GT500's REAL Horsepower
1/15/06, 07:00 PM
#21
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 1, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by mr-mstng@January 15, 2006, 7:24 PM
FOR SALE: One slightly used kidney... other organs available upon request.
FOR SALE: One slightly used kidney... other organs available upon request.
Ok. This is what I have been waiting to hear. Assuming that is on the stock blower, I am now committed to this vehicle.
I will paint the moldings body color, hopefully figure out how to remove the cheesy looking ducktail, and go from there.
Brad, please, plesae, please advise as to whether that is a reputable shop you are getting the numbers from that knows what they are doing and not some hack who's soon to blow the block to shanghai!!
And what kind of exhaust?? Full replacement, including headers, or is this just cat-backs (sorry bassani, I'll send a check)? Is this with an upgrade to 3" mandrels, replace factory x-pipe, etc....
MUST HAVE MORE INFO, I'm starting to twitch!!!!
Now somebody please just tell me what valencia yellow is going to look like!!! C'mon Claypso Coral copy!
1/15/06, 08:07 PM
#22
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find this a bit hard to believe, but if it's true that's amazing. One thing, I would think that @ ~200 whp more than stock the MAF and injectors would have to be upgraded as well.
1/15/06, 08:12 PM
#23
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 1, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by max2000jp@January 15, 2006, 9:10 PM
I find this a bit hard to believe, but if it's true that's amazing. One thing, I would think that @ ~200 whp more than stock the MAF and injectors would have to be upgraded as well.
I find this a bit hard to believe, but if it's true that's amazing. One thing, I would think that @ ~200 whp more than stock the MAF and injectors would have to be upgraded as well.
1/15/06, 08:17 PM
#25
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by futuresvt@January 15, 2006, 9:15 PM
Ordinarily i would agree with you. However, to my memory, Brad doesn't just pop in and drop BS statements, especially when they are as significant as this. If he states something as a fact, then I am very near to accepting it based upon past history!!!
Ordinarily i would agree with you. However, to my memory, Brad doesn't just pop in and drop BS statements, especially when they are as significant as this. If he states something as a fact, then I am very near to accepting it based upon past history!!!
1/15/06, 08:27 PM
#26
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 1, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All I "know" is what is in his post, so who knows if that's it or not. I didn't mean to imply that you were calling BS, I agree, there may well be some info not included.
Even so, seems to me the main point was that the GT500 hit this rwhp # with essentially minimal mods! i think that first, and as stated above, this suggests that the true HP rating on this car is certainly not 475. Second, this also suggests HUGE potential!!!
Does anyone else think this may be the real reason that ford ditched the twin-screw supercharger??? I still don't buy the "supply issues" excuse. C'mon, if Ford wants to buy 21K-30K $2K-$3K units, any complany with half a hair brain would find a way to get the units. And they had more than a year to do so anyway!!!
Imagine what this engine will do when people start throwing KBs and Whipples on them...dear god.
Insurance is going to go through the roof
Even so, seems to me the main point was that the GT500 hit this rwhp # with essentially minimal mods! i think that first, and as stated above, this suggests that the true HP rating on this car is certainly not 475. Second, this also suggests HUGE potential!!!
Does anyone else think this may be the real reason that ford ditched the twin-screw supercharger??? I still don't buy the "supply issues" excuse. C'mon, if Ford wants to buy 21K-30K $2K-$3K units, any complany with half a hair brain would find a way to get the units. And they had more than a year to do so anyway!!!
Imagine what this engine will do when people start throwing KBs and Whipples on them...dear god.
Insurance is going to go through the roof
1/15/06, 08:36 PM
#27
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by futuresvt@January 15, 2006, 9:30 PM
Even so, seems to me the main point was that the GT500 hit this rwhp # with essentially minimal mods! i think that first, and as stated above, this suggests that the true HP rating on this car is certainly not 475. Second, this also suggests HUGE potential!!!
Even so, seems to me the main point was that the GT500 hit this rwhp # with essentially minimal mods! i think that first, and as stated above, this suggests that the true HP rating on this car is certainly not 475. Second, this also suggests HUGE potential!!!
http://www.sae.org/certifiedpower/details.htm
1/15/06, 08:40 PM
#28
Legacy TMS Member
Join Date: February 22, 2004
Posts: 1,564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's see...where could Brad have gotten this information that would be reputable enough to post about.....
BC...Crazy,...anyone know where Brad has been the past few weeks? It MUST be someone he talked to in the last few weeks....
BC...Crazy,...anyone know where Brad has been the past few weeks? It MUST be someone he talked to in the last few weeks....
1/15/06, 09:10 PM
#29
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 1, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by max2000jp@January 15, 2006, 9:39 PM
The problem is that the new SAE rating system makes it nearly impossible to under-rate cars. Right now it's voluntary, but the Z06 and many other cars use this system.
http://www.sae.org/certifiedpower/details.htm
The problem is that the new SAE rating system makes it nearly impossible to under-rate cars. Right now it's voluntary, but the Z06 and many other cars use this system.
http://www.sae.org/certifiedpower/details.htm
new SAE or not, those are impressive gains. If the new SAE decreases those numbers, then it would decrease both the baseline and the result. The point is that those are monster numbers.
If Brad's source is liegit, which I can't imagine he would post if not, then this engine is going to blow even the KB terminators away with the stock blower. Throw a KB on this engine and all bets are off.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone boosts this thing into the 20+ lbs and ends up at 1000 hp...maybe
1/15/06, 10:42 PM
#31
Closet American
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by futuresvt@January 15, 2006, 9:13 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if someone boosts this thing into the 20+ lbs and ends up at 1000 hp...maybe
I wouldn't be surprised if someone boosts this thing into the 20+ lbs and ends up at 1000 hp...maybe
Well, maybe not quite.
1/15/06, 10:43 PM
#32
Closet American
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by MilStang@January 15, 2006, 8:43 PM
BC...Crazy,...anyone know where Brad has been the past few weeks? It MUST be someone he talked to in the last few weeks....
BC...Crazy,...anyone know where Brad has been the past few weeks? It MUST be someone he talked to in the last few weeks....
1/15/06, 11:05 PM
#33
Member
Join Date: November 22, 2005
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by max2000jp@January 15, 2006, 11:39 PM
The problem is that the new SAE rating system makes it nearly impossible to under-rate cars. Right now it's voluntary, but the Z06 and many other cars use this system.
http://www.sae.org/certifiedpower/details.htm
The problem is that the new SAE rating system makes it nearly impossible to under-rate cars. Right now it's voluntary, but the Z06 and many other cars use this system.
http://www.sae.org/certifiedpower/details.htm
Ford hasn't signed on to using the new system.
1/16/06, 12:42 AM
#34
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by futuresvt@January 15, 2006, 10:13 PM
dude, you are still missing the point, if 683 rwhp makes it 733 flywheel hp as someone mentioned, that's a 258 hp increase at the crank (assuming a 475 base). Here's my take on the point of Brad's post, though I could well be wrong, this is WITH MINIMAL MODS!!!!!!
new SAE or not, those are impressive gains. If the new SAE decreases those numbers, then it would decrease both the baseline and the result. The point is that those are monster numbers.
If Brad's source is liegit, which I can't imagine he would post if not, then this engine is going to blow even the KB terminators away with the stock blower. Throw a KB on this engine and all bets are off.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone boosts this thing into the 20+ lbs and ends up at 1000 hp...maybe
dude, you are still missing the point, if 683 rwhp makes it 733 flywheel hp as someone mentioned, that's a 258 hp increase at the crank (assuming a 475 base). Here's my take on the point of Brad's post, though I could well be wrong, this is WITH MINIMAL MODS!!!!!!
new SAE or not, those are impressive gains. If the new SAE decreases those numbers, then it would decrease both the baseline and the result. The point is that those are monster numbers.
If Brad's source is liegit, which I can't imagine he would post if not, then this engine is going to blow even the KB terminators away with the stock blower. Throw a KB on this engine and all bets are off.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone boosts this thing into the 20+ lbs and ends up at 1000 hp...maybe
When we the consumers and/or get the vehicles or , then we can verify the gains. I am not doubting that the engine will respond well to mod. That just sounds like a lofty gain from the listed mods. Another variable is how much boost was this done at and how reliable is it?
1/16/06, 02:11 AM
#35
Member
Join Date: November 22, 2005
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by max2000jp@January 16, 2006, 3:45 AM
When we the consumers and/or get the vehicles or , then we can verify the gains. I am not doubting that the engine will respond well to mod. That just sounds like a lofty gain from the listed mods. Another variable is how much boost was this done at and how reliable is it?
When we the consumers and/or get the vehicles or , then we can verify the gains. I am not doubting that the engine will respond well to mod. That just sounds like a lofty gain from the listed mods. Another variable is how much boost was this done at and how reliable is it?
That's because you have no idea what a forced induction 5.4 with GT heads can do. FWIW, the GT and GT500 have the same displacement, same heads, same static C/R, same cams or very near the same cams, and positive displacement blowers. Bottom ends are composed of diff. components, but as long as the C/R is the same the parts are irrelevant, they either handle the power or they don't.
Here's a link to a vid of an otherwise stock Ford GT with a 20psi pulley (making 635rw on a Mustang Dyno or over 675rw on a Dyno jet) smoking a 600aw HP STI.
As for the integrity of the shortblock. The iron non NVH blocks can handle 1400HP+, stock forged cranks again 1400HP or 8000rpm (any higher and you want to go billet as forged 5.4 cranks don't have center counterweight like the cast 4.6 cranks but unlike forged 4.6 cranks), Ford claims the rods to handle 750HP at the flywheel or surprise 638rw @ 15% DT loss, pistons are 2618 forged Al by Mahle meaning they'll handle much more than the crappy Zollners in the 03/04 Cobras whose skirts yield @ 550rw.
All in all it's not a bad package, I can't wait to rip it out and start all over again.
1/16/06, 02:46 AM
#36
Originally posted by Svtstinger+January 15, 2006, 3:52 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Svtstinger @ January 15, 2006, 3:52 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>638 rwhp, wow, are you serious brad? It's kind of hard to believe, but i'm sure it's true because you said it.
[/b]
[/b]
<!--QuoteBegin-Svtstinger@January 15, 2006, 4:11 PM
I'm positive it is, you have never failed us.
[/quote]
Loosen the suction buddy, you'll be ok
I on the other hand have a hard time believing it. It took the Stang community a while to figure out the recipe to get our Terminators over 500 at the wheels. I think that the GT500 will dyno at around 475-500rwhjp stock and with a pulley prob in the high 500s. That’s just my opinion though.
PS Andy, welcome to the board, this is my favorite site by far.
1/16/06, 06:52 AM
#37
Bullitt Member
Join Date: March 19, 2004
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, now THAT is almost surreal!!
I believe it! :worship: :worship:
Can I ask a question? How many #'s of boost were used to produce that? 18#? 19#? Will the stock internals take that?
I believe it! :worship: :worship:
Can I ask a question? How many #'s of boost were used to produce that? 18#? 19#? Will the stock internals take that?
1/16/06, 06:56 AM
#38
Legacy TMS Member
Join Date: February 22, 2004
Posts: 1,564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by BC_Shelby@January 15, 2006, 11:46 PM
Haven't heard anything. But imagine the possibilities...
Haven't heard anything. But imagine the possibilities...
1/16/06, 07:41 AM
#39
V6 Member
Join Date: December 10, 2004
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm...maybe he had dinner somewhere....
heh.I can easily believe this info. I cant imagine Brad getting this info from some dude who doesnt know what he's talking about. Considering the people he had dinner with, we have to assume for now that this is legit info. AND WHAT AWESOME INFO THAT IS!!!
