ChromeYellowGT

Who did you talk to there?

SVTJayC

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.

BillP

It could mean that, and it could mean that Steeda is going to put 50hp on top of the stock setup, meaning 350hp crank "underrated", more like 370hp actual.

Or it could mean anything in between. LOL>

wantan05

So whenever car companies post their hp (like in advertising) its the hp at the crank and not the rear wheels?

ChromeYellowGT

Yep.

dallasw77

I agree with SVTJayc, hopefully Steeda is adding the numbers to Fords 300hp not the actual hp......hopefully

nthe10s

Regardless the car makes killer power out the box. On another note I was at Pauls HP a while back and he had an 05 to test for a week. He found 35 rwhp in tuning alone.

I would also say, from 10 years of racing experience, that pulleys, headers, tune, etc... is going to add more than 15 HP.

BillP

Yep. [/b][/quote]
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.

ChromeYellowGT

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. [/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.

V10

Forget the 3.90s, with the '05's larger diameter tires and higher engine red line, 4.10s will be the way to go.

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.

joeuser42

So is it gonna whip the '04 Mach I? The peak hp/torque values are similar but what about VVT, weight, and gear ratios?

jsaylor

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.

kevinb120

Forget the 3.90s, with the '05's larger diameter tires and higher engine red line, 4.10s will be the way to go.

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

HairyCanary

I agree. I've seen tests which indicate that a Borg Warner T-5 in 4th gear loses around 12.5% -- the 3650 is similar enough in design to the T-5 that I would expect similar numbers. I could see 15% or so in the other gears, because they're actually gears -- 4th is just a input-output shaft lock, hence the lower power loss.

It's all about what it does on the street and on the track anyway, we don't race dynos :-).

Dave

01F1504x4

I feel as if I should be paying for this education. :scratch:
You guys really are educating the masses, THANKS!

CatmanJJ

With 4.10s I'd bet u need to shift into 4th, my friend has to in his '03 GT with 4.10s. And a lot of Mach owners shift into 4th with 3.55s with good results, though they have a little more RPMs to play with.

gw186

MustangMan311

The least I could say. Looks like Ford scored with this one.

SVTJayC

20% is way too high. 15-17% for a manual.

V10

I agree. You will only be able to complete the 1/4 in 3rd gear with the stock 3.55s.

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.