295's are a step in the right direction if they get the balance improved with an aluminum block. 295's have served the CTS-V well.

 

They can be independently verified, but:

1. There is no law that requires it.

2. The automaker can advertize any hoserpower they want to, as long as the vehicle makes that horsepower in all models.

The LS1 Camaros were advertized at 305 horsepower. They made around 335-340.

The Terminator Cobras were advertized at 390 horsepower. Turns out, they made that.... at the rear wheels.

Then there's the all time favorite: The last Mach 1 Mustang.

According to Ford, it made 305 horsepower.

My ***!

That thing was putting out nearly 340 horsepower, basically mimicking GM's LS1 advertizing (305 horsepower? Yeah right. Our's is 305 horsepower too).

Dodge even got in on this. The SRT 4 was advertized at about 205. It made closer to 230.


BTW" Those independently verified numbers you mentioned didn't change the advertized horsepower of most all vehicles that actually made more than advertized. It did force some that actually made less to move numbers downward least they be sued (like Ford was regarding their last N/A Cobras).

No doubt (me included ).

But I shouldn't have doubted the Mustang gained weight. Although Ford somehow managed to make a thicker stronger floorpan and reduce weight during the run of the '04-'09 D2C, adding a 6 speed, bigger brakes, and quite a few GT500 parts no doubt would have added weight. Given the weight difference between a live axle and IRS, I should have figured it out.

Oh well. Can't win them all.

Ford... the company that lowballed the numbers of most of it's performance Mustangs this decade (and the Lightning), and the company that just sandbagged the weight numbers of the Mustang wouldn't lowball the numbers of the 5.0? Uh huh.

Keep in mind that Ford, more than anyone else, is sensitive about their performance cars making advertized numbers (afterall, their the only ones I can think of ever sued over it). Even if it's only 10 horsepower, you can bet the farm that if Ford advertizes 412 hp, the most weak example of that engine is going to put out at least close to 420.

And Ford by no means whatsoever has squeezed the most they can from this engine. As mentioned, these engines can put out a lot more power. You'll be seeing examples in future Mustang editions. Remember, Ford has been racing this engine for years. Getting 500 horsepower out of this engine isn't very difficult (from a Ford source).

But this Mustang GT will be underrated, if only at the least slightly. When "Hot Rod" magazine or one of the other car rags puts one on a dyno, don't act too surprised.

Being that Ford has certainly had at least 1 Camaro SS in it's possesion to fine tune the car against, and that Team Mustang is now a "Take no prisoners" gang, the next Camaro vs Mustang comparison should be very, very entertaining.

 

As will all of the threads, on all of the sites, about said tests.

As the consumate people watcher, these are good times.

 

What I should have stated was that Ford got every HP they could from this 5.0 while still getting class comparable MPG to the heavier LS3 powered Camaro SS. I have no doubt that Ford can get a lot more power out of it and GM from the LS3 for that matter but for entry level V8's miles per gallon is important. Not so with the Boss 302, GT500 or if the Z/28 is ever released.

I know that GM engines are SAE Certified since at least 2006 IIRC so the days of underrating like with the LS1 are over for the most part. The LS3 in the C6 and the Camaro have been pretty much on for their advertised HP.

I would take it that Ford is not going through the SAE certification process on their engines?

 

do you have a hardon for ford?

my 99 LS1 formula made 304 rwhp bone stock, that is way more than 335-340 crank hp. my buddy's 2002 vette made 303 rwhp an hour before I dynoed. all LS1s make 350-360 hp.

on the same dyno most stock mach 1s made about 275, they didnt match the LS1 for power.

proof? see here:
http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2..._vs_mach1s.gif

the ones over 280 rwhp had boltons or were tuned.

the terminator 4.6s dynoed 365-370, not 390.

but, you are right in one thing, they were all underrated... some more than others.

the 2.0L turbo ecotecs are way underrated too.

 

Have to agree with Zigroid on that. Mach's made 275-ish stock, which was easily 20 RWHP behind the average LS1. 03/04 Cobra's perhaps 365-370. Both underrated, but nothing like what was going on with the LS1 (the all time modern-day underrated king, IMHO).

Bob

 

Yep, the more I read about all the new stuff the more I realize how awesome of a performance bargain the 4th Gen F-body was. Especially the "stripper" cars.

01-02 Camaro's routinely make 320rwhp with a simple (and cheap) lid and catback exhaust. All that in a car that weighs less than 3,400lbs (hardtop, stripper model), can accept VERY large wheels/tires front and back, torque arm rear suspension, SLA front suspension, strong 6-speed, good gas mileage, and could be bought new for ~$22k.

I do however think the 2011 Mustang GT is the next best thing. It's good enough it has me thinking about one in the future. We will see how it performs. It is going to be fun!!!

 

Bob, I always thought you and I were some funny board opposites. You on here is like me (Formula51) on svtperformance. In the end, we are both performance enthusiasts who are just less brand loyal and more objective than many.

 

Guess I need a different screen name for this site then, huh?

 

The LS1's advertized horsepower certainly was a joke. It was generally off by 30-35 horsepower (the engine changes in 2001 put every LS1 around 340 actual horsepower though 310 was advertized)

Looked up the actual Mustang Cobra and Mach 1 figures (I was going from memory).

Mach 1s were in the 270 and 280 range in RWHP and 10 more in torque, so you're in the ballpark.

However, Cobra numbers were pretty much as I remembered.

One measured 381 horsepower at the rear wheels, 425 at the flywheel (roughly where the new Mustang GT's 5.0 rates).

That was the lowest I found.

430 at the flywheel is the number that popped up the most (again, Ford only claimed 390).

Unless you are talking percentage, the Cobra's advertized horsepower (35-40 hp under) was more off than the LS1's (25-30 hp under).

The 500 horsepower Ford GT actually put out about 550 horsepower, and again, the 205 horse SRT Neons put out about 230. That sort of shorts LS1's crown as the underrated king both in number of horses and percentage of out put respectively.


Most certainly. That's why I've owned 3.

The current one will be the last one though, and I don't reccomend these cars to other people looking anymore. The expensive to replace, and absolute crap power window motors are the big reason.

My power window motor on the driving side is starting to crap out again (this time it crapped out in the rain after being lowered at the toll booth). 2nd time I'm going to need to replace this one (I've also had to replace the one on the passenger side). I replaced 2 window motors in my last Z28, and 1 in my '93.

It's almost enough to make me forgo ALL GM products forever.

If I ever run into the a-hole who approved those pieces of s*it, I WILL beat him to a pulp.... the jail time will be worth all the frustration.

It's a very basic and simple part that is easily made to last that even in cheap late 90s Dodge Neons or 20 year old Thunderbirds don't seem to have an issue. Yet, I'm changing motors on average of every 3 or 4 years! And the moron had the nerve to have these things pop rivited into the door at the factory!

Again, this fellow does NOT want to be alone in the same room with me.

If the 5.0 sells for the same price as the current GT, it will be as much as a irresistable steal as the base Camaro V6 is.

That would make it Camaro SS quick.... at roughly $4,000 less.

 

Yea, I could never understand those window motors.

In every vehicle that I have had, in 25 years, I have had power windows. I have NEVER had a power window motor go bad. Most of those vehicles, I have had for well over 100K miles.

 

No issues there - though I might be inclined to split hairs and say 35-40 as an average.

Ok, though again, if I were splitting hairs, I'd say 5-10 RWHP less, on average.

I remember differently. Could you please post your sources?

Along those lines, I went to SVTperformance.com and typed in "bone AND stock AND dyno" as a Subject line search in the "Terminator" Forum. Here is what I came up with:

353 RWHP - http://www.svtperformance.com/forums...-o4-cobra.html

356 RWHP - http://www.svtperformance.com/forums...tock-03-a.html

378 RWHP - http://www.svtperformance.com/forums...-then-k-n.html

373 RWHP - http://www.svtperformance.com/forums...ck-dyno-s.html

376 RWHP - http://www.svtperformance.com/forums...one-stock.html

363 RWHP - http://www.svtperformance.com/forums...-rwtq-sae.html

I'm sure there are plenty more out there (and some of those threads have results from other 03/04 Cobras), no doubt some with a bit more than I am showing here, but I didn't cherry-pick my numbers - those threads are EXACTLY what came up. A little math shows an average of 367 RWHP.

Note that NONE were at or above 381 RWHP, unless they had some sort of modification. It should also be noted that some were 385 or more with just the addition of a K&N or some other stupidely simple modification to the intake tract....but we were talking bone stock....

I didn't look up any info on either of those, mainly because GT's are very scarce and well beyond what any of us will ever even dream about, and because I simply have no desire to look up SRT Neons.

I'll stick with my comment about the LS1 unless there is data to show differently.

Bob

 

Are you replacing them with more GM garbage, or aftermarket? The Autozone replacement motors were well under $100 IIRC with a lifetime warranty. And you have to make sure to grease the tracks while you're in there too.

 

you dont recommend F-bodies to people because of power window failures?

they are not THAT bad to replace.

I would tell people not to buy them because of the 6 speed hydraulic shift issues and the glass 10 bolt rear but getting an auto eliminates one problem and alleviates the other...

 

Yeah. I think the aftermarket motors last a little longer.

I have owned two different Firebirds, a 2000 which I got brand new and the 2001 Formula which I got 3 years ago...

The 2000's driver window motor went out in spring of 2001. The passenger window was slow so the dealer replaced both under warranty. The driver window motor went out again in winter of 2005, and since the car was out of warranty I replaced it with a unit from Autozone which worked very well until I sold the car.

My Formula I bought in the winter of 2006 and the driver side window motor went out in the spring of 2007. When I replaced it, I noted that it had been replaced before as the area where the rivets are located were already drilled. That replacement motor has been doing well since then. Interestingly enough, the passenger door has not been drilled and appears to have the original motor in it. I don't look forward to replacing it when the time comes, although I am very surprised it has lasted this long.