GT500's REAL Horsepower
1/18/06, 11:45 AM
#101
Originally posted by tricksixtyfive@January 18, 2006, 11:02 AM
All this talk doesn't men diddily to a cop who pulls you over for doing 110 and in cali thats reckless driving and a 6 month suspension if the judge feels like it.....
All this talk doesn't men diddily to a cop who pulls you over for doing 110 and in cali thats reckless driving and a 6 month suspension if the judge feels like it.....
1/18/06, 11:47 AM
#102
Originally posted by crazyhorse@January 18, 2006, 12:28 PM
I get 575.
489/.85=575.29
edit: I guess this deserves a few bananas
1 for each hundred hp (I couldn't do 3/4 one)
I get 575.
489/.85=575.29
edit: I guess this deserves a few bananas
1 for each hundred hp (I couldn't do 3/4 one)
489*1.15=562.35
1/18/06, 12:28 PM
#104
Member
Join Date: November 22, 2005
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Shifty@January 18, 2006, 1:01 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.
As for the rest of your "logic", ROFL, believe what you want
Evidently you don't remeber the results from testing the first rounds of LS1s back in '98. Chevy claimed to used a different cam and more restrictive exhaust in the F bodies vs. Vette. However, they put the exact same motor in the Vette (345HP) vs. the official 305 HP rating for the F-bodys. That's a 40 HP difference in a N/A application, 50HP is no big deal to hide with a tune (or not) on a forced induction motor.What exactly do you know about 5.4s, GT heads, and positive displacement blowers? Would it make any sense at all, amidst the greatest HP war the world has ever seen, for Ford to kick out a dud?
1/18/06, 12:34 PM
#105
Originally posted by crazyhorse@January 18, 2006, 12:55 PM
You should use 489/.85.
fwhp-15% is same as fwhp*.85
fwhp*.85=rwhp is same as fwhp=rwhp/.85
so 575 = 489/.85
You should use 489/.85.
fwhp-15% is same as fwhp*.85
fwhp*.85=rwhp is same as fwhp=rwhp/.85
so 575 = 489/.85
1/18/06, 12:38 PM
#106
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: December 19, 2004
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by crazyhorse@January 18, 2006, 12:55 PM
You should use 489/.85.
fwhp-15% is same as fwhp*.85
fwhp*.85=rwhp is same as fwhp=rwhp/.85
so 575 = 489/.85
You should use 489/.85.
fwhp-15% is same as fwhp*.85
fwhp*.85=rwhp is same as fwhp=rwhp/.85
so 575 = 489/.85
Not to **** in the wind, but I did it both ways and the math is not adding up. Of course it is only an estimation, so who cares, right? Is there an eighth grader around to do the math for us? 
1/18/06, 12:38 PM
#107
Member
Join Date: November 22, 2005
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by tricksixtyfive@January 18, 2006, 1:02 PM
All this talk doesn't men diddily to a cop who pulls you over for doing 110 and in cali thats reckless driving and a 6 month suspension if the judge feels like it.....
All this talk doesn't men diddily to a cop who pulls you over for doing 110 and in cali thats reckless driving and a 6 month suspension if the judge feels like it.....
Have jealously issues much? My bone stock F150 can hit 104 before the limiter cuts in. As long as the tires are rated for it, most vehicles can easily exceed that speed no problem.
1/18/06, 12:52 PM
#108
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
By the way, Kevin is right and I was wrong.
I googled and it seems the accepted way to determine drivetrain loss is to take accepted loss, subtract from 100% and divide rwhp by that number ...
So, 489 / .85 (assuming 15% drivetrain loss) = 575.
Also, the number could be higher or lower on drivetrain loss, so keep that in mind as well.
I googled and it seems the accepted way to determine drivetrain loss is to take accepted loss, subtract from 100% and divide rwhp by that number ...
So, 489 / .85 (assuming 15% drivetrain loss) = 575.
Also, the number could be higher or lower on drivetrain loss, so keep that in mind as well.
1/18/06, 01:08 PM
#109
Team Mustang Source
It doesn't really matter as Scothew said. The difference will probably not be that noticeable. At least not by the seat of our pants. Both are monster numbers. Holy Poo, this car is gonna be fast.
1/18/06, 01:20 PM
#110
Legacy TMS Member
Originally posted by wsmatau@January 18, 2006, 1:41 PM
Not to **** in the wind, but I did it both ways and the math is not adding up. Of course it is only an estimation, so who cares, right? Is there an eighth grader around to do the math for us?
Not to **** in the wind, but I did it both ways and the math is not adding up. Of course it is only an estimation, so who cares, right? Is there an eighth grader around to do the math for us?
1/18/06, 01:48 PM
#111
Cam Tease
Join Date: September 30, 2004
Posts: 1,378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This really is good stuff, there is no way Chevy or Chrysler are going to touch this.
(unless they drop the C/Rs of their engines, forge internals, and go the forced induction route as well--but for some reason that strikes me as unlikely.)
And even though these are pre-production, non-emissions tested cars, the hardware is there. Getting the numbers you want won't be hard.
(unless they drop the C/Rs of their engines, forge internals, and go the forced induction route as well--but for some reason that strikes me as unlikely.)
And even though these are pre-production, non-emissions tested cars, the hardware is there. Getting the numbers you want won't be hard.
1/18/06, 01:54 PM
#112
Bullitt Member
Join Date: February 26, 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by AnotherMustangMan@January 18, 2006, 3:51 PM
This really is good stuff, there is no way Chevy or Chrysler are going to touch this.
(unless they drop the C/Rs of their engines, forge internals, and go the forced induction route as well--but for some reason that strikes me as unlikely.)
And even though these are pre-production, non-emissions tested cars, the hardware is there. Getting the numbers you want won't be hard.
This really is good stuff, there is no way Chevy or Chrysler are going to touch this.
(unless they drop the C/Rs of their engines, forge internals, and go the forced induction route as well--but for some reason that strikes me as unlikely.)
And even though these are pre-production, non-emissions tested cars, the hardware is there. Getting the numbers you want won't be hard.
1/18/06, 02:05 PM
#113
Team Mustang Source
Originally posted by CatmanJJ@January 18, 2006, 3:57 PM
All speculation but not to mention that the new concepts from Chrysler and GM see to be the same if not heavier at (@ 4000 lbs) then the new GT500 coming out. Then again imagine a 427 Camaro SS, the rumored 6.4 (I think it is) Hemi Challenger and GT500 going at it.
All speculation but not to mention that the new concepts from Chrysler and GM see to be the same if not heavier at (@ 4000 lbs) then the new GT500 coming out. Then again imagine a 427 Camaro SS, the rumored 6.4 (I think it is) Hemi Challenger and GT500 going at it.
1/18/06, 02:22 PM
#114
Member
Join Date: November 22, 2005
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by AnotherMustangMan@January 18, 2006, 4:51 PM
This really is good stuff, there is no way Chevy or Chrysler are going to touch this.
(unless they drop the C/Rs of their engines, forge internals, and go the forced induction route as well--but for some reason that strikes me as unlikely.)
And even though these are pre-production, non-emissions tested cars, the hardware is there. Getting the numbers you want won't be hard.
This really is good stuff, there is no way Chevy or Chrysler are going to touch this.
(unless they drop the C/Rs of their engines, forge internals, and go the forced induction route as well--but for some reason that strikes me as unlikely.)
And even though these are pre-production, non-emissions tested cars, the hardware is there. Getting the numbers you want won't be hard.
1/18/06, 02:49 PM
#115
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: December 19, 2004
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by TomServo92@January 18, 2006, 2:23 PM
I used a calculator and 489/0.85 = 575. I'm not sure how you're getting that one wrong.... :scratch:
I used a calculator and 489/0.85 = 575. I'm not sure how you're getting that one wrong.... :scratch:
1/18/06, 04:29 PM
#117
Cobra Member
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by wsmatau@January 18, 2006, 4:52 PM
Yes, I understand, and got the same number. But if you perform the function in reverse (1.15 x 489 = 562). I was just asking what we are doing wrong because multiplication should not be effected by reversing the function (85 % of 575 is 489 but 115% of 489 is 562). Why is it I can do calculus but fifth grade multiplication is throwing me for a loop. Too many years out of the classroom I guess. :scratch:
Yes, I understand, and got the same number. But if you perform the function in reverse (1.15 x 489 = 562). I was just asking what we are doing wrong because multiplication should not be effected by reversing the function (85 % of 575 is 489 but 115% of 489 is 562). Why is it I can do calculus but fifth grade multiplication is throwing me for a loop. Too many years out of the classroom I guess. :scratch:
You're not performing the calc in reverse when you calc 1.15 * 489. The reverse would be (1/.85)*489, which is about 1.1765 * 489, or approximately 575.
1/18/06, 04:59 PM
#118
Legacy TMS Member
Originally posted by HastaLaVista@January 18, 2006, 5:32 PM
Because when you calc 1.15 * 489 you're asking what is 115% of 489. When you do 489/.85 you're calculating what 489 is 85% of. Two different questions, two different answers. For example 80/.80 is 100, but 80*1.20 is 96.
You're not performing the calc in reverse when you calc 1.15 * 489. The reverse would be (1/.85)*489, which is about 1.1765 * 489, or approximately 575.
Because when you calc 1.15 * 489 you're asking what is 115% of 489. When you do 489/.85 you're calculating what 489 is 85% of. Two different questions, two different answers. For example 80/.80 is 100, but 80*1.20 is 96.
You're not performing the calc in reverse when you calc 1.15 * 489. The reverse would be (1/.85)*489, which is about 1.1765 * 489, or approximately 575.
1/18/06, 06:06 PM
#119
GT Member
Join Date: July 30, 2004
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anybody have any idea if these sorts of numbers are in/out of gas guzzler/tax territory? Cause I am now ready to finally say goodbye to my SNAKE... 
Dear FORD, may I have it sooner if you keep the stripes? 
Dear FORD, may I have it sooner if you keep the stripes?
1/18/06, 06:43 PM
#120
Member
Join Date: December 31, 2005
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by JETSOLVER@January 18, 2006, 9:09 PM
Does anybody have any idea if these sorts of numbers are in/out of gas guzzler/tax territory? Cause I am now ready to finally say goodbye to my SNAKE... Dear FORD, may I have it sooner if you keep the stripes?
Does anybody have any idea if these sorts of numbers are in/out of gas guzzler/tax territory? Cause I am now ready to finally say goodbye to my SNAKE...
Dear FORD, may I have it sooner if you keep the stripes? The gas guzzler tax is not a function of HP but a combination of gas mileage. It a complicated formula that takes into account city mileage and highway mileage, and the airspeed of an unladed sparrow heading north in a southbound wind.