A couple things:

I think the only problem with the GT500 aside from the weight, is the dealer gouging on the car. It is amazing someone would think that 440 rwhp from a SAE rated 500hp for $41K is pathetic. Well $41K is what it is supposed to cost.

A GT500 IS NOT supposed to compete with a Corvette Z06. There is nothing more to say about that. Just because they both have 500hp does not put them in the same market segment.

The GT500 coupe still comes in just a hair under 4000lbs, it is the vert that weighs 4100lbs+. I'm spiliting hairs, but I'm being accurate.

The 1999 Cobra was overrated, but Ford implemented a fix, and it was indeed a black eye for SVT. However, that was the only year the Ford Mustang Cobra had that issue.

The 2003-2004 Mach 1 was rated at 305hp from the factory, but makes around 285 rwhp. So either it has only 6.5% drive train loss or is underrated. I'm guessing it is underrated. Just providing a counter-example to the claim that Fords are overrated.

I'm well aware how underrated the LS1 F-bodies were, but saying a car feels faster that it is rated is pointless. Your butt dyno is no more accurate than mine.

EDIT: I didn't join this site merely to defend Mustangs or anything, but being a guy that is involved with both the Ford and Chevy communities there is a lot of misinformation and skewed perspectives on both sides. I don't want anyone to think I am here being a troll especially since I haven't bashed the Camaro. I just might end up owning a new Camaro, but that doesn't change facts.

:laughabove: :bellyroll:

I had actually started typing a response to the "it feels stronger than it is rated' comments above, but about 1/2 way in I decided to delete the post because I couldn't find a way to say what you said without sounding like a complete jerk. But I have to say I literally laughed out loud when i read that!

I agree BTW.....

As for defending the Mustang... it is all good! It is good to have someone around that can speak intelligently about the Mustang.

BUTT DYNO...:laugh: Funny and true.

You make good points which are valid. Ford has been both under and over rated in their hp claims. I can understand a car co. wanting to under rate their hp in a particular vehicle to assist the buyer in saving a few bucks on their car insurance in order to actually be able to afford owning the car.

But, the practice of over rating a vehicles hp to sell more cars and make the veh more desireable is very poor practice and is a slap in the face to the unsuspecting new owner.

It's obvious you are not a troll and you do bring good points/discussion. Personally, I'm not a Ford guy, but still respect the muscle car that it is. Hopefully you do end up owning a new Camaro!:thumbsup:

Exactly, When the green light drops, the “BULL SHIT” stops…
:burnrubber:
This world is full of gullible individuals… “It has to be true, I read it on the internet”. :iono:

The Mr GM guy 3whiterag thinks the May issue of Hot Rod magazine is a good indicator of the HP.

Im telling you that means its prolly gonna be almost exactly what the mag says.

Problem is that the mg doesn't really give us more than we already knew other than the 550HP s/c version. It says it will have the 6.2 LS3 capable of over 400 hp... which I would hope is true since the LS2 gets 400....

To answer the threads question....Yes.

If GM claims the Camaro will have X amount of hp, then it's fairly reasonable to assume that the production version will have close to, if not more hp than what they state.

At the very most we will see a pretty typical amount of drivetrain loss but nothing like the Fords previously mentioned. If you look at the C6 and GTO that utilize the LS2, neither of them put down 400 to the wheels. The majority of the vettes put down anywhere from 340-380 to the wheels.

So I'm guessing, with the LS3, we'll be looking at a range of about 370-400 HP at the wheels. It would have to be since the LS2s get 340-380 on the dyno. That's going to make for a very scintallating driving experience. I can't wait.

I would bet anything that if GM claims 400hp than the car will aleast have that, most likely more.

BTW how many auto mans. are using SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) rated motors. Don't worry I'll wait for the answer.

Parasitic loss is based on percentage, and can not be just a number. If I am reading you correctly, then you are saying that if I put an engine in a car that makes 100 hp, then it should dyno between 65-70 to the wheels. And that same car should dyno 465-470 to the wheels if I put a 500hp engine in it.

Yeah I had a few things to say to that guy too. I forgot he claimed the 2005 Mustang GT only made 240-250 rwhp on average.

I've had my S197 Mustang since they came out and have been following the progress of the aftermarket and many many many many many indepedent dyno readings both modded and unmoddified. And stock S197 Mustang GTs (of any year) make 255-265 rwhp consistently stock. Which is right on the money for a 300 bhp rating.

I see you have a 05 Mustang GT too....there are quite a lot of Mustang guys on this site. I think we are all going to "the dark side". :evil:

That's right, I can feel the Anger inside of you, Release It! You will become stronger...100hp or more stronger...

Funny you should mention that. The domestic automakers have been trying for years to get ALL manufacturers to use SAE criteria for reporting. Imports were notorious for inflating Hp. ratings and Km/L or MPG. Some of them got busted not too long ago. Even their odometers were way out of whack, a lot more than the expected or allowable +/- variable. So, back to the Hp. question.... Yes, I would expect the LS3 to have more Hp. than the LS2, values I have seen are in the correct range. The LS(X) base engine would be well NORTH of that and the top LS(X) will be FAR NORTH of that.:D :thumbup: :headbang: :bow: That is all I have to say about that! (For now)