2005 Mustang Specs Clarification...

[sparky_SIUE]

It just always irks me when i see invalid specs posted about a vehicles, expecially the mustang . Anyway, Motor Trend, Edmunds, and others have reported, wrongly, the horsepower and torque rating of both the new GT and the new V6. MotorTrend and Edmunds both say the GT is 300/315 hp/tq, while they say the V6 is 200/235. Well that was the preliminary data, but now, strait from the horse's mouth...

http://www.fordvehicles.com/2005mustang/home.asp

The 2005 Mustang GT is the first mainstream production Mustang to break into the 300-horsepower arena. The 4.6-liter aluminum V-8 has three-valve per cylinder and cranks out 300 horsepower and 320 lb.-ft. of torque, while the new
SOHC V-6 engine generates 210 horsepower and 240 lb.-ft. of torque—in both cases, an improvement from the 2004 Mustang powertrains. And the all-new specially tuned intake manifold balances sound characteristics with maximum airflow, assuring a Mustang engine throaty growl that sounds as good as it performs.

Yah, you may say no big deal, but sometimes the details matter.

So 300/320 is GT
And 210/240 is V6

 

[PerformanceRed]

Like I told you many times before, Ford will get it right someday. It will not be today though.

 

[245/45ZR-17]

Like I told you many times before, Ford will get it right someday. It will not be today though.

 

[SVTdriver]

Like I told you many times before, Ford will get it right someday. It will not be today though.

Ok so how is it that Ford actually finds it has higher numbers for the motor. And you still complain. And yet don't think you should be called a troll. What did they get wrong with those numbers? Other than not being as high as you think they should be.

 

[ryanrule]

Like I told you many times before, Ford will get it right someday. It will not be today though.

oh noes they are making even more power.

asshat

 

[TheEvII]

Don't worry, It's not like Ford has a history of fudging performance numbers on a Mustang....

 

[245/45ZR-17]

The one time Ford negatively rated a Mustang engine was the '99 Cobra, due to lack of correct porting on the intake manifold. They recalled and corrected them, and all the '01's made correct power...

That being said since then almost all new Mustangs that Ford has come out with since then have been underrated... (03-04, Cobra 03-04 Mach 1)

So far the dyno numbers on '05's suggest the same...

 

[Magnum70]

A little TQ can go a long way. I'm happy, more TQ for everyone!

 

[Michael Yount]

"The one time Ford negatively rated a Mustang engine was the '99 Cobra due to lack of correct porting on the intake manifold."

The rating issue there was due to an exhaust system restriction not present during testing, that ended up on the production cars. It happened again recently to (Ford owned) Mazda on the new RX8's -- where they had to downgrade original HP estimates on the manual tranny engines from 248HP to 237HP. I believe the autos were re-rated also. There was no simple fix available for that snafu, so they offered money/rebates/return the car type 'fixes'.

In any event, this doesn't seem to be about Ford - it seems to be that the magazines had either erroneous, early or estimated data which was superceded by the correct listings from Ford. What's the big deal? None of the numbers were more than 5 HP/ft-lb off anyway, which is WAY less than normal variation engine to engine once production cranks up.

 

[331ci_89gt]

Like I told you many times before, Ford will get it right someday. It will not be today though.

It's starting to get deep again.

I can hear and smell >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[TheEvII]

What's the big deal? None of the numbers were more than 5 HP/ft-lb off anyway, which is WAY less than normal variation engine to engine once production cranks up.

I agree with you but someone thought it was a big enough difference to sue Ford over it. The lawsuit is what forced Ford to take those Cobras in an fix them so they actually put out the advertised HP.

 

[thehemi]

Who wants to pull the motor on their new 2005 so we can verify?

 

[Mach460]

I agree with you but someone thought it was a big enough difference to sue Ford over it. The lawsuit is what forced Ford to take those Cobras in an fix them so they actually put out the advertised HP.

Geez, I remember people throwing a hissy fit when Ford re-rated the 5.0L from 225 to 205 in 1993.

Anyways, it's no secret that the whole ugliness with the Cobra was a serious black eye to both Ford and SVT.

 

[golf4283]

how is ford messing up by reporting their own horsepower and torque numbers performancered?? I dont get how you say ford messed up when its the companies that reviewed the mustangs that were wrong. You are a huge troll man, I dont think you have ever said one positive thing on this forum.

 

[Michael Yount]

TheEvII - you're mixing apples and oranges. Someone sued Ford over FORD's misrepresenting power numbers. Ford said the Cobra would make 320, and when taken to dynos, owners found consistently that about 15-20HP had gone missing. This thread is about a discrepancy between magazines' early, pre-production GUESSES at the HP level of the new GT compared to Ford's actual released numbers. That's the 5HP difference. After the Cobra/Mazda HP fiascos, I'd expect Ford will be conservative in their HP rating of the new GT so they don't get caught with their pants down again.

 

[TheEvII]

I know, we got off track. It all started when I made this joke...

Don't worry, It's not like Ford has a history of fudging performance numbers on a Mustang....

Needless to say It flew off in another direction. My point was that the numbers difference (like 5 Ft Lbs) is not that big a deal. If this car does 13.6 with the automatic like MT says it will, I have no problem with the reported numbers whatever they are.