700+ FACTORY HP - DYNO'd the '14 GT500 Today!

[OneTrickPony]

WOW, Intersting thread. Dufus sounds to me like an educated person who has done some research. I realize as owners, its nice to have bragging rights and pump up our egos.

 

I hate to say it, but when I watch the news, we have a hell of a lot bigger problems to worry about then HP numbers. Just imagine if we put this much time and effort into something more positive.

[ViperNC]

WOW, Intersting thread. I realize as owners, its nice to have bragging rights and pump up our egos.

 

we have a hell of a lot bigger problems to worry about then HP numbers. Just imagine if we put this much time and effort into something more positive.

+1

[svtkeith]

Either way no matter what ratings you use or %'s or how it's calculated the 13-14 GT500 are dynoing great numbers...besides all that really matters is that ole kick in the pants feel when you stomp on the gas!!..

[dufus]

WOW, Intersting thread. Dufus sounds to me like an educated person who has done some research. I realize as owners, its nice to have bragging rights and pump up our egos.

 

I hate to say it, but when I watch the news, we have a hell of a lot bigger problems to worry about then HP numbers. Just imagine if we put this much time and effort into something more positive.

Thank You!

[1 Alibi 2]

An article in the March 2012 issue of 5.0 Mustangs & Super Fords on the 2013 5.8 Trinity motor.................read the article..................see what the FORD engineers say..........form an opinion..

.

http://www.mustang50magazine.com/techarticles/m5lp_1203_2013_ford_shelby_gt500_trinity_5_8l_v8/

[ballinsoldier]

No reason to take any offense. Your claim of 700+ HP is simply wrong. Manufacturers no longer have the lattitude of "underrating" their engines when they are evaluated under the SAE certification process. Google that subject and you will learn that this is reputable, standardized, process.

Creativity becomes a factor when the full chasis dyno numbers are delivered to overly enthusiastic owners. These cars are monsters on their own merrits, no reason to exagerate.

 

Really? Car manufactuers can't 'underrate' their engines? So all these 300hp/300tq BMW 335's that put down 272-278whp and 292-304wtq must not have much drivetrain loss at all in stock form. Guess German engineering is good stuff. Impressive when a car puts more torque to the wheels than the manufacturer claims before any drivetrain loss.

 

I do agree with the premise that 'guessing' what the drivetrain loss is a silly and inexact science and that dynos can be manipulated, but when you see approximately the same numbers from different cars and different dynos accross the country, you can get an idea on what the car actually makes at the wheels. The number before drivetrain loss is iffy at best though, we just don't know. There is a pretty wide range of what it 'could' be, often people say around 15% give or take a few %, but when looking at high hp cars we should probably just stick to the wheel hp/tq numbers.

 

/derail end

[twobjshelbys]

Don't feed the troll

 

Don't kick the rattlesnake on the trail

 

You will be much happier

[1sgt]

I have a friend in the club who just dynode his car 662 hp and 631 torue >

[jnf]

Don't feed the troll

 

Don't kick the rattlesnake on the trail

 

You will be much happier

 

[jmn444]

Who cares, can any of you really feel a 40hp difference at these levels? I can barely tell the difference from a 3.25" to a 3.50" pulley on my lowly 4.6 gt. just have fun and stop arguing.

[ViperNC]

Who cares, can any of you really feel a 40hp difference at these levels? I can barely tell the difference from a 3.25" to a 3.50" pulley on my lowly 4.6 gt. just have fun and stop arguing.

Well said. I've never put my car on the dyno and really don't plan to other than tuning it to clean up the power band. All this talk about HP and most people do not have the training, education or experience to truly get the max out of their cars. Its just a bunch of chest thumping and peacocking. Remember folks: HP is nothing if you cant put it to the ground and manage it.

[freakshow12]

Interesting read that article is. All I know is I have only put 160 miles on mine and it flat out hauls the mail. Much more of an animal than my 40th. Me and my dad are going to go play with them just to see how much better

[mullens]

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.

 

 

Phill

Phill I thought the 5.8's peak power was rated @6500.

[2010KonaBlueGT]

Phill I thought the 5.8's peak power was rated @6500.

 

Could be, I'm too lazy to go look it up.

 

Regardless, my point is that the 5.8's REDLINE at 7,000 RPM and they're still making power up to redline, which means the HP @ 6250/6500 RPM is not PEAK HP.

 

 

Phill

[freakshow12]

Read the article. The 7000 rpm number is a built in acceptable over rev limit. It's not built to run there. 6250-6500 is the operating range for this beast

[freakshow12]

Also for me being very new to this car( 150 miles) anything over 4500 scares me. Lol

[nascobra93]

I'm new to the forum -just got a 2014 GT500 for R&D. First thing needed was to get rid of doggy 3.31 gears - put 4.10's in. Had to put sticky's even to drive it - 315 NT-05R's. Now it hooks up. Very impressed with 585 RWHP stock with only 100 mi on clock Dynojet #'s. Car very susceptible to intercooler temp power variability- 585hp with car warm - not totally heat soaked. A/F very fat from factory at 11:1 - timing very conservative for 6000ft elevation at 19.

Going to do pump gas build-up with pulleys to over drive SC 20% ( 2.4" upper w/ 10% crank)

water-meth

tune

hoping for 100hp - we'll see.

What an incredible car - 600hp from factory -warranty- AC - over 20 MPG! Who would ever think think the factory would offer such a thing!

[JeffJ]

Based on your forum name, you must be my friend Matt! It will be great to see what you can do with the 2014. Once you get some data, feel free to start a new thread with your results and what type of kit you may have available. I'm sure there will be quite a bit of interest in what you put together.

[Ray Lucca]

Back to the first post, great numbers Slot, especially SAE, smoothing 5. Went to the RET Dyno Day on Sat. A 7500 mile '13 Coupe went on the rollers. Stock with a Non-oiled Blue Airaid Filter, on Cali 91 Octane "Premium":

 

1st pull: 609 Rwhp / 604 Rwtq

 

2nd pull: 603 Rwhp / 598 Rwtq

 

Very impressive, went immediately into "Cat protection" with a 10.1 A/F.... Very safe Ford Tune..... Very impressive....

I hope mine does near as well when it's broken in and I get it on the rollers...

[DubbsFaris]

Mine was 593-ish bone stock if I remember right...so right in line with you guys on a mustang dyno.

 

Ive added a lower pulley, CAI, Twin 65mm TB, Tune, LTHeaders, H-Pipe, and I added about 150 HP to mine....very easy to get that for 4k or so. Once you get above 750 HP, there are concerns though.

[caniggia]

Old thread, but i can write something here about my findings. In Europe most of dynos shows engine numbers, since after pull they measure drivetrain loss.

Usually it's Maha dyno. So my finding was some Shelby 07-09 thread that there was test at dynojet and same engine on engine dyno.

It showed 13% drivetrain loss. I measured my 4.6 turbo and current 2010 gt500 here and it shows roughly 16% drivetrain loss.

i was not there with 2013 yet.

Maha dyno shows rwhp 3% less than dynojet and shows same as superflow.

So my gt500 dynoed stock 506 rwhp and was measured 16% drivetrain loss, that's 603 engine hp, so just bit more than they wrote about engine dyno test here:

http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forums/mustang-gt500/178989-2010-mustang-gt500-dyno-results.html

 

2013 only difference in drivetrain vs pre 2013 is driveshaft. How much drivetrail loss less is that? I bet no more than 3%, so according to dynojet, engine numbers in 2013 may be in 10-13% loss, that's about 670-680 crank HP for 604 rwhp.

 

I was searching lot, but i could not find engine dyno test for 2013...

[buster]

Old thread, but i can write something here about my findings. In Europe most of dynos shows engine numbers, since after pull they measure drivetrain loss.

Usually it's Maha dyno. So my finding was some Shelby 07-09 thread that there was test at dynojet and same engine on engine dyno.

It showed 13% drivetrain loss. I measured my 4.6 turbo and current 2010 gt500 here and it shows roughly 16% drivetrain loss.

i was not there with 2013 yet.

Maha dyno shows rwhp 3% less than dynojet and shows same as superflow.

So my gt500 dynoed stock 506 rwhp and was measured 16% drivetrain loss, that's 603 engine hp, so just bit more than they wrote about engine dyno test here:

http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forums/mustang-gt500/178989-2010-mustang-gt500-dyno-results.html

 

2013 only difference in drivetrain vs pre 2013 is driveshaft. How much drivetrail loss less is that? I bet no more than 3%, so according to dynojet, engine numbers in 2013 may be in 10-13% loss, that's about 670-680 crank HP for 604 rwhp.

 

I was searching lot, but i could not find engine dyno test for 2013...

You need to have a good understanding of what the SAE engine HP rating process entails. This is some pretty rigid stuff under controlled conditions with physical witnesses. This isn't the grease monkey in the local garage strapping down your car for a few "dyno" pulls. Understand that drivetrain loss is not linear as it varies with RPM. What you are attempting to determine is drivetrain parasitic power loss at the rev limit. There is a very good chance that your local "dyno" man is generating you numbers under environmental conditions that are notably different than those set forth and employed during your engines SAE certification.

 

"Dyno" numbers are a popular topic and make for some great internet chatter but have to be understood for what they are. I always get a good kick out seeing 60 year old guys like myself idling a GT500 in and out Starbucks or local car cruises with their "dyno" sheet resting on the passenger seat. Kind of a validation move with little reflection of the owners personal skills or understanding of this kinda stuff. Lets face it the majority of these cars are owned by middle aged and older men who keep them garaged, covered, with extremely low miles, and never spin the motors over 5 grand.

[Cdvision]

Here's some same day video of a 2014 GT500 convertible with drag radials running a 12.95 and a video of my first track run in my wife's stock 2014 GT convertible (on heavy 20" wheels) running a 12.68. Lots of guys out there with powerful cars and no skill when it comes to driving them.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQnO8ylL4Uc

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICCnC1T4P70

[Robert M]

I know this was an old thread brought back, but I read through it anyway...............

 

That Car Craft chassis dyno link is good overall info, especially for the classic muscle, but I know for a fact that a Ford Top Loader (or even a Borg Warner) manual transmission is going to take more power to turn through 90W gear oil, than the T6060 is going to take spinning through automatic transmission fluid, so the loss would be greater with the older cars on a chassis dyno.

 

A heavy 9" or 12 bolt axle is also a power sucker comparison to newer axles........................A 1-pc. heavy oem steel driveshaft? also a power sucker in comparison to a 1-pc. alum or the 2013/14 CF unit.

 

Most of the A/C optioned muscle cars from that era also had large power sucking A/C compressors...............more loss on the dyno in comparison to later A/C compressor technology.

 

Comparing power loss between old technology muscle and new technology muscle is as Phill would say.............."Apples and Oranges" for any sort of % comparison.

 

------------------------------------

 

I also agree that the factory race cars mentioned in this thread were underrated.............it's part of the game in NHRA HP ratings, nothing new there. The 1968.5 Cobra Jets had different VIN identifiers (R, S etc.) to bring the NHRA tech inspector to depending upon which class the car was being entered into. The newer CJ's and SCJ's also played their race car games.

 

Back in the late 1960's production cars were underrated for insurance rates/purposes, but that gig has been up for decades and now, the "bigger stick" sells cars, so underrating would be a shot in the foot, especially as technology advances quicker than ever before.

 

The 1999 SVT Cobra was a good example of Ford "over rating" the 4.6 DOHC Cobra engine at 320hp to compete with the top dog production Camaro of that year............that turned into a real issue with those Cobra owners........

 

------------------------------------

 

Back in 2003 or so I owned a 1971 429SCJ Mach 1, 4 spd. top Loader and 4.11 Detroit Locker 9", all factory installed options in that car. Jeff Ford, who was the Mustang Monthly editor at that time knew some 428 CJ and PI guys in Atlanta who were having intense discussions about the 428CJ's being under rated at 335hp, the PI with dual quads being the stronger 428 and it's 360hp...........and on and on..........

 

So, Jeff asked them.........."Do you want to do a chassis dyno to settle the issue?" they agreed to step up. What Jeff did not tell them at first is that he had also invited my 375hp solid lifter 429SCJ, a 1970 BOSS 429 and a 1968 GTA S-Code. The magazine feature was called "Big Block Blowout" and the results were Very disappointing for some of the owners. The well tuned fully "correct spec" restored crisp running 428's were pulling in the 230's at the rear wheels (all three of them), the 390 S GTA C6 was in the 180's at the tires and the 70 BOSS9 pulled a 240 while billowing black smoke (running way rich) and eventually blew off the upper rad. hose spewing coolant all of very a nicely restored car, the BOSS9 owner was pissed and pulled off the dyno. Ok, so it was my turn..........I don't remember the exact number, but it was like 249 or so with black smoke billowing out the tail pipes. I was the high puller of the 6 cars mentioned above, the unrestored factory D1Z Holley carb'ed solid lifter, exhaust manifold 375hp 429SCJ did the job. So a few months later, Jeff said, "Let's tweak your Holley so it will run crisp and clean like the 428's did on the dyno". We did a follow up magazine feature called "Dyno Tuning for Power" and I was able to get 298 RWHP out of my 375hp 429SCJ.

 

^^^^All of this said to say, with my bone stock unrestored 375hp 429SCJ tweaked to it's optimum performance on a chassis dyno I got 298 at the rear wheels or a hp loss through the drivetrain of about 75hp or approx. 20%.

 

Does it put a reality check on a Big Block muscle car owner when their car can't even break the 300hp mark on a chassis dyno, and it is running crisp and strong? Yep!

 

Is it even worse when you have been under the impression for years/decades that your car was under rated by Ford and not one, but three crisp running examples can't get to 250hp on the chassis dyno? I'll bet it was a "tuck tail" moment, but that is reality on display.

 

What about the owner of the 390 GTA Mustang that is fully restored to MCA specs and a Honda has just made several pulls and bested his 390 by 10-15WHP? That was an eye opener also.........

 

 

 

 

 

R

[buster]

That crap from the 60s really sucks when compared to what we can buy now. I quit busting my knuckles on those old jack ass carts 20 years ago. That scrap is ill mannered on the road, full of rattles, smelly, and will get smoked by many of todays grocery getters. I'll never waste another stinkin nickel on that garbage

[jmn444]

I'm faster in my 60's scrap with approx 300rwhp than I was in my 07 with 519rwhp. Obviously not in a straight line...

[03reptile]

That crap from the 60s really sucks when compared to what we can buy now. I quit busting my knuckles on those old jack ass carts 20 years ago. That scrap is ill mannered on the road, full of rattles, smelly, and will get smoked by many of todays grocery getters. I'll never waste another stinkin nickel on that garbage

Sideoiler, is that you?

[Robert M]

That crap from the 60s really sucks when compared to what we can buy now. I quit busting my knuckles on those old jack ass carts 20 years ago. That scrap is ill mannered on the road, full of rattles, smelly, and will get smoked by many of todays grocery getters. I'll never waste another stinkin nickel on that garbage

 

I know sideoiler (I mean buster), but the attention my 1971 429 Mach 1's (Bright Red SCJ, Grabber Lime SCJ or Grabber Yellow CJ) got when pulling into a car show field was soooooo much more than a late model Mustang. Yes there is better technology with the newer cars (and I would hope so), but there is a "coolness" with a factory classic muscle car that just isn't there yet with the newer stuff, no matter how much faster it is or how well it handles..............

 

 

 

 

 

 

R

[buster]

 

I know sideoiler (I mean buster), but the attention my 1971 429 Mach 1's (Bright Red SCJ, Grabber Lime SCJ or Grabber Yellow CJ) got when pulling into a car show field was soooooo much more than a late model Mustang. Yes there is better technology with the newer cars (and I would hope so), but there is a "coolness" with a factory classic muscle car that just isn't there yet with the newer stuff, no matter how much faster it is or how well it handles..............

100% with you there. Those cars turn all heads and steal the show for sure. Been around this stuff for the majority of my life. I am just done owning any of that old stuff. Enjoy your cars!

 

 

 

 

R

[Will's Shelby]

My baseline dyno on a dynojet was 582/600 on a 95 degree day, low elevation, 40% humidity. Equated to roughly 12% drivetrain loss. Right as most thought it would be...