Notices
2010-2014 Mustang Information on The S197 {GenII}
Sponsored By:
Sponsored By:

5.0 RWHP?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 2/18/10, 05:59 PM
  #21  
Member
 
macatowa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2, 2007
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
RWHP = 430

Don't ask me how I know that, but wait and see for yourself
Old 2/18/10, 06:09 PM
  #22  
V6 Member
 
Texas Red's Avatar
 
Join Date: October 7, 2009
Location: My heart's still in Austin, TX.
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
...uh huh.
Old 2/18/10, 06:09 PM
  #23  
Bullitt Member
 
Tsbird1994's Avatar
 
Join Date: October 16, 2004
Location: HB, CA
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Five Oh Brian
... Trap speeds are a better indicator of rwhp than a dyno any day.
Old 2/18/10, 06:11 PM
  #24  
eci
Banned
 
eci's Avatar
 
Join Date: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by macatowa
Don't ask me how I know that, but wait and see for yourself
lol!
Old 2/18/10, 06:36 PM
  #25  
Swamp Donkey Aficionado
 
MARZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: November 23, 2006
Posts: 1,863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
430 rear-wheel horsepower?! You know that would put the 2011 GT at almost 500 crank horsepower, right?
Old 2/18/10, 07:40 PM
  #26  
Cobra Member
 
todd03blown's Avatar
 
Join Date: November 30, 2009
Location: South
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
on the 91 octane gas I predict 355-360RWHP. With 93 octane and and tune with no other mods I predict 375-380RWHP.

My 01 cobra laid down 280RWHP bone stock and my 03 cobra laid down 367RWHP bone stock; this is for comparison on stock Ford motors.
Old 2/18/10, 07:49 PM
  #27  
Cobra R Member
 
Fazm's Avatar
 
Join Date: September 21, 2004
Posts: 1,664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ltngdrvr
OEM horsepower ratings are very subjective, lots of factors go into what numbers they rate them at beyond whatever number it actually makes. Just like the obviously under-rated numbers for the Termi motors.

I think it is a shame that Ford didn't go one step further in developing this new 5.0 motor and make it a direct injection motor. They could have raised the compression even higher, on the order of 12.5:1, and probably could have been knocking on the 500 HP door.

no probably not

the 5.0 DOHC direct injected 11.8:1 in the is-f only makes 4 more hp
Old 2/18/10, 07:52 PM
  #28  
Mach 1 Member
 
Dave07997S's Avatar
 
Join Date: September 23, 2008
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Regardless of the dyno numbers, I think you're gonna see '11 GT Manuals trap about 110 mph in the 1/4 mile (mid 12's) and '11 GT Automatics trap about 108 mph in the 1/4 mile (high 12's). Trap speeds are a better indicator of rwhp than a dyno any day.
My prediction is going to be around 112-114mph, as E92 M3's with similar weight and hp numbers has achieved the same. Maybe wishful thinking. Car and Driver did 12.6 @113mph and Road and Track did 12.5@114.8mph!!

Dave
Old 2/18/10, 08:11 PM
  #29  
GTR Member
 
Ltngdrvr's Avatar
 
Join Date: February 18, 2010
Location: S.E. Texas
Posts: 4,990
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Dave07997S
My prediction is going to be around 112-114mph, as E92 M3's with similar weight and hp numbers has achieved the same. Maybe wishful thinking. Car and Driver did 12.6 @113mph and Road and Track did 12.5@114.8mph!!

Dave
MPH numbers like those, it should be 12.0's, so it isn't getting off the line hard enough.

Here's a nifty HP and E.T. calculator if you want to play with the numbers.

http://www.allfordmustangs.com/Detailed/619.shtml

_________________
Old 2/18/10, 08:19 PM
  #30  
Mach 1 Member
 
Skotty's Avatar
 
Join Date: January 18, 2010
Location: KC, MO
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ltngdrvr
MPH numbers like those, it should be 12.0's, so it isn't getting off the line hard enough.

Here's a nifty HP and E.T. calculator if you want to play with the numbers.

http://www.allfordmustangs.com/Detailed/619.shtml

_________________
For a more accurate estimate, on the weight, I assume I would need to add in the weight of my fat ****.
Old 2/18/10, 08:22 PM
  #31  
GTR Member
 
Ltngdrvr's Avatar
 
Join Date: February 18, 2010
Location: S.E. Texas
Posts: 4,990
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Skotty
For a more accurate estimate, on the weight, I assume I would need to add in the weight of my fat ****.
Yup, wet weight of the car plus driver, wet or not...
Old 2/18/10, 08:26 PM
  #32  
GTR Member
 
Ltngdrvr's Avatar
 
Join Date: February 18, 2010
Location: S.E. Texas
Posts: 4,990
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Oh, and the weights usually quoted for cars from the OEM are dry weights, no fuel, oil or gas added.
Old 2/18/10, 08:27 PM
  #33  
Mach 1 Member
 
Skotty's Avatar
 
Join Date: January 18, 2010
Location: KC, MO
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ltngdrvr
Yup, wet weight of the car plus driver, wet or not...
Guess if I want to race, I should cut back on the doritos.
Old 2/18/10, 08:40 PM
  #34  
GTR Member
 
Ltngdrvr's Avatar
 
Join Date: February 18, 2010
Location: S.E. Texas
Posts: 4,990
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Using that calculator and using a wet weight with driver of 4000 lbs. and plugging in 412 HP puts the E.T. @ 12.42 and MPH @ 109.68

Of course that is with good traction and gearing, say the optional 3.73's and some drag radials or slicks.
Old 2/18/10, 09:23 PM
  #35  
Bullitt Member
 
Dr Evil's Avatar
 
Join Date: November 17, 2007
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ltngdrvr
Using that calculator and using a wet weight with driver of 4000 lbs. and plugging in 412 HP puts the E.T. @ 12.42 and MPH @ 109.68

Of course that is with good traction and gearing, say the optional 3.73's and some drag radials or slicks.
Domestic automakers quote curb weight which means a full tank of gas. 3600lbs + driver - a little gas should produce a more accurate result. Try 3750 or so.
Old 2/18/10, 10:01 PM
  #36  
bob
Legacy TMS Member
 
bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 16, 2004
Location: Bristol, TN
Posts: 5,197
Received 15 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by eci
Depends on dyno type. All of this "multiply by .85" stuff is BS.
Agreed, .85 = Internet Correction Factor. I find it laughable that if say a 2011 GT modded to put out 1000 hp at the crank would lose 150hp through the same drivetrain that abosrbed only 61hp.

Of course the flip side being all those bone stock 500+ hp at the crank from the factory LS3's GM is producing.
Old 2/18/10, 10:02 PM
  #37  
bob
Legacy TMS Member
 
bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 16, 2004
Location: Bristol, TN
Posts: 5,197
Received 15 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave07997S
My prediction is going to be around 112-114mph, as E92 M3's with similar weight and hp numbers has achieved the same. Maybe wishful thinking. Car and Driver did 12.6 @113mph and Road and Track did 12.5@114.8mph!!

Dave
Was it an SMG car Dave?
Old 2/18/10, 10:51 PM
  #38  
V6 Member
 
Stinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: February 9, 2004
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Ltngdrvr
They could have raised the compression even higher, on the order of 12.5:1, and probably could have been knocking on the 500 HP door.
A 1 point raise in compression is good for about 3% gain in output. This gain decreases as compression ratio increases though. Figure a 4% gain at 12.5:1 and you only get a gain of 16.5hp for a total of 428.5hp...that's a long ways from 500.
Old 2/19/10, 10:35 AM
  #39  
GTR Member
 
Ltngdrvr's Avatar
 
Join Date: February 18, 2010
Location: S.E. Texas
Posts: 4,990
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Stinger
A 1 point raise in compression is good for about 3% gain in output. This gain decreases as compression ratio increases though. Figure a 4% gain at 12.5:1 and you only get a gain of 16.5hp for a total of 428.5hp...that's a long ways from 500.
Your not taking into account the direct injection and ECM tuning that would have to go along with that.

It doesn't matter, it's not going to happen.
Old 2/19/10, 04:43 PM
  #40  
Bullitt Member
 
YSUsteven's Avatar
 
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have read that Ford engineered the 5.0 so that DI can be added in the future, and it probably will. But I am plenty happy with 412, as thats almost as much as the competitiors with many more cubes.


Quick Reply: 5.0 RWHP?



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:32 AM.