2005 GT Horsepower from MM&FF
5/21/04, 03:45 PM
#61
Bullitt Member
Join Date: April 1, 2004
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, I agree w/ DarkStallion in that I have to wait until these babies start rolling off the line first. When I first heard it was only rated at 300hp, I have to admit I was a bit dissapointed. Then I heard 280 rwhp, and that made me go 
. Now that I hear 290 rwhp!!! I'm like 
Of course that would kick major tail, but I'm not going to get my hopes up. What I want to see is how it performs. I would like it to be able to run mid 13's all day long with an average driver. Not like the current GT's that you have to have perfect weather, traction and Tom Gordon driving just to break in the 13's.
. Now that I hear 290 rwhp!!! I'm like Of course that would kick major tail, but I'm not going to get my hopes up. What I want to see is how it performs. I would like it to be able to run mid 13's all day long with an average driver. Not like the current GT's that you have to have perfect weather, traction and Tom Gordon driving just to break in the 13's.
5/21/04, 04:54 PM
#62
Bullitt Member
Join Date: March 28, 2004
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by DarkStallion2K@May. 21st, 2004, 1:58 PM
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.
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.
5/21/04, 06:17 PM
#64
Originally posted by BlueStangVert@May. 21st, 2004, 3:19 PM
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.
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.
Your understanding of the difference between the old Gross HP rating and SAE net HP rating is pretty much correct.
Under the old Gross HP method the engine was tested on a dyno without any accessories, without an exhaust system and it could even be tested without an air filter/ air intake plumbing, w/o an alternator, usually without a fan installed (those were the days before electric fans), the cooling system did not have to be what was in the car so they could play with engine temp too and often the tests were done with tube headers into an open exhuast dump.
The old Gross HP ratings became a joke. Up until the mid 1960's the manufacturers would do anything possible to get a higher HP # on the dyno so they could advertise more HP than their competitors. But by 1971 many muscle car engines were seriously under-rated to try to fool the insurance companies and the NHRA.
Under SAE net, the engine MUST be tested exactly the way it is installed in the vehicle. That is it must have the proper intake plumbing, air filter, air box, power steering pump, A/C, alternator (with typical load on it), ALL emissions equipment and any other accessories. Finally, and most important, it MUST be tested with the exact same exhaust system that is installed on the vehicle, including the same exhaust manifolds, catalytic converters, exhaust pipes and mufflers.
5/21/04, 06:57 PM
#66
They tested a bunch of cars in a 1998 Hot Rod issue and a 1998 Trans Am WS6 had 290 at the wheels, that car was rated at 320.
I am sure the '05 is underrated in terms of HP, considering they used the Mach 1 numbers as the goal. With that in mind, we already know that powerplant rated too low... so in either case we will be smiling
I am sure the '05 is underrated in terms of HP, considering they used the Mach 1 numbers as the goal. With that in mind, we already know that powerplant rated too low... so in either case we will be smiling
5/21/04, 07:59 PM
#68
Bullitt Member
Join Date: May 16, 2004
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by kevinb120@May. 21st, 2004, 2:53 PM
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.
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.
5/21/04, 08:04 PM
#69
Originally posted by Flyinlow+May. 21st, 2004, 9:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flyinlow @ May. 21st, 2004, 9:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-kevinb120@May. 21st, 2004, 2:53 PM
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.
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.
Yea and overrated the 99 cobras too. Its also the company that rates the 424 hp Cobra now at 390 B)
5/21/04, 08:08 PM
#70
Cobra Member
Join Date: May 15, 2004
Posts: 1,418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even though Ford owns Mazda, the two companies have different personalties(just think of VW, Lamborghini, and Porsche. All owned by VW, AG but very different in terms of what goes on in the different field offices) Maybe Mazda will overrate a motor, but what Ford does could be a completely different matter...
5/21/04, 08:19 PM
#72
Bullitt Member
Join Date: March 28, 2004
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by GT Lawman@May. 21st, 2004, 7:48 PM
More importantly, when are we going to see some instrumented test runs and some first hand impressions of how these beauties handle?
More importantly, when are we going to see some instrumented test runs and some first hand impressions of how these beauties handle?
5/21/04, 09:35 PM
#73
Originally posted by numenor27+May. 20th, 2004, 9:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (numenor27 @ May. 20th, 2004, 9:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CUON24@May. 20th, 2004, 9:46 PM
Thats insane...well the engineer i talked to said it pulled like crazy. Ive heard also that its very similar to a mach...but those rwhp ratings kill a mach...guess we will have to wait and see. If that is the case though i should start making donations to my local police department to prepare for when i get it.
Thats insane...well the engineer i talked to said it pulled like crazy. Ive heard also that its very similar to a mach...but those rwhp ratings kill a mach...guess we will have to wait and see. If that is the case though i should start making donations to my local police department to prepare for when i get it.
you will be doing that after you get some seat time for sure
5/21/04, 09:59 PM
#76
Cobra Member
Join Date: May 15, 2004
Posts: 1,418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Kotzen, your avatar more than makes up for the banana (i hit the euro beats every time I see a post of yours) 
And in any case, the GT (no matter 290, 300, 310, 325 hp) will dust all the punks in their civics <thought bubble> Pull up to light, Frank:"hey, nice ground effects" Ricer
response not known as I am now three blocks away) Frank: Looks even better in the rear view mirror" </thought bubble>
And in any case, the GT (no matter 290, 300, 310, 325 hp) will dust all the punks in their civics <thought bubble> Pull up to light, Frank:"hey, nice ground effects" Ricer
response not known as I am now three blocks away) Frank: Looks even better in the rear view mirror" </thought bubble>
5/21/04, 10:23 PM
#78
Cobra Member
Join Date: January 31, 2004
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Kotzenjunge@May. 21st, 2004, 9:21 PM
Please get rid of the banana emoticon. I think a little part of me dies every time I see someone post it.
Please get rid of the banana emoticon. I think a little part of me dies every time I see someone post it.
Seeing as I am Lord of the Smillies, it seems like I would have more say in the matter...
Here's one nobody ever uses...
5/21/04, 10:25 PM
#79
Originally posted by Grantsdale+May. 21st, 2004, 10:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Grantsdale @ May. 21st, 2004, 10:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Kotzenjunge@May. 21st, 2004, 10:21 PM
Please get rid of the banana emoticon. I think a little part of me dies every time I see someone post it.
Please get rid of the banana emoticon. I think a little part of me dies every time I see someone post it.
[/b][/quote]knew that was comming
5/21/04, 10:26 PM
#80
Bullitt Member
Join Date: March 28, 2004
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by FrankBullitt05@May. 21st, 2004, 10:02 PM
Hey Kotzen, your avatar more than makes up for the banana (i hit the euro beats every time I see a post of yours)
Hey Kotzen, your avatar more than makes up for the banana (i hit the euro beats every time I see a post of yours)