-GT........310 hp (3V 4.6)

-Mach/Boss........350 hp (3V or 4V 5.4)

-Cobra.....400++ hp (4V 5.4)

-Shelby....500 hp. (S/C 4V 5.4)


Not so sure if there even will be a Shelby....but the others should be real close.

 

any word of a boss 302?

 

I'll belive those GT numbers when i see them. They seem to keep climbing and climbing.

 

Best guess.

BOSS 5.4.

Right now, there seem to be few indications that the 5.0 will end up going in production cars.

 

Not really. The numbers flying around have always been "around" 300.....give or take.

Also...Fords performance benchmark with the GT, is the LS1 F-car.

 

Not to mention, todays family sedans have somewhere in the nieghborhood of 250-275 horses. It makes complete sense for Ford to set the goal for the GT at no less than 300hp.

 

the newest motor trend, with the 2004 cars, lists the 2005 mustang to have same engines, 4.6 gt 265hp, a base v6 200, and cobra 400.

also, got pics of new Caddies there.

 

The 430hp and 460lb-ft of Tq is at the rear wheels. Not ground breaking, but it aint bad either. That's viper numbers with 157 less cubes than the Viper 8.3L v10.

 

I probably had the pre-2003 viper dyno's in mind than. Those are some good numbers for the 2003's. And to think Dodge only rates them at 500hp/500lb-ft tq. They make near that much at the wheels going by those #'s. .

Ohh, it isn't ground breaking. We're talking about a 4.6L v8 with 2 cyl grafted on to it. It's only 351 cubes and a far cry from the vipers 508ci. # of cyl is a small part when looking at the overall picture. A well built v8 can/will perform just as well as any 10 or 12.

A lot of those muscle cars had over-inflated HP #'s due to the gross ratings. Then again, some were also underrated. Didn't they switch to the net ratings in 1972? But going by the Chevelle Ls-6's stock 1/4 miles, and the chevelle's size, i don't doubt that 450hp rating.

to the 454ci Ls-6

 

I'm almost positive that net ratings began to be used in 1972.


-Mike

 

1971... net ratings started

 

SAE Gross Horsepower
This is the old process that American manufacturers used as a guide for rating their cars. It was in place until 1971. SAE gross also measures horsepower at the flywheel, but with no accessories to bog it down. This is the bare engine with nothing but the absolute essentials attached to it; little more than a carb, fuel pump, oil pump, and water pump. Because the test equipment on the engine is not the same as in SAE net, it is impossible to provide a mathematical calculation between SAE net and SAE gross. As a general rule, however, SAE net tends to be approximately 80% of the value of SAE gross. SAE J245 and J1995 define this measurement.

SAE Net Horspower
In 1972, American manufacturers phased in SAE net horsepower. This is the standard on which current American ratings are based. This rating is measured at the flywheel, on an engine dyno, but the engine is tested with all accessories installed, including a full exhaust system, all pumps, the alternator, the starter, and emissions controls. Both SAE net and SAE gross horsepower test procedures are documented in Society of Automotive Engineers standard J1349. Because SAE net is so common, this is the standard we will use to compare all others.

Brake Horsepower
Often road test magazines will list horsepower as "bhp". This is just another way to talk about SAE net horsepower.

Advertised Horsepower
Surprise! Those horsepower numbers presented in advertising and brochures aren't always accurate. Though manufacturers are supposed to base their horsepower ratings on SAE net standards, they are not completely beholden to it. They often fudge the numbers. Ford and Mazda both recently got in trouble with the Mustang Cobra and the MX-5 Miata, respectively, when they delivered a car that had less horsepower than what they advertised. Ford ended up doing considerable warranty work to bring the numbers up where they belonged, and Mazda re-rated their car and offered to buy back any offended customers' cars. General Motors regularly underrates their engines, most notably the GM LS1 5.7L engine as installed in the F-body (Camaro and Firebird) cars. Mechanically almost identical to the engines installed in the Y-body car (Corvette), the engine mysteriously "lost" 40 advertised horsepower in the F-body chassis. Although this technically is as fraudulent as selling a car with less than the advertised horsepower, no one seems to complain when they get a car with more horsepower than what appears on the spec sheet.

http://neptune.spacebears.com/opine/horsepwr.html

 

It was about time guionM!
I was wondering when you were going to do it.

 

Figured I'd check out the site before blasting over to Vegas.

In case anyone is wondering, this is the rough estimates of today's engines based on the "gross" ratings used on muscle cars of the 60's & early 70s (using the 80% rule of thumb):

2003 Dodge Viper: 625 horsepower
2004 Ford Mustang Cobra: 488 horsepower
2004 Corvette Z06: 506 horsepower
2004 Pontiac GTO: 450 horsepower
2003 Ford Mustang V6: 256 horsepower
2002 Camaro Z28 (actual, not factory underrated): 425 horsepower

Old Muscle Cars roughly rated on today's "net" standards:
1969 GTO Ram Air III: 370 horsepower
1970 Chevelle SS LS6: 360 horsepower
1970 Dodge Challenger Hemi: 340 horsepower
1969 Camaro Z28: 280-300 horsepower (actual, not factory rating)

As you see, today's cars put's traditional muscle cars to shame when you use the same horsepower standards to both. All this also includes almost triple the fuel economy (find any 500 hp 60's era car that can get 27 mpg!), and over 95% reduction in emissions as well!

Think this puts into perspective when the true performance age is.

 

Hey guionM-Im wondering if you could do your math with some late60'd Fords for viewing pleasure.BOSS 302/429 MACH1 yada-yada.