 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / May 2005The 05 Mustang V8
Hi Everyone, I was wondering if anyone had stats or specific facts on the new V8 I have heard some things about the motor being expectional but I wanted a better opinion. Does anyone recommend any sites for this? > Hi Everyone, > > I was wondering if anyone had stats or specific facts on the new V8 I > have heard some things about the motor being expectional but I wanted a > better opinion. Does anyone recommend any sites for this? Ford states 390 HP but that's a crock. It's geared screwy so after 4000 rpm it flattens out. >> I was wondering if anyone had stats or specific facts on the new V8 I >> have heard some things about the motor being expectional but I wanted a >> better opinion. Does anyone recommend any sites for this? >> > Ford states 390 HP but that's a crock. It's geared screwy so after 4000 > rpm it flattens out. 390?? Where did that figure come from? Its rated at 300 gross horsepower which in net is around 240 horses. I actually meant 300. Was thinking about the Terminator when I typed it. I state the same, 300 is a crock as well. > 390?? Where did that figure come from? Its rated at 300 gross horsepower > which in net is around 240 horses. Uh, no it IS rated at SAE Net Horsepower, 300.... SAE Net Torque rated at 320 lb-ft. Compare to the conservative 290 hp of the Boss 302 back in the gross hp days - I'd like to see the hp & torque curves overlayed on a graph... Rob >> 390?? Where did that figure come from? Its rated at 300 gross horsepower >> which in net is around 240 horses. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Rob Had the rare opportunity to race a Boss 302 with my 89 5.0, 5 speed LX. Both completely stock. My 89 had no problem with it. We went at it from a roll a number of times. The 89 is rated at 225 HP, but my completely stock 215 HP 87 could run away from it. And every knows the speed density 87's were junk:) Al > Had the rare opportunity to race a Boss 302 with my 89 5.0, 5 speed LX. Both > completely stock. My 89 had no problem with it. We went at it from a roll a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Al The operating envelope for the Boss 302 is too high for anything but a track. It's never been a good street car. Rob > Uh, no it IS rated at SAE Net Horsepower, 300.... SAE Net Torque rated at > 320 lb-ft. > > Compare to the conservative 290 hp of the Boss 302 back in the gross hp > days - I'd like to see the hp & torque curves overlayed on a graph... Are you sure? I read a magazine dyno test recently and it stated the horses were around 240 which equates to 300 gross power. The V6 could only muster 175 horses under the same dyno. Both numbers are no where near stated horses if they are indeed net and not gross rated numbers. Are the hp numbers you are referring to rear wheel hp numbers? The 300 hp that ford says is not rear wheel hp. > > Uh, no it IS rated at SAE Net Horsepower, 300.... SAE Net Torque rated at > > 320 lb-ft. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 175 horses under the same dyno. Both numbers are no where near stated horses > if they are indeed net and not gross rated numbers. > Are you sure? I read a magazine dyno > test recently and it stated the horses [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Both numbers are no where near stated horses > if they are indeed net and not gross rated numbers. Car manufacturers do not advertise gross horsepower. They do not advertise rearwheel horsepower. When you see an advertised horsepower figure for a production car, it is stated in terms of SAE net flywheel horsepower. This is not news. It has been this way since 1971. Magazines and the general public never test SAE net flywheel horsepower. When you dyno an engine with no accessories -- e.g., water pump, alternator, power steering pump, AC compressor -- you are pretty much testing according to the pre-'71 gross flywheel horsepower standard. When you dyno a car on a chassis dyno (Dyno Jet, etc.), you are testing rearwheel horsepower. It makes no sense to speak of gross or net rearwheel horsepower; the terms gross and net just do not apply to chassis dyno tests. As far as the '05 GT's advertised figure of 300 net flywheel horsepower, Car & Driver tested a 5-spd GT convertible in its June issue. Its quarter mile trap speed was 103 mph. (The ET was 13.7 sec.) The car weighed 3673. Plugging those numbers into the trap speed horsepower formula (hp = (trap speed/234)^3 * weight), a 103 mph trap speed would require 313 rear wheel hp. From the formula you can see that the hp number would go up if the stated weight of 3673 lb weight was too low; it would go down if the weight was too high. Applying a 20% drivetrain loss to 313 rwhp puts flywheel hp at 391. Applying a 15% loss gives you 368 flywheel hp. Who cares? A 13.7 @ 103 is a fantastic set of numbers for a $25,000 car. 180 Out > Are you sure? I read a magazine dyno > test recently and it stated the horses [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Both numbers are no where near stated horses > if they are indeed net and not gross rated numbers. Car manufacturers do not advertise gross horsepower. They do not advertise rearwheel horsepower. When you see an advertised horsepower figure for a production car, it is stated in terms of SAE net flywheel horsepower. This is not news. It has been this way since 1971. Magazines and the general public never test SAE net flywheel horsepower. When you dyno an engine with no accessories -- e.g., water pump, alternator, power steering pump, AC compressor -- you are pretty much testing according to the pre-'71 gross flywheel horsepower standard. When you dyno a car on a chassis dyno (Dyno Jet, etc.), you are testing rearwheel horsepower. It makes no sense to speak of gross or net rearwheel horsepower; the terms gross and net just do not apply to chassis dyno tests. As far as the '05 GT's advertised figure of 300 net flywheel horsepower, Car & Driver tested a 5-spd GT convertible in its June issue. Its quarter mile trap speed was 103 mph. (The ET was 13.7 sec.) The car weighed 3673. Plugging those numbers into the trap speed horsepower formula (hp = (trap speed/234)^3 * weight), a 103 mph trap speed would require 313 rear wheel hp. From the formula you can see that the hp number would go up if the stated weight of 3673 lb weight was too low; it would go down if the weight was too high. Applying a 20% drivetrain loss to 313 rwhp puts flywheel hp at 391. Applying a 15% loss gives you 368 flywheel hp. Who cares? A 13.7 @ 103 is a fantastic set of numbers for a $25,000 car. 180 Out > Ford states 390 HP but that's a crock. It's geared > screwy so after 4000 rpm it flattens out. It's 300hp, it's not a crock, and "geared screwy" is meaningless nonsense. - "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr. "God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did." -- George W. Bush "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." -- Adolf Hitler "The tsunami was a wonderful opportunity to show not just the US government, but the heart of the American people, and I think it has paid great dividends for us." Condoleezza Rice http://www.commondreams.org/ http://www.truthout.org/ http://thirdworldtraveler.com/ http://counterpunch.org/ http://responsiblewealth.org/ "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918) . |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.