Actually, I wasn't trying to make the point that a supercharger kit is a better value. I don't know what the stuff installed by JPC Racing costs, so I'm in no position to judge one way or the other. I just figure it's interesting to compare different ways to go, and knowing what it costs is part of the comparison. In any case, it's cool to know that this motor can generate a street-legal 100+ hp/liter without forced induction.

 

If you go to their website the parts cost about 10k.

 

Ethanjbeau
Great story, eh?

Indeed but it didn't need an explanation eh !!!

 

WHAT?! No way! Maybe for 2 cars lol

Heads - 1600
Cams - 900
Boss Intake - 400 (from ford dealer)
Headers w/ offroad x pipe - 1279
Bassini mufflers - 509
JLT CAI - 350
Tuner - 370

So for about $5400 you will have what they had to make 507rwhp

 

freakin awesome.

 

500 HP from a 5.0L without forced induction is impressive. But, tuners generally speaking, will get more HP out of N/A blocks than OEM's. They do not have to worry about longevity, servicability, mass production, or extended warranties.

Iconic gets 825-hp from a N/A 6.8 (427 ci) aluminum block motor for their roadster. (Along with 660-ft lbs of torque to launch a 2400 vehicle!) So, 100-hp/liter without forced induction is possible, if not for general consumption.

 

And how much does that cost?

 

That's very impressive. I wonder if a twin screw would provide more down low torque though.

 

Even if it does produce more torque down low, which I'm sure it does, can you use it. The car can roast the tires with no issues now. Thats the problem with GT500's, the car will run low 11's if you can get it to hook up. I'm sure this will be an issue with this car as well.

Dave

 

This is where wider meats and launch control would really be of assistance.

 

A lot more than a stock GT--but a lot less than a Bugatti Veyron. Cost wasn't the point--the point was that tuner shops/specialty builders (regardless of cost) do not work under the same constraints as Ford, or GM, or Chrysler. If you do not have to concern yourself with CAFE, durability, parts stock (and interchangeability), extended warranties, and yes, cost, high-horsepower N/A motors can be made.

500-HP from a N/A 5.0 is good work. But in my opinion it isn't any more impressive than Ford offereing a solid, dependable, daily driver with 412-hp at a price that isn't any more than average these days. Particularly given the constraints any major manufacturer has to deal with today.

 

507 rwhp is about 550 at the crank. AMAZING

 

who cares. I bet this is way exaggerated anyway.

 

I'd argue that, a 15% drivetrain loss is no more realistic than the horsepower ratings of any number of muscle cars from the 70's.

As far as Mustangs are concerned, it gained its relavence during the days of the 225hp 5.0 (and similarly powered cars) - the drivetrain absorbed about 35hp which works out to about a 15% drivetrain loss.

This isn't a dig against you or anybody else who uses the 15% thing but frankly I've never encountered anybody who could justify the number with even the hint of a credible answer.

And here's why, when you talk about drivetrain absorbtion, your talking about the amount of power that it takes to overcome the friction and weight of those components that transfer power to the tires. If those components haven't been altered (increasing friction and increasing weight) then why would it absorb double the power when the engine's power has been doubled or triple the power when the engine's output has been tripled. The truth is that it doesn't, the drivetrain absorbs a certain amount of horsepower and that number isn't significantly altered by the addtion of power or subtraction of power.

 

That is a reasonable enough theory Bob, but you are forgetting that the drivetrain losses are due to friction losses and thermal shear of the fluids throughout the drivetrain. Both friction and fluid resistance are porportional to the amount of force input. So, the higher the force input, the more power lost. You cannot simply assign a number like 35 hp total loss.

Lets look at some past examples to see how well this 15% really holds up:
Fox body GT: 225 bhp --> chassis dyno ~ 190 rwhp = 16% loss
SN95 GT: 260 bhp --> chassis dyno ~ 225 rwhp = 14% loss
S195 GT: 300 bhp --> chassis dyno ~260 rwhp = 14% loss
New 5.0: 412 bhp --> chassis dyno ~365 rwhp = 12% loss

So it looks like 15% drivetrain loss is a pretty decent starting point for talking purposes on a manual transmission car. Automatics have typically shown to absorb more energy becuase of the additional fluid shear and friction seen inside an auto trans. Auto cars typically see a 18-20% drivetrain loss.

 

I would say 12% is probably more accurate if your going assign percentage (12% seems to be about what my car from the factory loses as well disregarding outliers).

I wish I could remeber the exact article where a tuner had commented on this as well, in essence the 15% drivetrain loss didn't hold up based on what they were seeing on engine and chassis dynos. This was a good while ago during the heyday of the fox cars btw, yet I remeber the jist of the article.

I know auto cars have a higher rate of absorbtion due to the fluid shear you refer to and it shows up as heat and there is the point of contention I have with applying a static number (and the unfortunate side effect of creating these hero engines - witness the LS3 guys running around claiming they have a near or 500hp factory mill in every Corvette and Camaro equipped despite GM's own testing methods which are pretty spot on) The additional power thats being absorbed has to go somewhere, be it heat vibration, or twisted metal and yet we dont see a proliferation of tranmission (manual) or differential coolers as power climbs. Nor as far as I can tell (with the exception of Chrysler recently with the differntial in the Challenger) a huge investment by auto manufacturers in increasing drivetrain effciency - something as little as 5% could be a huge savings (say comparing the V6 to the GT500 45 vs 83 hp considering their respective outputs at a 15% drivetrain loss for each).

Gotta run so I'm cutting this short, be back later.