Toney C

What in the world is that?? I've never heard of that. MUST POST LINK.

Edit: MUST WORK.

MTAS

Which do they measure by. For example, when they say a GTO has 350 Hp does that mean from RWHP or Flywheel? [/b][/quote]
I believe most manufacturers use a flywheel rating. To get the flywheel hp from a RWHP, take rwhp/.85

vega

http://www.anti-radar.nl

The explanation is in dutch, but if you check the videos, you get the CBS reports about the product etc.

vega

http://www.phantomplate.com/photoblocker.html

english

Flyinlow

I believe most manufacturers use a flywheel rating. To get the flywheel hp from a RWHP, take rwhp/.85 [/b][/quote]
For an automatic, the loss is going to be a little higher.

There was a recent dyno test done by High Performanc Pontiac magazine where they dyno'd a new GTO, a 66 389 tripower, a 70 ram air III and a 71 455 HO GTO. The new six speed GTO came out on top, with a rear wheel hp of 297.3 hp. If you use the .85 calculation, the rwhp should have been 297.5. Pretty darn close. All of the other GTO's were lower. The closest to it was the 71 with 283 rwhp. For you young guys, the old engines were rated at gross horsepower vs at the flywheel, which is how they are rated today. Plus, the flack that was caused over the Cobra a couple of years ago not meeting the advertised horsepower has really kept manufacturers on their toes about horsepower ratings. Mazda recently had to re-quote the hp on the RX-8 because they advertised it wrong. They offered to buy back the cars from anyone who bought one if they wanted to.

All that being said, I doubt the new Mustang has 295 rwhp if the motor is 300 hp.
More than likely its 255 rwhp.

What you may have been seeing is the motor for a new Mach 1 or other high performance Mustang that will be coming down the road.

428CJ

I agree, their is no way the could produce a car with 290RWPH at 24k...If it was possible other companies would be doing it, and they are not. Their is nothing producing close to that much HP right now at that price....

I still think the GT will be underrated though just not to that extent. I mean we know it's going to be underrated. Ford has been doing it because they want to deliver. What better way than to underrate? Especially since they have a new Mustang, they want it to be success, it will probably be underrated, just not that much.

conv_stang

i dont know. the mach 1 is rated at 305 and they are getting around 275-280 at the wheels. and ford has already said the 3 valve heads out flow the older 4 valve heads. so it is a real possibility that 290-295 is accurate.

gotmy05

if all this is true about the 290-295 rwhp than i just might kill myself a little faster than i thought i would when i figured it would be about 270. that is awsome!!!!!!!

conv_stang

yeah i hope it is true.........but then i have the ultimate debate. i have my strip car. so weight is no problem. i just cant decide if i want a vert or coupe

DarkStallion2K

I think you guys are just blowing all of this WAY out of proportion...LoL.
I sincerely doubt Ford will put that much power in the new GT...THERE IS NO WAY IN HECK. I would suggest you guys don't get your hopes all sky high about this....the new GT WILL BE BETTER THAN THE REST but not by much mind you...not for the bang for the buck performance that it's always had. Just give it time and for the love of Jebus....WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THEY ROLL OFF!!! LoL.

Lalo

if this is true, i better start saving up my pennies

kevinb120

Ford has been on an underrating kick lately. I definately believe it will be more then 300hp at the crank stock. Just a decent valve/head work on a 2V car yields 40hp.

VillianousBlak

Okay, I've been trying to act like this whole different horsepower things isn't way over my head for a long time.

Does someone want to quickly (and concisely) explain the difference between engine, wheel, etc... Please don't send me a linke to google. If I wanted to find five pages of popup filled techno babble I would go get it.

Thanks.

TMSBrad

Engines in the 1960s and early '70s were dyno tested outside of a car. The results were high because once the engine is in the car, several things drain its power (radio, A/C, etc.). In 1972 the government changed the way auto manufacturers could rate their engines--the engines had to be in the car. So for many cars--including Mustang--the engines were just as potent but the ratings were lower, damaging their image. Even after the accessories have taken their toll on engine performance, still more power is lost between the engine and a rear wheel drive car's rear wheels. This is the true measure of a car's performance.

428CJ

WELLLLL the flywheel is that heavy thingy that is between the clutch pack and the engine...So i'm guessing they check flywheel HP when the engine is actually out of the engine..so they are testing the engine only...

SO when the engine is in the car itself, it will have a lower rear wheel horse power rating because of the HP it loses transferring that power to the ground.

hopefully this is right

WHOOPS Brad answered already

428CJ

EDIT: I have no idea now :bang:

BLAKE

I'm not sure that is quite right Brad. It's my understanding that engines are still rated from the factory at the flywheel (and consequently out of the car), but with all accessories attached (water pump, alternator, power steering pump, etc). That is why rear wheel dynos consistently show 15-20% less power than the factory rating because it is measured at the wheels, after the power has gone from the flywheel, through the transmission, driveshaft, rear differential, axles, wheels & finally tires.

This power loss through these components is refered to as "parasitic drivetrain loss".

I could be wrong here, but this is how I understand it.

TMSBrad

I could be wrong about whether the engine is physically in the car or not, but the main point is one we both agree on: the accessories' drain on power are shown on an engine's rating.

1 COBRA

Not to spoil the party, but I doubt Ford would be that generous, let alone squeeze that kind of performance out of the 3V 4.6. Mach 1 numbers is obtainable, maybe even bit more, but an extra 50hp @ the flywheel seems like a lot of hot air.

BLAKE