Nov. Motor Trend 05 Data
9/26/04, 09:49 PM
#81
Do You Remember Me?
Join Date: January 29, 2004
Posts: 5,999
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Merlot@September 26, 2004, 11:08 PM
O ---- Dan, hope you have forgiving neighbours at 1:am! hehehehe!
O ---- Dan, hope you have forgiving neighbours at 1:am! hehehehe!
Slight exaduration. I want it to sound great and be reasonably loud but not annoying.
9/26/04, 10:16 PM
#82
Dethroned Nascar Guru
QUOTE (V10 @ September 26, 2004, 10:06 PM)
The 267 RWHP (286 lb ft) is in the same ball park as Steeda's 275 RWHP (292 lb ft) measuremnt.
It SHOULD be lower. Its an auto and it'll have higher losses. So IN FACT, the 275rwhp number is probably spot on.
The 267 RWHP (286 lb ft) is in the same ball park as Steeda's 275 RWHP (292 lb ft) measuremnt.
It SHOULD be lower. Its an auto and it'll have higher losses. So IN FACT, the 275rwhp number is probably spot on.
If the above is just a typo (272 vs 275 rwhp), then it would only be 5hp difference from the MotorTrend and the Steeda.
Based on the way StevenJ typed the article, I don't think we can assume that the 267rwhp is from the automatic. I maybe wrong.
9/26/04, 10:21 PM
#83
Bullitt Member
Join Date: April 1, 2004
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Auto's dyno lower than stick trannies due to a higher drivetrain loss (generally around 5% more). Keep in mind for the 272rwhp or 275rwhp, no car will give the exact same results even on a back-to-back dyno session.
9/26/04, 10:22 PM
#84
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: September 7, 2004
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Greywolf@September 26, 2004, 8:29 PM
I don't know about gear ratios but could you put the auto in D3 so it doesn't shift to fourth? Or would that exceed the rev limiter?
I don't know about gear ratios but could you put the auto in D3 so it doesn't shift to fourth? Or would that exceed the rev limiter?
9/26/04, 10:25 PM
#85
Do You Remember Me?
Join Date: January 29, 2004
Posts: 5,999
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by t69r00p69@September 27, 2004, 12:24 AM
Auto's dyno lower than stick trannies due to a higher drivetrain loss (generally around 5% more). Keep in mind for the 272rwhp or 275rwhp, no car will give the exact same results even on a back-to-back dyno session.
Auto's dyno lower than stick trannies due to a higher drivetrain loss (generally around 5% more). Keep in mind for the 272rwhp or 275rwhp, no car will give the exact same results even on a back-to-back dyno session.
275rwhp (5-speed) w/ 15% loss = 324hp
267rwhp (auto) w/ 17.5% loss = 324hp
Unless steeda's cars were more "broken-in".
9/26/04, 10:31 PM
#88
Bullitt Member
Join Date: April 1, 2004
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Dan+September 26, 2004, 10:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dan @ September 26, 2004, 10:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-t69r00p69@September 27, 2004, 12:24 AM
Auto's dyno lower than stick trannies due to a higher drivetrain loss (generally around 5% more). Keep in mind for the 272rwhp or 275rwhp, no car will give the exact same results even on a back-to-back dyno session.
Auto's dyno lower than stick trannies due to a higher drivetrain loss (generally around 5% more). Keep in mind for the 272rwhp or 275rwhp, no car will give the exact same results even on a back-to-back dyno session.
275rwhp (5-speed) w/ 15% loss = 324hp
267rwhp (auto) w/ 17.5% loss = 324hp
Unless steeda's cars were more "broken-in". [/b][/quote]
Eh! I said generally around man!
you have me saying "eh"
9/26/04, 10:34 PM
#89
Bullitt Member
Join Date: April 1, 2004
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by 03muzzy6@September 26, 2004, 10:25 PM
:notnice: That is probably not the best thing to do because it will just stuck in 3rd gear reving way beyond redline and you'll end up blowing the engine.
[/quote]
you're a funny guy
9/26/04, 10:37 PM
#90
Team Mustang Source
Cool, thanks StevenJ for the article and independent confirmation! This car is gonna be great! Gonna have to head out to the bookstore in the morning with a lot of cash for all the mags.
Gonna have to head out to the bookstore in the morning with a lot of cash for all the mags.
9/26/04, 10:46 PM
#91
Post *****
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Location: Berkeley/Redwood City, CA
Posts: 18,613
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
WOW 
thats freaking awesome!!!! 13.6 @ 99mph on an AUTO!!! all of a sudden im having second thoughts about talking to that neighborhood dude about his 65 coupe. i can belevie this. wait....yes i can. cant wait to start smokin those ricers up the street 
:bowdown:
thats freaking awesome!!!! 13.6 @ 99mph on an AUTO!!! all of a sudden im having second thoughts about talking to that neighborhood dude about his 65 coupe. i can belevie this. wait....yes i can. cant wait to start smokin those ricers up the street :bowdown:
9/26/04, 11:01 PM
#92
Team Mustang Source Legacy Member
Anybody else notice those two articles were probably written by two different people?
The first guy is so Anti-American, and therefore Anti-Mustang, he "complimented" it by comparing it to a Japanese car and then even when the car was up to HIS standards, he had to complain about a lack of cupholders... IN THE BACK!
Who cares!? If that's how low he has to stoop to bash our Mustang, Ford must have really got it right.
Jason
The first guy is so Anti-American, and therefore Anti-Mustang, he "complimented" it by comparing it to a Japanese car and then even when the car was up to HIS standards, he had to complain about a lack of cupholders... IN THE BACK!
Who cares!? If that's how low he has to stoop to bash our Mustang, Ford must have really got it right.
Jason
9/26/04, 11:02 PM
#93
Dethroned Nascar Guru
FYI:
Stock 5 speed Mach 1s avg about 274rwhp (I've seen as low as 259 and as high as 287rwhp) on a dynojet
Auto Mach 1s avg about 252rwhp (I don't have as large a database on these but have seen ranges between 244 and 260 rwhp).
It's widely accepted that Ford underated the Mach 1's actual crank HP.
Using typical conversions for Dynojet (1.15 for manual and 1.25 for auto) gives 315rwhp for both (252 x 1.25 = 315. 274 x 1.15 = 315).
While the new auto may have less drivetrain loss than the 04 Mustang, my uneducated opinion would guess that the 05, at best, would have a 20% loss (5% better than last year).
So based on the 2 data points we have for rwhp for the 05GT 267 and 272 (still waiting for a link to the 275rwhp #s). Let's assume that these are both 5 speeds. They would average out to 270rwhp.
That would = 310.5 hp at the crank (270x1.15) for a manual
310.5/ 1.20 =259rwhp for an auto (assuming a 20% drivetrain loss)
If these awesome #s for the are true then the 05 GT does a great job of hooking up, and turning its power into performance
For what its worth.
Stock 5 speed Mach 1s avg about 274rwhp (I've seen as low as 259 and as high as 287rwhp) on a dynojet
Auto Mach 1s avg about 252rwhp (I don't have as large a database on these but have seen ranges between 244 and 260 rwhp).
It's widely accepted that Ford underated the Mach 1's actual crank HP.
Using typical conversions for Dynojet (1.15 for manual and 1.25 for auto) gives 315rwhp for both (252 x 1.25 = 315. 274 x 1.15 = 315).
While the new auto may have less drivetrain loss than the 04 Mustang, my uneducated opinion would guess that the 05, at best, would have a 20% loss (5% better than last year).
So based on the 2 data points we have for rwhp for the 05GT 267 and 272 (still waiting for a link to the 275rwhp #s). Let's assume that these are both 5 speeds. They would average out to 270rwhp.
That would = 310.5 hp at the crank (270x1.15) for a manual
310.5/ 1.20 =259rwhp for an auto (assuming a 20% drivetrain loss)
If these awesome #s for the are true then the 05 GT does a great job of hooking up, and turning its power into performance
For what its worth.
9/26/04, 11:10 PM
#94
Bullitt Member
Join Date: January 29, 2004
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thoose extras were all from the same article. They were special off topic sections that were broken up into seperate boxes. What I didn't show you was that they have pictures of the 05's suspension and the forces it undergoes when compared to that of the SN95's. There was also an extra section about the V6 Mustangs Hertz will be receiving. There was a very 'anti-domestic' line in there too.
"No 2004 V-6 Mustang was available for direct comparison, but our sense is that the team managed to perserve much of the old 90-degree 3.8l engine's coarseness and thrash. Probably, it's a big improvement, but no blindfolded passenger will ever mistake this for a Japanese six-unless perhaps the car is traversing a concrete freeway at 70mph and tire noise is drowning out the engine."
"No 2004 V-6 Mustang was available for direct comparison, but our sense is that the team managed to perserve much of the old 90-degree 3.8l engine's coarseness and thrash. Probably, it's a big improvement, but no blindfolded passenger will ever mistake this for a Japanese six-unless perhaps the car is traversing a concrete freeway at 70mph and tire noise is drowning out the engine."
9/27/04, 02:52 AM
#96
V6 Member
Join Date: March 7, 2004
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by AFBLUE@September 26, 2004, 11:05 PM
Using typical conversions for Dynojet (1.15 for manual and 1.25 for auto) gives 315rwhp for both (252 x 1.25 = 315. 274 x 1.15 = 315).
Using typical conversions for Dynojet (1.15 for manual and 1.25 for auto) gives 315rwhp for both (252 x 1.25 = 315. 274 x 1.15 = 315).
274/.85 = 322.35. I think it adds up about right if the 267 was an auto. 267/.82 for 18% loss with auto = 325.6 crank hp. 275/.85 for 15% loss with manual = 323.5 crank hp. Plenty close enough for production/dyno variations. Looks like we're gonna get 320+ .
9/27/04, 03:56 AM
#97
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Posts: 874
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by StevenJ@September 26, 2004, 11:13 PM
"No 2004 V-6 Mustang was available for direct comparison, but our sense is that the team managed to perserve much of the old 90-degree 3.8l engine's coarseness and thrash. Probably, it's a big improvement, but no blindfolded passenger will ever mistake this for a Japanese six-unless perhaps the car is traversing a concrete freeway at 70mph and tire noise is drowning out the engine."
"No 2004 V-6 Mustang was available for direct comparison, but our sense is that the team managed to perserve much of the old 90-degree 3.8l engine's coarseness and thrash. Probably, it's a big improvement, but no blindfolded passenger will ever mistake this for a Japanese six-unless perhaps the car is traversing a concrete freeway at 70mph and tire noise is drowning out the engine."
"Our sense is..." Our SENSE is...? Yeah, that's good, let's just start GUESSING. :scratch:
That's a nasty remark, given that they haven't driven it yet. Show's just how far the Big Three let things slide over the past 30 years.
9/27/04, 07:20 AM
#99
Dethroned Nascar Guru
thought the typical conversion was to divide by.85 for a 15% drivetrain loss. 274/.85 = 322.35. I think it adds up about right if the 267 was an auto. 267/.82 for 18% loss with auto = 325.6 crank hp. 275/.85 for 15% loss with manual =
I often see X as 1.15 and Y as 1.25 for a dynojet but each shop is a little different.
My mustang dynonameter owner used 1.26 for an manual and 1.31 for a auto. Munstang dynos typically give lower #s than a dynojet.
Either way, there's only 3.5 hp difference difference between .85 x310flywheel hp (=263.5rwhp) and 267rwhp x1.15 (310flywheel hp)
Still hoping someone can provide a link to this "274rwhp"
9/27/04, 08:18 AM
#100
Legacy TMS Member
[QUOTE=Merlot,September 26, 2004, 9:08 PM][QUOTE=Dan,September 26, 2004, 7:56 PM Some- how in my mind I keep comparing this thing to a 69, Z28 302 cu. in. Camaro. I don't know why. I'll probably have a lot of back flack over that one, Aluminum block I guess. [/QUOTE]
OK, here's your flack. A Z28? The 69/70 Boss 302's killed them on the track.
No doubt the '69 Z28 was the best Camaro, and it had an iron block 302 Chevy motor.
Thanks to everyone for all the posts and links on the '05 S197. I was reading all the posts this morning as they were broadcasting live on the business news from Flint Rock for the official launch.
I look forward to parking one in my garage.
OK, here's your flack. A Z28? The 69/70 Boss 302's killed them on the track.
No doubt the '69 Z28 was the best Camaro, and it had an iron block 302 Chevy motor.
Thanks to everyone for all the posts and links on the '05 S197. I was reading all the posts this morning as they were broadcasting live on the business news from Flint Rock for the official launch.
I look forward to parking one in my garage.