GT500's REAL Horsepower
1/17/06, 04:13 PM
#82
Member
Join Date: May 1, 2005
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by wsmatau+January 17, 2006, 11:37 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wsmatau @ January 17, 2006, 11:37 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>I'm impressed. However I'm of the school that anything over 500HP is pretty useless on the street and I've read that many people consider 600+ HP dangerous in a stick shift car. I don't think I'll even look at a Shelby because I'd probably end up buying one if I did...lol. I'll stick with my Stang GT until we see a production SE, or I get my doors blown off by a Shelby.[/b]
( Only for to complement )
Possibly many persons were asking the same thing :
Where this class of power is going to go ?
You did know that the platform of the S197 ( 7,500 lb-ft ) is 3 times more rigid than a SN95 ?
<!--QuoteBegin-Fourcam330@January 17, 2006, 12:16 PM
It really depends on the chassis and suspension of the car in question but until the S197s the "safe limit" for a street Mustang was right around 600rw. Add much more power and it's going to be spin city unless you're talking about a lower comp. cent. blower setup--they tend to not hit as hard when coming into boost.
As for the GT500 with the new chassis, factory 3 link, and extra weight, the type of power accessible with "BPU" mods shouldn't be hard to put to the ground; assuming of course, sticky meats.
There are plenty of 500rw+ stick cars out there with healthy drivers
[/quote]
MustangMonthly : Best Mods the 05-06 Mustang S197
From the factory , the '05 GT is the best-handling Mustang ever, with a chassis that boasts a torsional rigidity of 7,500 lb-ft , some three times stiffer than the previous SN-95 Mustang.
"A stock '05 convertible is stiffer than a Fox-body Mustang with a full roll cage,"
MustangMonthly.Steeda
Regards.
1/17/06, 06:35 PM
#83
Bullitt Member
Join Date: March 19, 2004
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Fourcam330@January 17, 2006, 4:50 PM
Just wanted to add that I've just confirmed through another reputable source that ~600rw is where you want to keep the stock motor because of the rods.
Just wanted to add that I've just confirmed through another reputable source that ~600rw is where you want to keep the stock motor because of the rods.
BTW, welcome!
In all the flipping excitement, I forgot to say that, Fourcam!
1/17/06, 09:19 PM
#84
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: December 19, 2004
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by TigerGt@January 17, 2006, 5:16 PM
( Only for to complement )
Possibly many persons were asking the same thing :
Where this class of power is going to go ?
You did know that the platform of the S197 ( 7,500 lb-ft ) is 3 times more rigid than a SN95 ?
MustangMonthly : Best Mods the 05-06 Mustang S197
From the factory , the '05 GT is the best-handling Mustang ever, with a chassis that boasts a torsional rigidity of 7,500 lb-ft , some three times stiffer than the previous SN-95 Mustang.
"A stock '05 convertible is stiffer than a Fox-body Mustang with a full roll cage,"
MustangMonthly.Steeda
Regards.
( Only for to complement )
Possibly many persons were asking the same thing :
Where this class of power is going to go ?
You did know that the platform of the S197 ( 7,500 lb-ft ) is 3 times more rigid than a SN95 ?
MustangMonthly : Best Mods the 05-06 Mustang S197
From the factory , the '05 GT is the best-handling Mustang ever, with a chassis that boasts a torsional rigidity of 7,500 lb-ft , some three times stiffer than the previous SN-95 Mustang.
"A stock '05 convertible is stiffer than a Fox-body Mustang with a full roll cage,"
MustangMonthly.Steeda
Regards.
WTF? :scratch: Can anyone translate this for me please?
1/17/06, 09:58 PM
#85
Bullitt Member
Join Date: April 18, 2005
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Fourcam330@January 16, 2006, 8:16 PM
Do the math. GT and GT500 have the same displacement, same heads, same static C/R, same cams or very near the same cams, and surprise, a positive displacement blower. Blocks and internals either handle the power or they don't. What were those people thinking? All the power changing variables are constant.
More regarding cams...I wouldn't just assume the cams in the GT500 are really "that" different than GT cams when it comes to actual lift/duration (LSA doesn't mean poo on 4Vs) specs. The difference in redline between the two motors is 250rpm even with the less efficient roots blower. If anything I'd expect the GT500 cams, if not absolutely identical to GT specs despite what Ford tells us, have something like 10 deg. less duration with GT lift on the intake side and true GT exhaust cams. This would slightly lower the powerband, rpm wise, to help with the extra mass. Ford's did this previously in the 03/04 Cobras with 2.66 first gear and lots of extra weight vs. the 3.2X using N/A '01. The blown snakes had 10 deg (184 v 194) less intake duration @ .050 than 96-01 Cobras, with the same exhaust cams.
Finally the link you provided has some relevance, but then again, it's an otherwise stock (choked up) motor with just a pulley/tune.
~640rw is absolutely nothing compared to what you're going to see when 2.4L twin screws become available. In either case the blower is the real restriction.
Do the math. GT and GT500 have the same displacement, same heads, same static C/R, same cams or very near the same cams, and surprise, a positive displacement blower. Blocks and internals either handle the power or they don't. What were those people thinking? All the power changing variables are constant.
More regarding cams...I wouldn't just assume the cams in the GT500 are really "that" different than GT cams when it comes to actual lift/duration (LSA doesn't mean poo on 4Vs) specs. The difference in redline between the two motors is 250rpm even with the less efficient roots blower. If anything I'd expect the GT500 cams, if not absolutely identical to GT specs despite what Ford tells us, have something like 10 deg. less duration with GT lift on the intake side and true GT exhaust cams. This would slightly lower the powerband, rpm wise, to help with the extra mass. Ford's did this previously in the 03/04 Cobras with 2.66 first gear and lots of extra weight vs. the 3.2X using N/A '01. The blown snakes had 10 deg (184 v 194) less intake duration @ .050 than 96-01 Cobras, with the same exhaust cams.
Finally the link you provided has some relevance, but then again, it's an otherwise stock (choked up) motor with just a pulley/tune.
~640rw is absolutely nothing compared to what you're going to see when 2.4L twin screws become available. In either case the blower is the real restriction.
The blowers are different and I'm fairly sure the heads are not the same. There's no way the "same motor" can both be rated at 450hp and 500hp (although most GT motors make about 600 stock). I think somone has just made the assumption of GT500 = GT. They are not the same motor.
1/18/06, 05:07 AM
#86
Team Mustang Source
Originally posted by Shifty@January 18, 2006, 12:01 AM
The blowers are different and I'm fairly sure the heads are not the same. There's no way the "same motor" can both be rated at 450hp and 500hp (although most GT motors make about 600 stock). I think somone has just made the assumption of GT500 = GT. They are not the same motor.
The blowers are different and I'm fairly sure the heads are not the same. There's no way the "same motor" can both be rated at 450hp and 500hp (although most GT motors make about 600 stock). I think somone has just made the assumption of GT500 = GT. They are not the same motor.
The bottom line is, this motor may not be the Ford GT motor, but, it is not far behind and has the potential to be brought up to speed with simple bolt-ons.
Brad would not have posted this if he didn't get it from somewhere reliable. I'm guessing from one of his aftermarket friends that may have had access to the car already and tinkered with the bolt-ons. The point of comparing the Ford GT motor is to back up this claim with a proven motor that is within a peach fuzz of the same specs.
1/18/06, 07:02 AM
#87
Cobra Member
Join Date: September 10, 2004
Location: Charlotte NC
Posts: 1,302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless, 600 + RWHP is a VERY stout number. Back when the 5.0's were all the rage, it took a seriously built blown 5.0 to make that kind of number plus the reliability was suspect with a stock block. This should be one wild ride!! 
1/18/06, 08:03 AM
#88
Originally posted by MustangFanatic@January 18, 2006, 9:05 AM
Regardless, 600 + RWHP is a VERY stout number. Back when the 5.0's were all the rage, it took a seriously built blown 5.0 to make that kind of number plus the reliability was suspect with a stock block. This should be one wild ride!!
Regardless, 600 + RWHP is a VERY stout number. Back when the 5.0's were all the rage, it took a seriously built blown 5.0 to make that kind of number plus the reliability was suspect with a stock block. This should be one wild ride!!
the rigidity of the S197 is better than previous gens. According to Ford, the damping and bushing rates are tuned to be 30% stiffer than the one it replaces.....
it is purpose built to take the street - turn and stops - better than previous -- and 52 / 48 weight dist. means better balance and grip to the road.....
Fourcam330 - great info ! thanks
welcome to TMS !!
that Shelby is gonna kick hiney ----- it's platform is little changed from the S197 as the Engineers planned the S197 knowing there would be possible future generations of Mustangs and maybe the Shelby ----
the torsional rigidity of the S197 platform is a blast to drive and is straight as heck upon launch ---- and i run it every chance i get !! ---- hook up is complete and immediate......
1/18/06, 09:43 AM
#90
Bullitt Member
Join Date: March 19, 2004
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by TheMustangSource@January 18, 2006, 9:49 AM
A stock GT500 dynoed at 489 rwhp.
A stock GT500 dynoed at 489 rwhp.
:worship: 
1/18/06, 10:00 AM
#94
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: December 19, 2004
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by TheMustangSource@January 18, 2006, 11:01 AM
Keep in mind that these cars haven't gone through final emissions testing yet.
Keep in mind that these cars haven't gone through final emissions testing yet.
1/18/06, 10:58 AM
#95
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 1, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Fourcam330@January 17, 2006, 4:50 PM
Just wanted to add that I've just confirmed through another reputable source that ~600rw is where you want to keep the stock motor because of the rods.
Just wanted to add that I've just confirmed through another reputable source that ~600rw is where you want to keep the stock motor because of the rods.
In other words, it looks like it may be possible to hit the wall so to speak, on very nearly basic bolt-ons.
That means no blower swaps w/out changing internals???
1/18/06, 11:10 AM
#97
Team Mustang Source
Originally posted by TheMustangSource@January 18, 2006, 10:49 AM
A stock GT500 dynoed at 489 rwhp.
A stock GT500 dynoed at 489 rwhp.
:bowdown:
1/18/06, 11:25 AM
#98
Team Mustang Source
Originally posted by JeffreyDJ@January 18, 2006, 11:56 AM
~562 with 15% drivetrain loss.
~562 with 15% drivetrain loss.
489/.85=575.29
edit: I guess this deserves a few bananas
1 for each hundred hp (I couldn't do 3/4 one)
1/18/06, 11:43 AM
#100
Team Mustang Source
Originally posted by max2000jp@January 18, 2006, 1:33 PM
Guys don't get too excited yet. These are pre-production vehicles.
Guys don't get too excited yet. These are pre-production vehicles.
"Clean up, Aisle 5"