the new ls2 corvettes are rated at a stock 400 plus, natural induction. last i checked, ford has to supercharge the 4.6 to make 410 hp. seem strange to anyone else?

 

Why is it strange?

 

Because I'm sure he's using some kind of backwards logic to reason that the lower output LS2 is better than the supercharged 4.6.

 

Can you point me to an authoritative source for this? Someone or some place that has done the research necessary to come to such conclusion?

Thanks.

 

15% or 20% - either way it's just a rule of thumb, neither # is dead nuts accurate with every auto vehicle. But the gist in this case is it's in the 300 ballpark at the engine which matches the factory claims.

That's just my opinion, anyway. I'm not going to try to say anyone's right or wrong since neither number is provable with the Mustang without some real testing.

 

No. GT's have ben weak for quite some time now.

 

It's funny how ford owners get their panties in a wad when someone on a GM board takes a crack at the Mustang. "liek omgwtf, at lest our car is still being made!11"

It's like it's blasphemy or something. God forbid someone on a GM board talk negative about a Mustang.

 

Some of us just like making fun of Little Big Al. He's so predictable.

 

Can't say I've noticed anywhere near the kind of behavior you guys mention. sure, mustang fans and owners may stand up for the car when its being picked on, but not the point of being fanatics.
and all those comments about "awleast the mustangs still being made"? those are just us getting our chance at a little **** talkin in before the LS2 5g comes out. cmon, man. give us a break, not like we get to win much*....




except cobras...they ARE teh R0x0r.

 

Bwah, the engine only has 700 miles on the odometer...give it another 6700 and then we'll have a more accurate #... (coming from an anti-Mustang guy)
Probably not...anything to help out the good ol' post count

 

HAhahaha

There is a big difference you know.

You see, that guy with the 13.2 run supposedly was an 18 year old engineer who ran a 13.2 out of his GT. He only had 7 posts and had no proof of anything.

This one on the other hand has pictures and a dyno chart.

BIG difference.

 

Jeffy, over at the now defunct SLP engineering board calculated the 13% drivetrain loss for F-body Manuals and 15% for A4's. He was/is an SLP engineer at the Troy office where they did testing on both types of cars. Maybe Ford's drivelines aren't as efficient, but with CAFE standards they can't be that much different.

 

Thanks for the info. Can you point me to the reference? I'd like to read it for myself.

What does Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) have to do with drivetrain loss %?

As for drivetrains....the 3650 is a similar is similar in design to the T56 (3 rail, but 5 speeds vice 6), but is lighter-duty and lighter overall. It would thus stand to reason that it is slightly more efficient (how much is debatable).

Ford A4s are notorious for sucking up power. However, I cannot say what the new A5 is like. There is no data that I know of. That is one reason that a set percentage, such as you gave, is a WAG, at best.

 

I don't think there is such a source outside race shops.

Different drivetrains do have differing effects on rearwheel horsepower but to assume there's a reliable percentage multiplier across the board? No. Drivetrain is a lot more than transmission and rear axle/transaxle...

The venerable Ford 9 inch diff requires more horsepower than a GM 12 bolt to operate, for instance. Both are different designs, both clearly parts of live axle deals, but neither have a thing to do with what transmission is ahead of them. Each have a power loss vs. durability tradeoff. Not all manuals nor automatics require the same, thus predictible on type alone, to "drive" them.

The least practical, but most accurate way to determine drivetrain loss, is flywheel the engine out of the car, and chassis dyno once it's in. Yes, I realize I state the obvious. Even at that it isn't the total answer to rating a package. HP/Torque and the gearing to maximize, coupled with power to weight and toss in vehicle vehicle dynamics is not so obvious however, it does get a bit closer to the "truth". Still that isn't enough unless you are bench racing. When bench racing it's all fair game and all utterly useless.

In the end it isn't how the numbers look on any dyno, but rather how it runs with the DRIVER in it. Bottom line is: if it's YOUR car. . . how good is it with YOU in it?

Not telling you anything you don't already know Bob.

When people ask me what mods they should do first to increase their car's performance I say: " A high performance driving school and lots of seat time".

 

Yeah the GN was ahead of its time, but you also have to remember the base price of an LT1 f-body in 93 was less than what it cost to pick up a GN in '87. I always thought the GN's target was the corvette anyways(and the ZR1 put it in its place in '90 )

Who paid $28-29k for a Z28? Possibly an SS, but there were so many rebates and discounts offered you could pick up a base Z28 at times for under $20k new. My sisters boyfriend picked a new fully loaded '99 Z28(leather, t-tops, tint, T56, etc.) in early 2000 for only $23k. Not to mention the original owner of my car picked it up new for under $19k back in '94(T-tops, Bose, tint, 6-speed).