Mustangs................

[ArcAngel]

Originally Posted by BackinBlackSS/RS

Man, you do suck at math. It would be almost 61hp.

yes I do LOL only when it comes to money am I good LOL ps its close nough

[BackinBlackSS/RS]

Originally Posted by ArcAngel

yes I do LOL only when it comes to money am I good

That's where it counts.

[ArcAngel]

Originally Posted by BackinBlackSS/RS

That's where it counts.

Exactly!!!!!!

[fdjizm]

Originally Posted by BackinBlackSS/RS

Actually the Mustang would need 80 more horses to get to the Camaros hp/wgt. ratio.
3860/426 = 9.06 3572/395 = 9.04 Certaninly other factors come in to play, gearing,
driver, etc., but 80hp is the power deficit. Pretty significant.

the question was "How much HP for a Mustang to Win?" not getting to the same hp/wgt ratio. and it would take about 35-40 more hp to win not 80. this has been proven time and time again via my personal viewing on the tracks and you can you tube bolt on mustang runs all day long.

[ArcAngel]

Originally Posted by fdjizm

the question was "How much HP for a Mustang to Win?" not getting to the same hp/wgt ratio. and it would take about 35-40 more hp to win not 80. this has been proven time and time again via my personal viewing on the tracks and you can you tube bolt on mustang runs all day long.

i agree thats why i said 50

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by BackinBlackSS/RS

Actually the Mustang would need 80 more horses to get to the Camaros hp/wgt. ratio.
3860/426 = 9.06 3572/395 = 9.04 Certaninly other factors come in to play, gearing,
driver, etc., but 80hp is the power deficit. Pretty significant.

+1

Except that the mustang does have better gearing, which may put the difference closer to 65 hp more. . . which is still significant.

But the camaro does have that heavy wheel combination too...

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by ArcAngel

i second that the average loss is between 22 and 28%

PLEASE never use those driveline losses as real statistics.

Manual cars typically lose 11-13% while modern auto's are in the 14-16% range.

[BackinBlackSS/RS]

Originally Posted by fdjizm

the question was "How much HP for a Mustang to Win?" not getting to the same hp/wgt ratio. and it would take about 35-40 more hp to win not 80. this has been proven time and time again via my personal viewing on the tracks and you can you tube bolt on mustang runs all day long.

My statement was not commenting on the original question. It was referring to the hp to weight ratio discussion that was taking place. Once these SS's start showing up at the tracks and people have figured out how to race them, let's just see how far your 35 to 40hp gets you.

[syr74]

Originally Posted by Hesh

Roughly thats about 20% 385-20% is 308. 15% is 327. Dont know where anyone is getting 28%. My math isnt great, worst subject but I know it wasnt done at 28%. So around 385 at the crank would be around the numbers you would be looking for to get somewhere around the 315 to the tires. Depending on if that car was a manual or auto.

Actually, no it wouldn't be. If your car makes 315hp to the rear wheels and you factor in at a 15% loss through the driveline, which would only be appropriate for an auto transmission, you would take that 315hp and divide that by .85 which would net you a grand total of roughly 370.6hp at the crank. The twelve percent loss you could reasonably expect with a manual transmission car would garner you a corrected crankshaft horsepower rating of roughly 362.06hp at the crank. Not picking nits here, but a 15hp dicrepancy is hardly insignificant and a 23hp discrepancy is very meaningful at these overall power numbers.

Your understanding of the math as stated at the beginning of your post is correct, but the numbers you post regarding the 315rwhp ending up as a 385chp rating don't jive with the same. Just saying.

[ArcAngel]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

PLEASE never use those driveline losses as real statistics.

Manual cars typically lose 11-13% while modern auto's are in the 14-16% range.

no problem LOL

[Ninjak]

Hmm its funny how you camaro guys go back and fourth. From what I have seen from camaros so far are 13.6~13.8....I have yet to see one..(WITH MY OWN EYES) run in the 12's yet. This is at our track down here in S.FLA. So thats what I am going by.

I have seen mustangs with a CIA, tune, and exhaust run in the 12's. I have see them run well with gearing. As it has been stated, a STOCK ss is not light year's ahead of a STOCK gt in performance. So its funny that so many are trying to make it seem that way.

Well at any rate, I still say it a modder's race. And in truth I am not worried about it one way or another. Win you win..lose you lose. Its all in fun

But I will part with this.....I fear no maro....until I see one run 12.1 or better...its just will be someone who comes with.."your blown !" excuse at the track.

"Run what ya brung, and hope you brung enough !" Pssst 11.91 is what ya need to take meh !

[Ninjak]

Lol this is getting real funny. Mustangs struggling at 14's...Any racer..any REAL racer basically knows that guy cannot drive. period.

So what would say here ?
Bad drivers...or bad cars...

Real race..real times.

Hmmm not as impressive as one would be led to believe eh ? But this is what happens when you have REAL drivers behind the wheel of cars.

[GatorBlue371]

headers, intake, tune and Cam. Your looking at 400hp+/410lbft+ torque easy.


thats a 4.4 0-60 car with the weight adv.

[rayhawk]

Originally Posted by fdjizm

About 30 HP, this is a 2006 bolt on mustang with probably 315 to the ground running 12.6 but the 2010's start with 15 extra hp.



Mods: Steeda UDP, Pypes off-road H-pipe, C&L CAI, Bamachips 93 octane tune, 4.10 gears

To me, gears would definitely not be considered a bolt on, but I guess everyone has their own interpretation. I think most would consider a bolt on to be CAI, intake manifold, exhaust, etc, not gearing changes. The potential of the stock Camaro is still quite a bit higher than that mustang when you look at the mph, still 3mph off what the camaro will do. MPH tells you what the car should be able to achieve assuming adequate traction etc. It will definitely be easier to launch the mustang though, so there is an advantage there.

And Ninjak, are you actually comparing a supercharged heavily modded mustang to a stock Camaro? At least compare similar mods, otherwise it is pretty much an endless argument.