Stock GT500 dynoed..

[DVS2XS]

B)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Five Oh B @ May 4 2006, 12:37 PM) 10495[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->

I think that if the 500hp # was from a certified test with a 3rd party present, then that is the real # at the crank.

 

 

The Z06 is rated with the same SAE 3d party spec at 505hp, yet stock many dyno right around 453rwhp/424rwtq, and with the removal of the restrictive air cleaner 474rwhp/448rwtq.

 

Right now UNDER rating is the name of the game.

 

Also, didn't the 2003 Cobra have rwhp numbers almost as high as the rated power? ie. 385 rwhp - vs - 390 rated power.

[marcs93]

Just a thought.Driveline loss should be a static number not a %.You will lose a set amount of horsepower on any given setup.So this thought of a loss going up as horsepower increses is crazy.i read that on the 5.0 w/ manual the loss was about 35 h.p.This car will be more because of the dohc&blower but the loss will be the same with 450h.p. or with 550h.p.Now someone needs to find out that #.

[Five Oh B]

Just a thought.Driveline loss should be a static number not a %.You will lose a set amount of horsepower on any given setup.So this thought of a loss going up as horsepower increses is crazy.

 

Don't think that driveline loss should be a %? OK, here's an example for you. Not a great example - as there are no automatic transmissions going into GT500's - but, it should illustrate my point anyway. Go buy an aftermarket stall converter to make your automatic-equipped car launch harder. Let's say it stalls to 2,500 rpm's with your 300 hp small block V8. Then you have the engine rebuilt to higher specs and it puts out 400 hp. Will your stall converter still stall to 2,500 rpm's? Heck no, it magically stalls to 3,000 or more rpm's likely. Why? Because as you up the hp, the converter gets less efficient. Some of your new-found extra hp is being soaked up - not just the same old (static) amount that was soaked up before the hp upgrades. The clutch in the manual trans will react much the same way - not being able to harness higher horsepower levels as effectively.

 

In summary, most experts say that 12-15% is a generally accepted drivetrain loss figure for a manual trans Mustang. 15-18% for a Mustang with automatic. I would guess these percentages apply to similar type modern vehicles, as well.

[marcs93]

[ Thanks for that informative coment.I got my info from an article in either 5.0 or mm&ff so don't shoot the mesenger ask them how they(the experts)came to this conclusion.

[DutchGT500]

B)-->

In summary, most experts say that 12-15% is a generally accepted drivetrain loss figure for a manual trans Mustang. 15-18% for a Mustang with automatic. I would guess these percentages apply to similar type modern vehicles, as well.

 

 

You are perfectly right, IMO too.

[DVS2XS]

Marcs93,

I have heard the same arguement about drivetrain losses being a fixed amount irrelevent of torque/power. There is one big flaw in this. If you have ever data logged trans and dif temps on the same car, the more power you add, the more heat generated. The heat is a good indicator of power lost. Polishing the gear faces, using bearings with tighter clearances, reducing deflection in the drivetrain (the real culprit here), setting clearances correctly, and running fluids that match the loading while reducing friction can all reduce the power loss through the drivetrain.

 

Deflection in the trans and diff can be a BIG issue with power loss at higher power/torque levels.

 

Don't believe everything you read in a magazine...or on the internet...including this. There is no replacement for your own testing.

 

I hope this helps.

[DVS2XS]

Another issue is the accuracy of dynojet dynamometers - especially their correction factor.

 

Get a copy of the J1349 from SAE, it is a bit technical, but a good read.

 

A good read about power ratings and the J1349 standard. The part about temp and pressure standards is interesting - http://www.land-and-sea.com/dyno-tech-talk...-horsepower.htm

[marcs93]

[ Thanks for the info.I guess I stand corrected on this one.I am no engineer so i will assume you have more knowledge than I.Thanks again for the info.

Marcs93

[KingCobra]

Are you a magician that can prodict the future.

 

 

 

I predict my magic as in that magic seat in about 4 more months!!!

 

4 more months

 

 

KingCobra.

[68fastback]

B)-->

QUOTE(Five Oh B @ May 6 2006, 01:12 AM) 10769[/snapback]

Don't think that driveline loss should be a %? OK, here's an example for you. Not a great example - as there are no automatic transmissions going into GT500's - but, it should illustrate my point anyway. Go buy an aftermarket stall converter to make your automatic-equipped car launch harder. Let's say it stalls to 2,500 rpm's with your 300 hp small block V8. Then you have the engine rebuilt to higher specs and it puts out 400 hp. Will your stall converter still stall to 2,500 rpm's? Heck no, it magically stalls to 3,000 or more rpm's likely. Why? Because as you up the hp, the converter gets less efficient. Some of your new-found extra hp is being soaked up - not just the same old (static) amount that was soaked up before the hp upgrades. The clutch in the manual trans will react much the same way - not being able to harness higher horsepower levels as effectively.

 

In summary, most experts say that 12-15% is a generally accepted drivetrain loss figure for a manual trans Mustang. 15-18% for a Mustang with automatic. I would guess these percentages apply to similar type modern vehicles, as well.

 

Hey Five Oh B... once again you are right on the money... it is most definately a functioon of overall power and therefore a percent.

 

However, I was told by Ford rep that for the GT500 that percent is lower than typical because of the drivetrain design. He said the GT500 dynos at 525 at the crank and 475-480 at the rear wheels. It was only when I told him that the losses seemed considerably lower than I'd expect that he mentioned that attention was given to the efficiency of the drivetrain, specifically the rear end which, though similar, is not the same as the stang-GT. That seems consistent witht the 489HP quoted in the earlier post. Also he made it clear that this engine is different than the FordGT is several ways. The screw pitch on the blower is different, the diff is very different since the FordGT is a torsen-style transaxle, and the connceting rods on GT500 are of Ford's patented cracked-powder process (is that true?). I was under the impresion that they would be like the Manley H-beams but he said no. The Ford GT's are special light-alloy H-beams I believe. The headers on the GT500 are also differnet than the FordGT but not dramatically so (both were also on display). When I asked him if the output was actually more like 550-crank like the FordGT, he was quite certain it was 525 at the crank and 475-480 at the wheels. After the 1999 Cobra, HP can be a testy subject in Mustangland ;-)

 

Anyhow, he also said that reprogramming the computer and running an undersize pulley to bring boost from 8.5 to 12psi yielded a little over 650HP at the crank and 600 at the rear wheels -- about $500 and two hours to install -- and he said that level of performance was still within the design point of the rods, tranny, rear. He said Ford toyed with a 650HP 'race' version but decided the changes to get to 650HP were so trivial they'd leave that to the aftermarket -- he clearly implied they had designed for that.

 

I usually go to SEMA in Nov in Las Vegas and I'd be really suprised if there aren't several kits available by then -- that's always where such things have first been showcased in the past -- it's where I first saw the GT500 (last Nov) just sitting there -- with a full-time Ford 'listener' posing as 'tourist'. It was essentially identical to the current production version -- right down to the GT500 side stripes. When I pulled a Ford rep over to it and asked if that's the rumoured '07 Shelby GT500 he looked at me like I had two heads -- like he didn't understand the question. Of course, I never got a usefull answer from him for obvious reasons. (There was also the new FordGT roadster-vertible on display with no indication that it would be a production vehicle either, and also a regular FordGT cut in half lengthwise and lined in plexi so that you could walk through it -- literally -- from rear diffuser to front Ford emblem ...very cool.)

 

I'll be very suprised if the GT500 isn't at least a full 475HP at the wheels... but I guess we shall see ;-)

[Five Oh B]

Great info, 68fastback. Driveline efficiencies are getting better all the time, so it is good to see the GT500 make some dramatic improvements in getting hp from the crank to the tires. I had a 1968 Pontiac GTO until about 10 years ago. I sent the engine out for balancing, blueprinting, and some minor mods. Factory rated at 350 hp, we had it making about 425 hp at the crank with the professional attention. When the power got to the pavement though, there was only 283 rwhp (good enough for 13.60's @ 99 in the 1/4 mile). Talk about an inefficient driveline! Of course, it was a 40 year old design, and had an automatic trans (turbo 400, shift kit, huge stall, etc). We've come a long way with technology though.

[68fastback]

B)-->

QUOTE(Five Oh B @ May 10 2006, 10:18 AM) 11642[/snapback]

Great info, 68fastback. Driveline efficiencies are getting better all the time, so it is good to see the GT500 make some dramatic improvements in getting hp from the crank to the tires. I had a 1968 Pontiac GTO until about 10 years ago. I sent the engine out for balancing, blueprinting, and some minor mods. Factory rated at 350 hp, we had it making about 425 hp at the crank with the professional attention. When the power got to the pavement though, there was only 283 rwhp (good enough for 13.60's @ 99 in the 1/4 mile). Talk about an inefficient driveline! Of course, it was a 40 year old design, and had an automatic trans (turbo 400, shift kit, huge stall, etc). We've come a long way with technology though.

 

 

Nice ride, Five Oh B... the 68 GTOs were pretty darn quick, even dead stock... and really nice looking too. But that's a huge power loss! Then again 13.60s was haulin' back then! I bet the newer bearing designs and thinner lubricants in rear, tranny and engine all make a difference. It's amazing that losses can go from over 25% back then to under 10% today... technology is a wonderful thing ;-) And the automatic was probably sucking 10% by itself.

 

I could never get my 390 stang below 14.50 but that was dead stock with street radials (those wide-ovals from the factory only lasted about 4,000 miles. (I remember going to the track on the Michelins back in 1969 and the starter tried to flag me off due to underinflation -- he had never seen a radial tire before!) I suspect your GTO stock was about the same, i.e. 14.50s? I always wondered what the 390 actually was at the wheels... then again, they rated HP differently then and the power curves were more 'peaky' than today's silky smooth FI/computer controlled engines.

[Five Oh B]

Nice ride, Five Oh B... the 68 GTOs were pretty darn quick, even dead stock... and really nice looking too. But that's a huge power loss! Then again 13.60s was haulin' back then! I bet the newer bearing designs and thinner lubricants in rear, tranny and engine all make a difference. It's amazing that losses can go from over 25% back then to under 10% today... technology is a wonderful thing ;-) And the automatic was probably sucking 10% by itself.

 

I could never get my 390 stang below 14.50 but that was dead stock with street radials (those wide-ovals from the factory only lasted about 4,000 miles. (I remember going to the track on the Michelins back in 1969 and the starter tried to flag me off due to underinflation -- he had never seen a radial tire before!) I suspect your GTO stock was about the same, i.e. 14.50s? I always wondered what the 390 actually was at the wheels... then again, they rated HP differently then and the power curves were more 'peaky' than today's silky smooth FI/computer controlled engines.

 

 

The 1968 GTO was Motor Trend's "car of the year" and in their drag tests of brand new, completely stock GTO's they were running mid 14's at about 95 mph. That was the 350hp and automatic just like mine, but with the standard 3.23 gears (mine had the 3.90 saf-t-track axle).

 

My 2003 Mach 1 would slaughter my old GTO. I mentioned the GTO only made 283rwhp (from 425 gross hp at the crank), and ironically, my Mach 1 makes 284rwhp (from 305 rated net hp at the crank). Talk about getting more from less! And actually, the Mach 1 can't be that efficient. It seems that Ford under-rated the 03/04 Mach 1's by about 20hp. Also, the Mach 1 weighs 3,550 lbs with me on board while the GTO weighed 3,900 lbs with me on board.

 

That 390 you had likely made about 205-225 rwhp, or so, bone stock. I think Ford rated that engine at 335 gross hp? There is a handy formula to calculate rwhp if you know the car's 1/4 mile trap speed & weight of the car with driver. For example, if you ran 14.50's with iffy traction you likely ran through the traps at about 96 mph? Assuming the car and driver weighed about 3,400 lbs, the formula spits our an approxmate rwhp of 207 rwhp. If weight was 3,600 lbs, the formula says about 219 rwhp. The formula is....

 

(mph / 244) * (mph / 244) * (mph / 244) * weight. Or, just cube the (mph / 244) and multiply by weight.

 

Horsepower is a mathematical function of a known weight accelerated over a known distance in a given time, so the formula is fairly accurate and is actually a real world "dyno."

[68fastback]

B)-->

QUOTE(Five Oh B @ May 10 2006, 02:53 PM) 11676[/snapback]

The 1968 GTO was Motor Trend's "car of the year" and in their drag tests of brand new, completely stock GTO's they were running mid 14's at about 95 mph. That was the 350hp and automatic just like mine, but with the standard 3.23 gears (mine had the 3.90 saf-t-track axle).

 

My 2003 Mach 1 would slaughter my old GTO. I mentioned the GTO only made 283rwhp (from 425 gross hp at the crank), and ironically, my Mach 1 makes 284rwhp (from 305 rated net hp at the crank). Talk about getting more from less! And actually, the Mach 1 can't be that efficient. It seems that Ford under-rated the 03/04 Mach 1's by about 20hp. Also, the Mach 1 weighs 3,550 lbs with me on board while the GTO weighed 3,900 lbs with me on board.

 

That 390 you had likely made about 205-225 rwhp, or so, bone stock. I think Ford rated that engine at 335 gross hp? There is a handy formula to calculate rwhp if you know the car's 1/4 mile trap speed & weight of the car with driver. For example, if you ran 14.50's with iffy traction you likely ran through the traps at about 96 mph? Assuming the car and driver weighed about 3,400 lbs, the formula spits our an approxmate rwhp of 207 rwhp. If weight was 3,600 lbs, the formula says about 219 rwhp. The formula is....

 

(mph / 244) * (mph / 244) * (mph / 244) * weight. Or, just cube the (mph / 244) and multiply by weight.

 

Horsepower is a mathematical function of a known weight accelerated over a known distance in a given time, so the formula is fairly accurate and is actually a real world "dyno."

 

 

Hey, Five Oh B... thanks for the insights -- I really appreciate it. And, yes you are correct.. it was rated at 335HP (with GT logo and C-strip, 325 without) so that fits nicely with 14.53 and 95 mph which is one track slip I recall ;-) thanks

[Five Oh B]

it was rated at 335HP (with GT logo and C-strip, 325 without)

 

 

Maybe this where the ricer crowd learned that you could get more horsepower with logo's and decals (not to mention the obligatory fart can) on their Hondas and assorted 4-cylinder economy cars! Just kiddin' - most of the kids driving these Honda cars with big wings weren't even born yet when the 390's roamed the streets!

[DutchGT500]

I see those cars regularly on the track. Everytime I lap them. Anyway I am glad the youth is interested in modding cars instead of smoking or blowing and doing nothing. I feel old.

[RUFDRAFT]

This may be a bit off topic - but here goes.

 

Can anyone calculate a theoretical top end for the Shelby based on gearing and hp?

 

I know it'll probably shut us off at some point (perhaps 150ish?).

 

I'm not a wizard, but 3:31's and all this power tells me it would proably be up around 170?

 

Thanks

[Five Oh B]

I believe the speed limiter will be set at 155mph. I don't know what the redline of the engine will be, but I can tell you that the actual top speed without a limiter would be much higher. I don't know the gear ratio for 6th gear, but if it were .62 (like in my Mach 1) the top speed of the GT500 would be 235mph in a vaccuum. But, since we don't drive in a vaccuum, we have aerodynamics to deal with. I would think you could safely see about 200mph. Keep in mind that the 2003-4 Cobras were good for 180-190 mph ungoverned. One even hit the Bonneville Salt Flats and set some sort of stock record. The first attempt they had to keep to 180mph max as the stock wheels didn't meet some sort of safety requirement at the Salt Flats, so they ran 179mph. They came back later with aftermarket wheels and approached 190mph. The 2005+ body style is not as aerodynamic, but 100 extra horsepower sure will help.

[DutchGT500]

I think around 175. It all depends on tire ratio, wind, Cw value of the car.

[RUFDRAFT]

So basically, what you're saying is we'll have the ability to qualify on the Pole at Daytona & Talladega with some aero pieces? :happy feet:

[68fastback]

B)-->

QUOTE(Five Oh B @ May 11 2006, 12:28 PM) 11902[/snapback]

Maybe this where the ricer crowd learned that you could get more horsepower with logo's and decals (not to mention the obligatory fart can) on their Hondas and assorted 4-cylinder economy cars! Just kiddin' - most of the kids driving these Honda cars with big wings weren't even born yet when the 390's roamed the streets!

 

 

Hey Five Oh B, I'm sure glad I wasn't drinking a glass of milk when I read your post cause it would have come out of my nose! Ah, remember the good old days when 'gay' meant happy, 'keep-off-grass' wasn't a political statement, and 'bad' meant, well, bad! ;-)

 

Do ya think when we're feeble and can't "keep our foot on the accelerator" and we get carted off to the nursing home the elevator will be playing Muzak rap-music? If so, I wanna go peacefully just before that happens ;-)

[DutchGT500]

So basically, what you're saying is we'll have the ability to qualify on the Pole at Daytona & Talladega with some aero pieces? :happy feet:

 

 

Yep, no problem. First row on Daytona and Talladega.

[Toms71]

 

Maybe this where the ricer crowd learned that you could get more horsepower with logo's and decals (not to mention the obligatory fart can) on their Hondas and assorted 4-cylinder economy cars! Just kiddin' - most of the kids driving these Honda cars with big wings weren't even born yet when the 390's roamed the streets!

Hey Five Oh B, I'm sure glad I wasn't drinking a glass of milk when I read your post cause it would have come out of my nose! Ah, remember the good old days when 'gay' meant happy, 'keep-off-grass' wasn't a political statement, and 'bad' meant, well, bad! ;-)

 

 

Alas, I'm getting nostalgic for the good ol' "big block" days. The 7mpg 428SCJ, the neck breaking torque and of course, burning rubber in all 4 gears ... yeah, those were the days.

 

Now I'm waiting for a real, comprehensive, auto enthusiast magazine write-up on this beast. All this talk and no real world documentation < 30days from Job #1 is making me mental!

 

My kingdom for a road test! PLEASE !!!

[Five Oh B]

Hey Five Oh B, I'm sure glad I wasn't drinking a glass of milk when I read your post cause it would have come out of my nose! Ah, remember the good old days when 'gay' meant happy, 'keep-off-grass' wasn't a political statement, and 'bad' meant, well, bad! ;-)

 

Do ya think when we're feeble and can't "keep our foot on the accelerator" and we get carted off to the nursing home the elevator will be playing Muzak rap-music? If so, I wanna go peacefully just before that happens ;-)

 

 

Just shoot me now if rap-music ever gets that widely accepted! Also, my wife knows that the day I can't drive anymore is the day I'm ready for a dirt-nap.

[68fastback]

B)-->

QUOTE(Five Oh B @ May 13 2006, 03:40 PM) 12282[/snapback]

Just shoot me now if rap-music ever gets that widely accepted! Also, my wife knows that the day I can't drive anymore is the day I'm ready for a dirt-nap.

 

 

 

Amen, bro... ;-)

[kennethjlee]

B)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Five Oh B @ May 13 2006, 03:40 PM) 12282[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->

Just shoot me now if rap-music ever gets that widely accepted! Also, my wife knows that the day I can't drive anymore is the day I'm ready for a dirt-nap.

Amen, bro... ;-)

 

 

 

It is widely accepted you dumb ass! You sound like a racist SOB! There are black people who are members on this site. Remember, beforeyou let words come out of your mouth or for that matter send crappy email through like that. Matter of fact caucasions buy more rap music than black people. That's why many rap artists are multi-millionairesmany times over. They are entrepenuers because they just don't put their money in one basket. They are also actors, former students who hold degrees,and oscar nominees and winners(e.g 3 6 Mafia(2006 Oscar winners), Qeen Latifa(2003 Oscar Nominee for "Chicago"), and Will Smith(2004 Oscar Nominee), the list goes on........ Remember this Sherlock; Rap music and hip hop will never die! It will continue to grow and constantly change! Also, remember this, all music comes from Africa. How do you think Elvis Presely was so succesful. He use to go to black clubs(juke joints) and watch many Blues

musicians play and dance. That's where he got the way of moving his legs and hips the way he did. He was and will always be an ICON(King of Rock'n'Roll) because his style was influenced by Blues. I am black American who widely accepts all music of all shapes and forms, as long as it is not Satanic in nature.

Remember, Never start something you can't finish! Second, get yourself educated about certain subjects you comment on like Rap Music. You don't have to like it(it is your choice, no one can beat you up for that),

but you must respect it like you should respect the rights of religious practices, culture, and music choices of others.

 

I'm sure you will come back(like many others like yourself) with a symmantical reply email of some caliber to try and shoot me in the water, but trust me, I'll just flick it off my shoulder and pop my collar on that issue! The whole point is, don't use derogatory or racial statements(even if they or opinionative in nature, and in your mind you think it won't offend anyone) because it always is how someone perceives or takes it!

 

Statements or comments you make like that disgust me. Also I know Five Oh B(even though he is probably the most knowledgeable person on this site) also shouldn't make comments like "Ricers." These type of things are very ignorant to say.

 

Finally, I am an owner and hobbyist of the Mustang, and I have a confirmed order for a GT500 as I'm sure you probably do like many others on this site. All I am saying is: "Let's Keep it real!" In other words, keep on the subject of the GT500 and how you want one. Don't go off onto some tangent sounding like a hater or something!

 

 

Very disgusted and upset!

Ken

[oldimp]

 

Finally, I am an owner and hobbyist of the Mustang, and I have a confirmed order for a GT500 as I'm sure you probably do like many others on this site. All I am saying is: "Let's Keep it real!" In other words, keep on the subject of the GT500 and how you want one. Don't go off onto some tangent sounding like a hater or something!

Very disgusted and upset!

Ken

 

 

I also choose to dislike rap. In my opinion, it is not music. I don't like using the word "hate", but I really do not like rap. You yourself say that most of it is purchased by caucasians, so why would you jump on it being a racist comment?

 

"Making a mountain out of a mole hill" comes to mind after reading your post. Methinks thou should lighten up a bit.

 

And I totally expect to receive a full blown evaluation of my comments as well!

 

Vaya con Dios!

[BoneDoc]

It is widely accepted you dumb ass! You sound like a racist SOB! There are black people who are members on this site. Remember, beforeyou let words come out of your mouth or for that matter send crappy email through like that. Matter of fact caucasions buy more rap music than black people. That's why many rap artists are multi-millionairesmany times over. They are entrepenuers because they just don't put their money in one basket. They are also actors, former students who hold degrees,and oscar nominees and winners(e.g 3 6 Mafia(2006 Oscar winners), Qeen Latifa(2003 Oscar Nominee for "Chicago"), and Will Smith(2004 Oscar Nominee), the list goes on........ Remember this Sherlock; Rap music and hip hop will never die! It will continue to grow and constantly change! Also, remember this, all music comes from Africa. How do you think Elvis Presely was so succesful. He use to go to black clubs(juke joints) and watch many Blues

musicians play and dance. That's where he got the way of moving his legs and hips the way he did. He was and will always be an ICON(King of Rock'n'Roll) because his style was influenced by Blues. I am black American who widely accepts all music of all shapes and forms, as long as it is not Satanic in nature.

Remember, Never start something you can't finish! Second, get yourself educated about certain subjects you comment on like Rap Music. You don't have to like it(it is your choice, no one can beat you up for that),

but you must respect it like you should respect the rights of religious practices, culture, and music choices of others.

 

I'm sure you will come back(like many others like yourself) with a symmantical reply email of some caliber to try and shoot me in the water, but trust me, I'll just flick it off my shoulder and pop my collar on that issue! The whole point is, don't use derogatory or racial statements(even if they or opinionative in nature, and in your mind you think it won't offend anyone) because it always is how someone perceives or takes it!

 

Statements or comments you make like that disgust me. Also I know Five Oh B(even though he is probably the most knowledgeable person on this site) also shouldn't make comments like "Ricers." These type of things are very ignorant to say.

 

Finally, I am an owner and hobbyist of the Mustang, and I have a confirmed order for a GT500 as I'm sure you probably do like many others on this site. All I am saying is: "Let's Keep it real!" In other words, keep on the subject of the GT500 and how you want one. Don't go off onto some tangent sounding like a hater or something!

Very disgusted and upset!

Ken

 

 

wow.

 

you should lighten up.

do you think people are racist if they don't like rap music?

what kind of logic is that?

lots of anger.

 

life is too short, my friend.

[150man]

kenneth:

 

I wish I was an administrator, because if I were, I'd throw your butt off this site so fast it'd make your head spin for that uncalled for rant.

 

You are the hater here, not Five Oh B. You are reading/listening to the wrong leaders.

[DutchGT500]

Ok, now everything has been said. It is time to lock this topic. Indeed lighten up.