dufus Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 Oh. OK, I stand corrected. I guess its alright for you to call anyone you disagree with here every name in the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufus Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 Phil not quite.. No fool, Phil is correct and you are wrong again. http://www.fordracingparts.com/announcements/news106.asp Once again, educate yourself before you play know it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffJ Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 No fool, Phil is correct and you are wrong again. http://www.fordracingparts.com/announcements/news106.asp Once again, educate yourself before you play know it all. That is the 2012, now go out to google and do your research on the 2013 and let us know what you find out about the 4 available engines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufus Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 That is the 2012, now go out to google and do your research on the 2013 and let us know what you find out about the 4 available engines. He did not specify the year. The 4.0 is/was used as Phil indicated. Fordguy was WRONG again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperNC Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norton Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 Norton, I'm looking to do the same thing, to get some baseline runs in to see what I have under the hood. I plan to use and highly recommend Rob Williams @ Rob Williams Racing (RWR) in Littleton though. https://www.facebook.com/RWRMotorSports?fref=ts Rob is highly regarded as "The Tuning Guru" in Colorado and he is one of the *few* people I'd trust to touch my car. He has been tuning and Mustangs and MAF based EFI for decades. For the people bashing "dufus": Obviously, he's saying things you don't like to hear but you might want listen to him because what he says is the truth. Just because you don't like what he says, doesn't make it any less truthful or accurate. The one issue I do take with him is the comment regarding the 700HP figure. 700HP (crankshaft HP) is accurate for the 5.8's. Ford rated the 5.8L mod motor at 662HP@6250rpm. The problem is, redline is at 7000rpm, not 6250. Hot Rod magazine reported seeing numbers right at or very near to 700HP when they were looking over the shoulder of the Ford Engineers prior to the public introduction of the new motor. With HP being calculated as a product of Torque & RPM (Torque X RPM/5250), the higher you spin the motor (rpm) the more HP you're going to produce provided the torque curve isn't falling off a cliff. But 700 is CRANKSHAFT HP, not RWHP. Thanks for the tip, Phill! I have no experience with dyno shops in this area, so I welcome recommendations from folks like you and MNS. Any idea when you might make your baseline runs? Would you be interested in heading there together? FWIW, my problem with dufus is not only what he says but also how he says it. He cloaks himself in anonymity, refusing to provide even basic data in his profile. For being relatively new to these forums, he's VERY opinionated. For being so contrary, he rarely (never?) provides any sources for his assertions. The information he provides is usually presented in a very condescending way. And, according to his almost empty profile, he doesn't even own one of the vehicles about which he likes to pontificate. Wow, dufus, you really have no clue what people you are talking to do you, or know our connections? Just keep playing on google, obviously you're much smarter than the rest of us because of it. You clearly are more connected and know way more than we do. Also, why are you here? You clearly do not own a Shelby. Is it just to cause trouble? The only positive comment you have had here was about a guy who bought a Corvette. Your colors are becoming clear. Reminds me of somebody that was recently banned. Your name calling and harassing have already gone beyond board rules. Thanks for recognizing this, Jeff! This particular TROLL has derailed or hijacked multiple threads while offering very little in the way of useful information. That's why I simply added him to my Ignore list (a very useful forum feature). Unfortunately, doing so doesn't prevent receiving follow-ups to his diatribes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svtkeith Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 svt13 is back!!!!!....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bergenfelter Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 svt13 is back!!!!!....... Ohhhhh nooooooo - please say it aint so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2010KonaBlueGT Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 Phil not quite.. "not quite...", What? I'm still lost. Phill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2010KonaBlueGT Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 svt13 is back!!!!!....... Hmmmmmmmm. Now that you say that, the syntax is kind of familiar/similar. Phill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2010KonaBlueGT Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 That is the 2012, now go out to google and do your research on the 2013 and let us know what you find out about the 4 available engines. 2008, 2010 and 2012 have the 5.4L engine 2013 and 14 have a 5.0L engine. I don't see a option listing for engines for the 2013 and 2014. All it shows is a 5.0L engine which again, would be apples/oranges; https://www.fordracingparts.com/cobrajet/default.asp#2013 Phill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frydguy79 Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 "not quite...", What? I'm still lost. Phill http://jalopnik.com/5701111/2012-mustang-cobra-jet-gets-aluminum-block-430-hp 430 hp huh?? yea right... and this one was rated 425 hp http://www.caranddriver.com/features/ford-mustang-cobra-jet you picked the years i didn't .. all i said that they were UNDERRATED PERIOD... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufus Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 http://jalopnik.com/5701111/2012-mustang-cobra-jet-gets-aluminum-block-430-hp 430 hp huh?? yea right... and this one was rated 425 hp http://www.caranddriver.com/features/ford-mustang-cobra-jet you picked the years i didn't .. all i said that they were UNDERRATED PERIOD... The Cobra Jets are NOT street legal and are not rated with the SAE protocol and strict supervision. Ford can rate these cars anywhere they want so they are quite likely underrated which is no great revelation at this point. The street legal GT500 are SAE rated which eliminates the ability of the manufacturer to underrate as you have erroneously stated. This is regardless of what ever nonsense you have been fed by your "GUY" at the factory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mash Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 The Cobra Jets are NOT street legal and are not rated with the SAE protocol and strict supervision. Ford can rate these cars anywhere they want so they are quite likely underrated which is no great revelation at this point. The street legal GT500 are SAE rated which eliminates the ability of the manufacturer to underrate as you have erroneously stated. This is regardless of what ever nonsense you have been fed by your "GUY" at the factory. What car do you own sport? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twobjshelbys Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 What car do you own sport? "None of the above" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obiefox Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 From the Ford Engineering supported 5.0 Mustang mag article: What's difficult to pinpoint when reviewing the driveline mechanicals is how efficient they've become. Some of this is the quality of the parts--the ring and pinion gears are premium, low-tolerance pieces, for example. Much of it is the cumulative benefit of eliminating the driveshaft's center bearing, the stiffer driveshaft, more rigid rear axle assembly, more efficient numerically lower final-drive gears, and so on. The result is that the GT500 is said to have amazingly low driveline losses, which helps deliver the power to the tires, improves fuel economy, and shows up in chassis dyno tests as higher-than-expected readings. Time will tell what tuning shops will accept as typical GT500 losses between the flywheel and tires, but listening between the lines at Ford suggests 8 percent might be more accurate than the rule-of-thumb 15 percent. Read more: http://www.mustang50magazine.com/techarticles/m5lp_1209_2013_shelby_gt500_chassis_development/viewall.html#ixzz2YszIlwTm Another Step Brothers moment for Obiefox and Dufus........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twobjshelbys Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 Drivetrain losses for a variety of reasons are decreasing, so that means the gap between RWHP and BPHP is decreasing. It will never be * 1.0, but it's getting closer all the time. So all those who think they have a 15% loss are overstating engine HP. I'll agree that a transaxle will close the gap, but pure trans mission and driveshaft losses are also getting more efficient. Dyno guys love to overstate it. In the end it doesn't matter what the losses are, it's RWHP that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DubbsFaris Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 It doesn't make sense to me getting all worked up over HP variances. Whatever you see your car do on a dyno, whatever mods you do to it, the build is documented at 662HP from the factory. Yours may be a little more, or it may be a little less. Regardless of what my car dynos, I'll happily stick with the 662 number. Its the most powerful car ever built in the US. What's left to prove? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufus Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 It doesn't make sense to me getting all worked up over HP variances. Whatever you see your car do on a dyno, whatever mods you do to it, the build is documented at 662HP from the factory. Yours may be a little more, or it may be a little less. Regardless of what my car dynos, I'll happily stick with the 662 number. Its the most powerful car ever built in the US. What's left to prove? Good to see that there is actually someone who has the ability to think here. The 662 HP is huge, more than most owners are able to utilize, and a certified number that does not need to be debated. It is simply amazing how thick headed some enthusiasts can be when HP ratings are mentioned. The current SAE rating system along with it's standardized parameters and protocols is just more than some knuckleheads can comprehend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shark Rescue Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 The SAE standard is an attempt to certify all engines the same way. Ford as well as all other OEM use this procedure for cert and then for advertising. Ford actually takes the average of three engines to get the numbers. Since the 2013 car was clearly designed to have the highest horsepower available,( that is why it is missing the grill insert, to drop water temp so you dont pull spark timing due to ect hitting the limit ). Ford would not have under called the numbers. The numbers are at the crankshaft and does not take into account drive line losses. Only FEAD and exhaust losses are taken into account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufus Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 Good to hear from another cerebral individual. Get ready for the IQ squad to come after you with there own take on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mash Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 Good to hear from another cerebral individual. Get ready for the IQ squad to come after you with there own take on it. Did you deliberately not answer my question? It's clear that you don't own this car. So why are you here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufus Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 Did you deliberately not answer my question? It's clear that you don't own this car. So why are you here? Your "question" is not at all a question. It is nothing more than a childish, passive aggressive response to something you disagree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mash Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 Your "question" is not at all a question. It is nothing more than a childish, passive aggressive response to something you disagree with. I don't disagree with anything. I could honestly care less about this issue. I'm simply asking you why you're here. This is a site for people that have GT 500's, or are in the process of getting one. It's an enthusiast's website. It's clear that you don't own this car, nor do you have any intention/means to own one. Are you just here to show the internet world how smart you are? Are you bitter? Are you lonely? Are you bored? It's not about how dynos work. You inject yourself into all kinds of discussions with the same mo. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufus Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 I see no logical reason to respond to any of that. I've been a Mustang nut for decades and have had more of them than I can remember along with Corvettes, Z28s, and a P car. Never imagined that Ford would see fit to take the car to current levels. There is no need to exaggerate anything about the GT500. They are potent and capable on their own merit and specifications as many of us know. All good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mash Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 I see no logical reason to respond to any of that. I've been a Mustang nut for decades and have had more of them than I can remember along with Corvettes, Z28s, and a P car. Never imagined that Ford would see fit to take the car to current levels. There is no need to exaggerate anything about the GT500. They are potent and capable on their own merit and specifications as many of us know. All good. No, it's not all good. You're going to continue to be a pest here. Why? Everyone here is a Mustang enthusiast, but they don't come across as angry and know-it-all. They aren't here simply to bait/berate other people. What is it about you that you need this level of attention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
07SGT4578 Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 All, I have talked to Dufus, He is going to play nice. However, we are going to have to play nice with him also. Let's get back on topic and stop the bickering back in forth. Thanx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufus Posted July 14, 2013 Report Share Posted July 14, 2013 thanks once again Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyStang2010GB Posted July 16, 2013 Report Share Posted July 16, 2013 When I had my 2011 GT500 Dyno'd by VMP it made 508 to the rear wheels. I was very surprised because I was expecting more in the 488 range. Justin stated typical on a 2011 / 2012 that he has seen is in 495 range. So I guess my 2011 did well. He also expressed that the 15 -17% drive loss was not what the newer cars show but more of what the old standard was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcInUtah Posted July 16, 2013 Report Share Posted July 16, 2013 My buddies bone stock dynoed at 604 HP to the rear wheels. My car, same shop, same dyno, same weather conditions a few months later dynoed at 610HP to the rear wheels. Now, I did have a AirRaid filter...only difference between our two cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.