Mustang GT gets 420hp stock!

[lil_chef]

Originally Posted by Stew

Thee are a number of prrformance cars out there that are underrated.

are they actually underrated or is the dyno slightly off? or are the actual drivetrain loss estimates off?

[Grabber]

Originally Posted by lil_chef

are they actually underrated or is the dyno slightly off? or are the actual drivetrain loss estimates off?

Too many variables to consider.

However, I've physically seen close to 100 dyno graphs of 03/04 Cobra's, and they've all been within 10 RWHP and 10 RWHP, with some dipping a bit lower than the normal.

Typically, a manual transmission loses 15% on the average, auto's around 18-20%.

Both the new 5.0 and Cobra even though only dyno mid-high 300's, both have run the lower spectrum of a mid 12 second run.

[Darkstar November]

This is just a recert honestly. My car put down 375whp bone stock. They are closer to 420-425hp stock

[lil_chef]

Originally Posted by Grabber

Too many variables to consider.

However, I've physically seen close to 100 dyno graphs of 03/04 Cobra's, and they've all been within 10 RWHP and 10 RWHP, with some dipping a bit lower than the normal.

Typically, a manual transmission loses 15% on the average, auto's around 18-20%.

Both the new 5.0 and Cobra even though only dyno mid-high 300's, both have run the lower spectrum of a mid 12 second run.

My point was there are too many variables but people tend to jump to "underrating".

[lil_chef]

Originally Posted by John@Torq

This is just a recert honestly. My car put down 375whp bone stock. They are closer to 420-425hp stock

one of the websites said that Ford just updated the tune

[Grabber]

Originally Posted by lil_chef

My point was there are too many variables but people tend to jump to "underrating".

Take John's example above. His 5.0 put down 375 RWHP. We don't know the conditions, but, let's assume he took the lower end of Drivetrain loss.

375 x 15% drivetrain loss = 431 Crank HP. I'd say that is underrated from the original 412 HP Ford said those 5.0's made.

[SS 376]

Originally Posted by Grabber

Take John's example above. His 5.0 put down 375 RWHP. We don't know the conditions, but, let's assume he took the lower end of Drivetrain loss.

375 x 15% drivetrain loss = 431 Crank HP. I'd say that is underrated from the original 412 HP Ford said those 5.0's made.

Unless your drivetrain estimate is off. If you can just change a number to make or disprove a point, then these arguments will always go in circles, like lil chef said. You get one GT dyno at 375, then a Boss owner puts his car on a dyno and gets the same 375 and thinks he's been cheated. Insurance isn't going to be any cheaper because the car made +/- 15hp or whatever. HP sells cars, so nobody's got any incentive to underrate the car. Dynos are for tuning purposes only and that's the end...

[Grabber]

Originally Posted by SS 376

Unless your drivetrain estimate is off. If you can just change a number to make or disprove a point, then these arguments will always go in circles, like lil chef said. You get one GT dyno at 375, then a Boss owner puts his car on a dyno and gets the same 375 and thinks he's been cheated. Insurance isn't going to be any cheaper because the car made +/- 15hp or whatever. HP sells cars, so nobody's got any incentive to underrate the car. Dynos are for tuning purposes only and that's the end...

Obviously.

I personally care more about track times (1/4 mile) than a dyno number.

[syr74]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

Kinda like when the V6 Camaro went from 304 to 312. They didn't change anything, they just "re-certified" it.

Ford doesn't use the new SAE certification, so it can't be like when the Camaro V-6 was re-rated.

[KXRM]

I am sure part of it is to cover their ass. Not every car they produce will be a consistent performer with the rest. Underrating them saves them money on people claiming they have been cheated out of horse power or that Ford is using false advertising.

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by lil_chef

underrated? doesn't being SAE certified prevent a company from under/overrating an engine by the 15 hp i've seen some people quote?

I don't think Ford goes by the SAE certified standard like GM does. They are still using SAE net. Net has a little more wiggle room to manipulate the numbers.

[cab2g]

do you guys think the solid rear axle of the Mustang has anything to do with the superior dyno numbers compared to the supposedly higher HP Camaro?

[Grabber]

Originally Posted by cab2g

do you guys think the solid rear axle of the Mustang has anything to do with the superior dyno numbers compared to the supposedly higher HP Camaro?

I honestly don't even know where you are going with this or how to answer. I've never heard of an IRS Vs SRA affecting Dyno numbers. :shrug: :wtf:

It's probably due to a high compression 5.0 4V motor that makes such good power.

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by Grabber

I honestly don't even know where you are going with this or how to answer. I've never heard of an IRS Vs SRA affecting Dyno numbers. :shrug: :wtf:

It's probably due to a high compression 5.0 4V motor that makes such good power.

A SRA typically does transfer power more efficiently (from a thermal loss standpoint) than IRS, so yes it does factor in. If an IRS camaro and SRA mustang put down identical power numbers I would expect the camaro is making a bit more at the flywheel.