Hammond drives the GT500

[280Z Turbo]

What's odd is that they had their 10,000GBP supercars tested on that kind of dyno and knew enough to convert it.

Also, wouldn't they dyno operators know to say something?

[Raza]

What's odd is that they had their 10,000GBP supercars tested on that kind of dyno and knew enough to convert it.

Also, wouldn't they dyno operators know to say something?

I assumed that they did on that test, but now I'm not so sure.

[SVT666]

In the hands of the Stig the GT500 turned a 1:30:00 and the Roush Stage 3 nailed it in 1:28:00.  The Viper SRT-10 did it in 1:28:05.

[Raza]

In the hands of the Stig the GT500 turned a 1:30:00 and the Roush Stage 3 nailed it in 1:28:00.  The Viper SRT-10 did it in 1:28:05.

What's more impressive is the fact that the R32 got 1'30.4", with half the horsepower.

[Raza]

Oh Nethead, are you around?

That's 1'30.0" for the 500bhp Mustang.  1'30.1" for the 400bhp Monaro (that's a GTO).  You tell me which handles better.

[Raghavan]

The GTO has always handled better than the Mustang.

[Rich]

His blood pressure is going to skyrocket 

[SVT666]

Oh Nethead, are you around?

That's 1'30.0" for the 500bhp Mustang.? 1'30.1" for the 400bhp Monaro (that's a GTO).? You tell me which handles better.

The Stig doesn't know how to drive a live rear axle car.  I could smash that time.

[sandertheshark]

The Stig doesn't know how to drive a live rear axle car.  I could smash that time.

I would pay big money to see you race The Stig in stock Mustangs.

[sandertheshark]

Oh Nethead, are you around?

That's 1'30.0" for the 500bhp Mustang.  1'30.1" for the 400bhp Monaro (that's a GTO).  You tell me which handles better.

In his defense, the Monaro VXR's body kit creates about fifteen ounces more downforce than the GTO.

[SVT666]

I would pay big money to see you race The Stig in stock Mustangs.

The Stig won't know what hit him.

[JYODER240]

What's the rear end gear ratio on your car?

Almost identical to a Mustang GT, its either a 3.54 or 3.55. Tell me, why are you so sure that their engines aren't underrated?

I mean the engine engine in my car, under the new rating system makes 297hp. On average 240whp is a safe number on a dyno. Thats about a 20% drivetrain loss. Which if i remember correctly is about right for a FR layout. I don't see how a Mustang GT can only have 3 more horsepower yet dyno 265whp. If anything I would think the Z would have less drivetrain loss due to its carbon fiber driveshaft. 12% drivetrain loss is almost unheard of even in a FF or MR layout let alone a FR.

[JYODER240]

The Mustang has more torque.? Is it too simplistic to assume that that's a factor?

No doubt that helps the Mustang post quicker acceleration times but it doesn't explain how it dyno's such high numbers.

[SVT666]

Almost identical to a Mustang GT, its either a 3.54 or 3.55. Tell me, why are you so sure that their engines aren't underrated?

I mean the engine engine in my car, under the new rating system makes 297hp. On average 240whp is a safe number on a dyno. Thats about a 20% drivetrain loss. Which if i remember correctly is about right for a FR layout. I don't see how a Mustang GT can only have 3 more horsepower yet dyno 265whp. If anything I would think the Z would have less drivetrain loss due to its carbon fiber driveshaft. 12% drivetrain loss is almost unheard of even in a FF or MR layout let alone a FR.

I'm not saying they aren't ounderrated, but I don't believe they are underrated by more then 10 hp.  20% drivetrain loss is huge and since my Ram has a 22% loss with bigger and heavier everything including 4WD, I don't believe that number in the least.  I have been searching several Mustang websites and the two numbers that pop up most frequently are 12% and 15% for drivetrain loss.  15% is mentioned a lot more and is probably more accurate then what I was stating.  If 15% is true and most stock Mustang GT's are being pegged at 265 rwhp on a Mustang Dyno, then that puts crank hp at or around 312 hp.  I can find that believable but not 20% which would put it at 330 hp.  So using 15% drivetrain loss on the GT500, the crank horsepower between 520 hp and 525 hp.  Frankly I find that hard to believe.

[JYODER240]

I'm not saying they aren't ounderrated, but I don't believe they are underrated by more then 10 hp.? 20% drivetrain loss is huge and since my Ram has a 22% loss with bigger and heavier everything including 4WD, I don't believe that number in the least.? I have been searching several Mustang websites and the two numbers that pop up most frequently are 12% and 15% for drivetrain loss.? 15% is mentioned a lot more and is probably more accurate then what I was stating.? If 15% is true and most stock Mustang GT's are being pegged at 265 rwhp on a Mustang Dyno, then that puts crank hp at or around 312 hp.? I can find that believable but not 20% which would put it at 330 hp.? So using 15% drivetrain loss on the GT500, the crank horsepower between 520 hp and 525 hp.? Frankly I find that hard to believe.

How do you know that your Ram has a 22% loss? and I find it hard to believe that the GT500 has a drivetrain loss of less than 15%. 15% is a good number for a FF or MR layout.

[SVT666]

How do you know that your Ram has a 22% loss? and I find it hard to believe that the GT500 has a drivetrain loss of less than 15%. 15% is a good number for a FF or MR layout.

Because stock Rams (since I own a Ram it's the only one I know) dyno at 270 rwhp which is 345 crank hp with a 22% drivetrain loss.

So you think that a GT500 really has 555 to 560 crank hp with a 20% drivetrain loss?  With the acceleration times from this car being fairly average for cars of this weight and hp rating I highly doubt it's cranking out much more then the 500 hp rating.  Otherwise it is an extremely shitty setup or the BMW M6 is really 575 hp.

[JYODER240]

Because stock Rams (since I own a Ram it's the only one I know) dyno at 270 rwhp which is 345 crank hp with a 22% drivetrain loss.

Is it a SAE certified under the new standards 345hp?

[SVT666]

Is it a SAE certified under the new standards 345hp?

I don't know.  But if it isn't then the rating will most likely go down when it is.  Drivetrain loss is going to be different on SAE rated cars and those that are not because the wheel horsepower doesn't change, but the so-called crank horsepower does.

[JYODER240]

I don't know.? But if it isn't then the rating will most likely go down when it is.? Drivetrain loss is going to be different on SAE rated cars and those that are not because the wheel horsepower doesn't change, but the so-called crank horsepower does.

I would doubt that it will go down when its revised. When the new standard was first imposed most american cars had an increase in rated horsepower while most Japanese cars had a decrease in rated horsepower. For example, the LS430 dropped from 300 to 278hp.

The drivetrain loss on a car will not change. Engines aren't changing with the new standard just the way they are tested. The engine will make the same amount of power its just that its rating will be more accurate as to what the engine actually makes.

[Lebowski]

I just don't see how the Mustang GT can only make 3 more hp yet be so much quicker.

A flatter power curve.

[JYODER240]

A flatter power curve.

It also puts down 20 more hp at the wheels. There's no way a Mustang GT has that little drivetrain loss. Most 911's have about a 15% loss, I don't see how a FR layout Mustang could have even less than that.

[Lebowski]

I would doubt that it will go down when its revised. When the new standard was first imposed most american cars had an increase in rated horsepower while most Japanese cars had a decrease in rated horsepower. For example, the LS430 dropped from 300 to 278hp.

The drivetrain loss on a car will not change. Engines aren't changing with the new standard just the way they are tested. The engine will make the same amount of power its just that its rating will be more accurate as to what the engine actually makes.

The actual underlying drivetrain loss won't change, but in practice the measured drivetrain loss will change (measure crank hp w/ a different standard and your calcuation of drivetrain loss will be different than w/ the old standard, I think that's all he's saying).

[Lebowski]

It also puts down 20 more hp at the wheels. There's no way a Mustang GT has that little drivetrain loss. Most 911's have about a 15% loss, I don't see how a FR layout Mustang could have even less than that.

What incentive does Ford's marketing department have to under-rate their engines?  Especially in this market segment where stated hp figures are so important?

Post some sources backing up the 15% loss as standard for 911s, otherwise it's just heresay.

[SVT666]

I would doubt that it will go down when its revised. When the new standard was first imposed most american cars had an increase in rated horsepower while most Japanese cars had a decrease in rated horsepower. For example, the LS430 dropped from 300 to 278hp.

The drivetrain loss on a car will not change. Engines aren't changing with the new standard just the way they are tested. The engine will make the same amount of power its just that its rating will be more accurate as to what the engine actually makes.

You totally missed my point.  The engine hasn't changed but the crank hp rating does.  For example:

Both engines are the same.
Engine A = Old rating
Engine B = SAE certified

Horsepower Ratings
Engine A = 300 hp (whp = 255)
Engine B = 295 hp (whp = 255)

Drivetrain Loss
Engine A = 15%
Engine B = 13.5%

Make sense?

[JYODER240]

It doesn't look like underrating the Mustang is new to Ford:

http://www.dynoperformance.com/article_details.php?article_id=28

http://www.dynoperformance.com/article_details.php?article_id=27

http://www.dynoperformance.com/article_details.php?article_id=20

[Lebowski]

Does anyone have the clip where the Stig tests it around the track?

[JYODER240]

You totally missed my point.? The engine hasn't changed but the crank hp rating does.? For example:

Both engines are the same.
Engine A = Old rating
Engine B = SAE certified

Horsepower Ratings
Engine A = 300 hp (whp = 255)
Engine B = 295 hp (whp = 255)

Drivetrain Loss
Engine A = 15%
Engine B = 13.5%

Make sense?

Yeah, i though you were trying to say that the drivetrain loss would change. I was trying to say what you just did.

[JYODER240]

What incentive does Ford's marketing department have to under-rate their engines?? Especially in this market segment where stated hp figures are so important?

Post some sources backing up the 15% loss as standard for 911s, otherwise it's just heresay.

I have no idea why they would underrate them other than they are playing it safe after overrating the 99 Cobra. I posted some links above where they found some previous=gen Stangs to be underrated.

I've just heard on Porsche forums that 15% is about right from drivetrain loss. I can go ask around if you want?

[SVT666]

I have no idea why they would underrate them other than they are playing it safe after overrating the 99 Cobra. I posted some links above where they found some previous=gen Stangs to be underrated.

The 2003 Cobra is the most blatant underrating I have ever seen and I have known about it since 2003.  The GT500 does not put down 550 hp.  The acceleration and 1/4 mile times do not support it.

[FordSVT]

I have no idea why they would underrate them other than they are playing it safe after overrating the 99 Cobra. I posted some links above where they found some previous=gen Stangs to be underrated.

I've just heard on Porsche forums that 15% is about right from drivetrain loss. I can go ask around if you want?

Since you've mentioned it twice and since it impacted a car I owned. They didn't overrate it purposefully, the company that made the exhaust system screwed up the specs on the final assembly exhaust and Ford didn't catch it until they were already being produced. They corrected it on the 99 models, reworked the exhaust system for the 2001s. Any 99-02 Cobra you see on the road should be making the advertised 320 hp.

As for whether or not the perception that they overrated the Cobra's hp may cause them to overrate the current Stangs, I don't know, but it's possible.

It wouldn't surprise me if the current GT is a bit overrated, my car weighs more than my Cobra did but doesn't really feel any slower by the seat of the pants. Magazine times are only a a tenth or so different as well. If a 99 Cobra weighs 150 lbs less than a new GT and has 20 extra hp, I'd think there would be a bigger difference than there is.
-FordSVT-