If True, An Impressive '05 Dyno
#41
Originally posted by nthe10s@September 16, 2004, 10:28 AM
I just talked to Steeda and a Bone Stock 05 GT made 273/292 in the Florida Heat on there dyno. This was a production car BONE STOCK.
I just talked to Steeda and a Bone Stock 05 GT made 273/292 in the Florida Heat on there dyno. This was a production car BONE STOCK.
#43
Originally posted by SVTJayC@September 16, 2004, 9:39 AM
Uhhh, that means that Steeda's header, pulleys, intake, exhaust, chip, which dyno at 350 crank HP, only add a whole 15 HP? That is pretty darn pathetic.
Uhhh, that means that Steeda's header, pulleys, intake, exhaust, chip, which dyno at 350 crank HP, only add a whole 15 HP? That is pretty darn pathetic.
Or it could mean anything in between. LOL>
#46
Originally posted by SVTJayC@September 16, 2004, 11:39 AM
Uhhh, that means that Steeda's header, pulleys, intake, exhaust, chip, which dyno at 350 crank HP, only add a whole 15 HP? That is pretty darn pathetic.
Uhhh, that means that Steeda's header, pulleys, intake, exhaust, chip, which dyno at 350 crank HP, only add a whole 15 HP? That is pretty darn pathetic.
#47
Originally posted by SVTJayC@September 16, 2004, 11:39 AM
Uhhh, that means that Steeda's header, pulleys, intake, exhaust, chip, which dyno at 350 crank HP, only add a whole 15 HP? That is pretty darn pathetic.
Uhhh, that means that Steeda's header, pulleys, intake, exhaust, chip, which dyno at 350 crank HP, only add a whole 15 HP? That is pretty darn pathetic.
I would also say, from 10 years of racing experience, that pulleys, headers, tune, etc... is going to add more than 15 HP.
#48
Originally posted by ChromeYellowGT+September 16, 2004, 10:07 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ChromeYellowGT @ September 16, 2004, 10:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-wantan05@September 16, 2004, 11:54 AM
So whenever car companies post their hp (like in advertising) its the hp at the crank and not the rear wheels?
So whenever car companies post their hp (like in advertising) its the hp at the crank and not the rear wheels?
And "back in the day" they listed SAE Gross, which was at the crank, without any accessories! No generator, no power-anything. Not even sure if they had a water pump on them, they may have disconnected those and just pumped water through them.
So the 200hp gross in the 1965 289-2bbl is measurably weaker than the 225hp net in the 1987 302, by more than the apparent 25hp on paper.
#49
Originally posted by M1Rifle+September 16, 2004, 1:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (M1Rifle @ September 16, 2004, 1:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Yep.
Originally posted by ChromeYellowGT@September 16, 2004, 10:07 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-wantan05
<!--QuoteBegin-wantan05
@September 16, 2004, 11:54 AM
So whenever car companies post their hp (like in advertising) its the hp at the crank and not the rear wheels?
So whenever car companies post their hp (like in advertising) its the hp at the crank and not the rear wheels?
Yep.
So the 200hp gross in the 1965 289-2bbl is measurably weaker than the 225hp net in the 1987 302, by more than the apparent 25hp on paper. [/b][/quote]
Yeah that was without the water pump turning and they were also run without an exhaust. Sometimes they even ran headers instead of the factory manifolds.
#50
Originally posted by kevinb120@September 16, 2004, 10:45 AM
I also have a feeling that a set of 3.90 gears is going to be magic for this car.
I also have a feeling that a set of 3.90 gears is going to be magic for this car.
99-04GT 4th gear MTX, 3.90 gears @ 60 MPH, RPM = 3063
05 GT, 4th gear MTX, 4.10 gears @ 60 MPH, RPM = 3043.
See what I mean?
However if you will be running the 1/4 mile, you have to think about whether you want to shift to 4th or not. Assuming that you hit 105 MPH in the 1/4, you will cross the line on the REV limiter @ 6,100 RPM in 3rd gear with the stock 3.55 gears.
If you go to taller gears, you will be shifting into 4th. See, there is a downside to going faster.
#52
Guys, just reference the material you already know to find out what those rwhp numbers mean. 20% parasitic driveline loss, using Dynojet numbers, for a manual car is waaayyyy too much. For example, 03 Cobra's regularly dyno at 370-375 rwhp bone stock. If you had 20% driveline loss that would mean 03/04 Cobra's make just shy of 470hp at the crank. The Snake is under-rated, but it ain't THAT under-rated.
20% would be a good number for an awd car...seriously. I've said it many times, but I used to hang around with a good friend who ran a Dyno for a Porsche repair facility in Knoxville and 17% was an absolute maximum allowance for any car that was not awd....wether it be automatic or manual. And honestly, 14-16% was considered the normal range of parasitic loss.
If the numbers published in this thread are accurate then figure the car is 20-25 hp under-rated.
And V-10 is correct. One of the many reasons the new Ford GT accelerates so quickly is that it's torque negates the need for as many gear changes through say, the 1/4 mile. The Honda "Type R", shift it 15 times down the 8th-mile experience is seriously over-rated.
20% would be a good number for an awd car...seriously. I've said it many times, but I used to hang around with a good friend who ran a Dyno for a Porsche repair facility in Knoxville and 17% was an absolute maximum allowance for any car that was not awd....wether it be automatic or manual. And honestly, 14-16% was considered the normal range of parasitic loss.
If the numbers published in this thread are accurate then figure the car is 20-25 hp under-rated.
And V-10 is correct. One of the many reasons the new Ford GT accelerates so quickly is that it's torque negates the need for as many gear changes through say, the 1/4 mile. The Honda "Type R", shift it 15 times down the 8th-mile experience is seriously over-rated.
#53
Originally posted by V10+September 16, 2004, 2:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (V10 @ September 16, 2004, 2:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-kevinb120@September 16, 2004, 10:45 AM
I also have a feeling that a set of 3.90 gears is going to be magic for this car.
I also have a feeling that a set of 3.90 gears is going to be magic for this car.
99-04GT 4th gear MTX, 3.90 gears @ 60 MPH, RPM = 3063
05 GT, 4th gear MTX, 4.10 gears @ 60 MPH, RPM = 3043.
See what I mean?
However if you will be running the 1/4 mile, you have to think about whether you want to shift to 4th or not. Assuming that you hit 105 MPH in the 1/4, you will cross the line on the REV limiter @ 6,100 RPM in 3rd gear with the stock 3.55 gears.
If you go to taller gears, you will be shifting into 4th. See, there is a downside to going faster. [/b][/quote]
the math says it will most likely require a shift with 4.10s
#54
Originally posted by jsaylor@September 16, 2004, 12:39 PM
Guys, just reference the material you already know to find out what those rwhp numbers mean. 20% parasitic driveline loss, using Dynojet numbers, for a manual car is waaayyyy too much. For example, 03 Cobra's regularly dyno at 370-375 rwhp bone stock. If you had 20% driveline loss that would mean 03/04 Cobra's make just shy of 470hp at the crank. The Snake is under-rated, but it ain't THAT under-rated.
Guys, just reference the material you already know to find out what those rwhp numbers mean. 20% parasitic driveline loss, using Dynojet numbers, for a manual car is waaayyyy too much. For example, 03 Cobra's regularly dyno at 370-375 rwhp bone stock. If you had 20% driveline loss that would mean 03/04 Cobra's make just shy of 470hp at the crank. The Snake is under-rated, but it ain't THAT under-rated.
It's all about what it does on the street and on the track anyway, we don't race dynos :-).
Dave
#56
Bullitt Member
Join Date: February 26, 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by kevinb120@September 16, 2004, 2:46 PM
the math says it will most likely require a shift with 4.10s
the math says it will most likely require a shift with 4.10s
#60
Originally posted by kevinb120@September 16, 2004, 2:46 PM
the math says it will most likely require a shift with 4.10s
the math says it will most likely require a shift with 4.10s
Even with 3.90s you will be shifting to 4th gear in the 1/4.
I'd sure like to see a rag like 5.0 to a test of which would be the fastest in the 1/4.
Stock 3.55s or 4.10s with the extra shift.