Ford GT official HP #s
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 293
From: Hou,TX
Originally posted by uluz28
I agree with you about the acceleration of the vehicles. Again, I am talking about the "parity" of the motors. Are you telling me that if both motors were strapped to an engine dyno, they would produce the same HP/TQ? The LS1 has a DAMN GOOD usable RPM range as well...
I agree with you about the acceleration of the vehicles. Again, I am talking about the "parity" of the motors. Are you telling me that if both motors were strapped to an engine dyno, they would produce the same HP/TQ? The LS1 has a DAMN GOOD usable RPM range as well...
No not at all. The LS1 would dyno a higher torque and hp curve, but the 4.6 would extend the hp curve out farther.
In fact, I'd be willing to bet the total area under the hp curve is about the same.
So one engine has a higher gain and the other a higher bandwidth. But the gain-bandwidth product is the same.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 147
From: Atlanta, GA
Of course you use your own statistically insignificant numbers to calculate variance of my numbers. Let's see, your sample size on the Cobra is 2. And the Lightning is 1. Not to mention they're low. It seems you simply don't accept that Cobras dyno mid 360s average and that Lightnings dyno mid 340s average. Our friend Snor has provided you a link below.
We all believe what we want.
I don't know what you're arguing on the Ford GT. They rated it 500 and then uprated it to 550, meaning it was at LEAST 50hp underrated to start with.
I'm not debating the '05 GT either.
So not using YOUR 3 eyewitness samples RWHP but an average rw dynos from many members, I only overrated the Mach1 by about 7hp and the Z06 by 8hp. But you didn't argue the Z06 numbers, because it makes Chevy look good.
We all believe what we want.
I don't know what you're arguing on the Ford GT. They rated it 500 and then uprated it to 550, meaning it was at LEAST 50hp underrated to start with.
I'm not debating the '05 GT either.
So not using YOUR 3 eyewitness samples RWHP but an average rw dynos from many members, I only overrated the Mach1 by about 7hp and the Z06 by 8hp. But you didn't argue the Z06 numbers, because it makes Chevy look good.
Here's a little food for thought....my dyno graph:
http://www.ermca.com/gallery/Rich-Ba...S/Camaro_Dyno1
Mods include an air lid and exhaust. What are the 4.6's putting down with a CAI and exhaust?
-Rich
Registered User
Joined: Jul 1998
Posts: 253
From: New Jersey
INTENSS,
As a note, your dyno numbers are STD, not SAE.
SAE would be about 4% lower than STD correction.
STD corrects to 29.92 in/hg and 68°F, while SAE corrects to 29.23 in/hg. and 77°F.
I'd guess SAE numbers would be in the low-320's, still nice numbers nonetheless.
S.
As a note, your dyno numbers are STD, not SAE.
SAE would be about 4% lower than STD correction.
STD corrects to 29.92 in/hg and 68°F, while SAE corrects to 29.23 in/hg. and 77°F.
I'd guess SAE numbers would be in the low-320's, still nice numbers nonetheless.
S.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,178
From: Payson, AZ USA
LOL at all the argueing. 
Coming from the Lightning community, if a stock '02 is only putting 333 to the wheels, it needs to go to Ford to find out what is wrong. Those are '99-00 numbers.
While we had no stock dyno, we recently dyno'd our '01 with 58,000 miles. The ONLY mod was a 4lb pulley. We pulled 366.5rwhp, and 461rwtq+. The pulley is said to give 18hp and 40lb ft of torque.
Anyway, every dyno is different. As sad as that is to say, they can really only be compared to other of the same vehicle on the same dyno. The way around this is to have a larger pool of owners showing dyno's from different places. This does allow an average to be obtained. The higher the number of participants, the more accurate the average.
I could take my L to 2 different dynojets in Mesa on the same day and get 2 different results.
On a side note............. boy is that blower loud with the hood up and the 4lb pulley!!!!
Coming from the Lightning community, if a stock '02 is only putting 333 to the wheels, it needs to go to Ford to find out what is wrong. Those are '99-00 numbers.
While we had no stock dyno, we recently dyno'd our '01 with 58,000 miles. The ONLY mod was a 4lb pulley. We pulled 366.5rwhp, and 461rwtq+. The pulley is said to give 18hp and 40lb ft of torque.
Anyway, every dyno is different. As sad as that is to say, they can really only be compared to other of the same vehicle on the same dyno. The way around this is to have a larger pool of owners showing dyno's from different places. This does allow an average to be obtained. The higher the number of participants, the more accurate the average.
I could take my L to 2 different dynojets in Mesa on the same day and get 2 different results.
On a side note............. boy is that blower loud with the hood up and the 4lb pulley!!!!
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,313
And the rumored numbers keep getting higher and higher
. Now some engineering firm that has done development work on the GT is claiming that "a well broken in Ford GT made 565 horses to the rear wheels while hazing the tires on the dyno...and they actually believe the real number may even be higher.
http://www.mustangweekly.com/2004/ma.../n03-6-3rd.asp
I don't know what to think, but i think that Twin screw 5.4 is easily capable of those numbers, and so i wouldn't be surprised if this turned out to be true.
. Now some engineering firm that has done development work on the GT is claiming that "a well broken in Ford GT made 565 horses to the rear wheels while hazing the tires on the dyno...and they actually believe the real number may even be higher. http://www.mustangweekly.com/2004/ma.../n03-6-3rd.asp
I don't know what to think, but i think that Twin screw 5.4 is easily capable of those numbers, and so i wouldn't be surprised if this turned out to be true.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 293
From: Hou,TX
Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
And the rumored numbers keep getting higher and higher . Now some engineering firm that has done development work on the GT is claiming that "a well broken in Ford GT made 565 horses to the rear wheels while hazing the tires on the dyno...and they actually believe the real number may even be higher.
http://www.mustangweekly.com/2004/ma.../n03-6-3rd.asp
I don't know what to think, but i think that Twin screw 5.4 is easily capable of those numbers, and so i wouldn't be surprised if this turned out to be true.
And the rumored numbers keep getting higher and higher
. Now some engineering firm that has done development work on the GT is claiming that "a well broken in Ford GT made 565 horses to the rear wheels while hazing the tires on the dyno...and they actually believe the real number may even be higher. http://www.mustangweekly.com/2004/ma.../n03-6-3rd.asp
I don't know what to think, but i think that Twin screw 5.4 is easily capable of those numbers, and so i wouldn't be surprised if this turned out to be true.
I KNEW IT!
No seriously.. Daily driver Cobras are already doing 600rwhp on pump gas with twin screws on the 4.6 DOHC. It's no big deal.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
NewsBot
2010 - 2015 Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and Multimedia
0
Aug 21, 2015 09:40 AM
PFYC
Supporting Vendor Group Purchases and Sales
0
Jul 17, 2015 02:47 PM