This subject was brought up in another thread, and I came across this while doing research for other information. Thought I'd post it here.

In short, both Edmunds as well as Motor Trend put the new 5.0 on dynos. Other's have as well and came up with similar numbers, but these 2 are respected so I'll stick with them.

Edmunds tested a preproduction 5.0 GT and got 395hp and 365 lbs/ft at the rear wheels. Using a 10-13% powertrain loss, that put that GT engine between 440 and 445 horsepower.


Motor Trend tested a production GT on the dyno and got 378hp 351 lbs/ft (17 off from Edmund's preproduction car. With Edmunds's estimate of a 10% loss, that's 417 hp. With Motor Trends 15% estimate that's about 437hp.

(since I know you're wondering, LS3 Camaros dyno around 374hp at the wheels and 370 lbs/ft at the rear wheels)

Split the difference, and that puts the GT's output at about 427 horsepower (where most estimates of actual horsepower seem to be).

Article I'm linking below suggests that the GT is making between 440 and 445 horsepower, however I doubt it's that high.

Being that the Camaro SS' actual output is about 430 horsepower, the new Mustang GT 5.0's horsepower is actually about 435....Quite a bit away from that 412hp rating I'd say.

While the new 5.0 outpowers the LS3 in horsepower, there really is no replacement for displacement, and the GM 6.2 soundly out torques the smaller 5.0.

Very necessary to get the much heavier Camaro moving from a stop at nearly the same pace.

However, Mustang GTs have no where near the top speed of Camaros. Ford governs Mustangs to relatively low artificial top speeds due to the comparatively featherweight Mustang's tendancy to become a handful at extremely high speeds.

BTW,
The Mustang V6 makes 267 putting it at 308.
The Camaro's V6 typically puts out a hair over 270 putting it at just under 315.

http://www.muscularmustangs.com/2010..._dyno_test.php

http://wot.motortrend.com/6659607/au...v-6/index.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qqzgyy3jBE

 

Thats cool, did Ford ever mention the SAE testing procedure they used?

I'd really like to see the 5.0 independantly tested on an engine dyno myself, but whenever it happens in a magazine its usually with a set of dyno headers and after market engine controller

The engines aren't priced bad from Ford @ 7k and HP/$ wise coming in cheaper than thier pushrod engines (except the 340hp 302 using a reconditioned block)

I wonder how the 5.0 would do carbed and the phasers locked out? I suspect it would lose a fair bit of torque down low? The 5.0's intake ports are pretty much a straight shot, great for airflow but not so much for maintianing a homogenous fuel mixture at low speeds (where things like tumble and swirl are more favorable). If ever they do, I'll take mine with a nice IR intake and quartet of carbs

 

Ehh...based on numbers I've seen on the net, I'd say 420-425 is more realistic, though I'm not going to post links to the numerous runs I've seen.

 

Old news from a few months back, some people were complaining about the gear they dyno'd in since the Mustang I believe has a 1.1 5th gear and some of the dyno's were in 4th gear which is slightly higher distorting the results. Others were complaing about this, i don't know enough about dynos to tell, 1/4 mile times don't lie though. Although the LS3 makes more torque the Coyote makes a lot of power and torque across the entire rev range. A BMW M3 might make less torque than an LS3 but it will whip one in a drag race.

 

DSG FTW One of these days when I care to, I'll have to check out the difference between the DSG and M6( are they still M6??) times.

 

If the 5.0L is making MORE power than the LS3, why are the results typically so even (and in the mag tests I've seen, actually favoring the Camaro) given the Mustang's 250 lb weight advantage AND better gearing?



I know there is more to the story than peak hp, but still...

 

we just had a 5.0L on a dynojet here for a dyno day. it had a catback and intake. I think he had a handheld tuner but I am not 100% positive.


(click for bigger picture)

haven't had an LS3 camaro on the dyno yet.

extrapolating flywheel hp from rwhp is shady IMO. there are so many pieces that can eat more or less power than eachother.

 

Yeah I've pretty much given up on Dyno numbers, I like how Car and Driver posts the 5-60 rolling start times, that number generally tells me everything I need to know about a car. A ton of cars are great 0-60 but then when they do the rolling start tests the motors don't have anything down low and the times are pretty bad. I remember the Honda S2000 times were in the mid 7 second range and about the same for the RX8.

 

The Mustang GT makes more horsepower, but the bigger engined LS3 makes more torque. Enough torque to make up for alot of the Camaro's weight disadvantage in acceleration.


You point out correctly that most tests of the two cars seem to be inconclusive, with the Mustang GT either matching or edging out the Camaro SS (depending on who's testing).

The issue boils down to the person shifting the Mustang.

The Camaro's lower gearing has an advantage that somewhat counters Mustang's aggressive gears.

If you look at most acceleration comparison tests between the 2 you will notice 2 very intresting things:

1. When the Mustang gets to a shift point, the Camaro moves ahead.

2. Once the Mustang shifts to it's next gear, it quickly catches (and even in some instances edges out) the Camaro.... until it's time to shift again.

However, when speeds start getting near ultra autobaun levels, higher gearing keeps the SS accelerating while the lower geared Mustang begins to run out of grunt (though probably not until well over 155.... if it wasn't goverened to 145mph).

More evidence of the importance of who's shifting the Mustang, one needs only to look at the results at both Car & Driver and Motor Trend Magazines.

The Mustang clearly won over Camaro in MT (Mustang ran a 4.4 0-60 time and a 12.7 111mph quarter), at C&D the cars were close to even (4.6 0-60 for both and a 13.2 quarter at 109 for the GT) .

If you think that MT's time in the Mustang GT was a fluke, consider that a later test of a different GT (against a BMW M3) was just as identical (though this one did a whisker under 112mph in the quarter). Road and Track could only match Car & Driver's times.

Now, consider in all of this, the Camaro SS ran almost identical times (no more than 0.1 secs variation at identical speeds) in all 3 magazines. 4.6 to 60 and 13.1@ 110.

Camaro does 0-60 in 2nd gear.
The Mustang's shifting into 3rd at 60.

Camaro does the quarter at the end of 3rd gear.
Mustang GT's about to shift into 5th.

 

Here is a comparison of the two. While the peaks may be the same, the LS3 is better in both HP and TQ most of the powerband by a pretty large margin.

Note the Mustang dyno is VERY similar to the one posted above by another member..complete with the little VVT hotch at 4500 RPM.

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97505

 

Bottom line, whatever the peak number happens to be, the Camaro clearly makes more average horsepower across the usable rev band.

BTW, guionM, I think you meant the Camaro's TALLER gearing. But yes, since the Mustang offers more than one axle ratio, the number of shifts does come into play. Regardless of gearing, however, trap speeds for the two seem to be right on top of each other, despite the Camaro's weight disadvantage.

Also, FWIW, Road and Track drove the Camaro to a 12.9 @ 110.2 in one of their 2010 Camaro tests (a comparison / cross country drive including the SS, the 4.6L 3V 2010 GT, and a Challenger R/T).

The 5.0L is an impressive engine, there is no doubt. But I think I'd still rather have the LS3... (especially in a ~3300 lb Grand Sport droptop ).

 

Eh, the 5.0L is a great engine and one that I wouldn't mind owning. Likewise the LS3 is a great engine that I wouldn't mind owning. They are very different, and while the LS3 is SAE certified, the 5.0L isn't...

As far as speculating about the power output, chassis dynos are such a poor method of trying to determine the actual output of a motor. Besides that fact that there is not a simple way to calculate the drivetrain loss, there is error in the measurement of power at the wheels, which is not routinely published or accounted for and not propagated when people start speculating about the crank horsepower for their bragging rights. This is something everybody does, so I am not trying to single out Mustang enthusiasts at all. I guess if anything I am singling out dyno racers.