Thread

05 Dyno vs. Mach 1 Dyno

 

whooptiedoo :blah:

 

DAMN!!











did we just flash back to 1995 when this was considerd awesome?

 

Maybe its just me, but I'm trying to figure out where a vehicle rated at 300hp, and putting 279 to the wheels.............. is considered a bad thing???

Damn, that is one efficient drivetrain. Only a 9.3% loss.

I bet there are alot of people that would be pretty tickled if their drivetrains only lost 9.3%. Dodge Ram owners with the Hemi being one of the (showing 25-30% loss).

Al, get over it. In 1995 you could go to your local Chevy dealership and write a check for a brand new shiny Camaro. Today you can't. You are just being pissy because GM hasn't even issued a breath about the Gen 5 Camaro.

Maybe some Midol???

BTW, Al........... nice dissertation on the problems of GM in the other thread. I am very proud of you. (yes, this is a real compliment)

 

Get over what? What is there to get over? I can wait for a 5th gen.

Sorry if Ford makes an engine that is up to mid 90's standards. Dont take your anger out at me. Between the already been done Mustang, and the death of the L, you seem to be the one that needs the Midol.

Dont forget to keep the faith.

 

Woo-hoo!

I will still be able to beat every stock Mustang I stray across.

The 5.0L are nicest ones to crush.

The 05's will be interesting to race for the first time.

 

Al, you gotta learn to take a joke man !!!! That big ol smiley after the midol comment was supposed to give you the hint.

You didn't even acknowledge that I gave you a compliment.

I love the new Mustang, to be honest. It is a true performance bargain, being that it is a completely redesigned car on its own unique platform. I would love a Vert, and that was one of my planned purchases in a couple of years. The old car was a good deal........... but not as much so when you figured it was on a 25 year old platform.

That said, as I have stated elsewhere, all new Ford purchases have been "postponed"................... the same as the Gen III Lightning.

BTW, do you really expect that a 2007/8/9 (whenever they may come out) V8 Camaro, with 350hp, that is a completely new vehicle, will be had for $22-25K???

 

i fail to see the problem with their dyno numbers? yes the lt1 MIGHT have made CLOSE to those numbers in 95 but they did it with just shy of 100 MORE cubic inches. but i guess any engine that doesnt put out LS1 numbers from smaller cubes is a POS isnt it? or is it that big blue oval on the front that somehow makes it bad?

 

Yes, cause I called it a big POS!! You got it big guy.

How about we read what I said. I said that the output of the 05 Mustang, a car that is hyped up more here then anywhere, is on par with a car that you could have had several years ago.
I did not say the 05 Mustang is a turd. I do not like its styling. Its interior, though retro, is very nice, worlds better then the POS interior of the last one. I do think that with every Mustang purchases, Ford should give a set of sunglasses because of that aluminum dash!!


And to Mrs94LGirl....
Do I think that the Camaro will be as cheap as an equivilent Mustang? Well...lets break it down.
The Mustang, normaly a car that is built from a mass-produced chassis, is now on a right now, Mustang only chassis, with a Mustang only engine...etc etc. Very much like the Fbodies of old.
The Camaro, a car that normaly had its own chassis and engines only shared with the Corvette, is now planned on going on Zeta, a chassis that is also set ot make several large mass-produced cars. It will use an engine that will now be used in cars and trucks(5.3 and 6.0) so it will be cheaper there. Chassis will be cheaper, parts bin will be massive, and will probably a much more performance driven sports coupe.
So do I think that the Camaro with 350hp will be equal in price to a Mustang with 350hp? Yes. But only in price, as the Camaro's set up will deffinatly own the Mustang.
.

 

What some of you don't understand is that a 300HP GT is breakthrough for M*stang people.

 

Seriously, ALL you ever do is criticize other people's comments. You rarely say anything positive. Do you need a hug, bro?

 

True.

 

Who cares how many cubic inches it has? What matters is external engine dimensions and weight and fuel efficiency. The reason why Ford is down 65 (not 100) cubic inches compared to an LS1 is because the Ford engine is very large for its displacement.

That said, the Ford engine runs on 87 octane. I think it's safe to say that if you put 87 octane in an LT1 or LS1, you won't get the same dyno numbers that have been posted up to now. My car pings a bit even with 91 octane, which is the best I can get. I'd hate to put 87 in the poor thing, but it would be nice to save 20 to 25 cents per gallon.

I think that 279hp from an 87 octane engine is pretty cool.

 

I'm having a hard time believing that is accurate, 279 rwhp running way pig rich?? Quite a bit of room left for improvement once it's not running rich as all hell. You'd think Ford would at least rate it up around 320hp too...

That's cool though, the more performance the stock Stangs get the better IMO... And that is a awesome jump from the previous, what 220rwhp GTs?

 

True...

Maybe I'm just being skeptical, and I am, because of the small drop in power to the wheels. I just don’t have that much faith in Ford. But to my question: Could that possibly be a bs dyno sheet? The tq curve is pretty close to the mach1's curve. For some reason, the first thing that came to my mind is that it could have just been two runs on the mach 1 with a better tune on the second one. I'm sure that I’m probably wrong though.