpa]

Agrre with suspension. Lot of brake dive in these cars. Disagree with wheels comment. Stock to stock your big ass wheels vs my stock 18's will make a difference.

Do explain. If you explaination contains "I heard" I will ban you for the day. lol

[DirtyD]

I think each style has their own likes and dislikes for me. I like the front end of both the 11/12 and 13 cars. I think Ford could've done a few things differently/better on th 13 front end, but oh well. I would've rather then tried to freshen up the 11/12 front end and massage it a little more than stick a combo GT500/V6 front end on it. The rear is hands down 13 all day.

[DirtyD]

Stock to stock your big ass wheels vs my stock 18's will make a difference.

No, just no.

His wheels weight as much as your stock 18s do. The only thing Steve would be lacking in would be cornering ability as his sidewall is much shorter than yours, but it would be made up by the fact his tires have a full 2-3 inches more surface contact to the pavement than your 18s have.

rotating mass > static/unsprung (dead) mass all day long.

[re-rx7]

I know. Had my civic on stock 15's then decided to go to 17's. I didnt notice it when i went up to the 17's but when I went back to 15's HOLY SHIT! The difference was huge. Granted with the lower power output of the civic the difference would be greater but the same should hold true on a more powerful car no matter.

Why make skinny wheels if there is not a need and they do not make a differnce? Plus the contact patch of the wider tires creates more friction on the surface of the road. This also soaks up some power. Take a wheel barrow put a skinny tire on say a 235 and push it. Then put a 275 or 295 on there and see if there is a difference in effort to push it.

[BLK2012GT]

No, just no.

His wheels weight as much as your stock 18s do. The only thing Steve would be lacking in would be cornering ability as his sidewall is much shorter than yours, but it would be made up by the fact his tires have a full 2-3 inches more surface contact to the pavement than your 18s have.

rotating mass > static/unsprung (dead) mass all day long.

What about my 18's?

[re-rx7]

What about my 18's?

your a gd example of my theory. Theory.:batman2:

[Grandpa]

No, just no.

His wheels weight as much as your stock 18s do. The only thing Steve would be lacking in would be cornering ability as his sidewall is much shorter than yours, but it would be made up by the fact his tires have a full 2-3 inches more surface contact to the pavement than your 18s have.

rotating mass > static/unsprung (dead) mass all day long.

Exactly.

I know. Had my civic on stock 15's then decided to go to 17's. I didnt notice it when i went up to the 17's but when I went back to 15's HOLY SHIT! The difference was huge. Granted with the lower power output of the civic the difference would be greater but the same should hold true on a more powerful car no matter.

Why make skinny wheels if there is not a need and they do not make a differnce? Plus the contact patch of the wider tires creates more friction on the surface of the road. This also soaks up some power. Take a wheel barrow put a skinny tire on say a 235 and push it. Then put a 275 or 295 on there and see if there is a difference in effort to push it.

Just...stop. :snoopfacepalm:

[re-rx7]

Just...stop. :snoopfacepalm:

If Im wrong prove it.:nutkick:

Explain how Blck2012gt picked up power?

[46Tbird]

Why make skinny wheels if there is not a need and they do not make a differnce? Plus the contact patch of the wider tires creates more friction on the surface of the road. This also soaks up some power. Take a wheel barrow put a skinny tire on say a 235 and push it. Then put a 275 or 295 on there and see if there is a difference in effort to push it.

Ford puts tiny tires on the car to get the gas mileage CAFE standards up. 235s on a 3600lb car with 400rwhp? Please. That shit is damned near negligent homicide. Tire grip should be the first thing you think about when building up your performance car, not gas mileage or 'soaking up' power. My wheels may be heavy-ish, but they're not as heavy as my stock Brembo wheels and Pirellis were. And when I need grip, I got it.

[BLK2012GT]

If Im wrong prove it.:nutkick:

Explain how Blck2012gt picked up power?

Yes I picked up power but with the same wheels if I take them to the track I would run slower times with them cause of no traction then I would with my old 20's. Now my new 18's is a different story. lol

[46Tbird]

Explain how Blck2012gt picked up power?

dyno reading ≠ grip

[re-rx7]

Ford puts tiny tires on the car to get the gas mileage CAFE standards up. 235s on a 3600lb car with 400rwhp? Please. That shit is damned near negligent homicide. Tire grip should be the first thing you think about when building up your performance car, not gas mileage or 'soaking up' power. My wheels may be heavy-ish, but they're not as heavy as my stock Brembo wheels and Pirellis were. And when I need grip, I got it.

I agree with your statement and the negligent homicide part had me rolling. lol From a roll stock to stock the stock rim car will be faster then same car with 20's and wider tires. No?

[BLK2012GT]

I agree with your statement and the negligent homicide part had me rolling. lol From a roll stock to stock the stock rim car will be faster then same car with 20's and wider tires. No?

I doubt it cause I broke those 235's loose going hwy speeds when I slammed it in 3rd.

[DirtyD]

Why make skinny wheels if there is not a need and they do not make a differnce? Plus the contact patch of the wider tires creates more friction on the surface of the road. This also soaks up some power. Take a wheel barrow put a skinny tire on say a 235 and push it. Then put a 275 or 295 on there and see if there is a difference in effort to push it.

A wider contact patch doesn't "soak up" power. It just creates a higher friction force of which the car has to overcome. The power output is the same. As long as the wheels being compared are close to the same overall diameter, the effective gear ratio will be unchanged, thus negligible tq "loss."

Your wheel barrow example doesn't apply here. They are designed to work with a skinny tire to provide the ability to lean as they turn/pivot.

A wagon would be a better example to compare with a car.

A larger tire gives you a larger area in which to spread the load. This means the object will handle better because the weight ir more distributed on the tire surface, making it handle more precisely. The only difference having a 235 on a wheel barrow would make would be the rolling resistance, but once it is rolling, you wouldn't be able to tell the 235 and 295 apart.

[BLK2012GT]

How the fuck did we get to how stock rims are better then 20" rims from whats the difference in year models? :STFU:

[DirtyD]

I agree with your statement and the negligent homicide part had me rolling. lol From a roll stock to stock the stock rim car will be faster then same car with 20's and wider tires. No?
If the entire wheel+tire setup for the 20s is heavier than the stock setup, then yes, stock wheels will be faster. If the 20s are lighter, the car with those wheels will likely be faster.

Rotating mass if a big deal. The less weight you have to rotate means the motor will rev faster since the work being supplied to turn it is less, giving the motor more power to push itself forward and accelerate.

[DirtyD]

How the fuck did we get to how stock rims are better then 20" rims from whats the difference in year models? :STFU:
Same reason as every other thread derailment.

ADD.

[46Tbird]

From a roll stock to stock the stock rim car will be faster then same car with 20's and wider tires. No?

No, you can't say that with any certainty.

[re-rx7]

I doubt it cause I broke those 235's loose going hwy speeds when I slammed it in 3rd.
QFT. 70 roll. LOL

A wider contact patch doesn't "soak up" power. It just creates a higher friction force of which the car has to overcome. The power output is the same. As long as the wheels being compared are close to the same overall diameter, the effective gear ratio will be unchanged, thus negligible tq "loss."

Your wheel barrow example doesn't apply here. They are designed to work with a skinny tire to provide the ability to lean as they turn/pivot.

A wagon would be a better example to compare with a car.

A larger tire gives you a larger area in which to spread the load. This means the object will handle better because the weight ir more distributed on the tire surface, making it handle more precisely. The only difference having a 235 on a wheel barrow would make would be the rolling resistance, but once it is rolling, you wouldn't be able to tell the 235 and 295 apart.
Lot more can go into that but yea pretty much.
How the fuck did we get to how stock rims are better then 20" rims from whats the difference in year models? :STFU:
Because 5.0 racecar.
Rotating mass if a big deal. The less weight you have to rotate means the motor will rev higher since the work being supplied to turn it is less, giving the motor more power to push itself forward and accelerate.

You dont say?:manos:

[re-rx7]

No, you can't say that with any certainty.

I cant but its an educated guess. Theory.

[Grandpa]

If Im wrong prove it.:nutkick:

Explain how Blck2012gt picked up power?

Look, I don't want to be rude to you, but sometimes we can't decide if you're trolling or seriously misinformed and some of your comments are so way off base at times it's crazy.

I asked you to explain how you came to determine your thoughts on the subject matter, and here you flip on me to prove you wrong? Seems a bit backwards to me.

But to simply answer your question, Jeff picked up power by simply decreasing the amount of rotating mass on his wheels allowing them to turn much easier. Reducing weight is just as good as making more power.

My forged 20's are lighter than your cast 18 inch wheels. The only argument you could possibly make is that a 20 inch wheel could change gearing if the same tire height was used, but it's not. By using a lower profile tire with my 20, the gearing is very near the same as it was with the stock 19 inch wheels/tires. So really, you are just incorrect and your argument is null and void.

[Grandpa]

QFT. 70 roll. LOL


Lot more can go into that but yea pretty much.

Because 5.0 racecar.


You dont say?:manos:

Ok, now you're just trolling.

[46Tbird]

I cant but its an educated guess. Theory.

Great theory, but my "heavy" 20s have made my stock untuned car quicker than a bunch of modded ones. You might want to rethink your theory.

[Courtesy Flush]

So what tire size should i be running on my wheel barrow?

[Dominic Toretto]

The REAL problem with the rear of these cars is the gigantic dinner-plate sized 'faux gas cap' they tacked to the back of each and every one of them, and they scaled-up the tail lights to match. Bleh.

Agreed, I plan on getting the delete kit for that myself. Just the blackout strip that goes across the decklid. Not tinting or modding the lights at all though.

No, just no.

His wheels weight as much as your stock 18s do. The only thing Steve would be lacking in would be cornering ability as his sidewall is much shorter than yours, but it would be made up by the fact his tires have a full 2-3 inches more surface contact to the pavement than your 18s have.

rotating mass > static/unsprung (dead) mass all day long.

Great theory, but my "heavy" 20s have made my stock untuned car quicker than a bunch of modded ones. You might want to rethink your theory.

Since the thread is already derailed I will add my 2 cents about wheels.

From what I have read, the most significant reason manufacturer's have to increase wheel size is to be able to use larger brake rotors and calipers. That's really about it. That's the real reason I personally did not want to go with 20s because of the increased weight of a larger wheel and not planning to go with a big break kit to justify the look. There are several factors to consider with whether or not a bigger wheel is performance-wise justifiable.

Weight
Size
Barrell diameter (for brakes of course)
Build process

My car came with 18X8 inch wheels. I don't have to by 20 inch wheels to increase contact patch. I could easily(and cheaper) select a 18X11, be marginally heavier assuming the wheels are cast like stock, and have a far greater tire choice to go with, while being able to keep braking as best as possible. Now also keep in mind that if I go from a 18X8 to a 20X11 that is forged it would potentially weigh marginally less if not the same. In that case then it makes performance as well as visual sense. However, I am not one of the ballers on this forum and don't plan on spending $4,000 for wheels alone. Yes, quality forged wheels can run that much, HRE, Forgeline etc.

Also consider this about wheel size. It takes a 20inch rim longer to completely rotate than an 18inch wheel respectively. That's why you don't see professional drag racers running huge wheel setups. For those looking to set records, they will not choose a larger wheel, in fact they either go with 18s or SMALLER with a fat DR to hook up with skinny up front.

-Alex

[46Tbird]

Don't overthink it.


We're talking about 12 second cars. lmao

[Dominic Toretto]

Don't overthink it.


We're talking about 12 second cars. lmao

Not overthinking it at all. I'm just giving as much information as I have. Since we are discussing wheels on performance cars, why not discuss which wheels give the best performance :) ?

-Alex

[Sieran]

This thread made me seriously reconsider how i pronounce the word wheelbarrow (i always thought it was wheelbarrel).

[DirtyD]

Also consider this about wheel size. It takes a 20inch rim longer to completely rotate than an 18inch wheel respectively. That's why you don't see professional drag racers running huge wheel setups. For those looking to set records, they will not choose a larger wheel, in fact they either go with 18s or SMALLER with a fat DR to hook up with skinny up front.

-Alex

Actually, I don't think it is necessarily the weight factor. Pros don't run larger wheels simply because of the massive amounts of TQ being applied at the wheels upon launching the car. They need as much flexible sidewall as they can possibly get to gain traction.

Plus, launching on a large wheels just increases the chances of snapping the center of the wheel from the torque stress being applied to the core of the wheel's hub. They cast a thick, small OD wheels that will give them the lowest rotating mass as possible while providing the highest strength possible.

[Grandpa]

Actually, I don't think it is necessarily the weight factor. Pros don't run larger wheels simply because of the massive amounts of TQ being applied at the wheels upon launching the car. They need as much flexible sidewall as they can possibly get to gain traction.

Plus, launching on a large wheels just increases the chances of snapping the center of the wheel from the torque stress being applied to the core of the wheel's hub. They cast a thick, small OD wheels that will give them the lowest rotating mass as possible while providing the highest strength possible.

This guy gets it. :head3:

[DirtyD]

This thread made me seriously reconsider how i pronounce the word wheelbarrow (i always thought it was wheelbarrel).
I've always known the real way, but saying "barrel" is more fun.