Top Gear tests Mustang GT500

[Mr. Wyndham]

I was very happy with the video, especially coming from a British show. (it's also another wink in the direction of Top Gear possibly testing our Camaro)

And although it's a Mustang, I like how he exclaimes "Oh, GOD!" off the line:

[Rock36]

I am working on a Sunday so my network won't allow me to watch videos, but I did see a review before, but it had a lot of inaccuracies.

The Top Gear I watched had Jeremy Clarkson say the GT500 had a S/C 4.6L engine instead of the 5.4L, and said it had 475 bhp instead of 500bhp.

That is why I generally don't like that show, because the get the American car facts wrong all the time. I think they did that with the Vette recently as well.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Clarkson didn't do this one...This was Richard Hammond. The guy who likes and owns a Mustang - I think he did say that it has "a supercharged engine out of the GT." though... whoops.

But they put it on a Dyno, and found it only had 447(or something like that) rwhp.

[Shadowsong]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Clarkson didn't do this one...This was Richard Hammond. The guy who likes and owns a Mustang - I think he did say that it has "a supercharged engine out of the GT." though... whoops.

But they put it on a Dyno, and found it only had 447(or something like that) rwhp.

I belive he said the ford GT, or thats how I took it anyway.

[JeepinMatt]

They should know that a dyno will show how much rear wheel horsepower a car gets. Not horsepower at the crank, which is what's advertised. They were wrong in saying that it does not get the advertised horsepower. It does.

[Mindz]

Yeah he said the FGT's supercharged engine. Live axle on the back? WTF FORD?

[twigg107]

Originally Posted by JeepinMatt

They should know that a dyno will show how much rear wheel horsepower a car gets. Not horsepower at the crank, which is what's advertised. They were wrong in saying that it does not get the advertised horsepower. It does.

Also every dyno reads differently....

[JeepinMatt]

Originally Posted by twigg107

Also every dyno reads differently....

Yes. But they should still understand the difference between horsepower at the crank and horsepower at the rear wheels. Would be a requirement of working in that field, I would think.

[Mr. Wyndham]

they did say that the GT390 had 320rwhp. so... contradicting himself maybe? but I definitely think that he's taking acount for it.

Are there any gents from the old country that can tell us how they rate hp? and what the perception is about crank, vs rwhp? My guess is that in the UK, they don't care what the fywheel hp is, as it doesn't correctly represent the car. The engine, yes. The car, no.

EDIT: oh, and yeah, my bad - I heard incorrectly. he said Ford GT, not Mustang GT. whoops! :p

[JeepinMatt]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

they did say that the GT390 had 320rwhp. so... contradicting himself maybe? but I definitely think that he's taking acount for it.

Are there any gents from the old country that can tell us how they rate hp? and what the perception is about crank, vs rwhp? My guess is that in the UK, they don't care what the fywheel hp is, as it doesn't correctly represent the car. The engine, yes. The car, no.

EDIT: oh, and yeah, my bad - I heard incorrectly. he said Ford GT, not Mustang GT. whoops! :p

Very true that the horsepower at the crank doesn't represent what's actually being put to the ground. However, when the GT500's advertised horsepower is at the crank (like all cars) and they call them liars after measuring the rear wheel horsepower, then I take issue with it.

[DGthe3]

It just makes me smile about what i suspect they will say about the new camaro. Their two biggest problems with the new GT500 is that it doesn't make the power they claim (though they compared engine power to wheel power . . . ) and that it had a solid axle. Well I've heard that GM likes to understate hp, the numbers are likely to be closer between advertised engine and dyno'd wheel. Secondly, independent rear suspension. What will they complain about then? Probably the interior, thats the last resort when finding weakness in a muscle car. Kinda like complaining that a Bentley weighs over 5000 lbs.

[Rock36]

The GT500 has a SAE certified 500hp. There is no arguing that fact, but you can take a look at the numbers too.

447 rwhp is 53 bhp less than 500bhp

53bhp/500bhp = 10.6% drivetrainloss. Completely reasonable.

GT500 isn't under or overrated. It is accurately rated (at least by SAE standards).


And guys in the old country typically use KW for power instead of horsepower.

[Power Junkie]

Originally Posted by Rock36

And guys in the old country typically use KW for power instead of horsepower.

We do?????... news to me!!

They did mess the GT500 test up a little.... and i wouldn't take a dyno test as gospel for what a car is actually putting out.

[Rock36]

Originally Posted by Power Junkie

We do?????... news to me!!

Yeah I am going to go ahead and say yes.

I live over here on your side of the pond, and I have seen more than a few British car rags talk about KW in lieu of HP. I see it all the time. In Germany we also use PS instead of HP. The two measurements are pretty close 1 HP = 1.014 PS

Or go to www.ford.co.uk or www.chevrolet.co.uk (I am sure you have been there before) the cars are advertised in KW primarily then PS.


Don't mistake me for the typical American that hasn't lived or even been outside of the United States LOL